Over 6,000 students will be required to carry
microchipped ID so that the district can track their movements in school and on
school buses. Radio-frequency identification (RFID) chips will be embedded in
student IDs. Doors within the two affected schools are presumably now fitted
with sensors that track students as they move from class to class, from the
cafeteria to the bathroom. The district’s administration is determined to
increase student attendance.
The reason? The Texas legislature cut state education
funds, and Northside lost $61.4 million in tax dollars last year. Local TV
station KENS5 explains the connection between attendance and funding:
The
district loses $175,000 a day in state funding because of tardy or absent
kids.… The district bean-counters expect to gain more than $250,000 in
attendance revenue from the state, and $1.2 million from Medicaid, because the
district will be tracking special-needs kids, too.
The $15 replacement fee for lost cards will almost
certainly be profitable as well, since children predictably lose things.
The RFID system is a tested revenue raiser, with two
other Texas school districts enjoying hundreds of thousands of dollars in
increased funding after tagging children. So Northside is willing to spend
$525,065 in start-up costs and $136,005 a year for administration in order to
keep children from escaping its grasp. If the technology trial is successful,
the district will expand the program to all of its 112 schools.
Many parents object. Protests have been held at each
of the schools, with Facebook pages and YouTube videos being used to organize
the dissent.
Safety concerns
Parents express concern about their children’s
privacy and safety. Originally designed to track inventory and animals, RFID
technology allows information to be read from a distance by radio waves without
the bearer’s knowledge. Since each chip contains a unique ID number, anyone who
reads the chip will know the exact location of a specific child. Parents are
quite reasonably concerned about the possibility of ill-intentioned people
monitoring their children’s every movement. It is notoriously easy to
“eavesdrop” on RFID transmissions.
In conjunction with the Electronic Privacy
Information Center and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, the consumer privacy
group Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering (CASPIAN)
issued a report entitled “Position Paper on the Use of RFID in Schools” (August
21, 2012). The paper warns,
a
student’s location could be monitored from a distance by a jealous girlfriend
or boyfriend, stalker, or pedophile. Individuals run this tracking risk any
place they carry or wear a school-issued RFID tagged item — even miles from the
campus. (PDF)
Depending on the information being collected, a
tagged individual may also run an increased risk of identity theft.
Ironically, proponents of chipping children argue
for the safety benefits of doing so; in case of a fire, teachers would be able
to locate every child. Proponents also counter the privacy concerns of parents,
maintaining that the ID contains no personal information, such as a home
address. They insist that most RFID systems can operate only over the distance
of a few meters. As long as the ID is not worn elsewhere, the monitoring will
be limited to school grounds. The operational range of RFID chips, however,
depends on a variety of factors, with some chips being readable at 100 meters.
For example, if the ID were to contain an active tag
with a battery as opposed to a passive tag (as it reportedly does) the range
would be dramatically increased. Moreover, the technology is constantly
improving.
Parents must rely on the official account of what
information the ID contains and the official promises that no abuse of
information will occur. Even if the current assurances are sincere, however, it
is not possible to predict what next year’s school bureaucrats will decide to
do. The RFID cards establish a framework for abuse.
Other objections to tagging children
The CASPIAN Paper raises a variety of other concerns
about the RFID system, including the following:
-It is dehumanizing to have a bureaucracy track the
minutiae of your day down to the amount of time spent in a bathroom stall.
-It infringes on the freedoms of speech and
association, e.g., by discouraging students from seeking the services of a
counselor.
-It runs counter to the religious and other deeply
held convictions of some students.
-It has a high potential for abuse, e.g., through
hidden sensors “in bathroom fixtures, floor tiles, woven into carpeting and
floor mats,” etc.
-It conditions students to the constant monitoring of
their behavior and whereabouts so that they accept “this kind of treatment as
routine rather than an encroachment of privacy and civil liberties.”
CASPIAN argued that schools should require
“informed, express written consent from individuals who agree to participate,”
as well as from their parents. The consent “should remain on record,” and a way
to revoke the consent should be provided. But do schools legally need consent
from children and parents?
The Constitution and school children
Many objections to the RFID system appeal to the
constitutional liberties of the children involved. The constitutional provision
most in question is the Fourth Amendment, which reads,
The right
of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
But are children “people” under the Fourth
Amendment? The answer is mixed.
In the essay “The Fourth Amendment Rights of
Children at Home: When Parental Authority Goes too Far” (William and Mary Law
Review, vol. 53, 2011–2012) law professor Kristin Henning writes,
Notwithstanding
the general consensus that children are entitled to the benefit of Fourth
Amendment protections in juvenile proceedings, the Fourth Amendment rights of
children have been modified in certain “special needs” contexts — most notably
schools, where state officials are responsible for the care and safety of a
large number of youth.
From random drug testing (Vernonia v. Acton, 1995)
to “a principal’s search of a child’s purse” (New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985), the
United States Supreme Court has found that school children have a reduced
expectation of privacy and can be searched without a warrant. Henning comments,
In
balancing the privacy interests of the child and the needs of the teachers and
administrators, the Court concluded that the substantial need for “swift and
informal” discipline to maintain order on the school grounds justified
imposition of a reasonableness standard and departure from the warrant and
probable cause requirements.
In routine administrative matters, such as the
taking of attendance, school children have virtually no constitutional rights
and, therefore, no civil liberties.
Conclusion
The 2012 CASPIAN paper states, “The 2003 Position
Statement on the Use of RFID on Consumer Products, endorsed by over 40 of the
world’s leading privacy and civil liberties organizations, clearly established
that RFID should never be used for tracking people.”
Less than a decade later, school districts are
openly requiring children to be tagged. These are not convicted criminals being
tracked, and they are not volunteers. They are children whose parents are given
no voice in whether they become human inventory.
Public protest is the only effective brake on the
tagging of children for government profit. In 2005, a similar RFID experiment
occurred in a California elementary school. After parental protests, including
a complaint filed with the American Civil Liberties Union, the school board
dropped the program.
In Texas, it is not merely parents but also students
who are challenging the RFID system. WorldNetDaily (August 31) reports,
Student
Andrea Hernandez, with support from her father, has decided to challenge the
district’s plan. The station reported she has decided to wear an older photo
ID.… Protests have been launched in front of the schools, and local stations
are reporting the controversy. [RFID expert Katherine Albrecht] said in a
statement to supporters the issue now is before the school district, and
protesters are awaiting the superintendent’s response. “We don’t give up or
give in,” she said.
About the author: Wendy McElroy is the author of The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to
Intellectual Survival (Prometheus Books, 1998). She actively manages two
websites: http://www.ifeminists.com and http://www.wendymcelroy.com. For
additional articles on current events by Ms. McElroy, please visit the
Commentary section of our website. Send her email.
This article was published by the Future of Freedom
Foundation.
No comments:
Post a Comment