Surveillance of students

Sunny

Sunny

SF VIP
Location
Maryland
http://tinyurl.com/y6jwmp9g

This article is an interesting discussion about the steps being taken by Broward County, FL (where Parkland School is) to keep tabs on suspicious looking students. They are experimenting with cameras all over the schools using AI to analyze facial features, the clothes kids are wearing, sudden or threatening motions, etc. Some people think it has too much of "Big Brother" in it, some think it can't be as accurate as using human judgement, others think it has the potential for a much higher success rate, as schools can't really have personnel stationed around the clock observing every motion the kids make. The article also points out that a number of surveillance companies using video-analyzing software and information-sharing technologies have jumped on the bandwagon and stand to make a lot of money from the sale of this surveillance equipment.

Not sure where I stand on this.
 

Personal freedom traded away instead of addressing the gun problem.
Surveillance technology in schools first, then in churches, hospitals and the work place.
Who watches the watchers?
 

The toilet room is not necessary in my opinion. I wouldn’t want this for my kids.

Should CCTV cameras be used in schools? ... Around nine out of ten secondary schools in England, Wales and Scotland are using CCTV cameras to keep a closer eye on their pupils. But a campaign group, called Big Brother Watch, has found that over 200 have cameras which are positioned in toilets and changing rooms.Sep 12, 2012
 
Personal freedom traded away instead of addressing the gun problem.
Surveillance technology in schools first, then in churches, hospitals and the work place.
Who watches the watchers?
Click to expand...

Personal freedom wasn't traded away...it was taken (the students/staff weren't asked if they wanted to 'trade' their personal freedom for fake security (I say fake security because cctv even with AI won't stop another shooting, it will only record it. It may get security personnel to the right place but it won't be before the incident starts)).

As far as "instead of addressing the gun problem."...there isn't a gun problem. There is a mental health problem...it's being ignored.
There is a bullying problem...it's being ignored. Actually, all three (assuming for a minute that 'a gun problem' is accurate) aren't being ignored...only mental health. New gun laws were put into place after MSD (age raised to purchase a gun, etc). Bullying policies were already in place (but you can find story after story (in Florida) about kids being bullied with no consequences to those who did it).

Until those in charge (school superintendents/staff, politicians, law enforcement, mental health professionals) come up with a plan to deal with all the issues, things aren't going to change...we will just have great video of the next incident...

as far as the rest...
Surveillance technology in schools first, then in churches, hospitals and the work place.
Who watches the watchers?
Click to expand...
...you are completely correct. 1984


 
https://www.vox.com/2019/2/14/18223613/parkland-mass-shootings-gun-violence-map-charts-data

It isn't ONLY a gun problem, and it isn't ONLY a mental health problem. It's both, and when both are present, the results are often tragic. Read the above link about the number of mass
shootings in this country.

I don't think bullying really fits into this scenario, though it certainly needs to be dealt with. The gunman in the Parkland shooting had been expelled from the school, probably after a long history
of bad behavior (bullying? I don't know) and got himself a semi-automatic rifle, returned to the school, and murdered 17 people. So, without his access to the gun, it would have been a sad story
of a disturbed young man, and 17 people would still be alive.

To get back to the original subject, I agree with you about being dubious about this technology making the schools safer. The article says the app will be analyzing clothing, facial expressions, etc. Does that really have any ability to prevent violence? Half of the kids in schools today dress like gang members.

I think all this money could be put to better use by employing more security personnel, and inspecting the backpacks, etc. that each and every person is carrying into the school, all day long. They do it in sports arenas, museums, and many official office buildings, why not in schools? The shooters at Parkland and Sandy Hook could never have entered the schools, carrying their semi-automatic rifles, if they had that.
 
Cameras being used for security purposes have become a very huge help in solving crimes. There have been many instances where criminals have been arrested and found guilty thanks to surveillance cameras. Some of the cameras have shown us crimes of rape and homicide besides thefts and assaults.

Additionally, cameras have also aided in preventing and deterring crime. We have viewed many hours of video where we have watched suspicious people look up at the cameras and then quickly walk away. From those actions, we have been able to determine that once a potential perpetrator saw the camera, they quickly changed their mind and rethought their potential actions.

Now, debating where cameras should or should not be placed have become an issue for many different sectors in society to determine. Should they be placed in schools? How about churches? Or maybe even libraries? We think some places should be excluded, but crimes happen everywhere. Police do not care about who is doing what, unless it’s something criminal.

Not long ago, maybe 2 or 3 years past, we were called to examine a video of a store employee standing outside behind the building of the facility where he worked smoking a joint. The supervisor wanted to know if he should be arrested. Well, no, of course not. That’s not the type of crime police are looking for. Smoking a joint is a summary offense and not worth the time it would take to investigate it and do all the paperwork, plus tie up more court time and the money spent on a lawyer.

If it’s not criminal, police are generally not interested. It really does come down to being all about protecting the public.
 
IMO most of the money being spent is being wasted but this is a difficult topic to discuss in a rational way because no one wants their child to be part of the statistics.

I read an article that indicated the odds of being shot in a school mass shooting on any given day is 1 in 614,000,000.

With those odds, I would accept the risk for myself and not be overly concerned.

The massive spending being recommended by various security experts reminds me of a quote from Warren Buffet: "Never ask a barber if you need a haircut."

I do believe that we should take commonsense steps to heighten awareness of teachers and students, restrict access to schools, address mental health issues, common sense gun controls like background checks, etc... but I don't really think that we need to install CCTV in every corner of every school, arm teachers, install bulletproof windows, etc...
 
Quote from the link provided by Sunny:

The data in these maps and calendars is based on the Gun Violence Archive’s count, which defines mass shootings as events in which four or more people, excluding the shooter, were shot, but not necessarily killed, at the same general time and location. That definition differs from others, which may require that four or more people are killed, or exclude certain shootings, such as gang-related and domestic events.
Click to expand...
So, all the information they are relating to mass shootings INCLUDE gang-related/domestic event shooting where 4 or more people were shot.
It's important to know that...because everyone spouts all sorts of bs when it comes to mass shootings "Wow, did you know there has been a mass shooting almost every day this year!?!?!" Yes, and no. Most folks when talking about mass shootings are talking about MSD, Vegas, Pulse, Columbine, etc. You start throwing in gang-related shootings and you are 'fixing' the numbers.

If the people who created that report, the media, politicians, etc, were really concerned about mass shootings, then why aren't they out there doing something about the gang-related shootings happening everyday in places like Chicago?
Side note: the link provided, the writer starts with the subject "In the year after Parkland, there was nearly one mass shooting a dayMass shootings are still a regular occurrence in America." Yet he doesn't start there...he goes back in time...first sentence "On December 14, 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, six adults, and himself. The horrific mass shooting led to calls to stop such tragedies in the US forever — in the mantra of “never again.” " Anytime someone starts with one thing and then goes to another, my bs meter kicks in...so I read with a even more cynical outlook. The writer doesn't get to the subject of the article until after the 6th paragraph.

--------------------

911 stated "Cameras being used for security purposes have become a very huge help in solving crimes." That's true.
"Additionally, cameras have also aided in preventing and deterring crime. " Also true.

Yet, there were cameras at the MSD school before the shooting...that's how they figured out Peterson (the SRO) didn't go into the building after the shots were fired. Obviously, the cameras didn't prevent the accused from committing the crime. The recordings from the camera also didn't help as someone rewound the 'tape' to before the shootings but everyone watching it (trying to figure out where the shooter was at) thought they were seeing live stream, when they were actually looking at a 'rerun'.

Even afterwards, when hindsight is supposed to be 20/20...all the 'red flags' for the MSD shooter...did law enforcement fix the issues where they (Sherriff Dept, FBI) didn't follow through?


-------------------
Aunt Bea stated "I read an article that indicated the odds of being shot in a school mass shooting on any given day is 1 in 614,000,000.

With those odds, I would accept the risk for myself and not be overly concerned."

Just wondering...would you accept that risk for your children? Your grand children?

-------------------------------

Just another note...I keep seeing on the news that some local middle school/high school had a test of their emergency evacuation/shooter drill, and how they teach/inform the students of where they should go, what they should do, etc. I wonder if the next (or even the last few) shooter is using that knowledge against the victims? Knowing where to be if a fire alarm is pulled to get the most 'targets'...some how, the schools need to be able to do a drill without letting students know what's going to happen.

Just my opinion...and not trying to pick on anyone...just the things I think about on this.
 
Sunny - you stated "
I don't think bullying really fits into this scenario, though it certainly needs to be dealt with.
The gunman in the Parkland shooting had been expelled from the school, probably after a long history
of bad behavior (bullying? I don't know) and got himself a semi-automatic rifle, returned to the school, and murdered 17 people. So, without his access to the gun, it would have been a sad story
of a disturbed young man, and 17 people would still be alive.
Click to expand...

In reality, the gunman did have a long history of bad behavior...but the way you wrote it out, he went out and got a semi-automatic rifle and returned to the school and murdered 17 people.

In 2017 the gunman was expelled from MSD.
In February 2017, he legally purchased an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle from a Coral Springs gun store. As in most states, in Florida, persons 18 or older can buy rifles from federally licensed dealers. The gunman passed a background check.
A year later, he used this weapon to commit the mass shooting at his former school.(link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting#Suspect )

So, because no one bothered to correctly submit all the issues the gunman had so it would be in the NICS database so he would fail a background check, he could legally buy the weapon.

If you look at most of the cases, 3 day, 1 week, 1 month waiting periods in buying a weapon won't stop any of the school shooters (or Vegas, Pulse, etc).
Most of the cases, all the weapons used were LEGALLY purchased...with background checks that were passed. (Sandy Hook - I believe the shooter used his Mother's weapons...)...so background checks are working as intended.
The reporting of incidents/issues aren't being reported as intended so that these folks would fail the background check.

My points...the people that are supposed to be protecting us aren't doing it...no, not the police, but the clerks or whoever that should be sending info to the NICS database (which is where a background check is failed or passed) so these kinds of folks can't legally purchase a weapon.

Of course, if you didn't realize it, if they still wanted one, it would be simple to get one from a parent/friend/friend's parent/steal or on the streets...cost more/harder to do, but these shooters seem determined.
 
Warrigal said:
Personal freedom traded away instead of addressing the gun problem.
Surveillance technology in schools first, then in churches, hospitals and the work place.
Who watches the watchers?
Click to expand...

Precisely. And I will always oppose any threat to ANY personal freedom, including the right to bear arms. People don't realize how they are being manipulated, and they need to wake up.
 
In reality, the school property is 'private property'...you have no personal freedom. School lockers can be opened and searched...so cameras in hallways, class rooms, common areas would be perfectly legal. You may be safe from search of your person (but not backpack)...not sure on this point. But cameras in rest rooms/changing areas (gym locker rooms) should be against the law...
 
Oldguy said:
Aunt Bea stated "I read an article that indicated the odds of being shot in a school mass shooting on any given day is 1 in 614,000,000.

With those odds, I would accept the risk for myself and not be overly concerned."

Just wondering...would you accept that risk for your children? Your grand children?
Click to expand...

If I had a child or grandchild that came to me with a permission slip to go to a summer camp or on a field trip to a foreign country that I needed to sign because the odds of injury or death in an adventure of that type was 1 in 614,000,000 I would sign it and tell the kid to go and have a great time.
 
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

True over 200 years ago and still true today.

The demagogues never take a day off. :stirthepot:

 
I would feel uneasy about my children being watched like that. I realize we are on camera a lot of the time we are out in public or even on someones door step now and that doesn't bother me. But like Warrigal said Who is watching the watchers?
 
I have seen video of the two boys that were involved in the shootings at Columbine while they were making their rounds. I have also seen video of a young man that went through his high school, which is located in a small town in Ohio, shooting at his fellow students, killing some and maiming some. It’s not a pleasant thing to watch, but the video is used for training purposes only.

I know of at least six high schools in my area that use video surveillance, not to mention having the students walk through a metal detector on their way into the building and also must submit to random, voluntary backpack inspections.

It’s a different world from when you and I went to school. I can still remember when two boys had a difference or liked the same girl, they settled it by a good old fist fight. Today, same scenario, one or both may pull a knife or gun.

Using video has its place in society, but I also agree that some areas of our private lives must be kept, well, private. High school kids are still trying to grab a smoke in the lavatory and some are still kissing in the hallways, but that’s mostly overlooked today. School teachers and administrators are being taught to be more vigilant in watching for more suspicious activities. Kids wearing trench coats are now swept with a metal detecting wand. Kids wearing all black are watched closer than those that don’t dress in that manner. Most Goth kids are good kids and very intelligent.

Sometimes in in the afternoon, I would drive around this one high school that was in my patrol area. After awhile, this small group of boys would look for me and when they would see me, they would wave me down. I’d roll up beside them and ask what they were up to today. Very friendly kids that were extremely curious as to what the state police were all about. They wanted to know what I carried on my duty belt and in my trunk. Just very curious and likable. I took one of the boys home one day because he was very sick and just wanted to get home, so I told him to hop in and I’ll have him there in a jiffy. He thought that was very cool.
 
The use of surveillance technology doesn't really bother me all that much, considering that we have cameras aimed at us at every major traffic intersection, in stores, etc. We mostly don't even notice them.

What does bother me is the potential use of this AI equipment in schools to create problems that don't even exist - labeling kids as possibly troublemakers based on their clothing choices, or even the expression
on their faces? Or even worse, by race or ethnicity? How can we trust artificial intelligence to have any accuracy in this? Machines don't deal with the subtleties of the human mind; they are digital. Everything is yes or no.

This is way over the top.
 
The last school shooter in the county was known and banned from campus. If a student comes up as dangerous are they going to follow through like the deputy on site that day.

They 'might' be dangerous, nah.
 
With all due to respect to no one in FL. govt. what is "proper" for the kids and is it 1956 again? Perhaps uniforms for all and no skirts for the girls as we all know girls that wear skirts are...… well, "easy".
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top