Tracking students with RFID tags

[Fragenstein]

I can speak to this from direct personal experience. My job is automated minibars in hotels.

Where are these? I typically stay in some high-end suites when I travel and I don't think I've seen a mini-bar in years. At best it'll just be an empty fridge which I do use to store my own goods.

[pendell]

Where are these? I typically stay in some high-end suites when I travel and I don't think I've seen a mini-bar in years. At best it'll just be an empty fridge which I do use to store my own goods.

I know we have some in the JW Marriott in DC, at Hilton hotels, Marriott hotels such as the Orlando World Center, at casinos in Vegas. There are also sites in Europe and Macao.

*Checks the company home page *

We don't seem to make a comprehensive list of our current clients available publicly, can't imagine why :). Still, if you can name a city in PM somewhere within the US or Canada, I may be able to find you a hotel in the city that uses our stuff. Provided it's in some place like California or Texas or Florida. I don't think we have much in places like, say, Montana.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Fragenstein]

Oh, well, it's not like I go looking for them deliberately. It's just I started to wonder where the heck they went.

Wild. I've seen (and used), plenty of your safes. I'm pretty sure I've never once seen a SmartCube, however. But then the only Vegas hotel I've stayed at was the Flamingo several years ago. 'One of the few times where room quality wasn't really an issue.

I'm betting you don't have them in Dryden, Ontario. Probably the nicest accomodations ever, and now I can't remember which hotel it was in.

[Anarion]

Discussion in this thread convinces me that it's more inefficient than utterly horrible, though I stand by my opinion that the system discussed in the articles wherein every student is required to wear an ID that tracks them by social security number is a violation of privacy.

More to the point, the penalty for refusing to wear it is suspension or expulsion. What the heck? Isn't that a little extreme?

For ease of use, make the system accessible through the internet and a secure login so it can be accessed with a smartphone. A quick check would verify that little Billy was out sick today and not still in the building.

Uh, maybe we could avoid making the system capable of tracking children available to anyone with the tech know how to bypass a password login?

[THAC0]

Uh, maybe we could avoid making the system capable of tracking children available to anyone with the tech know how to bypass a password login?

Indeed. I'm sure the school district would love paying for my smartphone too, cause I sure ain't.

[Grinner]

More to the point, the penalty for refusing to wear it is suspension or expulsion. What the heck? Isn't that a little extreme?

Very. Which is precisely why they would do so, for it gives them a little leverage over disagreeing students. See, some students might not mind, but their parents mind a whole lot.

Anyway, twenty seconds in the microwave could fix that either way.

[Brother Oni]

More to the point, the penalty for refusing to wear it is suspension or expulsion. What the heck? Isn't that a little extreme?

I think the girl in question was offered a non-RFID ID card, which was also declined, as wearing it would be tacit approval of the ID system, which they opposed in the first place.

I'm somewhat undecided on whether it's regarded as extreme or not. Suppose the school had a mandatory uniform policy - would a student refusing to wear it have the same grounds to resist suspension or expulsion?
I would say a uniform is an even bigger visual identification marker for whether you belong in a school or not - at least for an ID card you have to get close enough to see it, rather than spotting the blazer/jumper/tie colour and pattern at 100 metres.

Anyway, twenty seconds in the microwave could fix that either way.

Unfortunately they can then get you for destroying school property. A faraday cage wallet would be much more subtle.

[Elder Tsofu]

According to the article it seemed to be mainly religious reasons that hindered her from using the ID, marking the beast or what it was called. But since it is just one article it is a bit hard to know if that is true or not.

...

The wallet might be a problem if you're supposed to wear it visibly at all times. If you're allowed to put it in there after and before school hours it might be a good solution though.
Or there might be a see-through one which you could just clamp on, or a tape of some kind.

[Aedilred]

I came across an article on this the other day, and I pretty much agree with the points raised by Anarion above. I don't even like having to wear an ID badge, let alone allow anyone to track my every movement.

What I find particularly worrying about this, though, which was pointed out to me when I first encountered it, is that by making it compulsory for children at a formative age it normalises the idea of an authority figure tracking them all the time, which erodes the personal conception of privacy and makes it easier to introduce more invasive tools down the line.

I'm somewhat undecided on whether it's regarded as extreme or not. Suppose the school had a mandatory uniform policy - would a student refusing to wear it have the same grounds to resist suspension or expulsion?

A uniform policy strikes me as a lot less intrusive and objectionable than a tracking chip, personally.

[Don Julio Anejo]

What I find particularly worrying about this, though, which was pointed out to me when I first encountered it, is that by making it compulsory for children at a formative age it normalises the idea of an authority figure tracking them all the time, which erodes the personal conception of privacy and makes it easier to introduce more invasive tools down the line.

Good point.

Also, a uniform only shows you as a student (and has been psychologically proven to have positive effects, i.e. you literally start playing the role of a student when you don the uniform), and doesn't identify you personally. Unlike an ID card where anyone will be immediately able to tell at the very least your name, grade, homeroom and potentially student ID number.

[Brother Oni]

A uniform policy strikes me as a lot less intrusive and objectionable than a tracking chip, personally.

I think you've got a misunderstanding of the technology - RFID cards are generally of the passive sort, thus you need an active scanner to read them and these are generally short range no more than 10m with a clear line of sight with specialised equipment.
They're generally not active devices like a smartphone and as I understand the school system, it's essentially just a series of checkpoints so they can tell whether you're in school or in a particular classroom. There's no "Student A. Smith is currently 15m along the South Corridor, heading north at walking pace" level of tracking.

Looking at my workplace ID card which is RFID enabled, it has a (very bad) picture of me, along with my name, the word 'Staff' and the company logo.
While I disagree with sticking the students' SSN on the ID card (which is just idiotic as it make identity theft much easier), I find none of the above information objectionable*.

Compared to a dress and uniform code where I must wear and comply with the following:

• Black leather shoes with dark coloured socks
• Grey trousers
• Plain white shirt
• Tie in the school colours, worn around the neck in either a half or full windsor knot
• Black jumper
• Black blazer, with the school emblem prominently displayed on the breast pocket
• No piercings, jewelry or tattoos
• Hair must be suitably tidy and must not extend below the shirt collar.
• Must be clean shaven

Note this code is taken from what I remember of a school I used to attend.

I suspect the uniform policy is less objectionable than RFID cards simply because one has been around for a lot longer and hence people have become more accustomed to it.
Taken on its own merits, being told what to wear, how to wear it and what level of personal grooming is required, is more intrusive than an ID card in my opinion.


*I do admit I take my card off outside of work, but that's because I work for a pharmaceutical company and although we don't do any animal testing inhouse, animal rights protestors are often not that discerning.

[GnomeFighter]

I think you've got a misunderstanding of the technology - RFID cards are generally of the passive sort, thus you need an active scanner to read them and these are generally short range no more than 10m with a clear line of sight with specialised equipment.
They're generally not active devices like a smartphone and as I understand the school system, it's essentially just a series of checkpoints so they can tell whether you're in school or in a particular classroom. There's no "Student A. Smith is currently 15m along the South Corridor, heading north at walking pace" level of tracking.

Looking at my workplace ID card which is RFID enabled, it has a (very bad) picture of me, along with my name, the word 'Staff' and the company logo.
While I disagree with sticking the students' SSN on the ID card (which is just idiotic as it make identity theft much easier), I find none of the above information objectionable*.

Compared to a dress and uniform code where I must wear and comply with the following:

• Black leather shoes with dark coloured socks
• Grey trousers
• Plain white shirt
• Tie in the school colours, worn around the neck in either a half or full windsor knot
• Black jumper
• Black blazer, with the school emblem prominently displayed on the breast pocket
• No piercings, jewelry or tattoos
• Hair must be suitably tidy and must not extend below the shirt collar.
• Must be clean shaven

Note this code is taken from what I remember of a school I used to attend.

I suspect the uniform policy is less objectionable than RFID cards simply because one has been around for a lot longer and hence people have become more accustomed to it.
Taken on its own merits, being told what to wear, how to wear it and what level of personal grooming is required, is more intrusive than an ID card in my opinion.


*I do admit I take my card off outside of work, but that's because I work for a pharmaceutical company and although we don't do any animal testing inhouse, animal rights protestors are often not that discerning.

I think your correct. If it is an RFID system that constantly tracks kids around the school like they do with logistics then I can see the problem. If, however, it is an ID card with an RFID chip that lets you in doors then I can't honestly see the problem. Every place I have worked has this. It makes sure that the people comeing in are the people aloud to come in and unfortunatly in these days of 2000+ kids in a school its impossible for teachers to know every child in the school and who should and should not be there when they see someone walking around.

If it is checking who is coming in to the building and meaning people can show they have a right to be there fine (The teachers should have the same requirements), but if it is keeping a real time track of people as they move round the school, not fine.

I don't see the need to link it to the SS number. My work ID has the company name, my name & photo, valid to date, my job and an ID number. It is then loaded with the buildings I have a right to access (due to the nature of the company I work for people can't just wander where they want) and thats it. As long as it dosn't have too much personal ID it dosn't seem intrusive at all.

[pendell]

More to the point, the penalty for refusing to wear it is suspension or expulsion.
What the heck? Isn't that a little extreme?

It's not just the id tab, the female in question was passing out flyers and otherwise waging a one-woman crusade against the tags as a religious abomination. That is more than passive disobedience, but active disruption.
It's not something the school can ignore.

She was offered a deal in which the school would disable the RFID chip in exchange for her wearing the badge "proudly" and supporting the surveillance program. Quite naturally, that's not something she could do. If you truly believe something is a religious abomination, you can't suddenly turn around and start saying what a wonderful thing it is for everyone else even if it doesn't personally affect you.

You can't vocally call school policy an abomination publicly for long. Either the other students and parents will agree with you, and the policy is changed, or the policy stands and you eventually get suspended or expelled. No institution or authority can tolerate an open, public challenge to its authority forever.

This is what I would offer were I the school:

1) The RFID chip to be disabled.

2) An alternate mechanism for attendance to be registered. Sign in at the office or with homeroom teacher.

3) In return, she stops disrupting class. I'm not telling you you have to wear it proudly, and i'm not telling you to support the program. Just put away the flyers and concentrate on your studies.

4) If you MUST wage a one-woman-war on our policies, do it on your own time off school grounds. Pass 'em out outside the gate. Or wherever else people meet. Launch a facebook campaign. Do what you want on your own time, but on MY time you will be a student.

FYI, some religious groups teach that one of the things that will happen at the end of the world will be the rise of an all-powerful military dictator who will demand that all humans tattoo his name or similar either to their forehead or right hand, and no one will be permitted to buy or sell unless they have this tattoo.

The student appears to belong to one of these groups, and an id without which she cannot enter the cafeteria seems to be close enough to her teachings that it sets off her alarm bells.

It occurs to me that this mark is probably the inspiration for Shadowrun's
System Identification Number , without which it is impossible to hold a job, open a bank account, rent an apartment, or access medical facilities. Those in the system are called 'SINners'. The 'SINless', those outside the system, have to make a living on the gray or black market, doing the kind of work the corporations can't allow themselves to be publicly associated with.

...

Regardless of anyone's religious beliefs, I think it would be fair to describe Shadowrun as a 'dystopia', something to avoid. Tracking students with onboard chips would definitely seem to be a step in that direction.

Unfortunately they can then get you for destroying school property. A faraday cage wallet would be much more subtle.

I'm sure there are all kinds of subtle ways for students to "lose" or "accidentally" destroy an unwanted id in such a way that the loss cannot be proven to be an act of malice.

What I find particularly worrying about this, though, which was pointed out to me when I first encountered it, is that by making it compulsory for children at a formative age it normalises the idea of an authority figure tracking them all the time, which erodes the personal conception of privacy and makes it easier to introduce more invasive tools down the line.

Agreed.

A uniform policy strikes me as a lot less intrusive and objectionable than a tracking chip, personally.

Also agreed. A uniform's primary impact is on other students. It demolishes caste boundaries because everyone rich or poor wears the same clothes. No one's ever been killed and murdered for a school blazer, though it has happened for designer clothes and fashions.

A tracking device, by contrast, has minimal effect on student-student interaction but does a great deal to make students more visible to the bureaucracy. So I wouldn't care about a uniform -- it's being tagged like cattle that would irritate me.

I don't see the need to link it to the SS number.

Reading the website ,
the use of SS in this way without consent may be a violation of the Privacy Act. Perhaps the students or parents have been given consent forms -- and if they don't sign, the SS can't be used.An alternatenumbering system specific to the school would have to be used.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Chen]

I'm confused what sort of privacy people are expecting when in a school. Any of the school's I've gone to required that someone in authority (teacher or administrator) knew where you were during the school day. You start skipping out on class and the like and your parents were called. I don't think this is merely them flouting their authority but rather that schools are responsible for the children during school hours.

Even if the tags were the type that allowed identification and tracking anywhere within the school, why is this different than if they simply hire a TON of hall monitors? Would people be as opposed to the schools spending money on hiring people to check around the school and its hiding places all day? I know there were already some teachers walking the halls when they had free periods in the schools I went to, this just seems an extension of that system. I'm trying to think of something this system does that a person (or multiple people) couldn't be hired to do and I'm coming up blank.

[Grinner]

It's not so much the actual privacy as it is the precedent it sets. RFID systems are used in high-security areas like military bases, research centers, and other sensitive places. Compared to those places, a school is a rather innocuous place.

The problem arises when these systems are implemented in public areas. There's not much expectation of privacy in schools, yes, but allowing these systems sets a precedent for these sorts of things. Where will it end? Citizenship chips and RFID scanners on every street corner?

The concern isn't so much for the present as it is for the future.

[Traab]

It's not so much the actual privacy as it is the precedent it sets. RFID systems are used in high-security areas like military bases, research centers, and other sensitive places. Compared to those places, a school is a rather innocuous place.

The problem arises when these systems are implemented in public areas. There's not much expectation of privacy in schools, yes, but allowing these systems sets a precedent for these sorts of things. Where will it end? Citizenship chips and RFID scanners on every street corner?

The concern isn't so much for the present as it is for the future.

I also had them in a factory where we made mounds and almond joys. You had to flash the card in front of a scanner just to walk through the door, and also use it to clock in and out. This isnt some super ultra modern biometric scanning device used only in top secret research facilities, its a fairly basic method of proving you belong somewhere and making sure you are there when you are supposed to be. I agree having ssn on it is too much, but thats more from an identity theft perspective.

I dont see how wearing an id badge at school that makes sure you are staying IN the school is a huge violation of privacy. Is it taking pictures of you while you pee? Is it recording your conversations? What exactly is it doing that violates your privacy? Not allowing you to easily skip school without getting caught? I wasnt aware that was a right. (Its a skill dammit.)

[Chen]

It's not so much the actual privacy as it is the precedent it sets. RFID systems are used in high-security areas like military bases, research centers, and other sensitive places. Compared to those places, a school is a rather innocuous place.

The problem arises when these systems are implemented in public areas. There's not much expectation of privacy in schools, yes, but allowing these systems sets a precedent for these sorts of things. Where will it end? Citizenship chips and RFID scanners on every street corner?

The concern isn't so much for the present as it is for the future.

Seems like a fallacious slippery slope argument. These are being implemented in schools for a particular reason (budget in this case of all things). Further, schools have particular sets of rules where almost any type of monitoring is more acceptable mainly due to the responsibility they have for the children who are there (in loco parentis). There is no responsibility of the state in knowing exactly where you are. In fact there are already laws against that type of surveillance by the government. I don't see a clear link between why implementing this in a school environment would necessarily lead it to be implemented in the larger public environment and hence a slippery slope fallacy.

[Grinner]

I also had them in a factory where we made mounds and almond joys. You had to flash the card in front of a scanner just to walk through the door, and also use it to clock in and out. This isnt some super ultra modern biometric scanning device used only in top secret research facilities, its a fairly basic method of proving you belong somewhere and making sure you are there when you are supposed to be. I agree having ssn on it is too much, but thats more from an identity theft perspective.

I dont see how wearing an id badge at school that makes sure you are staying IN the school is a huge violation of privacy. Is it taking pictures of you while you pee? Is it recording your conversations? What exactly is it doing that violates your privacy? Not allowing you to easily skip school without getting caught? I wasnt aware that was a right. (Its a skill dammit.)

That's a factory. Where food is made. Which goes into my body. Why yes, I do like that factory workers are required to verify their identities upon entry.

Anyway, for me, the problem isn't that students are being required to attend their classes. The problem is that they're rolling out this system in a public area. It makes bureaucrats' jobs easier, and they're cheap to deploy. So with this precedent established, what prevents them from making them mandatory in even more public settings?

Also, have I mentioned how easy it is hack RFID systems? Implement them widely enough, and you'll have identity theft right and left.

Edit:

Seems like a fallacious slippery slope argument. These are being implemented in schools for a particular reason (budget in this case of all things). Further, schools have particular sets of rules where almost any type of monitoring is more acceptable mainly due to the responsibility they have for the children who are there (in loco parentis). There is no responsibility of the state in knowing exactly where you are. In fact there are already laws against that type of surveillance by the government. I don't see a clear link between why implementing this in a school environment would necessarily lead it to be implemented in the larger public environment and hence a slippery slope fallacy.

Very slippery, indeed. Can those in the higher echelons of society practice enough restraint to respect the rights of the citizens? I prefer to avoid the issue altogether.

Speaking from an American perspective, there are laws that bypass those laws, and some technologies are new enough that laws don't even apply to them (i.e. cell phone tracking, not sure if that's changed recently). It's unwise to assume that lawmakers and law enforcement are always acting with your rights in mind.

[Traab]

That's a factory. Where food is made. Which goes into my body. Why yes, I do like that factory workers are required to verify their identities upon entry.

Anyway, for me, the problem isn't that students are being required to attend their classes. The problem is that they're rolling out this system in a public area. It makes bureaucrats' jobs easier, and they're cheap to deploy. So with this precedent established, what prevents them from making them mandatory in even more public settings?

Also, have I mentioned how easy it is hack RFID systems? Implement them widely enough, and you'll have identity theft right and left.

Im trying to think of a reason why this would be instituted in areas that it isnt already happening in. Im also still waiting to see how precisely this invades privacy.

[Grinner]

Im trying to think of a reason why this would be instituted in areas that it isnt already happening in. Im also still waiting to see how precisely this invades privacy.

You have been reading the thread, right?

[Traab]

You have been reading the thread, right?

Indeed I have. Most statements against it are, "It would be an invasion of privacy" without mentioning HOW its an invasion of privacy. What expectation of privacy do you have in a public school? And what about this id card violates that?

[Grinner]

Indeed I have. Most statements against it are, "It would be an invasion of privacy" without mentioning HOW its an invasion of privacy. What expectation of privacy do you have in a public school? And what about this id card violates that?

What's privacy to you?

[warty goblin]

Indeed I have. Most statements against it are, "It would be an invasion of privacy" without mentioning HOW its an invasion of privacy. What expectation of privacy do you have in a public school? And what about this id card violates that?

The US has pretty much determined that students have no right to privacy in school. Which is why this case was argued based on freedom of religion.

[Traab]

What's privacy to you?

Look if you cant answer the question, just admit it. I want to know what part of your privacy this tracker card violates. The fact that you have responded three times to me, and none of them involved an answer, implies that you dont have an answer, because you cant think of any way that this actually is a violation of privacy.

The US has pretty much determined that students have no right to privacy in school. Which is why this case was argued based on freedom of religion.

Ok, now THIS is an actual argument. Or at least its the start of one. I have seen the posts where they explain how this girl felt it was a violation of her religion, so this is something that can be debated.

[Grinner]

Look if you cant answer the question, just admit it. I want to know what part of your privacy this tracker card violates. The fact that you have responded three times to me, and none of them involved an answer, implies that you dont have an answer, because you cant think of any way that this actually is a violation of privacy.

Since you weren't paying attention, apparently:

The problem arises when these systems are implemented in public areas. There's not much expectation of privacy in schools, yes, but allowing these systems sets a precedent for these sorts of things. Where will it end? Citizenship chips and RFID scanners on every street corner?

I've already stated my opinion on these cards and the nature of privacy in schools. You just weren't listening.

Of course, people have different ideas of privacy. For example, those cards contain an awful lot of personal information, yes? I'd rather not have my fellow students have access to that information. You might not mind, but I certainly do.

[Chen]

Of course, people have different ideas of privacy. For example, those cards contain an awful lot of personal information, yes? I'd rather not have my fellow students have access to that information. You might not mind, but I certainly do.

The ones in the Wired article in the OP says they just had a serial number that was unique to each student on them. Nothing else.

[warty goblin]

Ok, now THIS is an actual argument. Or at least its the start of one. I have seen the posts where they explain how this girl felt it was a violation of her religion, so this is something that can be debated.

The Judge's ruling can be read here. The summary version is essentially that since all students are supposed to wear the IDs, and the district offered her an alternative, there's no undue burden placed on religious practice. Her rejection of the alternative, non-RFID bearing ID was argued on First Amendment compelled speech grounds. The judge did not agree that wearing the non-RFID ID constituted an endorsement of the program however.

The latter argument rather baffles me actually. Wearing an ID that looks exactly like one to which you object seems to me to be reasonably considered to be coercing a tacit endorsement of the policy. Particularly if the person in question objects to the entire program on religious principle, it hardly seems unreasonable to conclude even appearing to follow the program would violate one's beliefs.

(The family/their lawyers floated a couple other arguments, but none of them seemed particularly plausible or interesting. Fourteenth Amendment? Really?)

[Grinner]

The ones in the Wired article in the OP says they just had a serial number that was unique to each student on them. Nothing else.

A number of the school's services rely on these badges, according to the second article. Bathrooms, no less.

[Winter_Wolf]

A number of the school's services rely on these badges, according to the second article. Bathrooms, no less.

Do they have to swipe a card to get in to pee? 'Cause regardless of my opinion of RFID in general, I am amused/horrified about the consequences for a student with the runs who doesn't have their card on them when they really need it. And the poor janitor who has to clean up the mess.

[Eldonauran]

What is this, I don't even ...

If they'd have tried this in the school I went to, the entire student body would have conviently lost every one of those ID tags, repeatedly if necessary.

Needless to say, I am completely against this. Not that I don't understand the reasons behind it. I even get a slight chuckle when I think of all the dilequents that would have been busted skipping school if it had been implemented. I was always on time, early even, to every class and present every school day (give or take one or two days a year when I was sick).