Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

American schools should have some sort of cell phone jammer

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   
It is a violation of freedom and should be illegal.




posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   


I like Damocles idea best. My generation was not lucky enough to have cell phones when we were in school, and we got by just fine, but then again we never had problems like Columbine or other events like that either. It certainly would be good in emergencies in case of a fire for locating a trapped person. I don't see why schools would want to jam the devices. Put rules into effect and enforce them.


we never had problems like columbine or......

This says it all. Everyone here will agree that cell phones can be an annoyance. However, I still stand by the fact that these are a modern day lifeline. A lifeline to me is anything that someone relies upon for help. Many will use a cellphone for this.

I may be a young buck in these forums but those who continue to mimic eachother with, "we got by in our day without them." line is not relevent. As stated above you didn't have the same threats there are today.

Most of us wrote our papers instead of typing them too. Here we are typing away though.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   
ok, sure we DIDNT have those problems. well not to the degree anyway. but let me ask you, which makes more sense...allowing everyone to have a cell phone "jsut in case" or spend the money and efforts to make sure that theres a bit of security to make sure whackos just CANT get into the buildign with a gun?

let me guess, metal detectors are an invasion of privacy huh?

sorry but id rather see metal detectors at every door then a cell phone in every backpack


besides, whats wrong with the idea of the teachers having a phone, or even a "panic button"? ok fine whacko takes out the teacher first and he/she cant hit the button or use the phone. last i recall a gunshots pretty loud and its not like rooms are a mile apart. put one in each room and osmeone gonna hit it. i dont think every kid needs a cellphone in school. its just NOT the place for them becuase lets face it not every kid is responsible enough to not disrupt class.

[edit on 13-1-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   
seems like everyone is making up "what ifs" in favor of cell phones



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
ok, sure we DIDNT have those problems. well not to the degree anyway. but let me ask you, which makes more sense...allowing everyone to have a cell phone "jsut in case" or spend the money and efforts to make sure that theres a bit of security to make sure whackos just CANT get into the buildign with a gun?

let me guess, metal detectors are an invasion of privacy huh?

sorry but id rather see metal detectors at every door then a cell phone in every backpack


besides, whats wrong with the idea of the teachers having a phone, or even a "panic button"? ok fine whacko takes out the teacher first and he/she cant hit the button or use the phone. last i recall a gunshots pretty loud and its not like rooms are a mile apart. put one in each room and osmeone gonna hit it. i dont think every kid needs a cellphone in school. its just NOT the place for them becuase lets face it not every kid is responsible enough to not disrupt class.

[edit on 13-1-2007 by Damocles]


I agree with you, I think only teachers should be allowed phones for the "just in case" scenario.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by racerzeke
I never said Cell phone jammers should be legal to the public, because there will be people who use them just to annoy people....


but they should be legal in schools and theaters


I do think they should be legal, I should have the right to stop the signal on my property, in fact, when I build my own house it will be constructed with the equivelent of a faraday cage in the walls. But there is a problem with the jammers. I've looked into them a little. If you believe that cell phones may cause health problems then the jammers are far worse. They work by basically staturating the airwaves with the frequencies that cell phones use within a small area. So although they are rather cheap I have yet to purchase one as I don't think they are safe.

Vas



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Teachers not backing up "threats"? Teachers unable to control classes?...

Technology is the answer. Too tired to implement and enforce any school-wide classroom rules regarding phone use? Then flip a switch and end it all.

This is bad. I have seen a number of phone videos taken inside schools that are beneficial, the weirdest of which involve police and police drills or "drug raids". To use "phone-proofed" buildings or other means of quieting phones only punishes everyone, even innocent phone owners, in the end. There may very well be a need to make a call at some time as if an emergency occurs. But, if the building is "phone-proofed", you can't at all ever.

It is not OK to teach students that they have no rights inside a school. Sure, lets randomly check their urine and k9 patrol their cars and put up cameras everywhere and watch them from every corner. But to that extent, others...or adults, won't tolerate that type of creepy big brother presence in their own daily lives.

There is no long-term benefit to "scaring" students into "behaving" because once they are out of the "scaring zone" they will behave how they want to anyway. People with good character will behave accordingly when rules or law enforcement fail. People that require rules or a policing presence to behave in a good manner will only resort to misbehaving when no one is watching. So many school and city and state and federal laws actually "punish the whole class" because one or more can't deal with too much freedom apparently. Classes should be orderly, and some are downright dangerous, but defaulting to the most extreme answer should be the very last option and not used because it might be the "easiest."

But, there are those theaters where phones on silent or vibrate mode won't get their texts because some people can't handle having a phone in public and cities like NY will try banning headphones in public because two or three poor morons walked into traffic. The point is just around the next corner where and when everything we do or say will be affected by one or more laws and thus we will all be under continous control of those who control the laws.

Schools and teachers, with some arguably reasonable reasons, love cameras. Until they are turned on and pointed at them that is. People in control love technology and gadgets that they can use to protect their control and they also love to keep those gadgets and technologies to themselves alone. Police love mounting cameras in their cars. Just try getting a camera out to tape their activity. See what happens then.

[edit on 10-2-2007 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
...It is not OK to teach students that they have no rights inside a school. Sure, lets randomly check their urine and k9 patrol their cars and put up cameras everywhere and watch them from every corner. But to that extent, others...or adults, won't tolerate that type of creepy big brother presence in their own daily lives...

...Police love mounting cameras in their cars. Just try getting a camera out to tape their activity. See what happens then.

[edit on 10-2-2007 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]


Everytime I had to bring in a juvenile I heard a speech about their "rights" and everytime I had to tell them that they have no rights until they are eighteen, and to expand on that having a cellphones is not a right. I am all for cameras in schools if there had been cameras in schools when I went there would have been a lot less students acting up in the hallways. About drug tests, students shouldnt have ingested any alcohol or drugs anyway when they do the drug tests they do not arrest the students, they just noify the parents if the test was positive. The same goes for their vehicles they shouldnt have drugs in their vehicles...THEY ARE STUDENTS.

The ICC (In Car Camera) program has saved thousands of dollars in lawsuits for the police department, most departments now have more than one camera in the car they have one facing them. ALso if a suspect manages to escape you can have a picture of the on their car.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamesMcMahn
Everytime I had to bring in a juvenile I heard a speech about their "rights" and everytime I had to tell them that they have no rights until they are eighteen, and to expand on that having a cellphones is not a right.


No rights until 18? Really? Since when don't the rights outlined and protected in the US Constitution apply to those under 18? Answer: Never. If you are telling minors that they don't have rights, then you are flat out giving them false and in my opinion criminally unethical information. A sixteen year old has exactly the same rights, if say being arrested, that a sixty year old does. The situation is of course different because they are minors and there may be a curfew or such additional laws, but the additional laws do not mean that they do not have the same basic rights.

Legal guardians can't lock up their kids in the house or tie them down like prisoners. The system believes that convicted criminals, thus of course guilty (the court system is infallible of course...), have forfeited their rights. Felons can't own firearms for example. But children haven't forfeited their rights simply by being held to additional laws in many cases. They have their rights pertaining to free speech just as anyone does, or improper search and seizure. There is no age requirement for Miranda Rights. Anyone stopped has the right to remain silent until a lawyer is present or appointed.



I am all for cameras in schools if there had been cameras in schools when I went there would have been a lot less students acting up in the hallways.


"Acting up in hallways?" It's human behavior to "act up" to different extents in different situations. "Acting up" is a vague description based on personal opinion. I'm not for putting cameras everywhere just to clamp down on students who run too fast or talk too loudly or have a bit of horseplay.



About drug tests, students shouldnt have ingested any alcohol or drugs anyway when they do the drug tests they do not arrest the students, they just noify the parents if the test was positive. The same goes for their vehicles they shouldnt have drugs in their vehicles...THEY ARE STUDENTS.


Again, adults aren't supposed to have drugs either. Libraries are local/state facilities. Why aren't dogs sniffing those cars? Or at federal facilities like Post Offices? Oh, because students are packing up their cars with drugs and going to school? A town I recently lived in sniffed 600 student cars and found ONE joint in ONE car. Not only is this a waste of taxpayer money, but to boldly infringe where there used to be a semblence of privacy at schools and suspect everyone equally until proven otherwise is a terrifying trend.

And urine testing? Well, no one in the U.S. without express consent is allowed to take illegal drugs, so why not just drug test us all every day? Once again, because it is a "guilty until proven innocent" tactic. Unfortunately, schools and parents wind up allowing such things to take place due to hysteria. Behave because we are watching you! Nothing to hide then why make a fuss? Because it's an intrusion and an infringement on rights when one is forced to prove innocence without evidence of a crime.

Schools can get away with this because schools are more like private institutions in that parents allow the schools a certain amount of authority just as the parents have in the home. Schools can't just make up whatever rules they wan't however. And it is important to note that breaking a school RULE is not the same as breaking a LAW. And just because something winds up being ruled out or dictated in school DOES NOT mean that it is always either legal or ethically or morally just. Plenty of school rules have been challenged by students successfully in courts.



The ICC (In Car Camera) program has saved thousands of dollars in lawsuits for the police department, most departments now have more than one camera in the car they have one facing them. ALso if a suspect manages to escape you can have a picture of the on their car.


I know cops love it. When it works in their favor. Simply stated, nearly any time a video of police brutality makes the headlines, IT IS NOT FROM A POLICE VIDEO. Those videos come from private citizens. Gee, I wonder why the police don't offer their own videos of such crimes? Anyone stopped and taped by law enforcement in any way should have equal access to those videos. Videos may protect cops from lawsuits, but they also could very well prove suspects' innocence. Cops threaten people unnecessarily verbally or with unwarranted intimidation. For example, "You shut the (hell) up or I'll really shut you up" while pulling into an unlit alley for instance over an unproven misdemeanor. Citizens still pay for all that nifty surveillence equipment after all. No one in law enforcement is infallible. That's why we have courts.

The majority of people don't go around committing crimes. But everyone is monitored more and more because a minority of people do. It doesn't take long until the monitoring and police state mentality of guilty until proven innocent tramples on everyone's god given right to live a life that includes a reasonable expectation and amount of privacy.


[edit on 13-2-2007 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts

"Acting up in hallways?" It's human behavior to "act up" to different extents in different situations. "Acting up" is a vague description based on personal opinion. I'm not for putting cameras everywhere just to clamp down on students who run too fast or talk too loudly or have a bit of horseplay.


I should have been more specific, I was refering to fights, and bullying.


Again, adults aren't supposed to have drugs either. Libraries are local/state facilities. Why aren't dogs sniffing those cars? Or at federal facilities like Post Offices? Oh, because students are packing up their cars with drugs and going to school? A town I recently lived in sniffed 600 student cars and found ONE joint in ONE car.


At the schools in my department you had to sign a form to get a parking permit, in the form you give the school permission to search your car. If you didnt sign thew form then you didnt get a permit, if you didnt have a permit you get towed. At the last sweep I participated in we found 19 lockers and 31 cars that had drugs or alcohol in them.


And urine testing? Well, no one in the U.S. without express consent is allowed to take illegal drugs, so why not just drug test us all every day? Once again, because it is a "guilty until proven innocent" tactic. Unfortunately, schools and parents wind up allowing such things to take place due to hysteria. Behave because we are watching you! Nothing to hide then why make a fuss? Because it's an intrusion and an infringement on rights when one is forced to prove innocence without evidence of a crime. Schools can get away with this because schools are more like private institutions in that parents allow the schools a certain amount of authority just as the parents have in the home. Schools can't just make up whatever rules they wan't however. And it is important to note that breaking a school RULE is not the same as breaking a LAW. And just because something winds up being ruled out or dictated in school DOES NOT mean that it is always either legal or ethically or morally fair. Plenty of school rules have been challenged by students successfully in courts.


At the schools in my district the parents have an opt-out form they can fill out if they dont want their children tested, it is sent home the first day of school. We only had about 23 opt-out.

I know cops love it. When it works in their favor. Simply stated, nearly any time a video of police brutality makes the headlines, IT IS NOT FROM A POLICE VIDEO. Those videos come from private citizens. Gee, I wonder why the police don't offer their own videos of such crimes? Anyone stopped and taped by law enforcement in any way should have equal access to those videos. Videos may protect cops from lawsuits, but they also could very well prove suspects' innocence. Cops threaten people unnecessarily verbally or with unwarranted intimidation. For example, "You shut the (hell) up or I'll really shut you up" while pulling into an unlit alley for instance over an unproven misdemeanor. Citizens still pay for all that nifty surveillence equipment after all.


Do you honestly think all officers are the same out of the departments I have worked in 99% of the officers are genuinely good people. The oficers that didnt do their job or the officers that were to heavy-handed, received blanket parties, this usually corrects the problem. Let me ask you something if you had to work a twelve hour shift having to deal with people that usually hate/despise/want to kill/want to maim, and generally want to make your life harder for you(jailhouse lawyers), how would you feel how would you reactions be after 4 days of twelve hour shifts of having to deal with that, wouldnt you be more prone to violence then. I am not defending police brutality, but I am saying I can understand why it happens sometimes.

I cant tell that you have a problem with officers, and I hope that you do not take this in the wrong light but you seem quite agressive in your posts. I hope that we can remain civil.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Im a senior at my school and we cant get reception on our phones in the majority of our school because they put up jammers. I personally think it was a good descion on the adminstrations behalf



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   

JamesMcMahn said:
....
I cant tell that you have a problem with officers, and I hope that you do not take this in the wrong light but you seem quite agressive in your posts. I hope that we can remain civil.


I don't have a problem with the majority. I'm agressive in my beliefs pertaining to freedom and liberty. And I think you'd agree that I was civil and there isn't any reason why I wouldn't be.

Some schools with parental support choose to send their kids to a lock down situation for educational enlightenment. Some searches in these settings find what they are looking for. As I wrote, it doesn't always turn out that way.

When I walk around town there is always the possibility that I could be attacked. And while putting up more cameras and posting officers on every street corner with even dogs in tow could put that threat at a minimum, I'd rather endure the negative probability than give up my unmonitored existence.

Every school and city and neighborhood is different and they must make their own choices regarding safety. I've lived in "dangerous" areas and "safe" areas as well and worked in an inner-city school. But no one can ignore that there are cases where schools and cities and neighborhoods act with hysteria and grab at the easy draconian "answers" to problems that don't necessarily demand such intrusive action.

I'm old enough to remember that things weren't always the way they are now. Are we better off? Or are we sometimes teaching our people that the way to deal with the uglier side of human nature is to throw up more cameras and increase "security"? Each situation should be approached individually and thought about significantly.

Remember, businesses most often look to sell more of their technology and do so aggressively and so we wind up with libraries using fingerprint technology in areas where businesses develop and produce that machinery. Also, there are those civic bureas that are always happy to get new toys for extreme situations when necessary, but in the interest of practice or improvement use those gadgets toward overkill in lesser scenarios. And so we wind up with SWAT teams "all dressed up and nowhere to go". So, to warrant their existence, they sometimes widen their scopes of necessity.

I've no children but absolutely would opt-out, speak out, or remove my child from environments to the best of my ability that over-eagerly alter my child's right to be treated fairly in matters of probably cause and presumed innocence in the interest of "education". I wouldn't want my child, while in the interest of pursuing academic interests, to also receive a firsthand "education" of Big Brother paranoia with heavy handed implementation.

[edit on 15-2-2007 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I have heard that some schools already have jammers, and more are installing them. Just so kids cant cheat through text messages. This could prove to be detrimental if a school is attacked, and kids cant call for help because the signals have been blocked. Such a double edged sword.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
What about for emergencies...Parents that are late picking up their kids and want to tell them. You can't do one thing with out the other.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Royal76
What about for emergencies...Parents that are late picking up their kids and want to tell them. You can't do one thing with out the other.


If the parents are going to be late, then they should do like they did in my district...call the school.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
no way...

we need 'em if there's a school shooting or something






posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Thats what the SRO's, security guards, and they landline phones are for.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamesMcMahn
Thats what the SRO's, security guards, and they landline phones are for.


Right. Why should the untrained masses bog themselves down with worrying about ensuring any amount of safety or back-up communication options themselves. Let the establishments control lines of communication and look after us with more cameras and guards. Self reliance is overrated. If there is an emergency we can always depend on FEMA or SWAT or ATF or some other infallible well-armed paramilitary operation. Good old Big Brother has our backs.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
Right. Why should the untrained masses bog themselves down with worrying about ensuring any amount of safety or back-up communication options themselves. Let the establishments control lines of communication and look after us with more cameras and guards. Self reliance is overrated. If there is an emergency we can always depend on FEMA or SWAT or ATF or some other infallible well-armed paramilitary operation. Good old Big Brother has our backs.


Exactly. You shouldn't thats why we place SRO's and security gurads there for.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   
i am a student in school and at my school teachers do not take cell phones or mp3 players awayi from us adn they let us listen to them in class and text message and i still manage to do every assignment given and maintian all A's in my classes. you no why this is, its because instead of trying to instill in us (the students) the fear of losing our cell phones or mp3 players they instill in us the responsibily and trust that we will get done what we need to get done and when its supposed to be done. its almost like a mutual agreement we do our work and respect the teachers we keep the cells and mp3 players.

i think it should be this way at all schools!!!!!





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join