
Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance - bookofjoe
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/dec/02/school-surveillance-us-schools-safety-shootings
======
t34543
> This level of surveillance is “not too over-the-top”, Ingrid said, and she
> feels her classmates are generally “accepting” of it.

Of course they think that, they’re still kids. Who’s going to protect them
from surveillance?

IMO this is way over the top - and it’s conditioning future generations to
accept this level of surveillance as adults.

~~~
ptero
Agreed. And I wonder if the answer would be different if they asked parents
instead of kids (who remember having regular, metal knives at school
cafeterias; being able to bring a folding knife to school; etc.).

It seems to me that that public acceptance of such surveillance is a side
effect of the mainstream media pushing scares and sensationalist coverage
(because this is the only thing they have a chance of selling), not some grand
evil plan, but not sure.

~~~
philwelch
In some countries like the UK, even adults are discouraged and disallowed from
carrying folding knives anywhere. Scenes like this are commonplace:
[https://twitter.com/MPSRegentsPark/status/974645778558980096](https://twitter.com/MPSRegentsPark/status/974645778558980096)

~~~
Joe-Z
Okay, I was scrolling through this feed to find some proof that this is a joke
account. But they are actually serious, right?

Are there laws in the UK that allow the police to enter your house and steal
all your tools? For people who didn't click on the link: It is a picture with
literally nothing but tools supposedly found during a "#weaponSweep"

This is fucking dystopian

~~~
asdff
I have all the knives they found in the wooden block in my kitchen. I would
look like an arms dealer to them.

------
leggomylibro
My Aunt has a child in early middle school - years 6 through 9 or so, for
people outside the US.

Not only does the poor kid have a school-issued laptop with heavy monitoring
tools installed on it, but they are also required to bring a smartphone to
school! My Aunt had made them tape over the laptop's webcam and explained that
everything the kid typed could probably be seen by the school, but she was
still concerned about the microphone. And the kid is completely incapable of
avoiding the more toxic aspects of social media and adtech, because the
constant use of smartphones has become a central part of their education. At
the age of what, 11-15?

I can only imagine what this is teaching the child. When we caught up over the
holidays, they seemed to be more fed up and disgusted with technology than
interested in it.

~~~
shadowgovt
The constant use of smartphones has become a pretty central part of US
culture. Shouldn't school reflect the environment the student is being taught
to live in?

~~~
lom888
Not to be flippant, but so is alcohol usage, should we encourage students to
drink at school?

Smartphone applications are designed to be addictive and have demonstrably
negative effects upon the mental health of adolescents. Their usage should be
vigorously discouraged by anyone who cares about the mental health of school
students.

~~~
shadowgovt
I mean, since you bring it up, there's some evidence that the abstinence-
until-21 system the US uses for alcohol does it no favors. It means that
instead of being able to learn responsible drinking at home or while younger,
America's youth may legally start drinking in college and sort of make up a
responsible drinking culture as they go along.

~~~
hollerith
You mention drinking at home. The law bans the purchase of alcohol by
children, but does it ban parents giving alcohol to their children? I dont
think so.

~~~
ryanmercer
>but does it ban parents giving alcohol to their children? I dont think so.

It is quite illegal to furnish alcohol to minors

>All states also make it a crime to supply an underage person with alcohol
even when there is no money involved.

[https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-
def...](https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-
defense/crime-penalties/supplying-alcohol-minors-and-legal-penalties.htm)

And:

>Depending on the situation, one can be charged with a misdemeanor or a felony
for supplying alcohol to minors. Most often, supplying alcohol to a minor is
considered a misdemeanor offense, but in some jurisdictions, it may be
considered a felony depending on the circumstances. Felonies for supplying
minors with alcohol are typically charged when there is some type of accident
or injury involved with the use of alcohol or the person supplying the alcohol
has been convicted of repeated offenses. Typical penalties are outlined below.

[https://www.alcohol.org/laws/supplying-alcohol-to-a-
minor/](https://www.alcohol.org/laws/supplying-alcohol-to-a-minor/)

~~~
voxic11
Most states exempt parents from such laws. For example Massachusetts law says

> For the purpose of this section the word ''furnish'' shall mean to knowingly
> or intentionally supply, give, or provide to or allow a person under 21
> years of age except for the children and grandchildren of the person being
> charged to possess alcoholic beverages on premises or property owned or
> controlled by the person charged.

[https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Cha...](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter138/Section34)

------
rahuldottech
THIS IS NOT OKAY.

We can't have children being used to constant surveillance and accepting this
as a part of life. It sets them up for so many problems in the future, where
they won't understand the serious implications of constant tracking and
surveillance.

And sure, nothing _too_ bad comes out of this stuff right now in most of the
world, but have you seen China? The minute a government decides to do so, all
that data that's been collected on you your whole life will be used against
you to give you a flawed AI-generated social "score" that determines what you
can or cannot do, or to determine whether or not you're a "threat" (see:
someone who speaks out against wrongdoings) to such a government.

~~~
krilly
Which bit of this are you upset with specifically? Monitoring internet access
on school devices? That's been standard in every single school and workplace
for decades.

The clear backpacks are silly I'll admit, and also pointless. I agree that
kids getting conditioned to be okay with surveillance is bad, but this is all
coming from the private sector right now.

In China, you now have to submit your face to be scanned into a database to
get a new phone. This has already been normalized by all the face swapping
apps, like Zao. Kids in the west wouldn't think twice about accepting the Ts
and C's for Snapchat or IG or anything else that includes face scanning tech.

~~~
ptero
> Monitoring internet access on school devices? That's been standard in every
> single school and workplace for decades.

What country are you talking about? Honest question, just curious. I am in the
US, but even today many small and medium sized companies do not _monitor_
internet (block parts, sure, but not monitor) and 10 years ago even large
companies did not do it.

~~~
goatinaboat
_am in the US, but even today many small and medium sized companies do not
monitor internet_

Every URL accessed via a proxy will be logged, even no one is actively
reviewing those logs regularly

~~~
icedchai
In the early 2000's, I used to work at a medium size public company and
managed the firewalls and proxy servers. I would regularly tail the logs for
my own amusement. The amount of pornography streaming into that place was
extraordinary.

------
Thriptic
Poor, emotion driven risk management as usual. School shootings kill very few
people per year and are rare events (especially in places that can afford this
tech) despite what the New York Times would have you believe. Why not focus
efforts on things that actually do kill young people, namely:

* Car crashes (teach people to drive more defensively)

* Suicides (provide better mental health services)

* Violence that occurs outside of school (intervene to stop conflict before it becomes an issue, which would also help prevent these shootings)

* Opiods

~~~
bobbles
Comments like this look absolutely insane to anyone outside the US. Look at
the numbers: [https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/21/us/school-shooting-us-
ver...](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/21/us/school-shooting-us-versus-world-
trnd/index.html)

~~~
sdinsn
> Comments like this look absolutely insane to anyone outside the US

No, it looks insane to the 6 countries mentioned in your article that have
significantly less schools shootings.

The other 188 countries in the world are purposely not discussed, since many
of them have extremely high violent crime rates despite restrictive gun
control laws...

~~~
ajuc
USA has 12.21 gun-related deaths per 100,000 population per year. It's 10th
highest in the world, and all the countries higher up aren't considered
developed.

19th highest in the world is Argentina and it has less than half the deaths US
has.

In top 30 there are countries with less than 1/4th the deaths.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-
related_death_rate)

~~~
tinalumfoil
The US homicide rate is the 94th globally [0]. Looking at "gun related deaths"
is misleading because it includes suicides, which in the US is very high. The
vast majority die from disease so if the goal is to prevent premature death a
marginal improvement to US healthcare system would save far more people than
whatever this high school surveillance state is trying to accomplish.

That's not a reason not to implement these policies but infringing on privacy,
which should be considered a fundamental right, for an at best insignificant
decrease in the homicide rate is.

[0]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intenti...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

~~~
ajuc
> it includes suicides, which in the US is very high

I wonder why :)

Have you considered the possibility that easy access to guns make suicides
more common?

------
discreditable
I work IT at a school. I try to strike a balance. I try to avoid doing creepy
things in the name of security theater. I don't do TLS MITM, even though it
might make web filtering easier. We do have some classroom monitoring
software, but it can only be used while students are on our network.

I agree that there is a bit too much reliance on technical measures (ex:
monitoring software) to police computer usage. This can be in absence of
teaching kids personal responsibility. However, in a classroom environment it
helps teachers immensely. While 80% of your students might handle themselves
mostly, trying to police those remaining manually can eat up a lot of
instructional time.

One point on the article:

> Teenagers are warned that the school is tracking what they do, and that they
> can get in trouble for visiting inappropriate websites.

If the school gets gov funds for IT, they have to be CIPA compliant[0]. This
includes filtering adult websites and logging access to them. Fail to do so
and you lose access to a lot of government funding through E-Rate[1]. The law
is vague and somewhat up to school admin interpretation. I've seen some pretty
intense surveillance regimes implemented in the name of CIPA.

0\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Internet_Protecti...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Internet_Protection_Act)
1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Rate)

------
mattlondon
Unpopular opinion: make private gun ownership illegal instead of forcing kids
to be monitored to make sure they're not carrying

~~~
systemtest
Or just fix the underlaying issue. Switzerland has 2 million guns on 8 million
citizens. Yet no school shootings. Why don't they have school shootings and
can we apply the Swiss system to the United States?

~~~
rtkwe
I mean if we're talking about Switzerland we have to talk about how their gun
laws would be considered extremely draconian and unconstitutional in the US.
[see 0] For starters all guns and ammunition purchases have what are
essentially background checks, and it's much easier to lose the right to
purchase, carry permits are basically non-existent and most transit is
explicitly only to and from shooting ranges or hunting. Just saying there's
lots of guns in Switzerland so guns aren't the real problem is very
disingenuous and ignores the fact that as they've continued to restrict gun
ownership to align with broader EU rules gun violence (including suicides)
have dropped.

[0] [https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-
rates-o...](https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-
deaths-2018-2#most-people-arent-allowed-to-carry-their-guns-around-in-
switzerland-12)

~~~
ta0987
They are not Draconian, they are in the ballpark of a blue state in the US.

If the progressives were willing to accept the Swiss laws in the US under the
stipulation that they would never again be made more strict, the US gun owners
should be thrilled.

Part of the problem is that US gun laws are often motivated by
misunderstanding or spite rather than reason or compromise.

~~~
rtkwe
They would be called draconian by Republicans and the NRA, look how they react
to any increase in gun laws today. Of course blue states get closer to the
Swiss laws but IIRC no state has any kind of background check on ammunition
[0] or universal gun registries both of which are part of the Swiss system.

[0] It would be practically impossible to enforce because states can't put up
barriers from things coming into their state from other states.

~~~
ta0987
_They would be called draconian by Republicans and the NRA, look how they
react to any increase in gun laws today._

That's because those increases are never compromises or exchanges. They are
simply demands. Republicans and the NRA look at what the gun laws in DC and
Chicago were before the Supreme Court cases and think: "That's their end game.
Zero guns. Because look: when they had the political power to take them away,
they did." They have no rational reason to support increases in gun control
that come in exchange for nothing.

If the Democrats offered a compromise, in the form of a constitutional
amendment, not repealing the 2nd amendment but detailing it out, we could
probably see real talk and progress. If it's not an amendment then it's simply
"pray I don't alter it any further".

~~~
ajuc
Why would you demand "exchange" to introduce a law that is sensible and has
positive impact? You don't have drivers' association demanding privileges in
exchange for penalizing drunk driving or restricting maximum speed.

The whole NRA situation in USA seems so absurd from outside.

~~~
ta0987
Because, unlike with guns, nobody is trying to ban cars.

And to the most common objection: yes they are. Gun control proponents often
bring up and praise the UK (near total ban) and Australia (significant
limitations compared to the U.S.) as examples to emulate.

And in Chicago and DC, before the Supreme Court cases, there were effectively
total bans. And when the plaintiffs sued, they didn't say, "well I guess we
went a little too far, let's establish a regulated framework under which
responsible, qualified and trained citizens can own guns". Instead, they went
all the way to the Supreme Court to try to defend their bans.

So, even if a gun owner agrees with a particular piece of proposed regulation
(and I'm sure plenty do), they would be acting against their own long term
interests giving the block trying to ban guns political momentum and capital.

~~~
ajuc
> Because, unlike with guns, nobody is trying to ban cars.

That's actually wrong. Gun control isn't banning guns, and if you consider
background checks a "ban" \- then driving licence requirement is a "ban on
cars" :)

If someone had the bright idea to put the right to drive a car in constitution
- Americans would be now arguing whether countrywide requirement to have a
driving licence to drive a car is ok or not :)

~~~
ta0987
Not sure how to reply if you just ignore everything I wrote that addresses
that.

~~~
ajuc
Your first assumption (that cars are less regulated than guns) is wrong, why
refer to the rest of the post if I can just show it's wrong.

~~~
ta09876
Where did I assume that?

I said that there is a large political block _trying_ to ban guns. Not that
they _are_ banned, or that they are more regulated than cars. Is that what
you're referring to?

------
jordanpg
This looks like an XY problem[0] on a massive scale.

Because the grown-ups can't figure out how to solve the top-level problems,
they are instead dealing with the low-level symptoms and applying band-aids.

It also reeks of political pork to me.

I admit that enumerating the top-level problems is politically fraught, but I
think they can be neatly condensed into:

* that mass shootings occur, ever

* that we cannot control childrens' use of the internet in any meaningful way

* that children are seeing through the thin veneer of meaningfulness that life in the US is supposed to have (notably traditional career paths and religion)

I don't pretend to have easy answers, but see-through backpacks is security
theater that is the stuff of Bruce Schneier competitions.

[0]
[https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/66378/213169](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/66378/213169)

~~~
doubt_me
wont doesn't mean can't. gotta make sure all the board members, directors,
principals, and book companies cash in first otherwise were all communists it
says so in this book I needed a code for it must be true.

------
twoquestions
Why do they spend so many words talking about preventing self-harm and
suicide? In my experience the school doesn't actually care, so long as they
don't off themselves on school grounds. At least when kids died when I was at
school, the administration was pitiless towards their siblings' assignments
and attendance, and punished them for crying in grief.

~~~
HoppyHaus
So that when somebody disagrees with this, they can go with the classic "So
you support self-harm and suicide?".

------
possiblerobot
The schools will argue that surveillance of students promotes safety and good
behavior. That might be true up to a point. But, they're missing out on the
opportunity to teach a deeper, more important lesson, which is how to behave
when you're _not_ being watched.

Would we rather live in a society where people are only doing the right thing
because they're being watched, or where people do the right thing because
they've internalized morals and ethics so it doesn't matter if they're
watched?

I'd argue the latter is better. Merely pleasing your watchers is not personal
responsibility. It's control and confinement to whatever you think the
watchers want to see. But, when/if the surveillance rails come off, then what
happens? Then we have people who have never stood on their own ethical two
feet.

------
carapace
From my POV this is the natural continuation of an already-fucked-up
situation.

The rights of children have historically been neglected, and so we inflict on
them what we dare not inflict on ourselves.

I realized _as a child_ that my parents were sending me to a fucked up place.
They did it because they were out to lunch and not paying attention. I've
never understood why most people, who sincerely love their children, send them
to these places.

Education _per se_ is the secondary reason for their existence. The primary
reason is conformity, which they are much more successful at achieving (than
education.)

The single, simple metric to tell whether or not your school system is
actually educational is the ratio of teachers to children. The range of 1/6 is
probably the upper limit. You might get away with 1/10 if the teacher is truly
magical. The modern ranges pr 1/20 - 1/40 are absurd. Fucked up Lord of the
Flies shit goes down when you get that many kids together w/o adequate
supervision. You were all children once, you know what I mean.

Modern "school" systems are hell-worlds. If you love your children, don't send
them to hell-worlds.

~~~
jdkdnfndnfjd
What year did you graduate high school? I graduated 2010 and I cannot agree
with you more. Public schools are a demented crossbreed of daycare, zoo with
some prison culture mixed in.

Recently I’ve had a change in opinion though. I started volunteering at a
daycare because I am so passionate about the shortcomings of public schools.
And working with the kids has made me realize that most of them have no
problem with public schools. Most of them aren’t smart enough to benefit from
better education. True intellectual curiosity is very rare. And most of them
enjoy the petty games of social hierarchy that dominate in public schools.

The one aspect of my opinion that hasn’t changed is that there should be more
discipline. Bring back the paddle and rules. Boys need it psychologically,
order and structure and consequences.

------
okhumans
Disappointed to see the young being indoctrinated so early to accept the
surveillance state.

~~~
shadowgovt
Unpopular prediction: The US of the future is going to look a lot like what we
would currently consider a "surveillance state" than it does now, and on the
whole that's going to be okay.

I think "Transparent Society" has the right idea; these technologies are
ubiquitous and cheap, and the question of the near future isn't going to be
whether they're deployed but who controls the feed. If we pretend the answer
can be made to be "nobody," we're dodging the conversation that needs to be
had.

~~~
stallmanite
What if you’re outside what’s currently considered normal? I’m sure gay people
would have loved a surveillance society in the 50s. What the fuck man?

~~~
shadowgovt
That's a very good question. What should we do in a future where one's sexual
orientation could be outed by a government camera picking up a homosexual kiss
behind a corner... Or by a private store security camera and a store owner
who's an anti-homosexuality fundamentalist?

"Ban cameras" isn't going to cut it, because if you make it an issue of
either-or, society's definitely going to choose stores being able to protect
themselves over the relatively low risk of occasional homosexual outing. So we
need a better approach than "ban cameras" (maybe the store owner is fined for
sharing private information unredacted that's unrelated to a store security
issue? Or we find out that that sort of thing happens all the time, so maybe
homosexuality isn't a horrible society-destroying perversion that ignorant
people were assuming it is?).

------
Symbiote
> Water bottles must also be clear, so school officials can see the color of
> the liquid inside.

Given the huge range of drinks available in the USA, especially soft drinks,
I'm curious to know what colour _isn 't_ acceptable.

~~~
datenwolf
Also a lot of harmful and/or combustible liquids are clear like water.
Methanol, ethanol, propanol, acetone, benzene, cyclohexane are all highly
combustible and colorless. Also concentrated nitric acid or concentrated
sodium hydroxide lye are both colorless and cause severe chemical burns.

~~~
lolc
Don't write this on a school-owned laptop though! You shouldn't know about
this. Why are you interested in this? What if it gives another kid ideas?

(That was sarcasm.)

------
motohagiography
Sort of consistent with the idea that U.S. public high schools prepare
students for prison.

Why respect authorities or society at all when it's arbitrary like that. It
teaches learned helplessness and corruption and creates crappy people. Public
schools don't have money, and when they get it, they spend it on this? Private
schools and homeschooling programs seem to have a bright future.

------
vearwhershuh
Social trust has been falling for decades[1], and will continue to fall.

All of these epiphenomena will get worse until we take social trust seriously.

[1] - [https://www.bi.team/blogs/social-trust-is-one-of-the-most-
im...](https://www.bi.team/blogs/social-trust-is-one-of-the-most-important-
measures-that-most-people-have-never-heard-of-and-i)

------
uncletaco
Not saying it's ok but there is a fair amount of schadenfreude to be had
knowing that stuff they made me do in the 90s going to predominantly black
schools causes so much outrage when applied to everyone else.

That being said schools shouldn't feel like prison. Students shouldn't feel
like their privacy and agency is forfeit. They should not feel subhuman.

------
DoubleGlazing
The UK's "Prevent" scheme is a good example of why school surveillance is a
bad thing. It was setup to try and prevent religious radicalization,
specifically Islamic. All it did was make Muslim student feel constantly spied
upon and afraid to express opinions, lest they and their families find
themselves under investigation... But then it spread beyond religion to
includes political issues, for example stopping a 14 year old boy from helping
out at anti-fracking protests. Truly Orwellian stuff.

As an aside my brother-in-law has been battling his childrens school for
several years because he refuses to allow their school issued laptops to
connect to his home network. The laptops use a proprietary WiFi setup dialog
that states the network password will be saved to the cloud with no option to
opt out. The school doesn't understand why he would be concerned with that.

------
Valord
Surprised nobody has mentioned Little Brother by Cory Doctorow

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Brother_(Doctorow_novel...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Brother_\(Doctorow_novel\))

~~~
roryokane
Yes, it sounds very relevant. The first sentence of the first chapter: “I'm a
senior at Cesar Chavez high in San Francisco's sunny Mission district, and
that makes me one of the most surveilled people in the world.”

Download the book for free:
[https://craphound.com/littlebrother/download/](https://craphound.com/littlebrother/download/)

------
spodek
As important as privacy is, the longer-term issue is values slowly devolving
as each generation sees something as normal. Just as, if we don't resist the
pressures, these children will grow up to consider this article's situation as
normal and accept yet more encroachment, we adults accept what would repulse
previous generations.

The environment, for example, though I could pick obesity, teaching to the
test, or any number of other examples. The "Crying Indian" public service
announcements from the 70s [https://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/remember-single-
tear-anti-...](https://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/remember-single-tear-anti-
litter-ads-from-70s-youll-cry-too-at-our-pollution-levels-today.html) reveal
that the amount of plastic and waste that we once considered a crying shame,
we produce _monthly_ today, and is increasing.

We consider pollution normal that our ancestors cried at. Remember the first
time you saw a picture of a beach covered in plastic junk? Now there are
millions of such images. How many of us have plastic bottles next to our
computers despite a tap giving healthier water a few steps away? How many of
us ordered junk we knew we'd throw away manufactured twelve time zones away,
knowing the pollution it would cause, but everyone else does it and that's
just the way things are now?

We used to consider splitting atoms a crazy alternative to lower population
growth. Now, especially in this community, people want more of it. Do you
consider nuclear energy a solution instead of a symptom of deeper problems?
Think of it from the perspective of the past, when there was more natural
abundance per person. At the same time, think of how future generations may
value greater encroachments into their freedom and privacy that we would
consider unacceptable today.

The top post on this thread starts, "THIS IS NOT OKAY." How much that we
consider okay today would past generations have judged "NOT OKAY"? If we would
want future generations to claw back to now if these trends continued, should
we claw back to a less-polluted world? To a more fit world? To an educational
system that helps mature children into responsible, capable adults, not
excellent sheep?

------
yters
Should bring back rifle class. When I was in Kandahar airfield it was full of
teenagers carrying around fully automatic assault rifles. There was never any
gun crime. I wonder what was different?

------
mensetmanusman
Interesting that this is the trade off:

Gun rights at the expense of privacy rights

------
dsalzman
If you really want to dig deep into the pervasive surveillance of young
children research companies like
[https://www.bark.us/schools](https://www.bark.us/schools) . They fear monger
parents with suicide prevention and child porn to fully monitor all digital
activity of students. This is a cultural regression for our children.

------
JohnBooty
Should schools be monitoring students' communications?

No, but these are important lessons for kids to learn.

1\. Don't trust somebody else's device, such as a school- or work-issued
device.

2\. Learn to use social media responsibly. Your public social media output
is.... _public._ Don't put things on social media if you don't want them
potentially used against you.

------
gcbw3
This has been happening since the 80s. We all seen metal detectors and such in
low income schools. But we all just laughed it from movies while we continued
to work on our cozy advertising and data collection jobs. Maybe even buying
the Coolio soundtrack.

Now that it reached your own kids, only now, it is outrageous.

------
stjohnswarts
Parents seem clueless that they are raising a generation of sheep when it come
to government (and corps) invading their privacy. It really is a shame that
parents teach them to be suspicious of anyone with power to force them to do
anything.

------
johnjungles
[https://ourworldindata.org/does-the-news-reflect-what-we-
die...](https://ourworldindata.org/does-the-news-reflect-what-we-die..). Does
the news reflect what we die from? No

Death from terrorism is 4000X over represented in the news

~~~
roryokane
fixed link: [https://ourworldindata.org/does-the-news-reflect-what-we-
die...](https://ourworldindata.org/does-the-news-reflect-what-we-die-from)

------
nsm
Cory Doctorow had a book about this over a decade ago (2008).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Brother_(Doctorow_novel...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Brother_\(Doctorow_novel\))

Prescient.

------
ruxx
How this kids, when they arrive to adulthood, will be able to stand for their
rights? They are tough to, with the collaboration of their parents to give
them away, and to see it as a necessary evil.

------
hereme888
I wouldn't be surprised if they're creating psych profiles of these students,
and at some point the data will be sold (or "shared"), as always.

------
zaidf
My middle school (late 90s) in Savannah, GA required clear backpacks though I
think the main concern was students concealing drugs.

------
xyst
An industry created on the basis of fear. We all know how that panned out
after 9/11.

When will this country start addressing the root cause?

------
zer0faith
Sounds more like a prison than a school.

------
telcal
It all starts with Elf on the Shelf to get kids used to being surveilled on a
constant basis ;)

------
deevolution
Well yes, why wouldnt you expect clear backpacks? There are so many shootings.
Before we know it every public school student is going to have to go thru TSA
security checkpoints before attending class because Americans are free and
allowed to own guns.

------
apexalpha
Hey these clear backpacks actually look pretty cool.

------
adamnemecek
I dont get how the school can justify this.

~~~
nieksand
People's views of the world have been drastically skewed by the news industry.

Consider how much news coverage was given to the Las Vegas mass shooting. That
resulted in 58 dead and 413 wounded.

Compare that to how much national coverage is spent on car accidents. About
40,000 Americans per year are killed by cars. That's about two Las Vegas
massacres worth of dead each and every day of the year.

The news industry thrives on sensation. Politicians don't even wait for the
blood to dry before leveraging drama for their cause. The schools are now just
mirroring the public's ill-formed opinion. This is all great if you are
preparing your kids to be cogs in a surveillance state. It is less great if
you care about freedom.

~~~
shadowgovt
Hypothesis on the specific topic of cars vs. guns:

The US has already done about all it can to regulate cars to maximize safety.
There is, perhaps, more to be done, but since the Constitution doesn't include
a right to keep and bear cars, regulation and law in the space of publicly-
operated vehicles is already large and mature.

The same is not true for firearms, which is why it's such a contentious topic
in the US.

~~~
lotsofpulp
People are very aware of the trade off of cars (and limiting car speeds) and
willing to accept those trade offs with the morbidity and mortality risks.
Giving up large houses and yards and nice quiet neighborhoods isn’t worth the
increase in feeling of safety to many.

Also, people feel more in control when they drive, and who doesn’t like to
think they’re a better driver than others?

------
ryanmarsh
No government is going to give you the education required to overthrow them.

------
microcolonel
Well, if you keep fearmongering about this stuff, what do you think is going
to happen?

------
hellisothers
It’s all part of the Fae agenda:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-
entertainment/w...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-
entertainment/wp/2014/12/16/the-elf-on-the-shelf-is-preparing-your-child-to-
live-in-a-future-police-state-professor-says/)

------
xwdv
The point of clear backpacks isn’t to make sure they aren’t carrying guns,
it’s to make sure they aren’t carrying drugs or other illicit material, which
is a bigger problem and harder to control.

~~~
tux1968
This can't be right. It's too easy to put drugs inside a book or pencil case.
For that matter it's mostly the same problem for a weapon too.

~~~
hanniabu
Well now that everything is done on laptops I'm sure they'll also ban you from
bringing in anything besides your laptop. No pens, cases, books, etc.

------
cj
I get that some people don't like this.

But the reality is that schools are a lot more dangerous than they were just
10 years ago.

If our response to that shouldn't be cameras and backpack checks, then what's
an appropriate response? (Perhaps the bigger picture political answer is "gun
control", but that's not something schools can sit around a wait for to
happen)

~~~
kaibee
> But the reality is that schools are a lot more dangerous than they were just
> 10 years ago.

Do you have a source for this?

~~~
elicash
Not trying to take a side (though I'm against clear backpacks and monitoring),
but here's a chart I found quickly:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/V8zMSpOAM50-sxWp--
S6J...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/V8zMSpOAM50-sxWp--
S6JK3vCLM=/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-
washpost/public/GLAPCZFAZQ6OLNIPGEMSPIF3WI.png)

Shootings are still rare, just less so.

~~~
kaibee
I suppose if you're comparing 2018 to 2008, then sure. But that seems cherry-
picked, since it looks like shootings were more common before then. Then you
also have to consider that the population has been growing, so per-capita
shootings might be down? And then there's the question of whether body-count
is going up. I think combining all of these factors makes the data-set very
noisy. I'm sure that OP has the best intentions and likely believes that
schools are more dangerous than 10 years ago, but I don't think the data bares
that out.

~~~
elicash
I think what OP said is pretty clearly correct. If you find a data point
contradicting it, please share, but eyeballing what I think it'd be even per
capita, I think OP is still right. If you chose a different data point than 10
years, maybe it'd show something else, but OP said 10 years so it seems fair
to judge on the basis of what was said.

But certainly school safety is a bigger issue than just shootings.

My own emphasis, personally, would be on mental health issues being on the
rise for young people.

