Sometimes we don’t use every possible tool for every problem, particularly when the mass externalities may be worse than the individual outcome.
An extreme example is nuclear weapons. You can win any single battle with nuclear weapons. But the world will end. Probably better to slog through trenches, and do the job “poorly”.
Labeling kids based of family situation will indelibly make their situations define them. Many kids living in dysfunction go to school as a refuge from their life. School administrators aren’t social workers, and aren’t in a position to provide psychological and social assistance to kids who need it. A lack of funding for those services doesn’t mean you offload the work to functionaries at the local school. Teachers aren’t trained in these areas either - their forte is education and no matter how much you liked your home room teacher, they weren’t trained in social intervention. But there’s another aspect, around that idea of escape - once you’ve labeled everyone according to their situation, when you walk in the room, you have to assume everyone knows. You can’t let your life at home disappear any more. And not everyone who has access to the information will use it in a caring unbiased way. Many people will see a kid who has various labels of dysfunction associated with them as broken, needing special education, judge outbursts or misbehavior more harshly than an unlabeled kid.
Finally, the entire point outlined in the article was to use information about their situation to flag unknown problems. Just because someone is on social welfare or a family member has a mental health issue, or even a parent is in prison, doesn’t mean they’re being sexually abused or whatever. However by labeling them administrators are explicitly intended to use the label to assume a likelihood of previously unreported abuse.
Many parents are accused falsely of abuse or neglect for normal childhood injuries. They go through the trials of the damned to get their kids back and fend off criminal charges, and criminal charges are indelible on your record and show up in background checks even if you’re found innocent.
So - yes, mass surveillance would likely catch more criminals. But it will also criminalize everyone, and punish many that are innocent. It’s better to disarm and slog through the trenches - and maybe actually fund social workers rather than surveillance startups - than descend into this morass.
An extreme example is nuclear weapons. You can win any single battle with nuclear weapons. But the world will end. Probably better to slog through trenches, and do the job “poorly”.
Labeling kids based of family situation will indelibly make their situations define them. Many kids living in dysfunction go to school as a refuge from their life. School administrators aren’t social workers, and aren’t in a position to provide psychological and social assistance to kids who need it. A lack of funding for those services doesn’t mean you offload the work to functionaries at the local school. Teachers aren’t trained in these areas either - their forte is education and no matter how much you liked your home room teacher, they weren’t trained in social intervention. But there’s another aspect, around that idea of escape - once you’ve labeled everyone according to their situation, when you walk in the room, you have to assume everyone knows. You can’t let your life at home disappear any more. And not everyone who has access to the information will use it in a caring unbiased way. Many people will see a kid who has various labels of dysfunction associated with them as broken, needing special education, judge outbursts or misbehavior more harshly than an unlabeled kid.
Finally, the entire point outlined in the article was to use information about their situation to flag unknown problems. Just because someone is on social welfare or a family member has a mental health issue, or even a parent is in prison, doesn’t mean they’re being sexually abused or whatever. However by labeling them administrators are explicitly intended to use the label to assume a likelihood of previously unreported abuse.
Many parents are accused falsely of abuse or neglect for normal childhood injuries. They go through the trials of the damned to get their kids back and fend off criminal charges, and criminal charges are indelible on your record and show up in background checks even if you’re found innocent.
So - yes, mass surveillance would likely catch more criminals. But it will also criminalize everyone, and punish many that are innocent. It’s better to disarm and slog through the trenches - and maybe actually fund social workers rather than surveillance startups - than descend into this morass.