Student Suspended for Refusing to Wear a RFID Tracker (Judge suspends ruling)

[menotu]

By David Kravets - 11.21.12 - wired

A local Texas judge on Wednesday tentatively blocked the suspension   , pending further hearings next week.

A Texas high school student is being suspended for refusing to wear a student ID card implanted with a radio-frequency identification chip.

Northside Independent School District in San Antonio began issuing the RFID-chip-laden student-body cards when the semester began in the fall. The ID badge has a bar code associated with a student’s Social Security number, and the RFID chip monitors pupils’ movements on campus, from when they arrive until when they leave.

Radio-frequency identification devices are a daily part of the electronic age — found in passports, and library and payment cards. Eventually they’re expected to replace bar-code labels on consumer goods. Now schools across the nation are slowly adopting them as well.

The suspended student, sophomore Andrea Hernandez, was notified by the Northside Independent School District in San Antonio that she won’t be able to continue attending John Jay High School unless she wears the badge around her neck, which she has been refusing to do. The district said the girl, who objects on privacy and religious grounds, beginning Monday would have to attend another high school in the district that does not yet employ the RFID tags.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/11/student-suspension/

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_court_grants_rutherford_institute_request_to_stop_texas_school_from

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/10/student-rfid-chipping-conditions.html

[jaydot]

in an article i read, the pupil offered the most specious grounds for refusing to wear what is essentially an electronic tag.  i see they've added privacy to the argument, which makes better sense.  someone commenting on that article pointed out that most people of school age these days have a smartphone with a geo-locator, however, that's not compulsory nor monitored by the school.

[ppiklapp]

The real point here is, what is to keep them from deciding to monitor her 24/7?  Or insisting on a mini mike in the badge?  Or even a micro-camera so they can see what she is up to?  We have to draw lines somewhere and more people are saying that Big Brother (aka school, job, government, etc) is overstepping their bounds.  Here in Oklahoma, they are now testing the newer unmanned drones.  That has sparked the discussion of under what circumstances can they be used against citizens?  Could it come to where I can not expect to have privacy in my house, my yard, or even in the woods my parents own?  Where do my rights rest and where can somebody else intrude in?