WTF??? How about paying teachers a decent salary. This is wrong on so many levels.
Teachers make good money. Why the hell should my school taxes buy equipment like this?
Hexclock, that is absolute and total bull$#it! I have been teaching for 28 years with 2 degrees AND a state teacher of the year award from Florida (3rd most populous state in the union) and my take home pay after all this time is only $47k. Moreover, the state where I teach now has no unions or workplace protections and has had a ban on collective bargaining for ALL state employees for almost 60 years. That is a major reason why I only bring home $47k after almost 3 decades in the classroom and could be fired at any time based upon my district's whim. I've had enough of that right-wing, anti-public education claptrap to last a (financially meagre) lifetime.
I fully understand your situation. Whenever I hear some idiot going on about how teacher salaries and pensions are outrageous I remind them that public school teachers do NOT pay into the Social Security system and therefore have no SSA benefits waiting for them at retirement. If a person did manage to be employed before they were hired as a teacher any SSA benefits are reduced by half. This was the case for my wife who taught in public schools in Illinois for 22 years. And if I croak before she does she CANNOT collect my Social Security benefits. Now let’s talk about 403B teacher savings accounts, the teacher IRA. No matching contributions from the school district, you’re on your own. My wife has three college degrees, two Bachelor’s degrees and a Master’s degree. Her salary after 22 years maxed out at around $74K, half of what our children make in the private sector as engineers and business managers. Oh, and since teachers don’t pay into Social Security that means in retirement they have to pay their Medicare Part B premiums out of pocket, which in 2021 will be $148/mo.
Finally, the teacher's pension fund in Illinois (TRS) is woefully underfunded and almost bankrupt after years if pillaging by various Illinois legislatures. They wanted to reduce teacher pensions but the Illinois Constitution prohibits that, thank God. And this is Illinois, a solidly Blue state. I can't imagine what waits for you in Florida.
This will be a lot fun when Apple eventually makes the iPhone completely wireless. No ports. Then I guess the states will sue Apple for making their equipment obsolete
This development was inevitable. I expect that Apple will continue to up its game in the area of security and privacy.
Also, with these tools available, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have no leg to stand on when demanding "back-door" access to users' devices.
A school district is NOT a law enforcement agency and therefore cannot confiscate and hack into a student’s or faculty member’s personal mobile device without permission. I can see a deluge of lawsuits coming for these school districts. How could a school official confiscate a faculty member’s personal device in the first place? This makes no sense whatsoever.
I suppose if it was a school-issued phone? Hacking into student phones would clearly be illegal.
A school district is NOT a law enforcement agency and therefore cannot confiscate and hack into a student’s or faculty member’s personal mobile device without permission. I can see a deluge of lawsuits coming for these school districts. How could a school official confiscate a faculty member’s personal device in the first place? This makes no sense whatsoever.
I suppose if it was a school-issued phone? Hacking into student phones would clearly be illegal.
This issue in the article probably isn't the best example of the problem. The student gave consent for their phone to be searched. Probably errantly thinking their deleted texts couldn't be retrieved. Once the text were retrieved, evidence of a crime allowed for the teachers phone to be searched after the proper warrant was issued. At that point, whether the teacher's phone was personal or school issued was moot.
Students rights vary state-by-state and district-by-district. A school's resource officer is law enforcement and the administration can search a student's possessions without consent if it's determined there is reasonable cause... yes, the administration determines reasonable cause. Teachers have more protections if the device in question is their personal property. Due process rules in that instance. If it's a school issued device, the school can access it at any time.
WTF??? How about paying teachers a decent salary. This is wrong on so many levels.
Teachers make good money. Why the hell should my school taxes buy equipment like this?
Hexclock, that is absolute and total bull$#it! I have been teaching for 28 years with 2 degrees AND a state teacher of the year award from Florida (3rd most populous state in the union) and my take home pay after all this time is only $47k. Moreover, the state where I teach now has no unions or workplace protections and has had a ban on collective bargaining for ALL state employees for almost 60 years. That is a major reason why I only bring home $47k after almost 3 decades in the classroom and could be fired at any time based upon my district's whim. I've had enough of that right-wing, anti-public education claptrap to last a (financially meagre) lifetime.
I fully understand your situation. Whenever I hear some idiot going on about how teacher salaries and pensions are outrageous I remind them that public school teachers do NOT pay into the Social Security system and therefore have no SSA benefits waiting for them at retirement. If a person did manage to be employed before they were hired as a teacher any SSA benefits are reduced by half. This was the case for my wife who taught in public schools in Illinois for 22 years. And if I croak before she does she CANNOT collect my Social Security benefits. Now let’s talk about 403B teacher savings accounts, the teacher IRA. No matching contributions from the school district, you’re on your own. My wife has three college degrees, two Bachelor’s degrees and a Master’s degree. Her salary after 22 years maxed out at around $74K, half of what our children make in the private sector as engineers and business managers. Oh, and since teachers don’t pay into Social Security that means in retirement they have to pay their Medicare Part B premiums out of pocket, which in 2021 will be $148/mo.
Finally, the teacher's pension fund in Illinois (TRS) is woefully underfunded and almost bankrupt after years if pillaging by various Illinois legislatures. They wanted to reduce teacher pensions but the Illinois Constitution prohibits that, thank God. And this is Illinois, a solidly Blue state. I can't imagine what waits for you in Florida.
Illinois was the home of a great American tech company Motorola that in the end lost it’s way (R.I.P.)
WTF??? How about paying teachers a decent salary. This is wrong on so many levels.
Teachers make good money. Why the hell should my school taxes buy equipment like this?
Hexclock, that is absolute and total bull$#it! I have been teaching for 28 years with 2 degrees AND a state teacher of the year award from Florida (3rd most populous state in the union) and my take home pay after all this time is only $47k. Moreover, the state where I teach now has no unions or workplace protections and has had a ban on collective bargaining for ALL state employees for almost 60 years. That is a major reason why I only bring home $47k after almost 3 decades in the classroom and could be fired at any time based upon my district's whim. I've had enough of that right-wing, anti-public education claptrap to last a (financially meagre) lifetime.
I fully understand your situation. Whenever I hear some idiot going on about how teacher salaries and pensions are outrageous I remind them that public school teachers do NOT pay into the Social Security system and therefore have no SSA benefits waiting for them at retirement. If a person did manage to be employed before they were hired as a teacher any SSA benefits are reduced by half. This was the case for my wife who taught in public schools in Illinois for 22 years. And if I croak before she does she CANNOT collect my Social Security benefits. Now let’s talk about 403B teacher savings accounts, the teacher IRA. No matching contributions from the school district, you’re on your own. My wife has three college degrees, two Bachelor’s degrees and a Master’s degree. Her salary after 22 years maxed out at around $74K, half of what our children make in the private sector as engineers and business managers. Oh, and since teachers don’t pay into Social Security that means in retirement they have to pay their Medicare Part B premiums out of pocket, which in 2021 will be $148/mo.
Finally, the teacher's pension fund in Illinois (TRS) is woefully underfunded and almost bankrupt after years if pillaging by various Illinois legislatures. They wanted to reduce teacher pensions but the Illinois Constitution prohibits that, thank God. And this is Illinois, a solidly Blue state. I can't imagine what waits for you in Florida.
When I hear some idiot going on about how teacher salaries and pensions are so poor I remind them that every state and every school district is quite different.
But, when they have an ax to grind, they like to generalize to try to "prove" their case.
A school district is NOT a law enforcement agency and therefore cannot confiscate and hack into a student’s or faculty member’s personal mobile device without permission. I can see a deluge of lawsuits coming for these school districts. How could a school official confiscate a faculty member’s personal device in the first place? This makes no sense whatsoever.
I suppose if it was a school-issued phone? Hacking into student phones would clearly be illegal.
This issue in the article probably isn't the best example of the problem. The student gave consent for their phone to be searched. Probably errantly thinking their deleted texts couldn't be retrieved. Once the text were retrieved, evidence of a crime allowed for the teachers phone to be searched after the proper warrant was issued. At that point, whether the teacher's phone was personal or school issued was moot.
Students rights vary state-by-state and district-by-district. A school's resource officer is law enforcement and the administration can search a student's possessions without consent if it's determined there is reasonable cause... yes, the administration determines reasonable cause. Teachers have more protections if the device in question is their personal property. Due process rules in that instance. If it's a school issued device, the school can access it at any time.
As others have pointed out, the student likely felt enormous pressure to give the their consent: In that situation the student is in a very vulnerable position and likely didn't feel they could stand against orders from their teachers and school administrators. And, therefor the consent was likely less than voluntary.
A school district is NOT a law enforcement agency and therefore cannot confiscate and hack into a student’s or faculty member’s personal mobile device without permission. I can see a deluge of lawsuits coming for these school districts. How could a school official confiscate a faculty member’s personal device in the first place? This makes no sense whatsoever.
I suppose if it was a school-issued phone? Hacking into student phones would clearly be illegal.
This issue in the article probably isn't the best example of the problem. The student gave consent for their phone to be searched. Probably errantly thinking their deleted texts couldn't be retrieved. Once the text were retrieved, evidence of a crime allowed for the teachers phone to be searched after the proper warrant was issued. At that point, whether the teacher's phone was personal or school issued was moot.
Students rights vary state-by-state and district-by-district. A school's resource officer is law enforcement and the administration can search a student's possessions without consent if it's determined there is reasonable cause... yes, the administration determines reasonable cause. Teachers have more protections if the device in question is their personal property. Due process rules in that instance. If it's a school issued device, the school can access it at any time.
As others have pointed out, the student likely felt enormous pressure to give the their consent: In that situation the student is in a very vulnerable position and likely didn't feel they could stand against orders from their teachers and school administrators. And, therefor the consent was likely less than voluntary.
Whether the student felt pressured is not germane. We're discussing the legality of two separate searches: the student's phone and the teacher's phone. In that particular district, compelling a student to allow a search of the phone is accepted. No different than compelling them to allow a search of their car if it's on school property. Of course, students often comply because they're scared, but the student's state of mind does not exempt them from compliance. As for the teacher; armed with evidence of a criminal act obtained from the student's phone, due process was used and an arrest was made. Both instances were legal in that particular situation.
Morally, I think it's pretty f'd. My kids know to not consent to any search of personal property without my approval. They know their locker is school property and subject to search at anytime. If asked, do as requested. Their personal devices... nope. My wife and I will deal with any consequences resulting from non-compliance. Fortunately, I doubt we'll ever have to deal with anything like that, but they know what to do if that one-in-a-million fluke ever happens.
A school district is NOT a law enforcement agency and therefore cannot confiscate and hack into a student’s or faculty member’s personal mobile device without permission. I can see a deluge of lawsuits coming for these school districts. How could a school official confiscate a faculty member’s personal device in the first place? This makes no sense whatsoever.
I suppose if it was a school-issued phone? Hacking into student phones would clearly be illegal.
This issue in the article probably isn't the best example of the problem. The student gave consent for their phone to be searched. Probably errantly thinking their deleted texts couldn't be retrieved. Once the text were retrieved, evidence of a crime allowed for the teachers phone to be searched after the proper warrant was issued. At that point, whether the teacher's phone was personal or school issued was moot.
Students rights vary state-by-state and district-by-district. A school's resource officer is law enforcement and the administration can search a student's possessions without consent if it's determined there is reasonable cause... yes, the administration determines reasonable cause. Teachers have more protections if the device in question is their personal property. Due process rules in that instance. If it's a school issued device, the school can access it at any time.
As others have pointed out, the student likely felt enormous pressure to give the their consent: In that situation the student is in a very vulnerable position and likely didn't feel they could stand against orders from their teachers and school administrators. And, therefor the consent was likely less than voluntary.
Whether the student felt pressured is not germane. We're discussing the legality of two separate searches: the student's phone and the teacher's phone. In that particular district, compelling a student to allow a search of the phone is accepted. No different than compelling them to allow a search of their car if it's on school property. Of course, students often comply because they're scared, but the student's state of mind does not exempt them from compliance. As for the teacher; armed with evidence of a criminal act obtained from the student's phone, due process was used and an arrest was made. Both instances were legal in that particular situation.
Morally, I think it's pretty f'd. My kids know to not consent to any search of personal property without my approval. They know their locker is school property and subject to search at anytime. If asked, do as requested. Their personal devices... nope. My wife and I will deal with any consequences resulting from non-compliance. Fortunately, I doubt we'll ever have to deal with anything like that, but they know what to do if that one-in-a-million fluke ever happens.
Not germane? That's ridiculous!
No, pressuring somebody, particularly a vulnerable person, into giving consent is not getting voluntary consent. And if searching the phone was legal they would not have needed any consent -- voluntary or otherwise.
The school violated rules of ethics and of law.
What a great example for its students to follow! /s
A school district is NOT a law enforcement agency and therefore cannot confiscate and hack into a student’s or faculty member’s personal mobile device without permission. I can see a deluge of lawsuits coming for these school districts. How could a school official confiscate a faculty member’s personal device in the first place? This makes no sense whatsoever.
I suppose if it was a school-issued phone? Hacking into student phones would clearly be illegal.
This issue in the article probably isn't the best example of the problem. The student gave consent for their phone to be searched. Probably errantly thinking their deleted texts couldn't be retrieved. Once the text were retrieved, evidence of a crime allowed for the teachers phone to be searched after the proper warrant was issued. At that point, whether the teacher's phone was personal or school issued was moot.
Students rights vary state-by-state and district-by-district. A school's resource officer is law enforcement and the administration can search a student's possessions without consent if it's determined there is reasonable cause... yes, the administration determines reasonable cause. Teachers have more protections if the device in question is their personal property. Due process rules in that instance. If it's a school issued device, the school can access it at any time.
As others have pointed out, the student likely felt enormous pressure to give the their consent: In that situation the student is in a very vulnerable position and likely didn't feel they could stand against orders from their teachers and school administrators. And, therefor the consent was likely less than voluntary.
Whether the student felt pressured is not germane. We're discussing the legality of two separate searches: the student's phone and the teacher's phone. In that particular district, compelling a student to allow a search of the phone is accepted. No different than compelling them to allow a search of their car if it's on school property. Of course, students often comply because they're scared, but the student's state of mind does not exempt them from compliance. As for the teacher; armed with evidence of a criminal act obtained from the student's phone, due process was used and an arrest was made. Both instances were legal in that particular situation.
Morally, I think it's pretty f'd. My kids know to not consent to any search of personal property without my approval. They know their locker is school property and subject to search at anytime. If asked, do as requested. Their personal devices... nope. My wife and I will deal with any consequences resulting from non-compliance. Fortunately, I doubt we'll ever have to deal with anything like that, but they know what to do if that one-in-a-million fluke ever happens.
Not germane? That's ridiculous!
No, pressuring somebody, particularly a vulnerable person, into giving consent is not getting voluntary consent. And if searching the phone was legal they would not have needed any consent -- voluntary or otherwise.
The school violated rules of ethics and of law.
What a great example for its students to follow! /s
The school violated no law, but feel free to point out which one you think they did. You won't be a able to find a violation but, feel free to look.
So no, not germane. It would only be relevant in the narrative you built inside your head. More importantly, you making up a scenario to support your argument - you absolutely created the "pressuring the kid scenario" with no proof whatsoever - doesn't make it valid. Instead of relying on supposition, why not read info about the actual story? It will disavow you of your notions of what happened. I'll repeat the words from my first post that you quoted: This story of the student isn't the best example of Cellebrite tools being purchased by schools. In fact, it's not even an example at all. The Cellebrite tools used in the student's case was owned an operated by the Sheriff's Office, not the school. https://gizmodo.com/u-s-schools-are-buying-phone-hacking-tech-that-the-fbi-1845862393 ; But don't let facts get in the way of a good story amirite? There are even more detailed articles about the story if you're so inclined.
A school district is NOT a law enforcement agency and therefore cannot confiscate and hack into a student’s or faculty member’s personal mobile device without permission. I can see a deluge of lawsuits coming for these school districts. How could a school official confiscate a faculty member’s personal device in the first place? This makes no sense whatsoever.
I suppose if it was a school-issued phone? Hacking into student phones would clearly be illegal.
This issue in the article probably isn't the best example of the problem. The student gave consent for their phone to be searched. Probably errantly thinking their deleted texts couldn't be retrieved. Once the text were retrieved, evidence of a crime allowed for the teachers phone to be searched after the proper warrant was issued. At that point, whether the teacher's phone was personal or school issued was moot.
Students rights vary state-by-state and district-by-district. A school's resource officer is law enforcement and the administration can search a student's possessions without consent if it's determined there is reasonable cause... yes, the administration determines reasonable cause. Teachers have more protections if the device in question is their personal property. Due process rules in that instance. If it's a school issued device, the school can access it at any time.
As others have pointed out, the student likely felt enormous pressure to give the their consent: In that situation the student is in a very vulnerable position and likely didn't feel they could stand against orders from their teachers and school administrators. And, therefor the consent was likely less than voluntary.
Whether the student felt pressured is not germane. We're discussing the legality of two separate searches: the student's phone and the teacher's phone. In that particular district, compelling a student to allow a search of the phone is accepted. No different than compelling them to allow a search of their car if it's on school property. Of course, students often comply because they're scared, but the student's state of mind does not exempt them from compliance. As for the teacher; armed with evidence of a criminal act obtained from the student's phone, due process was used and an arrest was made. Both instances were legal in that particular situation.
Morally, I think it's pretty f'd. My kids know to not consent to any search of personal property without my approval. They know their locker is school property and subject to search at anytime. If asked, do as requested. Their personal devices... nope. My wife and I will deal with any consequences resulting from non-compliance. Fortunately, I doubt we'll ever have to deal with anything like that, but they know what to do if that one-in-a-million fluke ever happens.
Not germane? That's ridiculous!
No, pressuring somebody, particularly a vulnerable person, into giving consent is not getting voluntary consent. And if searching the phone was legal they would not have needed any consent -- voluntary or otherwise.
The school violated rules of ethics and of law.
What a great example for its students to follow! /s
The school violated no law, but feel free to point out which one you think they did. You won't be a able to find a violation but, feel free to look.
So no, not germane. It would only be relevant in the narrative you built inside your head. More importantly, you making up a scenario to support your argument - you absolutely created the "pressuring the kid scenario" with no proof whatsoever - doesn't make it valid. Instead of relying on supposition, why not read info about the actual story? It will disavow you of your notions of what happened. I'll repeat the words from my first post that you quoted: This story of the student isn't the best example of Cellebrite tools being purchased by schools. In fact, it's not even an example at all. The Cellebrite tools used in the student's case was owned an operated by the Sheriff's Office, not the school. https://gizmodo.com/u-s-schools-are-buying-phone-hacking-tech-that-the-fbi-1845862393 ; But don't let facts get in the way of a good story amirite? There are even more detailed articles about the story if you're so inclined.
OK -- so somebody grabbing your phone and coercing you into giving them your passwords is perfectly legal in your world. Got it!
A school district is NOT a law enforcement agency and therefore cannot confiscate and hack into a student’s or faculty member’s personal mobile device without permission. I can see a deluge of lawsuits coming for these school districts. How could a school official confiscate a faculty member’s personal device in the first place? This makes no sense whatsoever.
I suppose if it was a school-issued phone? Hacking into student phones would clearly be illegal.
This issue in the article probably isn't the best example of the problem. The student gave consent for their phone to be searched. Probably errantly thinking their deleted texts couldn't be retrieved. Once the text were retrieved, evidence of a crime allowed for the teachers phone to be searched after the proper warrant was issued. At that point, whether the teacher's phone was personal or school issued was moot.
Students rights vary state-by-state and district-by-district. A school's resource officer is law enforcement and the administration can search a student's possessions without consent if it's determined there is reasonable cause... yes, the administration determines reasonable cause. Teachers have more protections if the device in question is their personal property. Due process rules in that instance. If it's a school issued device, the school can access it at any time.
As others have pointed out, the student likely felt enormous pressure to give the their consent: In that situation the student is in a very vulnerable position and likely didn't feel they could stand against orders from their teachers and school administrators. And, therefor the consent was likely less than voluntary.
Whether the student felt pressured is not germane. We're discussing the legality of two separate searches: the student's phone and the teacher's phone. In that particular district, compelling a student to allow a search of the phone is accepted. No different than compelling them to allow a search of their car if it's on school property. Of course, students often comply because they're scared, but the student's state of mind does not exempt them from compliance. As for the teacher; armed with evidence of a criminal act obtained from the student's phone, due process was used and an arrest was made. Both instances were legal in that particular situation.
Morally, I think it's pretty f'd. My kids know to not consent to any search of personal property without my approval. They know their locker is school property and subject to search at anytime. If asked, do as requested. Their personal devices... nope. My wife and I will deal with any consequences resulting from non-compliance. Fortunately, I doubt we'll ever have to deal with anything like that, but they know what to do if that one-in-a-million fluke ever happens.
Not germane? That's ridiculous!
No, pressuring somebody, particularly a vulnerable person, into giving consent is not getting voluntary consent. And if searching the phone was legal they would not have needed any consent -- voluntary or otherwise.
The school violated rules of ethics and of law.
What a great example for its students to follow! /s
The school violated no law, but feel free to point out which one you think they did. You won't be a able to find a violation but, feel free to look.
So no, not germane. It would only be relevant in the narrative you built inside your head. More importantly, you making up a scenario to support your argument - you absolutely created the "pressuring the kid scenario" with no proof whatsoever - doesn't make it valid. Instead of relying on supposition, why not read info about the actual story? It will disavow you of your notions of what happened. I'll repeat the words from my first post that you quoted: This story of the student isn't the best example of Cellebrite tools being purchased by schools. In fact, it's not even an example at all. The Cellebrite tools used in the student's case was owned an operated by the Sheriff's Office, not the school. https://gizmodo.com/u-s-schools-are-buying-phone-hacking-tech-that-the-fbi-1845862393 ; But don't let facts get in the way of a good story amirite? There are even more detailed articles about the story if you're so inclined.
OK -- so somebody grabbing your phone and coercing you into giving them your passwords is perfectly legal in your world. Got it!
Where do you live? North Korea?
Nice try. You've yet to back your claim of illegality. Are you going to try the Trump method of simply repeating the lie hoping someone will eventually believe it? It's pretty simple. Facts don't support your assertion. I live in America, where the facts in the case are mere keystrokes away bud. I even provided you with a link to more detailed info. I can only point you to the truth. I can't make you accept it. So keep claiming something illegal happened without providing any evidence. Someone might buy it. A whole bunch of people bought Trump's lies.
A school district is NOT a law enforcement agency and therefore cannot confiscate and hack into a student’s or faculty member’s personal mobile device without permission. I can see a deluge of lawsuits coming for these school districts. How could a school official confiscate a faculty member’s personal device in the first place? This makes no sense whatsoever.
I suppose if it was a school-issued phone? Hacking into student phones would clearly be illegal.
This issue in the article probably isn't the best example of the problem. The student gave consent for their phone to be searched. Probably errantly thinking their deleted texts couldn't be retrieved. Once the text were retrieved, evidence of a crime allowed for the teachers phone to be searched after the proper warrant was issued. At that point, whether the teacher's phone was personal or school issued was moot.
Students rights vary state-by-state and district-by-district. A school's resource officer is law enforcement and the administration can search a student's possessions without consent if it's determined there is reasonable cause... yes, the administration determines reasonable cause. Teachers have more protections if the device in question is their personal property. Due process rules in that instance. If it's a school issued device, the school can access it at any time.
As others have pointed out, the student likely felt enormous pressure to give the their consent: In that situation the student is in a very vulnerable position and likely didn't feel they could stand against orders from their teachers and school administrators. And, therefor the consent was likely less than voluntary.
Whether the student felt pressured is not germane. We're discussing the legality of two separate searches: the student's phone and the teacher's phone. In that particular district, compelling a student to allow a search of the phone is accepted. No different than compelling them to allow a search of their car if it's on school property. Of course, students often comply because they're scared, but the student's state of mind does not exempt them from compliance. As for the teacher; armed with evidence of a criminal act obtained from the student's phone, due process was used and an arrest was made. Both instances were legal in that particular situation.
Morally, I think it's pretty f'd. My kids know to not consent to any search of personal property without my approval. They know their locker is school property and subject to search at anytime. If asked, do as requested. Their personal devices... nope. My wife and I will deal with any consequences resulting from non-compliance. Fortunately, I doubt we'll ever have to deal with anything like that, but they know what to do if that one-in-a-million fluke ever happens.
Not germane? That's ridiculous!
No, pressuring somebody, particularly a vulnerable person, into giving consent is not getting voluntary consent. And if searching the phone was legal they would not have needed any consent -- voluntary or otherwise.
The school violated rules of ethics and of law.
What a great example for its students to follow! /s
The school violated no law, but feel free to point out which one you think they did. You won't be a able to find a violation but, feel free to look.
So no, not germane. It would only be relevant in the narrative you built inside your head. More importantly, you making up a scenario to support your argument - you absolutely created the "pressuring the kid scenario" with no proof whatsoever - doesn't make it valid. Instead of relying on supposition, why not read info about the actual story? It will disavow you of your notions of what happened. I'll repeat the words from my first post that you quoted: This story of the student isn't the best example of Cellebrite tools being purchased by schools. In fact, it's not even an example at all. The Cellebrite tools used in the student's case was owned an operated by the Sheriff's Office, not the school. https://gizmodo.com/u-s-schools-are-buying-phone-hacking-tech-that-the-fbi-1845862393 ; But don't let facts get in the way of a good story amirite? There are even more detailed articles about the story if you're so inclined.
OK -- so somebody grabbing your phone and coercing you into giving them your passwords is perfectly legal in your world. Got it!
Where do you live? North Korea?
Nice try. You've yet to back your claim of illegality. Are you going to try the Trump method of simply repeating the lie hoping someone will eventually believe it? It's pretty simple. Facts don't support your assertion. I live in America, where the facts in the case are mere keystrokes away bud. I even provided you with a link to more detailed info. I can only point you to the truth. I can't make you accept it. So keep claiming something illegal happened without providing any evidence. Someone might buy it. A whole bunch of people bought Trump's lies.
OK -- so somebody grabbing your phone and coercing you into giving
them your passwords is perfectly legal in your world. Got it!
If you don't live in North Korea you should. You would fit in well there.
A school district is NOT a law enforcement agency and therefore cannot confiscate and hack into a student’s or faculty member’s personal mobile device without permission. I can see a deluge of lawsuits coming for these school districts. How could a school official confiscate a faculty member’s personal device in the first place? This makes no sense whatsoever.
I suppose if it was a school-issued phone? Hacking into student phones would clearly be illegal.
This issue in the article probably isn't the best example of the problem. The student gave consent for their phone to be searched. Probably errantly thinking their deleted texts couldn't be retrieved. Once the text were retrieved, evidence of a crime allowed for the teachers phone to be searched after the proper warrant was issued. At that point, whether the teacher's phone was personal or school issued was moot.
Students rights vary state-by-state and district-by-district. A school's resource officer is law enforcement and the administration can search a student's possessions without consent if it's determined there is reasonable cause... yes, the administration determines reasonable cause. Teachers have more protections if the device in question is their personal property. Due process rules in that instance. If it's a school issued device, the school can access it at any time.
As others have pointed out, the student likely felt enormous pressure to give the their consent: In that situation the student is in a very vulnerable position and likely didn't feel they could stand against orders from their teachers and school administrators. And, therefor the consent was likely less than voluntary.
Whether the student felt pressured is not germane. We're discussing the legality of two separate searches: the student's phone and the teacher's phone. In that particular district, compelling a student to allow a search of the phone is accepted. No different than compelling them to allow a search of their car if it's on school property. Of course, students often comply because they're scared, but the student's state of mind does not exempt them from compliance. As for the teacher; armed with evidence of a criminal act obtained from the student's phone, due process was used and an arrest was made. Both instances were legal in that particular situation.
Morally, I think it's pretty f'd. My kids know to not consent to any search of personal property without my approval. They know their locker is school property and subject to search at anytime. If asked, do as requested. Their personal devices... nope. My wife and I will deal with any consequences resulting from non-compliance. Fortunately, I doubt we'll ever have to deal with anything like that, but they know what to do if that one-in-a-million fluke ever happens.
Not germane? That's ridiculous!
No, pressuring somebody, particularly a vulnerable person, into giving consent is not getting voluntary consent. And if searching the phone was legal they would not have needed any consent -- voluntary or otherwise.
The school violated rules of ethics and of law.
What a great example for its students to follow! /s
The school violated no law, but feel free to point out which one you think they did. You won't be a able to find a violation but, feel free to look.
So no, not germane. It would only be relevant in the narrative you built inside your head. More importantly, you making up a scenario to support your argument - you absolutely created the "pressuring the kid scenario" with no proof whatsoever - doesn't make it valid. Instead of relying on supposition, why not read info about the actual story? It will disavow you of your notions of what happened. I'll repeat the words from my first post that you quoted: This story of the student isn't the best example of Cellebrite tools being purchased by schools. In fact, it's not even an example at all. The Cellebrite tools used in the student's case was owned an operated by the Sheriff's Office, not the school. https://gizmodo.com/u-s-schools-are-buying-phone-hacking-tech-that-the-fbi-1845862393 ; But don't let facts get in the way of a good story amirite? There are even more detailed articles about the story if you're so inclined.
OK -- so somebody grabbing your phone and coercing you into giving them your passwords is perfectly legal in your world. Got it!
Where do you live? North Korea?
Nice try. You've yet to back your claim of illegality. Are you going to try the Trump method of simply repeating the lie hoping someone will eventually believe it? It's pretty simple. Facts don't support your assertion. I live in America, where the facts in the case are mere keystrokes away bud. I even provided you with a link to more detailed info. I can only point you to the truth. I can't make you accept it. So keep claiming something illegal happened without providing any evidence. Someone might buy it. A whole bunch of people bought Trump's lies.
OK -- so somebody grabbing your phone and coercing you into giving
them your passwords is perfectly legal in your world. Got it!
If you don't live in North Korea you should. You would fit in well there.
That only happened in your head. It's something you made up.
When the principal has access to your iPhone, privacy becomes a bigger problem.
Is Apple not allowed to sue Cellebrite and shut them down? How is this different from intentionally intruding a business'/institution's privacy? How is it different from selling tools that allow you to open specific banks vault or an interceptor that can change prices at Wal-Mart registers?
What Apple needs to do is reverse engineer these devices and close the holes they're using.
Cops/schools/whoever should NOT be able to access an iPhone without the owner's permission under ANY circumstances.
So, the cops shouldn’t be able to break into even criminals phones? Only a criminal would think that’s a good idea
Hell no - the cops shouldn't be able to break into even criminals phones. Due process. Privacy is a fundamental right, even for criminals.
Great quote from the movie ANON (Netflix), "It is not that I have something to hide... I've got nothing I want You to see"
Every time there is an iOS software update, it takes a while for the GreyKey types to come up with a way to crack it.
They won’t have access to the evolutionary back door (erm... vulnerabilities) that the FBI was aiming for (and likely received) when they first put Cellebrite in the news.
Comments
Finally, the teacher's pension fund in Illinois (TRS) is woefully underfunded and almost bankrupt after years if pillaging by various Illinois legislatures. They wanted to reduce teacher pensions but the Illinois Constitution prohibits that, thank God. And this is Illinois, a solidly Blue state. I can't imagine what waits for you in Florida.
Students rights vary state-by-state and district-by-district. A school's resource officer is law enforcement and the administration can search a student's possessions without consent if it's determined there is reasonable cause... yes, the administration determines reasonable cause. Teachers have more protections if the device in question is their personal property. Due process rules in that instance. If it's a school issued device, the school can access it at any time.
As others have pointed out, the student likely felt enormous pressure to give the their consent: In that situation the student is in a very vulnerable position and likely didn't feel they could stand against orders from their teachers and school administrators. And, therefor the consent was likely less than voluntary.
Morally, I think it's pretty f'd. My kids know to not consent to any search of personal property without my approval. They know their locker is school property and subject to search at anytime. If asked, do as requested. Their personal devices... nope. My wife and I will deal with any consequences resulting from non-compliance. Fortunately, I doubt we'll ever have to deal with anything like that, but they know what to do if that one-in-a-million fluke ever happens.
So no, not germane. It would only be relevant in the narrative you built inside your head. More importantly, you making up a scenario to support your argument - you absolutely created the "pressuring the kid scenario" with no proof whatsoever - doesn't make it valid. Instead of relying on supposition, why not read info about the actual story? It will disavow you of your notions of what happened. I'll repeat the words from my first post that you quoted: This story of the student isn't the best example of Cellebrite tools being purchased by schools. In fact, it's not even an example at all. The Cellebrite tools used in the student's case was owned an operated by the Sheriff's Office, not the school. https://gizmodo.com/u-s-schools-are-buying-phone-hacking-tech-that-the-fbi-1845862393 ; But don't let facts get in the way of a good story amirite? There are even more detailed articles about the story if you're so inclined.
Great quote from the movie ANON (Netflix), "It is not that I have something to hide... I've got nothing I want You to see"
(edited to give attribution for the movie quote)