School Negligence Via Texting?

[siead_lietrathua]

i semi-disagree. while they shouldn't be texting in class, phones are different than a scrap piece of paper being passed around.
for the principal to read the texts, it wasn't like simply reading a sheet off a desk. odds are he would have to deactivate the keyguard, scroll through the menus to get to the text messages, and then flip through each message. on an effort value, its like a teacher going into your backpack, digging for the right notebook then reading each page until they find something embarrassing to read aloud to the class.
plus, considering how many teens engage in sexual texting (allegedly), it makes you wonder what the motive was for the VP to be reading through the messages in the first place. was it with intent to get kid in trouble? or for the sake of their own entertainment at the expense of a dumb teen?

[Ginger Tea]

Or he knew he had a hawt girlfriend and was actively looking for sexting images from her?

[jackfaire]

i semi-disagree. while they shouldn't be texting in class, phones are different than a scrap piece of paper being passed around.
for the principal to read the texts, it wasn't like simply reading a sheet off a desk.

Actually it's the same if it were the teacher. When the teacher took the phone the student had been actively texting so the teacher could have read it and is possible they did and that is why the VP handled it.

It's never said that the teacher didn't read it simply that the VP did. If the teacher read it then the VP would have to read it rather than taking the teacher's word for it so that when he notifies the police he can legitimately back up that it is fact.

My theory is that most likely the teacher did in fact read the text about the stolen car and rather than going all vigilante went through the proper channels.

The VP can make the time to work with the police to do what they need to do whereas the teacher has classes to teach.

[AdminAssistant]

Again, I teach college, which is slightly different, but I do call out students who use their cell phones during class. I don't read their texts aloud or answer ringing phones (as one professor I had would), but I will embarrass them. "John, after you're done talking to Mumsy, would you care to explain the purpose of the playwright?" Or give the patented Professor Stare. Something like that. Nothing in this world is so important that can't wait 50 minutes.

[Shangri-laschild]

I'm curious as to if there was actual retaliation or threat of retaliation or if they were just freaking out.

i semi-disagree. while they shouldn't be texting in class, phones are different than a scrap piece of paper being passed around.
for the principal to read the texts, it wasn't like simply reading a sheet off a desk. odds are he would have to deactivate the keyguard, scroll through the menus to get to the text messages, and then flip through each message. on an effort value, its like a teacher going into your backpack, digging for the right notebook then reading each page until they find something embarrassing to read aloud to the class.

Your analogy only works if the student had the notebook out of their backpack but wasn't allowed to or if this kid had his phone in his pocket and hadn't been texting with it.

Also, you are assuming that the text message wasn't already on the screen when the phone was taken. If the kid had just received the text (which is possible) then it may have still been on the screen. And even if it hadn't, on my phone once you unlock it, all you have to do is click on the text message icon and the last text convo I was in will pop up. And that's only if I had exited back to the home screen. If I hadn't, the convo would still be on the screen. It's also assuming that the phone was locked which again brings us back to the fact that the text could have been right there on the screen of an unlocked phone when it was confiscated and it could have been the teacher who saw the text first. We don't know.

[siead_lietrathua]

Your analogy only works if the student had the notebook out of their backpack but wasn't allowed to or if this kid had his phone in his pocket and hadn't been texting with it.

i have to semi-disagree with this. while the kid should not have had the phone and been texting, it was talking about the VP reading his messages. there was nothing in the articles about the teacher noticing the messages first. if the phone was passed from teacher to VP, it should have been immediately placed in a secure place. there was no reason for the VP to be reading any messages, even if the screen is saying there is a new text to read.

and yes, i do not believe that the teacher read the texts. otherwise the article would read differently. that is a fact that wouldn't just slip past (at least) 3 different reporters, and would be a fairly important fact in this sort of situation.

also the assumptions that the phone wasn't locked and that the text was right on the screen is just as informed as my assumptions on the phone being secure. i know my phone and many others go on a lock-mode if idle for more than 5-10 seconds. it may show a "1 new message" and the date/time if a button is hit, but needs to be unlocked to view anything. even if unlocking the phone is just to disable the keyguard, it would show that the messages were read intentionally, not just an "oops i saw it on the screen"

[Andara Bledin]

that is a fact that wouldn't just slip past (at least) 3 different reporters, and would be a fairly important fact in this sort of situation.

Facts are regularly omitted or outright ignored in news stories. Plus, unless you know that the story was written by someone on the scene, it's likely that most stories you could find would be based off the same release by an original reporter.

I haven't actually done any research on this story, but I would be surprised if there weren't at least three different news reports all including and omitting different pieces of important information.

^-.-^

[siead_lietrathua]

Facts are regularly omitted or outright ignored in news stories. Plus, unless you know that the story was written by someone on the scene, it's likely that most stories you could find would be based off the same release by an original reporter.

yes, however if it's an issue of a text being read in class by a teacher then reported to the vp who then dealt with the issue, vs the vp reading through a teens phone on their own initiative, reporting the former would seem LESS suspicious on the part of the school. even if the whole article was based on a press release by the school, they would be more than happy to include the teacher's involvement as it eliminates this grey area of whether or not the vp was justified in reading private, electronic messages.

i have a feeling most students are under the impression that even if their items are confiscated, they are still given the right to privacy of the content of those items. and if that is the impression this particular school gives (we take your stuff to the office and keep it secure) then the VP reading the messages (and therefore the phone is not in a secure place) contradicts the rules and, in my opinion, violates the privacy of the student.

just curious, what if the phone wasn't confiscated? what if it was simply left on a desk, or turned in by another student as a lost and found item. would people still be ok with the VP reading the messages? IMHO, it doesnt give him the right in any circumstance.

[Shangri-laschild]

yes, however if it's an issue of a text being read in class by a teacher then reported to the vp who then dealt with the issue, vs the vp reading through a teens phone on their own initiative, reporting the former would seem LESS suspicious on the part of the school.

Again, it could have been as simple as him unlocking the phone and the text being there which wouldn't mean that he read through the phone, just unlocked it. We don't know really.

i have a feeling most students are under the impression that even if their items are confiscated, they are still given the right to privacy

I don't know that I was ever under that impression.

just curious, what if the phone wasn't confiscated? what if it was simply left on a desk, or turned in by another student as a lost and found item. would people still be ok with the VP reading the messages? IMHO, it doesnt give him the right in any circumstance.

That depends on the reason. What if they don't know who's phone it is? You'd be amazed at how often phones don't get picked up from school lost and founds. It may not be the majority but it still happens plenty often.

[Jester]

A lot of assumptions are being bandied about here, but as with many such news stories, we don't know the whole story.

For example, we don't know if the child in question was regularly a problem child at school, which would make the confiscation of the phone by the teacher and the VP reading his text more likely.

We don't know if the phone was locked or unlocked, or whether the VP had to search for the text in question or the phone was already on it.

We don't know if the school had a policy against cell phones. Some schools don't want kids bringing phones on to campus at all, some require the kids to leave them in their lockers (i.e., not bring them to class), and some forbid cell phone use in class. If any of these were the case, and the kid stupidly broke out his phone and was texting in class, it was predictable that the teacher would confiscate the phone. As for the text message....well, see above.

There are a lot of details we don't know.

However, it seems highly likely that, in some way, the child violated school rules with use of the cell phone. In which case, I have no issue with the teacher taking the phone or the VP seeing what was so important as to cause the child to break those rules. Yes, there are privacy laws, but there are also school policies concerning electronic devices, and if you break them, generally speaking, you lose your right to privacy, at least in regard to the cell phone. Why? Well, you were using it in a place you weren't suppose to, so the people in charge of that place will react as their policy dictates. (Another thing we don't know: we don't know what the school policy on cell phones dictated. Were the teacher and the VP following set protocol, or were they acting on their own initiative in this case?)

Also remember that, in this country, children do NOT enjoy all the same rights that adults do, and court cases have affirmed that, prior to legal adulthood, there are many areas that children are considered, for lack of a better phrase, second class citizens when it comes to applications of said laws. In other words, what might be invasion of privacy were the person an adult is not considered so when the person is a child.

Just a few things to consider.

[the_std]

Also remember that, in this country, children do NOT enjoy all the same rights that adults do, and court cases have affirmed that, prior to legal adulthood, there are many areas that children are considered, for lack of a better phrase, second class citizens when it comes to applications of said laws.

I just want to remind everyone, the incident actually occurred in Canada, so you can't 100% apply the American legal system to this situation.

[Andara Bledin]

I just want to remind everyone, the incident actually occurred in Canada, so you can't 100% apply the American legal system to this situation.

This country or that, children still don't always have a right to privacy. In Ontario, for instance, youth don't have a right to exercise their own personal privacy until they reach the age of 16. And I imagine that within the school setting, those rights are more limited than elsewhere.

^-.-^

[Rageaholic]

Also remember that, in this country, children do NOT enjoy all the same rights that adults do, and court cases have affirmed that, prior to legal adulthood, there are many areas that children are considered, for lack of a better phrase, second class citizens when it comes to applications of said laws. In other words, what might be invasion of privacy were the person an adult is not considered so when the person is a child.

And that's a damn shame.

[siead_lietrathua]

I just want to remind everyone, the incident actually occurred in Canada, so you can't 100% apply the American legal system to this situation.

there is still alot of debate in canada on this one. many people believe that texts fall under the Fourth Amendment, myself included. (which is the same as the states word-wise)

This country or that, children still don't always have a right to privacy. In Ontario, for instance, youth don't have a right to exercise their own personal privacy until they reach the age of 16. And I imagine that within the school setting, those rights are more limited than elsewhere.

^-.-^

children/teens are covered under the constitution. perhaps im being an idealist for thinking people should follow that, but that's my flaw.
saying kids dont have a right to privacy because they are under 18 is like saying they dont have a right to fair trials, humane treatment, and other things covered in the constitution.

and yes, i am aware that i am exaggerating a bit, but again, it's one of those things that just irk me.

[Ginger Tea]

Regarding the "if the phone was handed in as lost property" aspect.
Say you have a brother in college and he's out of state and sends you a picture asking you to "Check out my sweet new bong" and when you recieve said text it pops up automatically to your inbox, so whomever hears the new text alert might pick it up out of curisosity, it might be the owner using someone esles phone to contact who has it (although myself I would call), if they see this bong image they might think that whomever sent it to you (they may not know its your out of state brother) is also implying that you should come "check it out" ie try it.
An under 16 year old student with access to a bong (and potentially something to put in it) vs its in another state and he might never come into contact with it.
What would you think if you had no information to go on.

All this is based on the hypothetical image+text popping up on screen regardless of screen locks etc, some phones may do this, I have no idea.
Mine just says one new text from whomever and a snippet of it.