PDA

View Full Version : America and Britain may be losing their rights, but at least other countries aren't. Right? Right?..


NoGuessing
08-30-2011, 06:18 AM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/5344333/Wainuiomata-High-School-set-on-toilet-cameras

The scariest thing is it was met with this reaction;

The request came from pupils and parents, he said.

He had had no parent feedback yet but when the suggestion was announced at a senior assembly, it was met with applause.

Wtf?

But that's not all...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/5507404/Teachers-get-greater-power-with-new-guides

Teachers and principals have the right to search through students' personal diaries, cellphones or laptops under new guidelines issued by the Education Ministry.

The guidelines, released today by Education Minister Anne Tolley, say searches and confiscations affect student rights and their privacy and should only be carried out if a student has, or is believed to have, an item that poses an immediate or direct threat to safety.

I don't know about you guys, but when I was at school I always hid my gun in my diary, and my knife in my cellphone.

Zoombie
08-30-2011, 06:30 AM
WHAT?!

Don
08-30-2011, 06:57 AM
Yeah, that's the way to teach kids responsibility. :rolleyes:

muravyets
08-30-2011, 07:02 AM
Toilet cameras.

...

What I really can't stand the most about the global epidemic of authoritarianism is that this time around, it's So. Damned. Stupid.

I'm just going to sit back and wait for the international task force investigating the rise of illegal bathroom cam porn from New Zealand.

Idiots.

NoGuessing
08-30-2011, 07:12 AM
If I see a single toilet camera at uni (which I doubt, because the student union would riot and this time I'd be with them), I'm breaking it.

Makes me glad I've finished school. You have no voice at that age, and this is proving it.

thothguard51
08-30-2011, 07:12 AM
What, there's bathroom cam porn in NZ? Where in the hell have I been?

NoGuessing
08-30-2011, 07:15 AM
Actually, considering the stereotype of under 25s in NZ is we're all drunken, couch burning louts filming amatuer pornography on our cellphones, I can see the toilet cameras backfiring...:D

What better way to save on film? The recession makes it pricey these days.

Shadow Dragon
08-30-2011, 07:23 AM
Wow. That really isn't necessary. A camera outside the door and the occasional check by a staff member should be enough. There really shouldn't be cameras in the bathroom.

And searching through personal objects will not reveal anything the student doesn't want to be revealed. Since they know that they could be checked at any time, they'll simply hide things better. Or put false information in their diary/phone/laptop/etc. This will simply be a waste of resources.

Psychomacologist
08-30-2011, 07:28 AM
Anyone else find it creepy that school education now seems to consist almost entirely of aclimatising young people to authoritarian regimes?

/bitter cynicism>

Zoombie
08-30-2011, 07:34 AM
Hey, it's what schools used to do. I'm betting they taught absolutism and the divine right of kings back in the 18th century...

And isn't the modern school system designed to just make kids into effective factory workers anyway?

LOG
08-30-2011, 07:40 AM
Toilet cameras.


Read the article again:
The cameras would not be in cubicles but in the main washroom . . .
Not that it makes it much better.

muravyets
08-30-2011, 07:42 AM
The quote from the link seemed to be referring to the entire restroom, including the full arrangement of cubicles and common area, as the "toilet."

LOG
08-30-2011, 07:50 AM
The quote from the link seemed to be referring to the entire restroom, including the full arrangement of cubicles and common area, as the "toilet."
The title and some of the usage of the word in the article seem to be treating "toilet" as an equivalent to the restroom (which it isn't--I'm inclined to think that the article is just trying to draw people in with the "toilet camera" phrase). Smacks of sensationalism reporting to me, but that's nothing new.

muravyets
08-30-2011, 07:59 AM
Really? I've heard "toilet" used to refer to any area of personal grooming, not just one with the fixture called a toilet in it. I've also heard the act or process of personal grooming called a "toilet" or "toilette," and the items for such grooming referred to as "toilet" or "toilette" articles. So I guess when it said cameras in the toilet but not in the cubicles, I assumed they were using the word that way.

Not that it matters, because pervs will perv over cam footage of teens washing their faces if it looks like it was gotten illicitly.

LOG
08-30-2011, 08:28 AM
Hmmm, for me "toilet" has only ever referred to the actual device. Maybe it's a geographical thing, like how everyone around here calls soda, pop.

Kaiser-Kun
08-30-2011, 08:36 AM
What, there's bathroom cam porn in NZ? Where in the hell have I been?

That depends on your restraining order specifications.

Kathleen_
08-30-2011, 08:51 AM
Hmmm, for me "toilet" has only ever referred to the actual device. Maybe it's a geographical thing, like how everyone around here calls soda, pop.

The title and some of the usage of the word in the article seem to be treating "toilet" as an equivalent to the restroom (which it isn't--I'm inclined to think that the article is just trying to draw people in with the "toilet camera" phrase). Smacks of sensationalism reporting to me, but that's nothing new.

The quote from the link seemed to be referring to the entire restroom, including the full arrangement of cubicles and common area, as the "toilet."

In Australia and New Zealand "toilet" does refer to what an American would call a "restroom". The Dominion Post is a New Zealand newspaper and the writer was probably a New Zealander, writing for New Zealanders. His use of the word "toilet" would not have been for dramatic effect, but because that's what the room is called. I would NEVER refer to that room as a restroom and would only call it a bathroom if it actually contained a bath.

When I was younger I had some interesting conversations with Americans online when I mentioned I needed to take my toothbrush to school as I had a dentist's appointment after lunch and wanted to brush my teeth in the toilets. Or when I moaned that I left my hairbrush in the toilet.

benbradley
08-30-2011, 09:02 AM
Wow. That really isn't necessary. A camera outside the door and the occasional check by a staff member should be enough. There really shouldn't be cameras in the bathroom.

And searching through personal objects will not reveal anything the student doesn't want to be revealed. Since they know that they could be checked at any time, they'll simply hide things better. Or put false information in their diary/phone/laptop/etc. This will simply be a waste of resources.
Or just use PGP.

The US Government harrassed the **** out of the author of that thing. No doubt the school will try to live up to that for anyone who uses it.
In Australia and New Zealand "toilet" does refer to what an American would call a "restroom". The Dominion Post is a New Zealand newspaper and the writer was probably a New Zealander, writing for New Zealanders. His use of the word "toilet" would not have been for dramatic effect, but because that's what the room is called. I would NEVER refer to that room as a restroom and would only call it a bathroom if it actually contained a bath.

When I was younger I had some interesting conversations with Americans online when I mentioned I needed to take my toothbrush to school as I had a dentist's appointment after lunch and wanted to brush my teeth in the toilets. Or when I moaned that I left my hairbrush in the toilet.
I'm sure many English-speaking non-Americans are highly amused when they hear about a certain US Governmental home loan organization named F***** Mae.

Romantic Heretic
08-30-2011, 09:43 PM
Hey, it's what schools used to do. I'm betting they taught absolutism and the divine right of kings back in the 18th century...

And isn't the modern school system designed to just make kids into effective factory workers anyway?

Not exactly. The purpose of the education system is to turn out human resources suitable for employment, not human beings suitable for citizenship.

Citizenship is an obsolete concept in today's world.

Don
08-30-2011, 09:48 PM
effective factory workers = human resources

Nevermind most 'factories' are cubicle farms shuffling electrons these days. The training is still for a position as a cog in a big machine.

Alpha Echo
08-30-2011, 09:51 PM
They were to stop vandalism, deter smoking and allow the reintroduction of soap, absent for several years because it was used to plug sinks and flood them.


They had no soap? Isn't that a health code violation?

This whole thing...ridiculous.

Don
08-30-2011, 09:54 PM
They were afraid someone would shoot someone else with the soap squirter and put an eye out. :rolleyes:

veinglory
08-30-2011, 09:55 PM
The title and some of the usage of the word in the article seem to be treating "toilet" as an equivalent to the restroom (which it isn't--I'm inclined to think that the article is just trying to draw people in with the "toilet camera" phrase). Smacks of sensationalism reporting to me, but that's nothing new.

As a Kiwi I can tell you we called what Americans call the "rest room" the "toilet", the entire room/suite. And having a CCTV in there is hardly uncommon in many countries.

icerose
08-30-2011, 10:49 PM
I'm surprised they haven't switched to foam soaps. And the camera in the restroom but not the stalls does not surprise me. There have been cases of the bathrooms being dangerous. Cameras should help keep them safer though I don't love the idea, at least they have said outright they wouldn't put them in the actual stalls.

I don't see how it'll stop the smoking though, students will start smoking in the stalls instead of in the main area.

I don't like them having the ability to search through phones and diaries either. If it's criminal it can be turned over to the police.

SPMiller
08-30-2011, 11:27 PM
Never forget that the motivation for implementing public education in the first place was to provide sufficient workers for the Industrial Revolution.

Not that being skilled and knowledgeable is a bad thing. Remember how many people were educated before that. Uh, in case you have the rose-colored glasses problem, the answer is, "not many".

Zoombie
08-30-2011, 11:33 PM
Obviously, a school system is better than none.

But that does not mean THIS school system is better than a hypothetically better one.

Just like saying, it's better to have glasses than no glasses, but I'd still rather have cybernetic eyes that has 10x zoom, X-ray vision and night vision built in.

Don
08-31-2011, 12:19 AM
Never forget that the motivation for implementing public education in the first place was to provide sufficient workers for the Industrial Revolution.

Not that being skilled and knowledgeable is a bad thing. Remember how many people were educated before that. Uh, in case you have the rose-colored glasses problem, the answer is, "not many".
More than one might suppose (http://www.whyy.org/91FM/marker_commonsense.html), particularly given today's standard. That's why things like "Common Sense" and "The Federalist Papers" actually had an impact among some reasonable portion of the populace.
In the second half of the 17th century, the literacy rate for adult men in New England is estimated to have been as high as 95%, more than twice the estimated literacy rate for men in England. American women had literacy rates higher than 60%. Nowhere in the world was literacy greater.
Hand a copy of "Common Sense" to the average high-school senior: hilarity ensues. :D

benbradley
08-31-2011, 12:25 AM
Schools are better than no schools, but I don't know why there should be a system.

Celia Cyanide
08-31-2011, 12:47 AM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/5344333/Wainuiomata-High-School-set-on-toilet-cameras

The scariest thing is it was met with this reaction;

The request came from pupils and parents, he said.

He had had no parent feedback yet but when the suggestion was announced at a senior assembly, it was met with applause.

So the students want this, apparently.

veinglory
08-31-2011, 01:25 AM
Some of my experiences in Kiwi high school bathrooms might have been avoided by CCTV, so I can see students supporting it.

Becca_H
08-31-2011, 02:10 AM
I'd be the minority that favours cameras in school toilets. I was bullied in them - very badly. I couldn't use the toilet at school for fear of something happening.

And that's on top of the other stuff that happens in toilets: smoking, drugs, setting fires. I know it doesn't stop this happening - it'd just happen elsewhere, but it'd be a start. Bullying is the main thing though. Kids have to go, and it's a place where bullies can pin you down without anyone seeing.

As for searching phones, a new law comes into effect in the UK on 1st September, allowing teachers to search and modify content of mobile phones. It's mainly to stop videos (like bullying or filming teachers having breakdowns) appearing on YouTube that night. It's not just New Zealand.

SPMiller
08-31-2011, 02:43 AM
More than one might suppose (http://www.whyy.org/91FM/marker_commonsense.html), particularly given today's standard. That's why things like "Common Sense" and "The Federalist Papers" actually had an impact among some reasonable portion of the populace.

Hand a copy of "Common Sense" to the average high-school senior: hilarity ensues. :DMeasuring Western literacy by adult men in New England only. Gee, that's amazing. I don't even need to swing at this softball to hit a homer. Thanks, Don.

Don
08-31-2011, 03:31 AM
Measuring Western literacy by adult men in New England only. Gee, that's amazing. I don't even need to swing at this softball to hit a homer. Thanks, Don.
Well, other than I also mentioned the rate for women, and pointed out it was the best in the world for the time. Additional cites are always welcome on the table.

NoGuessing
08-31-2011, 04:00 AM
Hmmm, for me "toilet" has only ever referred to the actual device. Maybe it's a geographical thing, like how everyone around here calls soda, pop.

In Australia and New Zealand "toilet" does refer to what an American would call a "restroom". The Dominion Post is a New Zealand newspaper and the writer was probably a New Zealander, writing for New Zealanders. His use of the word "toilet" would not have been for dramatic effect, but because that's what the room is called. I would NEVER refer to that room as a restroom and would only call it a bathroom if it actually contained a bath.

When I was younger I had some interesting conversations with Americans online when I mentioned I needed to take my toothbrush to school as I had a dentist's appointment after lunch and wanted to brush my teeth in the toilets. Or when I moaned that I left my hairbrush in the toilet.

As a Kiwi I can tell you we called what Americans call the "rest room" the "toilet", the entire room/suite. And having a CCTV in there is hardly uncommon in many countries.

^These. I probably should have remembered to explain the difference in terminology before posting.

Zoombie
08-31-2011, 04:03 AM
It's still nasty.

NoGuessing
08-31-2011, 04:17 AM
Definitely. I'm an excessively private person when doing my business. I even lock the door when there's no one in the house.

Using a urinal when there's a camera in the room? Get lost. Not having soap to use? My God.

Celia Cyanide
08-31-2011, 06:30 AM
It's still nasty.

I don't really see how nasty it is when it happened because students were complaining they couldn't use the restroom. They felt unsafe and uncomfortable. It seems the students are happy with this change.

Kathleen_
08-31-2011, 06:32 AM
I think it's nasty that the toilets were getting so dangerous that the students are glad to have cameras in them. I went to a school with a toilet block we'd avoid, but I've never been to one where I felt like I couldn't use any of the toilets safely

...and no soap, in my experience only about 1/3 of students use it. 1/3 barley wash their hands, a couple of seconds splash under the water at the most and 1/3 think the school soap is too germy so they bring their own and now you can get packets of soap leaves and stuff. Liquid soap would be a solution but comes with problems of its own.

I can't think of anyone doing anything private and not-naughty in the public area of the school toilets. The most private thing you did was wash your hands, brush your teeth, redo your hair and if you were doing some kind of production ou miht pain your face but usually you'd do that in a classroom and someone else would be painting it for you. If we had to get changed we'd do it in the changing rooms or in a toilet cubical.

Of course, if boys decided to have competitions to see how high they could pee in the common area then that would be caught on cam but that is a 'naught act' and really really gross because they are essentially just peeing on the floor of a common area. And I'm sure urinals would be shielded off or otherwise not be able to be seen by the cameras.

Having cameras in the toilets is a bad thing, yes, but moreso because the behaviour was so dangerous in the first place than because of an invasion of privacy. Yes, the bad behaviour will just move somewhere else but at least kids can pee in peace. It's not good to hold it in too long you know!

Celia Cyanide
08-31-2011, 06:36 AM
Having cameras in the toilets is a bad thing, yes, but moreso because the behaviour was so dangerous in the first place than because of an invasion of privacy. Yes, the bad behaviour will just move somewhere else but at least kids can pee in peace. It's not good to hold it in too long you know!

Yes. Someone else made the point that kids HAVE to go to the bathroom. They can't avoid it. If the bad behavior were taking place elsewhere, then at least kids could avoid those areas.

muravyets
08-31-2011, 06:55 AM
Never forget that the motivation for implementing public education in the first place was to provide sufficient workers for the Industrial Revolution.

Not that being skilled and knowledgeable is a bad thing. Remember how many people were educated before that. Uh, in case you have the rose-colored glasses problem, the answer is, "not many".
I don't think that's what Benjamin Franklin had in mind when he championed universal education before the Revolution. That was a little early for that Prussian system stuff. I thought he was motivated more by that old Congregationalist/Quaker/etc. thing about how every Christian should be able to read the Bible for themselves. Those 17th/18th century Protestants were real big on literacy, and Franklin was real big on knowing stuff in general. Free libraries, free schools, he was into all that kind of thing.

Don
08-31-2011, 07:32 AM
I don't think that's what Benjamin Franklin had in mind when he championed universal education before the Revolution. That was a little early for that Prussian system stuff. I thought he was motivated more by that old Congregationalist/Quaker/etc. thing about how every Christian should be able to read the Bible for themselves. Those 17th/18th century Protestants were real big on literacy, and Franklin was real big on knowing stuff in general. Free libraries, free schools, he was into all that kind of thing.
True of the founding fathers in general, I think. Jefferson founded the University of Virginia, and proposed public education for Virginia in 1779, although it was considerably later that it came to be. Alexander Hamilton was involved with the New York Board of Regents, IIRC.

Zoombie
08-31-2011, 08:30 AM
I don't really see how nasty it is when it happened because students were complaining they couldn't use the restroom. They felt unsafe and uncomfortable. It seems the students are happy with this change.

It's nasty because I dislike non-democratic surveillance.

Kathleen_
08-31-2011, 08:53 AM
It's nasty because I dislike non-democratic surveillance.

What does "Non-democratic surveillance" mean and how does it differ from "democratic surveillance"? I ask because I've never heard surveillance split up into democratic and non-democratic.

From the sounds of it I’d guess that “non-democratic” is when it’s forced on a population without their agreement and that “democratic” is when the population are either presented with the idea and agree with it or request it. Am I right?

NoGuessing
08-31-2011, 08:54 AM
I dislike the fact a minority of idiots have given schools the idea they can watch kids wherever the hell they like.

I don't care what they're doing in there, cameras in bathrooms creeps me out.

It's ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff. The cameras are a reaction to the problem. Now instead of destroying sinks or whatever they may well move on to destroying toilets. Will they put cameras in there then?

I find it very hard to believe no one is telling teachers who is doing it.

Celia Cyanide
08-31-2011, 09:54 AM
I dislike the fact a minority of idiots have given schools the idea they can watch kids wherever the hell they like.

I don't care what they're doing in there, cameras in bathrooms creeps me out.

You dont have to go to school there, do you? If it doesn't bother the students, why should it bother you? The cameras are being put there to enforce rules that the students feel are not being enforced. And they seem to approve of the idea.

It's ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff. The cameras are a reaction to the problem. Now instead of destroying sinks or whatever they may well move on to destroying toilets. Will they put cameras in there then?

They wouldn't really need to. If that ever happened, cameras in the restroom could tell them who was destroying toilets. They wouldn't have to be placed inside the stalls.

I find it very hard to believe no one is telling teachers who is doing it.

I don't. When I was in school, nobody wanted to be the one to tell the teacher or principal when someone was breaking the rules, even if it bothered us.

If the teachers knew who was doing this, why would they let it go? That doesnt make sense.

muravyets
08-31-2011, 10:21 AM
I don't think this is imposed surveillance because the student body knows and approves of it. I just think it's poorly conceived surveillance because it carries with it some strong backfire potential. Some unintended consequences are predictable.

Zoombie
08-31-2011, 12:10 PM
What does "Non-democratic surveillance" mean and how does it differ from "democratic surveillance"? I ask because I've never heard surveillance split up into democratic and non-democratic.

From the sounds of it I’d guess that “non-democratic” is when it’s forced on a population without their agreement and that “democratic” is when the population are either presented with the idea and agree with it or request it. Am I right?

Well, you're right.

It's just "democratic surveillance" is easier for me to spell than the actual term I need to use: Sousveillance.

Basically, surveliance is viewing from above, while sousvelliance is viewing from below. One is a centralized (usually authoritarian in some way) force that observes people. The other is a participatory panopticon, wherein there is an even distribution of power and observation.

A surveilled society is one of intense power inequity. THEY can watch US and act on that information, but WE cannot watch THEM and act on it. In other words...Orwell, with tellyscreens and everything.

A souvellied society is one of power equality. THEY can watch US, but WE can WATCH right back. That is, shockingly enough, closer to what we have today than Orwell had ever dreamed. Yes, there are security cameras in the BART, but there were enough cellphone cameras to catch video footage of a cop shooting an unarmed man in the head.

Just an example.

Now, some people don't like this equalizing of power.

Why do you think cops hate getting filmed?

Kathleen_
08-31-2011, 12:27 PM
Hmmm... not sure that I am right because your description doesn't match up with what I thought, but I think I understand it. What you're saying is that if there were cameras in areas staff were threatened that were monitered by students then it is ok to have cameras in areas where students are threatened monitered by staff but not otherwise? What happens if there isn't any areas in the school where staff are threatened? Also the students were under threat from other students, what if the staff were underthreat from students, should students still be the ones monitering the serveillance?

You mention power inequality, if the student body are campaigning for cameras in student toilets but the staff deny their requests isn't that also power inequality? You have the minority in power denying what the majority want. I'm not sure that's a good thing.

I an understand your point, and it's a very good one (if they can watch us, we should be able to watch them) but I'm not sure that it applies in this situation. Besides, I'm sure installing a security system is very expensive, not to mention the space to store the footage. It would make sense to put it only in problem areas and not everywhere.

Thanks for introducing me to some new words and an interesting conversation ;)

Zoombie
08-31-2011, 12:39 PM
Well, I think the whole school power inequity system is...troubling, if only because it teaches kids to follow a hierarchy from the get go and it takes a LONG time to get rid of that notion...

:)

Don
08-31-2011, 05:28 PM
I think that kids that can't be trusted to visit the bathroom without trashing it indicate problems that won't be solved by the addition of any number of video cameras, and doing so shows a tremendous lack of interest in solving the issues involved.

This is one of those 'bandaid on a severed artery' solutions bureaucratic institutions are famous for.

veinglory
08-31-2011, 05:39 PM
This is a school where they staff are expected to keep minors safe. I think that is a bit different from the government installing a camera in your living room. I think it has more to with drug use and bullying being taken more seriously than in previous years.

Don
08-31-2011, 05:52 PM
This is a school where they staff are expected to keep minors safe. I think that is a bit different from the government installing a camera in your living room. I think it has more to with drug use and bullying being taken more seriously than in previous years.
What's the root cause? Why are those things on the increase? How do we stop that? It's not going to be stopped by cameras in the bathrooms.

This is a bandaid solution, and a poor one at that.

Celia Cyanide
08-31-2011, 06:13 PM
What's the root cause? Why are those things on the increase? How do we stop that? It's not going to be stopped by cameras in the bathrooms.

This is a bandaid solution, and a poor one at that.

Don, how is it you know this is not going to help the problem? I think it probably would be a big help. It would be easier to catch and identify kids who were doing it. Why is this sort of thing happening in the bathroom anyway? Probably because the staff isnt there. When I was in school, kids were destroying the bathroom facility, too, and it was a huge problem, because no one knew who was doing it, and everyone felt they were being blamed. We had a school assembly about it, and it was never really resolved.

As for the root cause...why do kids use drugs? Why do kids bully each other? They didn't have a simple answer to those questions when my parents were in school, either. While they're trying to figure that out, they need to do something about the problem itself.

Kathleen_
09-02-2011, 01:07 PM
Well, I think the whole school power inequity system is...troubling, if only because it teaches kids to follow a hierarchy from the get go and it takes a LONG time to get rid of that notion...

file:///C:/Users/Stuff/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif


In my culture we are BORN into a hierarchy and I've never thought it was a notion that could be gotten rid of while maintaining a feasible society.





The school isn't the parents of these children, most of them have their own parent/s/caregiver/s at home. A college gets kids when they're about 13 or so and you can't expect the teachers to 'fix' all the kids. Yeah, they might be allowed to expel them (if they know who they are and have proof beyond he said/she said) but there comes a point where we have to stop blaming schools for how children have been raised. So many other factors go into it. Yes, a teacher can do amazing things and have a HUGE influience but they can't do everything. The root cause of this behaviour probably isn't in the school, it will be in the home and community at large.

As for those saying it won't make a difference, the article says it made a difference at Naenae College so why not at Wainuiomata? Are the two colleges so different?

Zoombie
09-02-2011, 01:25 PM
Oh, there are loads of non-hierarchical systems of governance that we've never tried because they've been labeled untenable.

Usually by those who are in power in the hierarchical systems.

Kathleen_
09-02-2011, 01:29 PM
Oh, there are loads of non-hierarchical systems of governance that we've never tried because they've been labeled untenable.

Usually by those who are in power in the hierarchical systems.

I'm not just talking of governance, I'm talking about life in general.