How would we know that we don't already all have RFIDs installed? I understand they are rather unobtrusive.
More seriously, presumably government access to voluntarily-installed RFIDs would have to be subject to reasonable expectations of privacy, and at least at this point most people don't expect that their kids will be tracked all day by their school system as a form of inventory management. Seems a bit like the thermal imaging situation, though I am far from knowledgeable about the relevant Fourth Amendment law. On the other hand, we are already tracked all the time, by cookies, accounts, internet providers, etc., something we willingly allow in order to gain access to certain benefits. Perhaps that creates a glidepath towards involuntary government RFID access. ________________________________________ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson [slevin...@law.utexas.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 10:29 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program For what it is worth, at a Thanksgiving table discussion of the issue, which included my daughter Meira, who has taught in the public schools in Atlanta and Boston and who now teaches at the Harvard Graduate School of Education (and who has written a terrific book of her own on civic education, No Citizen Left Behind), there was agreement that 50 years from now newborns will probably receive a chip that will be activated throughout their lives for a variety of purposes (including, no doubt, surveillance), and it will be accepted as a given. That being said, though both of my daughters could see a rationale for the school system's policy--Meira pointed out that teachers are personally liable if a student under their charge is missing--, they probably wouldn't consent to the policy for their own children (assuming consent is an option. I think what this demonstrates is that this is a closer case than I initially thought, though I'm still perturbed by the lesson it teaches vu! lnerable children about their lack of rights. Surely it violates the First Amendment to punish the child for passing out leaflets objecting to the policy. sandy -----Original Message----- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 3:08 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID Chip Badge for Student Locator Program I appreciate Doug's point, but I wonder whether the difference between children and adults might actually be especially significant here. After all, when it comes to adults, we don't order them to go to school, or allow the police to pick them up in order to bring them home to their parents, or give their parents the right to withhold their property if they come home late or fail to keep the parent posted about where they are. As courts have pointed out, a child -- unlike an adult -- is always in someone's custody, in the sense that someone (whether parent, school official, or what have you) is entitled to control the child's actions in ways that are not tolerated as to adults. Children aren't in the custody of the prisons or the pretrial release system; but they are in the custody of someone. The question is whether the propriety of these restrictions on liberty of movement (applicable to children and to others) also supports restrictions on liberty from surveillance of one's movements. I'm inclined to say that it does, though I might be mistaken. Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu] > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 12:02 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Volokh, Eugene > Subject: Re: High School Student's Religious Objection to Wearing RFID > Chip Badge for Student Locator Program > > It seems to me that Eugene is talking about ends, and that this is a > dispute about means. > > Of course we want students to attend school, we generally want them to > comply with the rules, and we generally want adults and students alike > to comply with the law. But we do not in this country use continuous > surveillance as a means to those ends. Continuous surveillance, > typically implemented with ankle bracelets, is reserved for people > already convicted, or at least indicted, for serious crime -- for > people who could be confined to jail or prison, and who are getting a break > by being released subject to continuous surveillance. > > The rights of children are not always equal to the rights of adults. > But I would want to see much stronger justification before creating a > student exception to something so fundamental. > > As Marc Stern said, this is like the GPS device planted on a car -- > except without even a claim of reasonable suspicion. > > On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:25:09 -0800 > "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: > > Though I agree with much that Sandy says (and especially join in his > Happy Thanksgiving wishes), I wonder whether the item below involves > the tailing wagging the dog a bit. Many virtues that we inculcate in > schools are only presumptive virtues, that sometimes must be set aside > in favor of other virtues. That's true of honesty. (You might have > to lie to the Nazi who comes to ask whether you're hiding Jews in your > home.) It's true of solving problems in non-violent ways. (You might > need to use deadly force in self-defense, or fight in a war to protect > your country.) That's also true of following the law, and using > law-abiding means to try to change laws you disapprove of. Yet it > seems to me that it's good to teach such virtues, and have > disciplinary or monitoring measures that help reinforce the virtues, even > though we recognize that in rare circumstances such virtues need to yield to > other concerns. > > > > Eugene > > > > Douglas Laycock > Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia > Law School > 580 Massie Road > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > 434-243-8546 _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
