> The report also found that the surveillance fostered an atmosphere of distrust: 32% of 14 to 18-year-old students surveyed said they felt like they were always being watched.
Only 32% felt they were always being watched, but in reality 100% of them were always being watched.
This seems wildly optimistic to me. We see the same complacency and/or unawareness with e.g. Flock in society - the truth is most people really just don't think about it, or even mind when they do.
Not 100% of nationwide schools in the survey _always_ watch people. It'd've be interesting if the survey had been able to compare schools still primarily using "normal" surveillance of students vs the kinds for the school discussed in the article and how much of an impact just these changes were having.
Worth mentioning that "no digital recording devices in bathrooms" is something explicitly called out in the boy scouts' anti-child abuse training, mandatory for any adult volunteer.
It's actually "cameras and digital recording devices". My guess is that they meant to say "don't have your phone out in the bathroom" but someone in the meeting went "well my son records stuff on his Nintendo DS all the time" and they changed it.
If you're the kind of guy to bring a tape recorder in there and argue about splitting hairs, I don't think they will look kindly upon you.
Probably because the creepy boy scout leaders used analog video recorders and had a meeting to exclude them. Realistically it's just an oversight... hopefully...
Our local high school has had a shooting or stabbing in 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025. Last month, 2 students were shot and there have been 3 lockdowns at the school so far this year (that's 3 in 3 months). This school is in one of the most affluent parts of the bay area (in the hills surrounded by multi-mullion dollar homes and redwood trees). For most of my life, I've been ambivalent about surveillance cameras (neither in favor nor against them) but now I lean towards supporting efforts to install them (especially since the shootings at Brown and MIT). If they eventually help to apprehend a killer before they hurt someone else or cause people to think twice about even bringing a weapon to a school, then that benefit overrides any "atmosphere of distrust." Nobody wants to get a call that their child has been shot at school.
> Our local high school has had a shooting or stabbing in 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025. Last month, 2 students were shot
That is astonishing. How do people tolerate that risk to their kids? I would refuse to send my children to a school that dangerous. I have lived in a country that had a civil war and large scale terrorism and my kids were never exposed to that level of danger.
My school had one stabbing in its history, which is not not far short of two hundred years. That is my expectation of the norm for a school.
San Francisco was one of the harshest lockdown cities on the planet with one of the longest school closures anywhere in the industrialized world. West coast cities absolutely fucked over their kids.
I was thinking about that while reading; in some ways I think this reality is on a worse track than Little Brother's. In the book, schools were using gait analysis because of privacy concerns about facial recognition. In reality, facial recognition seems to be able to be adopted by schools with little pushback.
I hope we all crawl out of the pot before we're turned into frog soup.
To be fair, Beverly Hills isn't quite as squeaky clean as popular media would lead you to believe. Parts of it are extremely nice, of course, but it can't help but fall prey to the general sketch that encompasses most of LA county
That's to say, every society has its discontents who take their anger and frustration and discharge it on innocent civilians. Some societies manage their mentally ill people better than others. We do a pretty pitiful job at it.
Mental illness as a culprit is a pretty tired explanation of these events. Statistically, mentally ill people are far more likely to be victims of violence than to perpetrate it, and in many of these events, there is a clear lack of diagnosable or observable illness to begin with. Besides that, even if you don't believe the numbers here, it's possible to improve mental illness treatment and legislate gun control responsibly, it's not an either-or thing. TLDR "Mental illness" is a very tired, very poor explanation for the phenomenon, not even to mention it perpetuates and encourages stigma.
> Statistically, mentally ill people are far more likely to be victims of violence than to perpetrate it
I think this is one of cases where a broad label like "mental illness" obscures more than it clarifies. There are some subgroups of people with mental illness (schizophrenia, bipolar, antisocial personality disorder) who are more likely to commit violence than others, especially when combined with substance abuse. But of course that fact doesn't generalize to all people with mental illness.
You are well-intending, but don't do that for factual information. I have seen discussions derail because of hallucinated parliamentary history; and the concept of truth became irrelevant.
Yup. NYC public high school bathrooms were notorious for not having doors. The reason given was the heroin or whatever drug epidemics warranted removing the doors so students couldn't hide in them to shoot up and pass out. That supposedly started in the 60's or 70's and still going on in the 90's into the 00's.
My school had ONE boys bathroom and the rest were closed and used as storage. It was located outside of the lunch room main doors where a security guard sat. No stall doors. The normal protocol was you never shit in school. If you really had to go you prayed no one was in the last stall and covered your lap with your book bag OR try to use the one in the nurses office by claiming you were nauseous. I have on more than one occasion feigned sickness to get my mother to pick me up so I could go home and take a dump with dignity.
Civilized places don't treat "criminals" like that. You'd need further qualifications there to make this kind of thing acceptable (as in "violent criminals" or something like that).
Except kids already voluntarily gave up their own privacy to such an extent that they don't value it whatsoever. The government is lagging here. Kids will record you without consent anywhere and everywhere, post it online, live stream everything they do, overshare with no limits. They don't understand the idea of privacy. They don't even like the idea of privacy.
> Except kids already voluntarily gave up their own privacy to such an extent that they don't value it whatsoever.
kids don't get privacy in the first place. thats something we give them and they LEARN to value it. thats the goal of this kind of legislation. prevent them from ever having it in the first place.
99% of students had cafeteria lunch and I was one of a couple with a lunch box. Teachers in the hallway would see it and get mad until I showed them my sandwich lol.
While he stood at the urinal he managed, with a little more fingering, to get it unfolded. Obviously there must be a message of some kind written on it. For a moment he was tempted to take it into one of the water-closets [toilets] and read it at once. But that would be shocking folly, as he well knew. There was no place where you could be more certain that the telescreens were watched continuously.
> The surveillance system spots multiple threats per day, the district said.
… multiple threats a day?! At 1 high school?! Citation needed on that. I know that US high schools have a reputation of being unsafe, but I highly doubt there’s near-HOURLY thwarting of “threats”. Are we talking about rule breaking (vaping in the bathroom, skipping class) or bullying? I would assume so.
The fact it’s then immediately followed up with stats about gun violence does sort of imply we’re talking about serious threats…
Sure, maybe you go full-prison mode if there’s an hourly murder, but that’s so outside the realm of reality that I’m not willing to even entertain that as being a possibility. You would’ve run out of students by now.
> The fact it’s then immediately followed up with stats about gun violence does sort of imply we’re talking about serious threats…
Yes, the juxtaposition does strongly suggest that that is the narrative that the piece is trying to push, even before it explicitly states that by following the stats with “Given those appalling metrics, allocating a portion of your budget to state of the art AI-powered safety and surveillance tools is a relatively easy decision.” (And that emotionally-loaded language isn't paraphrasing any figures named in the story, its the "news” stories own voice!)
But with on the order of 50 fatalities nationally per year, and a single high schools system detecting "multiple threats a day", if we are talking about the same kind of threats, then the false positive rate is virtually indistinguishable from 100%. And, if we aren’t, then the juxtaposition is irrelevant as well as emotionally manipulative.
I guess there's two ways to read a ratio like that. Either A) the false positive rate rounds to 100.00000%, or B) the correct positive rate rounds to 100.00000% and the few that slip through are great tragedies due to "just not investing enough", thus making the false positives worth it.
I'm glad B) at least wasn't made /explicit/ in the article, but damn... they do point at it by implication. You're totally right about the juxtaposition being manipulative.
> The company isn’t aware of any school shootings where its tech was deployed.
A thing that happens 50 times a year, across the entire US has not occurred at any of the small number of pilot schools... where apparently "threats" occur multiple times a day?
> I guess there's two ways to read a ratio like that. Either A) the false positive rate rounds to 100.00000%, or B) the correct positive rate rounds to 100.00000% and the few that slip through are great tragedies due to "just not investing enough", thus making the false positives worth it.
I think for (B) to be a justifiable reading, the national stats would have had to have been much higher before the roll out, with a significant share of those national stats being from the particular schools that happened to be the leading implementors.
But, yeah, I agree that that is a possible implication of the presentation on the surface.
My daughter hears about gun threats at her high school weekly. I don't know how many are actual threats, but they have implemented a transparent bag policy, it's a real problem.
> they have implemented a transparent bag policy, it's a real problem.
This makes the assumption that all policies have a reasonable justification, so that the existence of a real problem can be inferred by the implementation of a policy which would only make sense if (1) there was a real problem, and (2) the policy was an effective mitigation.
I would suggest that this assumption is both false and dangerous, in that it makes one trivially manipulable by anyone in a position to set policy.
You are correct in that I did not specify what the actual problem is. There is a problem of perception, which the transparent bag policy will at least partly address, at relatively little cost. The problem of perception is almost certainly more troublesome than the reality in the majority of cases - the exceptions being notable - and while transparent bags may not be an effective deterrent, that doesn't mean they don't serve as one at all. There is also, in this case, a very real and well-known problem in American schools, including multiple guns confiscated and at least one credible threat in the past semester at this particular school.
I too kind of roll my eyes at the bag policy but it's at least an acknowledgement that something needs to be done about the problem - more than we've gotten from our politicians in the past two decades.
I'm sorry, I hope I don't come off like I'm minimizing a real problem here, but from the outside looking in, it just feels like an entirely alien line of reasoning that could only describe a solution to an imagined problem. However, I'm also missing the lived experience of what being in the US is like right now, and especially missing the context of being a child with peers that make threats like that weekly. I'm empathetic to that situation, but not to the framing that surveillance is somehow stopping those weekly rumours from being weekly atrocities. That's a huge leap.
> However, I'm also missing the lived experience of what being in the US is like right now,
I’m in the US and this story feels extremely foreign to me. Even hearing a rumor about a gun threat at my kids’ school or any of my friends’ kids’ schools would be a topic of discussion for the next year with parent-teacher meetings, the school communicating with parents to shed light on what happened, action plans, and so on. Fortunately nothing like that has happened, but this is the level of communication that happens for even rumored threats.
The US is a huge place, though. Some times I don’t think outsiders understand how big and diverse this country is.
When I was in school, the administration would work itself up into fits about "gangs infiltrating the schools" because an 11 year old wore a red or blue hat to class, clearly gang colors and a sign of the times.
This was in a wealthy suburb where people like that have to make up imaginary threats in order to feel something, and what better population to fret about than the kids.
The cops' reluctance to investigate probably had something to do with the fact that some of the gang members were white student athletes with very wealthy families.
> The fact it’s then immediately followed up with stats about gun violence does sort of imply we’re talking about serious threats…
Do we trust surveillance peddlers enough that we should believe what they don't even say directly, but only "sort of imply" it? In this case, we have an easy test: has the number of attempted homicides at this school decreased by multiple per day since the surveillance was implemented?
If it has, I'm sure the surveillance vendors would be eagerly pointing to the dramatic drop in homicides on a graph, coinciding with their invasion of the school, and not just sort of implying it.
Coincidentally I just watched this Defcon talk on these popular bathroom 'smoke detectors' that can detect vapes and listen in on conversations - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCnojaEpF2I
There was a bit of discussion around that: It Looks Like a School Bathroom Smoke Detector. It Could Be an Audio Bug (17 points, 4 months ago, 12 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44915338
This would constitute illegal wiretapping. You have a legally-defensible reasonable expectation of privacy in your domicile in the absence of a warrant.
The exact definition of "civilized world" is doing a lot of work here. What specific regions or poltical jurisdictions do you think count or do not count as part of the civilized world?
I am sorry I don't have the precise statement about relative rates of gun deaths and mass shootings in the US vs the rest of the OECD. Here's a data point to ponder, firearms are now the leading cause of death for children and adolescents in the US: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761
Yeah, it's obviously a gun control issue. But the US has such a deeply ingrained cultural association with owning guns, and thinking that this means "freedom" in case the government turns on the people lol, that I doubt banning them happens in our lifetime.
> There is no clear correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate. Not within the USA. Not regionally. Not internationally. Not among peaceful societies. Not among violent ones. Gun ownership doesn’t make us safer. It doesn’t make us less safe. A bivariate correlation simply isn’t there. It is blatantly not-there. It is so tremendously not-there that the “not-there-ness” of it alone should be a huge news story.
You don't need to ban them, though. Isn't that the actual lesson at the end of _Bowling For Columbine_? That Canada has a huge number of guns and isn't so fucked up?
What you need to do is undermine the culture of machismo and trollishness around guns:
Start with "anyone who poses with guns in their family Christmas photo is to be treated as if they will use them on your family or their own kids without a moment's hesitation for their own gain".
(Like, if you get a Christmas card from a family with guns in their photo, why would you consider that anything other than a threatening communication? It clearly is.)
Move on to "anyone who has more usable guns than they can hold in their hands is probably a broken person and maybe you should consider keeping your distance".
Move on to "anyone who owns a bump stock is insane or compensating for a tiny penis", and "anyone who doesn't keep their guns in a gun safe is not safe to be around at all".
Move on to "open carry does not mean ostentatious carry". Start thinking about whether open carry is, in fact, a necessary conclusion of the right to bear arms.
Move on to fucking investigating NRA corruption properly. Don't just point it out.
Move on to humiliating politicians who take gun lobby money. Don't just point it out as if it's some form of conflict of interest or a sign they won't be serious about gun crime. Laugh at them. Call them spineless cowards. Humiliate them for their craven foolishness.
Aim for a process that preserves the right to bear arms but makes gun nuts seem as untrustworthy and dangerous as it turns out they so often are.
And if you are a gun owner and you believe guns should be treated with caution and respect, and you know someone who doesn't, tell them in no uncertain terms, and if you ever see them get violent, tell the police of your concerns.
You act like guns some weird anachronism, but from my perch, it seems that the need for civilized people to maintain firearms is increasing, not decreasing.
Consider that we have a documented justice system in many places that is repeatedly releasing violent criminals onto the streets, such that they are going on to set people on fire on the train, knife innocents on the subway, swinging and hitting elderly women with nail-embedded boards on the sidewalk. Note these crimes happened despite their lack of firearms. Should we not have guns to defend ourselves from these barbarians?
If the justice system were perfect, and crime rates far lower, then firearms would be less necessary, but never unnecessary, because civilization in a local phenomenon, and it only takes one barbarian to disrupt civilized order for the peaceful people of the world. It takes one civilized person with a gun to restore order.
In many places in the west, immigration policy has given rise to rape gangs in England, gangs that bomb in Sweden, etc. Should these peaceful people not have guns to defend themselves from these barbarians?
Allowing US style gun proliferation creates a chicken and egg problem:
How can you prevent these rape gangs from accessing the same weapons? They are not caught, prosecuted and banned from obtaining guns? Even if they are, there will be more guns to steal and circulate in either case.
The answer is laws, but you say they are not working perfectly. So rape gangs will be armed rape gangs next.
When I visited Stockholm ~17 years ago, all shops were displaying valuable items in steel cages anyway (e.g.: TVs were "locked" in heavy-duty steel frames to prevent "removal"), so the problem runs older than the immigration policy gained momentum.
"I need my guns to defend myself from the (((barbarian hordes)))" is exactly the kind of rhetoric that leads the rest of the planet treats gun nuts like the nuts they are. Unfortunately for the US, the US valorizes this particular psychosis
> immigration policy has given rise to rape gangs in England […] Should these peaceful people not have guns to defend themselves from these barbarians?
I don't think you understand the nature of the "rape gang" problem —- what it actually refers to, how it works, and why arming a populace wouldn't do a thing to stop it.
Because the USA has this exact same problem (low-level organised crime gangs sexually exploiting naïve, broke or drug-addicted young teenagers in deprived settings) and gun ownership didn't fix it.
The "rape gangs" are not some roving crime phenomenon that turns up at your door and can be dissuaded by waving a gun.
So yes. Not only do we not extrajudicially shoot rapists because vigilante violence doesn't do anything useful, arming a whole population would not stop this problem in deprived environments in cities. It hasn't in yours.
> Start with "anyone who poses with guns in their family Christmas photo is to be treated as if they will use them on your family or their own kids without a moment's hesitation for their own gain".
That seems hyperbolic to me. I don't understand liking "tactical" Christmas decor, but I know some people who do.
In my experience, this kind of hyperbole tends to increase polarization around an idea instead of leading to any consensus.
Why not compare America against all countries instead of just Western ones? Which countries do and do not count as part of the West in any case? People hold different opinions about whether e.g. the entirety of Latin America counts as Western or not, and the choice to include or exclude those countries makes a big difference in how the US compares in terms of relative violent crime rates.
> Why not compare America against all countries instead of just Western ones?
Oh indeed, but what I am referring to is the "knife crime in London" comparator that right-wing gun groups use. Knife crime in London is not as bad as knife crime in any comparable US city. It's about 40% as bad as New York and only 10% as bad as Dallas.
Prohibition has historically been proven to not work. Even so, the effectiveness of gun laws can't be measured when neighboring states don't have equivalent restrictions. Saying we have 20,000 gun laws and that they don't inherently work is somewhat misleading.
Ah no, I’m pretty certain allowing the sale of military-grade automatic weapons is the issue. That’s a tool for warfare, and you have deadly shootings every day.
Automatic weapons aren't being sold en masse and are rarely used in violent crime. The most common culprits are regular hand guns. The banning of which would require draconian laws. Laws that would need to be enforced, failing a massive culture shift resulting in the vast majority of gun owners voluntarily turning in their arsenals.
You can down vote me but bump stocks are legal. The difference seems semantic.
There are many, many steps that could be taken in the USA to reduce access to weapons before reaching outright banning. Obviously.
And also the idea that banning handguns would be draconian is hilarious. Try talking to anyone from UK, ANZ, Europe, etc. No one is crying about too much regulation.
> While the FBI did break these down by weapon type, they didn’t differentiate between AR-15s or similarly patterned rifles, and grandpa’s bolt action deer rifle. All told, in 2019 there were 364 rifle murders, out of a total of 10,258 firearm murders, accounting for approximately 3.5% of total firearm murders. Nobody uses rifles to murder people because they’re big, bulky, difficult to conceal, and a handgun can do the job just as well.
My buddy saw a sign on a gun store where they had a "3 for the price of 2" promotion on M240 machine guns, like who in their right mind would need two of these, let alone three? They proudly displayed "No ID Checks" in their window lettering, too.
At least part of this is a lie. A transferable M240 is like $400k-600k. And in order to sell those, they have to run a background check as an FFL which requires some form of identification.
As it turns out, the constant state of fear and paranoia is more profitable than gun control. I'm sure many parents even support it, knowing that their kid can be shot any day at any time, and not having much political power for an alternative solution.
Americans should try living in another country for a while. You don't need to worry about school shootings when you send your kids there in the morning. You don't need to worry about getting shot up in the neighborhood restaurant. You don't need to worry about protests turning into into little armed street wars. You don't need to worry about the cops shooting you dead because they're so worried that you may be carrying concealed arms. Life happens on a different gear. You'll certainly gain an appreciation for gun control and how noncontroversial it is.
At what point is anyone going to say enough is enough? When will somebody stand up and call out their gaslighting excuses and insist on them stopping their false pretense of concern and altruism? When will see the perpetrators being confronted for their real criminal intent?
> The report also found that the surveillance fostered an atmosphere of distrust: 32% of 14 to 18-year-old students surveyed said they felt like they were always being watched.
Only 32% felt they were always being watched, but in reality 100% of them were always being watched.
68% felt like they were being watched but didn’t feel safe to admit so because they didn’t trust the report were truly anonymous
This seems wildly optimistic to me. We see the same complacency and/or unawareness with e.g. Flock in society - the truth is most people really just don't think about it, or even mind when they do.
Not 100% of nationwide schools in the survey _always_ watch people. It'd've be interesting if the survey had been able to compare schools still primarily using "normal" surveillance of students vs the kinds for the school discussed in the article and how much of an impact just these changes were having.
Worth mentioning that "no digital recording devices in bathrooms" is something explicitly called out in the boy scouts' anti-child abuse training, mandatory for any adult volunteer.
I wonder why they say "digital recording devices" rather than simply "recording devices"?
Digital is most of the market now but analog video cameras, analog video recorders, and analog tape recorders are still made.
It's actually "cameras and digital recording devices". My guess is that they meant to say "don't have your phone out in the bathroom" but someone in the meeting went "well my son records stuff on his Nintendo DS all the time" and they changed it.
If you're the kind of guy to bring a tape recorder in there and argue about splitting hairs, I don't think they will look kindly upon you.
Probably not an issue in practice: no one owns them anymore, no one walks around with them 24/7, and they're nigh impossible to use covertly.
Probably because the creepy boy scout leaders used analog video recorders and had a meeting to exclude them. Realistically it's just an oversight... hopefully...
Our local high school has had a shooting or stabbing in 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025. Last month, 2 students were shot and there have been 3 lockdowns at the school so far this year (that's 3 in 3 months). This school is in one of the most affluent parts of the bay area (in the hills surrounded by multi-mullion dollar homes and redwood trees). For most of my life, I've been ambivalent about surveillance cameras (neither in favor nor against them) but now I lean towards supporting efforts to install them (especially since the shootings at Brown and MIT). If they eventually help to apprehend a killer before they hurt someone else or cause people to think twice about even bringing a weapon to a school, then that benefit overrides any "atmosphere of distrust." Nobody wants to get a call that their child has been shot at school.
> Our local high school has had a shooting or stabbing in 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025. Last month, 2 students were shot
That is astonishing. How do people tolerate that risk to their kids? I would refuse to send my children to a school that dangerous. I have lived in a country that had a civil war and large scale terrorism and my kids were never exposed to that level of danger.
My school had one stabbing in its history, which is not not far short of two hundred years. That is my expectation of the norm for a school.
Wait aren't schools "gun-free zones"? How could there be a shooting if it's gun-free? Or did the bullet come from outside the zone?
San Francisco was one of the harshest lockdown cities on the planet with one of the longest school closures anywhere in the industrialized world. West coast cities absolutely fucked over their kids.
Cory Doctorow's _Little Brother_ [1] predicted gait and affect detecting school surveillance all the way back in 2008 [1]. Sad to see that come true.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Brother_(Doctorow_novel...
I was thinking about that while reading; in some ways I think this reality is on a worse track than Little Brother's. In the book, schools were using gait analysis because of privacy concerns about facial recognition. In reality, facial recognition seems to be able to be adopted by schools with little pushback.
I hope we all crawl out of the pot before we're turned into frog soup.
To think this is in Beverley Hills, Los Angeles... surely these rich kids can afford to fly to China and see how it's done right?
To be fair, Beverly Hills isn't quite as squeaky clean as popular media would lead you to believe. Parts of it are extremely nice, of course, but it can't help but fall prey to the general sketch that encompasses most of LA county
You may not be aware, but China experiences mass stabbings -albeit not at the same rate as the US: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3dxz1vzdyzo
That's to say, every society has its discontents who take their anger and frustration and discharge it on innocent civilians. Some societies manage their mentally ill people better than others. We do a pretty pitiful job at it.
Mental illness as a culprit is a pretty tired explanation of these events. Statistically, mentally ill people are far more likely to be victims of violence than to perpetrate it, and in many of these events, there is a clear lack of diagnosable or observable illness to begin with. Besides that, even if you don't believe the numbers here, it's possible to improve mental illness treatment and legislate gun control responsibly, it's not an either-or thing. TLDR "Mental illness" is a very tired, very poor explanation for the phenomenon, not even to mention it perpetuates and encourages stigma.
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/04/ce-mental-illness
> Statistically, mentally ill people are far more likely to be victims of violence than to perpetrate it
I think this is one of cases where a broad label like "mental illness" obscures more than it clarifies. There are some subgroups of people with mental illness (schizophrenia, bipolar, antisocial personality disorder) who are more likely to commit violence than others, especially when combined with substance abuse. But of course that fact doesn't generalize to all people with mental illness.
19 mass stabbings in 2024 in China vs 586 mass shooting incidents in the USA. Per capita, that's even worse.
EDIT: I used ChatGPT 'thinking mode' to get that number for USA. Where mass shooting >= 4 people injured.
In the future, get it to give citations, and then use the citations instead. AI is like porn: use it if you must, but don't make it my problem.
> Earlier this year, someone drew a swastika on the sidewalk outside one of the district’s elementary schools.
And did the surveillance equipment catch the perpetrator?
Back in high school, I often ran into toilets with missing stall doors, and would need to search for another bathroom which had them.
Yup. NYC public high school bathrooms were notorious for not having doors. The reason given was the heroin or whatever drug epidemics warranted removing the doors so students couldn't hide in them to shoot up and pass out. That supposedly started in the 60's or 70's and still going on in the 90's into the 00's.
My school had ONE boys bathroom and the rest were closed and used as storage. It was located outside of the lunch room main doors where a security guard sat. No stall doors. The normal protocol was you never shit in school. If you really had to go you prayed no one was in the last stall and covered your lap with your book bag OR try to use the one in the nurses office by claiming you were nauseous. I have on more than one occasion feigned sickness to get my mother to pick me up so I could go home and take a dump with dignity.
As an outsider this feels like they treat these kids like cattle.
Worse, they are treated like criminals.
Civilized places don't treat "criminals" like that. You'd need further qualifications there to make this kind of thing acceptable (as in "violent criminals" or something like that).
get em used to it while they are young. They will see it as normal by the time they can vote.
Except kids already voluntarily gave up their own privacy to such an extent that they don't value it whatsoever. The government is lagging here. Kids will record you without consent anywhere and everywhere, post it online, live stream everything they do, overshare with no limits. They don't understand the idea of privacy. They don't even like the idea of privacy.
> Except kids already voluntarily gave up their own privacy to such an extent that they don't value it whatsoever.
kids don't get privacy in the first place. thats something we give them and they LEARN to value it. thats the goal of this kind of legislation. prevent them from ever having it in the first place.
99% of students had cafeteria lunch and I was one of a couple with a lunch box. Teachers in the hallway would see it and get mad until I showed them my sandwich lol.
It was a scrap of paper folded into a square.
While he stood at the urinal he managed, with a little more fingering, to get it unfolded. Obviously there must be a message of some kind written on it. For a moment he was tempted to take it into one of the water-closets [toilets] and read it at once. But that would be shocking folly, as he well knew. There was no place where you could be more certain that the telescreens were watched continuously.
- George Orwell, 1984
> The surveillance system spots multiple threats per day, the district said.
… multiple threats a day?! At 1 high school?! Citation needed on that. I know that US high schools have a reputation of being unsafe, but I highly doubt there’s near-HOURLY thwarting of “threats”. Are we talking about rule breaking (vaping in the bathroom, skipping class) or bullying? I would assume so.
The fact it’s then immediately followed up with stats about gun violence does sort of imply we’re talking about serious threats…
Sure, maybe you go full-prison mode if there’s an hourly murder, but that’s so outside the realm of reality that I’m not willing to even entertain that as being a possibility. You would’ve run out of students by now.
> The fact it’s then immediately followed up with stats about gun violence does sort of imply we’re talking about serious threats…
Yes, the juxtaposition does strongly suggest that that is the narrative that the piece is trying to push, even before it explicitly states that by following the stats with “Given those appalling metrics, allocating a portion of your budget to state of the art AI-powered safety and surveillance tools is a relatively easy decision.” (And that emotionally-loaded language isn't paraphrasing any figures named in the story, its the "news” stories own voice!)
But with on the order of 50 fatalities nationally per year, and a single high schools system detecting "multiple threats a day", if we are talking about the same kind of threats, then the false positive rate is virtually indistinguishable from 100%. And, if we aren’t, then the juxtaposition is irrelevant as well as emotionally manipulative.
I guess there's two ways to read a ratio like that. Either A) the false positive rate rounds to 100.00000%, or B) the correct positive rate rounds to 100.00000% and the few that slip through are great tragedies due to "just not investing enough", thus making the false positives worth it.
I'm glad B) at least wasn't made /explicit/ in the article, but damn... they do point at it by implication. You're totally right about the juxtaposition being manipulative.
> The company isn’t aware of any school shootings where its tech was deployed.
A thing that happens 50 times a year, across the entire US has not occurred at any of the small number of pilot schools... where apparently "threats" occur multiple times a day?
EDIT: confirming I agree, emphasis on /explicit/.
> I guess there's two ways to read a ratio like that. Either A) the false positive rate rounds to 100.00000%, or B) the correct positive rate rounds to 100.00000% and the few that slip through are great tragedies due to "just not investing enough", thus making the false positives worth it.
I think for (B) to be a justifiable reading, the national stats would have had to have been much higher before the roll out, with a significant share of those national stats being from the particular schools that happened to be the leading implementors.
But, yeah, I agree that that is a possible implication of the presentation on the surface.
My daughter hears about gun threats at her high school weekly. I don't know how many are actual threats, but they have implemented a transparent bag policy, it's a real problem.
> they have implemented a transparent bag policy, it's a real problem.
This makes the assumption that all policies have a reasonable justification, so that the existence of a real problem can be inferred by the implementation of a policy which would only make sense if (1) there was a real problem, and (2) the policy was an effective mitigation.
I would suggest that this assumption is both false and dangerous, in that it makes one trivially manipulable by anyone in a position to set policy.
You are correct in that I did not specify what the actual problem is. There is a problem of perception, which the transparent bag policy will at least partly address, at relatively little cost. The problem of perception is almost certainly more troublesome than the reality in the majority of cases - the exceptions being notable - and while transparent bags may not be an effective deterrent, that doesn't mean they don't serve as one at all. There is also, in this case, a very real and well-known problem in American schools, including multiple guns confiscated and at least one credible threat in the past semester at this particular school.
I too kind of roll my eyes at the bag policy but it's at least an acknowledgement that something needs to be done about the problem - more than we've gotten from our politicians in the past two decades.
If it was a real problem they'd have metal detectors and security rather than security theater.
Who exactly is paying for those, and the training and staff to effectively operate and maintain them?
I'm sorry, I hope I don't come off like I'm minimizing a real problem here, but from the outside looking in, it just feels like an entirely alien line of reasoning that could only describe a solution to an imagined problem. However, I'm also missing the lived experience of what being in the US is like right now, and especially missing the context of being a child with peers that make threats like that weekly. I'm empathetic to that situation, but not to the framing that surveillance is somehow stopping those weekly rumours from being weekly atrocities. That's a huge leap.
> However, I'm also missing the lived experience of what being in the US is like right now,
I’m in the US and this story feels extremely foreign to me. Even hearing a rumor about a gun threat at my kids’ school or any of my friends’ kids’ schools would be a topic of discussion for the next year with parent-teacher meetings, the school communicating with parents to shed light on what happened, action plans, and so on. Fortunately nothing like that has happened, but this is the level of communication that happens for even rumored threats.
The US is a huge place, though. Some times I don’t think outsiders understand how big and diverse this country is.
When I was in school, the administration would work itself up into fits about "gangs infiltrating the schools" because an 11 year old wore a red or blue hat to class, clearly gang colors and a sign of the times.
This was in a wealthy suburb where people like that have to make up imaginary threats in order to feel something, and what better population to fret about than the kids.
There was also a wealthy suburb with an actual gang whose existence was swept under the rug for years until they murdered a random 16 year old: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/07/01/how-a-homegrow...
The cops' reluctance to investigate probably had something to do with the fact that some of the gang members were white student athletes with very wealthy families.
[dead]
They're not saying how many of these "spotted threats" are false positives.
I'm sure they're "real" threats to muh auhtoritah.
How dare some teenager thumb their nose at the almighty rules of the state by <checks notes> vaping in the bathroom.
Probably flagging vapes and recorders as guns . . .
> The fact it’s then immediately followed up with stats about gun violence does sort of imply we’re talking about serious threats…
Do we trust surveillance peddlers enough that we should believe what they don't even say directly, but only "sort of imply" it? In this case, we have an easy test: has the number of attempted homicides at this school decreased by multiple per day since the surveillance was implemented?
If it has, I'm sure the surveillance vendors would be eagerly pointing to the dramatic drop in homicides on a graph, coinciding with their invasion of the school, and not just sort of implying it.
>The fact it’s then immediately followed up with stats about gun violence does sort of imply we’re talking about serious threats…
Or they're trying to appeal to the emotion of "the usual demographic suspects" who they need to simp for this.
Coincidentally I just watched this Defcon talk on these popular bathroom 'smoke detectors' that can detect vapes and listen in on conversations - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCnojaEpF2I
There was a bit of discussion around that: It Looks Like a School Bathroom Smoke Detector. It Could Be an Audio Bug (17 points, 4 months ago, 12 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44915338
I imagine these will be in apartments soon.
this shit makes me want to move into a hollowed out tree trunk and forage.
The forests are full of cameras. Trail cams and “game cams” are everywhere and can be hard to spot.
> I imagine these will be in apartments soon.
This would constitute illegal wiretapping. You have a legally-defensible reasonable expectation of privacy in your domicile in the absence of a warrant.
It’s only actually illegal if a landlord went to jail for doing it, otherwise it’s just a cost of doing business.
They already are in apartments. Also hospitals, nursing homes, all kinds of places. The talk digs into that.
I guess AB test some other schools that spends 5m on counselling instead of security.
“We’ve tried nothing (about guns) and we’re all out of ideas” all over again.
We've tried about 20,000 gun-control laws, at last count. It must not be the guns.
Same principle applies with cameras. The tool is not the issue.
The rest of the civilized world doesn't seem to have a problem. Their stricter gun control laws seem to work just fine.
The exact definition of "civilized world" is doing a lot of work here. What specific regions or poltical jurisdictions do you think count or do not count as part of the civilized world?
‹inserts the animaniacs “countries of the world” song here›
The exact definition of "civilized world" is doing a lot of work here.
As is "doesn't seem to have a problem."
I am sorry I don't have the precise statement about relative rates of gun deaths and mass shootings in the US vs the rest of the OECD. Here's a data point to ponder, firearms are now the leading cause of death for children and adolescents in the US: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761
This is not true for any other OECD country.
Yeah, it's obviously a gun control issue. But the US has such a deeply ingrained cultural association with owning guns, and thinking that this means "freedom" in case the government turns on the people lol, that I doubt banning them happens in our lifetime.
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-...
> There is no clear correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate. Not within the USA. Not regionally. Not internationally. Not among peaceful societies. Not among violent ones. Gun ownership doesn’t make us safer. It doesn’t make us less safe. A bivariate correlation simply isn’t there. It is blatantly not-there. It is so tremendously not-there that the “not-there-ness” of it alone should be a huge news story.
You don't need to ban them, though. Isn't that the actual lesson at the end of _Bowling For Columbine_? That Canada has a huge number of guns and isn't so fucked up?
What you need to do is undermine the culture of machismo and trollishness around guns:
Start with "anyone who poses with guns in their family Christmas photo is to be treated as if they will use them on your family or their own kids without a moment's hesitation for their own gain".
(Like, if you get a Christmas card from a family with guns in their photo, why would you consider that anything other than a threatening communication? It clearly is.)
Move on to "anyone who has more usable guns than they can hold in their hands is probably a broken person and maybe you should consider keeping your distance".
Move on to "anyone who owns a bump stock is insane or compensating for a tiny penis", and "anyone who doesn't keep their guns in a gun safe is not safe to be around at all".
Move on to "open carry does not mean ostentatious carry". Start thinking about whether open carry is, in fact, a necessary conclusion of the right to bear arms.
Move on to fucking investigating NRA corruption properly. Don't just point it out.
Move on to humiliating politicians who take gun lobby money. Don't just point it out as if it's some form of conflict of interest or a sign they won't be serious about gun crime. Laugh at them. Call them spineless cowards. Humiliate them for their craven foolishness.
Aim for a process that preserves the right to bear arms but makes gun nuts seem as untrustworthy and dangerous as it turns out they so often are.
And if you are a gun owner and you believe guns should be treated with caution and respect, and you know someone who doesn't, tell them in no uncertain terms, and if you ever see them get violent, tell the police of your concerns.
Make gun obsession weird again.
You act like guns some weird anachronism, but from my perch, it seems that the need for civilized people to maintain firearms is increasing, not decreasing.
Consider that we have a documented justice system in many places that is repeatedly releasing violent criminals onto the streets, such that they are going on to set people on fire on the train, knife innocents on the subway, swinging and hitting elderly women with nail-embedded boards on the sidewalk. Note these crimes happened despite their lack of firearms. Should we not have guns to defend ourselves from these barbarians?
If the justice system were perfect, and crime rates far lower, then firearms would be less necessary, but never unnecessary, because civilization in a local phenomenon, and it only takes one barbarian to disrupt civilized order for the peaceful people of the world. It takes one civilized person with a gun to restore order.
In many places in the west, immigration policy has given rise to rape gangs in England, gangs that bomb in Sweden, etc. Should these peaceful people not have guns to defend themselves from these barbarians?
Allowing US style gun proliferation creates a chicken and egg problem:
How can you prevent these rape gangs from accessing the same weapons? They are not caught, prosecuted and banned from obtaining guns? Even if they are, there will be more guns to steal and circulate in either case.
The answer is laws, but you say they are not working perfectly. So rape gangs will be armed rape gangs next.
When I visited Stockholm ~17 years ago, all shops were displaying valuable items in steel cages anyway (e.g.: TVs were "locked" in heavy-duty steel frames to prevent "removal"), so the problem runs older than the immigration policy gained momentum.
3D printers and cheap CNC mills and lathes thankfully obviate all of these "laws."
> thankfully.
I sincerely wish you to live the life you dream of.
Merry Christmas and happy new year!
"thankfully"
Fetishizing gun ownership also makes you a barbarian. An instrument of death should be treated with somber reverence, not giddy excitement.
"I need my guns to defend myself from the (((barbarian hordes)))" is exactly the kind of rhetoric that leads the rest of the planet treats gun nuts like the nuts they are. Unfortunately for the US, the US valorizes this particular psychosis
> immigration policy has given rise to rape gangs in England […] Should these peaceful people not have guns to defend themselves from these barbarians?
I don't think you understand the nature of the "rape gang" problem —- what it actually refers to, how it works, and why arming a populace wouldn't do a thing to stop it.
Because the USA has this exact same problem (low-level organised crime gangs sexually exploiting naïve, broke or drug-addicted young teenagers in deprived settings) and gun ownership didn't fix it.
The "rape gangs" are not some roving crime phenomenon that turns up at your door and can be dissuaded by waving a gun.
So yes. Not only do we not extrajudicially shoot rapists because vigilante violence doesn't do anything useful, arming a whole population would not stop this problem in deprived environments in cities. It hasn't in yours.
We (Americans) vote our rapists and pedophiles into power, so any concern over "rape gangs" is downright comical.
> Start with "anyone who poses with guns in their family Christmas photo is to be treated as if they will use them on your family or their own kids without a moment's hesitation for their own gain".
That seems hyperbolic to me. I don't understand liking "tactical" Christmas decor, but I know some people who do.
In my experience, this kind of hyperbole tends to increase polarization around an idea instead of leading to any consensus.
Polarization is the point. It is time to reclaim the idea that gun ownership is at best an unfortunate necessity and gun fandom is creepy shit.
The rest of the world does indeed have a problem, but the perps just use different weapons. It's not the guns.
America has dramatically worse rates of knife crime than the western countries it likes to point at though. Doesn't that undermine your argument?
Why not compare America against all countries instead of just Western ones? Which countries do and do not count as part of the West in any case? People hold different opinions about whether e.g. the entirety of Latin America counts as Western or not, and the choice to include or exclude those countries makes a big difference in how the US compares in terms of relative violent crime rates.
> Why not compare America against all countries instead of just Western ones?
Oh indeed, but what I am referring to is the "knife crime in London" comparator that right-wing gun groups use. Knife crime in London is not as bad as knife crime in any comparable US city. It's about 40% as bad as New York and only 10% as bad as Dallas.
Prohibition has historically been proven to not work. Even so, the effectiveness of gun laws can't be measured when neighboring states don't have equivalent restrictions. Saying we have 20,000 gun laws and that they don't inherently work is somewhat misleading.
Ah no, I’m pretty certain allowing the sale of military-grade automatic weapons is the issue. That’s a tool for warfare, and you have deadly shootings every day.
Automatic weapons aren't being sold en masse and are rarely used in violent crime. The most common culprits are regular hand guns. The banning of which would require draconian laws. Laws that would need to be enforced, failing a massive culture shift resulting in the vast majority of gun owners voluntarily turning in their arsenals.
You can down vote me but bump stocks are legal. The difference seems semantic.
There are many, many steps that could be taken in the USA to reduce access to weapons before reaching outright banning. Obviously.
And also the idea that banning handguns would be draconian is hilarious. Try talking to anyone from UK, ANZ, Europe, etc. No one is crying about too much regulation.
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/ar-15s-are-mindbogglingly-safe
> While the FBI did break these down by weapon type, they didn’t differentiate between AR-15s or similarly patterned rifles, and grandpa’s bolt action deer rifle. All told, in 2019 there were 364 rifle murders, out of a total of 10,258 firearm murders, accounting for approximately 3.5% of total firearm murders. Nobody uses rifles to murder people because they’re big, bulky, difficult to conceal, and a handgun can do the job just as well.
My buddy saw a sign on a gun store where they had a "3 for the price of 2" promotion on M240 machine guns, like who in their right mind would need two of these, let alone three? They proudly displayed "No ID Checks" in their window lettering, too.
At least part of this is a lie. A transferable M240 is like $400k-600k. And in order to sell those, they have to run a background check as an FFL which requires some form of identification.
No, he saw no such thing, at least not in the USA. You need to call him up and ask him why he lied to you, and ask him not to do that anymore.
This is existentially offensive. I don't think I've ever felt this offended in my whole adult life.
As it turns out, the constant state of fear and paranoia is more profitable than gun control. I'm sure many parents even support it, knowing that their kid can be shot any day at any time, and not having much political power for an alternative solution.
What are you being downvoted for? Is it about gun control? I genuinely would like a clarification.
I made people uncomfortable but they have nothing to reply because I spoke a simple fact.
Americans should try living in another country for a while. You don't need to worry about school shootings when you send your kids there in the morning. You don't need to worry about getting shot up in the neighborhood restaurant. You don't need to worry about protests turning into into little armed street wars. You don't need to worry about the cops shooting you dead because they're so worried that you may be carrying concealed arms. Life happens on a different gear. You'll certainly gain an appreciation for gun control and how noncontroversial it is.
https://archive.ph/g3MFJ
Did I ever tell you you're my hero?
If the 18th century was about Enlightenment, the 21st century is about Distrust.
We need to stop this nonsense. Fear, surveillance, and distrust are out of control.
At what point is anyone going to say enough is enough? When will somebody stand up and call out their gaslighting excuses and insist on them stopping their false pretense of concern and altruism? When will see the perpetrators being confronted for their real criminal intent?
I can't think of a single time scenarios like this improved without... major government overhaul.
> major government overhaul.
Is this what I think it is?
I hope they had tested it out on Epstein Island to iron out any teething problems.