Remember my rant on the British idea of mandatory webcams in the classrooms? Devoted Reader Nick, of Twilight of the Idols, sends along a USA Today story about a school district in Biloxi (Miss.) that has gone ahead and installed "a virtual army of digital cameras" in every classroom:
So far, Biloxi is the only school district in the nation to install Webcams in every classroom -- nearly 500 so far. But school districts in cities nationwide and in England are experimenting with classroom Webcams for security reasons...
...privacy advocates, teachers' groups and others worry about putting classes under an all-day microscope. Some say cameras could be misused and interfere with teaching, and others fear that districts using them could become complacent about security.
All good points, all of which I made in my original article. I find it hard to believe that discipline is SO bad in Biloxi that teachers were willing to give up classroom privacy in order to have verification of bad behavior. I figure the dangers of this trade-off will be driven home the first time a teacher gets disciplined, fired, or sued for something that a parent sees on a webcam.
Both sides of the webcam debate are emphatic about the safety issue:
Though Biloxi's camera system hasn't captured serious crimes, [district Superintendent Larry] Drawdy says it has ''prevented a lot of things from happening'' and helped principals sort out minor offenses such as classroom thefts that could have led to time-consuming, intrusive investigations...
But Curt Lavarello, executive director of the National Association of School Resource Officers, says all those cameras actually could make schools less safe. ''We lose the direct, one-to-one contact that is so critically needed,'' he says. Relying on cameras ''can't become the replacement for the human factor.''
That was the point I made about schools now placing the burden on parents to watch webcam footage. The question is whether the footage will be considered in relation to the human judgement of teachers and administrators, or whether it will replace it. Yes, if a kid walks in the door with a machine gun, a camera is going to catch that (although perhaps not prevent it from happening).
Webcam critics note other problems, including parental interference and the inability of parents to remove their kids from a camera-recorded environment:
That's what worries critics, who say such recordings could be used for other purposes: What if a parent complains that a teacher uses class time to promote birth control or drug use, or even terrorism?
''You've, in essence, got a complete record of your teaching,'' says Clark Kelso of the University of the Pacific's Mc-George School of Law in Sacramento. ''There's enormous pressure on the district to say, 'Let's go see what's on that videotape.' ''...
...mention classroom Webcams to privacy advocates and they get the creeps. ''It seems like you can't opt out,'' says Dan Farmer of Elemental Security in San Mateo, Calif., who has advised Congress on Internet privacy and security issues. ''That's troubling.''
I agree. One science teacher who has used webcams in the past is quoted as saying that everyone should "relax" about the issue - but he also notes that he doesn't agree with the idea of webcam footage being used as evidence in a dispute between teachers and students - ''If it gets to the point where my word against students' isn't good, then I go find another job."
What makes him, or any webcam supporter, think that the footage wouldn't be used in this way, and used often? Not only will teachers be under constant surveillance, but if the videotape shows something different than the teacher's version of a dispute, they'll have a hard time standing their ground.
Nick's got a good discussion of it over on his site, too (scroll down). Joanne Jacobs has a take on it too, and she, like me, understands the theory behind it, but finds it a bit creepy anyway.
Posted by kswygert at August 13, 2003 09:57 AM