Surveillance of Children: Good Idea?

On September 17, the House passed the "School Safety Enhancements Act of 2008." Passed by a voice vote, at a time lots of other things were happening.

Sounds like a good thing, right? Promoting "school safety", especially in these "dangerous times", what with student killings, etc. On the other hand, there really is something sinister about federally sponsoring surveillance of children in schools. And why does it have to be federally mandated? Can't school districts tailor their own security according to their own needs?

School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007 - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to: (1) allow the placement and use of surveillance equipment in schools under the matching grant program for public elementary and secondary school security; (2) allow the use of grant funds to establish hotlines or tiplines for reporting potentially dangerous students and situations and for making capital improvements to make school facilities more secure; (3) set the federal matching share of program costs at 80%; and (4) revise application requirements for school security grants.

Requires the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Secretary of Education to establish an interagency task force to develop and promulgate advisory school safety guidelines.

Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require each institution of higher education participating in any program under title IV (Student Assistance) of that Act to: (1) conduct an annual campus safety assessment in consultation with local law enforcement officials; and (2) develop and implement a campus emergency response plan that addresses a comprehensive set of emergency situations, including natural disasters, active shooter situations, and terrorism.

The latter "emergency response plan" reminds me of my childhood safety drills, which included (now my age rears its head over Alaska and points south) air raid drills and what to do in case a telephone/electricity pole falls down - and "terrorism" is a safety issue, not to mention "active shooters", which was a thing we didn't hear about back in the Precambrian when I went to school.

And the latter paragraph refers to "higher education" where the word "children" doesn't exactly apply. But the issue here is that children will be under surveillance all across the country, and the law enforcement-school relationship doesn't need the federal government to mandate it in order to work. Law enforcement and schools should establish their own relationships in each community without there being strong federal mandates and coordination. Why? Because doing so makes a network that could be used for somehow "other purposes", and it gives us that feeling that the government is trying to control us unnecessarily.

Citizens in communities should be able to handle their own schools and police. What happened in Columbine was not because of lack of surveillance. The issues are much deeper than that, and surveillance and police-state tactics only exacerbate the marginalizing of students who may need more love and attention.

New Spy Powers for Police: Democracy at Risk??

Today a new article in WaPo exposes Bush's latest tactic to bring the US closer to a true police state:

The Justice Department has proposed a new domestic spying measure that would make it easier for state and local police to collect intelligence about Americans, share the sensitive data with federal agencies and retain it for at least 10 years.

We're talking about local and state police, not some federal agents. And yes, that was "intelligence collecting", spying, not just enforcing the law. And what stringent safeguards, what conditions are in place to protect our real or imagined freedoms?? All the police need is "reasonable suspicion". Ah, yes, that wonderful and accurate cornerstone to prevent abuse: it's up to each officer's own renowned instincts, his "suspicion".

Or, to put it literally now:

law enforcement agencies would be allowed to target groups as well as individuals, and to launch a criminal intelligence investigation based on the suspicion that a target is engaged in terrorism or providing material support to terrorists.

And of course, this suspicion can be transmitted to

a constellation of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and others in many cases.

Shall we consult our astrologers to know what agencies in the "constellation" will be affected? Does anybody realize how this can taint a person's reputation and life?? The taint of suspicion, especially suspicion of terrorism, can absolutely ruin someone's life. And what about Middle eastern or Muslim Americans? What right-minded police officer wouldn't be suspicious of them?? And what does this do to our democracy - or what's left of it?

Jim McMahon, deputy executive director of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said the proposed changes "catch up with reality" in that those who investigate crimes such as money laundering, drug trafficking and document fraud are best positioned to detect terrorists. He said the rule maintains the key requirement that police demonstrate a "reasonable suspicion" that a target is involved in a crime before collecting intelligence.

OK, maybe I'm not laundering money or faking documents. But what if I gave to a charity that later on was found to be, unbeknownst to me, contributing to some terrorist group? Will I be held in one of those new prison complexes the GOP has been preparing for just such a need? What if some police officer thought I was acting suspiciously? I know of a guy who was "taken down" by a team from the JTT (joint terrorism task force) and 5 squad cars with his children in the car just because he allegedly said to a grocery checker "Take care on the 4th of July" at a time when July 4 was on a "red" level terror alert (a few years back) and she knew he was from an Arab country. He was detained and questioned for hours until his attorney got him released a few days later. They refused to tell him what he was accused of, btw.

And that was THEN. NOW what level of suspicion and surveillance can they enact? Knowing the genius of police depts. around the country, there's no telling how this thing could play out. But don't worry:

Supporters say the measures simply codify existing counterterrorism practices and policies that are endorsed by lawmakers and independent experts such as the 9/11 Commission. They say the measures preserve civil liberties and are subject to internal oversight.

Ahhh, why didn't I mention that earlier? "Internal oversight" will be our checks and balances. Now doesn't that make you feel better?