Anyhow, let's see how far they can get up your ass, kids....
"The question parents would have to ask themselves is whether they'd want to prohibit their children's activities this way"
Translation: How much mistrust do you want to engender with your own childen at the insistence of the state and its agenda-pushers in the MSM?
"Cellphone blockers far from foolproof" by Associated Press | January 19, 2009
SALT LAKE CITY - Many parents would love to be able to give their teenagers a cellphone that couldn't be used while driving. Some inventors say they have come up with ways to make that possible, but they appear to be relying on wishful thinking.
One product to hit the market, $10-a-month software by Dallas-based WQN Inc., can disable a cellphone while its owner is driving. It uses GPS technology, which can tell how fast a person is traveling. But it can't know whether the person is driving - and therefore it can needlessly lock a phone. WQN, which sells cellphone and Internet security software under the name WebSafety, says it signed up about 50 customers for its first month of service.
Nice to know that BIG BROTHER -- or MOTHER or FATHER or GOVERNMENT or CORPORATION -- is looking over your shoulder, huh? Here's a question: Is there going to be ANY PLACE that is NOT invaded by the tyranny of technology?
Aegis Mobility, a Canadian software company, plans to release a similar Global Positioning System-based product this fall, known as DriveAssistT. Aegis is in talks with big US wireless phone carriers, which would have to support the software and charge a fee of probably $10 to $20 a month, said David Teater, the company's vice president.
Yup, you PAY for your OWN TYRANNY around here!
The DriveAssistT system will disable a phone at driving speeds and send a message to callers or texters saying the person they are trying to reach is too busy driving. But because that person could be a non-driving passenger, the approach is a blunt tool.
We know nothing else here in AmeriKa!
Other product concepts that don't involve GPS systems have their own flaws. As a result, Parry Aftab, who advises families on technology and safety, suggests worried parents find another way to stop their kids from calling or texting while driving. Parents are better off taking away a child's cellphone if it is used improperly, she said....
Yeah, TRASH the CANCER-CAUSING pieces of CRAP!!!!
Of course, the FAMILY ARGUMENT that ensues may not be worth it.
*************
Concerns are mounting that driving while gabbing or text-messaging on a cellphone, even if it is not hand-held, is unacceptably dangerous. The National Safety Council says there should be a total ban on cellphone use while driving, citing the higher risk of accidents and deaths.
Well, WHO MARKETED all this s*** so hard, huh?
At least 18 states restrict cellphone use - talking or texting - for some or all drivers, according to the insurance industry-funded Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Yet even in those states, motorists and especially young drivers are hardly deterred.
B. Michael Adler, chief executive of WQN, said his 18-year-old son came to mind as he was developing the software to disable a cellphone while driving. "He's texting messages with two hands and driving with his legs," Adler said. "You flip him the keys to the family car, you might as well be flipping him a six-pack of beer."
I NEVER TEXT in the car; that's STOO-PID!!!
WQN's surveillance service promises more than just disabling the phone in cars. It can monitor a person's whereabouts, notifying parents by text messaging when their children step out of designated zones or return home.
Related: New RFID Technology Allows You to be Tracked WITHOUT Your Knowledge
It also can turn off a cellphone at school, preventing cheating, based on a reading of the school's location.
Yeah, that's only for politicians.
The question parents would have to ask themselves is whether they'd want to prohibit their children's activities this way.
And they are ALWAYS WATCHING, kids!!!!
"They have to realize that as soon as they put on our uniform and our logo, they're representing a lot more than themselves.... and at that point it is our responsibility to educate them on what is appropriate"
Sig Heil!
"Keep it clean, kids, software's watching" by Dave Copeland, Globe Correspondent | January 19, 2009
It was the kind of incident that makes college athletic directors cringe.
In November, shortly after Barack Obama was elected president, a second-string University of Texas football player posted a racist comment about Obama on his Facebook page.
Huh, that's interesting: The Bipartisan Homeland Security State
The KKK Way of Shutting Down the Internet
Will the FALSE-FLAGS and PROVOCATEURS every go away?
It was quickly followed by an apology: "Clearly I have made a mistake and apologized for it and will pay for it," the student wrote on Facebook. "I received it as a text message from an acquaintance and immaturely put it up on Facebook in the light of the election."
But the damage was done, and the athlete lost his place on the team. These days, with sports-oriented gossip websites like Badjocks.com and Thedirty.com trolling athletes' Facebook pages and MySpace profiles for comments like the one made by the Texas athlete, a few mouse clicks can end a student athlete's career and damage a school's reputation.
That's why I am ONLY HERE, folks! And my rants are in NO WAY RACIST, ANTI-SEMITIC, or HATEFUL!! They may be PAINED, but that's it! I don't trust those privacy-busting trackers!
YouDiligence, a Montpelier, Vt., company, says it can offer schools a line of defense. YouDiligence has spent the past two years refining its service, which alerts parents and educators to questionable content on social-networking websites.
And CUI BONO (cha-CHING)?
The company said it has 12 university athletic departments on board. In November, it began marketing a version of the service directly to parents, who may be concerned about everything from reputation-damaging comments to cyber bullying to online predators.
"If I'm the parent of a tween or teen kid, they're buried in their computer from the moment they get home from school, but in most cases I have no idea what they're doing online," said Kevin Long, YouDiligence's president. "This is an opportunity for them to be involved without being intrusive."
The service works by searching social-networking sites for posts by the student or child that contain certain keywords. YouDiligence offers a list of suggested keywords that could signal trouble, but parents can also enter their own - for example, the name of a child they don't want their child associating with, or even sending instant messages to.
But YouDiligence doesn't just search the child's own Facebook and MySpace pages, it also looks at comments they post on other people's pages. "It's helping protect them from posting things that would be difficult to explain in a job interview, to an alumni booster, or to a reporter who might happen on it," Long said.
The cost of the service ranges from $9.99 a month to monitor one child to $24.99 to monitor four or more.
Cha-CHING!!!!
Increasingly, potential employers are looking at social networking sites when they screen job candidates.
There you go (not that there are jobs around here; there ain't)!
Currently, about 12 percent of employers use social-networking sites to research job candidates, according to a survey to be released this month by Lewis Johs Avallone Aviles LLP, a New York law firm. The survey, of 1,150 hiring managers, found that 41 percent of job candidates admitted to posting on social-networking sites information about their drug use and excessive drinking, while another 22 percent said they had made discriminatory comments.
"Social-networking sites are a great way to connect with other people, but they're also a powerful way to let the world see who you really are," said Jeffrey Pincus, a partner at the law firm who lead the study. "Employers are being more aggressive in looking at how the people they hire are using these sites."
I'll be sure to stay off them then.
Schools big and small have not escaped the backlash caused by students' inappropriate online admissions. And when they involve student-athletes, the indiscretions often make news. For instance, Quinnipiac College in Hamden, Conn., with 5,400 undergraduates, suspended a freshman basketball player last fall for posting racially threatening comments on another student's Facebook page.
Incidents like that have the University of Maine's athletic director, Blake James, considering adding YouDiligence's service to his budget. "I see it as an educational tool - kids put something up at a moment's notice without thinking about it," James said. "I have to constantly remind them that once they put something on the World Wide Web, that's what it is - the world."
How about getting to some 9/11 Truth sites, 'eh?
James said he doesn't consider the service to be an invasion of privacy, noting that student athletes at the University of Maine and most other schools usually sign a code of conduct.
Did you salute, komrade?
Sig Heil!
--more--"
Of course, look at what happens when a KID TELLS the TRUTH!
(I will say this; the kid sure is getting an education)
"Ruling backs school in free speech case; Discipline upheld for Conn. student on Internet post" by Associated Press | January 19, 2009
BURLINGTON, Conn. - Burlington school officials acted within their rights to discipline a student for an Internet posting she wrote off school grounds, a federal judge has ruled.
WTF?
US District Court Judge Mark Kravitz rejected Avery Doninger's claim that administrators at Lewis B. Mills High School violated her rights of free speech and equal protection. She also alleged they inflicted emotional distress when they barred her from serving as class secretary because of the 2007 posting, which criticized the administrators for canceling a popular school activity.
The student got a LESSON in RAW POWER POLITICS, didn't she?
Kravitz's ruling relied partly on the ambiguity over whether schools can regulate students' expression on the Internet. He noted in his ruling that times have changed since 1979, when a landmark student speech case set boundaries for schools regulating off-campus speech.
Why? WhyTF should they have anything to do with it -- especially when it is OFF-CAMPUS?!
Now, he wrote, students can send e-mails to hundreds of classmates at a time or post entries that can be read instantly by students, teachers, and administrators. "Off-campus speech can become on-campus speech with the click of a mouse," Kravitz wrote.
Then NO ONE can say ANYHTING ANYWHERE? That the "FREE SPEECH" this fascista shit is trumpeting?
Kravitz cited previous rulings in his decision that school administrators were entitled to qualified immunity. That shields public officials from lawsuits for damages unless they violate clearly established rights that a reasonable official would have known.
Sig Heil!!!
The officials could not reasonably be expected "to predict where the line between on- and off-campus speech will be drawn in this new digital era," he wrote.... The case may ultimately have to be decided by the US Supreme Court....
The case stemmed from a 2007 dispute over comments that Doninger, then the junior class secretary, made about administrators in her blog after they canceled a popular event she helped plan. The event was later rescheduled.
Administrators prohibited Doninger from seeking reelection as class secretary, but she refused to withdraw her candidacy and won as a write-in candidate. The school then barred her from serving in the post. Doninger, who graduated in 2008, now works for AmeriCorps in an impoverished school in Denver.
What ASSHOLES the SCHOOL OFFICIALS ARE!!!! Here you have a REALLY GOOD KID and the "educators" are ASSHOLES!!!
--more--"
No, I am glad I'm not a kid now; I'm in fact glad I'm an old fart who gives people a piece of his mind because he doesn't give a shit anymore!
