angelburst29
The Living Force
I came across this announcement/article on "Free Amber Alert Child ID Kits" aka the MasoniCHIP Ontario (Child Identification Program) sponsored by the Grand Lodge A. F. & A. M. of Canada in the Province of Ontario.
I have "mixed feelings" about this program. In one sense, it could be a good thing but on the other, I can't shake the feeling, of children being "tagged and catorized" into a data base system, for retrival at a future time by unauthorized personel.
The announcement further states, "Security and privacy are of utmost importance." "After each child is processed, the data is deleted from the software. The only item retained by MasoniCHIP Ontario is the signed permission slip."
It sounds innocent enough but how can you be sure that the data that was processed on the child was deleted from the software? Why not offer the kit to the Parent's or Guardian's - to process at home? In which case, no permission slip would be needed. The permission slip deal, throws up all kinds of red flags for me.
It further states, "The kit will take about 10-15 minutes to assemble and will include digital photographs; digital video; digital fingerprints; vital child information; and a dental bite impression or Intra Oral Swab for DNA. The photographs, video, fingerprints, and child data are burned onto a C.D. that is compatible with Amber Alert. This kit provides a dramatic, time-sensitive recovery tool for authorities."
And this, "All information and specimens are collected on site, processed, and provided to the parent or guardian in an envelope—along with the sentiment of all the Masonic volunteers – “We hope you never need to use it.”
My auguement is, "All the information required for the kit, can be done at home, including burning the info onto a CD, which can be updated during certain intervals, as the child goes through normal developement stages."
I agree, on the principle of logging vital information on a child, especially in this day and age. But the "kit" they are offering with collecting and processing vital data "on site" suggests to me, another scheme for private data collection, even though they openly suggest, otherwise. There's already Doctor and immunization records filed in the child's name and possible Day Care and school admission files which includes a copy of the Birth Certificate.
http://www.mariaaugimeri.com/2012/05/get-a-free-amber-alert-child-id-kit-this-saturday-in-downsview/
Consider a program introduced by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, inBloom as an extension of the Kit offered to obtain vital info on children.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/29/us-usa-education-database-idUSBRE94S0YU20130529
(Reuters) - A $100 million database set up to store extensive records on millions of public school students has stumbled badly since its launch this spring, with officials in several states backing away from the project amid protests from irate parents.
The database, funded mostly by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is intended to track students from kindergarten through high school by storing myriad data points: test scores, learning disabilities, discipline records - even teacher assessments of a child's character.
The system is set up to identify millions of children by name, race, economic status and other metrics and is constructed in a way that makes it easy for school districts to share some or all of that information with private companies developing education software.
The nonprofit organization that runs the database, inBloom Inc, introduced the project in March with a presentation at an education technology conference, complete with a list of nine states that it said were committed partners.
Parents and civil liberties groups concerned about potential privacy breaches quickly began to sound the alarm and rallied opposition in social media.
In response to an outcry in his state, Louisiana Superintendent of Education John White withdrew student data from inBloom in April. He's planning to hold public hearings on data storage and security this summer but said in an interview that he is no longer sure there's a need for inBloom.
Kentucky, Georgia and Delaware - all initially listed as partners on the inBloom website - told Reuters that they never made a commitment and have no intention of participating. Georgia specifically asked for its name to be removed.
Officials in two other states on the list, Massachusetts and North Carolina, said they are still evaluating the project and may never upload student data.
"The single biggest issue is, Can we satisfy not only ourselves but everyone that the data is as secure stored there as it would be anywhere?" said Jeff Wulfson, deputy commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Education. "From our perspective, this is still in the research and development phase."
InBloom spokesman Adam Gaber said the initial list of partner states was "confusing" and has been corrected on the website. Massachusetts and North Carolina "were more committed originally"
but are still considered partners because they are discussing possible participation, he said.
That leaves just New York, Illinois and Colorado as active participants.
Former West Virginia Governor Bob Wise, who sits on the inBloom board of directors, said he was confident the project was still viable and valuable.
School districts already store student data and often share it with private vendors hired for jobs such as tracking reading scores. InBloom simply consolidates in one secure, cloud-hosted database the reams of student information now scattered among an array of computer servers, teacher grade books and file cabinets, Wise said. The districts retain complete control over which data to store in inBloom and whether to let third-party vendors use it.
The Gates Foundation is also confident about inBloom's future, saying early adopters will provide a "blueprint for the future" and "assuage the concerns that have been raised."
InBloom is now free but will start charging participating states or school districts annual fees of $2 to $5 per student in 2015, bringing in millions of dollars that officials at the nonprofit say will cover expenses for developing and maintaining the database.
New York plans to upload data on nearly all its 2.6 million students statewide. Illinois is testing inBloom in two districts and plans to expand to 35 districts serving half a million students, officials said.
Colorado's test district, suburban Jefferson County, has commissioned software that draws on the database to create digital "dashboards" that let teachers identify at a glance precisely which students are having trouble with which skills. InBloom also centralizes all the computer apps teachers normally
use with their students, so they no longer have to log in to different screens for each program.
The nonprofit recently announced that it would no longer let school districts use student social security numbers to label individual files in the database. Instead, districts must assign each student a random numerical ID. But spokesman Adam Gaber refused to say whether social security numbers might be included elsewhere - not as a label but as a basic data point, along with ethnicity, address, parents' names and other personal information routinely collected by public schools.
The World has become a scarey place?
I have "mixed feelings" about this program. In one sense, it could be a good thing but on the other, I can't shake the feeling, of children being "tagged and catorized" into a data base system, for retrival at a future time by unauthorized personel.
The announcement further states, "Security and privacy are of utmost importance." "After each child is processed, the data is deleted from the software. The only item retained by MasoniCHIP Ontario is the signed permission slip."
It sounds innocent enough but how can you be sure that the data that was processed on the child was deleted from the software? Why not offer the kit to the Parent's or Guardian's - to process at home? In which case, no permission slip would be needed. The permission slip deal, throws up all kinds of red flags for me.
It further states, "The kit will take about 10-15 minutes to assemble and will include digital photographs; digital video; digital fingerprints; vital child information; and a dental bite impression or Intra Oral Swab for DNA. The photographs, video, fingerprints, and child data are burned onto a C.D. that is compatible with Amber Alert. This kit provides a dramatic, time-sensitive recovery tool for authorities."
And this, "All information and specimens are collected on site, processed, and provided to the parent or guardian in an envelope—along with the sentiment of all the Masonic volunteers – “We hope you never need to use it.”
My auguement is, "All the information required for the kit, can be done at home, including burning the info onto a CD, which can be updated during certain intervals, as the child goes through normal developement stages."
I agree, on the principle of logging vital information on a child, especially in this day and age. But the "kit" they are offering with collecting and processing vital data "on site" suggests to me, another scheme for private data collection, even though they openly suggest, otherwise. There's already Doctor and immunization records filed in the child's name and possible Day Care and school admission files which includes a copy of the Birth Certificate.
http://www.mariaaugimeri.com/2012/05/get-a-free-amber-alert-child-id-kit-this-saturday-in-downsview/
Consider a program introduced by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, inBloom as an extension of the Kit offered to obtain vital info on children.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/29/us-usa-education-database-idUSBRE94S0YU20130529
(Reuters) - A $100 million database set up to store extensive records on millions of public school students has stumbled badly since its launch this spring, with officials in several states backing away from the project amid protests from irate parents.
The database, funded mostly by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is intended to track students from kindergarten through high school by storing myriad data points: test scores, learning disabilities, discipline records - even teacher assessments of a child's character.
The system is set up to identify millions of children by name, race, economic status and other metrics and is constructed in a way that makes it easy for school districts to share some or all of that information with private companies developing education software.
The nonprofit organization that runs the database, inBloom Inc, introduced the project in March with a presentation at an education technology conference, complete with a list of nine states that it said were committed partners.
Parents and civil liberties groups concerned about potential privacy breaches quickly began to sound the alarm and rallied opposition in social media.
In response to an outcry in his state, Louisiana Superintendent of Education John White withdrew student data from inBloom in April. He's planning to hold public hearings on data storage and security this summer but said in an interview that he is no longer sure there's a need for inBloom.
Kentucky, Georgia and Delaware - all initially listed as partners on the inBloom website - told Reuters that they never made a commitment and have no intention of participating. Georgia specifically asked for its name to be removed.
Officials in two other states on the list, Massachusetts and North Carolina, said they are still evaluating the project and may never upload student data.
"The single biggest issue is, Can we satisfy not only ourselves but everyone that the data is as secure stored there as it would be anywhere?" said Jeff Wulfson, deputy commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Education. "From our perspective, this is still in the research and development phase."
InBloom spokesman Adam Gaber said the initial list of partner states was "confusing" and has been corrected on the website. Massachusetts and North Carolina "were more committed originally"
but are still considered partners because they are discussing possible participation, he said.
That leaves just New York, Illinois and Colorado as active participants.
Former West Virginia Governor Bob Wise, who sits on the inBloom board of directors, said he was confident the project was still viable and valuable.
School districts already store student data and often share it with private vendors hired for jobs such as tracking reading scores. InBloom simply consolidates in one secure, cloud-hosted database the reams of student information now scattered among an array of computer servers, teacher grade books and file cabinets, Wise said. The districts retain complete control over which data to store in inBloom and whether to let third-party vendors use it.
The Gates Foundation is also confident about inBloom's future, saying early adopters will provide a "blueprint for the future" and "assuage the concerns that have been raised."
InBloom is now free but will start charging participating states or school districts annual fees of $2 to $5 per student in 2015, bringing in millions of dollars that officials at the nonprofit say will cover expenses for developing and maintaining the database.
New York plans to upload data on nearly all its 2.6 million students statewide. Illinois is testing inBloom in two districts and plans to expand to 35 districts serving half a million students, officials said.
Colorado's test district, suburban Jefferson County, has commissioned software that draws on the database to create digital "dashboards" that let teachers identify at a glance precisely which students are having trouble with which skills. InBloom also centralizes all the computer apps teachers normally
use with their students, so they no longer have to log in to different screens for each program.
The nonprofit recently announced that it would no longer let school districts use student social security numbers to label individual files in the database. Instead, districts must assign each student a random numerical ID. But spokesman Adam Gaber refused to say whether social security numbers might be included elsewhere - not as a label but as a basic data point, along with ethnicity, address, parents' names and other personal information routinely collected by public schools.
The World has become a scarey place?
