Tracking Devices in Student I.D

My opponent forfeited round 1 so I’ll make my opening statement brief. In the event Pro had a good reason for not being able to post her argument, I don’t want too big of an unfair advantage. The topic at hand is if we should put tracking devices in student identification cards. I stand firmly against this proposition, and here are some of the reasons why.Violation of Privacy Placing tracking devices in student I.D cards is a direct violation of privacy. The American Civil Liberties Union states it’s ‘tagging children like cattle’ [1]. John Whitehead of the Rutherford institute in San Antonio, Texas says "This is a national issue," and asks, "Do we want to live in a surveillance state where everybody is watched?"[1]. If it’s ok for ‘Big Brother’ to electronically track students , then why shouldn’t we all be tracked? It would make for a much safer country right? I don’t think many people would advocate that sentiment, and yet it is the same logic for tracking students. If you allow one group to be tracked, then you must allow all, or it is hypocrisy defined.Police State It would be a dangerous proposition to institute this technology as mandatory. I would raise concerns about the United States becoming a police state, which could have much bigger ramifications than just tracking students. A police state[2] is a society in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population and typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism andsocial control. There is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive. This go against everything that the United States is founded on. United States vs. Jones In 2012, in the ‘United States vs. Jones’ case [3], the Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is needed for placing GPS devices on cars, and noted that GPS installation without consent is a trespass. The Supreme Court found that the 28 days Jones’ car was being monitored by GPS violated his reasonable expectation of privacy due to the prolonged period of constant monitoring. If 28 days is ruled too long for a car locator, why isn’t 9 months out of every year for ones person? This could easily be interpreted as an infringement of the 4th amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” I don’t see how a government entity that that is tracking anyone is honoring their “right to be secure in their persons.”Summery As I stated at the beginning, I made this opening statement a bit shorter so that my opponent wouldn’t be too far behind after forfeiting her first round. I think I did lay out the dangers that could potentially follow if tracking students become madated. Even if it made school slightly safer for children, I strongly believe the ends does not justify the means in this scenerio.