A principal reads an inappropriate message posted on a social networking site and disciplines a student for it. A police officer searches a cell phone belonging to an arrested person. Some believe these actions are appropriate, even necessary, to maintain safe communities. Others believe that these actions are an invasion of privacy. After reading the articles, “Password Protected” and “Phone Patrol,” write an argumentative essay in which you address the following question: Should officials be able to use information they obtained from private devices or social networking sites in order to protect the community? Be sure to use information from both articles to support your argument.

Must be five paragraphs in length.

Each paragraph should have a topic sentence, three supporting sentences, and a conclusion sentence. The first paragraph should be the introduction and the last paragraph should be the conclusion.

Make sure to use several different sentence types, openers, and dress-ups.

PASSWORD PROTECTED

Do Schools Have the Right to Monitor Students’ Online Activity?

1 When you post a message on a social networking site, you probably don’t expect your teacher or principal to read it. Neither did a 12-year-old girl in Minnesota who wrote an angry message about a fellow student on her Facebook page. When school authorities read that note and other inappropriate messages written by the student, they demanded that she give them her password.

2 That incident, which led the American Civil Liberties Union to file a lawsuit, is one of several recent cases in which schools have disciplined students for bad online behavior outside of school. Many people believe schools have the right to punish students if their internet activity leads to bullying or class disruptions. Others think that punishing students for what they do on the web is the responsibility of parents, not schools.

3 Do schools have the right to monitor students’ online activity? Current Events student reporters Joseph Maneen and Akash Bagaria each posted a side. Watch What You Type by Joseph Maneen

4 I believe schools have the right to monitor students’ online activity. Young people need to learn that when you post something on the internet, there are consequences. Kids should not be misbehaving on social networking sites in the first place.

5 Second, inappropriate online activity often comes in the form of cyberbullying. Fourteen states have passed anti-cyberbullying laws, and other states are considering them. If a school catches a student bullying someone online before the police do, the student is less likely to end up in legal trouble.

6 Lastly, schools should have the right to punish students for online activity because doing so might save lives. If a student is bothering another student, the school could address the problem before the dispute gets physical. Peter Ivancic, a teacher from Haverhill, MA agrees. “If the students have done something worth taking the (social networking site) password, of course the school should take it,” he says.

Freedom Comes First by Akash Bagaria

7 Schools do not have the right to monitor what students do online outside of school. Monitoring students’ online activity is an invasion of privacy and a violation of freedom of speech. Imagine teachers checking students’ cell phones or spying on their afterschool conversations. Tracking students on the internet is essentially the same thing.

8 There should be a level of trust between teachers and students. Trust strengthens people’s values of commitment and responsibility. Teachers should have faith that their students will follow the honor code and not partake in anything immoral online.

9 Finally, the role of educators is to teach, not to monitor kids outside the classroom. Parents should oversee their children’s actions and guide them in the right direction. Maria Shepard, a teacher at Princeton Day School in New Jersey, agrees. “If the device is not school-owned and is not being used on school campus, schools should not monitor a student’s online activity. If an issue arises, the student’s parents could manage it.

PHONE PATROL

Should the Police Be Allowed to Dig Through People’s Cell Phones?

10 Police officers in California have a new way to fight crime. If they arrest someone who is carrying a cell phone, officers can dig through the phone’s content, including text messages, voice mails, e-mails, calendars, and photos.

11 In a 5-2 ruling, the California Supreme Court stated in December, 2011 that police officers are allowed to “open and examine what they find” on an arrested person, without a warrant. A warrant is permission from a judge based on reasonable suspicion.

12 The decision came about as a result of a 2007 case, People v. Diaz. Sheriffs in California’s Ventura County arrested Gregory Diaz, saying they saw him participate in a drug deal. The sheriffs took Diaz’s cell phone from his pocket and scrolled through the text messages. They found one linking Diaz to the sale. Diaz was convicted. Later, however, he appealed the charges. He said that phone snooping violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

13 The California Supreme Court’s verdict upheld Diaz’s conviction. The court stated that, based on past rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court, police can indeed look through anything “immediately associated with a person.”

14 The two judges who voted against the verdict argued that cell phone searches are an invasion of privacy. They noted that smart phones can contain a wide variety of information about a person.

15 Here are the arguments from people on both ends of the call.

Protection Over Privacy

16 The police need help keeping the streets safe, say supporters of cell phone searches. Officers in Shafter, California note that the policy has already been helpful. “We were able to establish who (the arrested people) were in contact with. It helped us to find who may also be involved in that crime,” Detective Chris Grider told Bakerfield’s 23ABC.

17 Some people also believe that the policy will deter people from committing crimes. “The police now have better means to find out if you’re guilty,” California resident Chris Eddy told San Diego 6 News.

18 Furthermore, supporters of the ruling say it does not violate the Fourth Amendment. If you’ve already been arrested with reasonable evidence, they say, then it is fair for the police to search through anything on you.

Abuse of Power

19 Stop snooping through smart phones, argue opponents of the new ruling. “People could have….pictures in there, like of their girlfriends, that they don’t want somebody else to see, and it would be an invasion of privacy not only for them, but the other person also,” California resident Valinten Perez told 23ABC.

20 San Diego resident Jim Tharayil added that he thinks the policy could be abused. He told San Diego 6 News that he can imagine police officers “using something else to pull you over and then using this to look through your cell phone.”

21 Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, one of the judges who opposed the decision, says that policy officers should have to obtain a warrant. It is unfair of police officers to “rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone…merely because the device was taken from an arrestee’s person,” she says.