New Jersey Governor Pushes Phone Ban in Schools 133
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy called for a statewide ban on cellphones in K-12 classrooms during his State of the State address on Tuesday, citing concerns over student distraction and mental health. The Democratic governor, in his final year in office, also proposed full salary payments for state workers using parental leave and expanded full-day pre-K programs across the state.
The cellphone initiative follows similar restrictions in seven other states, including California and Florida. A Pew Research poll showed 68% of U.S. adults support classroom phone bans, with 72% of teachers calling the devices a major distraction. "Mobile devices are fueling a rise in cyberbullying and making it incredibly difficult for our kids to learn," Murphy told state legislators.
The cellphone initiative follows similar restrictions in seven other states, including California and Florida. A Pew Research poll showed 68% of U.S. adults support classroom phone bans, with 72% of teachers calling the devices a major distraction. "Mobile devices are fueling a rise in cyberbullying and making it incredibly difficult for our kids to learn," Murphy told state legislators.
Why hasn't it been done? (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes one wonder why it hasn't been done already.
And why we're constantly in an "autopsy" mode, waiting for something major to happen before passing laws, verses going by scientific evidence.
Capitalism, perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it hasn't been done yet because teachers and politicians are just as addicted to their phones, as the students.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm addicted to my phone too, but I would gladly give it up for the world to be rid of them.
Re: (Score:2)
What's stopping you? It's verry possible to live without them. There are many older people who do just that.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not in that demographic it's much harder. Sure, it may be "technically possible" for many, just largely impractical. If you do, you're missing out on information and opportunities that other people have, which puts you at
Re: (Score:3)
Every addict (which you stated you were) can list 100 reasons why they need the object of their addiction.
Those older people who live in retirement communities...they *love* to make friends with younger people who come to visit or volunteer. Try it, it will not only make their day, but yours too! And you won't need your phone even once while you're there.
It *is* possible to live in this world without being addicted to your phone. You're certainly right, it takes effort and determination. But it's possible.
Re: (Score:2)
And why we're constantly in an "autopsy" mode, waiting for something major to happen before passing laws, verses going by scientific evidence.
This is as it should be. Science is terrible at predicting the future.
Take a simple example of deciding where to build new roads in a growing city. One could use the scientific method to predict where the new, bigger roads should go, to always keep congestion at bay. The problem is, those scientific predictions would always be wrong. We would end up with large roads where we don't need them, and congestion in other places.
Or consider AI. What precise laws should we be making right now regarding AI? We are u
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take science over crystals and chicken entrails or whatever nonsense you've bought in to.
Two years ago, who could have predicted that we'd all be using AI today?
Two years ago, January 2023, AI was all anyone was talking about. The particularly stupid were predicting total disruption of every industry and mass unemployment before the the fall.
Nobody would have predicted that.
You couldn't have predicted that, but that isn't saying much. Anyone with any actual knowledge, who wasn't stoned on hype, could have predicted the world we're in now. My prediction, for example, was that AI was dramatically over
Re: (Score:3)
Oh aren't you so high and mighty!
OK, let's change my two year window, to three. ChatGPT hadn't been released or announced. AI was still "20 years away" as it had been for decades.
You made your entire point by nit-picking my short time frame.
No, you're not as clairvoyant as you think you are. You demonstrate this by asserting that AI is a nothingburger. AI is in fact reshaping technology and the way people solve everyday problems. It's changing the way programmers write code. Stack Overflow, once the go-to p
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! I'm not going to take the word of an anti-science crackpot who can't do simple math You're going to need to back up your bullshit claims with actual evidence.
the AI revolution is a tsunami that will leave behind a lot of people who fail to ride the wave.
Reality tells a very different story. You're still blinded by the hype.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would fear of parents complaining matter? There have been rules about what students can bring to school almost as long as we've had schools.
Besides, it doesn't matter what you do, or don't do, there will always be parents loudly complaining about every decision, real or imaginary. I guarantee you that your local school not only has a phone policy, it's had one for years.
Re:Why hasn't it been done? (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes one wonder why it hasn't been done already.
Mothers who believe they need to have access to their children at all times, mothers who believe that their children are under constant threat of being shot, and mothers who believe their children are only using their phones to stay in contact with their parents and not using it for TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, etc..
Ignorant faculty and school administration as well. I was visiting a friend of mine at her school while she was teaching a computer class and noticed piles of kids were on their phones. I asked her why she permits the kids to use her phone and I was told it was the school ethos to encourage students to use whatever devices they have at their disposal to enhance their learning experience. I decided to walk up and down the rows and it was a mix of TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, and one kid watching Rick & Morty. There was zero utilization of their personal device for 'educational enhancements'.
Re: (Score:2)
The teacher doesn't have to fuck with them if they have their noses buried in a phone, that's why.
Re: (Score:2)
TDS is for you supporters. Trump projects most every flaw so it's in character for him to label his opponents has having TDS.
By definition, Deranged fits trump supporters far better and you'd be hard pressed to find experts who would disagree. Trump enrages a great many people that is not a derangement; to morons like Trump those two words are synonyms because they rhyme. It is also characteristic to confuse big words with his sub-sixth grade English (being part of the 56% of Americans below that reading le
Re:Why hasn't it been done? (Score:5, Funny)
Ignorant faculty and school administration as well. I was visiting a friend of mine at her school while she was teaching a computer class and noticed piles of kids were on their phones.
I just don't think our schools should be keeping children in piles.
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't think our schools should be keeping children in piles.
How do your schools stack them?
Re: (Score:3)
You don't stack children! That's horrible!
You chain them to their desks with iron manacles and heavy chains. Gags are good too.
Re: (Score:2)
Mothers who believe they need to have access to their children at all times, mothers who believe that their children are under constant threat of being shot
My mother had the school's phone number written in her rolodex. I was contactable and I didn't even have a phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes one wonder why it hasn't been done already.
Mothers who believe they need to have access to their children at all times, mothers who believe that their children are under constant threat of being shot, and mothers who believe their children are only using their phones to stay in contact with their parents and not using it for TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, etc..
Ignorant faculty and school administration as well. I was visiting a friend of mine at her school while she was teaching a computer class and noticed piles of kids were on their phones. I asked her why she permits the kids to use her phone and I was told it was the school ethos to encourage students to use whatever devices they have at their disposal to enhance their learning experience. I decided to walk up and down the rows and it was a mix of TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, and one kid watching Rick & Morty. There was zero utilization of their personal device for 'educational enhancements'.
Helicopter parents and tiger mums are the problem, I've a lot of sympathy for teachers and schools as their hands get tied by people above them.
Been to two Christmas time weddings in recent years because that's the only time most teachers can guarantee to get off. Was a bit chilly in South Wales this year.
I'm absolutely certain most teachers and administrators would love to ban phones and discipline the unruly children but the minute they even try the parents are barrelling down to the administrators
Re: (Score:2)
I came to say, "Why hasn't this been done everywhere about 10 years ago?".
Re: (Score:2)
Because I guarantee there was a bunch of school board meetings where karen moms wailed and cried that they wouldn't be able to instantly get in touch with their kid, for all the zero times they've needed to. Never mind that every single person above a certain low age never had that when we were growing up, and yet here we still are.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes one wonder why it hasn't been done already. And why we're constantly in an "autopsy" mode, waiting for something major to happen before passing laws, verses going by scientific evidence.
Capitalism, perhaps?
Are you kidding? Parents literally lose their fucking shit if they can't get ahold of their children the whole time they're at school. Some of the folks I know will blow their top of a teacher makes the kids leave the phones at their desk when they go to another class for some reason. We've brainwashed two entire generations into believing the phone being on them is the *ONLY* reason they survive the day outside the house. If they don't have it, they lose their minds. There was a time this type of addiction
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism __PERHAPS__?? as my English teach would shout so that the entire school could hear him, breaking the yardstick into splinters across someone's desk.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you propose it be enforced? do you think this is a simple decision that will easily propagate down through every school in the state?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes one wonder why it hasn't been done already.
And why we're constantly in an "autopsy" mode, waiting for something major to happen before passing laws, verses going by scientific evidence.
Capitalism, perhaps?
Because that's how democracy works. Legislation is always re-active. Proactive legislation gets shouted down almost immediately as "regulation is bad" until something goes wrong and regulation is put in to prevent another disaster.
Re:Why hasn't it been done? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, there are not 1000's of legit reasons kids need a phone.
Re: (Score:2)
No not really. The key word is "need". If kids "need" phones then we wouldn't have any adults above the age of say 40 - as they all grew up as kids in a time where phones weren't available. They turned out just fine, and the dynamics of school hasn't changed in a significant way to change the need, ergo there's no legit reasons that kids need a phone.
You want to contact your kid? Call the receptionist. You want your kid to contact you? Why? Are you trying to fuck up their education?
Re: (Score:2)
1000's of legitimate reasons? Name one.
We didn't need phones in schools even 20 years ago, what possible reason could there be now?
Re: Why hasn't it been done? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, your kid is such a special snowflake, huh? No, your kid doesn't need a phone in school. You may need to seek professional help to deal with your separation anxiety, though.
I agree it doesn't need to be a law, but if any teacher wants to confiscate phones, even if put away, they should be allowed to. There's literally no reason to have them in school.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong. However, in several school districts I know of (I leave near LAUSD) it's pretty tough to expell kids, only a little harder to suspend them, and it's getting tougher to discipline them. The roughest kids know this, and push the limits _all_ _the_ _time_.
Re:Why hasn't it been done? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a teacher is constantly having to address misuse with the same students, it is a bad teacher.
You mean bad parents. (There are no bad kids, only bad choices.)
For my own kids 10 years ago or so, our school tried to independently rule out cell phones right as my parents were both in the last months of their life. I told the school that my kid will have a phone with him at all times and there is not a damn thing they are going to do about it.
Okay, Karen. Why would your kids need phones in school because your parents were dying? Do they have special medical knowledge and need to be available for consultation? Do they need to be informed the second they pass because ... you're running a betting pool on the time of death and they don't trust you? You're trying to use a triangle of smartphones to trap a ghost?
It seems to me that if you want your kids to know their grandparents are dead as soon as possible, you could just call the school.
Trying to stop phones completely is just nanny state shit
Get real. Kids can't bring their Nintendo to class either, is that "nanny state shit"? It's a perfectly reasonable rule. Kids are in school to learn, not to be endlessly disrupted by the children of entitled parents playing games while waiting for news of their grandparent's imminent demise.
Re: (Score:2)
In order to protect children, promote learning, and prevent interruptions, communication with students must run through the school. It worked for generations with minimal disruption, whereas cell phones have only been disruptive.
School shootings. (Score:3, Insightful)
Solve that first. When i don't worry that my kid is going to get shot at school, i'll stop sending them to school with a tool to call the police.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Guns are already illegal at schools. Do they think they can really prevent students from carrying phones?
Re: (Score:2)
You could just as easily say the same thing about murder. Do you really think laws against murder will stop ALL murder? This point is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not, and yes, the point is ridiculous, intentionally. Cell phones are so much less harmful than guns. It's like passing a low to require people to tie their shoelaces to prevent tripping injuries. Such laws do nothing (or little) that is useful, and turn everyone into criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
Woosh, right over your head.
EVERY law or rule ever is violated by people. Why have speed limits if people speed? Why have limits on pollution limits if companies violate them? If your standard of if a rule or law is a good idea or not is if anyone breaks said rule or law then we would have no rules or laws.
Furthermore, as I told you in another post elsewhere, even if the kids smuggle their phones into school they are only very rarely going to be able to use them as they'll need to keep any use on the downlo
Re: (Score:2)
Do they think they can really prevent students from carrying phones?
The problem isn't kids carrying phones. The problem is when phones become a distraction and a hindrance to education.
A few kids may have surreptitious phones hidden in their backpacks, but if they take them out and use them on school grounds, the phones will be confiscated.
Many schools already have phone bans.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, my kids' school also had a phone ban. 90% of students had phones on them anyway.
Distractions are always a thing, this is not new. Back in my day, we passed notes around the classroom, and even tossed them through the air when the teacher's back was turned. Some teachers resorted to reading out loud any notes they caught being passed, so we started writing notes specifically to be read out loud. It became a game.
Cell phones are just the new note-passing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like without children's cell phones they're stuck with carrier pigeons or something. Between teacher's cell phones and land lines there are most certainly dozens of available phones available to use in the case of a shooting at your kid's school. They've got it covered without your kid's phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are these mythical land lines of which you speak? Using the school phone or teacher's phone is fine when you are actually in school, but what about after? When I was running around town as an adolescent or teen, I just dropped a dime in a pay phone to call my parents. I haven't even seen a pay phone in a decade. I'm fine with mandating phones stay in lockers, switched off during school hours, but kids should be able to bring them to school so they have them after school.
Re: (Score:2)
It's mentioned in the summary that it's a proposed classroom ban, not a school ban.
They will likely put them in labeled pouches when they show up at school and get them back at end of day. They're even able to access the phones with a teachers help if they need contact info during the day or something similar. That's what I've seen from any individual schools who's implemented such a thing.
The cited article in the summary mentions individual schools in New Jersey who have already implemented such bans and t
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, I just noticed the Slashdot title said "School Ban". The linked to source with quotes from the governor says "classroom ban" though.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a new one. You read the summary but not the headline. It's usually the other way around ... when someone bothers to read anything
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I was amused by my mistake as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care what the cops need. Not in the tiniest little bit.
Re: (Score:2)
So during an emergency scenario where the cops are literally trying to save your children from a violent end you're fine with freaked out parents showing up and distracting the shit out of the cops thus making their job harder? Why on earth would you be in favor of making the cops job harder in that scenario? They need as many of their people as possible working to save YOUR children, not splitting a bunch off to deal with panicked parents.
You have some fucked up priorities in regards to your kids.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right.
They don't need panicked kids calling from inside the school as they are being killed. That's bad for the PR of the cops as they sit on their asses outside the school.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't actually care if you know. :) Your ignorance is your problem.
No sunshine, the ignorance is yours... If you can't articulate your argument and require others to make your point, you don't have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Angeli Rose Gomez, Google it.
Don't worry, I'll step in and do the legwork here. Angeli Rose Gomez endangered an entire lockdown operation when (against orders from a policeman) she ran INTO a school that was at that point in lockdown due to a shooter. This hampered the effectiveness of the effort to locate and subdue the shooter by law enforcement (a woman blindly running around is less than ideal at such a time) and not only put herself at risk but also the children (including hers) she "rescued" - which actually meant leading them fr
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha. I think we just found out why that other poster didn't want to take the brief moment to properly cite a source. As you say, the very last thing cops dealing with an active school shooting need is parents showing up, freaking the fuck out. This is absolutely a case against kids having cell phones during school.
In my experience when someone refuses to cite a source to support a claim it's because their point is usually garbage. It works as a nice filter so I don't waste my time with idiots meanwhile i
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think what kids are consuming on those phones have anything to do with shootings?
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on if their parents are competent or not.
Re:School shootings. (Score:4, Insightful)
i'll stop sending them to school with a tool to call the police.
You could save some money by getting your kid a flip phone. 911 works just as well on a flip phone as a smart phone.
Just sayin'...
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed for the most part. Up to 13, the only phone i'd give my kid anyway would be a dumb phone. Under 10 it'd be one of those kid specific ones that only has certain numbers programmed in, and no keypad to make random calls.. Mine, my spouuses, their siblings. After 13... It's gonna depend on the kid, how responsible they are and a whole bunch of different factors that the government has absolutely no capability to measure or legislate.
Re: School shootings. (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop watching the news. Your kid is like 1000x more likely to be killed on the way to school by a vehicle. The fact that your fragile psyche can't handle 24/7 news is not a basis for policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, has the school shooting rate increased or decreased since columbine?
Re: School shootings. (Score:4, Insightful)
Between 1970 and 2021 we went from .49 per million children experiencing a school shooting to 2.21 per million children https://www.facs.org/media-cen... [facs.org]. That's a .000221% chance your child will be a school shooting victim. Your child is safe at school.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, it's absolutely a trend that should be looked into as this isnt something anyone wants to see an increase of.
The point I was getting at though is that these shootings are still so rare being paranoid about them in relation to one's own children is dumb as they are far more likely to be killed traveling to school then they are in school even if Mom or Dad are driving them. There are so many every day things kids do that are so much more of a threat than school shootings that we all treat as perfectly nor
Re: School shootings. (Score:2)
Increased. Because of dumb fucks watching the news. Turn it off. It's rotting your brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there's no phones at a school other than the ones students bring with them? Maybe you should have stayed in school if your brain is coming up with reasoning that stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
SC did it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure those homeschooling parents will take that phone away real quick if their kids keep looking at it while they are being taught.
Re: (Score:2)
For those parents who have the time to home school their kids and are obsessive about 24/7 communication with their little darlings I'm sure what you describe will work great.
Hate to see how those kids turn out though, home schooled kids were weird enough when I was kid when we didn't have cell phones and parents didn't mind their kids learning independence by being out on their own all day on weekends and over the summer. Modern kids already don't have enough space from their parents to properly grow into
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck (Score:3)
My kids' school had a strict no-phones policy. They were expected to be kept in lockers, and never brought to class. Any phones found were immediately confiscated.
Guess how many students carried phones with them anyway... Yeah, just about all of them. Whenever we texted our kids during the school day, we could pretty much rely on getting an immediate response.
State laws aren't going to be any easier to enforce.
Re:Good luck (Score:4, Interesting)
Never mind kids will have to use their phones far less so as to keep them on the downlow and not have them confiscated. Even with your scenario this accomplishes a lot towards this law's intended goal.
Re:Good luck (Score:4, Insightful)
You have a point, good parenting can't be legislated. Thanks for the personal example.
Re: (Score:2)
Our kids' school also had a strict hair policy, requiring boys to keep it short. We didn't care about the specifics of the rule. If your boys got in trouble over their hair, we got them a haircut, and that was the end of it. If they didn't get in trouble, we didn't care. Did that make us bad parents too? I don't think so.
There is room for differing opinions on cell phone use in school, without needing to call parents who disagree with you, "bad parents."
Re: (Score:2)
Much like how I dont text my wife when I know she's driving, I don't text the kids when they are at school.
Re: (Score:2)
Oof, I text my wife when she's driving sometimes too.
In both cases, not obsessively. Yes, there is a point beyond which it becomes a problem. Zero tolerance isn't the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
State laws aren't going to be any easier to enforce.
State laws have the benefit of being pointed to when Karen is in the principal's office saying it's ridiculous that her blessed perfect child didn't answer the phone. The unfortunate reality is that parents have too much power to dictate what happens at school, and some munitions are required to fight them.
For the record we're ahead of you. Phones were banned in our country's schools 6 months ago. Phones were already banned at my wife's specific school before then and like your example, the kids didn't give
Re: (Score:2)
State laws limit the speed people are allowed to drive on highways, and we all know how well those laws work. even when the police officer "points" to the law when handing out a ticket.
Check back in in a year or tow, let's see how well this county rule is still working.
Re: (Score:2)
My kids' school had a strict no-phones policy. They were expected to be kept in lockers, and never brought to class. Any phones found were immediately confiscated.
Guess how many students carried phones with them anyway... Yeah, just about all of them. Whenever we texted our kids during the school day, we could pretty much rely on getting an immediate response.
State laws aren't going to be any easier to enforce.
To be clear, your kids school simply had a phone policy. It had no fucking clue what the definition of “strict” was.
Had phones been confiscated permanently after a violation, you probably wouldn’t have found a phone policy turned into a joke by children.
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt you are right. And that kind of consequence does not fit the crime.
Zero tolerance rules are a bad idea. Always. They lead to good people being punished for honest mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt you are right. And that kind of consequence does not fit the crime.
Zero tolerance rules are a bad idea. Always. They lead to good people being punished for honest mistakes.
We’re only devolving back to zero tolerance because of a society championing the violator as some kind of “victim” in order to carve out the most ridiculous exceptions. Exceptions that turn rules meant to help into a hollowed-out joke.
Honest mistakes happen once or twice by good people. That does not describe the arrogance today. The consequences of zero tolerance have been well-earned.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like prescribing amputation in response to a splinter. Yeah, parents do defend their beautiful, perfect little Johnny, even when he does something he shouldn't. Zero tolerance does nothing to solve that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
During the workday, a working parent has break, lunch break, and break during which to notify the teen of an urgent condition.
Re: (Score:2)
The office would be happy to let your child know about something urgent that cant possibly wait until after school. Most schools have phones in all the classroom, the office secretary just has to look up your child in the system to see which room they're in and then call it.
Phone companies push for governor ban in schools (Score:2)
Why not just abolish mandatory education? (Score:3)
Cellphones aren't the problem, disengaged students are. They don't see the value (and I don't mean monetary) in learning. And why should they, when the adults in their life don't seem very convinced either? I'm sure every single one of us has had their fair share of half-assed teachers; met parents that just saw school as a hoop you had to jump through; watched entertainers who make bank without having any need for an education. As a society, we've totally lost a sense of why education matters. IE: "If it's not going to land you a sweet, high paying job, why bother?"
So, to answer my own subject-line-question: "Free childcare."
Re: (Score:2)
Don't apply adult psychology to children. Kids have never seen the value in learning, they have never been old enough to understand that value. The difference was they used to be forced to learn with less distractions.
My wife's a teach and yeah your kind of parents are plentiful, but disengagement isn't the issue, excuses are. Parents used to fight the child's battles for them, especially around mobile phones in class. Incidentally that changed 6 months ago when a national ban was introduced here, and now t
Good! (Score:2)
In Ontario, Canada, they banned cell phones in the classroom back in September 2024, and most of the students were either supportive of it or at least OK with it. A disengaged class makes the school environment worse for everyone.
Power Grab - Local School Boards Run Schools (Score:2)
I think, in general, phone use should be banned in schools, but it doesn't really matter what I think.
This is a decision local school boards are elected to make. They hire a superintendent of schools who has principals who run individual schools with teachers that run their classrooms. There is no good reason why this decision needs to be the same across the state for every school district and every school and every classroom. Each local school board is elected and accountable to local voters.
But that ma
Re: (Score:2)
Local school boards don't run schools, parents do and that is one of the problems with teaching these days, Mommy Karen decides that my kid gets distracted because her little angel has a god given right to use his phone during class. You can see examples the world over (the USA is behind in this) of how local school board decisions have been largely ignored / overruled, while actual legal mandates on a state/national level have had a positive impact.
Just because you're elected for something doesn't mean you
Re: (Score:2)
You do know Florida has already done this, don't you? It's in the blurb. I'm guessing you have the same opinion of Death Sentence in that shit hole state, right?
Re: No more GOVERNMENT CELLPHONE USERS (Score:2)
Lots of high level elected officials have someone on hand whose job it is to make and receive phone calls. It's considered a security risk to carry a phone and answer it yourself. You want all communication to be vetted/identified, and there may even be laws about data preservation. So, your example kind of sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you're on about.
Yes, people in different roles have different prerogatives. Are you trying to say that it's unfair that a grown adult, in government, has a cell phone while students in class can't fuck off on theirs?
WTF?
You are delusional.
Re: (Score:2)
Oooh, yea, good slippery slope argument.
If those watches aren't watches but computers connected to the internet? Then yes of course.
Why would they ban hearing aids? They should ban artificial legs, too! What a moronic comment.
Bluetooth accessories for what? Devices that attach to the interned providing access to TikTok and Instagram? Yes, of course.
Devices that connect to the heart pump in your chest? Yeah, no, I don't think so.
You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist, or a moron. Or both.
Re: (Score:2)
That did make me think of an edge case though. In recent years the interfaces to things like insulin pumps have increasingly been a smart phone. So now you run into a situation where a particular kid actually has to have the smartphone for his medical device, but some moron takes it away, or some other kid steals it because if they can't have one, why should she, etc. The new Dexcom [dexcom.com] comes to mind for starters. I've seen more than a few kids, some as young as middle school, with those things.
Re: (Score:2)
Any medical device manufacturer that relies on a smartphone for maintaining someone's life or health will be sued out of existence because AFAIK no phone is approved for that purpose. Most of the medical devices the connect to smart phones are only for monitoring, not for actually controlling the device.
If there ever comes a point where a smartphone is needed in this situation, you just make sure the phone has Wifi and mobile data disabled; most of those devices use Bluetooth. And you make the rules clea
Re: (Score:2)
Any medical device manufacturer that relies on a smartphone for maintaining someone's life or health will be sued out of existence because AFAIK no phone is approved for that purpose. Most of the medical devices the connect to smart phones are only for monitoring, not for actually controlling the device.
If there ever comes a point where a smartphone is needed in this situation, you just make sure the phone has Wifi and mobile data disabled; most of those devices use Bluetooth. And you make the rules clear to everyone.
Oh, I agree. In this particular case, I'm talking about monitoring the thing, or a glucose monitor, or as a convenient way to interface to a log, or what have you. I can think of several reasons, all of them painfully obvious, why actually using a smartphone interface to do an active intervention like actually administering insulin would be an incredibly bad idea. It is, however, convenient as an interface for someone to easily keep track of their glucose trends, get alerts when it goes out of a specified r
Re: (Score:2)
These days watches and hearing aids connect to phone/tablet by bluetooth.
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from the slippery slope argument, the answer may be "yes" for the obvious ones, and no for your daft stupid ones. Some governments around the world included smartwatches in their school cellphone ban. That's the obvious one.
As for bluetooth accessors, what will they connect to?
I didn't address hearing aids because that suggestion was so mind-numbingly stupid I actually wonder if your account was taken over by an early beta of ChatGPT. Humans have a brain, use it before posting next time.