This would require deep OS-level features from Apple/Google/etc. See my reply to a sibling comment for spitballing ideas, but I don’t think it’s necessary for this to be invasive.
Another approach would be beacon-based, where the devices would operate with limited capability if in range of an actively broadcasting cryptographically secure “At School” beacon.
I think there are plenty of ways to do this without surveillance or any specific knowledge about individuals using the phones, but it would require collaboration between schools and device manufacturers, and would understandably raise questions about whether disabling devices in this way is a slippery slope to other things.
Although I wouldn’t be too mad if this was generalized to concerts and movie theaters. Finding the balance between policy enforcement and safety would be the top issue.
If this wasn't mandated by law, this would inevitably create a market for devices and tweaks that didn't support this (mis)feature.
Older devices, jailbroken iPhones, rooted Androids or just straight up Chinese knock-offs would be a lot more desirable in such a world, and Tiktok would make sure that the smart kids knew how to break their devices themselves. The not-so-smart ones would inevitably have smarter buddies willing to do them a favor in exchange for a few bucks.
You'd also have to be extra careful to prevent misconfigured beacons and overzealous school administrators from interfering with the phones of neighbors, staff, those who have an exception, or even random passers by.
> This would require deep OS-level features from Apple/Google/etc. See my reply to a sibling comment for spitballing ideas, but I don’t think it’s necessary for this to be invasive.
This is by definition invasive; having the device maker or OS maker integrate it makes it more invasive, not less.
I don't think we're using the same definition of invasive. To me, invasive would be a solution that compromises the privacy of the child or parents or both.
Apple's work on driver's licenses comes to mind. The deep integration is exactly what allows such a feature to not be invasive. Limits on what "School Mode" can actually do and the actual implementation approach will determine whether or not such a feature is invasive.
It certainly could be implemented in an invasive way. But being invasive is not intrinsic to such a solution.
And keep in mind the alternative is an outright ban, which in terms of absolute outcomes is far more "invasive" to individual carrying devices if you're using a definition of the word that covers "limits access to your device when on school premises".
We definitely have different definitions. "can't use your device" is obnoxious but not invasive. "we control what you can and can't do with your device", no matter what mechanism it uses, is invasive. Think "invasive" in terms of "invades the boundaries of".
If the TSA seizes my (still-encrypted-and-locked) device, that's obnoxious and wrong, but not invasive. If they try to get me to unlock it so they can see what's on it, that's invasive (and will get a "no", followed by them deciding if they want to escalate to seizing it or not).
Another approach would be beacon-based, where the devices would operate with limited capability if in range of an actively broadcasting cryptographically secure “At School” beacon.
I think there are plenty of ways to do this without surveillance or any specific knowledge about individuals using the phones, but it would require collaboration between schools and device manufacturers, and would understandably raise questions about whether disabling devices in this way is a slippery slope to other things.
Although I wouldn’t be too mad if this was generalized to concerts and movie theaters. Finding the balance between policy enforcement and safety would be the top issue.