The False Allure of Security Technologies

Author(s): Ronnie Casella

Source: Social Justice, Vol. 30, No. 3 (93), The Intersection of Ideologies of Violence (2003), pp. 82
-93
Published by: Social Justice/Global Options
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29768210
Accessed: 13-07-2015 21:02 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Social Justice/Global Options is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Justice.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.252.67.66 on Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:02:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The False Allure of

Security Technologies
Ronnie

THE

Casella

BEGAN
TRADEMAGAZINE,
SECURITYINDUSTRY
AMERICAN
SCHOOLANDUNIVERSITY,
an article about school safetywith the following real-life scenario (Kennedy,

2001):

students were enjoying recess on the playground in the Piano

Independent School District, Texas, a suspicious man sitting in a parked
Cadillac tried to lure some of the children over to the car.

As

the teacher on duty saw what was happening and began to

approach the car, theman drove off.That might have been the end of the
incident, except thatthe teacherwas carrying a two-way radio. She called
back to the school office, and someone immediately called 911. A few
minutes later, theman was in custody.

When

"He was caught before he got out of theneighborhood," saysKen Bangs,

director of police, security,and student safetyfor thePiano district. "Did
we dodge a bullet? I believe thatwe did."
For Bangs, itwas more proof that the district's increasing use of radios
was paying dividends in safer campuses, and more secure students and
staff."Having these radios makes a ton of difference," says Bangs.
Like many articles that appear inAmerican School and University, Security
Technology and Design, SecurityManagement, and other trademagazines of the
security industry, theuse of technology is described as a boon for school safety,
and thenewest advances and improvements in technology are regularly featured
in articles and represented in advertisements that appear in themagazines. In
addition to radios, these technologies include metal detectors, scanners, close
circuit televisions (CCTVs), iris recognition systems, and other forms of surveil

is assistant professor of educational foundations and

Casella
(e-mail: casellar@ccsu.edu)
secondary education atCentral Connecticut State University (New Britain, CT 06050). He is the author
of "Being Down": Challenging Violence inUrban Schools (New York: Teachers College Press, 2001)
and At Zero Tolerance: Punishment, Prevention, and School Violence
(New York: Peter Lang

Ronnie

Publishing, 2001).

82 Social Justice Vol. 30, No. 3 (2003)

This content downloaded from 128.252.67.66 on Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:02:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The False Allure of Security Technologies

83

lance, detection, access control, and biometric equipment. Many of these items
depend on technologies (such as digitalized networks and lasers) that were
developed by military and security industry scientists beginning in the 1940s
primarily forpolice and national security purposes during theCold War. Today,
theprevalence in high schools ofwhat De vine (1996) called "techno-security" is
an example of how these developments in technology have altered our public
spaces, institutions,and homes. In the case of schools, the use of techno-security
epitomizes fear of violence as well as fear of legal liability thatconvinces school
district administrators that security technology isworth the expenditures. How?
ever, italso epitomizes the inroads thatsecuritybusinesses have made in thepublic
school market. Peter Blouvelt, the executive director of theNational Alliance for
Safe Schools, remarked about security vendors: "Schools have become a major
market for these guys. The proliferation of security equipment for schools has
taken off (cited inLight, 2002: 3).
Schools are just one example of people's increased use and acceptance of
security technologies in theUnited States. Government buildings, stores, offices,
workplaces, recreation areas, streets, and homes have also been outfittedwith
CCTVs, biometric equipment, scanners, detectors, not tomention alarms, locks,
and intercoms.At a security industryconference I attended as part of the research
for this article, a spokesperson for a security corporation told conference partici?
pants that,according to research, inNew York City an individual was likely tobe
caught on a security camera about seven times each day without knowing it; in
London, thenumberwas double that.Although theuse of security technologies is
often explained as a need during times ofwanton violence and crime, the allure of

technology and humans' fascination with gadgets and equipment partly explain
why security technology is rapidly becoming a fixture in even themost idyllic
areas. In thecase of schools, thoughproponents of technologies warn against their
misuse, theystillbelieve thatCCTVs, scanners, and other advanced technologies
are essential for any overall school safety plan (Townley and Martinez, 1995;
Kosar and Ahmed, 2000; Trump, 1999; Fickes, 2000). Moreover, corporate
incentives and federal support have made itpossible for low-budget institutions
and individuals to invest in security.
The mass installation of security technologies is one aspect of what Lyon
(1994) referred to as a "surveillance society," whereby security items are at once
ubiquitous and invisible. People accept them inpublic and private places and often
acquiesce to thegreater restrictionson theircivil rightsand privacy thatensue due
to theiruses (see also Beger, 2002; Casella, 2003). Postman (1992) stated that in
such a society, which he described as a technopoly, individuals find it almost
impossible to thinkoutside paradigms devoted to scientism, objectivity, and order.
Critics of technology do not dismiss some key aspects (e.g., extending the lifespan
of individuals and providing comfort), but theyare skeptical of thepromises made
in the name of technology and itsunrestrained use in society.

This content downloaded from 128.252.67.66 on Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:02:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

84

Casella

Investing inTechnology
In using public schools as a case study tobetter understand theuse of security
technologies inU.S. society, one of the firstaspects one should consider is their
cost. These costs include the installation, maintenance, and upgrading of the
security technology, and thehiring of personnel to oversee it.Costs are difficult
to calculate partly because school district accountants often combine figures
pertaining to technologywith other safetyexpenditures. For example, theChicago

public school system spent about $35 million during the 2000-2001 school year
on security,but this includedmoney earmarked for technology and tech-support,
as well as police officers, security guards, and violence prevention and character

education programs.Moreover, the long-termcosts of upgrading andmaintenance

are also difficult to ascertain because these numbers are not kept as separate items.
The issue of cost ismuddled furtherbecause securityprofessionals claim that
schools and other sites actually save money by investing in technology and allege
theycan provide proof through simplemath calculations. During the 1999-2000
school year, a Connecticut high school acquired a highly sophisticated CCTV and
motion detector system,which was reported in thecity newspaper and featured in
two security trademagazines (Casella, 2001). The CCTV system included 63
cameras, 47 of which were located outside the school. Almost half of all the
cameras had pan-tilt-zoom capabilities "capable of reading a license plate number
fromacross theparking lot."The systemwas also networked to laptop computers
in two police cruisers and the police department,who could control it through
remote control. The CCTV andmotion detector system cost the school $300,000.
However, an article in a trademagazine claimed the expenditure is justified
because the school would save $200,000 a year by detecting vandalism before it
occurs (Sorrentino, 2002). Itwas not clear in the article how the author arrived at
this conclusion, and none of the claims made by security officials regarding the
possibility of saving money could be verified.
Security corporations promote theirproducts throughdonations and the free
installation of security equipment in schools and in numerous other sites, includ?
ing offices, restaurant chains, and recreation areas. Vanguard ofMassachusetts
offers free equipment and installation of technology thatwould ordinarily cost
$40,000 to $300,000, depending on features.WorldNet Technologies in Seattle
and AvalonRF in San Diego offer free installation of theirproductWeaponScan
80?, an advanced metal (and plastic) detector thatwas originally developed by
theNavy during theCold War to trackSoviet submarines (Light, 2002). The most

importantbenefit for corporations from these donations and pro bono work is the
profit theyreceive from themonthly payments forupgrading andmaintaining the
equipment. Corporations also benefit from contractual clauses thatallow them to
feature the recipient of the equipment in theirpromotional materials and ads in
trademagazines. WebEyeAlert includes in its ads news articles from theBoston

This content downloaded from 128.252.67.66 on Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:02:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The False Allure of Security Technologies

85

Business Journal and theDerry News ofNew Hampshire on the schools thathave
received itsweb-CCTV monitoring system.This technology allows police offic?
ers to monitor students through CCTVs, modems, computers, and Internet
networks.

An analysis of the ads allows one tounderstand theirpower in enticing school

officials and others to invest in technologies. The WebEyeAlert pamphlet depicts
various securitymarkets and highlights the fact that security technologies are
being introduced into almost all public and private places, including schools,
homes, transportation stations, hospitals, cafeterias, and outdoor areas. The

company also markets tomunicipal buildings, banks, malls, prisons, stores, and
airports.At the center of thepamphlet is thepicture of a school and a school bus.
Another picture depicts a young couple proudly standing outside their home;

young, upwardly mobile, good-looking professionals, theywill probably have

children and thereforehave concerns about school safety, a connection that is
made visually by the intersectionof their image with thatof the school. A picture
of a hospital emergency entrance and ambulance also intersectswith the school
image, again drornming up concerns about safety for oneself and one's family.
Visually connecting the image of the school to that of the police officer in his
cruiser is a white bubble. The officer shown is gaining visual access through the
Internet to the "real-time video surveillance" cameras in the school. This ad
encapsulates the security industry'swidespread efforts to convince individuals
and institutionsof the alleged wisdom of investing in security devices.
The Role of the Federal Government
As noted, security corporations often donate security equipment and its
installation in schools. Where does all themoney come from tomaintain and
upgrade (and on occasions purchase) this equipment given schools' budgetary
deficits? The answer lies largely in the financial support offered by the federal
government for the research and commercialization of security technologies.
Beginning in 2003, schools were identified as potential sites for terroristattacks
and the newly created U.S. Department of Homeland Security made funds

available to schools to purchase security technology. This department appropri?

ated over $350 million for, among other things,hiring high school police officers
and buying securityequipment through itsPublic Safety and Community Policing
Grants. Other departments that offer funds for similar goals include theU.S.
Department of theTreasury (through itsSafe Schools Initiative,which also funds
research conducted by theU.S. Secret Service), theU.S. Department ofEducation
(through itsEmergency Response and Crisis Management Grant Program and its
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act), and theU.S. Department of
Justice. Schools are not the only ones to receive generous support. In 2001, all
taxpayers began tobenefit from a new tax code related to security.The Securing
America InvestmentAct of2001 (HR 2970), which amended the InternalRevenue

This content downloaded from 128.252.67.66 on Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:02:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

86

Casella

of 1986, allows security devices in buildings and private homes to be

considered an expense that is not chargeable to capital accounts; hence, security
technology became a taxwrite-off.
Additionally, the"No Child Left Behind" law, passed by President George W.
Bush in 2002, provided funding for the School Security Technology Center
(SSTC) at Sandia National Laboratories. Located inAlbuquerque, New Mexico,
Sandia employs more than 8,000 scientists, engineers, mathematicians, techni?

Code

cians, and support personnel; the laboratorywas established in 1941 by theU.S.

Department of Energy to support itsnuclear weapons program. SSTC distributes
informationabout school security and trains school employees to choose and use
theright technology for theirschools. In 1999,Mary Green, an SSTC employee,
published The Appropriate and Effective Use of Security Technologies in U.S.
Schools through theU.S. Department of Justice. It is considered one of themost
comprehensive publications on the subject. SSTC is also involved in several
security initiatives, including work with Albuquerque public schools to imple?
ment a system that uses hand geometry to identify parents and guardians of
children (see Figure 1).When parents or guardians register theirchildren, theyare

assigned a personal identificationnumber (PIN) and are asked toplace theirhand

on a pad thatuses biometric technology to record theirhand features. Each time
someone picks up a child at school, he or she enters thePIN and places a hand on
thepad. If thePIN and thehand geometrymatch the information in the system, the
person is allowed to take the child (Kennedy, 2001).

can*cmed
Exhibit
Miat
4.4.ItltMUaUd
are
Mvend
of
Momvcric
her*
fatontlOm
lypa*
for
a hi&coaOdencc
control
urllb
of?ccorscy.
entry

Figure 1: From Mary Green (1999: 111; Exhibit 4.4 visual). Demonstrating the uses of iris scanning,
a palm reader, and a fingerprint reader. Individuals enter a PIN and gain access to the school if the
biometric reading matches stored information in a security database.

This content downloaded from 128.252.67.66 on Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:02:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The False Allure of Security Technologies

Overseeing

87

Youth and Others

The young man inFigure 2 has long hair and wears jeans and sneakers (and
boots in thebottom rightcorner image). His hair lengthand clothing contrastwith
theguard's shorthair and uniform.The guard is theoverseer and theyouth is the
suspect. The overseers, however, are also the suspects fora higher level of security
professional (Lyon, 1994). Those who use security equipment on others also have
it trained on themselves. An interesting characteristic of the ads is that the
individuals being searched or having theirbody parts scanned are depicted as
content and sometimes happy (thewoman inFigure 1 is smiling). A 2002 Garrett
Metal Detectors ad shows a young, white, handsome man smiling broadly while
a securityprofessional searches him using thetop-of-the-lineGarrett SuperScanner.
In a 2001 Garrett ad, another person in tatteredjeans and sneakers ispictured being
searched by someone holding a metal detector. A sturdyarm entering the frame
isholding theSuperWand and is examining thefringedcuffsof theperson's jeans,
shown only from theknees down. The advertisement claims thatthe "SuperWand
is very easy and fun to use."

zone
Exhibit3.10.Thiato anunmpteofprocedure*
forusing? handheldmetaldetectorthathas at leasta 10-ineh

Figure 2: From Mary Green (1999: 88; Exhibit 3.10 visual). The
guards on how to use a handheld metal detector to search students.

illustration instructs school

This content downloaded from 128.252.67.66 on Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:02:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

88

Casella

The federal government's role in accelerating the use of security devices in

U.S. society is demonstrated by the taxwrite-off forpurchases of securitydevices,
formationof theDepartment ofHomeland Security, safe school grants, support of
the Sandia National Laboratories, publications thatpromote advanced security
technologies, and demonstrations of biometric security options for schools.
Beyond that,security corporations and the federal government present amodel of
desirable behavior through the complacent, even pleased, people depicted in the
figures. Such ads ultimately seek topersuade individuals that they should allow
themselves to be subject to routine searches, have their bodies measured and
touched by lasers and scanners, and have information about them stored in
databases ?
information that can thenbe shared with a greater range of federal
organizations and police departments thanks to theUSA Patriot Act of 2001.
Welcoming

Security Technologies

intoOne's

Life

Beyond the federal support and corporate benefits and incentives stands the
allure of technology and an almost myth-making quality to induce individuals to
embrace the surveillance society inwhich they live. Corporate advertisers play on
people's fears topromote technology as theway of thefutureand its increasing use
as inevitable: "Take a closer look at theLG IrisAccess 3000 ?
it's the look of
a
Electronics
to
2002
LG
advertisement
claimed
Inc., for
U.S.A.,
by
things come,"
an iris identification system.The president of Evolution Software, Inc., explained
at a 2001 conference that "wearable security computer systems" would have
technology "integrated in everyday life." She demonstrated a wearable computer
equipped with voice recognition technology: a monocle strapped toher head (the
computer screen), a littlepouch on her hip (the computer), and a micro-keyboard

attached toone hand; a hidden camera on her shoulder recorded her surroundings
and could be projected on themonocle computer screen. Then she explained that
the armed forces were interested in the "adoption of the technology formotion
tracking systems and 3D augmented systems." Though the equipment makes one
look part robot, the integration of technology with everyday life is a popular
security industry item, a staple of security advertisements, and is commonly
alluded toby school securitydealers when theyexplain the "integration," "natural
fit," or "harmony" between security technology and humans.
These areworrisome claims considering thattechnology has demonstrated the
success of science, but not necessarily the success of society. Although the
sophistication of technology has increased, society has not always benefited
(Collingridge, 1980;Weisberg, 2000). In thephilosophy and sociology of technol?
ogy, there ismuch agreement about what is sometimes referred to as theparadox
of technology (Durbin, 1989; Scarbrough and Corbett, 1992) or what Tenner
called the "revenge of unintended consequences"
(1996). Examples of this
on
the environment, work,
to
references
include
technology's impact
paradox
to
nature:
the
closeness
and
of
life,
way
technology makes lifemore
quality

This content downloaded from 128.252.67.66 on Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:02:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

89

The False Allure of Security Technologies

leisurely and busier at the same time; theway technology helps to save lives but
also causes deaths and introduces new ways of dying. Technology has enabled
individuals toproduce enough food to feed theworld, yet hunger persists; theatom
was split, yetwar became more dangerous.

Partly because of the inabilityof technology to live up to thepromises of those

?
frommanufac?
who develop and sell it, theproduction of security equipment
?
relies not only on proclamations about
turer,distributor,dealer, and end-user
protective qualities, but also on scientism, images of power and omniscience, and
claims about cost-effectiveness and simplicity of use.While describing safetyand
how itis achieved, ads also describe technology design and efficiency. "Technolo?
gies tomanage people, openings, and assets. A flexible design, seamless integra?
tion capabilities, and state-of-the-arttechnology make InterAccess an essential
solution for any organization," claimed a 2002 brochure from IR Interflex, of
Forestville, Connecticut, for access control equipment for offices, government
buildings, and schools. A CEIA USA, Ltd., 2002 single-page brochure stated:
CEIA, theworld's leadingmanufacturer ofMetal Detectors, presents the
Metal Detector is engineered and designed to
Classic. This walk through
meet the specific needs of public facilities such as: schools, hotels,
amusement parks, and city halls. The Classic provides the required
securitywith a high level of operating efficiency. The leading edge of
technology features a high flow rate of people through the gate with
minimal alarms.

Figure 3: Sony Electronics, Inc., Surveillance and E-Monitoring

2003, front cover. Sleek, functional, futuristic security gear.

Systems General Catalog

This content downloaded from 128.252.67.66 on Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:02:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2002

90

Casella

Beyond such descriptions, security products tend visually to be silver and

black, sleek-looking, futuristic,durable, and rugged (see Figure 3 for an example
of Sony security systems). They are designed to be aesthetically appealing,
especially tomen. This style of design iswhat Pacey (1999: 82) referred to as a
"combat-ready look frommilitary equipment to symbolize no-nonsense func?
tional rigor" in his description of home electronics gear marketed tomen (with

theirblack matte finishes, digital displays, and push-button controls).

A tantalizing effect exerted by security devices is related to the presumed
acceptance by individuals of science and technology (see Figure 4). The hand in
thepalm reader seems perfectly at home, especially when juxtaposed to thehand
entering the technological age (from a muted color at thewrist and lower palm to
thebrilliant Technicolor stripes at the fingers). The dawn of classical science is
represented in the drawing of thehuman body, which is surrounded by scientific
jargon that is common enough to be understood, but esoteric enough to sound
scientific, including themention of DNA, iris, and keyboard stroke.

Figure 4: TR Interflex, subsidiary of IR Ingersoll Rand, advertisement booklet, 2002, p. 16. The hand
in the bottom leftcorner enters the technological age, as does the hand on the palm reader. Classical
science (represented by the image at top) enters the "future of biometrics,*' which includes signature,
keystroke, iris,DNA,

and retina recognition systems.

Companies use thismelding of humanity and techno-science to convince

individuals to submit to devices and to accept a world inwhich surveillance is
common. When young people are asked to stand spread-legged at a school
entrance or workers are asked to have their hand measurement taken before
entering an office, the interactionbetween the overseer and the suspect depends
on thecompliance of the suspect. Compliance is achieved through the imposition

This content downloaded from 128.252.67.66 on Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:02:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The False Allure of Security Technologies

91

of a codified authority (the presence of rules, policies, and laws), through actual
punishment of transgressors, and by persuading individuals thatwhat is being
asked of them is a natural part of life. In past generations, imagine the shock
expressed by individuals who, for the firsttime,had to punch in atwork using a
time clock. Yet, ithas become a natural part of workplaces and the recording of
one's "time in" and "time out" isexpected. For workplace managers using security
technologies, its use is usually for financial gain and expediency, while for the
federal government, the aim is information gathering; for the individual who
submits to it, it is toprove ones innocence without having done anythingwrong.
Police forces in theU.S. aremaking greater use of security technologies. For
example, theNew York City Police Department is considering putting facial
recognition technology in the 3,000 CCTVs already mounted in public housing
units. This will allow police officials to record the facial features of public
housing occupants and to run their features through various crime analysis
databases. The cameras and facial recognition technology will thus be used on

poor andmostly nonwhite people. New Jerseypolice cruisers have been outfitted
with cameras todocument trafficstops along theNew JerseyTurnpike. Cameras
were installed in response to accusations of police brutality, but they also
document who is riding thehighways, atwhat time, and on what day. Are people
aware they are being captured on film several times each day, that information
about them is increasingly run throughdatabases and kept on record, or that this
information is sharedwith individuals theydo not know and over whom theyhave
no control? As individuals accept greater surveillance, close themselves within
gated communities, and support institutionsthatcommission security companies
towatch over employees, they end up doing exactly what the government and
security companies want them to do.

PuttingUp (with)Technology
Is the extensive use of security technology a sensible response to safety
problems in society, or is itbased on totalitarianism and irrational fear?Many
would claim that it is a logical reaction tounprecedented violence inU.S. society,

including random murders, school shootings and massacres, and terroristand

suicide bomber attacks.However, two aspects of security technology discussed in
this essay should cause us to pause and consider whether we should accept
unimpeded installation of security equipment in our society. The firsthas to do
with federal government support of security technologies. At a timewhen the
federal government has chosen to limitfunds to states, cut spending, and relinquish
itsduties inproviding a safetynet for thepoor and disenfranchised, itfindsuntold
sums of money and provides tax breaks for individuals who wish to purchase
security equipment. The second aspect has to do with theburgeoning business of
security and the lucrativemarket that ithas found in nearly every institutionand
public space inmodern life. The power of the security industry has become

This content downloaded from 128.252.67.66 on Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:02:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

92

Casella

concentrated inwhat Mills (1956) referred to as a power elite, a group comprised

of politicians, military officers, and corporate bosses.
The intentions of this power elite are only partly known. At some level,
politicians who support the installation of securityequipment are concerned about
thewelfare of individuals; yet, they are also interested in information gathering
and in testingand using new products under development. Federal agencies may
be using schools to test security equipment for later use by themilitary, for
domestic policing and crowd control, or for information-gathering on young

people, public housing occupants, those driving thehighways, individuals who

dress a certain way, or those who do not abide by all directives issued by the
political establishment.Who ismore paranoid: theperson who sees theneed for
all this security technology or the one who sees it as a form of totalitarianism?

Regardless of how one answers these questions, everyone should explore the
purposes behind this security buildup and refuse to accept simple answers about
safetyand protectionwhen there is littleevidence thatsecurity technology actually
makes

us

safer.

The longer a technology is used, themore entrenched in life itbecomes. When

technologies are new, or are used innewer ways (such as theapplication of satellite
technology to cellular phones), theiruses are easier tomodify and theirconse?
quences easier to control. The use of security technology in public places in the
form of biometrics, detectors, surveillance equipment, and advanced forms of
access control are relatively recent developments. If we wish to question the
unintended consequences of these developments, now is the time to do so. Too

little is known about the consequences of theuncontrolled use of these technolo?

gies, yet most policymakers support them due to their allure and short-term
promises of safety. If society becomes safer, if it becomes more difficult to
smuggle weapons into schools, or if violence decreases, advocates of these
technologies will claim that these are their intended consequences. However, if
public and private institutionsbegin to resemble prisons, ifnew generations begin
to accept unmitigated surveillance as a natural part of life, ifpeople's civil rights
become gradually revoked, or if people lose opportunities to develop human
relationships, such consequences must be viewed as intended as well.

REFERENCES
Beger, Randall
2002
Casella, Ronnie
2003
2001

"Expansion of Police Power in Public Schools

Students." Social Justice 29,1-2: 119-130.

and theVanishing

Rights of

"Security, Schooling, and the Consumer's Choice to Segregate." The Urban

Review 35,2: 129-148.
At Zero Tolerance: Punishment, Prevention, and School Violence. New York:
Peter Lang Publishing.

This content downloaded from 128.252.67.66 on Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:02:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The False Allure of Security Technologies

Col?ngridge,

1980

Devine,

93

David

John

1996

The Social Control of Technology. New York: St. Martin's

Security: The Culture of Violence
University of Chicago Press.

Maximum

Durbin, Paul

1989

Fickes, Michael

2000

Green, Mary

1999

Kennedy, Mike
2001

Philosophy

of Technology.

Press.

in Inner-City Schools. Chicago:

Boston: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

"Making theGrade with School Security." School Planning

39,4:3941.

and Management

inU.S. Schools:
The Appropriate and Effective Use of Security Technologies
Guide for Schools and Law Enforcement Agencies. National Institute of
Justice Research Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

"Security; Making Contact." American School and University (February 1): 1

3.
Kosar, John and Faruq Ahmed
2000
"Building Security into Schools." School Administrator 57,2: 2426.
Light, Michelle
2002
Scoop from theLoop. E-mail bulletin from theChildren and Family Justice
Center, Northwestern University Legal Clinic, m-light@law.northwestern.edu.
Lyon, David
1994

C. Wright
1956
Paeey, Arnold
1999
Postman, Neil

Mills,

The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance

ofMinnesota Press.

Society. Minneapolis:

University

The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.

Meaning

in Technology.

Cambridge: MIT

Press.

Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage

Books.
Scarbrough, Harry and J.Martin Corbett
1992
Technology and Organization: Power, Meaning, and Design. New York:
Routledge.
Sorrentino, Dominic
"A Whole New Paradigm: Changes inTechnology Have Altered the Face of
2002
School Security." American School and University 75: 4-6.
1992

Tenner, Edward
1996

Why Things Bite Back: Technology and theRevenge of Unintended Conse?

quences. New York: Alfred Knopf.
Townley, Arthur and Kenneth Martinez
toCreate Safer Schools." NASSP Bulletin 79,568: 6168.
1995
"Using Technology
Trump, Kenneth
The
"Scared or Prepared: Reducing Risks with School Security Assessments."
1999
6: 1823.'
High School Magazine
Wagman,
2002

Jake

"District Will Use Eye Scanning." The Philadelphia

Inquirer (October 24).
Retrieved June 20, 2003 at www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/education/
4355449.htm.

Weisberg, Dan
2000

"Scalable Hype: Old Persuasions forNew Technology." Robin Anderson and

Lance Strate (eds.), Critical Studies inMedia Commercialism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press: 186-200.

This content downloaded from 128.252.67.66 on Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:02:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions