On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Art Clemons <artclem...@aol.com> wrote:
> On 03/06/2010 08:27 PM, mike wrote: > > So the only crime so far is they should have told the boys and girls they > > would be watched remotely in their bedrooms? Maybe they failed to make > it > > clear because any sensible parent doesn't want their kids spied on by > sick > > perverts. > > The situation is more complicated than you're making it out to be. The > software in question was activated because the laptop was not supposed > to be removed from the school by the student since the parents had not > given permission or paid a $55 fee for insurance for said laptop. The > laptop thus was missing or stolen as far as school records were > concerned. If a thief had actually had the laptop, would you be as > concerned about the privacy of the thief? I suspect not. In some > jurisdictions, the student could or would be prosecuted for theft in > these circumstances. This situation is more confused than portrayed. > The original plaintiff may not be the one that pulls this house of cards down on the school board. The kid in question has a troubled history but the other cases of camera activation are still likely to blow up in the face of the district. If any pictures of an underage child were taken let alone viewed they are likely open to prosecution for kiddie porn. This happened in Pennsylvania where they prosecuted a teenage girl for taking pictures of herself and emailing them to her boyfriend. -- John Duncan Yoyo -------------------------------o) ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
