At present this is a lot of he said she said type stuff.
As stated before we are only getting sound bytes not all the legal niceties.
I am only hoping that when this thing truly plays out in the courts
(if it does) we get to find out all the stuff that really went on.
So far there are just too may enticing snippets being released for
maximum impact to know what truly happened.
Stewart
At 09:24 PM 3/7/2010, you wrote:
On 03/06/2010 09:23 PM, mike wrote:
> If this was it, why wasn't he accused of stealing it? Why did school
> officials continue to watch this kid when they knew he had
it? Why did they
> further accuse him of selling and taking drugs? This software was clearly
> not used to track a stolen laptop, it was used to spy on a kid in his
> bedroom.
You don't seem to understand the difference between a justification for
activating said laptop and your claims. If said laptop was removed
without permission, it's still missing, and we don't know that it was
possible to identify who had possession of said laptop.
I finally note that a justification for investigation doesn't
necessarily involve the possibility of criminal charges. Do you really
want criminal charges for someone who without permission removed a
laptop assigned to that individual in school?
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
