I haven't seen it, but perhaps you have..a definitive statement that the school thought the laptop was in fact stolen? I keep seeing vague things like 'security was used in case it was missing or stolen', but never that in this case they had turned it on because of that. And again, if it was stolen by this kid why was only the 'drugs' brought up to the parents?
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:04 PM, phartz...@gmail.com <phartz...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:33 PM, mike <xha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > You seem to not understand that after finding who had the 'stolen' laptop > > they spent zero time in telling the parents the boy had taken it without > > permission. It never came up. They just called the kid in and tried to > > accuse him of doing drugs. Then they had to backtrack and explain why > they > > were even watching kids over the cam. > > We do not know exactly what information the school provided to the > parents of the boy who was surveilled. The parents met with school > officials back in November of 2009, presumably after that picture had > been taken of him eating candies that had been referred to as drugs by > a school administrator. The parents claim to have left that meeting > under the assumption that the bogus drug charge had been put to rest, > I am assuming that any suspicion that their son had stolen the > computer had also been put to rest. I also have to guess that the > $55.00 insurance fee issue was similarly settled because the boy > continued to keep and take home the computer in the aftermath. > > It was only after the parents learned in January of 2010 that the > drug use charge was still in their son's file and that the school > system was apparently unwilling to remove it from his file that they > took legal action. I guess the parents got ticked off just enough > that they decided to make public the information about the spying that > took place along with the bogus claim of drug use. > > It also appears as though even after the surveillance of that boy > occurred back in November of 2009, the school system still did not > notify any parents or students about the potential for video > surveillance that was embedded in those computers. That smacks me of > being either incompetence or having made a conscious decision not to > reveal that fact. The school used the surveillance 42 times by their > count yet it still apparently never dawned on them that some > notification about that system would be in order. Wouldn't it have > been beneficial to have made that known? Wouldn't that have served as > a theft deterrent? It almost seems to me as though the school systems > was more interested in experimenting and messing around with the > surveillance system than in actually using it to help prevent theft. > > Steve > > > ************************************************************************* > ** 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/ ** *************************************************************************
