On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 3:09 PM, mike <xha...@gmail.com> wrote: > *The district is apparently not standing behind its two IT employees who had > the necessary permissions to enable this remote viewing, technology > coordinator Carol Cafiero and technician Michael Perbix, and from what > little we can tell now it's not looking particularly good for them. In a > deposition Cafiero refused to answer any questions, citing her Fifth > Amendment rights, but an alleged e-mail exchange between the two saw Perbix > calling the pictures "a little LMSD soap opera," to which Cafiero replied "I > know, I love it!" That doesn't sound entirely appropriate... > * > Doesn't sound good for them.
The student at the center of this controversy was photographed over 400 times during a two week period. The school system claims that such intrusions only took place in order to determine the location of a laptop that was not accounted for, or who was in possession of said computer. If that is the case, why did they continue to activate the surveillance for such an extensive period of time, particularly since the only issue with that particular laptop was a failure on the part of the parents to pay in full the $55 insurance fee. They had paid a portion of the fee, but not the entire amount. School administrators obviously knew exactly who had the computer, where it was when it was not in the classroom, knew it was not stolen and knew that the only "crime" was an partially unpaid insurance bill. The student came to class every school day with the computer and went home with it every day after school, yet every day for two weeks was secretly surveilled in his home in various stages of undress, and his family members were being surveilled as well. Many photos of his family were captured as well. School administrators had, at some point, erroneously suspected that the student was ingesting drugs and possibly selling them. Perhaps their ongoing surveillance had nothing at all to do with keeping track of their computer, but rather they were trying to build a drug case against the student. If so, that is clearly not the role of the school IT department. They are not police authorities... or are they? They did have a website that allowed for police to download photos obtained with the secret surveillance software that was installed on all computers provided to the students at that school. Perhaps the local police need to be interrogated as well. Steve ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
