On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 9:26 PM, John Duncan Yoyo <[email protected]> wrote:
> Boy the prosecution of this could lead to no end of hurt. If the school > district caused the taking of naked pictures of underage children wouldn't > they be guilty of child pornography? If these pictures were moved between > servers of the school it could be construed as the distribution of child > pornography. > > I expect that lots of the kids or their parents will be covering their > cameras with a post it note. The school system admits that the computers were rigged so as to be able to take snapshots from a remote location. While they contend that was done in order to be able to identify who was in possession of a computer were it to be stolen, even such use would most likely be illegal, akin to being a warrant-less illegal search. The state of Pennsylvania is already fairly well known as being a testbed for various surveillance methods, most famously in the town of Lancaster where private corporations are used to spy on the citizens. The small town already has more surveillance cameras than most major cities in the United States, and they have plans to install yet more cameras. There is virtually nowhere in Lancaster that one can go without having corporate eyes watching. Pan and zoom cameras are used, and it is alleged that it is not uncommon for cameras to be trained upon the houses of random residents for days at a time with attempts being made to identify and track the movements of each and every person who either comes or goes. Most residents of the town apparently do not like all the spying while most business owners along with police and most town officials think it is great. No big surprise there, of course. Steve ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
