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.
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Art Clemons <[email protected]> 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/ ** *************************************************************************
