On 03/06/2010 09:50 PM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: > What we have here is the use of technology in a aberrant, possibly > abusive and perhaps illegal fashion. Parents who have failed to pony > up a $55.00 insurance fee on a piece of equipment that has been > foisted upon their child for school work should not be subjected to > surveillance of their dwelling as a result. That kid had been taking > the computer back and forth to and from school daily, and just because > that fee had not been paid and the student was therefore not supposed > to be taking the computer off school property, that was no reason to > delve into knee-jerk surreptitious spying.
The problem for your logic is that the laptop was removed without permission so was missing. The laptop was supposed to be used in school only under the circumstances indicated unless the insurance was purchased. The laptop at best thus was missing. It was not clear when the surveillance began exactly where the missing laptop was. I'll ask again if the laptop had been stolen, would you still term what was done as "spying"? ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
