On 03/08/2010 01:06 AM, John Duncan Yoyo wrote: > > The question is though is did the kid get in trouble initially for > taking the computer home without insurance? We know he was tagged for > the eating of illicit candies.
Actually I remind everyone that he and his parents claim that he was eating Mike & Ike, which may well be the absolute unvarnished truth, but note the problem! The laptop was apparently noted as missing and possible recovery sought. Apparently the IP address and webcam weren't activated until someone at the school caused the activation because it was missing. That's one of the reasons this case is so murky. The district had used the same technique to recover some stolen laptops previously. Ironically enough it's likely that if inventories of computers without the insurance weren't taken some of the present critics would be bemoaning the lack of care for tax monies with said computers. I don't know how this case will turn out. I do note however school officials only ended up in this tangle because for some reason said official(s) tried to do something about what was believed to be illicit drug usage. It is ironic indeed! ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
