On 03/08/2010 01:28 AM, mike wrote: > *The district says it turned on the camera in Robbins' computer because, > since he had not paid a $55 insurance fee, he should not have been taking it > home.
It's not likely the administrator had the recovery software activated just because he wasn't supposed to be taking it. > *That implies that the student had taken it home more than once and that the > school knew it. As in they knew who took it, and could have just phone the > kids house. Instead they turn the camera on and then watch long enough to > see him snort fun-dip and accuse him of drug taking/selling...no mention of > taking the laptop home and the 55 dollar fee. Why not? According to this > reporter at least, the school admin knew when they turned it on who had the > laptop. Actually that's not clear at all. In the past, some stolen laptops were recovered with the same software. Most likely until someone identified the student, nobody knew where the laptop was when it was found to be missing. Until discovery completes, nobody but the district knows how many times the software was used and under what circumstances. It does appear however that if the fee had been paid, the webcam would not have been activated. I also have to ask just what people in Lower Merion as opposed to Upper Merion would be saying if the district had not taken seriously its inventory of laptops without insurance. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
