mike wrote:
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.
I do understand what apparently happened. The fact there was poor
quality "vice squad" activity with the pictures still doesn't make the
original activity awful. I also note once again that right now the only
sources for the innocent candy usage are the student, the family of the
student and lawyers for the family of the student. There wasn't police
involvement.
I hate to put it this way but if the student had been taking drugs, we
would expect school officials to intervene in the same circumstances. I
am probably more concerned with privacy than many, that still doesn't
put me into a camp that makes this as awful as some on here make it.
A lot of IT departments put similar software or try to add said software
to company issued laptops and employees seem willing to sign forms
allowing the company to take reasonable means to recover said laptops.
Remember a lot of "missing" laptops that later get recovered just get
used by folks around the employee without telling the employee. It's a
good argument for encrypting drives with real encryption too.
I also note that according to the Philadelphia Inquirer today, there is
a former AUSA in charge of investigating what the district and its
employees did with the activated computers and how many pictures got taken.
<http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20100309_District_hires_firm_to_probe_computer_camera_use.html>
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
