On 03/12/2010 01:31 PM, Reid Katan wrote: > How about: They have a picture of a student, upon which, they spied?
But you're conceding that at first they didn't know who had the picture. It appears that the IT guys probably lacked access to student records, which means that the student in question was just another possible "thief". You > Just as a side note, assuming they probably had a pretty good idea who > *might* have had the laptop, couldn't they just call the 'rents and > *ask* if Jr. had the thing? You're missing something obvious. The company which provided the pictures definitely had ZERO idea of the identity of the individual in the webcam photo. The IT guys then passed it on to school official who apparently then identified who was in the picture. You're assuming steps which actually didn't happen, namely that someone with authority to contact the parents actually knew the identity of the student. Let's see, pictures every 15 minutes for some period of time like for example two hours. Somebody with access to school records then had to identify the student. It appears that after the student was identified, instead of calling the police or the parents, administrative fears about what the student had been doing lead to confronting the student and then calling the parents. We have no idea how long between identifying said student and the confrontation. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
