Hardly. You're blowing this all out of proportion. A better comparison
would be that we're all aware we can be filmed while on that bridge.
Well, *I'm* aware of that, and I won't do anything while on the bridge
that would embarrass me. And I would most certainly tell one of my
kids that received
Hardly. You're blowing this all out of proportion. A better comparison
would be that we're all aware we can be filmed while on that bridge.
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy on the bridge. You do in your
bedroom. If the school system was going to violate that reasonable
What victim? What crime? Some of you are getting ahead of yourselves.
There are no victims, and nobody has been charged with a crime. By
your own admissions, the worst that happened here is that somebody in
the school district failed to make it more clear that monitoring would
be taking place.
Chris Dunford
Hardly. You're blowing this all out of proportion.
A better comparison would be that we're all aware
we can be filmed while on that bridge.
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy on the
bridge. You do in your bedroom. If the school system
was going to violate that
So the only crime so far is they should have told the boys and girls they
would be watched remotely in their bedrooms? Maybe they failed to make it
clear because any sensible parent doesn't want their kids spied on by sick
perverts.
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Tony B ton...@gmail.com wrote:
Or maybe the parents that don't own a post-it could just refuse to
accept the free laptop.
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:27 PM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote:
So the only crime so far is they should have told the boys and girls they
would be watched remotely in their bedrooms? Maybe they failed to
On 03/05/2010 08:11 AM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, according to that very article, the computer camera was
activated in the Robbins case for a reason other than specified by the
school system. According to the school system, the camera in that
case was turned on because a $55
On 03/06/2010 08:27 PM, mike wrote:
So the only crime so far is they should have told the boys and girls they
would be watched remotely in their bedrooms? Maybe they failed to make it
clear because any sensible parent doesn't want their kids spied on by sick
perverts.
The situation is more
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Art Clemons artclem...@aol.com wrote:
On 03/06/2010 08:27 PM, mike wrote:
So the only crime so far is they should have told the boys and girls they
would be watched remotely in their bedrooms? Maybe they failed to make
it
clear because any sensible parent
http://gizmodo.com/5475668/laptop+spying-school-district-superintendent-covers-ass-by-claiming-security-feature
You have any links about him being a 'troubled student' ? I've seen
nothing.
This link from gizmodo has a letter from the Supe about how they are
removing the security feature and
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Tony B ton...@gmail.com wrote:
What victim? What crime? Some of you are getting ahead of yourselves.
There are no victims, and nobody has been charged with a crime. By
your own admissions, the worst that happened here is that somebody in
the school district
One article stated the two on paid leave had a 'private' website where they
were storing pics taken from webcams.
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:50 PM, phartz...@gmail.com phartz...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Tony B ton...@gmail.com wrote:
For what it is worth, the school
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Art Clemons artclem...@aol.com wrote:
The student was not supposed to remove the laptop from the school unless
the insurance fee was paid, technically the laptop met the definition of
missing or stolen and thus qualified for possible attempts at recovery.
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 9:58 PM, mike xha...@gmail.com wrote:
One article stated the two on paid leave had a 'private' website where they
were storing pics taken from webcams.
Yes, allegedly accessible by the local police department. I would
wonder why the use of a website to provide photos
14 matches
Mail list logo
