School Spying Scandal Gets Even More Bizarre

Several sources following the recent school webcam spying debacle are reporting that an even stranger twist has surfaced. The student in question that was disciplined for an "improper act" was apparently accused of either drug use or drug selling. Turns out he was eating Mike & Ike candy, not popping pills. While there is probably more to this story than has made it to the general public, the officials involved have done a particularly bad job of actually managing the events.

Comments

Ugh.

[Pojut]

Yeah...because Mike & Ikes look just like illicit drugs. Completely ignoring the privacy aspect of this story, a school official mistaking freakin' Mike & Ikes for drugs is beyond comprehension.

http://www.illinoisnut.com/products/mainLarge_1028200752854pm.jpg

That looks quite unlike any drug I've ever heard of or seen.

Re:Ugh.

[interkin3tic]

Yeah...because Mike & Ikes look just like illicit drugs.

Additionally I'd argue it's none of the school's fucking business what candy OR illegal drugs the student was taking when he was not at school. If the student were taking poison, committing suicide, then the school officials have a duty to report it and they'd be thanked for that after their jail sentences for being peeping toms.

Re:Ugh.

[fahrbot-bot]

Additionally I'd argue it's none of the school's fucking business what candy OR illegal drugs the student was taking when he was not at school.

Or legal drug. Checking my most recent Prescription reference book, drugs come in all shapes, sizes and colors. Is the school admin a pharmacist? I think not, so what the f*ck does he know? Unless, of course, they look like something the admin is using... :-)

Re:Ugh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people experiment with ways to alter consciousness from a young age, including spinning around. If they're going to do it, they ought to have the information they need to be safe, not a brick wall of silence. Same goes for sex, another popular way to alter consciousness, among other things.

Re:Ugh.

[bhima]

my god. the kids today are retarded.

Re:Ugh.

[_KiTA_]

Do they honestly expect us to believe they just happened to be looking at this boy in his home at the exact moment he happened to eat his candy, or were they watching him to see if he did anything?

If the latter, what gives them the right to watch students outside of school property for infractions? They're not police officers, and even if they somehow made the argument that they were... I'd love to see the warrant they had for this.

At the very least, these people need to lose their jobs. There may also need to be some legal action taken. Perhaps a law specifically prohibiting this sort of thing in the future -- since you know there are little dictator wannabe school administrators out there who think the only bad thing about this story is the school had to stop.

To be fair

[jeff4747]

To be fair, the "Mike & Ike" claim was made by the kid. And he might be lying.

But the entire "what exactly was the kid doing" tangent is really just an attempt to justify the school's bad behavior.

Re:To be fair

[0racle]

Whether he was doing drugs or not is entirely irrelevant. If he was, there is no legal or moral way for the school to have found out unless he was caught doing it at the school.

Re:To be fair

[MartinSchou]

They could have caught him cutting open his little sister for all I care.

The school claims the system was only used to locate stolen laptops. If the kid's laptop had indeed been reported as stolen to the school, all 'bad things' that it caught (like him masturbating) isn't the school's fault.

If it HADN'T been reported stolen, then they have no 'get out of jail free card' on seeing him cutting open his little sister. They're still guilty of illegal wire tapping and if they've done it once, it really should be up to them to prove, no-one has been using the system to spy on people.

Re:To be fair

[Angst Badger]

But the entire "what exactly was the kid doing" tangent is really just an attempt to justify the school's bad behavior.

And that's the crux of the issue. The kid could have been running a meth lab for all that it matters. Public schools are not empowered to engage in warrantless video surveillance of private citizens in their own homes. A school can't even get a warrant. For that, they have to call the police, and the police have to go to a judge. And if there is anyone in the audience who wonders why schools aren't empowered to do this sort of thing, this case should answer that question.

Re:To be fair

[sjames]

Sure, he might be, but so far we KNOW the other side has a history of lying on record (The school board's public statements would make the picture and the disciplinary action impossible, yet both exist).

For that matter, the school would still be in the wrong even if they had him doing lines in a video. It's just that then they would have the ability to deflect the public's attention away from the issue.

Really, the Mike and Ike thing is just icing on the cake. It just says that in addition to being creepy, voyeuristic, stupid, and on a power trip, the school system is also suspicious, given to unwarranted leaps of illogic, and blind as a bat.

Re:To be fair

[billius]

To be fair, the "Mike & Ike" claim was made by the kid. And he might be lying.

But the entire "what exactly was the kid doing" tangent is really just an attempt to justify the school's bad behavior.

Exactly. Even if he was taking pills, there's no way of ascertaining what was in said pills by just looking at a photo, but seeing as how they strip search 13 year-old girls nowadays for having advil, I'm afraid that this is seeming more and more like par for the course. Even if the pills were illegal, the school had no business monitoring him like that.

Re:To be fair

[CannonballHead]

That's the entire premise of contemporary evangelical Christianity and other extremist religions.

Please define "extremist."

If you wanted to apply that word to a "brand" of Christianity, I suggest the extreme wrongness of the views held by those participating in the Crusades and Inquisitions. Unless, of course, you are simply using "extremist" to refer to beliefs that are very different. But typically, people think of people killing each other when you talk about "extremist religions." Most evangelical Christians are not killing each other.

Furthermore, the ends-justifies-the-means is not a Biblical concept whatsoever. The Bible is full of statements, in fact, that deal very much with how you go about doing the "right thing." And, in fact, the Bible calls doing the "right" thing with the "wrong motive" sin - because the Bible mentions the fact that God very much cares about intents and motives, not outward/external acts.

Before judging "evangelical Christianity" - unless you are simply trying to judge particular groups that you have studied and not the entire group as if they all believe the same way - I'd suggest getting to know what they actually think and how much difference there is amongst the various groups in it. It would seem to me to be a fallacy to assume that just because a bunch of people claim the same name that they believe the same thing. Unless you really want me to go about pointing out that "atheists admit they are faith-based." Some do. And maybe another atheist doesn't think that way. It would be wrong of me to simply assume he actually thinks he has no concrete evidence in his mind for it, just because he shares a label...

Re:To be fair

[anyGould]

Whether he was doing drugs or not is entirely irrelevant. If he was, there is no legal or moral way for the school to have found out unless he was caught doing it at the school.

And to take it one step further - even giving the school Maximum Doubtage, if the student was selling illegal drugs, that's a matter for the police; if he's using, that's a matter for doctors and parents etc. In either case, being written up at school the next day is easily the least effective course of action possible.

Re:To be fair

[sjames]

Let's just say the weight of evidence is not on the school's side. Apparently the principal told the parents the picture came from a webcam on the laptop. We know the picture had to come into existence SOMEHOW and had to SOMEHOW end up in the principal's possession. The student and his parents had to SOMEHOW come to know there was software on the laptop that could remotely activate the camera.

We know that for some reason the school has chosen not to offer this perfectly reasonable explanation you seem to think exists despite considerable public pressure (not to mention FBI and the DA) that would go away in an instant if they did.

While in the most literal sense, we cannot with 100% certainty rule out the machinations of evil elves from the 5th dimension, I believe that from a practical standpoint we can say it's not looking good for the school board.

excellent

[Sir_Lewk]

The news just keeps on getting better and better. The more absurd this story gets, the more it will stand out as an example of why this sort of behaviour is unacceptable.

Still can't,

[SirBigSpur]

I still can't believe anybody but the IT department had access to this, and better yet no one in the IT department thought this might be a bad idea...

Re:Still can't,

[Archangel Michael]

I'm a school IT guy. I can assure you we have good people working in IT here at this district. Let me stipulate the following.

1)I've had a few MS trainings, and most were "theory" and otherwise worthless for my job. I've been Novel Certified way back when. Everything else I've learned on my own through some 25-30 years of IT work.

2)We don't have a budget. NONE. And that was before the current economic crisis. All spending was (is) "project" spending, meaning we had to beg to get it funded. We had no replacement cycle plans for anything until THIS year, and even that is getting shelved now.

3)Almost guaranteed that no IT guy was responsible for anything other than "can you make this feature work" ... and that was probably after the laptops showed up.

4) Almost as assuredly, the IT guys don't have time to reviews pictures being archived automatically. It was probably someone else, looking for something specific (naked chicks/dudes, specific criminal activity etc).

Our High Schools have ONE analyst for 2000+ students. Our Jr Highs have one Analyst and a couple part time techs for 2400+ students. Between the three analysts and two techs they manage 1500+ machines.

We don't have time to do stupid stuff like this. However the "do-good" people in other departments would. AND they would easily justify their actions with "for the children" statements you often see. You see, it might mean a grant or increase in funding to stop/prevent/help/support (X), "for the children" of course!

Wait..

[rotide]

Wait, I thought the school made a statement saying they never ever used the laptop "security feature" for anything besides recovering lost and/or stolen equipment.

How is snapping a picture of a student, with _no_ stolen laptop, following in line with their stated security policy?

Ya, we didn't use it for its intended purpose. Ya, we did snoop around to satisfy our curiosity, but.. but.. BUT.. LOOK AT THE DRUGS!

*Facts presented so far in this case are less than facts until a court rules. I don't claim to know what happened, I'm just a sheep parroting the hearsay I come across.

Re:Underwear check

[rotide]

While off topic, your quote makes me weep for that school system. Take a Assistant Principle who can't follow the rules of the school, let alone the law, and put her in a position to _teach_ the kids.

Not only was that disgusting, the "punishment" is frikkin' SCARY.

Re:Nothing changes but stupidity in public schools

[commodoresloat]

Hint: Drugs do not come in big candy colored shapes.

I'm guessing you didn't attend a lot of Grateful Dead shows....

Re:Nothing changes but stupidity in public schools

[BitZtream]

Apparently you don't know what it was like being a kid in the 80s and 90s. Prescription pills are the drugs of choice by most these days, easier to get by with in plain sight, generally easy to come up with an excuse for having on you or taking, only illegal if you don't have a prescription ... which you don't typically carry around with you.

and ...

Even less noticeable when you carry them around in a candy box and act completely normal with them.

You clearly were not part of the crowd who 'did drugs in school', thats probably a good thing, just stop pretending to know what goes on with the kids who do. If you have kids, I suggest you ask them about the drugs in their school rather than telling them about drugs, they'll probably already know more.

Re:eh

[nomadic]

Yep went to the Supreme Court. The scary thing is a few of the justices sided with the school

Re:eh

[galadriel]

Zero tolerance is not an understandable policy. It's an excuse for unhooking the brain of those in authority, an excuse for punishing kids equally for bringing a loaded automatic rifle and a keychain-sized toy gun to school, and an excuse for rampant power trips.

Re:eh

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be good ole Clarence Thomas:

"Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. "Judges are not qualified to second-guess the best manner for maintaining quiet and order in the school environment," he wrote. "

not of interest what the kid did

[molecular]

I don't understand why we're even talking about what the kid did or did not do at his home.

School officials have no fucking business sniffing around in other peoples houses. This is just outrageously wrong and illegal. Even if he was taking drugs, the video should not be accepted by any court as prove. Not even the police is allowed to film you in your own home without previous reason.

Re:destroy all semblence of western liberal democr

[aristotle-dude]

in order to bring about the glorious christian theocracy of north america:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html

of course, jesus' greatest message was tolerance. yet his most vocal advocates today only seem to advance the cause of "christianity" by extending the bounds of intolerance

I don't think you understand what tolerance is. If you think Jesus' message was about tolerance, then completely missed his point. Tolerance implies looking down on other people, put up with their flaws and feel sorry for them. Jesus' message called for Christians to not look down on the world but rather to love unconditionally. Loving does not mean that you have to accept the negative behavior of others while accepting the people themselves. This emulates how Jesus embraced a group of 12 flawed human beings and made them his disciples.

Christians are called to change the world and right wrongs rather than just sit there smugly "tolerating" others.

Tolerance is the lazy man's way because you are not helping others reach their true potential.

Re:Nothing changes but stupidity in public schools

[cusco]

Tell that to Rush Limbaugh. The dirtbag got caught coming back from the Dominican Republic (home of a huge child prostitute industry) with a bottle of someone else's Viagra. While on probation. Without telling his probation officer he was going out of town. Since he's a right-wing-nut nothing happened of course, but you and I would have been in jail for a long time.

Re:Child Pornography Laws

[Runaway1956]

*cough cough*

No matter what the kid was or was not doing in the privacy of HIS OWN HOME, legal or not, it is HIS BUSINESS, and the business of his family. Unless a judge granted a warrant to keep the kids under surveillance 24/7 the school is 100% in the wrong. No matter how crazy kids get, if they are behind closed doors, they are good to go. Believe me - my boys did some wild crap when they were younger. Actually - they still do, sadly.