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.

[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.

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

[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:eh

[nomadic]

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

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. "

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!