Yes, there's nothing that makes quite as much sense as remaining willfully ignorant of a current event because somebody made a typo while trying to report it.
Would you people please read up on the fucking background before commenting?
Why didn't these people see the green light next to the camera?
Students DID notice the little green lights turning on. Many, many times. When they reported this to the district, the district said it was a "glitch."
Why didn't they cover the camera with a little electrical tape?
Why don't you walk around wearing a bullet proof vest? "Who cares if the district can spy on you, you can defeat them with tape." Uh, the school district shouldn't be fucking spying on students.
The school announced that they could not discuss any specifics of this case. This seems reasonable given the pending litigation.
While that is the usual legal practice, how could it have POSSIBLY harmed them in this case? Hell, be vague: "We can only confirm that the images were not captured by the web cam security system." Of course, unintended consequences can arise whenever you make ANY sort of statement, but given that the FBI is now raining shit down on them, it seems like any potential legal backfiring from making such a statement pales in comparison to a criminal investigation.
Not to mention, not all consequences are legal consequences. Whether or not such an admission may damage their case legally, they are developing a public image of being a bunch of sociopathic, child-spying sickos with a bent for exceeding authority. There is value in making that go away. The fact that they do not do so speaks volumes.
I had a couple of sharply dressed young Mormon men come calling when I was still living at my mom's place in my last year of college. I answered the door in my pajamas, and had a good long conversation with them. I'm not entirely sure, but I think I converted them to Buddhism. It was one of the more surreal experiences I've had.
It makes sense to produce a web-cam with a lid. A piece of paper and scotch tape could be used on older web-cams.
While this is a wise thing, of course, it's hardly the central issue here. We shouldn't have to worry how to protect ourselves from being spied upon by authorities. They simply should not be doing it. This is kind of like saying that you can avoid being assassinated by the government by hiding in a cave. Yeah, probably, but you shouldn't have to hide in a cave your entire life.
1.) Just because they told the kids that they might activate the web cam to find it doesn't give them the right to do so. If the activity is illegal, telling someone you are going to do it beforehand doesn't make it legal. IANAL, but this one sounds pretty shaky.
It's funny how so many people just can't seem to grasp this. Some people try to argue that because the computer was school property, the school can therefore do what they want with it. To those people I say, this gun is my property, I should be able to shoot you with it. Some other people argue that the Acceptable Use Policy clearly spelled out what the computers might be used for (let's disregard for a moment that the agreements SAID NO SUCH THING) -- to those people I say, please sign this contract stating I can rape you -- once it's on paper it is therefore legal, right?
Dude, what are you talking about? The FBI *is* involved, and they have enjoined the school district to ensure they do not wipe evidence off the machines. The FBI is definitely investigating this.
If you contact a local news or student organization, do you think your potential employer will be happy? You've already decided you don't want this job by doing that. If you don't want the job, then what's the problem? Walk away. Nobody is making you do it. Making a big scene is childish.
There are laws which specifically make the school district's alleged actions illegal. You cannot use a contract to cause illegal things to become legal. It is likely that the video captures directly violated various wiretap, privacy, conspiracy, and computer crime laws. If the images included nude children, then child pornography laws were broken.
The law says "You shall not do (such and such)," it does not say "You shall not do (such and such) unless you have a piece of paper saying you can." The fact that an AUP was signed (even leaving aside the fact that there was NO mention in the AUP of this sort of monitoring), doesn't suddenly make laws go away.
A contract/agreement may protect you from various civil circumstances but a contract can NEVER absolve you of criminal behavior.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that the student in question reported the laptop lost or stolen. If the School district is pressing charges, they shouldn't comment directly on the case until the student is tried and convicted of theft of the laptop.
If that was true, why did the school discipline the kid for "inappropriate behavior in the home?" I realize that this information was released by the parents/lawyers, not the school district, but if the district's purpose was to nail the kid for theft, why punish him for something else? It makes more sense to keep quiet while you collect your evidence, then bring the hammer down. By punishing the kid too soon they tipped their hand and opened themselves up to this mess. This would not even have become news. Something still doesn't add up.
That is a non-response. He does not address the allegation that the image of a student was captured by the web cam. The fact that the district is not denying it is an indicator that it did in fact happen. So, why was the web cam used? According to this letter, it would only have been used if the laptop was suspected as stolen. Was it? Again, had it been, it would have been easy to say so, and it would have gone a huge way toward calming people down. But there is no denial here. This letter is bullshit and only serves to confirm that they must be shitting their pants right about now, hoping people who aren't paying attention will just read this crap and forget about it.
Perhaps we should concern ourselves not with whether we're using technology effectively in education, but whether we are educating effectively PERIOD. There seems to be this weird trend toward technological methods simply because they use technology, not because they work better than other methods. Whether technology is used in an educational scheme is incidental -- what matters is whether the scheme is effective.
The implication here is that our education could be better if only we could figure out how to harness technology correctly -- as if the use of technology is now a requirement for good education. This is putting the cart before the horse.
Anarchy means I can shoot you in the back without provocation and without fear of reprisal.
No fear of reprisal? You're not worried about all of his friends and relatives who now want you dead? You seem to be implying that the reason people don't run around killing each other all the time is because there are laws against it. That's crazy. The laws allow us to punish the offenders in a well-defined way, they don't PREVENT crime. Criminals don't care about laws (obviously), and most non-criminals act nicely because they are nice people, not because they are afraid of the consequences if they don't.
Yes, you could shoot me in the back. Then my brother will come shoot your sister in the back. Then your mom will shoot my dog in the back. Etc. Most people don't need a government in order to understand how this is a bad thing.
Why should I be punished for something I had absolutely no control over while the ones who voted these criminals into office are not ?
You have control over it. You are funding the behavior by paying taxes. You have a choice. You can influence others to vote more intelligently. You can run for office yourself. In the extreme, you can move to another political district where your tax dollars won't be used to finance child porn. I know, democracy and responsibility can sometimes be inconvenient.
I highly doubt a judge will look kindly on the "But the contract said I could do it" defense to child porn charges. You cannot contract away the illegality of things. A contract which stipulates or allows illegal activities is non-binding.
Not that I advocate underage people doing anything, but all it takes is one girl changing clothes in her room with the laptop turned on, and then they have a stack of federal charges.
If the underage person is aware that they are being recorded, then they could (and probably would) be charged with creating child porn of themselves. So I certainly would NOT encourage anybody to try this.
That's because there is a specific civil claim of "wrongful death." There is no such equivalent for most other crimes. Of course, you can sue for pretty much anything. I'd go for emotional distress.
Dude, the distinction is important. There's a world of difference between having a gun shoved in your face with demands for your cash and jewels, and finding some of your possessions missing when you return home after a night out. Anybody who's actually been robbed understands the difference very clearly.
And here I was thinking the reason I don't rob and kill people was because I was a good person. Turns out, it's just because nobody has encouraged me to do those things. All this time I've been wrong! You've opened my eyes!
No mention of what the picture was, but if it was something involving nudity then... wouldn't a better course of action be to sue the school district for being in possession of child pornography?
You don't sue somebody for a criminal act. You indict them, prosecute them, and send them to prison.
The taxpayers are exactly who should be punished. They elected a set of officials who apparently believe it's okay to spy on families in their own homes. Government is not apart from us. The government is established by us and draws its powers from us. If taxpayers can't be bothered to learn about the political persuations and tendencies of those they elect, then they deserve the blow-back when things go wrong. Hopefully, this will teach the public to think more critically when filling out their ballot.
You might say that this outcome could not possibly have been foreseen. That may be true, but the fault is still the people, who did not demand the appropriate levels of oversight of their educational institutions. You send your kids for 6 to 8 hours every day to this place. To not know what's going on is absolutely unacceptable. You ARE the root of the power of the government. You ARE responsible for what it does.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there's nothing that makes quite as much sense as remaining willfully ignorant of a current event because somebody made a typo while trying to report it.
If you think I would prefer a bug report over a beer then you have some serious brain damage.
Would you people please read up on the fucking background before commenting?
Why didn't these people see the green light next to the camera?
Students DID notice the little green lights turning on. Many, many times. When they reported this to the district, the district said it was a "glitch."
Why didn't they cover the camera with a little electrical tape?
Why don't you walk around wearing a bullet proof vest? "Who cares if the district can spy on you, you can defeat them with tape." Uh, the school district shouldn't be fucking spying on students.
The school announced that they could not discuss any specifics of this case. This seems reasonable given the pending litigation.
While that is the usual legal practice, how could it have POSSIBLY harmed them in this case? Hell, be vague: "We can only confirm that the images were not captured by the web cam security system." Of course, unintended consequences can arise whenever you make ANY sort of statement, but given that the FBI is now raining shit down on them, it seems like any potential legal backfiring from making such a statement pales in comparison to a criminal investigation.
Not to mention, not all consequences are legal consequences. Whether or not such an admission may damage their case legally, they are developing a public image of being a bunch of sociopathic, child-spying sickos with a bent for exceeding authority. There is value in making that go away. The fact that they do not do so speaks volumes.
I had a couple of sharply dressed young Mormon men come calling when I was still living at my mom's place in my last year of college. I answered the door in my pajamas, and had a good long conversation with them. I'm not entirely sure, but I think I converted them to Buddhism. It was one of the more surreal experiences I've had.
It makes sense to produce a web-cam with a lid. A piece of paper and scotch tape could be used on older web-cams.
While this is a wise thing, of course, it's hardly the central issue here. We shouldn't have to worry how to protect ourselves from being spied upon by authorities. They simply should not be doing it. This is kind of like saying that you can avoid being assassinated by the government by hiding in a cave. Yeah, probably, but you shouldn't have to hide in a cave your entire life.
1.) Just because they told the kids that they might activate the web cam to find it doesn't give them the right to do so. If the activity is illegal, telling someone you are going to do it beforehand doesn't make it legal. IANAL, but this one sounds pretty shaky.
It's funny how so many people just can't seem to grasp this. Some people try to argue that because the computer was school property, the school can therefore do what they want with it. To those people I say, this gun is my property, I should be able to shoot you with it. Some other people argue that the Acceptable Use Policy clearly spelled out what the computers might be used for (let's disregard for a moment that the agreements SAID NO SUCH THING) -- to those people I say, please sign this contract stating I can rape you -- once it's on paper it is therefore legal, right?
Dude, what are you talking about? The FBI *is* involved, and they have enjoined the school district to ensure they do not wipe evidence off the machines. The FBI is definitely investigating this.
If you contact a local news or student organization, do you think your potential employer will be happy? You've already decided you don't want this job by doing that. If you don't want the job, then what's the problem? Walk away. Nobody is making you do it. Making a big scene is childish.
There are laws which specifically make the school district's alleged actions illegal. You cannot use a contract to cause illegal things to become legal. It is likely that the video captures directly violated various wiretap, privacy, conspiracy, and computer crime laws. If the images included nude children, then child pornography laws were broken.
The law says "You shall not do (such and such)," it does not say "You shall not do (such and such) unless you have a piece of paper saying you can." The fact that an AUP was signed (even leaving aside the fact that there was NO mention in the AUP of this sort of monitoring), doesn't suddenly make laws go away.
A contract/agreement may protect you from various civil circumstances but a contract can NEVER absolve you of criminal behavior.
Wow. You've discovered... the reciprocal. Bravo.
This is the problem with anarchy that the GP was trying to point out, everyone becomes a victim of the strongest person.
I don't see how that's different than what we have now.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that the student in question reported the laptop lost or stolen. If the School district is pressing charges, they shouldn't comment directly on the case until the student is tried and convicted of theft of the laptop.
If that was true, why did the school discipline the kid for "inappropriate behavior in the home?" I realize that this information was released by the parents/lawyers, not the school district, but if the district's purpose was to nail the kid for theft, why punish him for something else? It makes more sense to keep quiet while you collect your evidence, then bring the hammer down. By punishing the kid too soon they tipped their hand and opened themselves up to this mess. This would not even have become news. Something still doesn't add up.
That is a non-response. He does not address the allegation that the image of a student was captured by the web cam. The fact that the district is not denying it is an indicator that it did in fact happen. So, why was the web cam used? According to this letter, it would only have been used if the laptop was suspected as stolen. Was it? Again, had it been, it would have been easy to say so, and it would have gone a huge way toward calming people down. But there is no denial here. This letter is bullshit and only serves to confirm that they must be shitting their pants right about now, hoping people who aren't paying attention will just read this crap and forget about it.
Perhaps we should concern ourselves not with whether we're using technology effectively in education, but whether we are educating effectively PERIOD. There seems to be this weird trend toward technological methods simply because they use technology, not because they work better than other methods. Whether technology is used in an educational scheme is incidental -- what matters is whether the scheme is effective.
The implication here is that our education could be better if only we could figure out how to harness technology correctly -- as if the use of technology is now a requirement for good education. This is putting the cart before the horse.
If I am not allowed to vote do you really think I can run for office ?
I admit your point. The set of taxpayers and the set of voters do not completely overlap. My wife can't vote either, so I understand.
Anarchy means I can shoot you in the back without provocation and without fear of reprisal.
No fear of reprisal? You're not worried about all of his friends and relatives who now want you dead? You seem to be implying that the reason people don't run around killing each other all the time is because there are laws against it. That's crazy. The laws allow us to punish the offenders in a well-defined way, they don't PREVENT crime. Criminals don't care about laws (obviously), and most non-criminals act nicely because they are nice people, not because they are afraid of the consequences if they don't.
Yes, you could shoot me in the back. Then my brother will come shoot your sister in the back. Then your mom will shoot my dog in the back. Etc. Most people don't need a government in order to understand how this is a bad thing.
Why should I be punished for something I had absolutely no control over while the ones who voted these criminals into office are not ?
You have control over it. You are funding the behavior by paying taxes. You have a choice. You can influence others to vote more intelligently. You can run for office yourself. In the extreme, you can move to another political district where your tax dollars won't be used to finance child porn. I know, democracy and responsibility can sometimes be inconvenient.
I highly doubt a judge will look kindly on the "But the contract said I could do it" defense to child porn charges. You cannot contract away the illegality of things. A contract which stipulates or allows illegal activities is non-binding.
Not that I advocate underage people doing anything, but all it takes is one girl changing clothes in her room with the laptop turned on, and then they have a stack of federal charges.
If the underage person is aware that they are being recorded, then they could (and probably would) be charged with creating child porn of themselves. So I certainly would NOT encourage anybody to try this.
That's because there is a specific civil claim of "wrongful death." There is no such equivalent for most other crimes. Of course, you can sue for pretty much anything. I'd go for emotional distress.
Dude, the distinction is important. There's a world of difference between having a gun shoved in your face with demands for your cash and jewels, and finding some of your possessions missing when you return home after a night out. Anybody who's actually been robbed understands the difference very clearly.
And here I was thinking the reason I don't rob and kill people was because I was a good person. Turns out, it's just because nobody has encouraged me to do those things. All this time I've been wrong! You've opened my eyes!
No mention of what the picture was, but if it was something involving nudity then... wouldn't a better course of action be to sue the school district for being in possession of child pornography?
You don't sue somebody for a criminal act. You indict them, prosecute them, and send them to prison.
The taxpayers are exactly who should be punished. They elected a set of officials who apparently believe it's okay to spy on families in their own homes. Government is not apart from us. The government is established by us and draws its powers from us. If taxpayers can't be bothered to learn about the political persuations and tendencies of those they elect, then they deserve the blow-back when things go wrong. Hopefully, this will teach the public to think more critically when filling out their ballot.
You might say that this outcome could not possibly have been foreseen. That may be true, but the fault is still the people, who did not demand the appropriate levels of oversight of their educational institutions. You send your kids for 6 to 8 hours every day to this place. To not know what's going on is absolutely unacceptable. You ARE the root of the power of the government. You ARE responsible for what it does.