I'm not claiming they would not supply the videos to be shown in the courtroom to the defense. The problem is that they might either not supply, or more likely just not look sufficiently for, evidence to prove your innocense. With the obvious danger of using incomplete analogies this corresponds to having a number of witnesses, but the police decides who you are allowed to question - even worse actually, as they can completely ignore the presence of any given camera you don't know about.
Also a key point in you subpoena reasoning is that you need to know there is a camera. I don't know where all the cameras are, and most likely neither will anyone but the police.
Finally, a public camera can easily document your whereabouts - in a public or private place. If the crime took place across town from your appartment and a camera records you entering your appartment 2 minutes before the crime was committed you are home free... if you have the recording, or know it exists.
One other problem one could think of is that with evidence in general, you have the right to inspect all of the evidence against you, if you are indicted. In the case of police operated cameras the problem is that the police decide what is evidence against you and what is not (do you really believe you would be allowed full access to all video footage?). Technically, there is no reason for the police to allow you to use the system to prove that you were actually at home when the crime was committed, and I'm sure you wouldn't be allowed to check.
This heavily skews the burden of evidence in favor of the prosecution. Now, this could be the same if they got info out of one of their other databases (driving license, social security, etc), but the problem only gets worse using this. Arguing that the problem already exists does not justify making it significantly worse.
I'm sorry to say this, but as a person both having worked with maintaining computers in the class-room and having been on the other side because of annoying/impractical/senseless rules imposed by other administrators you make the wrong points.
Sure, computers need to have some security built into your school computers, but this is no different from not giving the administrator priviliges to every random user on your network, or even to their own workstation computers in the company. There is a certain needed level of obstacles you can - and should set - to make sure only people who know what they are doing get past it. Let's face it here, if kids want to get into a computer and has sufficient time for it (and skills as well as determination to do research on the web), we can't stop them. It's a question of time, pure and simple - they have more time to try than we do to stop them.
Your main issue seems to be a question of motivation for the kids. Don't try beating them at a game you simply cannot win - Child psychology 101;-). In stead try motivating them to use their energy in a more contructive way. Set them challenges, in the classroom or outside, similar to what they can do. For example a workshop for network security, where they can try getting past your countermeasures on the network and report them back to you. This way everyone has the game, but the result will be a more secure network than you could ever do on your own. These kids have near-unlimited resources, timewise, and if you treat them like the enemy, they will _be_ the enemy. The security-by-obscurity scheme never does anyone any favours.
The time when you could simply tell students to do this and that is over. The informed (and probably spoiled) kids of today demand explanations and reasons for doing what was earlier taken for granted. If you can harness this you have a great ressource, if not you can keep fighting your losing battle forever.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not claiming they would not supply the videos to be shown in the courtroom to the defense. The problem is that they might either not supply, or more likely just not look sufficiently for, evidence to prove your innocense. With the obvious danger of using incomplete analogies this corresponds to having a number of witnesses, but the police decides who you are allowed to question - even worse actually, as they can completely ignore the presence of any given camera you don't know about.
Also a key point in you subpoena reasoning is that you need to know there is a camera. I don't know where all the cameras are, and most likely neither will anyone but the police.
Finally, a public camera can easily document your whereabouts - in a public or private place. If the crime took place across town from your appartment and a camera records you entering your appartment 2 minutes before the crime was committed you are home free... if you have the recording, or know it exists.
One other problem one could think of is that with evidence in general, you have the right to inspect all of the evidence against you, if you are indicted. In the case of police operated cameras the problem is that the police decide what is evidence against you and what is not (do you really believe you would be allowed full access to all video footage?). Technically, there is no reason for the police to allow you to use the system to prove that you were actually at home when the crime was committed, and I'm sure you wouldn't be allowed to check. This heavily skews the burden of evidence in favor of the prosecution. Now, this could be the same if they got info out of one of their other databases (driving license, social security, etc), but the problem only gets worse using this. Arguing that the problem already exists does not justify making it significantly worse.
I'm sorry to say this, but as a person both having worked with maintaining computers in the class-room and having been on the other side because of annoying/impractical/senseless rules imposed by other administrators you make the wrong points. Sure, computers need to have some security built into your school computers, but this is no different from not giving the administrator priviliges to every random user on your network, or even to their own workstation computers in the company. There is a certain needed level of obstacles you can - and should set - to make sure only people who know what they are doing get past it. Let's face it here, if kids want to get into a computer and has sufficient time for it (and skills as well as determination to do research on the web), we can't stop them. It's a question of time, pure and simple - they have more time to try than we do to stop them. Your main issue seems to be a question of motivation for the kids. Don't try beating them at a game you simply cannot win - Child psychology 101 ;-). In stead try motivating them to use their energy in a more contructive way. Set them challenges, in the classroom or outside, similar to what they can do. For example a workshop for network security, where they can try getting past your countermeasures on the network and report them back to you. This way everyone has the game, but the result will be a more secure network than you could ever do on your own. These kids have near-unlimited resources, timewise, and if you treat them like the enemy, they will _be_ the enemy. The security-by-obscurity scheme never does anyone any favours.
The time when you could simply tell students to do this and that is over. The informed (and probably spoiled) kids of today demand explanations and reasons for doing what was earlier taken for granted. If you can harness this you have a great ressource, if not you can keep fighting your losing battle forever.