What we have here... Is failure to communicateirreconciliable differences in values.Kamakazie Sith wrote:No, you're claiming the potential for harm.
...
That is not accurate. Torment can be quantified by examination which will determine if the event has changed the victims life in a substantial way. This is why harassment via communication device (phone, email, text, etc) is considered a crime. Like I said before if you can show that these children have been harmed by this event then I'd be happy to support criminal charges. So far, you've only been able to cite possible harm for what could have happened. All we know that did happen is a photograph was used to punish a child for poor behavior. While this is certainly a violation of privacy there is no indication that it was used during compromising situations. Now, if it has been used during compromising situations and captured the children or their family members while in the nude then that would add significant embarassment. Though I disagree that it amounts to a felony charge.
...
I hate to break it to you, but even if it were criminal the way things are in this country chances are they wouldn't serve any time in that regard either for this crime. There are too many drug dealers to lock up then to worry about power hungry school admins.
...
I understand, and I respectfully disagree up to a point. If these violations of privacy included them using it to embarass or manipulate them then I would side with you.
...
Yeah, I'm 30 doesnt' mean I forgot what school was like. None of that is "terrifying". The thought of being shot is terrifying. The thought of being eaten alive is terrifying. The thought of being recorded masturbating without my knowledge is embarassing. So, I disagree with you on this issue. It seems to be a matter of personal opinion though and not really something that is debatable.
...
That's a concern, but as far as we can tell that did not happen and not substantial step was taken with that goal in mind.
...
I'm sorry, but I do disagree. I think you cause more harm by forcing a person to prison who abused their power in such a way that the end result is only potential and unquantifiable harm. I get that you want to come down hard on people in positions of authority who misuse or abuse their power, but I think you're missing the big picture.
...
I have thought about it. It would make me angry and I'd sue the pants off the city, but I would not feel harmed or terrified.
...
Of course not. That's why their termination from that position would be a acceptable along with compensation.
You don't feel, apparently, that a government agency flagrantly violating the public trust in this manner is a heinous crime. I do. Putting myself in their shoes, I wouldn't be happy with just a payout. I mean, sure, I'd love to get a fat stack of cash, but that still wouldn't make me feel better. Knowing the shitstains have been 'dismissed' wouldn't make me feel better. Hell, even knowing they've been thrown in the big house wouldn't make me feel better.
I feel that the harm that their actions have caused, the invasion of privacy, is tatamount to a public safety issue, because it undermines the public trust. I feel that it should be every bit as harshly dealt with as kiddie porn, drug dealing and violent assault: that it is felonious conduct in that it is an aggregious and unacceptable breach of trust, a breach of privacy. That it should be dealt with most severely; those believed to be responsible should, when they are being charged with the crime, hauled from wherever the enforcement agency doing the arrest finds them in handcuffs, they should be hauled down to the big house and interrogated in a tiny box with a mirrored window, that they should be tossed in a metal box until arraignment and their passports seized before allowing them to post bail.
If convicted, I think they should do time, at least a year. Even that's insulting, if it's that low; the people ultimately responsible for the activity should be facing about two to five.
It's not a dangerous act, in and of itself. But I believe it is harmful. You know that phrase 'harmful to the fabric of society' that people like to throw around any time they imagine two guys kissing each other? This does that - this truely does harm the fabric of our society, it undermines it, it savagely mauls the public trust and confidence, it chips away at freedom and privacy. Undertaken by anyone it should be considered felonious and amoral, but undertaken by an agency in a position of authority it's especially heinous and aggregious.
They accused him of 'improper behavior at home' - what does that mean?As it stands. No, it is not plausible that it could result in the wrecking of several people's lives. As it stands with the current information all we have is a photograph that doesn't sound like it was taken in a compromised position.
Lighting up a cigarette, maybe. Maybe even a joint, but they'd be hard-pressed to say it wasn't a cigarette. Drinking straight from a bottle of Jack?
Sure, that's all 'improper' for a minor, but that's really none of the school's goddamned business unless he's swigging Jack and lighting up the sweet mary jane in the school bathroom.
Hitting a sibling? Sure, that's improper. It's also none of the school's goddamned business unless he's swinging in the halls.
Spanking his snake to internet porn? Well now, that would be improper if he was doing it with their computer, but you don't need a goddamned picture to prove he's using their computer for pornography.
Frankly, we don't know what the picture(s) taken were, but where you say "we have no proof that it was a picture of someone taken in the nude or masturbating or something," I say we have no proof that it was not.
Does that automatically mean they should be thrown under the jail - well, yes. An invasion of privacy, whether you catch a picture of sod all or a vigorous homosexual three-some, is a heinous invasion of privacy. Certainly they're not guilty until proven otherwise, but the crime itself should be, I think, considered felonious, and investigated as rigorously.
Not as far as you say it is, says I.I think you would need to prove that they did this with the intent to spy and collect information to blackmail their students. That isn't the case now. They didn't blackmail anyone. They used it for evidence so they could punish. Unacceptable, sure. Still a long way from the gates of hell.
Frankly, the intent doesn't matter. Any invasion of privacy, especially of this nature, this aggregious and by an agency of authority, can and should be a felony, and it should be a crime of strict liability.
Their motivation doesn't enter into it! All it takes is for some horny IT nerd to catch an image of an attractive girl with her tits out, copy it to a thumb drive and plaster on 4chan. Or for someone to make a mistake and leak the images - fuck, it doesn't even matter if they keep it all actually secure. The intended use does not matter, what matters is the violation of privacy, the fact that it was delibreate, and aggrevated by the nature of the offender (a school)Really? You know the motive of the administration then? You're convinced that they intended to use these devices to gather information about their students and blackmail them or to use it to destroy their character. Correct? Is that what you have then? Certainly doesn't seem like it. Seems like you have an over eager administration that for an unclear reason obtained a picture of a student in some sort of behavioral situation at home, and decided to use this photograph as evidence for punishment.
This is where we differ. You say "because it has happened in the past doesn't make you a victim.I guess we'd have to ask them if that indeed did happen. The government has the ability to watch you in your home right now, and has illegal done so in the past. Being a potential victim just by being next door or having been assigned the same device with the same capability does not make you a victim.
I say that when the government engages in illegal surveilance, every American is a victim, whether personally affected or not. When the government of Pennsylvania engage in illegal surveilance, every Pennsylvanian is a victim, and when Lower Merion School District engages in illegal surveilance, every student of LMSD and their immediate family - as well as everyone who's ever been in a private room with one of those laptops - is a victim.
Those victims deserve justice, and the victimizers deserve to be thrown in prison.
We disagree here. They are a risk to society - maybe they're not gang bangin', but that arguably just makes it worse. A gang-banger doesn't hold or put forth any illusions he's anything but a banger, but when these people - ostensibly educators, pillars of the community, people in positions of great authority and power who have had a great deal of trust placed in their hands - violate that trust, the crime is aggregious and, in my opinion, felonious. It should be treated as a felony.I agree a disciplinary hearing would be insufficient because they have demonstrated that they are not fit to hold an administrative position. They have not demonstrated that they are a risk to society and need to be locked up.
I disagree. They should be terminated and forced to pay. They aren't a risk to society. They didn't use this information for personal benefit. They misused it for professional reasons.
I'm a lay person who's taken several sociology and government classes back in college and watches Law & Order and NCIS religiously, and I can tell you that if a cop did this, he'd be launched out of his uniform by trebuchet.Another problem is that school administrators probably aren't educated on the rules of search and seizure.
You don't need a lot of formal training to know that commiting what amounts to placing a trojan on desktop computers which are going to be taken into teenagers' bedrooms that then allows you to remotely activate the web-cam and see whatever it sees is in the legal "Danger, Will Robinson!" zone. Of course, you brought up another rant there - administrators aren't educated on the rules of search and seizure because they are held to no rules of search and seizure. Didn't SCOTUS rule that they hadn't done anything wrong in having that girl strip-searched for a frigging double-strength asprin? They can crowbar your locer open, slice up your bags and your jacket at any time they want. Frankly, they have powers of search and seizure over their students that only third-world tin-pot dictators enjoy.
And I'm saying civil liability is insufficient in cases of gross violation of public trust and privacy.. What they did was heinous, and deserves to be dealt with by a judge, a jury, and the punishment, if convicted, should be a felony rap and a stay in prison.If they are found civilly liable and forced to pay then I wouldn't say they are getting away with anything. Maybe you should put yourself in the shoes of another person who is paying for the house of another person because of a stupid decision they made. Unless you are rich is hardly something you don't lose sleep over.
This makes me happy. This makes me very, very happy. I hope they all take a ride and a walk.Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:The Party Van Has Arrived!!!
Official: FBI probing Pa. school webcam spy case
