Posted on 02/25/2010 5:18:17 AM PST by Kid Shelleen
The vice chairman of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission could scarcely contain his scorn.
Before the commission was yet another appeal from a Philadelphia-area family, again seeking a break on unpaid electric and gas bills that by last year were closing in on $30,000.
This family lived in a $986,000 house on the Main Line. The breadwinner, until recently, had earned well more than $100,000 per year. Yet he and his wife were in hock to creditors, ranging from Uncle Sam to their former synagogue - and had regularly been stiffing Peco Energy for five years, breaking payment plan after payment plan
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
Maybe you meant to reply to someone else, I don’t see the connection between what I wrote and what you’re writing in reply.
I don’t even know what Joe the Plumber spoke out about, other than that incident confronting 0bama (spread the wealth).
Your reasoning is why they have to put warning labels and instructions on packs of toothpicks.
Irrelevant to the discussion. Personally, I agree - children should have little expectation of privacy from their parents. From their school is another matter. What if every text book was equipped with a gps locator and remotely activated camera? Would you have a problem with that?
Let the thread judge. I've made my point. I stand by it.
It is, and I think it's even sadder when they have to make two incomes to cover expenses they never closely examine or attempt to trim. However, some people don't buy the homes they can't afford. They inherit them, or something unfortunate and unexpected occurs, affecting their ability to pay the expenses. What if your spouse comes down with a serious illness, or has an accident that results in permanent loss of income? What if some company buys the company you work for, and lays you off to install its own people? What if your spouse divorces you, and takes you to the cleaners?
Life is full of surprises.
Top of the Netflix queue! Again thanks - I love to find sleepers we’ve never seen ... ;-)
Also a good question.
In honest answer, I can only reply....yes.
The difference between the two is that the staff member used the laptop for an illicit purpose, where the student's 'improper' act occurred without interacting with the laptop itself.
To allow a political entity of the State to cancel an enumerated right of the people 'to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures' is a due process violation of the Constitution's 4th Amendment. [Or a violation of US Code, Title 18, Section 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law]
Had the school contacted police, reported the equipment as stolen, and obtained a warrant BEFORE activating the camera, they would have a legal leg to stand on.
-----
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
-- Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.
I give you a laptop. I tell you it is for school work only. I inform you that this is a school laptop and that it should only be used for school purposes.
You turn around and use it to send nudie shots to your boyfriend.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
This thread is going to be printed out and handed to every school board member in my District. This will be my full reasoning why it is a REALLY bad idea to hand out technology to students for use outside the school.
Equating LoJack with dynamiting your neighbors house isn’t just specious, it’s bad logic.
That is NOT what I am talking about. I am talking about the situation where the school says “Here is a laptop. You must use it for school assignments. You cannot bring your own laptop to school.” So the student takes it home. Some of them use it in their bedroom. Some of them probably leave the lid open when they are not using it, ie, changing clothes. This laptop has the potential to have its webcam remotely activated at the school’s discretion. Therefore, the school could take a picture of a student naked.
At this point, depending on the age of the student, the school has created child pornography. What part of this is the student’s fault? The school should reasonably expect such a situation could occur and therefore not use technology that has a reasonable chance of making them into child pornographers.
You are a techie. You can't see the "why" of anything important, only the "how."
Just guessing but I'll bet you are an engineer just like my father and my youngest son.
I understand.
I'll agree, but I'm not a huge fan of the schools insistence on having the latest technological bells and whistles, anyway.
Beside the expense of the equipment itself, there is also a huge area for misuse, as this story illustrates.
The only reason we even have any new Mac's is because of grant money.
And with that, I really need to get back to work. Someone just called me and said the Canon ir C2620 in our copy center is jammed up.
Later all...
well, that is life. but the article implied that the man made over
a $100,000 and lived in a $900,000 home. i live in atlanta and
earning $100,00 would certainly not be enough to manage a
house that expensive. even if you inherited the house, then property
taxes would be huge. but here, in atlanta, there are thousands
of underwater mortgages because people bought houses they simply
could not afford. barack and michelle were underwater until
political career took off and she was rewarded with a $300,000 make work
job.
Remember when we wondered if the boy didn't pay the insurance fee, and maybe the school would use that as an excuse for spying on him through the webcam? Well, that's what this article is suggesting, too:
it was the apparent failure to pay a fee - a $55 insurance payment to permit the Robbinses' son Blake to take his laptop home from Harriton High School - that might have prompted the district to activate the Web cam.
Just an FYI.
While I have no use for deadbeats like this, it is certainly NO excuse for the school to act like Big Brother.
IIRC, THEY’RE the ones who waived the insurance fee if the family couldn’t afford it.
Is there no length to which you will not go to excuse the school district from wrong doing?
It’s unbelievable that you will blame shift to ANYONE but the school in this case.
THEY equipped the laptops.
THEY demanded that the kids keep them with them at all times.
THEY prohibited the use of the kids own personal laptops.
THEY prohibited the covering up of the webcams.
THEY turned on the webcam of a computer not reported as stolen.
THEY chastised the student using illegally and imporpoerly obtained evidence.
What is it in the minds of public school educrats and defenders that is so willing to give the school a pass on anything which would have raised holy hell if some other entity had done it?
Why do public school employees seem to think that the the schools have the right to invade private lives like they do and dictate to private individuals what they can and cannot do with their lives and what authority the public schools have over them?
There should be for something FORCED on the students.
These kids didn't have a choice about taking the laptops.
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.