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 ...
Now please point me to were I convicted anybody? I said I would flip if it happened in my house & I would get a lawyer. I suppose you will always have a job since you can install spy devices on all of our computers, laptops etc for the govt. One thing you do have correct is that you certainly aren't the best person on this thread or forum, but I already told you that!
Government period. On that much we agree.
BTW... Work on your insults. They sound childish and petty instead of biting and insightful.
I don't need to insult you. You do a good enough job yourself. I have not even insulted or stooped to name calling you dolt. (except for the dolt) DILLIGAF about you or what you might think? Have a wonderful night.
And by the way as far as sounding childish, why is a tree stupid? Now that sounds like a child typing.
I find that hilarious...
Dolium volvitur indeed.
Te odeo, interfice te cochleare. Back at you...
You want me to kill myself with a spoon? roflmfao I will do you one better......Te futueo et caballum tuum!
Kus mijn kloten. Have a nice night...
No thanks. However... Potes meos suaviari clunes! Enjoy your night.
Bare it and share it Sweets... ;-)
You bite the hand that feeds you.
You are an educrat, defending the illegal actions of the public school and blame shifting the responsibility for the school’s actions to everyone but the school, and then telling us not to trust them ever and that public schools should be abolished, but yet you continue to work for them, happily trying to protect them and taking a paycheck from them, FReeping during work hours.
And then you call others “pond scum” and criticize others for *childish insults*? That’s the pot calling the kettle black.
You are so hypocritical.
Not that simple - it doesn't just automatically activate unless a person configures it to do so. This was supposed to be done only when a computer was reported stolen or missing. What's in dispute is whether the school district activated the cameras in the absence of a report of theft or loss. It's my understanding that the district says this laptop was reported missing.
I've tried to explain the property rights aspect. I've tried to point out that not all the facts are in. You are putting the worst possible spin on this absent sufficient data.
I'm sorry. But I just can't take you seriously any more.
I expected that they'd eventually claim that. It's the only thing they can do to cover their butts.
And nobody can take an educrat who blames the parents for the school district’s actions seriously.
I hope it makes you feel better casting that pejorative at someone who’s actually trying to to change that.
I’m just explaining the software’s capabilities. It doesn’t turn itself on - somebody has to do it. I’ve seen some of the articles describing it as if it’s malware. All client management software has extensive capabilities to over-ride local admin rights. There is nothing nefarious about that. The primary issue in this case is whether there was a report of a stolen or missing laptop. The software didn’t commit any offenses. (Full disclosure: I’ve done some consulting work in the past with the software’s developers.)
Which is the crux of the matter. The responsibility rests on THAT person, no one else.
And even IF it turns out that the laptop was really reported missing or stolen, (and it would be interesting to find out by whom, because it apparently wasn't the boy to whom it was assigned), the school officials were still out of line in confronting the kid about what he was doing in his own room using information they essentially admitted was improperly gained.
If they activated the webcam in response to a report like that, then all they could legally do is use only the information involved in recovering the laptop. Anything else they found by that webcam would be off limits to them as it was not legally obtained. It would be thrown out in a court of law.
Why the school thinks that it's above the law in that respect is beyond me, but that appears to be pretty typical educrat mentality.
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.