sadly...

Gary had to find his way around systems designed to exclude un-authorized users; he must have recognized that he was not an authorized user; whatever his ultimate intent he should have known that he was doing something he should not have been doing.

The school administrators will have had no such obvious barrier to pass.

The cases are not directly comparable.

Thankfully the civil case against the school is still up, because it was still wrong.

Sam

Wrong indeed

If the students has not given permission then surely installing spyware on the computers they are using (assuming they did not have to agree to small print T&C before using them) counts as unauthorised access. It could also be argued that their privacy was compromised and that the computers had been impaired by the installation of software unknown to the recipient. As well as the security of the computers being impaired due to th software which was installed on them being remotely accessed.

Dono what the data protection laws are like there but here I would suggest that this contravenes them also as private data is being taken from a computer without the computer owners knowledge.

The transfers of these files will have used up bandwidth, there is impairment for you. Modifications to cpu load and ram will have occurred, again impairment.

It's pretty stinky this and even stinkier that nothing was done about it after the event. As usual, 1 rule for the establishment and another for the rest of us. Hope the civil suit goes a little better.

Sorry, I'm still not getting it

Mackinnon 'should have known that he was doing something he should not have been doing.

The school administrators will have had no such obvious barrier to pass.'

Seriously? In this day and age there exist people who think that spying on other people's kids in their bedrooms is something they *should* be doing? I'd say that was a pretty obvious barrier to pass.

And yes, bedrooms do have systems designed to exclude unauthorized access - they are simple bits of hardware called 'locks' and 'curtains'.

Much better

"Like the Brit's (and most all other countries), the USA believes that the public at large is automatically guilty."

Now it's more accurate if not exact.

But the braying mob wants blood. ....................

They are here pitch folks at the ready just waiting for somebody to shout......................................'Won't somebody think of the children'

Lower Merion Webcam Crime Coverup

We <a href="http://tickerforum.org/akcs-www?post=160007">knew the answer a year ago</a>. What's the problem now, short memory?

The fascism, snooping, sovereignty over-rides have to be fought at every level now!

Turning the lights out logically, strategically, and as scheduled.

Sir

If they have turned it off and since the case has been so widely publicised, does this mean if someone gets caught doing it in future it *will* be illegal?

I know the law is an ass*, but this seems a little like cherry picking.

"Oh, I suppose I'll let you off, as I found no evidence of you jerking off to these pictures - but WOE BETIDE anyone doing this in the future - for I will KNOW you are being naughty!"

Yep, the law is an ass* :)

*Translated to 'merican as it is obviously a 'merican posting - it should of course, be ARSE. :)

I think you missed the point.

If I were to install a program to spy on a teenager using their webcam -- and take pictures of them in their bedroom (fully clothed or not) then, if found out, I would likely spend at least 5 years married to the guy with the most cigarettes and never get a decent job again.

These people did so and, yet, not only are they not being jailed -- they are still allowed to work with children.

Perhaps you'd like to set up a live webcam in one of your kids' rooms, or your own, to raise more money for the school district?

The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.

I think you're missing the point. A criminal suit could have led to sackings and criminal records, costing the school nothing but a recruitment campaign.

I disagree.

Someone needs to lose their job over this.

Spying on underage kids in their bedrooms is something that's Just Not Done. If It were my child in the same situation, then I would not be interested in money. I'd want to make sure that nobody in that school would ever want to fit a webcam on a laptop again, and that the word "webcam", mentioned by newbie teachers in the teacher's lunchroom would result in a sudden hush, and stares.

My dad was once a swimming trainer to kids in the age range of, oh, 12 to 16. He once told me that he would not go into the girls' changing room for any reason, up to and including one of the girls bleeding to death in the shower (which might have been a slight exaggeration, but not much). If you have any kind of authority over other people's children, you simply do not put yourself in a situation where you might have even the slightest chance of seeing them naked.

In this light, having laptops take random snaps when you know full well that they are likely to be in childrens' bedroom is such a monumentally stupid idea that it should have been killed with fire as soon as it was tabled.

Trained teachers should know better.

Do you need your kids to check for cameras in the locker room?

Unfortunatley the answer is yes ...

There are also stories here of cameras in bathrooms