Re: That's odd
In progressive countries like the US, public school authorities have broad powers to act in loco parentis, that is, in the place of the parent. It's not a crime for a child's parent to see that child naked, so it's not really a crime for the same child's school vice-principal to see her naked, either -- apparently, not even if he goes to a considerable amount of effort to do so.
Not everyone cares for this, and it's far from how things have always been -- see Gatto for a first-rate examination of the history here -- but in countries where progressive hegemony holds sway, that's how it is. Progressive theory holds that the child belongs not to the parents, but to the state; when put into practice, the kind of laptop-cam spying to which you refer is one quite natural result. This is another. Perhaps the parents and children who complained about the laptop-cam spying should instead thank their lucky stars that the school officials in their case were satisfied merely to look, rather than touch.
(For those who think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, I encourage you to examine the representative sample of progressive response to such travesties which may be found here. In that article, entitled "Parental Rights: New Menace to Youth Health?", the discussion of the East Stroudsburg case forms part of an argument that inflicting internal genital examinations on middle-school girls in the middle of the school day, without any concern for consent either from the girls themselves or from their parents and without even giving the victims of this violation the opportunity to say "no", fails to go far enough.)