Guess being a lawyer requires a lot of "creativity"...lol
By the way, what does that "outstanding insurance fees" means?
I thought the school loan the laptop to students for free. Didn't know students need to have the laptop insured to keep the laptop.
... hmm... that is interesting....
[citation][nom]kelfen[/nom]lol... and thats why game stop legally owned 7,500 souls as an april fools joke. people just don't read the fine print[/citation]
I wish I had 7500 souls. I only have 2 extra, one from a buddy that needed a quarter for a can of coke and other that lost it to me in a poker game. 7500 would be nice though, but with 2 extra my soul and I can sip lemonade under an umbrella while my 2 extra souls do all the rowing.
So in plain language children don't have right to privacy under the law so it's ok to take a snapshot of half naked middle school girls?.
Sounds like they are pulling same stunt as the roman catholic church deny that anything bad happened and sweep it under the rug to hide it.
Spying (transitive verb): 1.to watch or observe closely and secretly, usually with unfriendly purpose
Hmm...sounds like spying to me considering many students were unaware initially that they were being watched and that they most likely had not been told ahead of time the possibility IT staff may remotely activate the webcam.
The law firm representing the school district says no spying occurred, and you accept that at face value? The same report says that the Robbins was the only family where the webcam was turned on for non-payment of insurance fees, and that when the tracking software was turned on, the IT guy, Perbix, sent an email saying that Blake was on-line at home. They then took images for 15 days. That is spying - it is not recovery of a computer, no matter what the defending lawyers say. By the way, the same report says the parents were told that the consequence of not paying the insurance fee was liability for damage - not that the computer would be considered missing or stolen.
What I am confused by is that there is no mention in any of the reports that they tried to simply ask the student to bring the laptop back. I could see giving them some slack if the student in question was not showing up for school and was not responding to emails/home phone calls which to me would be the first course of action.
[citation][nom]Mishuma[/nom]What I am confused by is that there is no mention in any of the reports that they tried to simply ask the student to bring the laptop back. I could see giving them some slack if the student in question was not showing up for school and was not responding to emails/home phone calls which to me would be the first course of action.[/citation]
+10 & no kidding. I believe that when the story originally broke, they described the student as a member of the National Honor Society, so he must be showing up for class.
Oh yeah, and there is a court mandated gag order regarding this lawsuit, so any "report" coming out of this story is not from any legal representation of this case, but more like a PR firm trying to sway public opinion.
I don't see how this school has any leg to stand on. Each new report comes out with a different reason why they did it, but then often ignores a lot of facts to make their point. Each excuse falls flatter than the last as there was absolutely no reason or justification for this. The lawyers representing the school are grasping for straws here with this latest report. Wonder what story they'll come up with next.
My team of lawyers has released its report concluding that I did not actually run that red light, though my braking procedure might be considered less than 100% effective given the excessive speed at which I was traveling. Fortunately, the school bus in the intersection was able absorb my momentum before any traffic infraction could occur.