Spy school vice principal slams "abhorrent" allegations

Interesting case, but as usually blown way out of proportion. What was the kid guilty of anyway?

The question I want answering is this "How do we monitor kids behavior when our backs are turned or when we're out of the room, especially repeat offenders"? If someone can give me a practical answer to this I'll side with the parents.

By anthonysjones on 25 Feb 2010

anthonysjones

The vice principal's statement is totally missleading. She is denying that she took the pictures or activated the software, but which is more or less correct. It's also not what she's being accussed of.

She didn't take the pictures, somebody else took them on her watch, and then passed them on to her as part of school procedure. Which is the case that's being put forward here. She allowes a spy camera to be put in a child's bedroom, and then gave somebody else the key to turn it on, and they did. She's in trouble not because she did it, but because she was in charge when it happened.

There are still a lot of questions to be answered, but from what I gather "somebody" was spying on the kid and say them poping some pills. They turned out to be candy, but it was reported to the vice principal that it was drugs.

This doesn't look like the case of a repeat offender bing placed under survalance becuse they were suspected of somebody, it appears to be a case of "somebody" surfing the camera for fun and seeing something, then taking a picture.

Personally, I'm rather disturbed by this. Suppose that the kid was your daughter, and she was getting dressed? If it were me, I'd have been livid. I'd have thrown punches first and asked questions second.

"How do we monitor kids behavior when our backs are turned or when we're out of the room, especially repeat offenders"

The big question is why would we need to monitor them? Whatever happened to raising your kids right, then trusting them? Or putting a net nany on their computer to record the websites that they go to? NOT and I repeat NOT putting a spy camera in their bedroom and then randomly surfing it.

The big problem here is that there were supposed to be safeguards in place, but they failed because an unknown person was able to surf them when they weren't supposed to, and that parents were not informed that the cameras could be remotely activated. Some of them would have probably refused the laptop if they'd known.

If my daughter had one of those, I'd make sure that she closed the lid when she got changed, or that she covered up the camera when she wasn't using it.

It's not as if the kid was accussed of steaking the laptop, which is what the cameras are supposed to protect against. They weren't supposed to be activated unless the laptop was being abussed, and there has been no suggestion that this was the case.

By Perfectblue97 on 25 Feb 2010

"What was the kid guilty of anyway?"

Probably having a quick J. Arthur.

By Lacrobat on 25 Feb 2010

Perfectblue97

Jumping to conclusions, and taking the word of the litigants verbatim.

You seem to fit the profile of a Daily Mail reader with your paranoia and "will somebody please think of the children" attitude.

Why not wait until details other than the filed court papers are known.

Or we could just condemn people outright before we have any depth of knowledge of the story and events that allegedly took place. Vigilanteeism is so much more exciting than common sense.

By Phoomeister on 26 Feb 2010