"Jim Kent" wrote in message
...
On 2 Jul 2003 15:44:39 -0700, (Curtis CCR)
wrote:

But the notion that
it amounts to child pornography is quite a stretch.

People are being sent up the river for less. The paragons of
intelligence in this current misadministration and their band of
congressional hypocrites would like to outlaw photoshopped images of
adults that are made to look underage.

Frankly, I think they ought to be charged with kiddy porn since
there's a nonzero chance that that's actually what they had in mind.
I'd be happy to convict them.

There's a pretty high probability that the group which came in and installed
the cameras (and probably selected the locations) works out of the central
district office and has never looked at a single feed from the cameras since
testing to make sure they worked. Usually maintenance is controlled at the
district level, not the school, unless we're talking a one school district,
in which case they probably hired someone.

I can't understand why there would be a need to have the record accessible
via the internet, though. Our security cameras store to tape, and are reused
after a few months.