If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras
In article ,
"Donna Metler" wrote: I can't imagine that someone actually sits there and watches the cameras daily. I know in mine, they aren't even looked at unless there was a break in or vandalism-just archived and collect dust until the date passes. So then, some kid who's seen Mission Impossible could spray paint a lens and nobody would notice until the little vandal finishes up his dirty work? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras
wrote in message news:bearclaw- I can't imagine that someone actually sits there and watches the cameras daily. I know in mine, they aren't even looked at unless there was a break in or vandalism-just archived and collect dust until the date passes. So then, some kid who's seen Mission Impossible could spray paint a lens and nobody would notice until the little vandal finishes up his dirty work? Yup. I used to service CCTV equipment as part of my job. It always amazed me how so many companies would throw hundreds of thousands (millions, even) into CCTV equipment, and then have nobody watching most of the cameras. Reviewing the tape (or video on a hard disk recorder) is only good if the video camera caught what you want to watch. In most incidents of interest, this requires a HUMAN BEING to be aiming the video camera at the exact moment of the incident (the better ones can be aimed remotely, IF there is a human being to operate them). I imagine the equipment in schools is probably monitored less than the equipment in retail locations. -Dave |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras
"Poop Dogg" wrote: Some woman was even arrested recently after a Wal-Mart employee saw a picture of a 2yo child sitting naked in a kiddy pool. Many arrests are tossed out well before trial, and the above is likely to be one. There won't be a conviction. So my contention is that any images of a child in a state of nudity can be considered child pornography. The fact that it can be considered such by a few doesn't mean that it will stick legally. You are making a leap, much like the one in the Wal-Mart situation, that will not pan out, imo. P. Tierney |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Virtual school seeks Iowa funding | [email protected] | General | 4 | June 29th 03 12:55 AM |