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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras
"fuller" wrote in message ...
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- A Tennessee middle school allowed security cameras to film children undressing in locker rooms and then stored the images on a computer accessible through the Internet, according to a lawsuit filed by a group of angry parents. The lawsuit filed last week in federal court in Nashville seeks $4.2 million in damages. The parents contend the school system violated students' rights by putting hidden cameras in boys and girls locker rooms at Livingston Middle School. The cameras reportedly captured students, ages 10-14, in various stages of undress. The parents should have been more active when the school district originally proposed putting cameras in the schools. Chances are, the parents were simply told that "security cameras" would be installed in the schools, something bound to garner no opposition. They probably never imagined that the schools would do such a reprehensible thing, especially considering that there are already various laws prohibiting security cameras in areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy - places like bathrooms and changing rooms. The parents definitely have a lawsuit and the school and district officials should face criminal prosecution as well, addition of child pornography charges would certainly be in order as well. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras
"Curtis CCR" wrote in message om... "Poop Dogg" wrote in message ... "fuller" wrote in message ... NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- A Tennessee middle school allowed security cameras to film children undressing in locker rooms and then stored the images on a computer accessible through the Internet, according to a lawsuit filed by a group of angry parents. The lawsuit filed last week in federal court in Nashville seeks $4.2 million in damages. The parents contend the school system violated students' rights by putting hidden cameras in boys and girls locker rooms at Livingston Middle School. The cameras reportedly captured students, ages 10-14, in various stages of undress. The parents should have been more active when the school district originally proposed putting cameras in the schools. Chances are, the parents were simply told that "security cameras" would be installed in the schools, something bound to garner no opposition. They probably never imagined that the schools would do such a reprehensible thing, especially considering that there are already various laws prohibiting security cameras in areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy - places like bathrooms and changing rooms. The parents definitely have a lawsuit and the school and district officials should face criminal prosecution as well, addition of child pornography charges would certainly be in order as well. I agree that the placing of cameras in a locker room is probably illegal (I don't know about TN, but I am pretty sure it would illegal in CA unless certain safeguards were in place). But the notion that it amounts to child pornography is quite a stretch. The idea that you could get that to stick is pretty far fetched. There may very well have been some perverted intention on the part of somebody involved, but unless you can prove that the people behind this were doingthis to get their rocks off, it amounts to criminal stupidity and that's about it. And often the cameras are placed because of vandalism, which locker rooms and bathrooms are prone to. My school does have them outside the doors of such rooms, but not inside, AFAIK, specificially so that if vandalism occurs, there is a record of who might have been responsible, and it can be narrowed from there. I'm guessing this was stupidity on the part of whoever placed the cameras-outside the bathroom, OK, Inside, dumb. And I can't imagine why those records would be accessible via the internet. Our tapes are archived for X number of months (I think 3), and never are looked at unless there is some cause to do so. If there has been a problem in a specific area (like someone messing up the bathrooms during lunch) someone might watch that specific camera at that specific time to get information, but otherwise, they're really not used. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras
"Curtis CCR" wrote in message ...
I agree that the placing of cameras in a locker room is probably illegal (I don't know about TN, but I am pretty sure it would illegal in CA unless certain safeguards were in place). But the notion that it amounts to child pornography is quite a stretch. The idea that you could get that to stick is pretty far fetched. There may very well have been some perverted intention on the part of somebody involved, but unless you can prove that the people behind this were doingthis to get their rocks off, it amounts to criminal stupidity and that's about it. The laws vary, but generally they define child pornography as pictures of children nude or engaged in sexual conduct. I inadvertently saw a nude child picture some asshole included unmarked in his Kazaa collection. I considered it to be kiddy porn and sent him a message saying so (I promptly erased the file and sterilized my hard drive). Some woman was even arrested recently after a Wal-Mart employee saw a picture of a 2yo child sitting naked in a kiddy pool. So my contention is that any images of a child in a state of nudity can be considered child pornography. At the very least Tenn. prosecutors should throw in the child porn charges in an attempt to get a plea bargain favorable to the state. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras
The laws vary, but generally they define child pornography as pictures
of children nude or engaged in sexual conduct. I inadvertently saw a nude child picture some asshole included unmarked in his Kazaa collection. This, I think, includes the possibility that I could be arrested for having a nude picture of *MYSELF* as a baby (and when I was a baby in the 50s I don't think such baby pictures were considered particularly unusual or shocking, including the baby-on-a-bear-skin-rug. Offhand I don't know where that scrapbook is, or whether there are any actual nude pictures in it. I considered it to be kiddy porn and sent him a message saying so (I promptly erased the file and sterilized my hard drive). Some woman was even arrested recently after a Wal-Mart employee saw a picture of a 2yo child sitting naked in a kiddy pool. So my contention is that any images of a child in a state of nudity can be considered child pornography. Not only that, I believe that you can be arrested for pictures of naked CARTOON children, regardless of the actual age of the cartoons. If the cartoons portray them as children, even if they look like they qualified for Social Security 50 years ago, it's still kiddie porn. At the very least Tenn. prosecutors should throw in the child porn charges in an attempt to get a plea bargain favorable to the state. Gordon L. Burditt |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras
On 3 Jul 2003, Gordon Burditt wrote: The laws vary, but generally they define child pornography as pictures of children nude or engaged in sexual conduct. I inadvertently saw a nude child picture some asshole included unmarked in his Kazaa collection. This, I think, includes the possibility that I could be arrested for having a nude picture of *MYSELF* as a baby (and when I was a baby in the 50s I don't think such baby pictures were considered particularly unusual or shocking, including the baby-on-a-bear-skin-rug. Offhand I don't know where that scrapbook is, or whether there are any actual nude pictures in it. I considered it to be kiddy porn and sent him a message saying so (I promptly erased the file and sterilized my hard drive). Some woman was even arrested recently after a Wal-Mart employee saw a picture of a 2yo child sitting naked in a kiddy pool. So my contention is that any images of a child in a state of nudity can be considered child pornography. Not only that, I believe that you can be arrested for pictures of naked CARTOON children, regardless of the actual age of the cartoons. If the cartoons portray them as children, even if they look like they qualified for Social Security 50 years ago, it's still kiddie porn. The SC knocked that one down a year ago: Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition "The Supreme Court struck down a congressional ban on virtual child pornography today, ruling that the First Amendment protects pornography or other sexual images that only appear to depict real children engaged in sex." http://www.freedomforum.org/template...cumentID=16075 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras
"Gordon Burditt" wrote in message ...
This, I think, includes the possibility that I could be arrested for having a nude picture of *MYSELF* as a baby (and when I was a baby in the 50s I don't think such baby pictures were considered particularly unusual or shocking, including the baby-on-a-bear-skin-rug. Offhand I don't know where that scrapbook is, or whether there are any actual nude pictures in it. ... Not only that, I believe that you can be arrested for pictures of naked CARTOON children, regardless of the actual age of the cartoons. If the cartoons portray them as children, even if they look like they qualified for Social Security 50 years ago, it's still kiddie porn. I believe that the Supreme Court ruled in the last several years that even photos of clothed children could be considered child pornography if the images seem to focus excessively on the groin area. But the SC ruled last year that simulated images are protected, I suppose it would cover the cartoon images you describe. This led to an outcry that perverts would soon be generating tons of computer-simulated pornography depicting fake children engaged in sex (I have yet to hear of any encounters of such porn). I still can't figure out what the pervs see in kiddie porn. I occasionally stumble across an image posted to adult binaries newsgroups and they are not the least bit stimulating. Less sexually stimulating than looking at a goldfish, in my opinion. These people are freaks and need to be locked up. I do, however, realize there is a difference between child pornography and images featuring under-18 adolescents who are otherwise sexually mature. Nevertheless, the laws explicitly state that such minors are jailbait, though someone shouldn't be blamed if they inadvertently possess such an image believing the subject to be over 18. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras
"Poop Dogg" wrote in message ...
"Gordon Burditt" wrote in message ... This, I think, includes the possibility that I could be arrested for having a nude picture of *MYSELF* as a baby (and when I was a baby in the 50s I don't think such baby pictures were considered particularly unusual or shocking, including the baby-on-a-bear-skin-rug. Offhand I don't know where that scrapbook is, or whether there are any actual nude pictures in it. ... Not only that, I believe that you can be arrested for pictures of naked CARTOON children, regardless of the actual age of the cartoons. If the cartoons portray them as children, even if they look like they qualified for Social Security 50 years ago, it's still kiddie porn. I believe that the Supreme Court ruled in the last several years that even photos of clothed children could be considered child pornography if the images seem to focus excessively on the groin area. But the SC ruled last year that simulated images are protected, I suppose it would cover the cartoon images you describe. This led to an outcry that perverts would soon be generating tons of computer-simulated pornography depicting fake children engaged in sex (I have yet to hear of any encounters of such porn). Actually, I don't think this was the worry. I thought this was stupid too initially. What, we're going to prosecute people for looking at fake pictures? What next, if we catch you fantasizing about something illegal we'll lock you up? All those people who like playing first-person-shooter games get put away for mass murder? However, while the case was being debated, I heard a law prof talk about it on NPR and he brought up what I thought was a good point. Apparently the problem is that if simulated images are legal, anyone prosecuting a child porn case might be called upon to *prove* the images aren't simulated by producing the child in question. As simulated images get more and more realistic, failure to prove that an image involves a real child might convince a jury that there's reasonable doubt about a crime being committed, allowing child pornographers to go free (since it'd be nearly impossible to find the child a lot of the time). This seemed less stupid to me. I don't know if it's actually happened yet though. Beth |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras
"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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras
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. The major CCTV (closed circuit television) manufacturers have stopped producing the kind of VCR (time lapse) that is used to record video from video cameras. You might find one or two still available for sale, but it would be like shopping for a vinyl record player. If you asked for one, the person you are buying from would likely ask you why you want it. Now video cameras are hooked up to digital hard disk recorders. These are similar to TIVO and the like, but they are the professional version. They store gobs of video in digital format on a hard disk drive. Many of these hard disk recorders are based on a personal computer of some type. Many of THOSE are networked, so that the owners or renters of the CCTV equipment can monitor video cameras or even review video remotely, over their own network or even the Internet. It makes the most sense when you are monitoring many buildings located in many different locations. If you have an "incident" to review, you don't need to travel to where the incident happened, or wait for someone to send you a copy of the tape. Just log onto your local area network, or even the Internet in some cases, and review the video and/or copy it to your local computer. On a side note, take VERY good care of your time lapse video recorders. If they break, they will be very costly to repair, and replacing them would be .. . . . well, you don't want to know. -Dave |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras
"Dave C." wrote in message thlink.net... 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. The major CCTV (closed circuit television) manufacturers have stopped producing the kind of VCR (time lapse) that is used to record video from video cameras. You might find one or two still available for sale, but it would be like shopping for a vinyl record player. If you asked for one, the person you are buying from would likely ask you why you want it. Now video cameras are hooked up to digital hard disk recorders. These are similar to TIVO and the like, but they are the professional version. They store gobs of video in digital format on a hard disk drive. Many of these hard disk recorders are based on a personal computer of some type. Many of THOSE are networked, so that the owners or renters of the CCTV equipment can monitor video cameras or even review video remotely, over their own network or even the Internet. It makes the most sense when you are monitoring many buildings located in many different locations. If you have an "incident" to review, you don't need to travel to where the incident happened, or wait for someone to send you a copy of the tape. Just log onto your local area network, or even the Internet in some cases, and review the video and/or copy it to your local computer. On a side note, take VERY good care of your time lapse video recorders. If they break, they will be very costly to repair, and replacing them would be . . . . well, you don't want to know. -Dave OK-that makes sense. My district has a habit of using antiquated equipment until it falls apart. I do have to wonder why you'd be monitoring a school remotely-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. It's mostly the deterrent of seeing the cameras. And my district has an intranet, so if something was being monitored off site, it would go through the intranet, not the internet. The only reason I could see having such a system in a school hooked to the internet would be for parents to be able to monitor what is going on in the classrooms, like some day care centers have-which might not be a bad idea, come to think of it. |
|
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 |