L. Merion school official to turn over computer/full "i love it" e-mail chain in court records

[Hannah Bell]

A Lower Merion school administrator who had the ability to activate cameras on students' laptops has agreed to answer questions under oath about her role in the tracking system and to let investigators inspect her home computer, her attorney said Friday. Carol Cafiero had previously refused to give a deposition in the lawsuit spawned by the Web-cam system, asserting her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Her attorney, Charles Mandracchia, said he wanted his client to answer questions from FBI agents before submitting to lawyers' queries in the civil suit. She met with the agents this week. "We wanted to determine exactly where the FBI was going," Mandracchia said. "Based on that interview, I feel confident that they're not looking at her because she did anything criminal."

The Robbinses' attorney, Mark Haltzman, wanted to inspect Cafiero's personal computer, asserting in a motion last week that it might contain evidence that she had accessed the tracking program from home. Haltzman wrote that Cafiero "may be a voyeur..."

Haltzman's request elicited a fiery reply from Mandracchia. Calling the motion "a scandalous, malicious and abusive attack" on his client, he said Cafiero had never viewed any of the Web-cam photos from home and turned the system on only when asked or authorized to do so by other district officials. Mandracchia also said the e-mail excerpts Haltzman cited were taken out of context and concerned legitimate efforts in September 2008 to track down six laptops stolen from the Harriton High gym...

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20100424_L__Merion_school_official_to_turn_over_computer.html



In the latest court papers filed Tuesday afternoon, Charles Mandracchia, who is representing district IT employee Carol Cafiero, accused plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Haltzman of “being inflammatory” to get media coverage including releasing pictures to the media in violation of a “court order." ...Mandracchia called the allegation a “scandalous, malicious and abusive attack on Mrs. Cafiero’s character, in essence labeling her a sexual deviant ... false outrageous and without any basis.”

Mandracchia also said the e-mail has been taken out of context. The e-mail chain has also been provided in the court record.

The e-mail chain that went to about five different district employees starts by reporting that four Harriton students reported their unattended computers stolen from the weight room... In the next e-mail another employee reports there are cameras at the doors leading into the weight room. Later an employee reports that two kids are seen leaving the gym building. A staff member is also seen with students looking for the computers.

A few hours after the theft was reported, Cafiero sent an e-mail telling six other staff members that pictures are coming in for one of the missing computers. It also had an IP address with it....Six minutes later another employee sends an e-mail to Cafiero with the line, “This is awesome. It’s like a little LMSD soap opera.”

That’s when Cafiero responded with the line, “I know; I love it!”


http://mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/04/24/main_line_times/news/lmspygate/doc4bce6b518cdcb534554356.txt

...Thus blowing out of the water all the pervy scenarios constructed by DU posters.

I don't expect any acknowledgement of the fact from the scenario-constructors, however.

[maddezmom]

1. another update: United States Attorney seeks webcam photos

United States Attorney seeks webcam photos
Published: Saturday, April 24, 2010

By Richard Ilgenfritz

Federal prosecutors in Philadelphia are asking a federal judge to modify his order in the hopes of getting access to the tens of thousands of photos that have been recovered in the investigation into Lower Merion's webcam scandal for its criminal investigation.

In a motion filed Friday, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Michael L. Levy, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Mary Kay Costello are asking the judge to modify the order he issued April 14 that blocked access to the photos.

In February, a Harriton High School student's family filed suit in federal court alleging the school district used a computer program to remotely spy on students while in their homes through a program called LANrev.

Federal authorities have been investigating the allegations. According to court documents, the computers are currently being held by Level 3 Communications. That company is currently conducting an analysis of the computers that held the images.

more:http://mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/04/24/main_line_times/doc4bd24c99bc6fc120997340.txt

[PCIntern]

2. You are beyond belief...

Answer these two questions: Does the placement of surreptitous video devices within homes without the consent of adults who inhabit those homes bother you?

Why do you REFUSE to understand that those of us who lived through an era wherein our homes could be monitored are reasonably angry and upset?

[Hannah Bell]

3. your questions are straw. you aren't interested in the answers, just in misrepresenting my

intent & motivations.

i won't be replying to you again.

[Richard Steele]

6. Be GLAD of those who misrepresent your motivations.Everyone else KNOWS what they are.

Please, act INDIGNANT some more, won't you?
I laughed so hard at your last post, I peed
myself a little.

[Hannah Bell]

8. let's hear, then.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Richard Steele]

4. Gee, she's only had a few MONTHS to learn how to destroy evidence.

I've got a shiny new NICKEL that says her laptop
isn't currently running the same hard drive that was in it
the day this story broke.

[Hannah Bell]

5. and i imagine that could be easily checked.

i'll be waiting for the evidence as it rolls in.

[hobbit709]

7. I can replace a drive and fake the install date quite easily.

[Hannah Bell]

10. can you manufacture your own hard drive, too?

[hobbit709]

11. What does that mean?

[Hannah Bell]

16. don't you know, master computer tech?

[hobbit709]

19. I'm just trying to figure out why I should manufacture one.

Look inside ANY computer and the hard drive is NOT branded by the manufacturer of the laptop. It's most likely
a Futjitsu, Hitachi, WD or Seagate drive. The drive has nothing to do with who makes the laptop. I can think of a dozen different ways of either scrubbing the data or replacing the drive so it shows no evidence of what incriminating data was on it before. Especially given the amount of time said IT person for the school district had.

[Lucian]

105. You can buy hard drives at the store.

You don't need to manufacture them.

I can change the hard drive in my computer today an no one would be able to tell the difference. It's really not that hard to do.

[Hannah Bell]

137. they wouldn't? you sure?

[Lucian]

142. Absolutely positive.

I've changed hard drives before, using the same model that was in the computer.

[Hannah Bell]

147. was that before or after you transferred the data on the old hard drive to the new one?

[Lucian]

155. I didn't transfer any data.

The old hard drive was fried.

[Hannah Bell]

157. so no one could have told the difference between the new hard drive and the old one (before frying)?

was the old one empty too?

[Lucian]

162. No.

No one would be able to tell the difference. The old one wasn't empty.

I'm pointing out how easy it is to change a hard drive. It's simple and no one would be able to tell the difference once you change it (especially if you use the same exact brand). The Feds should've confiscated that employee's computer immediately.

[Hannah Bell]

163. if the old one had information and the new one was empty, no one could have told the difference?

not trying to be snarky, but it seems to me that would be one major difference.

[Lucian]

164. The employee could destroy the old hard drive.

It's not that hard to do. And they can easily add new info to the new hard drive. It only takes minutes to do that.

[Hannah Bell]

165. i believe it takes more than a few minutes to install what would look like, e.g.

a couple of years' worth of info -- credibly.

you can't just reinstall the old HD contents en toto, because they supposedly include the evidence of your crime.

so what do you do?

[Lucian]

166. Tell the Feds your old hard drive got fried/quit working...

you threw it out, and you replaced it. That's a believable story because it can happen.

[Hannah Bell]

167. mmm - i tend to believe that would set them looking for where you purchased the new one.

since it's very convenient timing.

[Richard Steele]

9. You never waited for evidence before, dude. You're suddenly gonna start now?

Pfft. Unlikely.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hobbit709]

21. Evidently her belief is that

"If you've got nothing to hide, you don't have anything to worry about"

I have yet to see anyone in a position of power(especially at a school district) that did not abuse that power one way or another-and always self-justified on being relatively "harmless"

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?The Romans knew and nothing in history has caused me to doubt that statement.

[Hannah Bell]

23. entirely your unwarranted assumption. once more.

[hobbit709]

26. Judging from your continued defense of the school district

it's easy to assume that you are defending the abuse of power.
The district was not up front with their capabilities, nor with the way it was implemented. That makes me wonder what else they are not being totally truthful about.

The best way to lie is to tell the truth, but in a way no one believes it.
The second best way is to tell the truth, but not all of it.
Very few government agencies master the first one so they rely on number two.

[Hannah Bell]

30. it's easy to assume lots of things. one should always question one's assumptions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8207503&mesg_id=8207605

for example, though i posted the now-public description of the full email exchange that only a day or so ago had dozens of posters calling the emailers perverts who should be locked up forever, not one fucking person on this thread has even commented on it.

though two have implied *i'm* a pervert (otherwise, why would i "defend" the school?), & others have insisted i once more confess my opinions about spying & the right to privacy.

i guess because the actual emails didn't fulfill their nasty assumptions.

i don't expect any of them to acknowledge that fact, though.

[hobbit709]

31. I'm considering this from a civil liberties standpoint

Whether or not the people doing this got their jollies or not has NOTHING to do with that.

I object to the spying.

[Hannah Bell]

33. 95% of the discussion here on this case consists of speculation about

people getting their jollies.

4% consists of discussion of the "civil liberties standpoint"

and 1% consists of personal attacks on me, being the only poster who consistently counters the idle speculation about people getting their jollies.

[boston bean]

35. That is your interpretation. People are outraged that this has happened, unlike you who insists

on defending people who have done wrong.

Whether you want to admit it or not, your holier than thou defense of these voyeurs and the perversion of their actions is despicable. And people have every right to call you on it.

In "protecting" their reputations, you are giving defense to the indefensible.

[Hannah Bell]

37. "these voyeurs and the perversion of their actions"

& now i *know* where you're coming from.

because there's not one scintilla of evidence to support that so far which would hold up in court.

not one.

[boston bean]

Ma'am, I don't always think the "courts" get it right, do you?

Because I have an opinion and a court may find different doesn't mean my opinion or anyone elses is wrong.

If you want to hang you hat on legal maneuverings and you think "justice" is always served, we obviously haven't been living in the same country.

[shedevil69taz]

70. See I just don't know where this idea came from

that because you have a right to it doesn't mean that it is correct. People have all kinds of opinions and views about all sorts of things that are completely wrong all the time.

In this case yours may be right on point knowing the sickness of the people of our country it wouldn't surprise me in the least. What really sucks is by now any evidence that could convict those responsible of a crime has probably been destroyed. If that's the case I hope they at least get them for obstructing justice and destruction of evidence.

[Hannah Bell]

82. you know "the sickness" of "those people" -- how, exactly?

why bother to collect evidence & have a trial?

[boston bean]

176. especially when a perfectly acceptable whitewash might be in the making. nt

[Hannah Bell]

22. you've already made several ad hom attacks on me specifically, including this latest

where you imply i've committed some "indiscretion" -- by which, in the present context, you seem to be implying i'm also a perv, voyeur, pedophile, or something similar.


"why else would you, on a libeeral board, not acknowledge the individual's right to privacy from a municipal organization which does not possess warrants or police powers?"

that's a separate issue from the facts of the case & what specific individuals involved in the case are or are not guilty of.

that you can't separate them tells me something.

that you can't seem to remember that i've already acknowledged "the individual's right to privacy" numerous times, including to *you,* also tells me something.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8158744&mesg_id=8170667

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8158744&mesg_id=8170658

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8158744&mesg_id=8170745


that you'd go so far as to insinuate i take the position i do because i'm guilty of some "indiscretion" also tells me something.

[PCIntern]

12. You're waiting for nothing...

I believe you're somehow related to this case...

[Hannah Bell]

13. projection?

[PCIntern]

14. Not replying?...I see that as 'straw'...

[Hannah Bell]

18. if you accuse me falsely, i'll respond.

i won't bother trying to answer your bogus questions anymore was the meaning. my answers don't matter. the very fact that i question *anything* about the case already convicts me in your eyes & the eyes of numerous others.

for the record, however:

i have absolutely no connection to this case.

i live on the west coast.

i'm not a teacher or school employee, nor do i have any living close relations who are.

i don't know anyone involved in the case.



one might say that makes me an impartial observer.

[PCIntern]

20. No, it makes you complicit in the promotion of fascism...

that's what it makes you. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Hannah Bell]

24. a pervy fascist, now. yet you're trying so hard to avoid personal attack.

[boston bean]

25. He might have given up

You are a hard nut to crack, and who wants to try and have a conversation with a broken record? It's getting pretty old and see through.

Do you or do you not, have a problem with a government entity that has the access and means to surreptitiously take picture of you in your own home? And do you have a problem with a government entity actually taking a picture of you or you family surreptitiously in your own home for no cause and without your knowledge?

[hobbit709]

27. Evidently there is NOT a problem with that as far as that person is concerned.

[Hannah Bell]

32. of course that's false, but don't let that stop you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8207503&mesg_id=8207605

[boston bean]

34. Hannah, when a gov't official takes the 5th of course there will be

assumptions as to why one would do that. And looking at pictures taken surreptitiously of someone in their home, is voyeurism. When educated people think this is ok, that is a perversion of what our country is suppose to stand for.

So instead of trying to defend the indefinsible, why don't you just shut up about how you feel these people are being maligned, when it is they who maligned themselves and broke the trust and broke the law.

[Hannah Bell]

40. you're confused. 1) a public school IT head isn't a "government official".

2) there are many reasons for taking the 5th; one of them is so as not to give fuel to the opposition lawyer on a fishing expedition.

as we now see, she answered all the fbi's questions and has submitted her home computer.

so maybe your assumptions were mistaken. you might consider that possibility.

3) "broke the law" - gee, i thought that was why we had trials, to determine whether laws were broken?

like many of the good "civil libertarians" at DU, you seem to be selective about it.

[boston bean]

43. Oh, you know all about the law, and you know what the outcome will be.

You've got all the right answers and everyone else should shut the fuck up about.

Well, it's people like you who eventually allow the overturning of our civil liberties.

I prefer to speak out about it and add political pressure. The courts don't always get it right you know.

And if they say there was absolutely no wrong doing, I would feel a huge injustice has occurred and a furth weakening of our civil rights would have taken place.

[Hannah Bell]

45. i have no idea what it will be. that's my point. you apparently think pressuring courts

for your preferred verdict is one of the finer points of civil libertarianism.

what a farce.

[boston bean]

46. Excuse me, but any entity that would take pictures of me in my home without my knowledge

without a warrant is already defined as unconstitutional.

What country do you think you live in.

Many courts and our government already think it's ok to wiretap it's citizens. I'm glad you have so much faith in our system.

Excuse me for holding it accountable.

[hobbit709]

44. Then no one working for the government in a nonelective position is a government official

The school district is a governmental authority.

[Ms. Toad]

49. From a legal perspective,

there is only one reason to plead the amendment is only available to to avoid self-incrimination in a criminal case (which has been interpreted to mean not only an existing case, but a case which might be brought against you the future.

Relevant portion of the 5th amendment: "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. . ."

You cannot plead the 5th for purposes of "not . . . giv fuel to the opposition lawyer on a fishing expedition," without risking obstruction of justice, contempt of court, or other charges which may be brought against individuals who are legitimately subpoenaed to give testimony, but who refuse to do so. No competent attorney would have advised an individual on their side of the case to plead the 5th amendment, unless their testimony would have been self-incriminating.

[boston bean]

51. Thank you, that was what I thought as well. nt

[Hannah Bell]

67. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8207503&mesg_id=8209065

[Hannah Bell]

65. lol. that must be why she pled the 5th for the opposition lawyer's dep, as the judge advised her,

but not for the fbi questioning.

pleading the 5th is not an admission one has "something to hide" nor the equivalent of a guilty plea.

Common Fifth Amendment Misconceptions

False: Anyone who "pleads the Fifth" must be guilty of something.

True: If police question a suspect, or have arrested them for a crime, then the police have some evidence that leads them to believe the person has committed a crime. But, in fact, there are corrupt people in law enforcement, and innocent people have been convicted of crimes they didn't commit. Innocent people who are worried about having their words twisted and used against them may choose to "plead the Fifth" when being questioned about a crime they did not commit.

http://research.lawyers.com/Pleading-the-Fifth-and-Miranda-Warnings.html.

The privilege is also asserted with some frequency during the pretrial phase of legal proceedings. In the pretrial phase of criminal cases, it is usually asserted in response to pointed questions asked by law enforcement agents, prosecutors, and other government officials who are seeking to determine the persons responsible for a particular crime. During the pretrial phase of civil cases, parties may assert the right against self-incrimination when potentially damaging questions are posed in depositions and interrogatories.

http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-v-to-the-u-s-constitution


but thanks for the bad legal advice.

great lot of civil libertarians, here at du/

[Ms. Toad]

73. Nice authoritative sources.

I prefer to rely on what I learned in law school, and in several years of practicing law since then.

The 5th amendment does not give everyone a "get out of testifying free" card. You can only plead the 5th in order to avoid self-incrimination. It may be self-incrimination with respect to charges not yet brought, or even to matters completely unrelated to the matter about which you are being questioned, but it does have to be for the purpose of avoiding being compelled to say something that might incriminate you - not just because you prefer not to answer the questions opposing counsel is asking.

[Hannah Bell]

75. guess you didn't absorb the entire lesson then. *any* statement can be used

to incriminate & construct a case against someone.

No inference that the pleader is guilty of *anything* can be drawn from invocation of the 5th alone.

[liberalhistorian]

128. The school's own disclosures show pictures of students

taken while they were sleeping and dressing in their own rooms in their own homes. The SCHOOL'S disclosures. Do you or do you not find that, alone, to be a civil/privacy rights violation? Do you honestly not see anything wrong with that or with the school's very capability to do that, regardless of whether they actually exercise it or not?

[msanthrope]

85. Really, Ms. Toad. Don't you know that lawyers.com is every bit

as authoritative as the law schools we went to? The mere fact that I practice law in the same district as this case hasn't given me any street cred....so I don't know why you think that calmly and patiently explaining the whole purpose of pre-trial discovery is going to be taken as fact.

The OP's failure to understand the inapplicability of the 5th amendment in a civil case notwithstanding, I find her law-school-free legal analysis refreshing.

It's Taitzian, really.

[Ms. Toad]

99. What was I thinking. . .

Now that you mention it, I should really stop wasting all my money on doctors who actually went to med school too. Just think how much money I could save if I just went to webmd.com instead of paying a doctor

[msanthrope]

117. Med school? Elitest claptrap! n/t

[Hannah Bell]

150. "elitist"

[Hannah Bell]

104. The inapplicability of the 5th in civil cases? and you're supposedly a lawyer? lol.

MCCARTHY V. ARNDSTEIN, 266 U. S. 34 (1924)

3. The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination applies to civil proceedings, and, in this country, whatever the rule in England, it may, in the absence of any statute affording him complete immunity, be asserted by a bankrupt when being examined concerning his estate under § 21a of the Bankruptcy Act. Pp. 266 U. S. 40, 266 U. S. 42.


http://supreme.justia.com/us/266/34/


Civil & Criminal Proceedings:

In McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924), the Supreme Court extended the privilege against self incrimination from criminal proceedings to civil proceedings. In Pennsylvania, the recognition of the right against self incrimination in a civil proceeding extends back to the late 1800’s. Horstman v. Kaufman, 97 Pa. 147 (1881). The protection extends equally to civil proceedings, as the protection goes to the questions asked, not the proceeding itself. The privilege extends to all judicial hearings or investigations where persons are called upon to give testimony, including depositions. Woods v. Dunlop, 461 Pa. 35 (1975).

http://www.forryullman.com/5thAmendment.htm

The Self-Incrimination Clause applies to every type of legal proceeding, whether it is civil, criminal, or administrative in nature. Traditionally, the privilege against self-incrimination was most frequently asserted during the trial phase of legal proceedings, where individuals are placed under oath and asked questions on the witness stand. However, in the twentieth century application of the privilege was extended to the pretrial stages of legal proceedings as well. In civil cases, for example, the right against self-incrimination may be asserted when potentially incriminating questions are posed in depositions and interrogatories.

http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/fifth-amendment.

http://www.sualaw.com/Appearances-Articles/Fifth_Amendment_Right_Against_Self_Incrimination_in_Civil_Cases.pdf

http://www.abellawfirm.com/articles/invoking-the-fifth-amendment-in-civil-cases/



But those are only "websites," I'm sure you, with your vast legal experience & excellent education, know much better.

I only took undergrad Con Law 400 (Political Science, pre-law) as an undergrad 40 years ago, so obviously I'm not as up-to-speed as all you folks on the latest fascist perversions of established precedent, but I hadn't yet heard of this latest one.

Thanks for updating me on the present state of affairs, mr. lawyer.

[msanthrope]

115. You think a 1924 case supersedes the FRCP and subsequent jurisprudence?

Seriously, please keep posting.

Tell me just how the 5th amendment applies to civil cases outside the parameters Ms. Toad has explained to you....

Taitzian...

[Hannah Bell]

123. gee, and that marbury v. madison was clear back in 1803.

you "lawyers" are a laff riot.

you must have missed this part:

In McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924), the Supreme Court extended the privilege against self incrimination from criminal proceedings to civil proceedings."

That's the US Supreme Court.

perhaps you'd better read this in its entirety, as i can't cut & paste the whole thing.

it's called "5th amendment right against self-incrimination in civil cases" & outline the entire history and limitations of the extension of 5th amendment protections to civil law.

http://www.sualaw.com/Appearances-Articles/Fifth_Amendment_Right_Against_Self_Incrimination_in_Civil_Cases.pdf



oh, & fyi, ms toad explicated nothing about the "parameters" of the 5th to me or anyone else.

and i don't believe you're any kind of lawyer.

[Hannah Bell]

126. U.S. Supreme Court 1972, Kastigar et. al. v. United States

There are a number of exemptions from the testimonial duty, the most important of which is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.

The privilege reflects a complex of our fundamental values and aspirations, and marks an important advance in the development of our liberty.

It can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory..."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=406&invol=441.



Oh, hell, read it for yourself, mr. "lawyer". sounds like you need a little refresher:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tbL9d_TVcewC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Kastigar+v.+United+States,+406+U.S.+441+self-incrimination+civil&source=bl&ots=_ez0vxYN3t&sig=G7eekEFzFuyS5sMkbwwQwDtJYoo&hl=en&ei=c_bUS6axJZTGsQOTkezJCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Kastigar%20v.%20United%20States%2C%20406%20U.S.%20441%20self-incrimination%20civil&f=false


"the law schools we went to" = lol.

Bogus U?

[Ms. Toad]

129. The key words are "compulsory self-incrimination"

not avoidance of a fishing expedition.

[Hannah Bell]

133. "compulsory self-incrimination" is not in conflict with "avoidance of a fishing expedition,"

ms. lawyer.

[Ms. Toad]

139. They are not in conflict - BUT

they are not synonymous, either.

the 5th amendment does not provide protection from a mere fishing expedition.

i.e.:

fishing expedition, alone - the 5th amendment does not apply
fishing expedition + the honest answer to questions asked in the fishing expedition would require that you "be a witness against self" "in any criminal case." - the 5th amendment applies.

Fishing expeditions do not inherently compel self-incriminating answers. When they do - then, and only then - can you invoke the 5th amendment to avoid testifying.

[Hannah Bell]

145. They're not synonymous, but that lead to your conclusion: "*anything* you say can and will be used

against you," as they say.

Anything one says can be used to incriminate, whether one actually did the crime or not.

There is no presumption of guilt in a 5th amendment plea, & that used to be part of the instructions to juries, in fact, i believe there was an SC case where failure to explicitly provide such instructions led to the overturning of a conviction.

[Ms. Toad]

177. If you read carefully,

I said nothing about presumption of guilt.

You asserted one could invoke the 5th merely avoid a fishing expedition. That is not correct, which I pointed out.

The Miranda warning ("anything you say can and will be used against you") is expressly limited to custodial interrogation in relation to a crime. Individuals in custody about to be interrogated in connection with a crime they are suspected of committing do have a general right to refuse to answer questions.

Individuals who are required by law (under subpoena in a deposition, at trial, etc.) to provide testimony outside of the criminal setting have no such general right to remain silent. The 5th amendment may be invoked by those individuals only with respect to specific questions, when the honest answer to that question would be self-incriminating (either in the instant matter - if that matter is criminal, or in relation to some other criminal matter, whether the individual has yet been charged with that matter or not).

[msanthrope]

179. double post...

[msanthrope]

180. Ms. Toad, my understanding of the depo is that

beyond her name and addresss, she took the 5th on every single question posed by the Plaintiffs and the District. No substantive objections as to the questions themselves, but pages and pages of 5th taking. So a sanctions hearing was set for last Friday, and that's when she was ordered to turn over her computer to the District. She also then claimed she was willing to sit for a deposition, and we'll see if the District is gonna take that chance. The Plaintiffs? Hell, they've got a goldmine already.

On Tuesday, she met with the FBI, and came out of there with the understanding that they aren't interested in prosecuting her.***

The AUSA has filed a motion, asking to be allowed to view the 56k images.



***I've had clients this stupid

[Hannah Bell]

198. in the context of 1) the plantiffs citing federal wiretapping, etc. laws & 2)

the plantiffs alleging surveillance of minors in their homes, the possibility of criminal prosecution was already taken for granted.


and my comment was in response to a poster who implied that invocation of the 5th = "something to hide".

34. Hannah, when a gov't official takes the 5th of course there will be
assumptions as to why one would do that. And looking at pictures taken surreptitiously of someone in their home, is voyeurism...

[msanthrope]

138. She ain't ever gonna get it--much easier to claim we aren't lawyers.n/t

[Hannah Bell]

146. I said i don't believe *you*, specifically, are a lawyer.

based on the following:

1. 5th amendment doesn't apply to civil proceedings
2. supreme court decisions apply differently depending on the state

[msanthrope]

152. My dear hannah,

1) I never said that the 5th didn't apply to civil proceedings, merely that it is inapplicable outside the parameters outlined by Ms. Toad. You, however, have stated that you didn't realize Ms. Toad was giving you parameters, so I am unsurprised that you don't understand me, either.

2) I'm sorry your con Law class of 40 years ago didn't explain to you a basic fundamental of constitutional law--the constitution is a floor. If your state wishes to give you more protections, it may. Thus, citizens of different states enjoy differing levels of civil liberties. Think--abortion. Does not the application of that fundamental right differ from state to state?

Thus, citing an article that refers to the rights afforded a Texas citizen, particularly those granted by the Texas constitution, might not be the best argument.

Keep googling....your legal acumen shines through.

[Hannah Bell]

156. Let's check. Here's Ms. Toad's ONLY discussion of the 5th: it doesn't mention civil cases.

"From a legal perspective, there is only one reason to plead the amendment is only available to to avoid self-incrimination in a criminal case (which has been interpreted to mean not only an existing case, but a case which might be brought against you the future.

Relevant portion of the 5th amendment: "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. . ."

You cannot plead the 5th for purposes of "not . . . giv fuel to the opposition lawyer on a fishing expedition," without risking obstruction of justice, contempt of court, or other charges which may be brought against individuals who are legitimately subpoenaed to give testimony, but who refuse to do so. No competent attorney would have advised an individual on their side of the case to plead the 5th amendment, unless their testimony would have been self-incriminating."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8207503&mesg_id=8207754



And here's YOUR comment:

87. Really, Ms. Toad. Don't you know that lawyers.com is every bit as authoritative as the law schools we went to? The mere fact that I practice law in the same district as this case hasn't given me any street cred....so I don't know why you think that calmly and patiently explaining the whole purpose of pre-trial discovery is going to be taken as fact.

THE OP'S FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT IN A CIVIL CASE NOTWITHSTANDING, I find her law-school-free legal analysis refreshing."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8207503&mesg_id=8214975


I'd say that doesn't admit much back-tracking & smoke-blowing, ms "lawyer".


2. "Thus, citizens of different states enjoy differing levels of civil liberties."

rotfl. right, you're a lawyer for sure. no doubt.

[msanthrope]

160. Again, I'm sorry you failed to understand either one of us.

I'm sorry you failed to understand the parameters that Ms. Toad laid out for you, and I'm sorry you continue to fail to appreciate the inapplicability of the 5th amendment to civil cases.

That doesn't mean you can't claim it, because our wonderful system of justice allows anyone to claim anything. What you have failed to understand, even though Ms. Toad explained it to you, is that in a civil case, it will not be upheld....you will be compelled to testify, as in the case of Ms. Cafiero, or you will get an adversarial instruction or forfeit. The 5th is inapplicable in civil cases...you cannot claim it without sanction, as opposed to claiming it in a criminal defense. Thus Cafiero is giving a deposition, again.


As for the citizens of different states enjoying differing levels of civil liberties, well, dear, that's not only true, but it's constitutionally sanctioned.

For example, my state doesn't recognize Carroll doctrine--your state probably does. So I have more 4th amendment privacy rights than you do.

But hell, if you really, and truly do not believe that, then you go ask someone who you think is a lawyer. You ask them if it's true that people in different states have different civil liberties---and unless they are a Regent grad, or Orly Taitz, they will patiently explain to you the 10th amendment. They will also point out that yes, the framers wanted it this way, and probably point you helpfully to the appropriate Federalist paper....

Jeebus christ....

[Hannah Bell]

161. again, i'm sorry you like to blow smoke, but it's getting rather boring.

THE OP'S FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT IN A CIVIL CASE NOTWITHSTANDING



"even though Ms. Toad explained it to you, is that in a civil case, it will not be upheld....you will be compelled to testify, as in the case of Ms. Cafiero"

1) ms toad "explained" nothing of the sort to me that i saw; please link to the post.
2)ms. cafiero was not compelled to testify at the deposition. she was compelled to *appear,* & advised by the judge that despite being compelled to *appear,* she could nevertheless invoke the protection of the 5th amendment right not to testify once she appeared:


“In this case Cafiero has neither been indicted nor is she the recipient of a ‘target letter.’ As it is uncertain whether Cafiero will be the subject of criminal action in the future, the court concludes that there is no reason to stay Cafiero’s deposition on this ground.

“However, this ruling is without prejudice to Cafiero’s right to assert the Fifth Amendment at her deposition,” DuBois wrote in the order."

http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/04/09/main_line_times/news/lmspygate/doc4bbb66f3878f3186611818.txt

"The judge said Cafiero could assert her Fifth Amendment right not to testify at a deposition in the case. He said she has not been indicted or named in a target letter."

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/89974282.html


and that's precisely what she did: invoked the 5th and was NOT "compelled to testify".

you're so full of it, & you're not a lawyer, you just play one at DU.

[msanthrope]

168. So you really, really, don't think I'm a lawyer?

Okay.

Then it should be easy to defeat my points without resorting to quoting only half-sentences of mine.

And Cafiero, testified. When you show up to deposition, identify yourself, take the oath, and then invoke--that's testimony, Hannah. Admissible to the court. I have no doubt the depo goes on for pages and pages. All admissible.

When discovery closes, the Plaintiffs are going to get an adversarial ruling based on that deposition--Cafiero invoked, but it will be the district who is gonna get screwed. Cafiero's now claiming she will sit for another deposition...and maybe the District will be dumb enough to depose her. But take a look at the filing of the Plaintiff's on April 16th--they aren't asking that she testify, because she already did.

They wanted her computer. Her depos done. And the Plaintiffs have gold.

Edited to add--what blows my friggin' mind is that it still ain't dawned on you that Cafiero and the District are two distinct parties who do not share legal counsel. Different agendas---and she screwed the District with her bullshit.

Do you get it? Cafiero isn't helping the District....she's saving her own ass. In your rush to defend LMSD, you failed to realize that the District has no friend in Cafiero.

[Hannah Bell]

169. oh, please. post 164, i quote your entire post. i don't feel the need to

quote the entire thing every damned time you insist when you said "THE OP'S FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT IN A CIVIL CASE NOTWITHSTANDING" you meant something else.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8207503&mesg_id=8217558

[msanthrope]

170. No, I meant what I said. You simply do not understand it, no

matter how many times it is slowly and carefully explained to you.

This intransigence has blinded you to the larger point--defending Cafiero isn't defending the District.

It surprises me that it has not dawned on you that Cafiero and the District have two different agendas--and thus, different counsel. She isn't using a District lawyer. And she isn't working 'with' them.

You do realize that are defending the person who handed the Plaintiffs gold, at the expense of the District, don't you? Cafiero's 5th allows the Plaintiffs to pursue an adversarial ruling....and that will screw the District, while keeping Cafiero clean.

[Hannah Bell]

171. lol. smoke on.

and yes, i'm well aware that cafiero is protecting her own ass first & trying to shift whatever blame may come to others.

that's life under capitalism, every asshole for himself.

it's irrelevant to your apparent ignorance on the 5th.

[msanthrope]

172. Wow. I made you go from defending Cafiero to throwing her under the bus,

all in one thread.


Thanks for playing.

[Hannah Bell]

173. hardly, but smoke on.

...still wrong about the 5th.

[Hannah Bell]

200. I continue to defend her, thanks for playing.

[TorchTheWitch]

201. even though you equate her with an asshole out for themself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8207503&mesg_id=8217816
"yes, i'm well aware that cafiero is protecting her own ass first & trying to shift whatever blame may come to others. that's life under capitalism, every asshole for himself."

About time you admitted what you were knowingly doing.

[Hannah Bell]

204. i take for granted that there's no solidarity under capitalism. i continue to defend

both the district and cafiero against unproven and (here at DU, particularly in your case) baseless allegations.

[TorchTheWitch]

205. more bullshit

And you have no problem defending someone you yourself recognizes is protecting their own ass first, shifting blame to others and is an asshole out for themself. And somehow you still think anything you say has a single bit of credibility whatsoever.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8207503&mesg_id=8217816
#184 "yes, i'm well aware that cafiero is protecting her own ass first & trying to shift whatever blame may come to others. that's life under capitalism, every asshole for himself."

[Hannah Bell]

206. *everyone* looks after their own ass first in our system, or goes under.

are you suggesting only saints are worthy of being defended from baseless allegations & unproven speculations?

not surprising from someone who's cried "sexcrime!" from jump street.

[TorchTheWitch]

212. I have NEVER accused anyone of a sex crime in this case

EVER. Stop accusing me of that. I NEVER assumed the school or anyone working for the school was spying on students in order to commit sex crimes. YOU are the one making a gross violation of peoples' privacy about sex. Unlike you however, I realize that the volume of photos and the logical private places where they were most likely to have been taken would include at least some people in various stages of undress and intimate acts. NEVER have I accused anyone of the intent to commit any kind of sex crime or assume anyone involved is a sexual pervert. The possibility exists whether or not you like it that someone MAY have that intent but I believe that it is slim and DON'T believe that it was the intent of the school in in using this spying system... and this is the FIRST time I've said anything about what I believe as far as sexual perversion is concerned.

That you constantly say the spying allegations are baseless and unproven is totally absurd at this point. Whether or not that spying included unintended consequences of commiting and/or covering up any spying that unintentionally committed a sex crime has NEVER been the crux of this case nor has it ever been the basis for the lawsuit. All along it has been YOU that brings that to the table and accuses others of accusing the school and/or workers for the school as being sexual perverts. I don't think ANYONE here has ever even once claimed they believe the school's intent was to spy on people for sexual purposes. And I know for a fact I sure as hell haven't, yet here you are again accusing me of something I've never eluded to and QUOTING YOUR words as though they were mine.

It's getting harder and harder to believe that despite what you claim that you are not personally involved in this case. And you will notice that unlike you I don't ACCUSE you of that.

Hannah, if you believe that EVERYONE is willing to throw others under the bus to save their own ass and shift blame onto others in order to do that and that it's ok to defend someone who does even though they believe that someone to be an "asshole" out for themselves I pity you. And you are on the wrong board with THAT attitude, and there is no doubt in my mind that because of that attitude you yourself behave that way. Considering your postings that's actually pretty evident that that really is the kind of person you are and you own it.

[TorchTheWitch]

184. pure gold - bookmarking this one

Now every time you try to use Cafiero's or Cafiero's attorney's words and documents as evidence of fact I can throw this gleaming gem back at you... right here in your own words you admit that you are "well aware that Cafiero is protecting her own ass first and trying to shift whatever blame may come to others". Even better you deem her as an asshole only out for herself.

Glorious.

And right here in your own thread that tries to use Cafiero's attorney's words and documents as evidence of fact in her, and by extenstion, the school's favor.

Fantastically glorious.

What was that again, Hannah, about "blowing out of the water all the pervy scenarios constructed by DU posters"?

Oh yes, "i'm well aware that cafiero is protecting her own ass first & trying to shift whatever blame may come to others. that's life under capitalism, every asshole for himself."

:rofl:

[msanthrope]

190. Bookmark and cache, as I expect a great deal of

alerting to mods to get erasures is imminent....


This thread is epic.

[TorchTheWitch]

195. screenshot, wall hanging, pillow needlepoint

sky writing, billboard, tattoo... :rofl:

I've often thought there really should be a DU Wall of Shame for whoppers like this.

I sure as hell would hope that mods aren't permitted to delete anyone's post on their request in order to hide their misdeeds.

[msanthrope]

196. Well, I think that some posters play the "I was personally attacked"

card and are given the benefit of the doubt. I think the mods do an excellent job overall...but, the squeaky wheel....


Now, I prefer to let things stand--in particular, I am glad to have stand Hannah's assertion that I am not a lawyer. Because I think Hannah's posts in response to me really answer that question---not my best cross-exam, but I did manage to get her to jettison Cafiero in one thread.

Usually I have more time to prepare.

[TorchTheWitch]

199. and all without any tearing out of hair

Most attorneys couldn't have accomplished this without the cussing, screaming, yanking of great clumps of hair, throwing of various items, table/desk/wall/door pounding, slamming of doors... you get the idea. But of course, I'm not exactly a witness at the moment to the state of your surroundings nor the condition of your coiffure and scalp. ;)

[msanthrope]

210. I found it all quite amusing, which I suppose is the maturity that comes with age.

Then again, I used to regularly spar with Tangerine LaBamba....and this poster is no Tangerine LaBamba...

Now there was an debater....

Why is it you miss the ones you despised the most????

I am perfectly coiffed today, notwithstanding the rain.

[TorchTheWitch]

213. I know what you mean

I find myself sometimes missing OMC for that reason.

And a pox on this damn rain!

[msanthrope]

136. Of course, Kastigar allows the compulsion of testimony from an unwilling person.

You do realize that while you quote dicta from Kastigar, it does actually allow for compulsion of testimony by the government?

Kastigar is more concerned with the extention of use vs. transactional immunity, and doesn't really speak to the issue in the LM case, but if you want to quote its dicta, you go ahead....

[Hannah Bell]

143. funny how you left off the important clause: "can compel testimony....by conferring immunity."

"if you want to quote its dicta, you go ahead..."


The kastigar opinion is part of the body of precedent commonly cited in treatments of the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination. That's why i "cite its dicta".

it reaffirmed the right to invoke 5th A protections:

"in ANY proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory; and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used."

and since you're supposedly a lawyer, you know that the commentary, case law & principles cited in the body of an SC opinion are not mere irrelevant window dressing, even when the case doesn't specifically turn on that point.

or maybe you don't know that, but it was covered in my 400 Con Law class 40 years ago.

[msanthrope]

148. Did you miss the mention of use vs transactional immunity?

You keep googling, though....

[Hannah Bell]

149. no, because it's irrelevant. especially when presented by someone who thinks 5th A protections

don't apply to civil cases.

you keep blowing smoke, though....

[msanthrope]

154. No, I said the 5th amendment is inapplicable outside

the parameters Ms. Toad outlined to you.

But since you didn't understand that Ms. toad was even giving you parameters, I'm not surprised you don't understand me.

[Hannah Bell]

158. see below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8207503&mesg_id=8217558

[Ms. Toad]

178. You need to read what you are posting

This is the point I have repeatedly tried to make to you:

In ANY proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory; and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used.

The mere prospect of a fishing expedition, without more, does not create a reasonable belief that individual answers to questions asked in that fishing expedition might be criminally incriminating.

[PCIntern]

181. Hi guys!!!

Isn't talking to HB fun? It's either Through the Looking Glass or Spanish Inquisition as performed by the Marx Brothers. Take your pick...

[msanthrope]

189. It's like a freeper birther thread....

You know, one where a bunch of posters insist on claiming that a Certificate of Live Birth is not a birth certificate, and how Hawaii gave COLBs to anyone who asked....

Sure, the few sane freepers with JDs can patiently post the legal facts, and explain them for the benefit of people who have no legal training, but it doesn't matter....even when faced with black letter law, birthers refuse to absorb it.

Truly, this entire thread reminds me of how the freepers react when you calmly, correctly, and rationally point out that their analysis of what a 'natural born citizen' is grounded in wishful thinking, not law---

1) Denial--first, the freepers deny that the other poster is a lawyer or person with legal training or experience.
2) Anger --then, they are angry that someone who claims to be a freeper isn't seeing it their way.
3) Bargaining--next, they parse, obsessively, over single words and phrases, refusing to understand the underlying legal concepts.
4) Depression--they they call you names, which is a manifestation of the frustration and inward anger they feel over not 'winning.'
5) Acceptance--then they accept that you are the one with the problem, and lather, rinse, repeat.....

I think the word is 'Taitzian'.....

[TorchTheWitch]

192. did you see this gem?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8207503&mesg_id=8217816
Hannah's post #184... "yes, i'm well aware that cafiero is protecting her own ass first & trying to shift whatever blame may come to others. that's life under capitalism, every asshole for himself."

:rofl:

[msanthrope]

135. Certainly, an article detailing the rights afforded a citizen of Texas ought to be dispositive

in the eastern district of Pennsylvania.

I am sorry you didn't understand the parameters of the privilege as explained by Ms. Toad.

[Hannah Bell]

140. sorry you don't understand the scope of the protections of the US Constitution, mr. "lawyer."

[msanthrope]

141. It's Ms. Lawyer. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

144. my apologies for the error.

[LiberalAndProud]

107. Taitzian ... is that a new legal term?

Do you get credit for coining the word? Because it's a keeper.

[msanthrope]

110. 'Taitzian' is mine....and I am durned proud of it. Thank you! n/t

[Hannah Bell]

28. i've answered that question more times than i can count.

i linked three times from one thread alone in my reply to the previous poster. perhaps you can check there if you're so concerned.

i'm amused by the pretense that i haven't.

also amused by pretense that a challenge to misrepresentations of fact & unwarranted assumptions, including the destruction of reputations & careers with the label of "pedophile" & "voyeur" -- on the basis of unproven allegations and partial reporting = support for school or government spying.

the "broken record" is the continuing pretense that there's concern about my support for civil liberties, when in fact the concern is only that i post things that counter the witchhunt hysteria.


****

previous post, with links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8207503&mesg_id=8207605

[boston bean]

29. How is it a witch hunt, unless you believe they did nothing wrong, which would lead

one to believe you do not have a problem with what happened. And hence, you have no problem with what occurred.

A witchhunt is when an innocent person is targeted. Do you believe that civil liberties were not trampled in this case?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boston bean]

38. If you believe # 1, how you could ever come to conclusion 2 and 3, I have no idea!

"2) did the school or its personnel willfully & randomly spy on students in their homes, in violation of their stated policy of activating the capacity only in case of theft, loss, or similar situations? I DON'T KNOW & NEITHER DO YOU. What's been released so far about the 56K photos doesn't appear to me to support that claim."

That is where you are WRONG! It doesn't matter why, to whom or for what reason they did it. Got it. It doesn't matter!

"3) did various school personnel, including techs, principal, teachers, janitors intentionally turn on the cameras to seek out pictures of naked kids, did they steal keys & passwords to do so, did they masturbate over them leaving semen on the school keyboards, did they joke about the nudie photos with each other --"

If someone is taking pictures of sleeping children surreptitiously in their own home a person has every right to infer whatever they would like. Got it, it doesn't matter. You are being obstinate.

[Hannah Bell]

41. because i'm not stupid.

[boston bean]

47. I'm having a hard time withholding judgment. nt

[woo me with science]

48. ...

:rofl:

[PCIntern]

60. Wrong again...

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[woo me with science]

50. Of course they did.

2) did the school or its personnel willfully & randomly spy on students in their homes, in violation of their stated policy of activating the capacity only in case of theft, loss, or similar situations? I DON'T KNOW & NEITHER DO YOU. What's been released so far about the 56K photos doesn't appear to me to support that claim.


Of course they did.

[Hannah Bell]

63. The system was designed to automatically purge all the images after the tracking was deactivated.

Hockeimer said that attorneys from his firm, Ballard Spahr, and specialists from L3, a computer forensics firm, have used e-mails, voice mails and network data to piece together how often, when and why school officials used the technology.

The "vast majority" of instances, he said, represent cases in which the technology appeared to be used for the reasons the district first implemented it in 2008: to find a lost or stolen laptop or, in a few cases, whether a student took the computer without paying a required insurance fee.

About 38,500 images - or almost two-thirds of the total number retrieved so far - came from six laptops that were reported missing from the Harriton High School gymnasium in September 2008. The tracking system continued to store images from those computers for nearly six months, until police recovered them and charged a suspect with theft in March 2009.

The next biggest chunk of images stem from the five or so laptops where employees failed or forgot to turn off the tracking software even after the student recovered the computer. In a few other cases, Hockeimer said, the team has been unable to recover images or photos stored by the tracking system. And in about 15 activations, investigators have been unable to identify exactly why a student's laptop was being monitored.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20100419_Lower_Merion_details_Web_cam_scope.html

[hobbit709]

68. You contradicted yourself right there

"The system was designed to automatically purge all the images after the tracking was deactivated."

"The next biggest chunk of images stem from the five or so laptops where employees failed or forgot to turn off the tracking software even after the student recovered the computer. In a few other cases, Hockeimer said, the team has been unable to recover images or photos stored by the tracking system. And in about 15 activations, investigators have been unable to identify exactly why a student's laptop was being monitored."

[TorchTheWitch]

74. this one thing had me stumped

If the tracking system (which has been determined to be LanREV) was designed to purge the images after the tracking was deactived how was it that the school's investigation recovered 56,000 images? What does "purge" in this instance really even mean? Were they moved out of the tracking program and into a storage file, were they deleted entirely from the school's computer system and recovered some other way? If they were supposed to be purged why were some or all still being stored BY the tracking system?

Obviously, something went wrong here. If the tracking system was designed to purge the images, why were some still being stored in the tracking system? Why were some stored and not others? If this was a glitch in the program, why did the IT people not address it? Or was the inconsistancy of where some images were and some weren't and some totally disappeared altogether manipulated by the IT people?

I think it's apparent that somebody whether the IT people on their own or by instruction from someone else were manipulating where the images went since they obviously weren't dealt with uniformly by the tracking system that was supposed to deal with them all the same way automatically, and no IT person addressed any possible "glitch" by the tracking system that interferred with where all the images were going when it's their job to fix such computer glitches.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JVS]

92. Holy shit! This argument turns inside out on a meta-level!

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberalhistorian]

127. Then answer the one simple question that you've refused

to answer EVERY SINGLE TIME it's been asked of you in any of these threads. Leaving aside everything else, all conjectures, speculations, etc., do you or do you not believe that requiring students to use school-issues laptops that are equipped with webcams that the school has the capacity to turn on at any time it so chooses, regardless of whether or not it has permission from not just the students but the adults and other residents of the home, is wrong and is a civil rights/privacy violation? Yes or no, please. No attempting to wriggle out of it through drivel about strawmen or how your position is being misrepresented, yadayadayada, just a simple answer to the damn question that's been asked of you over and over again.

[Hannah Bell]

159. i've never refused to answer that question, have answered it in this thread

& have linked to answers in previous threads.

y'all, however, keep insisting i either support spycams in schools or have "refused to answer".

y'all are willfully blind, deaf but unfortunately not dumb, just playing dumb.


here's one of the multiple times in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8207503&mesg_id=8216513



here's another, from this thread, where the poster who accuses me of supporting spying evidently doesn't remember he's done the same before, & received an answer:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8207503&mesg_id=8207605


y'all are just *so* disingenuous.

thou shalt not bear false witness or burn witches, y'know.

[liberalhistorian]

185. No, you have never directly answered it.

You've either found a way around it or dismissed it by claiming "witch hunt" or some such. You may have danced around it a bit. But you have never DIRECTLY ANSWERED the question, YES OR NO. Which raises a giant, huge, enormous red flag. So, please, just answer the freaking question, yes or no, one simple word. No others necessary.

[Caretha]

182. She has refused to answer

those questions directly every single time. Good luck with getting a straight answer from her. See my post #53 in this thread.

[TorchTheWitch]

54. you aren't the only one

More and more are speculating on that as this goes on.

[varelse]

124. You beat me to it

:P

[Orsino]

52. False conclusion.

One day after the motion was filed the school district released a statement admitting “mistakes and misguided actions.”

The fact--never disputed as far as I know--that there are some non-sinister uses for secret monitoring does not provide any cover. It does not disprove any of the more elaborate and repulsive scenarios imagined here.

Whatever your issue was with certain posters, this is not the vindication you're waiting for.

[Hannah Bell]

64. false conclusion yourself, as i'm speaking specifically about the pervy scenarios constructed

*about the email exchange*

[Orsino]

71. That isn't clear at all. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

83. not clear that i was speaking of the email exchange? then why did you leap to conclusions?

i think it was perfectly clear, myself. but that's just me.

[Orsino]

175. Your rant turned very general at the end. n/t

[Caretha]

53. I'm going to try this once again

I posted this in another thread you started on this subject yesterday, and you completely ignored it. I don't call names, I don't play 'hide the strawman', and I am sincerely interested in your answers to my questions. Straight forward answers that is.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8200647&mesg_id=8201144

Do you dispute
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 08:06 AM by Caretha
Blake Robbins' claim that Cafiero confronted him in her office and accused him of being in possession of illegal drugs, and showed him a picture that captured him in his bedroom holding something in his hand?

If she was tracking a "stolen laptop", as the school claimed, why didn't she confiscate the laptop? Or as the school said they had done in the past, why wasn't law enforcement called and charges for theft filed?

The school has also claimed that the Robbins' hadn't paid the insurance for the laptop, that doesn't mean they didn't know who had it, so why track it if the problem was not who possessed it, but because a bill hadn't been paid?

There are a lot of things that don't add up here. Lawyers are going to have a lot of the same questions and many more. In the end it really boils down to illegal intrusion into people's homes, and the school board is tap dancing as fast as they can with their mea culpas and trying to assure parents & students that it will do better in the future.

Being as politically savvy as you are Hannah, you know it's not always the crime that "does the culprit in", it's the lies and CYA mantras that follow that hangs 'em.

I used to always look forward to reading your OP's and would always click on them, I'm not much of a poster, more of a reader, but now I bypass all your other posts. Your abrasiveness and inability to be balanced on this subject has tainted my perception that you are someone to be taken credibly.

[liberalhistorian]

187. She ignores questions she doesn't want to answer and

any evidence that may disprove her claims, even when provided by the school itself. She hides behind accusations of "straw men" and "disingenuity" and "witch hunt" and other such nonsense. I've come to believe it's damn near impossible to get a real, straight answer from her on a couple of simple, basic questions related to this case.

[Pisces]

56. The base fact remains that the parents were not notified of the camera's capabilities.

Even if the all of the pics are innocent and were only taken on stolen computers. You can not escape the fact that no one was notified and at the very least a signature by a parent giving the school
permission should have been required. The school is fucked either way.

[woo me with science]

58. Yet the OP continues to insist that "we don't know" if there was spying.

Even putting aside whether the program would have been acceptable WITH notification, the district has already admitted that webcams were activated multiple times when the computers were not reported lost or stolen.

We are dealing with belligerent disingenuousness here, not logic.

[notesdev]

59. Another basic fact

given the number of pictures taken and where they were taken, it is statistically nearly certain that one or more (and potentially thousands) of those pictures meets the definition of child porn.

[woo me with science]

57. She'll turn it over to "a computer-forensics firm hired by the district"

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20100424_L__Merion_school_official_to_turn_over_computer.html

According to Mandracchia, Cafiero will turn over her home computer to experts at L3, a computer-forensics firm hired by the district, who are to inspect it by Tuesday. Mandracchia said the experts and the judge would determine whether any of the computer's contents were relevant enough to turn over to Haltzman.


The computer should have been seized immediately and turned over to an objective investigator.

[PCIntern]

61. OK...I surrender...

No mas.

[surrealAmerican]

62. You may well be right that there was nothing "pervy" going on, but ...

... it doesn't matter whether they were spying on the kids to see them nude, to see them use drugs, or to see them plagiarize term papers. It's still a violation of the students' privacy.

[hobbit709]

69. Yep

It's the spying that is the issue, not what they watching.

[Forkboy]

66. So I guess the date between you and PCIntern is out?

[PCIntern]

72. wow could I have posted something...

but as I said, I'm out of this discussion in this thread.

:hi:

[MrScorpio]

76. This is what I don't get

Instead of that stupid camera access program that they loaded, why didn't they just load GPS tracking technology in the laptops instead.

http://www.rmtracking.com/blog/2009/04/05/laptop-tracking-using-gps-and-identity-theft-protection/

They could track down missing laptops efficiently without all the privacy issues.

Maybe I'm thinking too simply about this thing

[TorchTheWitch]

174. without the webcam tracking how could they spy on people?

This is what it all comes down to in terms of motivation. With everything the school did clearly they weren't motivated by having a system the purpose of which was only to find missing or stolen laptops. The webcam tracking DIDN'T serve to find missing or stolen laptops... that's clear from the first to even the most ignorant individual. How does pictures taken by the webcam serve to tell you who has the laptop and where it is? It DOESN'T. Unless you can recognize who is using the laptop to identify who they are and recognize the room they're in to know its location, it just doesn't serve to either find or recover a missing or stolen laptop.

What motivated these people to chose to use a system that DOESN'T serve to find missing or stolen laptops in most cases INSTEAD of using a system far less invasive, legal and DOES serve to be useful in finding and recovering missing or stolen laptops like a GPS system? Their very motivation for chosing a theft tracking device that doesn't really work and is grossly invasive and probably illegal opposed to one that does work, is legal and not invasive is very questionable right from the first.

Not running this system by the school's attorneys that they pay for furthers their suspect motivation. They had to have known their attorneys would have advised against it strongly. This is the kind of stuff they pay their attorneys to do yet they didn't run it by them first because they KNEW it would never fly.

Why did they deliberately not inform much less get consent from the parents of these MINOR children to use this spying device that they already had to have known didn't serve to find missing or stolen laptops and was grossly invasive? They had to have known parents would never consent to such a gross violation of privacy particularly when it didn't even serve to do the thing they claimed it was to be used for - find missing or stolen laptops. Parents would surely wonder what the school's REAL motivation to use this system was and it would not only not get to be used but would probably send a few parents to the press, their attorneys and word would surely get out that the school wanted to use a theft tracking device that not only didn't serve as one but grossly invaded privacy. Of course the school wasn't going to tell anyone much less get consent because they already knew if they did the system would be dead in the water before they got to install it.

Why did they deliberately have such lack of policy on the use of the tracking system and such negligent use of it? They claim that the school's policy was to only use it in the event that they were informed of a missing or stolen laptop, but where is the written policy about the use of the spycam? Surely a school with policies has them written down and approved and a system in place to manage that policy was being stricktly enforced? Because they didn't. So far there is no evidence they even had any actual approved policy in the use of the tracking system, and it's clearly evident that the use of the tracking device was so grossly mismanaged that even their own attorney can't figure out what was going on and admitted the use of the tracking device was horribly negligent.

Why did they have a need to have any kind of theft tracking device anyway? The laptops were insured. If a laptop was missing or stolen insurance would deal with that. If their insurance required them to have a theft tracking device, why didn't they use one that WORKED as a theft tracking device? How would they have explained to the insurance company that they used a theft tracking device that didn't WORK and expect to be covered by the insurance?

Why did they think they needed to receive a single webcam photo at all when THEY aren't law enforcement? Why weren't any webcam and screenshot photos sent directly to law enforcement instead of to BOTH law enforcement and the school as they claim? Incidently, the police department insists they had no idea they were receiving any of these images, didn't believe they received them at all and would have balked if they discovered they received them. How is it believable that the school really was sending all these images to the police department knowing they were against the law because of their invasiveness and the fact they didn't have anyone's consent to take them? Isn't it more logical to believe that the school only sent those photos taken with the tracking device of laptops they knew were actually stolen and only those photos that were of the thief?

The entire motivation of the school from the very beginning is horribly suspect and shows they were far more motivated in being able to spy on people in secret rather than recovering any missing or stolen laptops and the claim of using it to find missing or stolen laptops was nothing more than an excuse to give themselves the ability to spy on people in secret. EVERY single thing they did points to that from the very beginning.

[WinkyDink]

77. Oh, yes; because a plaintiff's lawyer's PR spin is always so credible. Who is the gull here?

[TorchTheWitch]

194. she admits herself that she doesn't believe they're credible

as evidenced by her own post #184...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8207503&mesg_id=8217816
"yes, i'm well aware that cafiero is protecting her own ass first & trying to shift whatever blame may come to others. that's life under capitalism, every asshole for himself."

[Hannah Bell]

203. robbins are the plantiffs, & i agree, their lawyer's spin is not always credible.

like when he takes excerpts from an email chain out of context to make it appear participants are viewing pictures of kids in their homes to charge someone with voyeurism.

[TorchTheWitch]

208. yet you admit you defend that when you believe Cafiero is

an asshole out for herself, protecting her own ass first, and shifts blame to others.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8207503&mesg_id=8217816
#184 "yes, i'm well aware that cafiero is protecting her own ass first & trying to shift whatever blame may come to others. that's life under capitalism, every asshole for himself."

You will not escape your own words, Hannah.

[noamnety]

78. I can't imagine that anyone here is defending

a government employee placing video cameras in people's private homes without their knowledge or consent, without a warrant, and activating them - and having the ABILITY to watch the videos while the private citizens are undressed.

Even WITHOUT the sexual exploitation/voyeur violations, it's an illegal search of a residence - just as illegal as if police put cameras in my home because they suspected I had stolen something. What part of that are you not getting?

[woo me with science]

80. She won't answer this one. nt

[supernova]

81. +1000

[Hannah Bell]

84. no one here is or has, not that i expect you to acknowledge it.

however, i'm not sure why you emphasize "a government employee", as if it would be more legal if done by a private party or a corporate employee, & as if a local school board were the equivalent of the CIA.

oh, wait, considering your ongoing support for charter schools....

[msanthrope]

86. You aren't sure why it's relevant that a "government employee"

is involved?

I would have thought that lawyers.com or answers.com, would have explained that.

[Hannah Bell]

89. lol. poor readers, you lot are. or good straw spinners. i made no statement about "relevance".

[woo me with science]

91. snork snork, snork, "you people," snork

rude comment

no substantive response, just the same "I didn't say that!"

Typical Hannah response.

[Hannah Bell]

112. Let's look at the exchange:

NA: I can't imagine that anyone here is defending a government employee placing video cameras in people's private homes without their knowledge or consent...

HB: no one here is or has, not that i expect you to acknowledge it. however, i'm not sure why you emphasize "a government employee", as if it would be more legal if done by a private party or a corporate employee, & as if a local school board were the equivalent of the CIA.

WMWS: You aren't sure why it's relevant that a "government employee" is involved?



Please explain how

"why you emphasize 'a government employee' as if it would be more *legal* if done by a private party..."

has the same meaning as

"why it's *relevant* that a government employee is involved"

[woo me with science]

87. Bullshit.

You defended it right here, with your "96.5%."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8207503#8214835

Stop lying, Hannah.

[Hannah Bell]

90. Bullshit yourself. Noting that 96.5% of computers were never activated indicates no pattern of

wide-spread spying in no way constitutes a defense of any spying that may have occured, or of "government employees placing cameras in people's homes".

Sorry if you can't make such distinctions.

[woo me with science]

94. Oh, you just put it there....not to defend...

Then for what reason exactly? What is your point, Hannah? You must have pointed that out for a reason.

DID "government employees place cameras in people's homes"?????

You posted 1, 2, and 3 up there (No, I'm not going to give a link. It's your post, so find it). Two definitely occurred, yet you say "we don't know" if it did. Then you weasel around by putting in the word "systematic. Does the spying not matter if it's not systematic? Do you KNOW it wasn't systematic? Should we be less outraged if it wasn't "systematic"?

Care to explain how you can possibly say that "we don't know" if spying occurred?

More importantly, how serious of a problem is WHAT THE SCHOOL ACTUALLY DID to you?

How important do you think it is, Hannah, that a school put cameras in student homes and activated them without permission? Is that a serious violation in your mind?

[Hannah Bell]

109. i think i made myself perfectly clear, sorry again if you still don't get it.

unfortunately, someone other than myself deleted the post you refer to.

i believe the 3 points went something like this:

1. did the school have the capacity to spy = yes
2. did it use the capacity outside its stated policy (i.e. in case of theft, loss or similar) = unknown
3. did school personnel randomly access the spy capacity to view naked kids = unknown but unlikely in light of present reported evidence



i can say "we don't know" because of the different definitions of "spying" in play. duh.

if having the capacity a/o activating it even for theft = "spying" then spying occurred, & the district has admitted it did.

if "spying" refers to 2) or 3) then we don't know.

many posters can't keep the points distinct.

[noamnety]

113. You left off the critical question

1. Did the school knowingly place cameras in students' bedrooms and activate those cameras without the permission or knowledge of the students, knowing that the students might be naked, and knowing that a likely result would be the administrators viewing naked photos of those students?

And other questions that should be asked:

2. Did the school have reason to think that if they had requested permission to take photos in the students' bedrooms remotely, that the students and parents would have denied permission?

3. Did the school have reason to think that if the students found out they were being spied on, it would cause great distress and possible psychological damage?

4. Did the school have a responsibility to avoid creating great distress and possible psychological damage to its students?

5. Was the school engaging in illegal activities?

[Hannah Bell]

121. To answer your question: the district placed no cameras in kids' bedrooms.

a technical point, but a fact nonetheless.

2. immaterial; since i and supposedly you both agree there's no context in which the ability to look at students at home is appropriate or necessary. you do agree, don't you?

3. immaterial whether it did psychological damage or not; see 2)

4. immaterial again. all this "psychological damage" is about penalty phase, not evidentiary phase.

5. previously addressed.

[noamnety]

125. Psychological damage is immaterial. That's just great.

Thank you for the clear demonstration of what I've been pointing out about your posts.

That's what I've been saying all along - that you aren't exhibiting any normal level of human compassion or empathy - you're playing this out like it's a legal game, not like there are actual people whose lives are permanently affected by this.

[Hannah Bell]

134. in the context of the evidentiary phase -- as i clearly stated, and you chose to ignore -- yes,

immaterial.

if you don't know what happened, and to who, where do you get off toting up the "psychological damage"?

but it's a good tactic if your aim is to ramp up hysteria.

[noamnety]

88. Off topic ad hominem duly noted.

It's clear it would be a criminal offense - with no question about privacy violations - and COMPLETELY indefensible if a private person put a video camera in my bedroom without my knowledge for the purpose of having the ability to spy on me in case something they loaned me was reported stolen.

For some inexplicable reason, you've been repeatedly defending the school - as if the fact that they are a public school (government employees) somehow makes this more okay.

There's a theme of disbelief on your part beginning with you not believing the story in the first place, then believing they only did it a few times just enough to recover stolen goods, now the story apparently is that yeah, they were looking at naked pictures of kids but it was somehow more okay, or should be more okay to the children involved because they didn't enjoy it.

I get the sense you are giving them a pass or white knighting for them because you can't bear to criticize any aspect of public schools or admit that sometimes their actions are horrific, criminal, and damaging to kids. That can happen anytime there is a person in authority - they can abuse it whether they are police, school officials (at any sort of school), priests, etc.

A comment that stuck with me from a friend's blog a few years back was that Americans have a stunning ability to identify not with victims and minorities, but with their oppressors. I see that in the way we talk about immigrants in this country. And I see it in the way you have reacted to this case all along, looking at whose rights you are most concerned with - teens who have had their trust violated in ways that are likely to create lifelong issues with trust and feeling violated, or the people who violated that trust.

[Hannah Bell]

93. no more than your putting false words in my mouth, when i've repeatedly stated the opposite,

including several times in this thread.

and no more than you slander people by repeating this false information:

"now the story apparently is that yeah, they were looking at naked pictures of kids but it was somehow more okay"

totally false, in all respects. there have been no reports of people "looking at naked pictures of kids" & in fact per the latest reports "no salacious or inappropriate" images have as yet been recovered.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20100419_Lower_Merion_details_Web_cam_scope.html?posted=y&viewAll=y

of course, that's per the district's attorney.

but y'all have no problem accepting the plantiff's statements as fact, even when their attorney has now been shown to have slandered the IT head as a "possible voyeur" on the basis of an email exchange which, when entered into the court record in its entirety, shows nothing of the sort.

so why do you accept the plantiff's attorney's statements as fact, even when its demonstrated he's not entirely reliable?

the assumption would be that your own biases create that presumption.

yes, i defend low-level local employees who appear to be being railroaded as pedophiles.

particularly in the context of an ongoing anti-public-school movement funded & promoted at the highest levels by individuals who are more involved in the surveillance state than some school IT specialists could even aspire to be.

[woo me with science]

95. "I didn't say that! You put false words in my mouth!"

Then what ARE you saying, Hannah?

"y'all have no problem accepting the plantiff's statements as fact..."

The school has admitted to 56,000 images in students' homes, including some of students in their bedrooms and half-dressed.

Just how wrong do you think it is for the school to have secretly obtained 56,000 images of students in their homes and bedrooms?

[noamnety]

97. Apparently 56,000 photos isn't widespread or systemic.

Damned if I understand the logic there. I guess in theory if they activated everyone's cameras, they COULD have taken over a million photos ... so compared to that standard it wasn't so many.

Me, I compare it to the standard of taking NO photos of students in their bedrooms and half-dressed. When I use that standard, what they did was obscene on many levels.

[woo me with science]

98. I think you have the motivational piece right.

I hadn't put my finger on it before, but the quality of this argument reminds me very much of trying to express a human grievance within an institution.

[Hannah Bell]

100. They're not 56,000 pictures of naked kids. None of them have so far been reported to be "of naked

kids".

2/3 of them have been reported to have come from 6 computers, and another big chunk from 5 computers. I did the math; if the facts are as reported, at least 95% of students' computers were never activated = not wide-spread.

"in their bedrooms" doesn't = "naked," and neither does "half-dressed". a boy without a shirt on is "half-dressed". The fact is, you have *no* idea what precisely is in those pictures.

[noamnety]

102. Your points are not relevant.

It was 56,000 photos that violated a person's RIGHT to privacy, in a place where they had a legal right to expect privacy, and in a place where the people in positions of power had a reasonable expectation that they might be naked when they made the decision to activate the cameras without the victim's knowledge.

Again, you are identifying with the criminals, not the victims. The victims may have been photographed naked, they may not have been - they have no way of knowing whether or not they were viewed naked, masturbating, having sex, etc. when the photos were taken. That LACK of knowledge is a traumatic thing. You seem to be operating under the presumption that they aren't traumatized by it right now because the peeping toms are "innocent until proven guilty." If you knew your employer had put a spycam in your bedroom (and every other employee's bedroom) for the last year without your knowledge and maybe - or maybe not - activated it and seen you naked, you would not be so quick to trivialize this.

"The fact is, you have *no* idea what precisely is in those pictures." <-- neither do the victims, and therein lies part of the problem. I imagine many of them will never feel truly secure in their own homes again. And I can't see that you've ever expressed that you give a shit about that. And I don't mean "look here - for the record on May 31 at 5:01pm I stated I thought they should have informed the students of their policy." I mean I don't see that you've ever acknowledged that the events AS THEY HAPPENED, even with the most generous suspension of disbelief (that in 56,000 photos they never caught a person in their bedroom without their clothing) would reasonably be expected to cause psychological damage to the students.

[Hannah Bell]

108. quite relevant to your assertion that school personnel were looking at pictures of naked kid

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8207503&mesg_id=8215021

no evidence that would support said assertion has been reported.

[noamnety]

111. Oh, here, let me rephrase that

School personnel were deliberately taking and looking at photos that a reasonable person could presume would include naked photos of the children given the circumstances in which they were taken.

(Geez, officer, I put the camera in the teen's bedroom, took pictures without them knowing, then looked at the photos - but it never crossed my mind that the teen might take off their clothes in their bedroom!)

Using the reasonable person standard, which I understand might be a foreign concept to some here, a reasonable person could deduce that if they take 56,000 photos of teens taken surreptitiously in their bedrooms, there is a high likelihood that they will take at least one photo of a naked teen. Furthermore, that same reasonable person would understand when they start browsing through those photos that they are making a conscious decision to look at spy photos that might well include naked pictures of their students.

Every time they looked at a photo, it wasn't until AFTER they viewed it that they learned the student was (or wasn't) dressed. Their decision was to spy on the kids knowing they could be naked.

[Hannah Bell]

114. the school district was *able* to take pictures that any reasonable person could conclude

might include pictures taken at home or in students' bedrooms.

i've repeatedly said schools should *not* have that capacity and am not defending the use of that capacity, so your rant is quite beside the point.

under what circumstances and for what reasons school personnel did *in fact* take the pictures and what the pictures showed is a different issue, but it is one that's at issue in the suit, and also in the media as well.

and some seem dedicated to confusing them.


PS: no pictures of "naked students" have as yet been reported, despite your allegation. in fact, the opposite has been reported: "no salacious or inappropriate images".

[noamnety]

116. You are missing the point.

The only way they could even know there weren't naked photos - was if they made a decision to look at photos which a reasonable person would understand may have included naked photos of their students. Do you not get that?

And do you not get that the psychological damage to the kids includes the effects of them having no way to know - ever - what actually was seen of them?

I swear, it's like you are so consumed by minutia in fine print and justifications that you aren't able to demonstrate any sense of the human cost of this at all.

Trauma you say? pffft, according to subparagraph 6 of section 52.a. the photos were taken at random intervals and there's no proof the students ever undressed in their rooms. Until there's proof, there should not be trauma - especially as 96.533426% of the spycams were not activated.

[Hannah Bell]

118. to quote you:

"now the story apparently is that yeah, they were looking at naked pictures of kids but it was somehow more okay, or should be more okay to the children involved because they didn't enjoy it."


"they had to look at the pictures to determine there were no naked kids" is different from "they were looking at naked pictures of kids".

[noamnety]

119. What does any of that matter to the victims?

Do you think they feel any less violated? Do you think they believe after 56 THOUSAND photos were taken in their bedrooms that no naked pictures were taken or viewed?

Are you capable of acknowledging that either way, this was a traumatic event in their life?

[Hannah Bell]

120. your misrepresentations matter little to any students who might have been spied on, probably. nor

does your seeming inability to admit & correct your misrepresentation of a matter of fact.

they might, however, matter to those you falsely (based on the public record so far) accused of pedophilia/voyeurism.



i've not seen *any* of the pictures in question; the only information i have is:

1) the plantiffs say there were pictures of "partially undressed" students, including at least one of the robbins child sleeping.
2) the respondents say they were "no salacious or inappropriate" pictures.


From that information, which is the *only* public information available, I can deduce that thus far there were NO pictures of naked children.

Your individual speculations about what MIGHT be found on any further pictures in addition to the 56K already viewed aren't admissable in court.

Nor are the speculations of other DUers that there were photos of kids having sex & whacking off, or of their parents or siblings doing the same.

And so far, despite all the dire predictions of massive kid-porn spying, there's not one iota of evidence for any of it.

[noamnety]

122. If that were the extent of the empathy of the school officials

I would call them sociopaths.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence of your ability to understand the damage this can cause to the victims - the entire focus of your post is plaintiffs, respondents, evidence that is "admissible in court."

Do you seriously not get that finding out someone's secretly had a camera and been taking and viewing photos of you in your bedroom is psychologically damaging?

[Hannah Bell]

130. being as it's the evidentiary phase of a court filing that hasn't even been certified as

a class action, my focus is on *fact*.

not on possible psychological damage done to as yet unknown, unnamed, unassessed & possibly imaginary victims.

But playing that card *is* a good way to demagogue and take the focus off questions of *fact*.

[noamnety]

131. Imaginary victims? You don't think there are victims here? (nt)

[Hannah Bell]

132. reading is fundamental, my dear noamnety.

[Hannah Bell]

211. yep, "rephrasing it" is all you got, i.e. straw.

[liberalhistorian]

188. Holy shit. Are you actually saying that it doesn't matter

if the school used its capability to activate the webcams and took pictures of students in their own bedrooms and in their own homes because they weren't really "naked", and "half-dressed" isn't that big of a deal? Really? Seriously? The fact that they didn't have permission, were invading the privacy of the home and the resulting psychological damage means nothing to you? Holy fucking shit. Are you sure you're on the right site? 'Cause I'm beginning to wonder.

It doesn't matter WHAT they took pictures of in the home, where people were or whether or not they were dressed. The fact is, it remains a GROSS civil rights and privacy violation on the most basic level. And, yes, we DO know what at least some of the pictures showed, and they were from the SCHOOL'S own disclosures.

My parents spent forty years as teachers and they would have been absolutely beyond appalled and disgusted at this and would have had the heads of the school's admins for it. And most teachers I know would have felt, or feel, the same way.

[TorchTheWitch]

197. isn't it evident?

One has to wonder how it is that she is still here. I've seen quite a lot of long time posters tombstoned for FAR less.

[Hannah Bell]

207. holy shit. are you actually producing multiple straw men from your butt?

[noamnety]

96. See, that's the difference between you and I

I am not interested in defending the honor of a group of people who established and implemented a policy of using video surveillance in children's bedrooms knowing that they'd be likely to take photos of the children naked.

That's INDEFENSIBLE. By indefensible, I mean it becomes irrelevant as to whether or not they got off on those images. It's such a gross violation of trust, and it - in and of itself - it such an indisputable violation of the law, that I cannot for the life of me understand why you think it even matters whether an email came out before or after the incident occurred. The email is not the problem. The placement of cameras where private citizens are undressing with an expectation of privacy is the problem.

This is like you saying 96% of the students weren't spied on, so it wasn't "systemic." The 96% isn't the problem, the 4% IS the problem, and it WAS systemic by definition. That was their SYSTEM that the people in power approved.

Going back to catholic priests, people are outraged by the systemic nature of it. That doesn't just refer to the quantity of people abused; it's no help to say that one of the priests didn't molest 96% of the boys in his care. It's that there was a SYSTEM of those in power knowingly covering up the abuse and not reporting the criminals to police, and instead quietly transferring them to other parishes.

That violation (in and of itself, again) should be enough to convict them as sex offenders - same as a school illegally placing a camera in a work locker room - even if they had no intent to get sexually aroused by the images, but only wished to observe for theft purposes. You care more about the intent of the criminal (they didn't seem to be masturbating to the photos) than the sexual offense committed against the victims. You seem incapable of grasping that it's equally traumatic for the victim to be spied on when naked no matter the emotions of the person violating their privacy. That's what I mean when I say you are identifying with the criminal/oppressor, rather than the victim whose rights have been violated.

[Hannah Bell]

101. There was no "policy of using video surveillance in children's bedrooms."

for starters. just to knock off the foundation for the rest of your rant.

[PCIntern]

103. Yes there was...

where do you think schoolkids computers are? In the toolroom? In the ventilator shafts of the bathrooms?

That was the most ridiculous post you've made except for all the other posts you have made.

[tonysam]

106. People, including Matt Drudge, ought to be paying attention to the "spycam" case

out in Sparks, Nevada, where a teacher is caught on camera installing a video recording device in a staff bathroom. This pervert is on PAID administrative while in JAIL on as many as 67 counts.

This is a REAL case where police say he is caught committing a criminal act, not some fantasy story:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=219x24033

It's one of the most disgusting cases I have ever read involving a teacher, especially in light of the double standard of what I went through over nothing.

[Contrary1]

151. "Thus blowing out of the water all the pervy scenarios constructed by DU posters."

Maybe, maybe not. Why are you so willing to accept this as truth, and dismiss all other articles?

"I don't expect any acknowledgement of the fact from the scenario-constructors, however."

You have stated you were waiting for the facts. Why is this article more believable to you than any other story that has surfaced?

[TorchTheWitch]

186. Hannah has now admitted she doesn't really accept this as truth

See her post #184...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8207503&mesg_id=8217816
"yes, i'm well aware that cafiero is protecting her own ass first & trying to shift whatever blame may come to others. that's life under capitalism, every asshole for himself."

She admits she believes Cariero is an asshole out for herself and is protecting her own ass first and trying to shift blame to others.

So we know now that Hannah is knowingly defending what she herself doesn't accept as the truth and has admitted in writing right in her own thread defending Cafiero (and by extension the school) that Cafiero is an asshole out for herself and is protecting her own ass first and trying to shift blame to others.

[Hannah Bell]

202. unwarranted conclusions much?

"Hannah is knowingly defending what she herself doesn't accept as the truth"

[TorchTheWitch]

209. you own it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8207503&mesg_id=8217816
#184 "yes, i'm well aware that cafiero is protecting her own ass first & trying to shift whatever blame may come to others. that's life under capitalism, every asshole for himself."

[olegramps]

183. The intent isn't the issue.

I believe many people would have a concern about having a computer that could take photos in their home without their knowledge. Isn't that really the issue?

I don't believe that those operating the system had any intent of spying on people. It was a stupid choice to make when there were other means of tracking the computers. At least they should have notified the parents that the computers had that capability since there was a possibility that it could be misused. It is hard for me to imagine that those in charge didn't consider just how damaging such a possibility could be to the school district. Well, now they have to deal with it.

[dionysus]

191. this surveillance crap must make you fondly remember mother russia or some shit.

:rofl:

[PCIntern]

193. just the latter, methinks..

:hi: