Re: Tenn. Parents Sue School Over Cameras

[Poop Dogg]

"fuller" wrote in message >...
>NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- A Tennessee middle school allowed security
>cameras to film children undressing in locker rooms and then stored
>the images on a computer accessible through the Internet, according to
>a lawsuit filed by a group of angry parents.
>
>The lawsuit filed last week in federal court in Nashville seeks $4.2
>million in damages.
>
>The parents contend the school system violated students' rights by
>putting hidden cameras in boys and girls locker rooms at Livingston
>Middle School. The cameras reportedly captured students, ages 10-14,
>in various stages of undress.

The parents should have been more active when the school district
originally proposed putting cameras in the schools. Chances are,
the parents were simply told that "security cameras" would be
installed in the schools, something bound to garner no opposition.
They probably never imagined that the schools would do such a
reprehensible thing, especially considering that there are already
various laws prohibiting security cameras in areas where people
have a reasonable expectation of privacy - places like bathrooms
and changing rooms. The parents definitely have a lawsuit and
the school and district officials should face criminal
prosecution as well, addition of child pornography charges would
certainly be in order as well.

[Donna Metler]

"Curtis CCR" > wrote in message
om...
> "Poop Dogg" > wrote in message
>...
> > "fuller" wrote in message >...
> > >NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- A Tennessee middle school allowed security
> > >cameras to film children undressing in locker rooms and then stored
> > >the images on a computer accessible through the Internet, according to
> > >a lawsuit filed by a group of angry parents.
> > >
> > >The lawsuit filed last week in federal court in Nashville seeks $4.2
> > >million in damages.
> > >
> > >The parents contend the school system violated students' rights by
> > >putting hidden cameras in boys and girls locker rooms at Livingston
> > >Middle School. The cameras reportedly captured students, ages 10-14,
> > >in various stages of undress.
> >
> > The parents should have been more active when the school district
> > originally proposed putting cameras in the schools. Chances are,
> > the parents were simply told that "security cameras" would be
> > installed in the schools, something bound to garner no opposition.
> > They probably never imagined that the schools would do such a
> > reprehensible thing, especially considering that there are already
> > various laws prohibiting security cameras in areas where people
> > have a reasonable expectation of privacy - places like bathrooms
> > and changing rooms. The parents definitely have a lawsuit and
> > the school and district officials should face criminal
> > prosecution as well, addition of child pornography charges would
> > certainly be in order as well.
>
> I agree that the placing of cameras in a locker room is probably
> illegal (I don't know about TN, but I am pretty sure it would illegal
> in CA unless certain safeguards were in place). But the notion that
> it amounts to child pornography is quite a stretch. The idea that you
> could get that to stick is pretty far fetched. There may very well
> have been some perverted intention on the part of somebody involved,
> but unless you can prove that the people behind this were doingthis to
> get their rocks off, it amounts to criminal stupidity and that's about
> it.

And often the cameras are placed because of vandalism, which locker rooms
and bathrooms are prone to. My school does have them outside the doors of
such rooms, but not inside, AFAIK, specificially so that if vandalism
occurs, there is a record of who might have been responsible, and it can be
narrowed from there.

I'm guessing this was stupidity on the part of whoever placed the
cameras-outside the bathroom, OK, Inside, dumb.

And I can't imagine why those records would be accessible via the internet.
Our tapes are archived for X number of months (I think 3), and never are
looked at unless there is some cause to do so. If there has been a problem
in a specific area (like someone messing up the bathrooms during lunch)
someone might watch that specific camera at that specific time to get
information, but otherwise, they're really not used.

[Poop Dogg]

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message ...
>I agree that the placing of cameras in a locker room is probably
>illegal (I don't know about TN, but I am pretty sure it would illegal
>in CA unless certain safeguards were in place). But the notion that
>it amounts to child pornography is quite a stretch. The idea that you
>could get that to stick is pretty far fetched. There may very well
>have been some perverted intention on the part of somebody involved,
>but unless you can prove that the people behind this were doingthis to
>get their rocks off, it amounts to criminal stupidity and that's about
>it.

The laws vary, but generally they define child pornography as pictures
of children nude or engaged in sexual conduct. I inadvertently saw
a nude child picture some asshole included unmarked in his Kazaa
collection. I considered it to be kiddy porn and sent him a message
saying so (I promptly erased the file and sterilized my hard drive).
Some woman was even arrested recently after a Wal-Mart employee saw
a picture of a 2yo child sitting naked in a kiddy pool. So my
contention is that any images of a child in a state of nudity can
be considered child pornography. At the very least Tenn. prosecutors
should throw in the child porn charges in an attempt to get a plea
bargain favorable to the state.

[Gordon Burditt]

>The laws vary, but generally they define child pornography as pictures
>of children nude or engaged in sexual conduct. I inadvertently saw
>a nude child picture some asshole included unmarked in his Kazaa
>collection.

This, I think, includes the possibility that I could be arrested
for having a nude picture of *MYSELF* as a baby (and when I was a
baby in the 50s I don't think such baby pictures were considered
particularly unusual or shocking, including the baby-on-a-bear-skin-rug.
Offhand I don't know where that scrapbook is, or whether there are
any actual nude pictures in it.

>I considered it to be kiddy porn and sent him a message
>saying so (I promptly erased the file and sterilized my hard drive).
>Some woman was even arrested recently after a Wal-Mart employee saw
>a picture of a 2yo child sitting naked in a kiddy pool. So my
>contention is that any images of a child in a state of nudity can
>be considered child pornography.

Not only that, I believe that you can be arrested for pictures of
naked CARTOON children, regardless of the actual age of the cartoons.
If the cartoons portray them as children, even if they look like
they qualified for Social Security 50 years ago, it's still kiddie
porn.

>At the very least Tenn. prosecutors
>should throw in the child porn charges in an attempt to get a plea
>bargain favorable to the state.

Gordon L. Burditt

[Joni Rathbun]

On 3 Jul 2003, Gordon Burditt wrote:

> >The laws vary, but generally they define child pornography as pictures
> >of children nude or engaged in sexual conduct. I inadvertently saw
> >a nude child picture some asshole included unmarked in his Kazaa
> >collection.
>
> This, I think, includes the possibility that I could be arrested
> for having a nude picture of *MYSELF* as a baby (and when I was a
> baby in the 50s I don't think such baby pictures were considered
> particularly unusual or shocking, including the baby-on-a-bear-skin-rug.
> Offhand I don't know where that scrapbook is, or whether there are
> any actual nude pictures in it.
>
> >I considered it to be kiddy porn and sent him a message
> >saying so (I promptly erased the file and sterilized my hard drive).
> >Some woman was even arrested recently after a Wal-Mart employee saw
> >a picture of a 2yo child sitting naked in a kiddy pool. So my
> >contention is that any images of a child in a state of nudity can
> >be considered child pornography.
>
> Not only that, I believe that you can be arrested for pictures of
> naked CARTOON children, regardless of the actual age of the cartoons.
> If the cartoons portray them as children, even if they look like
> they qualified for Social Security 50 years ago, it's still kiddie
> porn.

The SC knocked that one down a year ago:

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition

"The Supreme Court struck down a congressional ban on virtual child
pornography today, ruling that the First Amendment protects pornography or
other sexual images that only appear to depict real children engaged in
sex."

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16075

[Poop Dogg]

"Gordon Burditt" wrote in message ...
>This, I think, includes the possibility that I could be arrested
>for having a nude picture of *MYSELF* as a baby (and when I was a
>baby in the 50s I don't think such baby pictures were considered
>particularly unusual or shocking, including the baby-on-a-bear-skin-rug.
>Offhand I don't know where that scrapbook is, or whether there are
>any actual nude pictures in it.
>...
>Not only that, I believe that you can be arrested for pictures of
>naked CARTOON children, regardless of the actual age of the cartoons.
>If the cartoons portray them as children, even if they look like
>they qualified for Social Security 50 years ago, it's still kiddie
>porn.

I believe that the Supreme Court ruled in the last several years
that even photos of clothed children could be considered child
pornography if the images seem to focus excessively on the groin
area. But the SC ruled last year that simulated images are
protected, I suppose it would cover the cartoon images you describe.
This led to an outcry that perverts would soon be generating tons
of computer-simulated pornography depicting fake children engaged
in sex (I have yet to hear of any encounters of such porn).

I still can't figure out what the pervs see in kiddie porn. I
occasionally stumble across an image posted to adult binaries
newsgroups and they are not the least bit stimulating. Less
sexually stimulating than looking at a goldfish, in my opinion.
These people are freaks and need to be locked up. I do, however,
realize there is a difference between child pornography and
images featuring under-18 adolescents who are otherwise sexually
mature. Nevertheless, the laws explicitly state that such
minors are jailbait, though someone shouldn't be blamed if they
inadvertently possess such an image believing the subject to be
over 18.

[Elizabeth Reid]

"Poop Dogg" > wrote in message >...
> "Gordon Burditt" wrote in message ...
> >This, I think, includes the possibility that I could be arrested
> >for having a nude picture of *MYSELF* as a baby (and when I was a
> >baby in the 50s I don't think such baby pictures were considered
> >particularly unusual or shocking, including the baby-on-a-bear-skin-rug.
> >Offhand I don't know where that scrapbook is, or whether there are
> >any actual nude pictures in it.
> >...
> >Not only that, I believe that you can be arrested for pictures of
> >naked CARTOON children, regardless of the actual age of the cartoons.
> >If the cartoons portray them as children, even if they look like
> >they qualified for Social Security 50 years ago, it's still kiddie
> >porn.
>
> I believe that the Supreme Court ruled in the last several years
> that even photos of clothed children could be considered child
> pornography if the images seem to focus excessively on the groin
> area. But the SC ruled last year that simulated images are
> protected, I suppose it would cover the cartoon images you describe.
> This led to an outcry that perverts would soon be generating tons
> of computer-simulated pornography depicting fake children engaged
> in sex (I have yet to hear of any encounters of such porn).

Actually, I don't think this was the worry. I thought this was
stupid too initially. What, we're going to prosecute people
for looking at fake pictures? What next, if we catch you
fantasizing about something illegal we'll lock you up? All those
people who like playing first-person-shooter games get
put away for mass murder?

However, while the case was being debated, I heard a law prof
talk about it on NPR and he brought up what I thought was a
good point. Apparently the problem is that if simulated images are
legal, anyone prosecuting a child porn case might be called upon to
*prove* the images aren't simulated by producing the child in
question. As simulated images get more and more realistic, failure
to prove that an image involves a real child might convince a jury
that there's reasonable doubt about a crime being committed,
allowing child pornographers to go free (since it'd be nearly
impossible to find the child a lot of the time).

This seemed less stupid to me. I don't know if it's actually
happened yet though.

Beth

[Donna Metler]

"Jim Kent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2 Jul 2003 15:44:39 -0700, (Curtis CCR)
> wrote:
>
> > But the notion that
> >it amounts to child pornography is quite a stretch.
>
> People are being sent up the river for less. The paragons of
> intelligence in this current misadministration and their band of
> congressional hypocrites would like to outlaw photoshopped images of
> adults that are made to look underage.
>
> Frankly, I think they ought to be charged with kiddy porn since
> there's a nonzero chance that that's actually what they had in mind.
> I'd be happy to convict them.

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

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

[Dave C.]

>
> There's a pretty high probability that the group which came in and
installed
> the cameras (and probably selected the locations) works out of the central
> district office and has never looked at a single feed from the cameras
since
> testing to make sure they worked. Usually maintenance is controlled at the
> district level, not the school, unless we're talking a one school
district,
> in which case they probably hired someone.
>
> I can't understand why there would be a need to have the record accessible
> via the internet, though. Our security cameras store to tape, and are
reused
> after a few months.
> >

The major CCTV (closed circuit television) manufacturers have stopped
producing the kind of VCR (time lapse) that is used to record video from
video cameras. You might find one or two still available for sale, but it
would be like shopping for a vinyl record player. If you asked for one, the
person you are buying from would likely ask you why you want it. Now video
cameras are hooked up to digital hard disk recorders. These are similar to
TIVO and the like, but they are the professional version. They store gobs
of video in digital format on a hard disk drive. Many of these hard disk
recorders are based on a personal computer of some type. Many of THOSE are
networked, so that the owners or renters of the CCTV equipment can monitor
video cameras or even review video remotely, over their own network or even
the Internet.

It makes the most sense when you are monitoring many buildings located in
many different locations. If you have an "incident" to review, you don't
need to travel to where the incident happened, or wait for someone to send
you a copy of the tape. Just log onto your local area network, or even the
Internet in some cases, and review the video and/or copy it to your local
computer.

On a side note, take VERY good care of your time lapse video recorders. If
they break, they will be very costly to repair, and replacing them would be
.. . . . well, you don't want to know. -Dave

[Donna Metler]

"Dave C." > wrote in message
thlink.net...
> >
> > There's a pretty high probability that the group which came in and
> installed
> > the cameras (and probably selected the locations) works out of the
central
> > district office and has never looked at a single feed from the cameras
> since
> > testing to make sure they worked. Usually maintenance is controlled at
the
> > district level, not the school, unless we're talking a one school
> district,
> > in which case they probably hired someone.
> >
> > I can't understand why there would be a need to have the record
accessible
> > via the internet, though. Our security cameras store to tape, and are
> reused
> > after a few months.
> > >
>
> The major CCTV (closed circuit television) manufacturers have stopped
> producing the kind of VCR (time lapse) that is used to record video from
> video cameras. You might find one or two still available for sale, but it
> would be like shopping for a vinyl record player. If you asked for one,
the
> person you are buying from would likely ask you why you want it. Now
video
> cameras are hooked up to digital hard disk recorders. These are similar
to
> TIVO and the like, but they are the professional version. They store gobs
> of video in digital format on a hard disk drive. Many of these hard disk
> recorders are based on a personal computer of some type. Many of THOSE
are
> networked, so that the owners or renters of the CCTV equipment can monitor
> video cameras or even review video remotely, over their own network or
even
> the Internet.
>
> It makes the most sense when you are monitoring many buildings located in
> many different locations. If you have an "incident" to review, you don't
> need to travel to where the incident happened, or wait for someone to send
> you a copy of the tape. Just log onto your local area network, or even
the
> Internet in some cases, and review the video and/or copy it to your local
> computer.
>
> On a side note, take VERY good care of your time lapse video recorders.
If
> they break, they will be very costly to repair, and replacing them would
be
> . . . . well, you don't want to know. -Dave
>
OK-that makes sense. My district has a habit of using antiquated equipment
until it falls apart. I do have to wonder why you'd be monitoring a school
remotely-I can't imagine that someone actually sits there and watches the
cameras daily. I know in mine, they aren't even looked at unless there was a
break in or vandalism-just archived and collect dust until the date passes.
It's mostly the deterrent of seeing the cameras. And my district has an
intranet, so if something was being monitored off site, it would go through
the intranet, not the internet.

The only reason I could see having such a system in a school hooked to the
internet would be for parents to be able to monitor what is going on in the
classrooms, like some day care centers have-which might not be a bad idea,
come to think of it.
>

[[email protected]]

In article >,
"Donna Metler" > wrote:

> I can't imagine that someone actually sits there and watches the
> cameras daily. I know in mine, they aren't even looked at unless
> there was a break in or vandalism-just archived and collect dust
> until the date passes.

So then, some kid who's seen Mission Impossible could spray paint a lens
and nobody would notice until the little vandal finishes up his dirty
work?

[Dave C.]

> wrote in message news:bearclaw-
> > I can't imagine that someone actually sits there and watches the
> > cameras daily. I know in mine, they aren't even looked at unless
> > there was a break in or vandalism-just archived and collect dust
> > until the date passes.
>
> So then, some kid who's seen Mission Impossible could spray paint a lens
> and nobody would notice until the little vandal finishes up his dirty
> work?
>

Yup. I used to service CCTV equipment as part of my job. It always amazed
me how so many companies would throw hundreds of thousands (millions, even)
into CCTV equipment, and then have nobody watching most of the cameras.
Reviewing the tape (or video on a hard disk recorder) is only good if the
video camera caught what you want to watch. In most incidents of interest,
this requires a HUMAN BEING to be aiming the video camera at the exact
moment of the incident (the better ones can be aimed remotely, IF there is a
human being to operate them). I imagine the equipment in schools is
probably monitored less than the equipment in retail locations. -Dave

[P. Tierney]

"Poop Dogg" > wrote:
>
> Some woman was even arrested recently after a Wal-Mart employee saw
> a picture of a 2yo child sitting naked in a kiddy pool.

Many arrests are tossed out well before trial, and the above
is likely to be one. There won't be a conviction.

> So my contention is that any images of a child in a state of nudity can
> be considered child pornography.

The fact that it can be considered such by a few doesn't mean
that it will stick legally. You are making a leap, much like the one
in the Wal-Mart situation, that will not pan out, imo.


P. Tierney