Reply #96: See, that's the difference between you and I

[noamnety]

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.