Reply #174: without the webcam tracking how could they spy on people?

[TorchTheWitch]

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.