General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2194913

    “Big Brother”


    by lovicott ·

    “Big Brother”
    I work at a school that just implemented a new device that records key strokes and notifies of profanity and when a user visits a xrated website. The school is up in arms over this. There have been little signs put up saying “Big Brother is watching” secret meetings the whole nine. Is it a bad thing that we are monitoring out students and teachers. is it a bad thing that we are stopping students and teachers from visiting xrated, My space, the favorite chat programs, and many others. Last month the show Nightline aor a series that used MySpace anfd other sites like it to lure in potential predators. i say ptoential because thay were caught before anything could happen most of the guys caught knew they would be there to meet an underage youth. Who is the “bad guy”?

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3074037

      In larger interest

      by dpkchauhan ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Since it is in the larger interest for both students and teachers, the monitoring is justified, only how it is implemented will decide whether they take in a positive or negative way.
      Take them into confidence and educate them, particularly the students.
      Alternately you can bar undesired “sites” on your server.

      • #3076060

        Refreshingly calm

        by raelayne ·

        In reply to In larger interest

        I have to say, I found your comment — compared to some below — to be sensible, dpkchauhan.

        Come on boys, don’t you have anything better to do with your time than surf porn and look for ways to sneak swear words into your passwords?

        And don’t tell me it’s the principle of the thing — people don’t get excited about the principle until it’s about something really politically important, like bad people telling you how to spend your time at work …

        • #3075768

          What is so special about …. CYBERSPACE

          by sirlanse ·

          In reply to Refreshingly calm

          They are in a school looking at materials that
          are not appropriate for school. If is it drooling over National Geographic, or IED designs what difference does it make that it is on a “magic box of technology”? So many of you are just in complete awe of the tools. GET OVER IT.
          Computers are just tools, the internet is just a bunch of info. No magic, no special place that the rules are different. If you are not allowed to view kiddie pron at home, you can’t do it in “cyberspace”. If you aren’t supposed to be talking to your friends, you can’t do it in cyberspace. If you are supposed to be doing research, you are supposed to be reading in the library, not taking to your friends in “cyberspace”. The schools are not restricting what they can do in some mythical magical realm. They are directing what they children are to do in the library and in class.

        • #3074522


          by pete1978 ·

          In reply to What is so special about …. CYBERSPACE

          swwg69 is completely correct. Why isn’t anyone complaining because their kids cannot check playboy out from the school library? Answer, because NOBODY expects that playboy would be available in the school library. If I have to explain that expectation to you, forget it … you’re beyond hope.

          Remember when you were in school and we didn’t have a PC on every desk. Were you allowed to pass notes (profane or not)? No. If you were caught, the note might be read to the whole class and IF the note was inappropriate according to the teacher’s standards, you could plan on detention, a visit to the office, Mom and Dad being called, etc.

          Nothing has changed. We have just started applying the same rules to cybermedia. And remember, unlike the note you could not pass in class or the Playboy you could not bring into school — both of which you owned — the school owns the PCs and, by virtue of ownership, has the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with the PC.

          So all the Big Brother conspiracy folks hitting on this one, get over it. This isn’t Big Brother watching what you do walking down the street, this is a school protecting their investments. Wouldn’t you do the same?

        • #3074485

          Cyberspace is another classroom and requires a diferent teaching approach

          by pheck ·

          In reply to What is so special about …. CYBERSPACE

          I agree with the general principles that you mnetion in your post, but would like to suggest that the ‘tool’ of ICT means that there are going to be fundamental changes in the way skills and knowledge are going to be delivered and taken up. Sure, we should put some parameters in place, but it is worth remembering that this tool will also allow for some really new ways for teachers and students to interact, so we need to provide some filters, witout being overly restrictive.
          It’s about education and helping people make appropriate choices.
          Surely that’s what education is about. If we encourage facilitated inquistion of knowledge then we can help the students make positive choices. The societal norms should be applied in the types of filters that are put in place, without being overly religious, morally righteous or cultural/racialy exclusive; we live in the developed democratic world and our education systems should reflect that.

        • #3074368


          by gabrielbear ·

          In reply to Cyberspace is another classroom and requires a diferent teaching approach

          cyberswpace, workspace, learning space…etc.
          ok. if a =1/b then it does.
          along the x, y, or z axes.
          somebody might wanna look at the supremes opinion of why >prayer< cannot be outlawed in school: "there will be prayers in schools as long as there are math tests". this sets an array boundary. the principle of elegance requires another array sdet at "u cain't watch porn on company/school/library time-space." these "free speech"/big brother discussions are therefore, hmmmm. segmentation faults. and there is an effort to get them deep into the source code of the social contract.

        • #3265306

          refreshing and accurate view

          by colingbradley ·

          In reply to What is so special about …. CYBERSPACE

          Like it.

          You have put things in perspective that all the daft legal words fail to address.

          Reverse the viewpoint and it all makes sense.
          Good one!

        • #3265295


          by absolutely ·

          In reply to What is so special about …. CYBERSPACE

          I wish I had read this earlier! Way to cut to the chase!

          If your parents don’t buy you a computer of your very own, and you don’t choose to buy one with the money you earned on your paper route (if you’re industrious enough to hold a job), don’t expect unlimited, unmonitored use of the computer I bought you!

        • #3075634

          what are priniciples?

          by giannidalessismo ·

          In reply to Refreshingly calm

          are you kidding? seriously, I cannot tell from your post. your last
          paragraph is either entirely facetious, or you do not understand
          that “principle of the thing” is what is known as a Platonic ideal: it
          is a principle; can you think in the abstract? Do you understand
          what a slippery slope is? What are “principles” to you? ARE YOU

        • #3074543

          Obviously Not Educated in U.S.

          by sendbux ·

          In reply to Refreshingly calm

          Many people don’t understand what free speech is for, or what it protects.

          Most of us raised here consider it a precious right, and not one to be truncated by either state or private action. The First Amendment stands different from, for instance, the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unlawful searches, which CAN be “infringed” by private persons in certain circumstances with relative impunity, whereas the State is not permitted to do so.

          Free Speech is what we fought for in WWII. It is what we fought for in 1776. It is one of the most important rights we own, and a school has no right to infringe on it, without some competing interest which “trumps” free speech.

          There are very few interests that do, and they usually amount to “Fire!” in a crowded theater and the like.

        • #3074494

          Free speech?

          by archimeides ·

          In reply to Obviously Not Educated in U.S.

          As a Citizen of the United States by birth I believe that the right to free speech is a fundamental concept, a cornerstone to the concept that is our democracy.
          However it is not now nor has it ever been a “right” of free speech to spend a school’s (or any other entity) resources on the kind of personal activity that is being discussed here UNLESS THE SCHOOL ALLOWS IT.
          While considering the ramifications of the “slippery slope” you might also consider the fact that the underpinning of our democratic society happens to be it’s capitalistic economy. Free enterprise folks, that means that a business – any business (and certainly a school is) has a complete right to control it’s assets in any way it sees fit. There’s plenty of case law to back that one up. I don’t think there’s any “BIG BROTHER HERE”.
          I do think we’d better keep an eye on “homeland security”, congress, and the other branches of government that seem bent on REALLY impungning our rights.

        • #3264973


          by sully ·

          In reply to Free speech?

          So many people make stuff up about infringes on perceived “rights” when they mix emotions with logic. This original topic being about a school flags me with the thought, why would we allow access to these sites, IM unrelated to learning, cell phone usage, etc. seems to centered around curing a fear. It would be great if educators together developed a context that transformed these “fears” into lessons that demonstrated an oportunity to learn the technology that runs the schools systems.

          These systems are the property of the school, yes; and should be maintained however the administration feels fit, yes; however, where is the place in this discussion about the lesson to the children who are there to learn from every experience they encounter? If knowledge is the key then a good place to be is at school.

        • #3264929

          Not about rights but about wrongs

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Bravo

          The roiginal post said “I work at a school that just implemented a new device that records key strokes and notifies of profanity and when a user visits a xrated website”. This says nothing about stopping access to these web sites, IM or chat – it speaks about recording what is entered to use the information for a later witch hunt AFTER the access has been made.

          Most agree that there is no need for students to access IM, chat, or inappropriate web sites (eg porn, bomb making); most would also agree that the best way to manage this is to block access to them. What we object to is the use of an intrusive technology that does NOT stop access to them, but enables people to see EVERYTHING that a person does on the computer.

          The method is akin to place video cameras in every room in your house that records everything, and then allowing the police unrestricted access to come along and check those tapes when they want and then charging you with any little infraction that they PERCEIVE to have happened via the visual evidence. And such evidence can not really tell the difference between a poorly done roll-your-own cigarette and a marijuana cigarette – so they charge you for using marijuana.

        • #3264746

          That’s a bit extreme…

          by jinxsm ·

          In reply to Not about rights but about wrongs

          The school records the keystrokes, akin to sound on the video instead of perceived visuals. School computers, government computers, corporate computers, it’s all the same. They own them, they make the rules. You want your bandwidth taken by your children porn surfing while you’re into a web project?
          If the student or teacher is ‘caught’ on the wrong website or using profanity, ask yourself the same question the IM folks should ask… Is it a legit use? There could be some research taking place that requires access to and use of ‘those’ resources and is completely ‘straight up’.
          BTW, the cops would have to PROVE marijuana in that case, though…

        • #3264734

          Hey Jinxsm – max post level reached so

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Not about rights but about wrongs

          I am responding here. I suspect that you are missing the main point in all this, so I will try again. But first, I do not think it is appropriate for students at school to be accessing chat, IM, or porn – I accept the point you made about specific research, in such a case special arrangements can be made for a specific time and a specific machine. But generally no porn, IM, or chat for students – can we at least agree on that.

          The best way to handle this is with a blocker at the gateway as it STOPS access from happening – I think we can also agree here.

          What was propsed was a keylogger which does NOT block any access but provides a record for later examination. It also records people’s IDs and passwords so there is no longer any security or evidence that the person who made the access is the one whose ID was used. Not everyone has to be savvy enough to do this, just one or two who can show others or use the process to implicate others. The breach of password security means that you can no longer prove who did what, as in my cigarette example you can not prove what is in it. However, in the school they appear to be taking their keylogger entries as gospel and are ready to convict on that flawed information.

          Another important point is the original post implies that the only signs warning of the process have been ones put up by those who protest the key logger system, not the school.

        • #3264693

          You’re wrong, Ernest.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Not about rights but about wrongs

          Deadly Ernest: “The method is akin to place video cameras in every room in your house that records everything, and then allowing the police unrestricted access to come along and check those tapes when they want and then charging you with any little infraction that they PERCEIVE to have happened via the visual evidence.”

          In fact, when the public decides that the computers we provide for the education of students is only to be used for what we deem educational, and exercises our right to monitor that use, the methods described are akin to me placing video cameras in every room of my house except the bathrooms, recording everything, informing my guests that upon entry they will be recorded, and then allowing the police the same access to any relevant evidence that they have in any case where there is probable cause or [b]reasonable[/b] suspicion of a crime.

          Nobody should be smoking anything on the grounds of a public school.

        • #3100312
          Avatar photo

          First of all I’m not so sure about that

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Not about rights but about wrongs

          A few years ago a person was arrested for caring a [b]Green Leafy Substance[/b] which the Police Officer believed to be cannabis so that person was arrested thrown in jail as there was over 1 kilo of the substance involved and refused bail on the strength of the evidence given by the Prosecution to the Court.

          The substance in question was Green Peppermint Tea in a sealed box which clearly stated the contents. It was the police officer who opened the box and arrested the person for caring suspected Cannabis and it was the Crown Prosecution Service which failed to mention that the substance was in a sealed box that had just been bought from a herbal remedy shop. Although to be fair to them they may not have been told that bit of information.

          The result was an Innocent person sitting in a jail cell for 8 months the first 4 because the Government Labs where so over worked and understaffed that they couldn’t test the stuff and the second 4 months because the Court System is so overloaded that they couldn’t get a Court Date to have the charges dismissed well actually to get a Court to free the person from custody as that required a Judge/Magistrate to do and because of the amount it required a Judge because it is mandatory to go to one of the Higher Courts to be dealt with the Magistrate who [b]Rubber Stamped the custody[/b] lacked the authority to dismiss the charges as by that time they had already been passed to a higher court which happened the moment that the Magistrate imprisoned the person and before anyone actually knew what was in the bag.

          And before you jump on the Legal System no that’s how it’s going to go even thought the accused person actually told the Magistrate what the content of the plastic bag was this had to be proved before it was possible to allow them released.

          Now if you log teachers key strokes you had better be 120% sure that the keystrokes actually belong to who you think they do as this is a perfect case of a [b]Set Up[/b] in the making. I’ve seen far too many cases of teachers being accused of child abuse sexual and otherwise who have their lives destroyed all on the whim of a disgruntled child who is out to get their own way. In every case it has been the teachers who stop then doing as they please who get accused and even someone with 20 + years in the field will be suspended and hung out to dry while the disgruntled child will be offered counseling and allowed to do as they like to help them heal!

          If you are going to allow this then you had better have some major insurance policy in place to prevent the school going bankrupt when these falsely accused people sue for the damages that they have suffered at the hands of disreputable children. And you have to educate the teachers much better as well and make sure that they log off their terminals every time they move away from the monitor & keyboard. That should cut their teaching time in half constantly logging on and off.

          At the same time you’ll also have to protect the students from similar activity as I’m sure that everyone remembers when they where in School there was the [b]In Crowd[/b] and the [b]Nerds[/b] and it was the [b]Nerds[/b] who constantly got the blame for a lot of the actions of the so called [b]In Crowd.[/b]

          With the ability to destroy someones life in the balance here you have to be way over 2,000% sure of your actions before you even consider accusing anyone of anything and then you have to have a lot more proof before it goes any further. Key Logging just isn’t good enough to do this and lacks any form of security at all.

          If this was to become used for some Legal Action just the Key Logging itself would not be considered as enough evidence of someone actually doing [b]The Deed[/b] all it would prove is that its occurred not who’s responsible. Unless you have other proof that is unimpeachable you have no evidence and a students word just isn’t enough to cut the mustard here as they have been known to be less than truthful when it suits their own ends.

          Of course at the same time you can not have wireless keyboards and mice used as it’s way too easy to cross channel these and even if you have a Legitimate person actually logged on and under supervision it’s always possible for someone else within range to type in what they like and not get caught so the monitored person will take the wrap for someone else’s actions. The only way that this would be picked up is if there was one teacher per student and they could see characters appearing on the screen when their student had their hands well away from the keyboard or mouse. I personally don’t think that the school budgets will actually stretch that far to have 1 teacher per student do you?


        • #3100237

          HAL: “you had better be 120% sure”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Not about rights but about wrongs

          No, certainty is the jury’s responsibility, [b]if[/b] key strokes are recorded that warrant a trial. Then, the jury had better be 100% sure, and had better understand that the logging of keystrokes and association of those keystrokes with a username does not alone constitute 100% certainty. The school officials would be responsible to do more than record one instance of “bad” keyboard entries: they would have to follow the first recorded instance with closer scrutiny of all plausible suspects, and acquire enough evidence to truly be certain. If the school officials treat a single instance of “bad” key strokes as incontrivertible evidence, they are to blame for the wasted time. As your mint tea arrest story illustrates, there is a widespread problem involving the treatment of first impressions and hastily made assumptions as irrefutable fact, but reducing the amount of available information is not the correct solution. Improving the methods by which that information is sorted, queried and analyzed is the correct solution. In other words, determining the truth requires that we [b]think[/b], not that we have an invariant process to follow like idiots.

        • #3100181
          Avatar photo

          Unfortunately thats not how the Law Works

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Not about rights but about wrongs

          Justice isn’t the End Goal of any Court Action Winning is the only acceptable outcome for both sides. With the Adversarial System of LAW there are no winners only losers no matter the outcome.

          Not so long ago many people where convicted on DNA evidence alone as the legal Fraternity didn’t have [b]The Technical Knowledge to Question This New Science[/b] now however things are slightly different but as always laws are now being changed to prevent outside sources to do DNA testing that is acceptable to the Courts and this is being restricted to the Government Testing Labs who are at best suspect in their outcomes. They work to a budget and look for positives and more often than not find False Positives or chose to construe unsatisfactory outcomes as Positives so many people have been convicted on [b]Faulty Evidence that is very difficult to question![/b]

          Key Logging the the [b]Worst[/b] method of any forensic evidence but I’m sure that Legislation will be passed to make it unquestionable as [b]Computers Don’t Lie do they?[/b]

          Every IT professional will tell you different but the average person on the street and in the Bureaucracy who know no better are a different story they particularly the Bureaucrats will always take the cheapest option to get a positive result hence Radar Speed Measuring Devices are accepted without question even though they can show stationary objects at alarming speeds.

          Car speedometers are considered under Law to be Accurate if there is no other information that has a better recording result they are classed as [b]Scientific Instruments[/b] and when this is the sole reason for an action it is always the State Owned Speedio that is accepted as accurate and the other vehicles as inaccurate by the Judge and this is how a jury is instructed.

          Also the worst option here is that this form of blocking is reactive rather than Proactive it allows the offense to be committed and then action started not the other way around and prevents the original action from occurring in the first place.

          If your car had much better handling, Braking capacity and maneuvering ability this is called Proactive Engineering where as sticking things like Air Bags and crumple zones onto an already established design is Reactive Engineering.

          Personally I would prefer to be driving the proactive vehicle than be in a reactive designed vehicle as the chances of being involved in a serious collision is far less. The same applies here with reactive monitoring in this case Key Logging it could even be argued as a form of Entrapment acted out by the Authorities and therefore illegal.

          What’s would you prefer your hard earned Tax $ to be spent on a 2K solution which has no or little maintenance fees or a $2.00 solution with extremely high maintains fees involved. The Bureaucrats will always chose the latter as it makes them look as if they are saving your money when actually they are wasting your money and in much larger amounts that the proper solution would have originally cost.

          I’ve seen first hand the stupidity of Bureaucrats who are only willing to spend 3 times the cost of an item in a repair rather than the 1/3 cost of a replacement item.

          Until you realize that Bureaucrats waste far more money than they actually save you will continue to be paying for costly ineffective solutions that could have better solutions at a lower overall cost.


        • #3265307

          What I would prefer, HAL, would be neither.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Not about rights but about wrongs

          HAL9000: “What’s would you prefer your hard earned Tax $ to be spent on a 2K solution which has no or little maintenance fees or a $2.00 solution with extremely high maintains fees involved. The Bureaucrats will always chose the latter as it makes them look as if they are saving your money when actually they are wasting your money and in much larger amounts that the proper solution would have originally cost.”

          Public schools are a violation of the Constitution’s protection of the right not to be deprived of property without due process. Except as punishment for a crime, the government has no right to take my money. The government’s power to levy taxes does not include giving free rides, free lunches, or free books and lessons to slackers. As long as the slackers are voting to take my money for those things, I don’t care one bit about the quality of schools they have no right to have in the first place.

        • #3265216

          grasping at straws

          by avid ·

          In reply to Not about rights but about wrongs

          school is not home. plain and simple.

        • #3074459

          Fought for Free Speech?

          by feral ·

          In reply to Obviously Not Educated in U.S.

          This is not about freedom of speech and never has been.
          This about the protection of the schools network and ensuring that the students and teachers utilise the resources available in the correct manner.
          You seem to forget, that, at the end of the day the school has a DUTY of CARE to the students and the parents of the students and they are fulfilling that responsibility by ensuring that students only access content for learning.
          I also administer an educational network and while typing this I am processing my proxy logs and looking at which students have not been using the resource for the intended purpose which is learning related.
          Oh me OH my here is a student who has managed a gig of traffic from my network to the Internet via, BLOODY HELL now my department has to wear the cost of that!.
          Well well well look at that this student who is meant to be doing research on monitoring products is hanging out on Anime sites.
          Not on my watch!
          And to hell with their rights, on my network they have the rights and priviledges that I give them in accordance with institutional guidelines for learning and if I have to monitor what they attempt to view and what they view, so I can build a better filter list to ensure that learing is not disrupted because a student wants to upload warez or look at p0rn then that is what will happen.
          Free speech does not come into it.


        • #3074381

          so very correct

          by bluron ·

          In reply to Fought for Free Speech?

          free speach has absolutley nothing to do with monitoring student and staff activitey on nets thru school resources. why should the publics tax dollars be used for anything than what they are intended for. how can anyone justify any activity that does not comply with the curriculum. this is not BIG BROTHER this is common sense. oh yeah i forgot, common sense is hiding out there somewere because we nead to impliment these measures. if they are so intent on wasteing resources, let them do it at their own homes and on their dime.

        • #3074419

          Free Speech?

          by earlkaplan ·

          In reply to Obviously Not Educated in U.S.

          What most people under 60 in the US do not understand is that when you are using the equipment in a place of business, and a scholl is a place of business, you are not free to exercize all of the constitutional rights everyone fought for. The OWNER of the equipment gets to set some rules, not to limit your right to free speech but to limit your right of use of their equipment and bandwidth. Even John Kerry and Ted Kennedy probably understand this.

        • #3074362

          in the interests of science and commerce …

          by sue.hawkins ·

          In reply to Free Speech?

          If we educate/employ in the interests of either science or commerce, management studies show high acheivers do not develop in an openly repressive environment.

          The equipment belongs to the owner – agreed. If the owner would like a little more bang for the buck (especially important in education) let the owner (property tax payer) provide an enviroment that respects privacy and encourages individuality. As a property tax payer, I say teacher, leave those kids alone. Maybe they will learn something, as opposed to children being cruelly exposed to shame and criminalization as the norms (of a society gone wrong).

        • #3264916

          R U nuts?

          by jvstog ·

          In reply to in the interests of science and commerce …

          I don’t know what to say except, go take your piggy bank, break it open and buy a clue.

          Making teachers or others obligated to make sure your child ‘has an environement’ to learn or respect privacy is absurd. That is YOUR duty!

          Maybe if more parents understood this basic fundamental truth these absurd strings would not be necessary.

        • #3264738

          no children, we take it?

          by sue.hawkins ·

          In reply to R U nuts?

          I’ve been raising children all my life, and working in academia for nearly ten years. Next week I adopt two more children.

          Teachers and others are obligated to treat my children with respect because I pay their salary.

          You ignorance is astounding, but not in comparision with your insecurity.

        • #3264691

          AMEN BROTHER

          by archimeides ·

          In reply to R U nuts?

          In this day in age of “somebody’s gotta be responsible for every little thing my kid does as long as it’s not me”. The parents of the “hood ornament” children who thumb their noses at the adults around them who’ve paid their dues – student loans, longevity on the job – certifications and recerts etc, etc. These crybaby parents and their crybaby children most of whom who wouldn’t know how to balance a checkbook or determine the difference between an IRA and a GPA need a heck of a lot more time actually LEARNING and a lot less time SURFING. I have plenty to say about responsibility.
          But you succinctly hit the nail on the head. Responsiblity begins at home just as does learning. What happened to the notion that the PARENT is the PRIMARY teacher in a child’s life????
          Whaaaaaa, so the boss is looking at your keystrokes, what’ve you done (directed at the individual who brought this into the light) that might’ve led the employer to think he (or she) should spend resources on scrutinizing such activity????
          If it were my computer – I’D WANT TO KNOW!!!

        • #3264692

          The taxpayer does not have that ability

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to in the interests of science and commerce …

          sue.hawkins: “If the owner would like a little more bang for the buck (especially important in education) let the owner (property tax payer) provide an enviroment that respects privacy and encourages individuality. As a property tax payer, I say teacher, leave those kids alone. Maybe they will learn something, as opposed to children being cruelly exposed to shame and criminalization as the norms (of a society gone wrong).”

          Just as it is not possible to simultaneously prevent and prepare for war, it is not possible to encourage individuality while practicing collectivism. The best lesson about individuality to teach in this case is that rights to use property accompany ownership, and that use of others’ property is not a right, but a privilege, which may be conditional, according to the preferences of the property owner. What I consider openly repressive is the claim that I, as a taxpayer, may be forced to fund a public school system where technology that fosters accountability is considered an invasion of an assumed, but incorrect, right to privacy in public.

          “I before e, except after c, etc.”

          You misspelled “achievers”.

        • #3100422

          It’s all in the Constitution

          by sue.hawkins ·

          In reply to The taxpayer does not have that ability

          The US Constitution and the accompanying Bill of Rights is all about collectively encouraging individuality.

          Start with Plato, read political history, go back to Plato.

          Beg pardon for any mispellings.

        • #3100347

          I have been meaning to read “Republic” for many years.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The taxpayer does not have that ability

          Thank you for the reminder.

          I simply believe that it is the duty of government to protect the right to individualism, not to decide, nor even consider, how to “encourage” [b]anything[/b]. I agree completely with your goal of encouraging more independent and rational children, but I do not trust government, especially obtuse, arrogant, bitter, collectivism, tyrannical, entry-level government bureaucrats to be of any value in achieving that goal.

          I apologize for all the adjectives, and their redundancy when juxtaposed with the phrase “entry-level government bureaucrats”, but it was necessary, to emphasize the futility of hoping that a collective-minded collection of virtual non-entities will have any ability to encourage individuality in any way.

          I thought that misspelling of “achiever” was ironic, and suspect you did it intentionally, btw. You seem pretty astute, and I have more important corrections to make than misspelled words, but in this one case I thought it was pretty sassy. My compliments.

        • #3264687


          by archimeides ·

          In reply to in the interests of science and commerce …

          How in heaven’s name does scrutiny = criminalization? Perhaps you should do a little study on the process of and application of law. Our justice system, and this includes for the most part, policy intended at regulation that is not specifically “law” begins as codification. If a regulation is implemented and is subsuquently found to be intrusive or at worst “unconstitutional” then it must be “tested” by being challenged in a judicial or regulatory forum whether in a PTA meeting or at the Supreme Court Level. Seems to me that there’s nothing more educational and/or perhaps more IMPORTANT “educationally” than having this process exposed to children. Having children I (and I dare say the affected employees) exposed to this testing process perhaps in this exact controversial subject might do more to EDUCATE than whining about “Big Brother”. I don’t think anyone said anything about an actual “criminal” aspect to this scenerio. I bet you don’t know the difference between a traffic ticket (infraction) and a misdemeanor (criminal)….

        • #3100430

          crimialization is a social, not legal issue

          by sue.hawkins ·

          In reply to Criminalization?

          Criminalization is when a harmless, albeit distasteful act renders a segment of the population criminals. A good, current example is pot-smoking chemo patients.

          Scrutiny = Criminalization when the scrutinizer tattles. Plain and simple.

          READ, READ, AND THEN READ SOME. Give up thinking, it’s not your forte.

        • #3100381


          by archimeides ·

          In reply to Criminalization?

          Who are you judge whether someone’s forte is anything?
          Are you afraid to look at something simply for what it is? Criminalization is “legislation which makes something legal” – period. I did not see anywhere in the original post anything about criminalization. Your labeling of something as being Criminal is naive especially when the process is nowhere in evidence here.
          I suggest that while you critique my thinking prowess you expose your own fascist thought process and paranoia.
          You might benefit from a little actual constitutional law education.

        • #3100345

          A more rigorous definition of “regulations”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Criminalization?

          as opposed to laws.

          I’m not a lawyer, but have been paying close attention to this distinction since I began poking smot, which I have quit, btw, everybody (say it out loud until you get it. It?s the best thing I can say about pot that this phrase once seemed fairly amusing to me.). I used to believe that drug “laws” were just silly, now I know that they are malicious, and really a separate class of statute called “regulations”, which are by definition incompatible with the Bill of Rights? guarantee of the right to the pursuit of happiness.

          Laws protect people by preventing harmful actions.

          Regulations harm people by preventing harmless actions according to the premise that certain actions that are sometimes harmful may be prohibited as though they are always harmful, which is an irrational curtailment of individuals’ rights to pursue our own happiness (1) as we define happiness, not as you define it (2) to the best of our ability, which makes us happier, better company for you, and more productive, thus more beneficial to society, to the extent that society is competent to profit from productivity. Most of you, apparently, are not!

          Some drug users are thieves. [b]Most[/b] are not.

          Some drug users are rapists. [b]Most[/b] are not.

          Some drug users are murderers. [b]Most[/b] are not.

          All thieves, rapists and murderers should be punished. [b]Most[/b] drug users should not. Except for the few who are truly, intentionally evil, you who have supported the DEA and the war on the poor, disingenuously described by its evil proponents as a “War on Drugs” have done so on the basis of a “plausibility argument” which is contradicted by all data. Unfortunately, neither is scrutinized by many voters, or very rigorously, for reasons I do not understand nor have any reason to discuss. They are your emotions, which makes them your problems, not mine ? until you make those the basis of statutes that make the world more dangerous for us all, and in this case your irrationality absolutely is my business!

          The plausibility argument for drug prohibition is based on symptoms of drug use and your emotional, not intellectual, response to those descriptions. Before you vote again, please examine the “possible side effects” listed on every medicine you have ever taken, or better yet, every one that you know by name. Then compare those side effects to the side effects of illegal drugs [b]as documented in controlled studies[/b], some of which have been conducted on even the most potent “street drugs”. Then, examine all data you can find on drug-related assault of any variety & theft, ie [b]legitimate[/b] “crimes against persons or property”, and see whether all drug users are truly criminals, or just barely more likely to actually be harmful than any sober person.

        • #3100307

          Laws vs regulations — and drug use

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Criminalization?

          First let me say that I do not think this is the right thread for this discussion and if you really want to discuss it, you should start a new thread with a more appropriate topic. I have not posted in response to the message I wanted to as it has reached maximum depth.

          1. Laws are pieces of legislation passed by a legislative body, usually a state or federal body. Many are laws about how people are to act in the community or society, some are on finances – the annual budget is a law as well.

          2. Regulations are expansions on laws where the law has given the administrating authority, usually a govt beaurocracy, the right to make sub-laws on how they go about administrating and controlling their area of responsibility under the law. A common example being the speed law setting out that it is unlawful, while the regulation sets out the amount of the fine and how it is paid.

          3. Many laws and regulations are passed to protect people from other people’s stupidity, many are made to protect people from their own stupidity. And some are made to protect corporate profits because the companies bought off the legislators – The Digital Media Copyright Act is a classic example of that (please start a new thread if you wish to discuss this at length).

          4. Most drug laws are based on the premises that they are harmful in the medium to long term, some can be harmful in the short term – eg a drug overdose. Some drug laws are to protect others – eg driving a care whilst under the influence of certain drugs is unlawful as they can warp your senses – because that is what they are designed to do.

          Some prohibited drugs are harmful and should be banned, some are less so and can be argued for legality. In the end it comes down to a group decision, exercised via elected representatives (when they have not been bought by corporate entities), as to which are and are not acceptable. Then it comes down to do as the society wants or rebelling against the society and taking the risk – if the later don’t bitch if you get caught and punished, you knew what you were doing.

        • #3100270

          Right wrong, moral, immoral

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Criminalization?

          lassiez faire or nanny state, doesn’t matter. Criminalisation of drugs is stupid.
          There are three sorts of drug related crime.
          1) Reduced inhibitions causing someone to ignore the consequences of their actions.
          2) Inter-producer wars to secure market share and a serious profit.
          3) Crimes committed to support a very expensive habit.

          De-criminalise you get rid of 99% of 2 and 3 on the spot, 1 is a lot less of a problem than various people who make money out of 2 and 3 would have you believe.

          Drug problems are serious, but criminalising their use just made the problem worse not better.

          You can be incapable of driving a car if you over do cough medicine. Anybody been done for being in possession of a bottle of linctus ?

        • #3100223

          Tony: 1, 2, 3

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Criminalization?

          Tony Hopkinson: “There are three sorts of drug related crime.
          1) Reduced inhibitions causing someone to ignore the consequences of their actions.
          2) Inter-producer wars to secure market share and a serious profit.
          3) Crimes committed to support a very expensive habit.

          De-criminalise you get rid of 99% of 2 and 3 on the spot, 1 is a lot less of a problem than various people who make money out of 2 and 3 would have you believe.”

          Not only is your #1 a lot less of a problem than people believe, but in the absence of persecution, people’s faculties are less bothered whilst under the influence because we don’t have the added stress of secrecy to bother us.

          Deadly Ernest: “First let me say that I do not think this is the right thread for this discussion and if you really want to discuss it, you should start a new thread with a more appropriate topic.”

          Thank you, for exemplifying the hypocritical approach of all supporters of drug prohibition! In the same post in which you tell me that I’m posting about drug legalization/prohibition in the wrong thread, you include 5 paragraphs of your own on the same subject!

          This glaring logical contradiction leads me to conclude that your contradictions were intentional, and thank you for helping me to make my point, which is: the solution to any problem is best achieved by identifying it precisely, and its causes, in order of statistical correlation. And folks, when it comes to drugs, violence is correlated to [b]more[/b] regulations, not to fewer of them.

        • #3100209

          Absolutely – look at the original post

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Criminalization?

          This thread is about the use of a keystroke logger to manage access to porn sites. One section has split off into other areas and is now covering the use of illicit drugs. This section has reached maximine thread depth and makes further posts harder. I suggested that if you wish to discuss the use or legalisation of drugs then you should start a thread with a title that indicates as such and do it properly. Laws, right or wrong, is not about big brother watching which is the widest way you could interprete the thread title.

          Before you start labelling people about being
          “exemplifying the hypocritical approach of all supporters of drug prohibition” you should try finding something out about them. My post was in response to your post, as is this one, so I responded to your post and all that was in it. I also said you should start a new thread if you wanted to discuss this properly. And you see my being courteous as being hypocritical, that says a lot about your biased view point.

          BTW Here in Australia we have things called Royal Commissions, kind of like the USA Joint House Investigative Committees – in the past I have put submissions to Royal Commission into the Use of Drugs recommending the decriminalisation of them for reasons similar to what you suggest. However, I also recognise that there are problems with ensuring the safety of the other members of the community with regards to the use of many drugs, some illicit some not. This issue is not simple and has many wider ramifications than can be dealt with in two or three short posts.

        • #3100202

          Deadly Ernest: 3, 2, 1…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Criminalization?

          3. I read the original post. I also read the messages to which I replied, one of which asserted something about “criminalization”, then another about regulation, and from there my comments about drug prohibition were part of a smooth segue, and an apt example of the evil inherent in laws that limit liberty but do not address actions that are harmful in and of themselves.

          2. I do not see your “being courteous as being hypocritical,” I see your failure to obey your own advice as hypocritical. Get a good dictionary before you argue this point further.

          1. I’m glad you’re an advocate of decriminalisation, but the issue is, in fact, simple. The behavior of “drug abusers” (“poor abused cannabis, did that smoker hurt you?”) that constitutes a legitimate complaint is not the use of drugs, but choices that only a few abusers make, to harm others or deprive them of property, and those actions are illegal, as they should be, without drug prohibition.

        • #3264985

          Free Speech Includes Responsibility

          by mindtickler ·

          In reply to Obviously Not Educated in U.S.

          There is no such thing as TOTAL free speech. Get on an airplane and yell “highjack” or “bomb” and see how far you get with your free speech.

          With free speech comes responsibility. Responsibility is the reason we don’t use swear words or display pornography around young children.

          By the same token, businesses have a right to protect their systems and limit free speech. If a business allowed kiddie porn at their work site, for example, they become liable for consequences. If a school allows the certain activities, they become liable.

          Think about it for a minute. If your daughter was assaulted by a person they met on myspace you would begin to ask how they began using myspace and it would eventually lead to the school and individual teachers who allowed the activities. Who do you think would be the first to be sued in court? I’ve been a teacher so I know the answer to that one.

          It’s just not worth the risk.

        • #3264922

          Free Speech…

          by jvstog ·

          In reply to Obviously Not Educated in U.S.

          Well, add yourself your long list of those who don’t understandt the concepts and precepts of the 1st amendment.

          Free speech is not included as a ‘right’ as you are utilizing the property of others in your personal ambitions. Nor is it gauranteed in your workplace.

          As an example, I may not agree with unionizing however, if a union thug shows up at my doorstep, I am bound by law to let them talk to my employees.

          I don’t agree with that law, and I feel it infringes my rights, but that is the law

          What you do with either government owned property or the property of others can and is regulated by the owners of the property. Any school (or other government or private institution) may institute restrictions or controls so as to insure proper use and care of that property.

          Now, my opinion as it applies to schools: We have all seen the fallout in the last 8 years of pornographic, violent, inane websites on the mental activity of students. I for one with 2 young children would gladly approve limiting the activities on-line of anyone who is working with or around my children.

          Part of my duties as a parent is to provide a safe environment for my children; both at home and in school. The school system should have had these safeguards years ago.

      • #3075918

        Ben had it right.

        by peter.kelly ·

        In reply to In larger interest

        You shouldn’t sacrifce freedom in search of security, because if you do, you will get neither in the end (to parphrase a great man).

        Teach kids how to defend themselves, how to assess risk for themselves and stop telling everyone that a loss of personal freedom (privacy) is reasonable in the face of danger.

        A society such as ours (that is a democratic one) has to accept that one of the risks of our way of life is that unscruples people might use our liberties to harm us. I’d rather take that risk than allow the western world to become somekind of nanny state that dictates what kind of books I can read, what journals I look at or what sites I can visit, and ultimately what I’m allowed to think.

        • #3075830

          You have it wrong.

          by flappingcrane ·

          In reply to Ben had it right.

          Sacrifice freedom in search of security? These are children, on school property (and I mean both the grounds and the computers), during a school day. If a 14 year old girl pulled out a pornographic magazine in the middle of class and began reading, would it be “a loss of personal freedom” for the school to not allow her to look at it then? Is it a “nanny state” if the school library does not stock pornographic material? By your argument, it should be there and we’ll let kids defend themselves. Yeah, that’s how a responsible society works, by telling kids, “Now don’t look at this,” and then turning them loose. Of course the children, being the completely responsible animals they are, with no curiosity and no desire to disobey because they know their parents and guardians are always right about everything, will not delve into mischief. Why, that’s the only reason we have jails in the first place, because we don’t allow people to do whatever they want. Oh, if only we had TOLD James it was wrong to shoot people!

          That was sarcasm. I was laying it on thick, but I wanted to make sure everyone knows it.

          A society such as ours (which is a Republic, not a Democracy) can’t make sweeping generalizations about situations and consequences. We do not have the same punishment for capital murder as we do for jaywalking. We are talking about keeping pornographic websites out and monitoring how children spend their time IN THE CLASSROOM. I believe teachers, parents, school administrators, and other students have the full right to know everything that everyone is doing IN A CLASSROOM. This is not the same thing as Men In Black performing midnight raids on our homes in search of propaganda against the Motherland. Don’t blow it out of proportion.

        • #3075758

          I could not agree more…

          by tech exec ·

          In reply to You have it wrong.

          I’ve read many of the posts in this thread and am thoroughly disappointed in the apparently very confused responses regarding security, privacy, and freedom.

          I may be considered conservative, but the suppression of profane and inappropriate material from the eyes of our CHILDREN is not an issue of freedom.

          As these kids mature and become ADULTS, they will be entitled to their freedom to view materials to which I may object, but to which I would not limit their viewing.

          But we are talking about a CLASSROOM and the management of the materials to which the CHILDREN are exposed. Get over the freedom issue, those that are touting that here. It is not about freedom. It is about responsible education and responsible upbringing.

          If we controlled everything that EVERYONE could see, then we would be entering into a very dangerous realm of restriction and sensorship. But if any of you (not you Joe) that it is OKAY to let your CHILDREN watch pornographic films while on school time and equipment, then you are simply sick and need help.

          Calm or not, sarcastic or not, conservative or liberal… let’s not use “labels” to debate this issue. Let’s use common sense.

        • #3074468

          I AGREE 100%+

          by lymon1 ·

          In reply to I could not agree more…

          THINK!!!! The next generation will already have it bad enough from drugs, gangs, etc. What we teach,or allow, our children when they are young, there is a great possibliity that the evil
          thay see will stay with them into adulthood. Porno movies can help warp a mind into what it sees; as abuse is ok; depending on the movie; killing is also ok; and I could rant on but won’t. As I have said before, IF it helps the security of my country(USA) and it’s citizens, which include my family. Let :Big Brother” monitor what I do on the internet, even monitor my phone. A “Black Hacker” is probably monitoring it anyway!! I have nothing to hide from the government, but I wish harsher penalties were placed on “Black Hackers” when they are caught regardless of the nation they are caught. WEll that’s that!!

        • #3075701

          You make an incorrect assumption

          by dbreeden ·

          In reply to You have it wrong.

          This guy is a tech support so I assume he is an adult and in a college or university of some kind. What you say may apply to minor children, but not adults.
          Academia is the crucible of newness. It is a special place that must have special freedoms, especially to explore. Unfettered freedom can be a problem. You want it limited, but what and by who? History shows that no one is qualified and the only ones that want to are control freaks or people that want to exploit.

        • #3075622

          Your assumption is also incorrect

          by olddognewtricks ·

          In reply to You make an incorrect assumption

          That guy was tech support, so I assume he is an adult, who has a job and is paying taxes to support our schools. Which we, through our arcane system, have developed to educate our children so they can assume a place as responsible adults in our – the adults’ – society. It is not a “crucible of newness” – what is that? It is a training ground for adulthood (not the main one, though, I hope). It is also not a jobs program for teachers; although we tend to give them a great degree of flexibility in how they impart to our children the education WE deem important they are accountable to us. Pornography, gambling, seducing jailbait are not yet an important part of the education I expect to see imparted to the students in schools I support.

        • #3074559

          Not sure you can make that assumption either.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to You make an incorrect assumption

          “This guy is a tech support so I assume he is an adult and in a college or university of some kind.”

          Since he specifically mentions “underage youth” in his post, I would assume a public school.

          I live in a rural area and all of the public school districts in this area (7 in the county) have at least minimal IT tech support staff.

          “Academia is the crucible of newness. It is a special place that must have special freedoms, especially to explore.”

          The world is where you explore. School (talking about primary and secondary)is where you learn how. You are there because you are not yet ready for real exploration. It should be a protected environment.

        • #3074436

          The problem is he didn’t tell us the vital info.

          by dbreeden ·

          In reply to Not sure you can make that assumption either.

          Really, both replys to my post assumed he is in a high school or lower. I made the assumption he was past high school. I think we are both correct given our assumptions, but really, we don’t know. He left out that vital piece of information. There is no way to judge…. Clever bit of ambiguity.
          Enjoy, M

        • #3074392


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to The problem is he didn’t tell us the vital info.

          What is ambiguous about “underage youth”?

        • #3264915

          What one school IT manager did.

          by dbreeden ·

          In reply to The problem is he didn’t tell us the vital info.

          Since I can’t reply below. I’ll reply here.
          You mentioned a site,, that had a problem with underage predation. He said nothing about that being the problem he had. You didn’t seem to read what he said.
          Considering that he said “Big Brother is watching” signs had appeared, I have to assume that could only be done in a post high school class room. These are adults. Their privacy, especially in an academic setting, should not be infringed.
          I also happen to remember some comments from an instructor I had who was head of IT at the college and also a member of the union representing the teachers. He had an interesting problem of an instructor viewing rather explicit adult porn (Nude Greco-Roman wrestlers with erections.) Legally, it presented an enormous legal and academic problem that the administratiuon had no idea what to do with and no idea what all the ramifications were, but they were ugly so they left it in his lap. Now this is real world legalisms, not any wishful thinking. A whole lot of rules came into conflict.
          They had to do something, but any restriction on academic freedom was not going to fly.
          His conclusion was that the best resolution was to give the instructor a computer with an internet connection that was not connected to the school network. That satisfied all the legal requirtements of the situation.

        • #3074542

          Reply To: “Big Brother”

          by sendbux ·

          In reply to You have it wrong.

          The 14 year old girl is in the care and custody of a school which stands in stead of her parents (in loco parentis).

          We are talking about a college. There is no such doctrine to protect the students there, since they are pretty uniformly over eighteen.

          And you’re right, that the school has an interest, but it is an EXTREMELY circumscribed one. And absolutely nothing in the post that started this thread militates to show that that interest is going to prevail.

        • #3074516

          Not a college

          by mllwyd ·

          In reply to Reply To: “Big Brother”

          Later in this thread, the original author states that the purpose of the software is to protect KIDS (his emphasis).

        • #3074517


          by pete1978 ·

          In reply to You have it wrong.

          Two things. Thanks for pointing out to the many that this is a republic. I tire of people calling this a democracy. Revisit your Pledge of Allegence people … “and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands” not “and to the democracy for which it stands.” Nuff said.

          Now, the protection goes beyond what joe-horr stated. Highly graphic web sites (what’s the point of a NON-highly graphic pornography site?!?) use large amounts of bandwidth and tend to be those with the most worms/viruses/spyware/malware that gets pumped onto the PC.

          This means that by barring access to such sites, the school is protecting the bandwidth so that it may be used for its intended purpose — education. Also, by barring these sites, the school is taking a step toward keeping the PC operational so that the next student — the one that was NOT viewing porn — can use the PC as a tool for learning.

          This is not simply an individual rights issue because NOTHING in a school, and I do mean absolutely NOTHING, effects only one person. Your rights stop at your nose. You don’t have the right to crap-up the computer I’ll be using in my next class. The school is protecting my right to a working PC and good bandwidth when they deny you the right to do whatever you want on that PC.

          Those who make the personal freedom argument, why not take your argument a step farther. Why don’t we allow the student’s the right to format the schools PC hard disk drive? After all, stopping them from such action is denying them a right, isn’t it? This idea is no more ridiculous than saying that a student should be allowed to view porn at school on a school PC because of freedom of choice. View porn or format the HDD, both are a choice, both could be protected by rights, and both are blocked in order to protect the rights of EVERYONE else.

        • #3074434

          You also have it wrong

          by peter.kelly ·

          In reply to You have it wrong.

          I’m not advocating porn in schools as a right, but I do think that blocking inappropiate sites is more than sufficient. Monitoring key strokes is an unreasonable intrusion on anyones privacy, including teenagers, and especially on teachers.

        • #3075824

          Ben’s view of public schools

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Ben had it right.

          Most, if not all, of the Founders would have described education provided to all by government mandate as a sacrifice of personal liberty for a bit of security.

          You shouldn’t expect unlimited freedom on equipment provided at state expense.

        • #3075749

          Freedom vs. Security

          by rshanberg ·

          In reply to Ben’s view of public schools

          Let’s also remember that we give up freedom for security every day.

          The law works both ways. The laws that protect us from harm are the same laws that prohibit us from causing harm. We give up the “freedom” to take matters into our own hands in exchange for the protection from someone else doing the same.

          The idea that school children should be allowed to visit any site from a school computer is just not realistic. I’m all for freedom of expression, and a very vocal opponent of censorship, but I’m also realistic. There are limits even to the freedoms of speech and expression. Those limits, believe it or not, are in place for our protection.

          Now, whether or not our laws are effective, that’s a discussion for another time.

        • #3075735

          Liberty vs. Safety

          by dalemarfell ·

          In reply to Freedom vs. Security

          They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
          deserve neither liberty nor safety. — Benjamin Franklin

        • #3075704

          Liberty vs. Safety

          by rshanberg ·

          In reply to Liberty vs. Safety

          I’m familiar with the quote, but it’s either that or we become an anarchistic society with no rules AND no protections. You can’t protect children from pedophiles unless you outlaw pedophilia. Is the government curbing the pedophiles liberty by doing so?

        • #3075616

          Ben’s Quote

          by abrad30 ·

          In reply to Liberty vs. Safety

          I think the operative word in Mr. Franklin’s quote is “Essential” liberty. Is the restriction placed on proprietary equipment by the managers of a public institution an infringement of an essential liberty? The students (and I’m unclear on the educational level) are free to pursue these activities on their own time and place. there appears to me to be no infringement of liberty. If they are minors and unemancipated then they have certain restrictions placed on them by law and custom. If they are adults and citizens then they can vote with their feet for more liberty by attending an institution that does not restrict their access to this information.

        • #3264914

          When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to Liberty vs. Safety

          All the essential liberties are gone now. They have all been legislated away over the years, including an assumed, but never written, right to privacy. (Unless you are aborting a f?tus, that is.)

          A constitutional right to privacy regarding what goes on inside your home and who you communicate with, whatever the methodology, would set this legal system on its ear.

          “When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country” – G. Gordon Liddy

        • #3074374

          The “social contract”, exactly, thank you rshanberg.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Freedom vs. Security

          I didn’t have time to be so elaborate & complete today until I went home from work.

          rshanberg: “We give up the “freedom” to take matters into our own hands in exchange for the protection from someone else doing the same.”

          The single attribute common to absolutely every government is the claim of a monopoly on the legal use of [?????] (*).

          The only question that a citizen may help decide, and only to the extent that he and/or she is fortunate enough to live in a democratic state, is, “According to what criterion should that monopoly be exercised?”

          If you claim that there should be criteria, not a single criterion, I disagree. The only crime I acknowledge as a crime (or the only “sin” if you prefer that word) is [b]coercion[/b].

          *Every government claims a monopoly on the legal use of [b]coercion[/b].

        • #3075626

          at state expense

          by giannidalessismo ·

          In reply to Ben’s view of public schools

          should we expect ANY freedom on ‘equipment provided at state
          expense’? what state? how is said state funded? is this
          totalitarianism or is it a republic? assuming this is in, i donno, the
          USA, theoretically the state is for and by the people. it is or it isn’t.

        • #3264696

          the state is for and by the people

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to at state expense

          The state is already going beyond its promise — securing our rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness — when it provides education, which amounts to assistance in the pursuit of happiness. If you don’t like the terms of that assistance, you have the right to attend any school you can afford.

        • #3100427

          for and by the people? Who’s making the terms …

          by sue.hawkins ·

          In reply to the state is for and by the people

          The state’s promise to whom? Itself??? Are you an American? You say BY and FOR the people. The state IS the people. If I don’t like my own terms, I change them. You talk as if we live in a dictatorship where I have no choice, and then announce yourself as “by and for the people.”

        • #3100343

          Who, indeed, is making the terms?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to for and by the people? Who’s making the terms …

          Yes, I am a citizen of the United States.

          By “the state’s promise” I meant its statement of purpose, in the Declaration of Independence, the [b]the reason[/b] that “Governments are instituted among Men”, is to protect “certain unalienable Rights…Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” I agree that the “Consent of the Governed” is also vitally important, but I also believe that the purpose of the Constitution is to strictly & absolutely delimit the extent to which you may change the terms if you do not like them. The Founders not only remembered the tyranny of King George, they also remembered the historical commonness of tyranny by the majority, and recognized that as [b]equally[/b] evil as tyranny by an individual or minority. No numbers game changes the fact that it is evil to use somebody else’s property for your pursuit of happiness, at the expense, and against the will, of the person from whom you took it. The argument that public restrictions on individuals’ use of [b]public[/b] property is an infringement of those individuals’ rights is the argument of a dictator.

          My argument is based on the rights and limitations in the Constitution, yours is the one that is symptomatic of a wish for tyrannical power. If I wish to borrow your computer, I ask for permission, which you may refuse, or grant according to [b]any[/b] terms you wish. I may then accept, gratefully, or decline your offer. One reason I may decline your offer is that you wish to log my key strokes while I use your computer. I might, in that situation, thank you for telling me of your intention to track my activities, and politely refuse that arrangement. I would never have the right to demand the use of [b]your[/b] computer according to [b]my[/b] terms.

          If you don’t like the terms by which public services are provided, you may decline them, not change your use of public services from a privilege to a right. Your only right is protection from coercion.

          The word “Pursuit” is capitalized in the Declaration to emphasize the nobility of the Pursuit of Happiness. There is no such thing as a free lunch!

        • #3074553

          In other words

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Ben’s view of public schools

          Anything obtained with “someone else’s money” should be expected to come with “someone else’s strings” attached 🙂

        • #3264695


          by absolutely ·

          In reply to In other words

          adunlap: “Anything obtained with “someone else’s money” should be expected to come with “someone else’s strings” attached”

          Or, in other words, “there is no such thing as a ‘free lunch’.”

        • #3100426

          not someone else’s money – my money

          by sue.hawkins ·

          In reply to In other words

          The war is Iraq is not being fought with someone else’s money, and incompetent public school techs are not paid out of someone else’s money. It comes out of my money and your money. What happened to America? Remember … Liberty and Justice, our forgotten friends? And her little sister, Mercy?

          I think this whole thread is about kid-hating, the coolest hate activity in the new millenium, next to mental illness.

        • #3100364

          Kid Hating?

          by jim lit ·

          In reply to not someone else’s money – my money

          I don’t see how asking teachers/administrators to watch where they surf and monitor the systems amounts to kid hating. Limits are put in place for kids out of love and caring not hate.

          I personally am sick and tired of parents who say, “Oh Johnny was just expressing his individuality with his kicking and screaming tantrum”. These are the same punks who grow up still wanting it their way not caring about others. That’s not individuality it’s selfishness. Expecting a town to allow its children to roam the Internet sans monitoring because one or two parents don’t care enough to put limits on their kids and their “freedom of expression” is a little selfish in my mind.

          I love my kids, that’s why I put limits on them. They play nice and when they go beyond the boundaries of what is expected of them and get caught they know what to expect. I think, I hope, the majority of parents feel the same. This is why there are such limits on educational networks.

        • #3100340

          The kids? Who cares about the kids?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Kid Hating?

          Well, I actually do, but they are not the issue, and how I feel about kids as such, has nothing to do with who owns the computers, which is the first issue to recognize. The public schools, and all the equipment in them, are put in place for kids out of love, caring, and motivated, collective self-interest in an educated, intelligent, informed, competent populace. I hope most people will consider the latter the highest priority and most noble reason for education, public or private.

          I love myself and I accept limits because I expect them to apply to you, too.

        • #3100282
          Avatar photo

          ABS not exactly correct

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Kid Hating?

          Many studies have shown that a well educated population is far less likely to blindly follow their [b]Political Leaders[/b] and they are far more likely to ask questions and debate the merits of any Government Action.

          So the ideal in Education is to offer the Bare Minimum while making it appear to be a massive success so that you keep a poorly educated population which will do as you [b]The Government Wants[/b] and think that they are well off.

          It’s a well known fact that Public Schools are underfunded to Hell and back but many people still think that they are doing a good job even if they turn out students who are incapable of reading after 12 + years of schooling.


        • #3100220

          Really, HAL?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Kid Hating?

          I specified “…in an educated, intelligent, informed, competent populace.”

          I didn’t claim that I live in one!

        • #3265294

          I think you need to read it again.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to not someone else’s money – my money

          “I think this whole thread is about kid-hating”

          For the life of me I cannot see how you can come to that conclusion.

          Liberty and Justice? I guess it depends on your definitions. Liberty cannot be had because your liberty might interfere with someone else’s liberty. Justice is punishing someone whose exercise of their liberty interfered with you exercising yours.

        • #3263886

          Allow me to explain

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I think you need to read it again.

          “I think this whole thread is about kid-hating”

          Giving children the impression that they are not accountable but that their teachers are makes a statement about positions of authority and responsibility that will motivate them to shun the very positions that are most important. That statement would be the hateful one to make.

        • #3075811

          The price of feeling safe

          by subee ·

          In reply to Ben had it right.

          Go see the new movie “V for Vendetta” and you’ll see what our society would be like if we let our fears overtake us. Once we allow everything to be censored and controlled by “higher powers”, we lose our freedom little by little…eventually, all that’s left is a lot of security and a society living in fear of security breaches.

        • #3075801

          It all depends

          by compuguru ·

          In reply to The price of feeling safe

          I can see the fear over “big brother” because sometimes when you give the government an inch it takes several thousand miles. I won’t bore you with the ever growing list of freedoms stripped away from the people of this country by our government.

          Having said that, there are very simple solutions to this problem. Public and Private instutions have rights to setup and enforce rules on how their equipment is used. These rules are easy to setup and enforce with web filters such as Dansguardian, Smooth Web, or many other of the shelf firewalls. They block unwanted content and allow people to use the computers in the context they were ment to be used.

          If you want to visit x-rated sites and community sites, buy your own computer and internet connection. Big brother should stop there. No monitoring without just cause and evidence.

          Further, you should not blame MySpace for sexual predators. Where are the parents? When did the government and society become responsible for the actions of our kids? Parents should montitor their children’s internet activities and be responsible for their childrens activities and whereabouts.

          Two things the Government has done lately in a “Big Brother” way:
          1. Getting involved with the “.xxx” tld. They have no business there.
          2. Giving Verisign a monopoly on the “.com” tld. Something that Network Solutions had for years, and when ICANN started allowing other companies register domain names the prices fell and service improved.

          Big Brother – STAY OUT!

        • #3074524

          Well, maybe sometimes. Fortunately, not a Lot.

          by sendbux ·

          In reply to It all depends

          “Public and Private instutions have rights to setup and enforce rules on how their equipment is used.”

          They do? Because of what? Certainly, a private institution has more rights than a public one, but even those are narrow. If they don’t want free speech, they should take the computers away. But here in the good ol’ USA, we have free speech, and it should not be trammeled by fear. Only by real, identifiable threats.

        • #3074454

          Bull Hockey!

          by fractalzoom ·

          In reply to Well, maybe sometimes. Fortunately, not a Lot.

          SendBux said “Certainly, a private institution has more rights than a public one, but even those are narrow.”

          Excuse me? If you are being paid to do your employer’s work, on your employer’s computer equipment, over your employer’s high-speed data connection, then your employer has *TREMENDOUS* latitude in what they can say and do about your activities while using those resources. If agree with an earlier poster’s statement — if you want to be unmolested in your unsavory surfing, do it on your home computer, with your own Internet connection and on your own time.

        • #3075803

          The state is a racket

          by bc98usa ·

          In reply to Ben had it right.

          The state is a protection racket, not much different in kind from any organized crime syndicate. Just as the state fails in its ancillary functions, such as schooling and caring for the poor, so does it fail in its advertised primary function as an institution of protection. That?s why it?s a racket. That?s why it?s a fraud.

        • #3075766


          by graham.powell4 ·

          In reply to Ben had it right.

          To do this is an invasion of privacy QED. They should be taught how to use these fascilities in a responsible way, NOT spied on.

        • #3264694

          QED means you have proven your point

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Absolutely

          But you didn’t even present evidence in support of your claim.

          In refutation of your claim that “To do this is an invasion of privacy,” I present the following:

          What you describe as “this” is public control of the use of public computers, using methods including keyloggers. The public has as much right to dictate the use of its property as individuals have to dictate the use of their own property. There is no right to privacy in public, only in private. There is no right to use the property of others, which by definition includes public property, and when such property is made available, there is no inherent right to expect that such use is unconditional nor private.

          If I loan you my computer, I have the right to install a keylogger on that computer, and not tell you about it. If I sell you a computer, I do not have the right to install a keylogger on that computer, and not tell you about it. Public schools make public property available to the individuals attending and employed there. They do not transfer ownership of the public’s property to the students and employees of the school. The state has every right to enforce our appropriate usage rules using keyloggers, because we collectively own those computers being used at public schools. The individuals using the computers have no rights of ownership to any of the public facilities at the public schools they attend, and no more claim to a right to any control over that property than each of the taxpayers. By installing keyloggers, the taxpayers are merely reminding the students and state employees using these publicly owned computers that the public owns the computers, and makes them available to individuals for educational use defined by the public, not by the individual users’ whims.

          Any expectation of privacy in a public school, outside of a lavatory or locker room, is irrational. That, sir, is how a premise is proven.


        • #3100424

          where is the love?

          by sue.hawkins ·

          In reply to QED means you have proven your point

          No, you may not loan your key-logging computer without telling a person it is bugged, any more than you may record a telephone conversation without forewarning.

          It called entrapment and it is illegal.

        • #3100341

          That is private.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to where is the love?

          The location of “the love”, in all seriousness, is none of your damned business!

          I may do anything I want to my computer, and you have no [b]rights[/b] while using it unless you are the legal owner of it.

          It is called my property, and that is absolute.

        • #3100370

          Pure an Simple

          by archimeides ·

          In reply to QED means you have proven your point

          TRUTH, unimpeachable pure and simple.
          Laws exist because people can’t or won’t control themselves. As long as such controls stay within the confines of such necessary controls I’m all for it. But then I’m also one of those who think that the concept of Freedom OF Religion is not the same as Freedom FROM Religion. The latter being one of the erosions of my freedom being foisted on me (and I think US) via minority opinion through government. I think the connective tendrils of this are intricately being woven in ways that are NOT in the best interest of “freedom and security”.

          Way off track though I suppose….

        • #3075763

          It’s not about YOU!

          by billinge ·

          In reply to Ben had it right.

          I don’t believe the school is telling teachers and students that they can’t visit porn sites and use curse words. The school is telling them that they can’t do it on school time and/or property. To tell a student that they cannot pray or talk about God at school is supposed to be O.K. but, it is fine for them to seek out porn and distribute profanity is O.K. is not the message we want to send to our youth or teaching professionals.

          With two-thirds of graduating seniors unable to pass an 8th grade math test I can’t see where they would, or should, have time and resources to dwell in the porn world.

        • #3075643

          Not sure of your “right”

          by f’jarr foss ·

          In reply to Ben had it right.

          Schools are not democracys, nor are they “free”. You are there to learn and are given assignments you must complete and are graded on them. You are given choices within your ability to intelligently make them. Pick your own subject, but WRITE THE REPORT.

          Privacy? You do not now have the right to have your own private arsenal or drug supply in your school locker. Same with porn on your computer.

          Oh…BTW…We are a Republic, not a Democracy. They teach that in schools.

          “Nanny state”. Nannys (are you Brit?) seem like a good idea for children (which are what you find in schools – not fully cognitive equiped adults.

          Once your grow up and no longer require a Nanny or any supervision you can read what you want…but while your little pea picking mind is still without the ability to make critical decisions (happens about age 25) you will need and society will need some one to guide you and to protect itself. Yes, protect itself. Lots of interesting stuff on the Internet that someone without a real grasp of results and repercussions might just try out of pique, anger, or curiosity.

          Judgement comes with age and experience and most teachers and parents have the goal of giving you experience but ensuring you survive the process. (and that they do too)

          So… think and do as you wish… when you becomme and adult and fully understand the concept of consequences. Until then… Teachers, Parents and many others (the villlage thing) will try to protect your sorry ass from the more tragic errors.

        • #3074442

          Agree in the broad sense

          by chazprice ·

          In reply to Ben had it right.

          It is accepted in todays society to legislate to protect people from themselves. It is becoming a too “protected society’ in some ways and a big business. This has come about in a cultural & attitude shift as a result of the big push for the individual to have rights above all else. On the other side the rest of us have to be protected from the individual.
          In the old days of “book learning” the control was in the hands of the teachers & librarian. They filtered all available materal. This control has been taken away with the internet and they are faced with the realisation that they have to “teach self control” to those that do not want to be controlled as they believe they have inate rights to do what they want – they are very wrong and need to be educated to understand the ramifications of their attitudes.
          The use of monotoring tools to show them what behaviour modification they need is nessary in todays world of abticated parenting attitudes.
          The education system is getting bogged down trying to do the parental & social work of a large group of todays breaders – who are not parents in the real sense of the job. How we deal with this is an ever changing challenge that no one wants to own.
          So each educational place has to undertake what they see is best suited for their social environment and avialable resources to deal with issue as best as they can.

          Who are we to be critical of thier efforts – are we prepared to do it for them – No
          So we should be supportive and provide a range of solutions that are free and work in these situations

      • #3075896


        by laurenceallwork ·

        In reply to In larger interest

        In most cases educating the users is the best way. If they get a better understanding of the situation then they can make their own choices and take their own risks (if that’s what they want).

        What was it the Thomas Moore said in the play “A Man for all Seasons – ” . . and when you have torn down all the laws in the land to get to the Devil, where will you hide when he turns on you?” or something like that.

        If you remove your privicy rights then anyone can have access to your life. Block trouble, don’t look for trouble.

        • #3075696

          Come on

          by edwhite ·

          In reply to Education

          When you were in high school an had that neat adolesent mind, didn’t your curiosity start to peak. Now I’ll let you guess how old I am by my answer. When I was in High School the only sources we had were “girly Magazines” and health books. Now, with the internet, anything goes. My kids have more access to things than I could have ever imagined when I was a teen ager. My folks used to monitor my behavior by knowing where my brother and I stashed our girly mag’s. So what has changed. Technology has allowed us to look for the hiding places. Those who want to know what their kids are doing and use the information properly to foster the growth process of young minds are really with the issue. Those who want to punish need to rethink what it is they are doing to the future values of our society.

        • #3074528

          Trouble is Distracting, Education is conditioned respose

          by jackintheback ·

          In reply to Education

          If a married couple pay taxes and people with children recieve earned income credit on taxes, Who is paying to condition who’s children?
          Get your hand out of my pocket and don’t blame me for the actions of others. I’ve ben punched in the face enough.
          If I’m done with my job,I improve my surroundings, I don’t brag about how easy things are, I complain about how inadequate my methods are. I don’t look to someone for answers that are staring me in the face.
          aren’t the schools in poor maintenace, TELL THIS FOOL TO GET OFF HIS ASS AND FIX SOMETHING.

      • #3075872

        Other considerations also apply

        by nicknielsen ·

        In reply to In larger interest

        He didn’t specify, but if he works in a public school system, there are other points to consider:

        Since most students are minors, they are legally incapable of making their own decisions, regardless of their actual capabilities. For these minor students, the schools act as the parent during the school day (what the law calls “in loco parentis”). Therefore it is the job of the schools to protect students like a parent would while school is in session, usually using blanket policies for things such as internet access.

        Use of computers in schools is a PRIVILEGE, not a right; the student must use the computer wisely. Most school systems have some form of network use agreement signed by the parent and older students. This agreement specifies the conditions under which the student can use school computers & network access. Violations of this agreement can result in loss of computer privileges.

        Classroom computers with network access divert student attention more often than not. When I taught computer repair, I often intentionally disconnected my classroom from the school network with no loss in instructional capability and great improvement in student attention.

        Finally, as a taxpayer, I expect school computers to be used for school work. Email, chat, MySpace, games, and porn don’t have anything to do with school work.

        • #3075853

          Re:Other Considerations

          by purecoffee ·

          In reply to Other considerations also apply

          You couldn’t have said it better. School is school, you want to chat, e-mail, go to MySpace or Waste of Space then do it on your own time.

          Porn is a time killer and doesn’t add any value to education. Furthermore it has no place in the Corp world.

        • #3075781

          No one disputes monitoring – just the method

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Other considerations also apply

          Keystroke monitoring is resource intensive and can be avoided by a knowledgeable user. Most corporations use simple software that works at the gateway and blocks access to sex sites, chat rooms etc. Since this is on a computer that the user cannot access they cannot get around it. It also uses much less resources than the logger approach.

          Using a keystroke logger is the sort of approach a control freak like Stalin or Mao Tse Tung would use.

          The intent is good the method is wrong.

          I just remembered an old example of the gateway approach that a keylogger would never have picked up. Go back about 10 years and virtually all commercial web site were http://www.????.com, very few had the country code after them. A British publishing house calle Whitehouse registered – they printed ‘glamour’ and soft pron magazines. Many schools had students access the govt website as part of learning to use the Internet – the intended web site being However, many kids would type .com instead of .gov as they were more familiar with the .com addresses – result a soft pron web site. Some schools resolved this by entering a line on their school dns server which converted to no problems after that. I believe the USA govt have since bought the .com address as well.

          NB: some schools REQUIRE students to use computers for certain assignments – that makes it a right. I have heard of assignments being refused because they were hand written – the student came from a poor family and had no home computer.

        • #3075705

          good reply!

          by peter_es_uk ·

          In reply to No one disputes monitoring – just the method

          I agree with your post so whole-heartedly.

          You put sweeties down at pushchair height at the supermarket checkout don’t act surprised when junior reaches out and grabs some.

          Removing the temptation of porn sites, game sites, etc at the gateway is technically easy and removes the need usage snooping.

      • #3075727

        There is an argument “if its available then it’s ok”

        by peter_es_uk ·

        In reply to In larger interest

        It’s a bit like supermarkets putting sweets at the checkout at baby-in-pushchair height. It’s incitement!!!

        If you want to bar people from looking at specific sites then bar the site at the server – the technology is there. There is no excuse for spying on people.

        There is something wrong about a society that deliberately sets traps to see if somebody will fall for it – I always did have problems with that ‘apple in the garden’ story …

      • #3074394

        I hate the aspect of Monitoring – However we dont go to School to View Porn

        by zczc23119 ·

        In reply to In larger interest

        I think the School has it right in principle, however the way the are monitoring Key strokes is nothing short of invasion of privacy.

        Any X rated site should just not be accessible ? Every school, not just this one, should employ content filtering to both students and staff.

        Before you start yelling at me, I dont think of ANY organization spends a great deal of money in providing the infrastructure, management and expansion so that people can view X rated sites OR have any type of access to chat rooms.

        Just because we have the technology and the information that the Internet brings does not mean any school student and I would extend this to Business should have unrestricted access to it.

        Where does anyone get it in their mind that unrestricted access to the Internet is essential or even an assumed right in a school or even a Corporate world.

        I am certain those parents paying school fees for their children to be educated and those companies who are paying staff hourly to sit in chat rooms would have the same view.

        We have been educating and conducting business since time began ? without the Internet. Now we certainly can learn a lot from the vast quantity of information to the students desk or in business communications,sales and advertising sharply more productive.

        The way to keep it safe is NOT to monitor keystrokes, – that IS Big Brother.

        Its not very difficult to employ very efficient content filtering and/OR restrict access. You can even install programs that have bad words dictionaries.

        Quality of life, and the world as we know it is NOT going to grind to a halt if the Internet falls over.

    • #3074026

      Corporate rights – but very confrontational

      by deadly ernest ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      The school has the corporate right, and responsibility, to see that inappropriate use of the system does not occur, but this is an extremely provocational way of doing it. There are much easier and cheaper ways to get the same result. The keystroke monitoring software will require a lot of someone’s time to check and is very invasive and denies any privacy.

      The aims of the system should be to stop access to unapproved inappropriate web sites and abusive language, right.

      Most mail client and web browsers now have built in controls to eliminate inappropriate language.

      There are dozens of applications that can be placed on the gateway server that monitors website access and can easily be set to bar access to black listed websites. So when you see someone access one that is not appropriate you add it to the black list and bar future access.

      There should be no need for staff or students to access chat or IM programs outside the school, so just block those ports at the gateway. This allows the use of chat and IM within the organisation but blocks exterior usage or access. The unaproved web based services like this can be put on the web site black list.

      Even the students have a right to say what they like in their personal diaries or to use what passwords they want. A very common soft way of releasing anger re systems is to use abusive passwords, and that is really their business and no one elses.

      The keystroke business can also lead to other problems. I once worked in a place where a fellow could not not send emails to a close friend in asia due to excessive monitoring and managing software – it eliminated the emails as abusive as the asian gentleman’s email address was ifuk@…. his name was Ian Fuk (and old and not uncommon asian name.) The system must have some way to allow sensibility of use. Excessive and confrontational controls like you mention are just a clear statement that they do NOT want the students or staff using the school system at all.

      I would not be surprised to see the students rally and refuse to utilise the school IT system, and then where will the school be. The students won’t get as good grades as they should and that will adversely reflect upon the school and the teaching staff. Also the low usage rate of the system would ague against any future upgrades or expansion of services and staff – it would argue for reductions of them.

      • #3073941

        Reply To: “Big Brother”

        by sbrooks ·

        In reply to Corporate rights – but very confrontational

        The normal process of assumption of innocence has been reversed in many so-called security related issues lately. We used to assume that everybody was inncoent unless caught doing something wrong, the current process automatically assumes guilt, and therefore everybody must be constantly monitored to prevent them committing crimes.

        The basic security precautions should be taken as suggested above at the gateway, blocking udesirable applications and ports, after all you don’t leave the house unlocked when you go down the shops, but by the same measure you don’t have a private eye constantly watching your neighbours in case they step foot on your property.

        The presumption of innocence is important to society, the presumption of guilt is not just Orwellian, it suppresses creativity, innovation and development. Basically the school is teaching the students to distrust everybody, but trust is an important factor in our social lives. Students grow and respond to responsibilty and trust and learn to become responsible members of society, the exact oposite happens when they are surrounded by suspicion and distrust. It is a very dangerous step to take, not just in terms of IT Security, but for social development, for which schools are very much responsible these days.

        Forget the IT side for now and consider the social implications for the future.

      • #3076611

        Ernest, and making the STAFF look bad

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Corporate rights – but very confrontational

        I think your right about usage going down, but that will make the STAFF look bad for failing to “instruct” the students in using the computers without showing the root cause of their refusal.

        The implimentors will be the ones to suffer, not the students.

        While this is justified and legal, it does seem like the IT-Nazies running around on a power kick more than concern for the safety of the children.
        I HATE IT-Nazies.

        • #3076445

          Too true – other options available

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Ernest, and making the STAFF look bad

          The idea of key stroke logging is clearly the thought of a control freak as there are so many other options available that would allow easy reasonable access to the Internet for approved purposes without being so intrusive.

          As someone who has worked on secure Internet gateways and set up these systems I have had to deal with that classic arguement of what can and cannot be done on corporate assets. The basic line is that they belong to the owner and they decide what can and cannot be done as they are legally responsible for what they are used for to some extent.

          However, in every work place situation you are also allowed some basic privacy, especially during breaks and can usually leave the premises at breaks (if time permits). Also you have chosen to work there and can always quit and leave. That is NOT the case for the majority of school students, they are made, by law, to go there and are usually not alowed to leave during the day. Despite this they should be allowed some measure of privacy for drafting personal correspondence in their free or break time. The keystroke logging invades this privacy.

      • #3075861

        Old to us, but new to every high school class

        by nicknielsen ·

        In reply to Corporate rights – but very confrontational

        “Even the students have a right to say what they like in their personal diaries or to use what passwords they want.”

        One of my students decided he was going to have some fun with the school network on the first day of school as everybody was signing on and creating their new passwords. Ignoring the instructions for creating an eight-character password, he spoke his new password out loud as he typed it in: P…E…N…I…S and pressed enter. The system response was (of course!): “Password too short!”

    • #3073933

      Passive monitoring

      by amberhaze ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      I manage computer networks for a number of schools in our area. One common thing we have implemented is Deep-Freeze which takes care of the spyware and virus side of things.

      The second part of our standard practice is what is applicable in this case. We use a monitoring program which does screen captures sliding scale depending on amount of activity. it will go as often as 1 frame per second, or 1 frame every 5 minutes depending on the level of usage… ie no changes to screen, less frames shot.

      These “movie” files are stored on the server in a controlled area and are “spot checked” by senior staff for possible problems. Also, in the event there is any problems with a student or staff member, the files associated with thier use can and are reviewed.

      This practice has averted several predator situations, several bullying situations, and a few other incidents which ended up being turned over to local authorities.

      I am a vocal proponant of privacy, however when it comes to our children, I think the fact that this program saved at least one (and in fact several) children from negatively life altering events makes the social cost worth it.

      It should be noted that it is the policy of the programs I am involved it to not persue transgressions which are not life threatening and are otherwise legal. IE if a kid happens to go to a porn site, they are not going to have the system come down on them. (Although it is against the “official” accepted uses policy) However if that visit leads to inappropriat contact from a possible predator, then action is taken.

      • #3075699

        Your school allowes the site past the firewall – you are as guilty as the c

        by peter_es_uk ·

        In reply to Passive monitoring

        It is technically feasible to bar these sites at the gateway – if you do not you are negligent in your duty of care.

    • #3075228

      Who runs the school?

      by ground controll ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      What’s wrong with “Big Brother” watching what’s going on with “His” equipment and money? Schools are there for learning. If the teachers and students want to go to chat rooms and X rated sites… let them do it at home on THEIR computers where no one will be watching them.

      • #3075907

        Who’s network?

        by blotty58 ·

        In reply to Who runs the school?

        The line we take with the students is that it is school equipment and that it is a priveledge for them to use it. This also goes for the storage of illegal MP3s on OUR servers taking up OUR storage space.

        • #3075895

          That is not really the case any more

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Who’s network?

          Here in Australia many schools require that the students use computers to research and prepare assignments. I have even seen cases where students got down graded because they did not have the Internet at home and were unable to use a computer to finalise a ‘nice’ presentation for the teacher. When asked about this the teaching staff, and school management, state that the students have Internet and computer access at school.

          In such cases use of the equipment is a neccessity not a privilege, and in regards to technology the Australian schools usually follow that of the USA schools.

          BTW how is the keylogger going to differentiate between the use of the word ‘sex’ in an electronic form for gender, or the use of ‘sex’ in a biology paper, or the use of ‘sex’ in any other context.

        • #3075889

          Reply To: “Big Brother”

          by blotty58 ·

          In reply to That is not really the case any more

          The priveledge is freely given and would be denied to no-one using the school equipment for legitimate purposes. These do not include playing games, viewing porn or listening to illegal MP3s. The line is quite a clear one and I would have thought it is quite a basic principle that when using someone elses property you respect it.

    • #3075137

      More network monitoring is necessary in a school environment

      by swohlers584 ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      I am sorry, but I have very little sympathy for your complaint. In response to your concern:

      1) It is a ?corporate?, taxpayer paid, computers and network. They have a legal right to make sure it is being used for education and not entertainment or diversion from the task at hand – either teaching a child to think as well as a child or teacher to research or educate more completely. IM should be blocked completely.

      2) In today?s litigious society, it seems that every reasonable technological protection should be employed. Barely a month goes by where the print media has some sensational story about a teacher having some sort of inappropriate relations with a student, child porn, etc. or a child bringing a gun or worse to school intending on harming someone or protecting themselves from a bully. If they intend on having computers in the school, this software is probably what is reasonable to protect themselves.

      3) Unless you are doing something wrong, why are you complaining?

      Slightly off topic:

      Although there is a great deal of educational information on the internet, I am opposed to computers even being in schools as I believe it diverts the focus from teaching and learning – with some exception to some of the educational programs more likely on CD/DVD these days. There are exceptions where there is a teacher who can really use it as a tool, but this is often not the case. I know a number of teacher that are technologically inept, but very good at explaining/teaching. Google is not the only way to research and other ways are being pushed aside and may not taught. I believe in the ?Feed a person fish and they will eat well tonight, Teach a person to fish and they will know how to feed themselves the rest of their life?. Schools need to teach critical thinking, how to research, looking at multiple resources to find answers – not how to look things up on a computer.

      A computer is a tool, no more, no less. As a teacher a number of years ago taught me, ?If all you have is a hammer in your toolbox, all your problems start to look like nails?.

    • #3075099

      Big Brother Reply

      by tknepper17268 ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      I don’t think it is a bad thing to stop the students and teachers from entering such websites. I think that people that enter these sites at a work or school have something wrong with their heads.Even if you think that just chatting isn’t a concern it is how many of these teachers are married and if at college how many of these students are married? Well in case they don’t know it if they are entering into these sites talking about hooking up or flirting and or entering the xrated websites and they like what they see then they are in one form commiting adultry because to lust with ones eyes is the same as doing the deed. I am not some crazy spiritual Guy. But I belive that at certain places such as School,Work,and Government places there should be hard penelties for entering these sites and there should be a program to watch this also That is a good thing. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to give my opinion.

      • #3075719

        Not a crazy spiritual Guy my a**

        by gregh ·

        In reply to Big Brother Reply

        The hell you aren’t “some crazy spiritual Guy”. When you justify Big Brother actions as necessary to prevent moral decay (as you define it), then yes you are a dangerous religous nut case. A school/business is justified in restricting use of their equipment to defined purposes, which I doubt would include visting porn sites. But we don’t need nut cases like you trying to force your particular flavor of morality onto others. Live your life virtuosly as you define it, and others may follow your lead. My life life decisions are between me and my maker. He will “judge the quick and the dead”. As for you, mind your own business and don’t act as if you are the arbitor of God’s will.

    • #3075097

      Probably Least Intrusive Form of Monitoring

      by wayne m. ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Though some of the details are missing, this sounds like the most unobtrusive means of monitoring.

      I do feel the school has a responsibility for the way its resources are useand it is not acceptable for the school to do nothing. Having a computer system without a man in the loop monitoring activity seems to protect the privacy of those making legitimate use of resources. What is unclear is who is notified. Is the notification a pop-up to the user, a keyboard lock-out, a message to the system staff, or what?

      Of concern to legitimate users would be the policies around access to the logged keystrokes. How long are the keystrokes kept? Are they stored on disk or sent over the network? Are they encrypted? Who has access to the keystrokes? Can the user purge the keystroke buffer? The keystroke buffer will contain user names, passwords, credit card numbers, and other identifying information. The system must be set up to adequately guard against disclosure of this type of information.

      I think an approach based on automated monitoirng of keystrokes with adequate access control would be the most benign method of monitoring system access. I believe this would protect the rights of the innocent while admitting some are not quite so innocent.

      • #3075090

        Not so inobtrusive

        by amberhaze ·

        In reply to Probably Least Intrusive Form of Monitoring

        While I am a proponent of monitering, I do have a problem with Keystroke monitering as it opens up a huge liability and security hole. Specifically, if someone accesses thier bank account (including staff doing buisiness for the school) the account id and password are being recorded. This becomes a point of both liability if the information ends in the wrong hands, etc.

        I much prefer the method I described above in my earlier post whereby passwords and so on are only recorded as the *** that they appear as on screen. The important info re activity is still being recorded without creating the potential for security problems.

        • #3076605


          by jellimonsta ·

          In reply to Not so inobtrusive

          The key stroke logging is not so great an idea.

        • #3076540

          Not so inobtrusive

          by lovicott ·

          In reply to Not so inobtrusive

          In the system implemented where i work it only records key stroke combinations. If I was to type F U it would begin to record after the word is finished F U N it realizes that it is not an offensive word therefore no report will be filed. On the other hand if a perons password is offensive it will report that person.

      • #3075013

        School responsibility is no right to intrusiveness

        by deadly ernest ·

        In reply to Probably Least Intrusive Form of Monitoring

        The school has a responsibility to protect inappropriate use of its assets. However that can be done with simple gateway controls not excessively intrusive keystroke logging. The trouble is that most schools will not set up a gateway and use only a modem router for Internet access – that has no security at all.

        School students are required by law to stay on the school grounds when not in class (with very few exceptions) and they often have free periods and break time for personal activities. The schools usually allow the students to use the computers to write essays etc and also personal notes.

        The system in the original post means that someone in the school is going to spend time looking at everything the students do on the computer, and inappropriate use of staff time, and thus breach the personal privacy of the students.

        Simpler and easier is another computer as the gateway set to block access to IM, chat and inappropriate sites that are black listed. It can even be set to monitor what sites are used that are not on the ‘white’ list and they can be reviewed on a regular basis. This will stop the inapproopriate access on the Internet and not invade student privacy.

        If they insist on invading student privacy then they should allow the students to leave the facility and go where they like when they do not have classes on.

        • #3075746

          No “right” of privacy at issue here…never was

          by mr l ·

          In reply to School responsibility is no right to intrusiveness

          There is no right…or reasonable expectation of…privacy at issue here. Implied, explicit, or otherwise, it does not exist. These students have no right to privacy while on school grounds (actually, they have no inherent right to privacy elsewhere either). As long as they have a parent, legal guardian, or someone standing in loco parentis (i.e. the school and its agents) that entity has the right to inspect, examine, pry into, spy, you name it. This is not new, this is not anything related to the internet, they never had the right to expect privacy to begin with.

          You can not invade something that does not exist.

          Anyone begging to disagree is more than welcome to engage in a dicsussion…but please bring something beyond your emotional “Oh yes they DO have a right to privacy!” with you when you come…like case law or some accepted interpretation of the constitution…

        • #3074525

          here’s an emotional response

          by bigdorkpeter9 ·

          In reply to No “right” of privacy at issue here…never was

          my rights no more depend on the laws and constitution of a particular country than iraqi rights depended on saddam hussein’s constitution. elites create laws and structures to benefit themselves and use ideology to get people to accept things as they are. nobody would be willing to fight and die for corporate profit or dick cheney, that’s why it’s called “freedom” and “democracy” (respectively).

          the nature and scope of rights is the subject of debate, but rights inhere in each of us by virtue of the fact that we’re human beings.

          welcome to reality. i don’t want my kids not to swear or be exposed to sex. i want them to do it intelligently and when it’s natural and when they’re ready–not when the school is ready or i’m ready. and i sincerely hope to have taught them well enough to make good decisions and to swear at the right people, just as i hope that each day they benefit themselves and society by bringing good into the world.

          i strongly expect my kids to be protected from predation, but not to have their keystrokes logged every time they type fcuk or p0t or whatever into instant messager. that’s called spying. if my kid’s keystrokes were being spied upon, i would do everything practical to stop it, while encouraging them to apply creativity and brainpower in figuring out how to circumvent, stop, or protest it themselves. i’m not raising sheep here. rather, i want to raise intelligent, critical, and active social and moral agents.

          it’s the school’s business to educate and protect but not spy or limit a child’s use of language in private conversation. there’s even a limit as to how much it’s *my* business. i don’t care that other parents want their kids to not be exposed to sex or profanity until they’re 40. that’s not *my* morality, that’s yours, so keep it in your church and your trailer where it belongs and be prepared to use that college fund on therapy instead.

          block p0rn and whatever else you want at the firewall and bring my kid’s other actions or violations to my attention so i can deal with it myself.

          as for keeping files like mp3s on school HDDs, i would hope that educators realize that a good way to encourage kids to learn about technology is through some of the ways it can be used for fun. at the company i work for people make part of their living my ensuring the supply of streaming media (yes, even p0rn). on the other hand, a really superb and nearly foolproof way to discourage kids from learning is through the use of unnecessarily restrictive policy.

          all right, call me a shocking moral relativist godless communist sex-crazed libertarian hippy now. i’m waiting. don’t call social services, though, since i don’t actually have any kids yet. but when i do, they’ll be little hackers. white hat, i hope.

          (wow, my first post to techrepublic)

        • #3264793

          No, no phone calls to anyone…

          by mr l ·

          In reply to here’s an emotional response

          Just a simple reply, Peter…all emotion and rhetoric aside; until or unless the constitution/bill of rights/legal system changes, your little hackers will not have any legally protected expectations of privacy (except the previously bathroom rights…and those have limits) until they reach their legal majority or are emancipated by a court.

          You may think it sucks, others agree with you. If you don’t like it bad enough…home school your little white hats 🙂

        • #3265537


          by bigdorkpeter9 ·

          In reply to No, no phone calls to anyone…

          yeah, of course that’s true.

          if i had to choose between home schooling and having their keystrokes logged, i’d take the logging, of course.

          (i’d hope to be rid of them for at least a few hours a day 😉

          but seriously, the origianl post does call up a lot of issues, at least to me, especially in the times we live in today. (phone & email tapping, cameras on streetcorners, DRM-equipped operating systems 😉 etc.)

          i hope that increased ability to surveil (sp?) doesn’t cause more surveillance without good reason.

        • #3100173

          Here’s something to discuss

          by nighthawk808 ·

          In reply to No “right” of privacy at issue here…never was

          Go read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the writings of Jefferson, Hamilton, Paine, and Franklin, and then tell me you still think the Founding Fathers didn’t think privacy was an innate right. Go on, I’ll be here when you’re done. I’ve already done this, so I’ll be waiting on you to bother to read what they wrote instead of pontificating on what you thought they might have said.

          The reason they didn’t explicitly delineate it in the Consititution is because it was something so fundamental that they didn’t think it bore mentioning–much like they didn’t think it necessary to include instructions on how to breathe–and because it was wrapped up in their concept of liberty, so they thought it redundant. In fact, many of the representatives at the Constitutional Convention wanted the word “privacy” put it so that if a certain moron stole himself an election two hundred years in the future, he couldn’t say that the War of Terror overrides an individual’s right to privacy (which, BTW, is one of the grievances they listed in the Declaration of Independence). They had already been through that kind of BS with King George, and they’d had enough of that attitude that they, “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, … mutually pledge[d] to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”.

          In other words, they were willing to die for something you cavalierly dismiss as nonexistent.

        • #3265297

          I’m glad to discuss that.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Here’s something to discuss

          Provided that we also discuss the views of Jefferson, Hamilton, Paine, and Franklin on the meaning of the words “provide for the general Welfare”. Oops, wrong, that was “[b]provide[/b] for the common defence, [b]promote[/b] the general Welfare.” So, maybe they weren’t communists, would not accept the premise of “public schools”, and would point out that in [b]public[/b], privacy is not a right. The right to privacy exists only in private, not in public.

        • #3265184

          Not really.

          by nighthawk808 ·

          In reply to I’m glad to discuss that.

          That’s the Supreme Court’s interpretation, but that doesn’t mean that interpretation is right. That’s an attempt to have your cake and eat it too–pay lip service to privacy by saying that you can have privacy in private, but make sure the government still has all the power they want by saying that’s not applicable in public.

          But, for argument’s sake, let’s say that that interpretation isn’t wrong. How do phone calls I make from my home and library books I read in my own living room fall under the rubric of “public”, as the Idiot-in-Chief claims? Just because I have to walk into a library to check a book out doesn’t –or, at least, shouldn’t–make that automatically a public matter.

        • #3263899

          Agree with your P2.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Not really.

          I Absolutely will not defend that piece of ****.

          Back to your first paragraph, though, that’s an interesting wedge. My position is that the word “public” literally means “available to all” or “collectively owned”. Maybe the first definition should truly only apply to un-owned or publicly owned spaces that are truly intended for the use of any citizen, while “public schools” and other collectively owned facilities that are intended for a specific, limited subset of the population require a different definition.

          I do know that I’m not in favor of giving children free run of tools that are billed to me, but I won’t argue for unlimited government power anywhere, ever.

          Good points.

        • #3263866
          Avatar photo

          So ABS under that definition of Public

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Not really.

          Do you realize that lot covers everything not directly owned or operated by your Government but everything that is available for the Public to have use of?

          That of course would mean that it is perfectly acceptable to intercept every electronic transaction that is ever used be it E-Mail, Web Browsing, Chat Room activities or even your Local Banking when you ever use it right?

          You have a far too limited sense of the words and meaning of [b]Public Property[/b] and need to drastically improve your outlook on life in general. 😡

          Col ]:)

        • #3265619

          I realize that HAL

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Not really.

          HAL9000: “Do you realize that lot covers everything not directly owned or operated by your Government but everything that is available for the Public to have use of?”

          Yes, which is why I am willing to even discuss this point: maybe I [b]was[/b] too general in that statement — maybe. But I think kids should be kept on a short leash when using public facilities.

          HAL9000: “You have a far too limited sense of the words and meaning of Public Property and need to drastically improve your outlook on life in general”

          My outlook will improve when my life improves. Nobody is more eager for that than I am.

        • #3265278

          Try “reading for comprehension” next time, eh?

          by mr l ·

          In reply to Here’s something to discuss

          Next time, maybe you’ll read the whole post in context before jumping in and declaring yourself to have answered a comment that was not made. In no respect do I maintain there is no right to privacy in the constitution/bill of rights (nor did I say anything like that), and it is in fact one of the freedoms I protected as a Marine.

          I did say that those “children” do not have the right to privacy vs the rights inherent in parental situations…and in a school, the school stands in loco parentis.

          Do your homework and read what I write next time, before you thoughtlessly reply.


        • #3263889

          “in loco parentis”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Try “reading for comprehension” next time, eh?

          I believe that was challenged a bit during the 60’s & 70’s, but in public schools, for kids under 18, I think it still stands. Any lawyers on the Internet?


          Hmmm. AMBULANCE!!!

        • #3263799
          Avatar photo

          No it still applies

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to “in loco parentis”

          Particularly if there is any form of abuse involved. Even with late teenage children if any sexual act are entered into between someone in authority like a teacher for example and a student even though school College may have finished hours previously when the offense comes to light that will be the wording on the charge sheet.


        • #3265620


          by absolutely ·

          In reply to “in loco parentis”

          If I could tell what you “where” trying to say, I could decide weather I agree or disagree.

      • #3076443

        Key stroke logging is very obtrusive and

        by deadly ernest ·

        In reply to Probably Least Intrusive Form of Monitoring

        the stopping of inappropriate use can be doen more effectively with less use of staff time via the Internet gateway blocking access to the unapproved services and sites. The use of key stroke logging is the type of idea a control freak or a stickky beak would come up with.

        Yes the schools have a right to manage the use of their network but the situation is NOT the same as at a workplace as the majority of students are forced to stay on the premises during breaks and most schools ban the use of private computers at school. So if they wish to draft any correspondence for later sending they have no choice in what they use.

        This draconian approach will discourage the use of the school computers.

        And don’t forget that there is no point in keeping logs unless you intend to review tham and that will take up a lot of someone’s time.

        • #3075698

          Who monitors the monitor

          by keithl ·

          In reply to Key stroke logging is very obtrusive and

          As stated many times here, I can understand the need to protect our children etc. In the use of key logging I am having a big problem here. What if a teacher used a school computer to order some supplies from ebay and paid with a credit card. Who keeps that information safe when using key loggers? Remember key loggers record “ALL” key strokes. There is now a file that has all the credit card info or account info needed for someone who can access that to break and use for identity theft. This is just one example of how the use of keyloggers could create more problems than solve. Block sites, absolutly, key loggers, no way.

    • #3075061

      who’s computer is it anyway

      by rfredtelles1 ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      why is it otherwise sensible people dont seem to realize you visit your personal favorites on your home computer and go to business related sites only when you are at the company workstations.

      Network Admins have every right and infact it is their/our responsability to monitor what goes in on the network unter their care.

      the proliferation of crippling spyware and firuses can be attributed primarlily to people going to unauthrorzed sites

      • #3076140

        As a matter of fact, they are mine…

        by ~omega~ ·

        In reply to who’s computer is it anyway

        Computers “owned” by the school are on loan from the taxpayers who purchased them, thus making the decision as to keylog or not to keylog a democratic one. Unfortunatly, I am sure that the people that made that choice didn’t have or gave themselves the authority to do so, on behalf of the majority.
        I am sure the people using those computers would not agree to have their passwords/usernames in the hands of people who claim “authority for your own protection”.
        But that said, network security is very important, for the mere reasoning of “Who’s keylogger is it anyway?” If there are no protections in place, there are going to be keyloggers running around all over the network, intentional or not.
        I am a huge advocate of privacy, and think that more descrete methods such as proxy, port blocking, and stateful packet monitoring are a much better way to go.

        • #3075819

          Damn Straight Up They Are!

          by johnnysacks ·

          In reply to As a matter of fact, they are mine…

          .. And I pay dearly for them with 30 years of invoices to prove it!
          And I expect they would be used to foster an intellectual curiosity in the students (idealistic as I am).

          There are content blockers that do the required job just fine. If my son were using a forum or blog (like this one), the last thing I expect is a bunch of piss-pot beaurocrats eavesdropping on his posts via a keylogger and formulating their twisted judgements and opinions of him. I’ve sat in enough parent teacher meetings facing the combined onslaught of so-called professionals who are incapable of dealing with an outspoken student trying to coerce me into medicinally lobotomizing him.

          Would you put a bet on whether the state implementing this is red or blue?

        • #3075754

          whos computers?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Damn Straight Up They Are!

          Go ahead and try to tell the school system that they are your computers because your tax dollars bought them and that YOU want full access to use them. I bet you will have a cop escorting you off school grounds for TRESSPASSING before you are allowed to use the computers for ANYTHING.

          Spend some time with your kids, as YOU should be the leader of their “intellectual curiosity”, not the school system. It is called “parenting”. An old fashion idea I know, but it is a classic. Try it, you will like it.

        • #3075744

          Think before inserting…..

          by miles999 ·

          In reply to whos computers?

          OK, first off; in the corprate the mantra is black and white: The corpration is paying for the machines, paying for the bandwidth, and paying your salary so they have every right to do what they please on the network. Second, and here is where it gets a little sticky; in the public environment there is a perception the property is owned by the citizens and subject to their whims and desires. This is only partially true (an attorney needs to provide the exact term here as it escapes me), as in the public sector we have elected leaders whom we have given the moral authority to make decisions on our behalf. If they do not, we elect a different leader. Relating this to education most states have local and state school boards who have been granted the authority by the electorate to make decisions on behalf of the public. They make the policy on your behalf as you have elected them and in that mandate given them the go ahead to make the decisions related to running a school system. So, if they want to monitor the living daylights out of the system then by all means they should. I see no difference here between the sectors on this issue. Please by all means tell me when it is necessary for school employees and students to have access to porn, mp3 sites, etc. as I fail to see the reason. In essence you are telling me there is not enough work to do in the day for both the student and staff so they have time to burn surfing useless sites on the taxpayers dime.

        • #3075674

          one point wrong, Miles999

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Think before inserting…..

          [i]”we have elected leaders whom we have given the moral authority”[/i]

          No, we have given them the [b]LEGAL[/b] authority.

          I am slightly confused why your post is following mine though. Are you agreeing and reenforcing what I put, or is there a point I made that you are trying to contend?

        • #3075713

          hear, hear

          by rob mekel ·

          In reply to whos computers?

          Sometimes I can and sometimes i can’t say things better. This time it’s the latter one. :0

          Even more I do agree with you. 🙂
          What is even more astonishing. 😀


        • #3074554

          If I wanted a fight…

          by ~omega~ ·

          In reply to whos computers?

          They’d have a hard time convicting me for tresspassing on public property. Just because law enforcment is behind them doesn’t make them right, and even if they did somehow convict, they’d still be wrong!

        • #3074414

          when you try it

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to If I wanted a fight…

          don’t forget your foil hat, because your either nuts or just forgot to take your meds today.

          Not everything that is paid for by tax dollars is open for your use.

          Try to go borrow a rifle or two from the military. Walk into the cop shop and let them know you want to check out a few handguns because they were paid for with your tax dollars.

          If you do not have PERMISSION to be in a public school, the police will be called and you will rightly be taken away and convicted.

          Don’t you live a little north to be such a nut case?

        • #3074286

          Not Physically Ours But We Control

          by johnnysacks ·

          In reply to whos computers?

          I would totally be expected to be arrested for attempting to sieze public property. As far as having control over that property, I am the public and would expect my elected officials (school board, selectmen) to put the keystoke logger ‘ultimate solution’ to a quick and painful death with a good dose of embarrassment in favor of a less intrusive option. Of course that is based upon the assumption that my fellow public has higher that average computer and technology literacy and leans a little more to the left, both of which I pay for in blood by living where I do.

          I’m also under the opinion that unless a school combines a heavy dose of by-the-book curriculum with intellectual stimulation, it’s doomed to miserable failure. Being a product of a private high school, its painful to compare the public school curriculum to private school (local one is $28,000 per year, $21,000 if room and board not required). I have to shut up and entrust my son to public schooling and his peers during the day. My parental efforts are then consumed sitting on him when I come home to make sure he follows up on his homework assignments and is staying out of trouble. Meanwhile, he’s got all the freedom he earns.

        • #3264777

          Funny and scary at the same time!

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Not Physically Ours But We Control

          [i]”the assumption that my fellow public has higher that average computer and technology literacy”[/i]

          What fantasy land are you living in? The Majority of people are lucky to be able to turn a computer on. Why do you think AOL is so popular?

          [i]”leans a little more to the left”[/i]
          Now THAT is a scary thought. Last thing we need now is a bunch of people insisting instead of concentrating on a good educational foundation, we need to get side tracked by having the schools teach social issues. ~~shudder~~

          That is enough to keep someone awake at night! :p

        • #3075678

          Get Real

          by mot_esach ·

          In reply to As a matter of fact, they are mine…

          The computer system is not owned by the public and this is not a debatable issue.

          We hire teachers and expect both discipline in the classroom and an education. Then we moan and groan because rules are established to do just that and we use the Constitution and “our rights” to justify our cry of censorship.

          Are we stupid or plain dumb?

          The computers were put in the school for a purpose. That is the purpose they should be limited to. Academia and valid research are ok but I don’t think these two items are related to pornography, chat rooms, My Space or games.

          I recently took a course at a Community College and a student (unable to keep up with the class) complained about the quality of the teacher. The fact is, he spent his class time playing games, writing Email and other computer work unrelated to the class. Why then should he complain? The same is true in the public school system. My son failed English but is a pro at on line computer games. (His school does not monitor.)

          If we will not support an educational system, then anything those great ancestors said about freedom and liberty is so much B.S. Un educated populations do not remain at liberty very long. We are losing ground internationaly in education and we are arguing about our liberty to ignore the teacher and be on line doing “our own thing”.

          Certainly there is a relationship between the two.

          If you want to maintain a good social structure it must be educated. Education is not cyber- surfing. The kids do not go to school to cyber- surf, they go there to learn. If we do not allow the administration to use the tools at hand to teach and maintain classroom discipline then we are cutting out own throats and bleeding to death and are to foolish to recognize the fact.

          It has nothing to do with research or academia, it has everything to do with teaching and learning about the required subjects.

    • #3075044

      At a school

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Teachers should be teaching the curriculum, and students should be learning it. Anything not related to that curriculum should be eliminated.

      As the computers are school property, there can be no expectation of privacy.

      • #3074993

        Re: At a school

        by willjamr ·

        In reply to At a school

        adunlap wrote:
        As the computers are school property, there can be no expectation of privacy.

        Hmmm. . . Bathrooms at school are school property.
        Should you expect no privacy in one of them?

        • #3076552

          Reply To: “Big Brother”

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Re: At a school

          There are laws covering bathrooms. There are laws covering telephones. These laws do not cover computers.

        • #3076057

          You’re right BUT

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Reply To: “Big Brother”

          Laws covering the use of telephones are VERY thin when it comes to company phones. In MOST cases, it is completely legal for your employer to listen in and record your calls as they so choose to.
          I have worked quite extensively in Telecom as a quality assurance manager for CRTC and with the FCC, many people feel they have complete privacy on a company phone, but they usually don’t. It’s a common complaint but VERY rarely sees a courtroom as it just doesn’t stand up.

        • #3075881


          by teh test ·

          In reply to You’re right BUT

          You can not record a conversation unless you explicitly inform both parties the conversation is being recorded. This is the reason why every helpdesk you call has the “this call may be monitored or recorded”.

          If people have the expectation of privacy, and you are vilolating that without notification, you are going to be having legal problems.

          IE. I know of one company who monitors thier employees with video camera’s (extreeme, I know) However, the camera’s in someones office run only when thier door is open. If you shut the door, the camera turns off. Why? Because when the door is shut the people in the room belive they have privacy. You can not violate that without informing people.

        • #3075865

          You can record phone calls in 39 States

          by rgsmith ·

          In reply to BS

          The phone call laws in the US are generally misunderstood. Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as “one-party consent” statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it.

          Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.

          Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.

        • #3264677

          Misunderstood is an understatement

          by archimeides ·

          In reply to You can record phone calls in 39 States

          See my reply in a later (chronologically earlier) post. While you may be entitled to record a conversation in which you are a party without having informed the other party of having done so. You better be VERY careful about what you then do with the recording. For the most part such recordings are NOT admissible in a court proceeding without meeting some pretty stringent exceptions. The use of business lines and business equipment to engage in such communication changes the rules. In this day in age that particular facet of law is in serious flux.

        • #3100177

          What’s your point?

          by nighthawk808 ·

          In reply to You can record phone calls in 39 States

          The fact that you CAN do something doesn’t make it RIGHT. I CAN buy a gun and shoot someone–that doesn’t make it RIGHT.

        • #3075837

          In some states

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to BS

          both are required to know, in others only one party is required to know (and this applies to ANY conversations, not just telephone conversations). Of course, the standard “Your call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes.” is sufficient legal notice.

          The law is a little behind the times when it comes to video. In a lot of places, it is still legal to record video without a person’s knowledge, as long as it is “silent” video (subject to other laws of course). The laws are catching up in this area though, many having recently been or are about to be changed.

        • #3100379

          No REOP on conversation

          by archimeides ·

          In reply to In some states

          In a public place with the exception of a bathroom or a phonebooth. Wearing a wire to record a conversation is distinctly not the same as recording a telephone conversation where the Supreme Court – both US and in most States – have assigned an expectation of privacy. I challenge anyone to find codification that prohibits the recording of conversation in a public place. If that were true the Police would need a warrant to put a wire on an informer which they do not. The subsequent evidence from such a conversation is frequently used in court.

        • #3265284


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to In some states

          If he is visibly present at a conversation, he is legally party to it. Hiding behind the curtain, however, is a different story.

        • #3074401


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to BS

          Aslong as ONE party is aware of the recording it is legal. This just ensures that a third party cannot secretly record a conversation. I have watched that law enforced quite a few times.

        • #3264688


          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Wrong

          Oz_Media: “As long as ONE party is aware of the recording it is legal. This just ensures that a third party cannot secretly record a conversation. I have watched that law enforced quite a few times.”

          When you “watched that law enforced”, were you the third party, the second or the first?

        • #3264679

          Recording private telephone conversation

          by archimeides ·

          In reply to Wrong

          I don’t know what state you’re in but in Washington State and most of the other states in the union under both State and Federal Law a taped telephone conversation may only be introduced into evidence if, and ONLY if, ALL parties participating are aware of the fact that the conversation is being taped. In Washington State that is RCW 9.73.030.
          You try to use a taped phone conversation as evidence in a court proceeding without the aforementioned caveats being met and you’ll find yourself on the wrong end of a liability suit.
          I think you may be talking about the wearing of a wire in a public place where there is no reop (reasonable expectation of privacy) or a message left on an answering device. Both of which are completely different scenerios from that of a private telephone conversation.
          Better do a bit more research and be careful not to offer legal advice without having passed the BAR….

        • #3265262


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Wrong

          Actually Washington is one of only 10 or so states that has the requirement for ALL parties to be aware. The federal requirement is that only one party has to be aware.

          It seems logical. If you tell me something, it is apparent that you wanted me to hear it, and that I can do anything I wish with the information (there are certain restrictions: Clergy, spouse, doctor). There is no logical difference between me telling someone what you said, or producing a recording of the conversation.

          There’s a saying: Two can keep a secret … if one is dead 🙂

        • #3074379

          Reply to “BS” (90 of 254 as of this writing)

          by dave 628 ·

          In reply to BS

          In many states calls can be recorded as long as ONE person is aware of the recording; two-party notification states require an intermittent beep on the line.

        • #3264758

          What the idiot is REALLY missing

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Reply to “BS” (90 of 254 as of this writing)

          I am not even IN the USA. LOL.

          Read his whack idea of office cams, because people THINK they have privacy…they do? This idiots been fooling himself too long, or living in Canada where you actually get some personal privacy rights, unfortunately most people take that security blanket way to far too.

          You have to feel sory for people like that though. It must be so depressing to get up in the morning and see yourself in the mirror, then just sigh to yourself, “Ooooh, not YOU again!”.

        • #3075843

          In most states

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to You’re right BUT

          an employer can listen long enough to determine whether or not the call is personal, and if it is, he should stop listening. That’s not to say you cannot be disciplined for making personal calls on company time.

        • #3076058

          Don’t be an idiot

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Re: At a school

          Of course one doesn’t lead to another. You PERSONAL privacy is protected by your country’s constitutional laws and this includes school bathrooms, where nothing BUT your personal privacy is involved.

          Your privacy when using another person or institutions equipment is NOT guarunteed at all, in fact you have NO guarantee to privacy at all when you are in a classroom or using their educational hardware.

          As the last poster said, just like any company you work for, they can track the way you use their business equipment anyway they want to.

        • #3075848

          Re:At a School

          by purecoffee ·

          In reply to Re: At a school

          Actually NO, and I don’t think we are talking about cameras etc. You have the right to use the facilities for what they were intended for. Likewise, one should use the computers for their intent; school work, study aid, research. NOT WasteSpace, Porn, Games or the like.

      • #3074980

        Property of the School (and therefore the State)

        by wallowamichael ·

        In reply to At a school

        It has been litigated time and again, and time and again the corporations (and schools and state agencies) that own the computers win. You have no expectation of privacy on any device that is owned by the corporation, and they can monitor you any way they want.

        Nobody so far has come up with the solution that I like to use. It is unobtrusive, there is no software to install (at the workstations), and it can’t be worked around or hacked!
        Use a white list for Internet access. Only put on the sites that you want to allow the students to access, and they can’t go anywhere else! You can have another white list for faculty that might open up some sites that they might want. Our system includes a method for adding a site that a student wants; they must show educational benefit and have the teacher and principal approve it. Believe me, this is infinitely easier than trying to keep track of all the new ‘social-networking’ sites or web-proxy sites that pop up every week.

        If you want to allow the students to use/learn the ‘technologies’ of the internet, use your own in-house IM, Chat, E-mail, and Blog server and let them run wild! (Of course, since the data is on your own servers, you have complete histories…)

        White lists use less processing power, less manpower, and are more secure than ANY filtering software that I’ve ever seen.

        P.S. In Oregon, the ISPs of K-12 schools are REQUIRED by law to filter porn sites, and other types of sites are in the legislative works. The white list means I don’t have to add new porn sites every week to block.

        • #3074937

          white list

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Property of the School (and therefore the State)

          would be a hard thing to keep up with if the computers are used for research, but for grade school that is more learning HOW to use the technology it would be fine.

          I would hate to try to keep up with one in a corporate structure though. Everytime you got a new client or needed to find a vendor you would have to have someone ready to jump to add this in.

          As for the orgeon, this would be the same as the arguement used in Michigan to remove many cigarette machines from public places that aren’t monitored, because kids could access them to get smokes. (did that myself back in the 70’s, a few times. enough to know I didn’t want to smoke!)

          If your making it accessable, you are providing it.

          The same should be true for a library to a point. No one should be allowed to surf porn on any public computer, ever. Buy your own or go buy a playboy.

        • #3076586

          Corporate white lists – easy

          by wallowamichael ·

          In reply to white list

          White lists are much easier than blacklists to manage, even in the corporate technology workspace.

          We have different whitelists in varying degrees of ‘severity’ for different groups. The whitelists are available for download (just as are many blacklists) and have categories assigned; shopping, warez, porn, children (meaning SAFE for children), etc. We apply them as ACL on the outbound router and POOF! nobody gets where they’re not supposed to go!

          Now, how many business users need to access new vendor sites in an organization? How many NEW web sites have you visited in the last month? (For me it has been 6, because I keep track) If you put the request into the corporate e-mail system to the IT department, they can cut and paste URLs into the whitelist in 16 seconds and reset the cache. All other users get .gov and .org type sites only!

          It’s a good system and I obviously need to toot my horn more on these discussions about it.

        • #3076549

          Reply To: “Big Brother”

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Property of the School (and therefore the State)

          Sounds like a winner!

      • #3074943

        An excellent reply

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to At a school

        direct to the point, without the emotional BS liberal weenies will try to throw in the way.

        You do NOT have a right to do ANYTHING on school computers except for homework.

        Anyone that wants the “freedom” to surf when and where they want only has to buy their own computer and pay for their own connection.

        Next thing you know, some clown will ask if you should have privacy in a bathroom. sheese! I bet they don’t allow you the privacy to do drugs or smoke in the bathrooms, huh? ~~ sniff sniff ~~ Or did you know there are LAWS against changing your cloths in a public restroom?

        You have the “privacy” in the bathroom to do the TWO things it was designed for. number 1 and 2.

        And as long as people KNOW that the systems are monitored, there is not any privacy issues about spying because there is a difference between spying and watching.

        Bet in the grade schools they still have monitors out on the playground during breaks. Bet they still have hall monitors to watch the halls.

        Funny how stupid people get just because it is on a computer.

        • #3076609

          Same question 10 years ago

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to An excellent reply

          My former employer sent me to a seminar on privacy on the web about 10 years ago, held at a university. The speakers included the province’s privacy commissioner and a supreme court judge.

          A few students attended and asked the question regarding the right of the university to block or monitor. The answer was, the university is a corporation and may do what it needs to do. In this case, the coproration’s right to protect students from harassment trumped the students rights to look at porn in an open computing lab. The students were not happy with the response, but no matter how they asked the question, the answer was the same.


        • #3076564

          in libraries here

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Same question 10 years ago

          it has been argued AGAINST filtering out porn as discrimination against the poor who can’t affort their own computer and internet connection. (some people are so stupid)

          Then the argument is taken to extremes to try to justify their need for porn, by saying this might block someone looking up breast cancer or whatever BS excuse they could find.

          The RABID liberals in America today really disgust me sometimes.

        • #3076488

          jdclyde, you’re usually better than this

          by nighthawk808 ·

          In reply to in libraries here

          I’m not a liberal, I’m a libertarian, but your comment about rabid liberals is moronic. It’s surprising from you, because your posts are usually of a higher quality than the ones you’ve had here.

          It’s not the liberals you’ve got to worry about, it’s the neocons. Did Bill Clinton ever get 2,400 Americans killed by lying in order to push us into a war, spy on Americans in their own country, give a $10 billion no-bid contract to one of the most corrupt companies in the world so they could charge the Army $35 per gallon for gas, fiddle while New Orleans drowned, or sell 300,000 acres of national forest to logging companies?

          Oh, that’s right–he lied about an affair he was having as part of his PERSONAL life and was impeached for that. Seems to me like you need to turn off the Rush Limbaugh and look out the fscking window. The country is collapsing and it’s not the liberals who pushed the detatonator button. The Constitution has become, to quote Dubya, “[J]ust a goddamn piece of paper” (I didn’t make that up–that’s a quote straight from George W.’s mouth) and you can’t blame that on the liberals.

          Impeach President Cheney and his little sidekick Bush.

        • #3076486

          How ironic

          by nighthawk808 ·

          In reply to jdclyde, you’re usually better than this

          In a discussion titled “Big Brother”, TechRepublic took it upon themselves to filter out the word “g-dd–n”, even though it was part of a direct quote. I’m so glad that TR knows better what I meant to say than I do. God knows I’m too stupid to know what’s best for me–that’s what Republicans are for.

          TR just did more to reinforce my point than I could with 1024 more words.

        • #3076425


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to How ironic

          it is automatic.

          type it again but with a space in the middle and it flies right through. That is why in my divorce discussion, whenever I refered to the ex as the adulterous W H O R E she is, it required spaces to keep from looking like whore.

        • #3076427

          just for the record hawk

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to jdclyde, you’re usually better than this

          clinton DID give no-bid contracts to the same company you know and loath because they are the company that can do the job.

          and you must have missed it in my other posts, but I don’t listen to Rush.

          And even if for the sake of argument I were to conceed to every one of your points, it does not change who it is that is in favor of porn in our libraries. Went on not long ago in our local libraries.

          So your post, while showing that you hate Bush and everything he does, it does nothing to counter what I posted?

          We can get into the Bush bash later. Too much of a sinus headache right now….

          Oh, and thanks for thinking some of my posts are of higher quality. (I assume that was intended as a compliment?)

        • #3100178

          Sorry to take so long.

          by nighthawk808 ·

          In reply to just for the record hawk

          I figured you were having a bad day or something. You usually make a lot of sense, so, yes, that was a compliment on your post quality.

          I believe Halliburton started getting the big no-bids after the Republicans swept into office in 1994. In a free market economy, if there were $10 billion contracts to go around, you can bet there would be dozens of companies offering those services–unless, of course, not all is on the up and up and a certain company (whose CEO was Dick Cheney–who still has a deferred salary and unused stock options from them) was using its influence to keep competitors out of the market.

          I probably did miss your posts about not listening to Rush. I drift in and out of TechRepublic based on how much free time I have, so I don’t get to read as much of the discussions as I’d like to (it’s why I took a few days to respond, too). I apologize if I accused you of listening to him, but your comment about rabid liberals sounded almost exactly like something he’d say. Then, when a caller points out that most people don’t think like that, he’ll try to weasel out of it by saying something like “I wasn’t talking about all liberals, just the _rabid_ ones.” Of course, you’ll never hear him do the same thing with the right wing by claiming that all neo-Nazis represent the majority of Republicans, but he does it on a daily basis with the left wing. I listened to Rush for almost nine years. Once Dubya got into office and I heard Rush have nothing but praise for the biggest idiot ever to steal an election, I woke up to the fact that he is a fraud.

          As for the topic at hand, if I had to choose between erring on the side of “safety” and erring on the side of liberty, I’ll take liberty 100 times out of 100. I’m not saying porn in libraries is a good thing, but censorship is a thousand times worse. If you want to protect children from porn, have separate computers with filtering software installed for them, and leave others in a separate section without it. That’s what most of the libraries in my area do, and you don’t see any sex-crazed kiddos walking the streets because of it.

          It’s a non-issue anyway, driven by the same media hype that had people wearing white masks when a couple dozen out of over six BILLION people came down with SARS, terrifies parents into thinking that blogging sites are visited routinely by predators just because ONE person in a country of almost three hundred million was stalked, and gives more time to ONE runaway bride than to 2300 mothers and fathers whose child was killed in a hideously mismanaged war. There weren’t libraries packed with shifty, trenchcoat-wearing men leering at porn before the “family values” idiots saved them from themselves. It wasn’t a problem then, it’s not a problem now, and it won’t ever be a problem because that’s not how 99% of people are. In any case, you shouldn’t make laws based on media hype, but that’s exactly what we get nowadays: poorly-thought-out legislation that makes for great sound bites and campaign speechifying.

          TechRepublic’s censoring my quote from Dubya when he swore about the Constitution is a nice example of something that sounds good having unintended consequences. It’s the only time I’ve ever sworn in over 100 TR posts (well, actually, I wasn’t the one doing the swearing, but that’s beside the point), and there was a legitimate reason for it. But since someone else took it upon themselves to decide what I can and can’t say, when that legitimate reason appeared it was squashed. That’s the kind of thing that happens when you start monitoring other people, looking out for thought crime.

          Americans swallow this “If it bleeds, it leads” BS whole because they’ve lost any sort of critical thinking skills, and they’ve become soft, stupid sheep who can’t trade away their freedom fast enough if it’s in the name of a War with a capital W: the War on Drugs, the War on Crime, the War on Terror, etc.

          To sum up my philosophy: “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.” I’d love to be able to lay claim to those words, but Thomas Jefferson beat me to them a few years back.

        • #3264912

          Thing is, given enough time and statistics …

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to in libraries here

          … one could devise an argument in favor of allowing porn in order to support the porn industry, one of the last few industries in the US that has not been offshored wholesale to India or China.

          (I seriously NEED that writer’s retreat this year …)

        • #3264779

          that depends

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Thing is, given enough time and statistics …

          can we add a tax on everytime you view porn on the net?

          That would get congress to take interest!

        • #3076547

          Funny how stupid people get just because it is on a computer.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to An excellent reply

          Indeed, even management gets that way. The’ll give a guy a rep for checking scores on the computer on company time, but the guy that calls his buddy on company time to get the scores gets a walk.

        • #3076537

          Also, the Supreme court

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to An excellent reply

          has repeatedly upheld communities’ rights to determine what is and isn’t acceptable for public consumption within their community. Whether it be selling alcohol or adult material, to determining what books the library may stock, or even the language of television shows broadcast in their area (networks have been fined for violating LOCAL decency standards). Public computers would be no different.

      • #3076307

        school social studies

        by rob mekel ·

        In reply to At a school

        Y’re right, school is about learning stuff that kids should learn to prepare for life, and teachers should stick to that.

        The problem comes in when the social/medical/artistic studies come in. Still these are within the curriculum of what is to be studied but can be just on or a bit over the line that is accepted by our society. Special if they are about sexual issues relating to the “dark side” of community.
        Then there are the artistic interpretations and freedoms we endure from some artists as Spencer Tunick etc. Not to mention the painter-artists we “all” admire so much as Picasso and others.

        But I think these are the exceptions.


        • #3075818

          There are defined criteria

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to school social studies

          in every state for what [b]must[/b] be taught, with local school boards having a broad say in anything additional. The courts have historically been loathe to interfere with community standards, doing so only when absolutely necessary. Probably the most prevalent examples are “dry” communities, where alcohol is not allowed to be sold, and the different standards for obscenity from place to place. These only apply to what can be sold or shown to the public, however, and not to what you can use inside of your own home. You just have to go somewhere else to buy it 🙂

        • #3075739

          Then do we agree or don’t we

          by rob mekel ·

          In reply to There are defined criteria

          As I can’t make out of your answer/post wheather you do agree with me or not that certain tasks given by tutors can make the student go cross a line/law/school rule.

          Special as tutoring is about makeing the students aware that they have to search for the “true’s”, of what is right/good or false/wrong in live and always ask the why of it.


        • #3074572


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Then do we agree or don’t we

          “wheather you do agree with me or not that certain tasks given by tutors can make the student go cross a line/law/school rule.”

          I agree that it does happen, not that it should.

      • #3075879


        by pado ·

        In reply to At a school

        If you need to use the bathroom at work… forget it?
        Life/school/work – it’s not that simple.

      • #3075878


        by pado ·

        In reply to At a school

        If you need to use the bathroom at work… forget it?
        Life/school/work – it’s not that simple.

    • #3075038

      who’s computer is it anyway

      by rfredtelles1 ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      why is it otherwise sensible people dont seem to realize you visit your personal favorites on your home computer and go to business related sites only when you are at the company workstations.

      Network Admins have every right and infact it is their/our responsability to monitor what goes in on the network unter their care.

      the proliferation of crippling spyware and viruses can be attributed primarlily to people going to unauthrorzed sites

      so if it aint your computer expect to be monitored
      that is part of reasonable network security

      • #3075862


        by robwaybro ·

        In reply to who’s computer is it anyway

        I tend to agree with this statement.

        What is a reasonable expectation of privacy when using a public accessible computer, at say a school or public library?

        I like you last statement, it really rings true.

    • #3076339

      It what most Germans thought in 1932

      by it survivor ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      I think went we begin to try and control every aspect of life that we are destined to be controled by another hitler an the Third R…. Ask yourself is it wrong ? We can never eliminate the dangers that exist in this world but we can surender all of our freedoms to those who would convince us that they can.

      • #3076332


        by lovicott ·

        In reply to It what most Germans thought in 1932

        Two totally different situations here. I am talking about the safety of kids. I know we will never eliminate the dangers of the world but, at the end of my day I can go home knowing that I did all that I could to prevent KIDS from becoming a victim to some lunatic on the internet.

        Besides I am not taking away their freedom they don?t have to use the state owned computer they can go home and use their personal computer if they want.

        • #3076324

          The appearant problem is that the method

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to What?

          is seen more as control and not protection, especially when there are other ways that provide a more effective method of protection without the intrusive controls. I think nearly all, if not all, in the thread agree and approve with the intent but some disagree with the way it is being done.

        • #3076251

          Hypocrites Who Teach The Constitution…

          by johnnysacks ·

          In reply to What?

          …then effectively urinate on it. Sets a good example for the future leaders of our country.

          It makes me sick to watch as every overzealous control freak nut job with an agenda can simply state ‘its to protect the children’ and the mindless sheep that make up mainstream America just roll over and toss the constitution in the trash. Access control gateways, even proxy servers have been around forever – they perform the necessary function. The decision to use keystroke logging to filter profanity(?) is a smokescreen for another alterior motive.

        • #3076226

          YOUR agenda blinds you Johnny

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Hypocrites Who Teach The Constitution…

          because it is clear you don’t understand how the constitution in the US works, or where it applies.

          You have NO rights to anything other than what is told to you that you do when you are using someone elses systems.

          While this IS going over board by an ego maniac, it is by no means ANY violation of ANY chonstitutional protections.

          Maybe a refresher government class would be in order for you to understand the constitution?

        • #3076203

          Maybe A Little Stretch

          by johnnysacks ·

          In reply to YOUR agenda blinds you Johnny

          But not much. Keystoke logging is the same as wiretapping and eavesdropping.

          While we’re at it, a few other things that would make our kids safer (and would be welcomed with open arms by a significant percentage):

          Record all phone conversations placed on school phone system and private cell phones (the call was placed from school property)

          Listening in on any conversation on school property using hidden microphones. (keystoke logging)

          A follow-up to one of the enduring Reagan legacies, random urine tests of anyone on school grounds. (OK, another stretch – but I’m betting a significant percentage would accept anyways)

          Video cams in private areas like bathrooms and locker rooms (those would never be misused)

        • #3076145

          Where are you getting your source?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Maybe A Little Stretch

          A company AND a school system has EVERY legal right to record all communications going in and out. This has long been an established legal fact. Are you new to the whole tech field?

          This is NOT a violation of ANY civil rights as it is THEIR communications to tap as seen fit.

          As I have said further up, just because you are ALLOWED legally to do something doesn’t mean you should do it. Stong arm tactics rarely works.

          Just please don’t get delusional and act like you have ANY right to “privacy” on your company phone or computer. The same is true for school systems.

          I have NEVER heard of video cameras in bathrooms so again please state your sources.

          You are letting your political bias shade your views on things that are not political in nature and the one has nothing to do with the other. There is no comparison between the government listening to people that are talking to known terrorists, and companies listening to conversations on THEIR phone system or email.

          Go back and settle down. The law is on the side of the schools and private property owners, not visitors.

          Urine testing on school grounds. of students? of staff? for illegal drugs? steroids?

          Anyone that is a transporter, be it bus, train or plane should have regular testing.

          Anytime there is suspect of steroids or substance abuse, there should be testing.

        • #3076117

          Everyone has the right

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Maybe A Little Stretch

          to anything they want… including the prevention of others from exercising their rights on them! In society, we have these things called laws to sort out whose right takes precedence.

        • #3076862

          Employer Not Same As School

          by johnnysacks ·

          In reply to Maybe A Little Stretch

          I’m compensated by my employer for doing what I’m told. If I don’t like the terms and conditions, I can quit and starve.

          I pay for the schooling of my son, including the equipment used in the process of that education.
          I expect one of the outcomes of my expenditure be that at his intellectual curiosity would be stimulated. (so I’m over-idealistic, but one can hope)
          A useage policy for school computers that stipulates they can only be used for homework is unacceptable.
          A major aspect of courses like social studies is to encourage an interest in current events and an awareness of alternative arguments on issues.
          There are many internet blogs and forums which, if my son were visiting, could provide a positive learning experience. (as this forum does for me)
          I expect that, given current technology, inappropriate content would be blocked and that the access attempt would be logged.
          I do not expect that the details of his participitation in any forum or blog, be it liberal weenies or bible thumping nut jobs, would be eavesdropped upon by a keystoke logger and used by the school administrators to formulate opinions and judgements regarding my son.

          The example about bathroom video cams and universal random urine testing were hypothetical and out of context.

        • #3075807


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Employer Not Same As School

          “I pay for the schooling of my son, including the equipment used in the process of that education.”

          …you elected a school board to oversee the operation of the school and its equipment.

          “A useage policy for school computers that stipulates they can only be used for homework is unacceptable.”

          I agree, it should be “they can only be used to access material that is approved by the district school board.”

          Children do not have the same rights as adults (if they did, many of them would be eating cake for breakfast and ice cream for supper every day, and they’d never have to touch peas :)). Locker searches are a good example.

        • #3075764

          fair enough

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Employer Not Same As School

          because the video/testing had me scratching my head wondering if you were REALLY nuts or just KIND OF nuts! ;\

          Like I said, I agree the school has the authority to put the keystroke loggers on, but I disagree on if they should do it. The white list as well as content filters would be in MY NOT SO humble opinion the best route to go.

          Not because of privacy issues, but because this is intentionally making a hostile computer environment on the part of the IT Nazi in charge. He/she is just on an ego trip and should be releaved of duty.

          As for blog surfing and such, the kids should not have the TIME in their day to be doing this type of activity. Want them to surf and experience? Set them down at home after their homework is done. The schools are doing a poor enough job teaching the basics of Math and reading as it is, without taking time out for them to “be stimulated” this way.

          Just like all other school property, it is for school use. That is why the tax payers paid for the school to have it.

          We disagree, because I don’t see it as the schools job to teach anything but the topics that prepare them for college. They are NOT there to mold their political views, or social understandings.

        • #3076724


          by too old for it ·

          In reply to YOUR agenda blinds you Johnny

          “Every law is an infringement upon liberty.” Jeremy Bentham

          “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Benjamin Franklin

        • #3075804


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Liberty

          Liberty and society are incompatible.

        • #3075760

          What are going going on about “TOO OLD”?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Liberty

          every law we have that allows people to live together are all giving up of some right or the other and is required to have a civilized society. Are you saying you would rather have a lawless society where it is again “might makes right”?

          Not being able to do as you please on someone elses equipment is NOT you giving up anything, because you never had ANY rights on anyone elses equipment other than what the owners of that equipment have decided to give to you.

          Your quote has nothing to do with this discussion, as no one was even talking about security issues!

          Care to try again to explain what your point was?

        • #3075765

          Constitutional Law and Precedence

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to YOUR agenda blinds you Johnny

          In our court system, once a precedence has been set, right and wrong effectively no longer matter. The precedence will be referenced, unless the ruling is set aside, and the precedence is overturned. Today people mention the FISA court as though it has constitutional standing, and it doesn?t. It was created by congress — Fiat Law.

          The real issue becomes when a law, on top of the maze of rulings that the courts have already made, and what arguments can be made within that particular framework of laws, regulations (which may have no legal basis, but real teeth, read IRS regulations some day), and precedence. One real issue is that a clear law eliminates the need for lawyers and judges to interpret it.

          In Ohio, we have someone who is trying to get on the ballot a very simple anti-eminent domain amendment to the State Constitution that says no governmental entity (city, state, township, etc.) can use eminent domain to confiscate your property for any private use even with just compensation. Eminent domain may only be used for public use (roads, schools, bridges, public buildings, but not public housing) and not for anything that would be used for any private use (condos, upscale housing, and commercial use). This person has been threatened, and had to change their phone to an unlisted number?

          This amendment to State Constitutions should be enacted in all 50 states, since the Supreme Court justices decided that it was a States rights issue on the Connecticut issue that came before them.

        • #3075676

          thank goodness that court has shifted

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Constitutional Law and Precedence

          Now that it is less “left” TILTING, we can hope the court will go back to enforcing the laws instead of trying to write them (which IS unconstitutional!).

          The courts can do one of two things. Enforce and existing law, or strike that law down as unconstitutional. If unconstitutional, then it is the job of CONGRESS to go back and write a new law to replace the existing law or to let it die.

          Funny thing though, from the hearings for confirmation of the new judges, you would think the only thing that this court does is decide if abortion is a grand thing to have or not. I think for the sake of our country, this should be a lot further down the list of concerns.

        • #3075904

          Kids need Protecting?

          by richards_unsubcribe ·

          In reply to What?

          Well maybe… but logging keystrokes to see if the kids are visiting “unacceptable” sites?? C’mon kiddies…is “sexy sweethearts” more of an unacceptable site tnan Joe Cartoon? (check it out sometime) Just another example of the screwed up sense of what is acceptable for kids to see and what is not. I don’t advocate porn for all, but look in your own living room for gosh sakes… look at the nightly fare on the TV set.

          A society that dictates gratuitious violence and daily killings on television as being somehow so much more acceptable than Janet J flashing her tit for a microsecond at the Superbowl? The whole country writhed in indignation on that one, and the FCC fined just about everyone they could think of for indecent exposure… and the Europeans laughed their heads off.

          What fox is guarding the morality chicken house here?

        • #3075893

          Here in Australia some wondered if there

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Kids need Protecting?

          was finally anything of interest in a Superbowl telecast – the few who saw it said it was nothing. Many said that the FCC were making a mountain out of a very small ant’s nest – did not even qualify as a molehill.

          Our local school is very strong at blocking sex sites but more so at blocking manga sites – talk about gratuitous sex and violence. I have not seen much manga but what I did see was bad. And some of the anime is almost as bad.

    • #3076330

      Key logging

      by lovicott ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      In the system implemented where I work it only records key stroke combinations. If I was to type F U it would begin to record after the word is finished F U N it realizes that it is not an offensive word therefore no report will be filed. On the other hand if a persons password is offensive it will report that person.

      • #3074513

        Web filtering

        by mllwyd ·

        In reply to Key logging

        Your original post makes it sound like the key stroke software is being used to make sure kids don’t go to pornographic sites. Why not use web filtering technology for that instead, at least for that purpose? We use it at my office and it blocks access to porn, “offensive” sites, etc. Whatever we set it for.

    • #3076242

      Bottom line: Policy

      by trdgyrl ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      The bottom line on this issue is whether or not the school (or perhaps entire school system for that area) has a written policy on this topic.

      First, they must have a written policy – often titled: Internet Usage Policy or Appropriate Use Policy – that users of the systems (teachers, administrators, students, etc.) agree to use the computers and internet connections for “business (education) related activities only” and are subject to monitoring.
      Next, everyone using the systems must be apprised of this policy. Many companies that i work with require everyone to read and sign this policy annually and copies are kept on file. There is nothing wrong with requiring students to be responsible for their decisions and actions and have them read/sign this document as well. Seems to me like an excellent part of their education actually.

      So – now everyone is educated about what is expected, what behavior is acceptable and tolerated. This all eliminates the “Big Brother” situation – no one is spying on you without your knowledge. No one is trying to trap you. The school system owns those computers and they are intended to be available for the benefit of the teachers and students – not for idle surfing and playtime – save that for your time at home the way the rest of the corporate world is expected to.

      One other comment – i happen to remember a time when we did NOT have computers in schools except in limited quantities and for computer-related coursework only. Don’t forget that an excellent education is completely possible without a computer on every desk and in every classroom.

    • #3076107


      by chaleepas ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      I say they are doing a good thing. As a parent of underage children, my concern is that my child could access pornography or other web-sites that could be a potential hazard to their well-being such as chat rooms and myspace. Having these closely monitored makes me feel better as a parent. I praise the school that is taking such action to protect my child.

      My employer also has safe guards in place. We aren’t allowed to access pornography or gaming sites or install chatting software such as msn messenger. This is their equipment, this is time they are paying me for doing my job, NOT playing games online or chatting with friends.

      There is such a lackadaisical attitude anymore in the workplace. If people had the right ethics in the first place, there wouldn’t be a need for these types of practices.

      • #3075998

        One apsect we have been overlooking is

        by deadly ernest ·

        In reply to Protection

        that key logging is a reactive process not proactive while gateway blocking is a surer proactive process. Keylogging works in one of two ways;

        a. log the keystrokes for examination later – thus it is well after the fact – and most of the damage done.

        b. log the keystrokes and run them through a monitoring program immediately prior to committing them to the application. This causes delays in the preparing and processing also it relies totally on keystroke or word matching. Most of which can be gotten around via slang or other substitutions.

        Years ago someone in Sydney, NSW registered a car with a number plate of 6UL DV8 most people who saw it laughed at the pun – after 8 years of use someone in the motor registry picked up that it violated their registration code and banned it. The matter went to court and the judge held since they thought it was OK for 8 years the owner could keep it – they should have shut the gate at the start. The point being it got past their computerised ‘abusive plate’ program as it did not match anything in its database.

        Another point is that some of the words that are likely to be in the ‘inappropriate word’ database are words that could properly be used in some classes to do with biology, drama, or English literature. The key logger would eliminate them and thus impact the students’ ability to do their assignments at school during free periods.

        Yet the whole issue could be avoided by a properly set up gateway that restricted access to only the approved sites. Very little hands on maintenance, not invasive and easier to ensure it is up and running at all times. Any keystroke logger would need to be saved to each computer and updated on a regular basis – and could possibly by circumvented by a nerdy/geeky/(whatever is current) computer literate student; a gateway could not be so easily overcome.

    • #3076061

      Your company can do it, why not the school?

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Any company can legally an drightfully record and copy every email and keystroke you enter in its machines. Why not a school? Yes, I would like the educators of todays youth to pay very close attantion to what they are doing whie in school.

      It would be pretty stupid not to.

      • #3076931


        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to Your company can do it, why not the school?

        Schools have a duty of care to their students. They have more than a right, they have a responsibility to protect those students. Its not the porn surfers I am worried about, its the young girls who walk by and see this stuff.

        I agree that keyloggers is not the preferred method, but it is fully within their rights.

        As for the computers belonging to the taxpayers – make me laugh. If they did belong to you, you could walk out with one. In a democracy, we have a process – if you don’t like what the school is doing, you can complain to the staff and or the school board, but you don’t have “rights” over the computers that they bought and operate. What a non-starter.


      • #3075776

        gov’t entities are not private companies

        by bgiles ·

        In reply to Your company can do it, why not the school?

        A private company has broad, but not unlimited, rights to monitor how its equipment is used. IIRC it mostly comes down to notification, esp. in office environments out of the public view. A good analogy is private use of the telephone — many of us think nothing of using the office phone to make a doctor’s appointment or to get a call from our kid’s school nurse.

        In contrast, government entities such as public schools must be extremely careful when restricting adults and near-adults. Esp. when the public system (at libraries and schools) may be the only place where the individual can access the resources of the internet.

        It’s so, so easy for us to focus on the misuses, but what about the teenager (or child) that believes that she is being sexually abused or assaulted but isn’t yet comfortable discussing it with a teacher? What about the sexually confused teenager who is considering suicide since he knows his family would reject him and he feels alone?

        We must also always remember that some HS students are adults — they’re either 18 or legally emancipated. HS students have the right to control their own health care… and that doesn’t just refer to abortions and birth control. In most states older teenagers can be tried as adults and they need to understand that their criminal acts may not always be dismissed by kiddie court.

        • #3075736

          No one has a right to the internet

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to gov’t entities are not private companies

          And Internet providers, including schools, have a right to control what they provide. Because they have a duty of care, they must make sure that by providing internet they are not doing anything that may cause harm or contravene any of their other policies like their harassment or human righst policies.

          Schools are no different just because they are publicly funded. And as I posted in another message I have heard a Canadian Supreme court judge make that argument with my own ears.


        • #3074536

          concept is the same, just the “owner” is different

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to gov’t entities are not private companies

          “A good analogy is private use of the telephone — many of us think nothing of using the office phone to make a doctor’s appointment or to get a call from our kid’s school nurse.”

          That is a technical issue. It would be prohibitively expensive for a company to ‘prevent’ an employee from making a personal phone call, but they have every right to discipline the employee for doing so.

          “In contrast, government entities such as public schools must be extremely careful when restricting”…

          Not on school owned computers. I elected my school board to manage what my child learns. They had better do it, or I will replace them.

          …” adults and near-adults.”

          You either are an adult or not.

          “We must also always remember that some HS students are adults — they’re either 18 or legally emancipated.”

          Differs by state. In Ohio the parents are required to support a child until he is “19 or until graduation from high school, whichever occurs earlier”.

          Like it or not, the community, through their elected school board, state what they want taught in their school. If an “adult” student doesn’t like the restrictions, he is free to not attend that school.

    • #3076892

      Who is using the data collected

      by toddah ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      I would not go into the argument about the “rights” of the corporate entity to monitor or collect information in their network, we cannot agree on that at the top levels of our government. I am sure these systems are put in place with the best of intentions to protect everyone involved. HOWEVER once the process is in place and the data is collected the problems will begin to surface. for example:
      1. Your whole password security system is compromised as anyone who logs into these machines has their password recorded including Network admins, Upper level Exec’s and EVERYONE. so whomever has access to the collected data can access EVERYTHING on your network!
      2. Politics, Witch Hunts, Vendetta’s, We all work with someone who is not above this type of “dirty work” and some climbers will stop at nothing to gain the “competitive” advantage.
      3. Try and picture this not from a “protect the children” point of view but from a “security nightmare” point of view.
      4. What will you do when your boss tells you that “the board” has decided they want to personally review ALL of the records themselves? how will you do this without compromising everyones security?
      Yes the world is a nasty place but if your users are going to go to these places they will go there anyway from home, from a friends computer or at a cyber cafe and this is nothing but feel good campaign.
      Kids, teachers, administrators are all part of the general crossection of personalities that make up our world and there will be people attracted to all sorts of differeent strokes and the internet has just made it easier. if you are really interested in “protecting the children” then sit down with them and educate them in how to protect themselves from the threats and instill the “values” that will keep them from falling prey to the scum.

    • #3076765

      1 reason we do it

      by lovicott ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      The Children?s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is a federal law enacted by Congress in December 2000 to address concerns about access to offensive content over the Internet on school and library computers. CIPA imposes certain types of requirements on any school or library that receives funding support for Internet access or internal connections from the ?E-rate? program ? a program that makes certain technology more affordable for eligible schools and libraries. In early 2001, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued rules implementing CIPA.


      What CIPA Requires

      Schools and libraries subject to CIPA may not receive the discounts offered by the E-Rate program unless they certify that they have an Internet safety policy and technology protection measures in place. An Internet safety policy must include technology protection measures to block or filter Internet access to pictures that: (a) are obscene, (b) are child pornography, or (c) are harmful to minors, for computers that are accessed by minors.

      Schools subject to CIPA are required to adopt and enforce a policy to monitor online activities of minors; and

      Schools and libraries subject to CIPA are required to adopt and implement a policy addressing: (a) access by minors to inappropriate matter on the Internet; (b) the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic communications; (c) unauthorized access, including so-called ?hacking,? and other unlawful activities by minors online; (d) unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal information regarding minors; and (e) restricting minors? access to materials harmful to them.

      this is not the whole page

      • #3076655

        This can be done without keystroke logging

        by deadly ernest ·

        In reply to 1 reason we do it

        Any well set up Internet gateway would include software to do all of that without using keystroke loggers.

        CIPA is all about Internet access and thus has no application to any other use of a computer. The only way you could use CIPA to justify using a keystroke logger is if you had a school network that was NOT connected to the Internet and then a second network that was Internet access only and you loaded the keystroke logger on the few computers that were Internet access only.

        Some schools here in Australia have a general network and a small Internet access network – others have one that do both. Most have properly set up gateways and I know of none that use keystroke loggers. Yet we do not have any reported problems of the type you seem concerned with. Those that are reported all come from home or Internet cafe usage.

      • #3264725

        criminalize children to secure funding?

        by sue.hawkins ·

        In reply to 1 reason we do it

        Then, do I understand, that in order to secure important funding and comply with CIPA, you prefer to take the approach of monitoring activity, so that you may impose punishments, in leau of simply restricting that activity? Shall I pass a dangerous toy to a child, and criminalize that child for any CIPA perceived abuse of said dangerous toy?

        As others in this thread have implied, there are ways to simply keep the child out of harm’s way. Your IT methods expose the child to potentially greater harm.

        Shaming a child is a low form of discipline. How can you justify disciplining children, as a means of meeting *your* CIPA requirements? This compliance is *your* responsibility. You should be ashamed, not the children.

        I also agree that dynamic learning environments, yes, do exist. And they needn’t (aren’t) reserved for higher education. Children should be exposed to technology, and yes, that dirty three letter word that gobbles so much disk space – art. Music, images (they’re big too – don’t whine, just do your job), video …

    • #3076727

      “Protecting Our Kids” = The New McCarthyism?

      by too old for it ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Way, way, WAY too much time and effort are being put into entraping, finding and creating whole new classes of sexual criminals. (Well, in the US, Canada and Great Britain anyway … other countries don’t seem to have this problem.)

      Maybe we need to revive the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations or the House Un-American Activities Committe to help figure out how many “potential predators” are in schools, government, walking around town? Perhaps we need to write a book called “Perv Channels”, with about as much truth as the histronic “Red Channels” from the 1950’s?

      and remember: Big Brother is Watching

      • #3075902

        A bit off topic

        by manda ·

        In reply to “Protecting Our Kids” = The New McCarthyism?

        I don’t think that the initial post was about sexual deviants and the US hysteria on the subject, yet I find it more to the point than debating (uselessly) if school computers should be monitored.
        This reminds me of the SouthPark episode where all the parents are taken to jail because the kids figure out that telling the police their parents molest them makes the parents go away.
        And, btw, weren’t homosexuals in the past in the same position pedophiles are today? Maybe this is the outlet for all the hidden politically incorrect homophobia, blame it all on the pedophiles.

        • #3075642

          Political Correctness and Other Countries (OT)

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to A bit off topic

          You are right in that today?s pedophiles are yesterday’s homosexuals who were the day before’s hippies … and on it goes.

          I don’t have the sociology grant to study this yet, but I postulate the theory that prudishness about inter-generational sex as reflected in our laws creates the bigger problem of killing of young children, and that other countries don’t have this problem as they allow for the possibility of such relations being consensual.

          And before you start flaming away, (a) it’s just a theory; (b) it needs much more study than can be given here; and (c) the “at what age” argument can be answered by taking stock of out-of-school dress.

          If the girl is showing an acre of belly, hip-huggers down the THERE and so on, she pretty much has figured out how to attract the attention she wants. Same with the guys showing off butt-crack and wearing a too-tight tank top to attract other guys.

          So “we” in our infinite wisdom, criminalize ? the participants, but let the other half off with “s/he didn’t know better because they were only 12-17”. Ptbth!! They either know or they are so stupid they need to be confined to a strait-jacket.

          (I shoulda been a sociologist instead …)

        • #3074527


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Political Correctness and Other Countries (OT)

          “If the girl is showing an acre of belly, hip-huggers down the THERE and so on, she pretty much has figured out how to attract the attention she wants. Same with the guys showing off butt-crack and wearing a too-tight tank top to attract other guys.”

          More likely they dress that way because their peers dress that way.

        • #3264908

          Methinks …

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to Yikes!

          “More likely they dress that way because their peers dress that way.”

          Methinks that this is a difference without a distinction.

        • #3264897

          There’s a big distinction

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Methinks …

          between dressing so you fit in with your friends and dressing to be sexually attractive.

        • #3265160

          The other difference …

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to There’s a big distinction

          I was thinking of the difference between dressing to fit in with your friends (or the “in crowd”) and being so stupid they need to be confined to a strait-jacket.

          (Discalimer: I quit asking my daughter “If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?” when she started answering “Yes”.)

        • #3265109

          Ah, I see.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to There’s a big distinction

          “(Discalimer: I quit asking my daughter “If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?” when she started answering “Yes”.)”

          Mine always answered it with “How high is the cliff?”

          (You spend the first two years of their lives teaching them to walk and talk, and it seems like the next 16 telling them to sit down and shut up :))

      • #3075628

        Think before making rash suggestions.

        by nightlife6 ·

        In reply to “Protecting Our Kids” = The New McCarthyism?

        If you are 2 old 4 it ? then you should also know that the liberal rightwing is listening and would be thrilled to see your suggestion become reality.

        See EU’s take on our BB activities:

      • #3074530


        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to “Protecting Our Kids” = The New McCarthyism?

        “Way, way, WAY too much time and effort are being put into entraping, finding and creating whole new classes of sexual criminals.”

        …if it was your 12 year old daughter that some perv talked into meeting him, whereupon he raped and killed her, you’d feel differently. Granted, the parents should be monitoring their children so that this doesn’t happen, but their failure doesn’t justify the perv’s actions.

        ” (Well, in the US, Canada and Great Britain anyway … other countries don’t seem to have this problem.)”

        Perhaps in those other countries, it is perfectly acceptable to have sex with 12-year-olds. Here it’s not.

        • #3265152

          Difference WITH a Distinction

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to Perhaps…

          You bring up two crimes (rape and murder) for which the early part of the 20th century had already defined punishment for. (Maybe not elegantly, maybe not fairly, but that is a discussion for another day.)

          It did not used to be a crime to obtain, and sit in the privacy of your own home and look at pictures of scantilly clad (or unclad) waifs who may or may not be 21 years old. Now you get branded for life, have to wear the Scarlett Letter, (and so on) for this. All of this while the unsolved violent crime rate ambles along at a brisk clip, because it is just that much easier for the police to grab a feeble old guy looking at dirty pictures than to face down a violent individual (my “unintended consequences” argument). The police can show statistics to “show” that they are “doing something about crime” when the REAL offenders are still walking the streets, unfettered by any retribution for thier actions. (My “intended consequences” argument.)

          (Disclaimer: No disrespect intended for the hard-working members of law enforcement who get out there every day working on violent crime, and occasionally kill a bad guy in the process, thereby saving the state the expense of a trial.)

        • #3265121

          Times change.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Difference WITH a Distinction

          Since it is against the law to take such pictures, it is only logical that it is also against the law to view them. “The people” have declared it so.

          I agree with one part. It is not uncommon for an agency or department to create or enhance its own statistics showing that it is a good use of the money it costs. I mean, I used to be evaluated, in part, by how many problems I fixed per day. I had a problem with that particular measurement from day one, first because it treated handing someone an ink cartridge the same as rebuilding a server that went down, and two, it seemed to me that one could pad one’s evaluation by “creating” problems to fix (I’m glad the fire department isn’t evaluated that way :))

        • #3263655

          Padding the stats

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to Times change.

          The peoblem with the police (aided by the legislature) padding the stats, is that whil it all looks good on paper, your city spirals out of control into a fetid, lawless, burning slum.

          Yes, you have gotten rid of the New Criminals, the most harmless ones of the bunch (who are just sitting there “oogling the goodies”, to steal a movie reference). You have [b]not[/b] done jack about the gangs who are blowing up “da hood” … and anywhere else for that matter … for control of the drug trade, the pimp trade, the whatever trade. This while all the other murder rape and mahem goes on unabated.

          I think if most law enforcement worked on what was on the books up to 1967, they would have their hands full.

        • #3265602


          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Padding the stats

          “I think if most law enforcement worked on what was on the books up to 1967” they would deserve a fair day’s pay. But they don’t, so they don’t.

        • #3263026

          I slipped a gear for a moment …

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to Times change.

          … and forgot to remind you that taking pictures of girls under the age of 18 naked is [b]not[/b] a crime everywhere on the planet.

          It is in the United States, but by global standards we are a bunch of prudes anyway.

    • #3075917

      Please get in touch with me I would like to implement something similar!

      by pr.smith ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Hi lovicott

      Could you please get in touch with me
      I work in a school and I would like to know what software you installed and if its working well.

      Thanks in advance

      Paula Smith
      Robert Blake Science College
      Brigdwater, UK

    • #3075915

      What is education about?

      by gregoire.du.peloux ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Education certainly deals with the concern of getting our childs abide by the law and protecting them for the dangers of life.

      However, it might be even more important to help our children our to cope with the inherent choice any human has, even children, between licit & illicit, between right & wrong, etc. And the choice is not always easy beacause life is not black & white.

      But this implies that we teach them how to make wise choices, to know what is good for them and for the others, rather than just enforcing rules.

      And can you achieve that without trusting them?

    • #3075911

      Big Brother

      by aanmeldingjb ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      About the X-rated sites on a school\employer desktop it’s easy, ban those sites, it is not your pc. The other sites, as long as nothing bad comes from those site’s, privacy should be leading. And the users must be aware that they are being monitored and what the consequenses can be.

    • #3075910


      by h_p_hayes ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Big Brother is here.

      Get used to it kiddies.

      What can you do? Very little.

      In truth, though, every “real” IT pro on this board knows that a little effort will get you past any attempt to monitor activities.

      If you think that the tech savvy generation coming along behind us isn’t as capable as we were in our youth then you are kidding yourselves…

      How many times did you walk into a Radio Shack and see a monitor stuck in a loop program displaying so and so “is God” or such…

      The more Machiavellian or Orwellian things get the craftier those who wish to defeat these tactics will become…

      “Let Freedom ring.”

    • #3075894

      The Black Box

      by leigcker ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      I think that monitoring users is a good idea especially in a school environment to protect users from sites and from predators on IM programs. The school I work in has several ways in which we control and filter what users can view but the best is the black box (securus server) which takes screenshots when a user visits any site that contains a banned word or set of banned words. It also works when typing into applications such as Microsoft word and outlook etc. It is a very useful piece of equipment to trace violating users and allows us to filter more websites that may be deemed Inappropriate.

    • #3075890

      Privacy issue

      by sam.lauder ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Isnt Keylogging items classed as spyware/virus type activity? When there are other ways of dealing with web access to websites, why is something that most of us have had to clear off a computer being used?
      Yes, it is their system to implement this on, but something like this is far too open for abuse, an alternative would have been to look at the network traffic and check the websites accessed.
      I can understand their concerns with wanting to prevent access to these websites, but if a user is looking something up about something personal, that is similar in wording to the phrase/words in the keylogger system – then the reviewer would know which user was looking up this, and by that, have the ability to misuse the information.
      The admin of any network is the most trusted person in the user structure – they have access to everything on the network they are responsible for.

    • #3075888

      My 2 Cents

      by haxer18 ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      I say, let the kids get their “spank on” because then they won’t have enough juice left or desire, to knock up your daughter and turn her into another teenage pregnancy statistic and your son’s into another “my baby’s daddy.”

    • #3075882

      You are the bad guy.

      by teh test ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      There are much more efficent ways to achive the same goal without pistol whipping peoples privacy. Not to mention the overhead it must take to be activly or passivly monitoring every keystroke, or the cost of whatever solution you have implemented. Myspace is a cesspool of pedo’s and market research, block it at the perimiter. Spend the time to create a white list of url’s. Poll the teaching staff and find out what sites people would like thier students visiting.

      keystroke loging is just silly.

      • #3074565

        Why are you breathing?

        by lovicott ·

        In reply to You are the bad guy.

        Are you even in the IT feild. On a network all the computers are connected together. like all the printers. This “filter” is on the network it monitor the network by itself. reports are ran via printer and there you go you can see the log in of a person that violates the parameters that are set up with in the “filter”. Last I checked we did not pay anybody to monitor anything.
        “keystroke loging is just silly”
        The only time a person is flagged is if they use offensive language or visits an offensive web site.
        also when you block a web site there are these thingys called PROXY servers that allow people to go aroung the “filter” to get to the web site that they desire to visit.

        The teaching staff needs to worry about teaching not what web site they would like to visit.

        • #3264951

          A little harsh….

          by sql_joe ·

          In reply to Why are you breathing?

          That was a little harsh, don’t you think.

          It seems to me, the original intent of the post you are replying to was to point out that keystroke logging to filer objectionable web sites might be just a tad bit inefficient. For example, it wouldn’t stop me from clicking on a link to an objectionable web site, and I don’t have to type anything obejectionable in a search engine to get a nice buffet of objectionable choices to click.

          It seems a filter at the proxy would be more efficent. You mention you can go around filters by changing proxies, but if your access must go through a proxy to get out, then this just isn’t so – if it were then how are the thousands and thousands of businesses that block porn sites pulling it off? We do not log keystrokes here, but I can’t get to a site the business doesn’t want me to get to.

          As to using profanity in a password; I wonder why anyone really even cares. Its not like anyone can see it – and I question the value of password security if you’re reading everyone’s password. In a publically owned company (I know you’re an educational instituation) it would even be a violation of Sarbanes-Oxley since passwords cannot be recorded. Back to the point, so what if a kid uses the “f-word” in his password? Its not like anyone else can read it. Sure, he might tell his buddies, and they’ll all get a good giggle out of it, but still no harm done – its the equivilant of him passing a note to one of his buds with the same word written in it. In fact, it seems to me a lot of tax dollars were spent on a solution that seems to have some questionable utility. You haven’t stopped porno surfing entirely, and you have stopped “naughty passwords”, but how much value was there really in that?

          Now, having said all that, remember that my reply is based on only the limited information that you provided – which included nothing of your systems architecture.


    • #3075880

      Protect or prepare

      by philip_jones2003 ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      I have no difficulty with any organisation that filters out X rated sites, provided the filter works properly and doesnt block legit sites.

      Im certainly uncomfortable with monitoring people’s chat activity for several reasons and freedom of speech/privacy are not included.

      Having lived through the misery that follows from having a child-molesting monster mess up one of my step children, I can say with some authority that those that think they are protecting kids are very often wide of the mark.

      There is no simple solution when it comes to protecting them but putting them in a world-proof box is probably as bad as not protecting at all.

      The people most likely to abuse your kids are more than likely already in your home or visits regularly. You have already been duped.

      Chat sites are great but perhaps we should ask why we need them. Apart from specialist interest sites, what is it that is lacking that generates the need?

      Forget about looking for signs of pretatory perverts….you wont see them.

      The day eventually arrives when our kids have to cross the road alone. We drill them ,coach them, watch them and in nearly all cases (thank god) they get it right forever.

      Making our kids aware of potential dangers that are difficult to understand (the why) or explain, present an even greater challenge.

      Paranoia driven web snooping is not the answer. It points the finger at too many suspects and distracts us from the real bad-guys that are generally too damn smart to get caught that way anyway.

    • #3075875


      by kjw30813 ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      I think the school does have the responsibility to the children to prevent them from accessing websites that are not appropriate. The method chosen I think is a poor one. There are any number of filters and traffic loggers to log where a user goes, but to use a key logger that loggs everything typed goes a bit to far. One thing many of you suggest is that the children have a right to go where they want on the WEB. Actually they don’t! I say that as a parent. We, as a society, restrict a childs right to buy porn magazines, and other “adult” products. This is the same thing. Many children typically do not exercise good judgement and do all sorts of things that get them into trouble. As a parent I restrict my childrens access to many things that can hurt them that I my self may enjoy. I drink adult beverages, I watch movies I would not let them watch, etc. If a child, using poor judgement, accesses a chat site and ends up meeting a pervert somewhere and is raped or worse there is a problem. The child does not realize the danger. Many kids have the attitude that “I know what I am doing” but they don’t because they do not see the danger. We as a society have a responsibility to protect kids from themselves. Hopefully, and in most cases it is true, that by the time they reach adulthood they are wise enough to keep from getting hurt.

    • #3075874

      Big Brother

      by margsi2 ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      This is truly a double edged sword (or maybe a triple or quad depending on the situation). I don’t want my grandchildrens to be allowed access to these sites and I surely don’t need to see them either. It’s too bad the rules of good conduct and decency are not observed and such monitoring is even required.

      • #3075864

        Now we’re getting somewhere

        by jcreek ·

        In reply to Big Brother

        The reasons why we have internet filters in schools:
        1. The US federal government mandates it if the school/library wants to receive funding.

        2. The Technology Departments of school systems routinely receive calls from teachers wanting to know what sites a student visited and the date and time. We also receive calls from supervisors wanting to know what sites their employees visited and the date and time. Sometimes these requests are for ‘bad’ sites and sometimes they are for time management reasons.

        If we did not have these we would not have any filtering/monitoring. I for one would love to just say that we can just teach kids right from wrong and not have filtering/monitoring of the network. But, the first time that an unscrupulous teacher shows a porn web site to a kid and see how many taxpayers come screaming at the school doors demanding filtering/monitoring.

        It is indeed sad that ‘the rules of good conduct and decency are not observed’ in this world and especially in the US anymore.

        • #3075800

          No one disputes monitoring – just the method

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Now we’re getting somewhere

          Keystroke monitoring is resource intensive and can be avoided by a knowledgeable user. Most corporations use simple software that works at the gateway and blocks access to sex sites, chat rooms etc. Since this is on a computer that the user cannot access they cannot get around it. It also uses much less resources than the logger approach.

          Using a keystroke logger is the sort of approach a control freak like Stalin or Mao Tse Tung would use.

          The intent is good the methodology is wrong.

          I just remembered an old example of the gateway approach that a keylogger would never have picked up. Go back about 10 years and virtually all commercial web site were http://www.????.com, very few had the country code after them. A British publishing house calle Whitehouse registered – they printed ‘glamour’ and soft pron magazines. Many schools had students access the govt website as part of learning to use the Internet – the intended web site being However, many kids would type .com instead of .gov as they were more familiar with the .com addresses – result a soft pron web site. Some schools resolved this by entering a line on their school dns server which converted to no problems after that. I believe the USA govt have since bought the .com address as well.

      • #3075797

        No one disputes monitoring – just the method

        by deadly ernest ·

        In reply to Big Brother

        Keystroke monitoring is resource intensive and can be avoided by a knowledgeable user. Most corporations use simple software that works at the gateway and blocks access to sex sites, chat rooms etc. Since this is on a computer that the user cannot access they cannot get around it. It also uses much less resources than the logger approach.

        Using a keystroke logger is the sort of approach a control freak like Stalin or Mao Tse Tung would use.

        The intent is good the methodology is wrong.

        I just remembered an old example of the gateway approach that a keylogger would never have picked up. Go back about 10 years and virtually all commercial web site were http://www.????.com, very few had the country code after them. A British publishing house calle Whitehouse registered – they printed ‘glamour’ and soft pron magazines. Many schools had students access the govt website as part of learning to use the Internet – the intended web site being However, many kids would type .com instead of .gov as they were more familiar with the .com addresses – result a soft pron web site. Some schools resolved this by entering a line on their school dns server which converted to no problems after that. I believe the USA govt have since bought the .com address as well.

        NB: some schools REQUIRE students to use computers for certain assignments – that makes it a right. I have heard of assignments being refused because they were hand written – the student came from a poor family and had no home computer.

        • #3075702


          by dnsb ·

          In reply to No one disputes monitoring – just the method

          Some schools do require students to use computers. This makes it a right to browse porn sites? Some universities require students to own laptops. Does this gives the students the right to waste the university’s bandwidth browsing porn sites, downloading from their favourite file sharing applications?

          An very long and strange leap from requiring students to use computers for some work to believing that blocking what the school considers as inappropriate use violates some right.

          While I consider using keystroke logging as being overkill and unusable — you want the job of checking all the keystrokes posted by ALL the students and staff at even a medium size school? — it’s their computers and their right to manage them how they will. If the parents, teachers and students disagree, they have their right to try to convince the powers that be (board of trustees, school board, whatever else you call them locally) that this is an unacceptable abuse.

        • #3074378

          Key logging does not block – it is witch hunting

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Right?

          Most key stroke loggers block nothing, they just allow some one to examine what you typed at a LATER date, after the fact – good for a witch hunt.

          Properly established gateways with web management software will block porn etc and stop this inappropriate use and downloading.

          BTW I did not advocate that it was OK to watch pron or chat on a school network.

          You state that parents can complain until things are changed – that assumes that enough of them know enough to understand the issue and methods used, and that the beaurocracy is open enough to change later.

          Many schools and corporations have been managing this successfully with properly set up gateways for over a decade, why can this school not manage it that way. There is only two reasons I can think of for using a key logger over a gateway solution.

          1. The person in charge is a control freak, and all that goes with that. Emphasis on the freak.

          2. The tech staff do NOT know enough to properly construct and secure a gateway but do know how to load a key logger program

          NB Key logging violates the user ID and password security so you can no longer hold them accountable for the mis use of IDs and passwords. Secondly if the keylogger is the only method you use how do you deal with people who plug a personal laptop into the network? You can not load your key logger onto that so they go straight past your poor security.

    • #3075873

      Federal Funding and CIPA

      by kensmith ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      The US Government, through the FCC, requires schools and libraries that wish to receive certain funds and Universal Service discounts to comply with the provisions of the Children’s Internet Protection Act. Read it at Few schools and libraries can afford to lose that funding. The decision to monitor belongs to the ones who pay the bills. (Background – 36 years in public education, 23 years in IT administration.)

    • #3075870

      This is a GOOD thing!

      by volp14 ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      The PC’s these people are using are the property of the school, and therefore the school has every right to protect itself from improper and potentially damaging usage. And, call me crazy, but is a SCHOOL the appropriate place for people to access X-rated sites?!?!? Not at all. I have managed PC support professionals for 10 years, and the policy at our company has been very big brother oriented – users have to login in to Web Trends to access the internet, and we track, record, and report on EVERY site they go to. Prior to having users log in there would always be one or 2 guys (even a woman) who would access a porn site at their desk and everyone could see it. Our CIO actually walked by a programmer’s desk, saw him viewing x-rated material, and fired him on the spot. That was why we started the big brother approach.

      Also, from a legal perspective, by someone viewing x-rated material in the workplace there is a potential to create what the law calls an uncomfortable work environment, and those offended by their colleagues viewing habits can sue the company for this. Not something your legal folks will want to go through.

      So keep in mind that the equipment belongs to the school, and they cna lock it down or monitor however they want. Don’t like it? Get another job.

      • #3075808

        No one disputes monitoring – just the method

        by deadly ernest ·

        In reply to This is a GOOD thing!

        Keystroke monitoring is resource intensive and can be avoided by a knowledgeable user. Most corporations use simple software that works at the gateway and blocks access to sex sites, chat rooms etc. Since this is on a computer that the user cannot access they cannot get around it. It also uses much less resources than the logger approach.

        Using a keystroke logger is the sort of approach a control freak like Stalin or Mao Tse Tung would use.

        The intent is good the methodology is wrong.

    • #3075860

      Ownership = Control

      by leojohns9 ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Whoever ownes the computer has a right to control it. I own 5 computers in my home and I have every right to control how they are used. A school has every right to control how its computers are used. A county council has every right to control how computers in a library are used. Some people think ownership means nothing.
      Some people think that schools and libraries are places where the authority of parents to control what their children get involved in is voided. Parents have total authority over any content that their children may be exposed to — in the home, at school, or in the public library. Too many people want to distroy parental authority and give it to either the school or state. You need to wake up to the fact that our society is doing everything possible to erode this parental authority and guidance.

    • #3075859

      What do ‘they’ want to hide?

      by ramonas ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      I see no problem with monitoring in the school. Today you can’t be too careful and if only one child is saved or one ‘bad bean’ teacher is caught, it is worth it. What do the parents say? I would be happy if my children were protected. Until all the idiots are caught and the web made safe for everyone, we have to do what we can. That isn’t “Big Brother” that’s smart! R

    • #3075857

      School is for schoolwork…

      by tracyf ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      …not surfing. I don’t even file this under “big brother”. In this case, it seems pretty obvious that while at school, both students AND teachers should only be doing the school’s work/agenda. It isn’t a cyber-cafe, for pete’s sake.

    • #3075854

      Too far

      by dr_zinj ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Key stroke recording & input filtering are both wrong. The first being a security violation, and the second being censorship. If you can monitor a student’s keystrokes and gain their password, then you can emulate them and frame them for anything and the one protection they should have had from the system is null and void. Profanity is the vulgate. What may be rude speech today may be high class tomorrow; speech is fluid and ever changing and evolving. Anyone remember when “gay” just meant “happy”? You kill profanity then you kill all the potential Shakespeares of the world.

      You want to block specific porn or hate sites from elementary or high school, that’s fine. College, nope, it should be wide open. College students are supposed to be adults in that sense anyway.

    • #3075840

      “School” What level?

      by elgeeko ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Are you taling about an elementary school? Middle/junior high? High school? Community college? Four year college? University?

      Since you talk about pervs meeting under-age kids, I must presume you’re referring to a junior high or high school.

      Through high school, it’s sure as hell appropriate (and maybe not severe enough). The institution is functioning in loco parentis and as such it’s Dad and Mom watching, not some elder sibling.

      The “Whose system is it?” arguments don’t become relevant until you hit college level.

      El Geeko

    • #3075836

      Educating instead of Monitoring

      by vgr ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      This is an old discussion. And it is really useless either way. And it has been this way since the begining of time. Today is the net, yesterday was the phones, faxes or whaterever is used to comunicate.

      If you forbid something, then you are extrangely promoting it. Funny, right?

      Ok, It sounds nice to regulate what is going on in the school and what the students ant teachers are looking at. BUT it does not work in the way the BIG BROTHER say it is intended.

      The data will be misused. The students and employees will chalenge the authorities and, at the end, the school will have expended a lot of money doing anything but education.

      Try instead to show how to use the net, e-mails or anything available in a proper way. And please be confident with the people. Spying is not the solution.

      • #3075762

        Educating instead of Monitoring

        by rshanberg ·

        In reply to Educating instead of Monitoring

        Education is a nice idea, but it’s just not realistic. Without proper monitoring and filtering, kids are going to go to whatever sites they want.

        Not to mention, we all know what a litigious society we live in. If a child is hurt, or worse, by a predator and the communication is traced back to a school computer, the school board will be held liable. And then parents will be screaming for more monitoring and filtering.

        Perhaps key logging is not the best method for reasons already mentioned in this thread. That is something that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, but something needs to be in place.

        Unfortunately, in today’s world, you have to balance idealism with realism.

      • #3075756

        Educating instead of Monitoring

        by rshanberg ·

        In reply to Educating instead of Monitoring

        One more point:

        I believe that having proper filters in place can be an educational point in itself. Let kids know that when they are in school (or later in life, in the workplace) that there are rules to be followed. There is appropriate behavior to be observed. What you do in the privacy of your own home is your own business, but in school (just as in the workplace) you have to abide by certain guidelines concerning appropriate behavior.

    • #3075835

      It all depends on how it is Implemented

      by suryava ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      While it is a good idea to make sure students and/or teachers do not visit the xrated sites, it is also important how it is implemented.

      Definitely using technology is helpful. But choosing the right type of technology is also key. Instead of using Key loggers, web filters that block certain sites may be more useful.

      Taking the people into consideration and confidence is the next key element. If the technology is implemented without informing the targeted audience (in this case the students and teachers) the whole thing will fail. Being upfront is not optional. It is mandatory. One of the most important reasons why this is important is: any technology has its own bugs, limitations. When you take the people into confidence, these limitations will be tolerated and taken in the proper light, than when they were not informed upfront.

      Also, when they are informed upfront, they know what to expect. Most people will backout on their own. Meaning, they will not visit the sites in the first place. Few others will hope the system will not work. The remaining very very few will actually try to defeat the system.

      In terms of communicating the strategy upfront, something on the lines of “It has come to our notice that some students and/or teachers are visiting x-rated sites. In the interest of the general community health, we are taking steps to block these sites. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated” would help.

    • #3075832

      Computer use Policy?

      by jcritch ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      What school would condone student using inappropiate language or visits porn sites?

      The computers are not private and hence the school should be allowed control. This was not a covert operation, and hence people need to make a choice. Follow the rules or get busted.

    • #3075831

      Agree, but do it differently

      by chrisvargojr ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      I agree that we need to monitor the activity children partake in online at school. Educators are responsible for making sure kids aren’t getting into trouble. I don’t agree with logging every button the child presses, however. A better method in my opinion would be to have extensive filtering of words and sites. Same results, without the “Big Brother” feel.

    • #3075823

      The Bad Guys are Everywhere

      by mr_fox_rox ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      I have heard “stupidity” and “insanity” defined along the lines of doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome.

      The problem is that a majority of the members of the human race generally can be classified as:

      1.) evil – driven by their own selfish lusts and desires, having no regard for the rules or those that made them;
      2.) stupid – expecting to get away with bad decisions, and expecting no repercussions for stupid choices; or
      3.) both – more often than not… maybe the two a mutually dependent.

      Fortunately, most Americans are deterred from following their heart by laws, statutes, rules and yes, “Big Brother”. Some of us even behave and refuse to do “what comes naturally” because it is the right way to act.

      As long as people disregard rules and laws, and place more emphasis on feeding their own passions for power, money, sexual gratification, etc., we will need “Big Brother” standing in, deterring most of us from being and acting as stupid and evil as if he were not watching. Who, but a fool, dares to have their surprised look on their face when they choose to breach the rules and are faced with the wrath of Big Bubba?

      Do I like “BB”? No, I don’t. I hate “BB”. Do I find comfort in knowing “BB” is there, serving to deter some of my peers from doing their own thing, or to pounce on my peers who dare to break the rules? You bet I do.

      A few posts in this thread suggest that disclosing the monitoring program should be a requisite. That is absurd as expecting policemen to announce their presence when they are around criminals so they will be on their best behavior and not commit any crimes until they can find a time and place to get away without being caught.

      Big Brother should not be expected to make his presence known, nor warn any of us he is watching. It should be expected that he is, and everyone should expect him to start kicking booty and taking names the moment anyone crosses the line or breaches the boundary of what commons sense would indicate is acceptable use.

      Several posts also pose the question, “Whose computer is it anyway?” You are so right. The courts say you’re right and so does anyone with half their whits. Let the teachers and kids fill their own smut boxes with spyware, trojans and other malware, not the computers that the self-behaving teachers and students need to use to get their work done.

      For those ninny’s that whine and complain about loss of privacy, get a life and go whine to someone who cares what you think. Thank God those with such a flawed way of thinking are in the minority.

    • #3075821

      Who owns controls

      by colingbradley ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      The school own the equipment and pay for the access, why should they not control what is done with it?
      Want to waste your life? Do it on your own time and use your own honestly earned money.
      Otherwise, no sympathy from me pal!

    • #3075817

      At Schools in the US Filtering Mandatory in Some Cases

      by mswaile ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      I used to be the system administrator at a parochial school grades K – 8. In order for us to be eligible for any federal funding we had to be in compliance with certain items as set forth by the federal government. One of those items was that we MUST filter websites/internet usage or run the risk of losing both federal and state funding for the school. Part of the filtering software was the ability to see exactly who was doing what on computers, including ALL websites visited. I see nothing wrong with keystroke logging or monitoring internet usage. Speaking from the point of someone that implemented policies, unfettered use of a resource that could cause potential harm to the user is a huge liability. Users were informed that the network was subject to monitoring and informed of the consequences. If they choose not to comply that is their problem. The computer, network and ultimately the internet access is owned and controlled by the school. I don’t know the grade levels the school in question in this post is, but I am surprised that it took that long to implement the keystroke logging. Perhaps someone should start putting up signs that say “Welcome to the real world people, big brother not only monitors your computer and internet but your cell phone and credit card purchases as well”

      • #3075813

        It’s SCHOOL — keep the focus on Academics

        by rexydog ·

        In reply to At Schools in the US Filtering Mandatory in Some Cases

        As the IT director for a K-12 district, I’m responsible for creating, implementing, and enforcing policies governing use of our IT resources. My focus is always on the educational use of our resources, specifically on academics, and it’s pretty easy to justify our policies to teachers, parents and students. We are required to filter our Internet (and do so), we are running an Internet Safety curriculum to give our students the tools to make better choices online, and students do not have email access at school. Are our policies restrictive? You bet. But these restrictive policies make it much simpler to spend our resources on academic support, and to provide the best possible facilities and resources for our students’ education.

        • #3075753

          At last!

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to It’s SCHOOL — keep the focus on Academics

          someone that understands why the computers were put there in the first place AND what their purpose is as an admin of those computers.

          Thank you for your post.

    • #3075809

      good topic

      by doug m. ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      This a good, relevent topic. We just started Internet filtering here at the school I work at. Most people do not have a problem with it, except kids trying to use MySpace, Facebook, etc. And some teachers who use Ebay. (yes we blocked Ebay)
      The only downside so far is some legit sites get blocked, but we can create rule exceptions for them so it is no longer a problem. We have everyone sign a usage agreement, so legally we cover our butts. We’ve already caught a few kids by monitoring the logs, who’ve bypassed the filters by using proxy sites, and one who tried running a program to gain network passwords – he was expelled.

    • #3075799

      Bottom line

      by 2ktech ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      The bottom line is that when it comes to business you do NOT have the same rights as at home. You have freedom of speech, freedom to live your life the way that you want, but when it comes to getting paid by an employer, you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to surf anything except what your employer tells you is ok. The same at school. If your parents allow you to surf porn, chat rooms, etc., at home, that is their problem. Schools and businesses have complete rights to limit content, and monitor. Is a kid allowed to go down the hall mouthing profanities? I think not. What gives them the right to do so on the internet at School? And anyone saying to teach them about safety on the internet, Yes that is a good idea, but is ludicrous and namby pamby to think that kids will follow anything preached at them once they get on the web. They get bombarded with sex and violence for 5 hours every night on TV, you think they won’t pursue it on the web, especially once they accidentally bump into it or are curious what some word will bring up. Home and personal life, however, is a different thing. We need to be active against such things as the Google intrusions into our private lives, THAT is what we need to protest, THAT is real big brother.

    • #3075788

      If they own the computer

      by azson ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      If they own the computer they have the right to dictate what it’s used for. At least you have internet access, for may years the company I work for (a fortune 500 company), we didnt have it.

    • #3075787

      You better believe it!

      by kgolden73 ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      If you have people students or staff that are surfing x sites they need to be fired! You cannot tolerate that kind of corruption in the workplace either business or school. Chat programs are notorious for inducing spam and wasting time. Are the tax payers paying staff to chat with friends or spouses? Not so. The students are there to learn not spend time chatting up their friends.

    • #3075784

      From an Educator Perspective

      by poppawookie ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      IT is not the evil that people think it is. Yes, there are a lot of ways that Information Technology can be scary to people who don’t understand it. On the flip side of this coin, protecting and educating children is a top concern for this country. I work in the IT field and understand the whole picture of security and freedom of privacy and information. Please allow me to share some of the lesser known background elements that drive the “Big Brother” curse that the general public thinks is bordering censorship in our educational facilities.

      First, the issue of school funding. The federal and state governments can withold school funding if the school does not conform to the guidelines that are set forth regarding internet monitoring and filtration. Do you want to have to start paying for the books and other necessary educational tools that schools now provide for your students? How about increasing the classroom size because the school missed out on funding because of the supposed “rights” of students to access whatever they please on the internet including rated X websites. I know that this is a tough pill to swallow, but come on shouldn’t we have more respect for our students that don’t want to have to deal with the profanity and porn so that they can concentrate on what matters most which is their education. I attended a public school and university. There were vast differences in values at both places. I feel that this monitoring and filtering of the internet is in the best interest of the students.

      Second, from a technical standpoint, this type of device is good for the health of the network that allows students to access that educational information for studies and research. I look at the health of the network at the place that I am employed and the health of the network at a location that is not so tight on monitoring and filtration of the internet. My network is healthier and has more uptime than the network that is not filtered or monitored. This results in fewer hours of overtime on our network technicians and the administrator. This allows for the proactive nature of our network staff rather than reactive. Would you rather have a network that is up, giving you access to materials that you need to do your job, or would you like it if your network was to be down at a critical moment when your students need internet access to work on a research paper or project during class?

      I think it is clear cut. Each school should have devices as these to ensure that our kids get a quality education. If the students want to access porn, chat, profane materials, and other unnecessary non-school related items… Let them do it on their own time at home or some other place. This goes for educators as well. Focus on what is important here! That focus should be on EDUCATION.

    • #3075783

      The non-issues

      by shraven ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Wow is this not an issue.
      Thei is not a moral issue.
      This is not a big brother issue.
      This is not a protecting the kids issue.
      This is not about sex, or profanity or wasting time.

      This is simply a case of an organization posting rules about how their resources can be used. Neither the teachers nor the students have ANY right to use the school computers for anything the school doesn’t like. The computer resources are at the school for learning. Period. They may get used for other things, but that’s a freedom the school can allow or dis-allow at their discretion.

      People seem to forget that the ability to do something doesn’t give them the right. The students and teachers in this case don’t have any rights that are being infringed upon. The have specific priveledges the school allows and should be thankful for that.

    • #3075778

      Illegal in Norway

      by gean0809 ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Even with a written acceptance from students and parents, and a general policy for attending the school, you would not be allowed to do this unless the police is connected when criminal activity is suspected – and they would be in charge of doing the surveilance and logging.

    • #3075771

      The Problematic First Amendment

      by spadata ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Nothing places the “Fear of God” into a politician, lawyer, or judge as the power given an American citizen to openly and freely express his opinion on the government.

      The Federal Elections Commission will decide Monday whether political blogs (personal web pages) should fall under the McCain-Feingold Bill and should be forced to register with the FEC.

    • #3075761

      User Rights vs. Organization Rights

      by dporter ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Any organization needs to have a usage policy, for their equipment. That policy should state that “we monitor” activity.

      If someone does not want their “extracurricular” activities monitored then they have a choice of not doing them on the organizations time, money or equipment. Do it at home.

      People in organizations when assigned a computer get an overwheling sense of ownership….”thats my computer” meanwhile it is the organizations and the organization is liable. For software piracy, etc….

    • #3075755

      Why is privacy such a big deal anyway?

      by thfirestorm16 ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Call me crazy and un-American. But I’ve never seen why privacy in use of technology has ever been such a big deal. Well, obviously financial data should be kept confidential or it could be seriously abused. But seeing that most schools consider it their responsibility to keep viewed content and such “clean” and “appropriate”, why is it such a big deal to watch over students and teachers? (I say this with the understanding that the teachers and students are fully aware that they are being watched – and perhaps “We’re watching you” signs would be a good idea.) But I honestly don’t see anything wrong with the administration knowing what kinds of unwanted sites teachers and/or kids are accessing. A school is an institution; and like any institution, it has the right to do what it sees necessary to keep its members “in line” and watch over them.

      On the other hand, those who are “up in arms” certainly have reason; in my opinion, there should be no reason that their “secret meetings” need be secret. Can people stop assuming that someone has to be the “bad guy” and try to compromise by drawing up some definite technology policy?

    • #3075742

      Technology Chipping Away at Personal Liberty

      by bee jay ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Personally I don’t want to wake up some morning in a world populated by “Ned Flanders” characters from the Simpson?s show. Every time we justify the use of technology that undermines our most personal expressions, even when justified, it opens the door for society to be accustomed to such intrusions. No one would argue that Teachers and Children should not be using profanity or visiting X-rated Web Sites, however there are other approaches to solving these issues. Unfortunately technology allows us to take a very lazy detached approach and let the computer do the policing for us. The results are as binary as the methodology. 0 or 1, you committed a crime, you go to jail, you are good, you get rewarded. How about coping with the underlying issues here? What is motivating young people to seek out pornography or use profanity? The lazy PC police will never deal with the underlying issues and therefore never solve the problem. How is it parents are just beginning to understand that a pc needs to be in a public space in the house to allow parental oversight, yet the schools aren’t able to physically interact with children online? To answer your question, the bad guy is anyone who allows children to grow up in a vacuum. I’d rather the kids get 50% less computer time and 50% more adult interaction. Children who grow up in a sterile Orwellian society will either rebel completely or come to accept such intensive and intrusive monitoring as matter of fact. That is not a world I want to grow old in.
      I’m sure there are many who will take offense, so please remember, this is just my humble opinion.

      • #3075725

        The Seven Dirty Words

        by bodranman ·

        In reply to Technology Chipping Away at Personal Liberty

        Thanks BJ for the reminder of the consequences of Orwellianism. Before you know it we have yet another branch of neo-government deciding who’s naughty and who’s nice, based upon whimsical standards weilded by the squeekiest wheel of society. It isn’t long before you lose freedom of thought, along with speech, and you don’t need to look far for examples in history.
        Ask yourself what constitutes unacceptable speech? The seven words you can’t say on television? If you bow to the zealous censors it will require a revision of the dictionary and not only religious extremists, but politically correct moguls will set the standards, confusing the masses and rendering free thinkers as pariahs of a bygone era.
        Consider the consequences of far reaching policies and don’t succumb to the lemming effect.

        • #3075639

          There’s loss of privacy and then there’s censorship…

          by thfirestorm16 ·

          In reply to The Seven Dirty Words

          Keep in mind Bodranman,
          There is a difference between LOSS OF PRIVACY (the issue here, I think) and CENSORSHIP. These students – are they really being censored? Is their freedom of action being restricted? I think not; administrators are simply enabled to be aware of what the students are doing. But censoring them? Well, if it gets to that point, I’ll side with you.

        • #3264906

          Thought Police

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to The Seven Dirty Words

          “It isn’t long before you lose freedom of thought, along with speech, and you don’t need to look far for examples in history.”

          1950’s to be exact. McCarthy, Roy Cohn, etc.

      • #3265214

        Is This Leadership By Example?

        by johnnysacks ·

        In reply to Technology Chipping Away at Personal Liberty

        Chipping away at our civil liberties is indeed the issue. Site blocking is one thing which I think we can all relate to and accept but eavesdropping and wiretapping are unacceptable.

        If these behaviors constitute our example of leadership, hopefully complete rebellion will be the future scenario rather than full mindless subjugation.

        The fourth amendment regarding illegal searches without any probable cause is constantly disregarded:
        The leaders of our country are currently performing criminal activities regarding domestic spying and are yet to be held accountable.
        We routinely accept being required to submit to bodily fluid searches (urine) for even the most menial jobs, any refusal being defined in written policy to be construed as a positive result.

        As more and more activities such as this are accepted, the downward spiral towards an authoritarian government is inevitable.

    • #3075738

      Are we still living in a “democracy”?

      by rubendlct ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      ABSOLUTELY NO! I do not think that it is right to spy on anyone (less in the school environment)when we are taugh that is not only ethically but morally incorrect. What is going to happen next? Are we going to have litle tiny cams recording what we do in the privacy of our homes, to make sure we take showers, change underwear, do not cheat on our spouses, maintain the house cleaned? Wouldn’t it be nice to have IRS record all your actions to ensure they can suck every tax penney they can for whatever you do at home because they suspect you are working from home and not reporting your earnings? Germans live in that type of world. Believe me, I know; I lived there 35 long years and it is not a pretty sight! Let’s face it, everyone, and I really mean EVERYONE (from the most highly educated to the less educated)has a little bit of a crook in him/herself; it’s just a matter of digging deep enough to find that dirt! We understand that, for a cop to enforce the law sometimes he must breake the law, but I think electronic survelliance of teachers and students at school is just unnnecessary. There are more than one ways to keep people from visiting those sites. These can be done through the administration of user rights and your local security policy.It takes a little time and effort, but it can be done, and it is legal and, moreover, morally and ethically correct!

    • #3075730


      by Anonymous ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Waa Waaa Waaah
      There is definitely both sides of this issue
      A) people think porn is bad (someone please define it for me)
      B) no one should be stupid enough to give up their liberties as guaranteed by our Constitution (which currently is disregarded by the Administration)
      I think blocking sites and / or content is censorship which I personally cannot support an inkling of.
      Recording keystrokes is spying, which used in certain circumstances can provide valuable information
      Bottom Line
      Its a public school and the rules should be set by the public that sends their children to that school. If they want to raise little NAZI’s who am I to disagree?
      I would not work for a company that monitored my email, online activity or anything else that was personal, as to my keystrokes etc.
      People are sheep
      Accept the fact that security is a STATE OF MIND
      NOTHING IS SECURE and no amount of Nazi isms will make it secure
      Freedom is also an illusion anyone who thinks they are truly free is an idiot
      Privacy is another illusion, no such thing anymore.
      What we need is BALANCE……….

    • #3075729

      No secrets there

      by dnsb ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      I take it that the staff and students have been made aware that this monitoring is being done and that the computers being used belong to the school/school district. If so, IMNSHO, there is no basis for any complaints. The school is acting to protect the students if only from themselves and to protect the school from potential liabilities when little Johnny or Jenny says I met the perv in chatrooms when I was browsing Internet chatrooms instead of using the computers for school related work. As for the teachers, well, last time I looked the right to browse porn sites was not on anyone’s list of basic human rights.

      Just my tuppence worth.

    • #3075724

      YOU are pure evil.

      by eureeky ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Honestly, how far up an employee’s butt do you and your administration feel you need to climb?

      What about the teacher who needs to do a little lunchtime online banking? By logging keystrokes, you now have their login and password to their bank account(s). How are you guaranteeing that this informatiion will be ABSOLUTELY safe in your hands? I bet you can’t.

      There are much less invasive methods to block the students’ access to certain web sites while leaving the adult employees some of what few freedoms we still have. I’m guessing you’re a real fan of the “Patriot Act” too. Are you familiar with the term “Facist Theocracy”? You should be. It’s you and people like you who are nudging this once free Republic in that direction and you should at least know what the destination looks like before you plan a trip there.

      I truly hope that your liberty-stealing little spy plan fails miserably, and that you and your entire administration all end up in court over this. Shame on you.

      • #3075686

        Reply To: “Big Brother”

        by pickleman ·

        In reply to YOU are pure evil.

        > What about the teacher who needs to do a little
        > lunchtime online banking?

        The place where you work is not the place you should be doing your “lunchtime banking” or anything else for that matter that you consider to be private. If you want to do things involving privacy, go home and do it there, where it belongs. You go to work in the morning so that you can WORK, not so that you can do your personal errands.

        > I’m guessing you’re a real fan of the “Patriot
        > Act” too. Are you familiar with the term “Facist
        > Theocracy”? You should be.

        Perhaps you should look up big words like “theocracy” before you decide to try and impress someone and end up using it incorrectly. What the hell does theocracy have to do with THIS particular discussion? The answer is simple: it has nothing to do with it. But I suppose if you knew what the word meant, you would already have realized that.

        > I truly hope that your liberty-stealing little
        > spy plan fails miserably, and that you and your
        > entire administration all end up in court over
        > this.

        Go back to your ACLU with the rest of the quacks, and leave us sane people here in the real world.

        • #3074373

          Go home – most are not allowed

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Reply To: “Big Brother”

          I know lots of teachers and most are not allowed to leave the school yards during their lunch break. Those that are usually have to go through some large hoops to do so, getting permission and telling people when leaving and when you got back – real hassle.

          Also most employments have Internet use policies that allow staff to do basic surfing and personal business during their own time – thus Internet banking at lunch under such policies is OK.

          The rest of the arguement I will leave alone as I see it as irrelevant to the main topic.

        • #3074302


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Go home – most are not allowed

          “Also most employments have Internet use policies that allow staff to do basic surfing and personal business during their own time – thus Internet banking at lunch under such policies is OK.”

          That is by the grace of the employer. They are not obliged to allow it. Disturbing is the mentality that believes they are. Maybe school administrators will do the teachers’ grocery shopping for them too, or… oh!, I know! maybe they can hire people just for that purpose! Maybe the teachers’ union should strike to get that added in 🙂

        • #3264938

          Yes it is grace

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to grace

          and where that grace is given it would be a major breach of security to use a keystroke logger. I noted that you totally avoided the point about many schools not allowing staff to leave the school during their lunch break – this is because they require the staff on hand to supervise students during said lunch break – this varies depending upon the size of the school and the number of available staff.

        • #3264874

          I didn’t avoid it,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Yes it is grace

          I just don’t think it’s relavent. The teacher can do her online banking on her own time, just like she does her grocery shopping, her hair appointments, or having her little yip-yip dog groomed, none of which an employer is obliged to accomodate.

          People really do lose their minds when it comes to computers!

        • #3264807

          But lunch is supposed to be their own time

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to I didn’t avoid it,

          and the mployer, in many cases, does not allow them to leave the premises – although staying on the premises during lunch is not a term of employment.

          However, the point that I was making when I first spoke about them being allowd to use Internet banking during lunch was –

          That some employers DO allow staff to use their equipment during their lunch break for Internet banking and responsible Internet use.

          I never said it was a right, just that some do permit it, for various reasons. In such cases the use of a keystroke logger would be breach of privacy as well as a breach of security.

        • #3265276


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I didn’t avoid it,

          It can’t be both. If they won’t let her leave, it’s not “her own time”.

          “I never said it was a right, just that some do permit it, for various reasons. In such cases the use of a keystroke logger would be breach of privacy as well as a breach of security.”

          So are employers who permit it supposed to unblock porn sites during lunch? I don’t think so. There is no expectation of privacy, nor is any employer ever required to provide it.

        • #3263862

          response to adunlop’s lunch post

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to I didn’t avoid it,

          Could not reply to your post as it had reached maximum depth.

          Teaching is a profession and, like many other professions, you do not always get your lunch time to yourself or have as much freedom at lunch as you would like. It is common for teachers to have to have their lunch whilst supervising students, and other work related activities. During the day, like the students, they are required to stay on campus unless they have approval to love from senior management – then they have to notify the front office whent hey leave and when they are back.

          Also allowing access to a banking site is not the same as allowing access to a porn site.

        • #3263740

          Lunch cont’d

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I didn’t avoid it,

          “Teaching is a profession and, like many other professions, you do not always get your lunch time to yourself or have as much freedom at lunch as you would like.”

          The employer is requiring it, so it is the employers’s time.

          “Also allowing access to a banking site is not the same as allowing access to a porn site.”

          Agreed, but it all falls under “personal use of company property”.

      • #3074310

        What is your basis…

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to YOU are pure evil.

        “What about the teacher who needs to do a little lunchtime online banking?”

        … for thinking any organization computer can be used for personal use at any time?

        Your “freedoms” do not include converting someone else’s property to your own use without permission. That usually falls under the ‘theft’ section of your particular jurisdiction’s laws.

        Gee, why can’t the teacher just borrow a school bus and drive to the bank?

    • #3075723

      Big Brother

      by edwhite ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      Another fine example of you are damned if you do and daqmned if you don’t. I think in this instance it is the school board and the parents that should support the monitoring. If they don’t then they should be prepared to accept the consequences if some one abuses the system.

    • #3075717

      “Big Brother” in K-12

      by thevenowg ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      I work as a computer tech in a K-12 school district. We had teachers and parents complaining about the children seeing “other students” going to inapporpiate web sites and called Administrators and Board members voiceing their complaints. We added filter software and made everybody go through a Proxy server so this would not occur. A school environment is no place for these children to go to anyway. They should be using Technology for “Learning”, not blogging or going to X-rated web sites. We still have student who make attempts to get around our efforts and it is a struggle to keep up with that because we have enough to do already, keeping the computers and the Network to be used for teaching/learning situations.

    • #3075714

      Are you kidding me…..?

      by lori.obrien ·

      In reply to “Big Brother”

      They just busted a ring of sadistic people worldwide having relations with children (never mind the infant that was also shown). Do you people only think of yourselves? They are talking on CNN about the justice in US giving out your personal information. I am an IT person. I still don’t bank on the net, don’t let my kids use the net without me being around (I can explain things much better), don’t socialize like a hermit online, etc. What is it with people that they have moved from the fresh outdoors and decided that the only way they can get anything anymore is by using just the net? We have become a world of paranoid people. Parents have to closely watch their children because preditors have moved from just across our street to into our homes through the internet and people with delusional thinking feel that their freedom is taken away. Shame on you that you feel so deprived while children