"Big Brother"

A witch hunt is still when you don't know who did what and you just guess. Key loggers and those that install them are not so stupid, they run off locked servers or report to a locked file on that server and you can seperate who did what and when. Poor Johnny could not have done it since he was in detention at the time but the other jerk couldn't have screwed with the file anyway. Yes, if it was installed by a moron and never secured that could happen but then without the horrrid key logger the jerk could also have just walked into the vice principal (aka hatchet man) office and declared that dumb johnny surfs porn. Johnny is still screwed. No computer involved in the screwing.

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.

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.

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 ...

I assume the people who think that "freedom of speech" overrides common sense, employer rights, duty of care etc etc are neither parents nor teachers (at least I hope not).
One issue about monitoring: when it seems appropriate (as here or when, for example, it helps control theft or dangerous practices in the workplace) it should only be done in an open fashion. In other words, it is clear that it WILL be done, the reasons for doing it are clear, the methods are clear, and the limitations of the curtailment of personal freedom are clear.
When I managed a small secondary school in New Zealand (13+ age group), I decided against filters (which might, for example, interfere with an A+ student's research project on condoms) but instead had a clear Acceptable Use Policy that students signed up to. It was made clear that I, and no other (as I also managed the network) would from time to time scan the logs to find possible abuse of the agreement. Abusers would lose their free access to the network until appropriate conversations between myself and them led to a new agreement.
The students had no problems with the agreement or the policy and there was no abuse.

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.

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'."

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.

QED

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.

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".

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!!!

LOL

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?

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)....
THINK - THINK - AND THEN THINK SOME MORE!!!

The location of these keyloggers has not been reported, therefore it's logical to assume that they were invented for the sake of a discussion.

Boy oh boy do I ever agree with YOU! When you think about it, and there's not much actual thought necessary. If the findings of this scrutinizing software were turning up such evidence of radicals and, as several posters suggested, witch hunts then ensued - WHERE ARE VOLUMINOUS and extensive lists of individuals who've been hauled up on charges for such egregious crimes???
You know what I think, I think there's more than a little guilt in the minds of the opponents of the keystroke monitoring software and the like that THEY are going to be found out for spending other people's tax dollars, employer dollars or what have you in the pursuit of their self-centered little indulgences while on the job.
For the paranoiacs - if you're REALLY worried about all this - build yourself a school or start your own business, install all the computer hardware, pay for internet access and IT then let anyone do anything they want with your stuff and you'll be a HERO!!! (in your own mind) See how long you stay in business....

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....

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.

ESPECIALLY if your proxy server or firewall has a default allow policy with a block list instead of a default block policy with an allow list, it's logical to prepare for the delinquents that will find prohibited topics on sites that haven't been specifically blocked (yet).

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.

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.

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.

When does the protector become the oppressor. This is always the question when government of civil liberties plays into our day to day lives. No one likes it when big brother watches. You are watching them, but who is watching you?

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.

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.

However,

(1) This question was posed in Miscellaneous, and not in Tech, therefore the logical conclusion is that technical advice is not the purpose of the question.

(2) As I have said above (or below? Well, previously, & in this thread, at any rate) I believe this whole scenario is entirely fictional based on the absence of any specific information about the school: name, city, state, district, etc. Based on that judgement, I'm ignoring all questions of technical efficiency in the pursuit of a purpose, as my judgement is that no such real purpose exists. I intend to deal only with the [b]primary[/b] question: Do owners of property have the right to absolutely control their property? I say yes, that [b]absolute[/b] control is part and parcel of the literal (and therefore only honest) meaning of the word "property".

(I'll now add "farcical" to my evaluation of this conversation, because it really is quite silly to have to explain why children are not entitled to indulge absolutely every impulse they experience. It is infinitely sillier to have to explain it to entities representing themselves as "adults" and "professionals".)

(3) I am not the tech in charge of making the efficiency decisions. I may well be more competent than he/she/it, and I do not dispute, nor care about, your implicit claim of superior competence in this. I have not even applied for the job, and certainly never will, because most adults are far too childish for my liking, and actual children don't even know any marketable skills, advanced mathematics or recent cutting edge discoveries in science or engineering to make them interesting to me.

(4) None of this is intended as personal insult to Deadly Ernest, whose moniker I admire and emulate. I only mean to explain that the premise that children's activities in public facilities are protected by a right to privacy is absurdly wrong, and that this is the fact that interests me in this discussion, not the technical details.

jmgarvin: "Who said anything about default deny or default allow anyway?"

I did.

The claim was made that a more efficient means of controlling the children's use of the Internet is with controls on a proxy server. My answer is meant to convey the sense that I don't care where you implement controls, but that strict controls, enforced as strictly as possible within the law, are perfectly appropriate, and fully [b]within long-established precedent[/b] for (1) children (2) [b]anybody[/b] using property that they do not own personally, whether that property is public or lent to the "end user".

I do not care one bit whether there are more efficient technologies for the task of limiting the use of public computers to the educational use for which I as a taxpayer & voter consent to make them available to students at my expense. I have not and will not comment on any claims of keystroke loggers' [b]efficiency[/b] or [b]suitability[/b] compared to other technologies, until we collectively & absolutely settle the question of the nature of property ownership and the right to absolutely control one's property.

To explain my perspective, I present, but do not recommend, the following:

If you own a car that's in safe, freeway-competent operating condition, use that. If not, request to borrow one from a friend who owns such a vehicle. Activate this car and drive it safely, at the speed limit, with no license, registration or insurance, then have a "friend" call your local police, sheriff, highway patrol, or other law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over traffic control laws, and sufficient resources and disposition to enforce those laws strictly, which is the case in some jurisdictions, but not all. Ask that "friend" to report that you are driving erratically, and have that "friend" accurately indicate your location and destination to the law enforcement agency it called, possibly including wild, invented tales of other activities you are performing while driving or performed shortly before driving. Then, come back and tell me whether you have the right to use your privately owned car however you like on publicly owned roads, or whether any use of public properties is a privilege which can be limited by any pile of regulations of any size, that the collective has deemed appropriate, whether according to rational informed concerns or frivolous ignorant ones that may or may not be relevant to any particular motorist.

The same right to make [b]your[/b] (or anybody's) use of [b]my[/b] property or time contingent on [b]absolutely any[/b] conditions applies equally to my privately owned property, and does not require any vote before imposing those conditions, regardless of how restrictive I choose to make them. Any argument that a right exists to use publicly owned property is irrational and directly contradicts the basis of such rights that individuals do have, which include controlling our own property. The use of publicly owned property, like the use of another person's private property, is a privilege, which is extended by the owner(s) according to their standards, not the standards of the person borrowing that property. Logic demands that the right to own property also protects others' property just as absolutely as it protects our own. To presume a right to use publicly owned property is to ignore the real nature of one's claim to own one's own property, and oneself. I neither make nor consent to any such claim.

I think porn is harmful and shouldn't be allowed on the internet, however we do live in a free society so if someone wants to view porn at home, okay. Porn should not be accessable in private businesses, schools or libraries. Most schools and libraries are supported in part on my tax dollars and I have no desire to support someone's porn habit.

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.

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.

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!

This one, I am willing to support. When you use my property, you do so according to my conditions, which may not coincide with your wishes, kiddies. These conditions are my right to impose, not yours to refuse. No exceptions. Since my property is used to finance public schools, I'm also willing to defend my right in that situation to make rules as strict as I please. If you don't like it, send your kids to a private school if you can afford it. If you can't afford it, don't blame me, I know I didn't impregnate you, or your ugly wives!

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.

I started my career before there were even PCs in the workplace. People would bring a newspaper, magazine, or even a book to work or school. Reading the former was fine on break or lunch. However reading for pleasure was frowned upon during work or class. There have always been slackers. Maybe we used to spend more time daydreaming than surfing the web so it was more discrete. At any rate, usually what you were reading was not scrutonized unless it was inappropriate. So attitudes haven't changed, just the technology.

Does the System Administrator or Teacher in Charge get monitored on their Web Visits so that they can block/list suspect sites?

The really stupid thing here is that the Porn sites can be easily blocked but the Medical and Art sites will remain wide open and these more often than not have far more graphic pictures than the so called Porn Sites.

Many years ago when I was at High School the most used book in the library was the Art Book covering the Old Masters not because it had a great history of Art but because if had Nudes in it.

On a similar type of stupidity a newsagent here was arrested for selling pornographic materials and all he was doing was selling posters one of which was the Statue of David one of the worlds most recognized Statues and that was the pornographic item that the Police Officer got offended over. Funnily enough he didn't see the poster of the Venus Di Milo [or however the correct spelling is] as offensive only the statue of David as it showed the male genitalia. Seems that an armless naked female is harmless. :D

Col

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?

Col

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.

Is it not the task of education to prepare the students for life? One of the biggest and best things is to demand that they accept responsiblity for their actions.
The policy of the school has been publicized (I hope) and ALL persons(students/teachers/staff) understand the policy? Then when a person CHOOSES to act improperly, there must be a consequence.
Monitoring keystrokes is one way of enforcing the policy, just as photo-radar is one way of enforcing traffic regulations.

If a student is accused of sending profanity-filled e-mails, it is not(nor should it be)a presumption of guilt. Give her a new password and tell her to keep it secret. If she is back again for the same reason, give her another password and tell her if she lets this one out, she loses all access to the computers.

The students are using someone else's equipment, and must treat it with respect. They must be responsible for their own actions.

The same applies to teachers and staff.

I aim for tolerant and compassioniate, but I wouldn't understand. Anyone responsible for the market in products of child abuse is a child abuser, and this person is a victim of a disease for which there is no known cure. I'll tolerate the kiddy-porn-perusers after they are removed from any association with children, compassionately imprisoned, if necessary.

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.

Col

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 ?

Who in their right mind could remotely expect to have any privacy on a publicly owned computer. Especially if I'm not paying to use it!

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.

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.

I specified "...in an educated, intelligent, informed, competent populace."

I didn't claim that I live in one!

when compared to web monitoring software and more while it reduces security. If you use web monitoring software, you need it ONLY at the gateway and you evaluate the reports. Every such program I have seen can be set to record who accessed what web site, or tried to access a web site - ie user and site URL with date and time, etc. If you are seeking to evidence for a conviction this will provide it and be more reliable as the user ID and password has not been compromised.

Keystroke loggers require software installed on every computer, this requires much more time and effort. If you miss one, or if someone attaches another to the system without your knowledge or if a nerd can turn it off somehow, thenyou have NOTHING. Whilst a gateway web monitor will monitor all web activity.

I agree that the school computers should only be used for their intended purpose. I have said that a few times. I just find the idea of using a keystroke logger as a ridiculous and resource wasteful way of going about the stated objective of 'protecting the students and stopping access to porn' as it does neither of these.

School computers are not the same as work computers regarding the rights situation as the students are often REQUIRED to use them, they have no right to abuse that usage but they should have expedctations to reasonable privacy in their usage whilst typing documents for storage on their thumb drive - eg assignments etc.

I know many educational institutions that resolve this issue easily, the bulk of the school network does not have any access to the Internet, if you want Internet access you go to the library and use one of the Internet Access machines and those computers go through a proxy server with web monitoring software and you need to log on with your user ID and password. Much easier and cheaper to maintain security and monitoring. 15 machines does the campus of 1,800 students with lots of time not in use.

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.

that provides no information re web usage (the claimed purpose in the original post) than a web monitor software will - but does reduce security whilst a web monitor wont.

A bio ID system does not breach the ID and password security as a keystroke logger does as the password is not entered by the keyboard.

The problem with the logger is that it breaches the basic ID password security and thus eliminates any way of being used as evidence the best you can hope for is that it gives you an idea of who to watch for the next violation.

Nor does the logger perform the stated aim of protection as it allows the improper access in the first place.

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.

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.

Col

Not all Porn is so easily detected and more to the point are Chat Rooms easy to monitor?

If you've been in IT for as long as I have been you would understand that there is a constant attempt to make this rubbish far more freely available to those who may want a look see.

MS products are poorly designed and badly implemented and I'm guessing that from your Post you are a [b]True Believer[/b] in the MS solution. Well I was using computers long before Billy Boy punched his first line of code at 13 years of age and Hacking wasn't Illegal as there where no laws in place to make it criminal [b]Imagine That[/b] :D

The only thing that has happened since then is that the average user has been dumbed down so far as to be next to useless and these sites are far more easily accessible. Get a Life and Smell the Garbage outside your door it's not perfume it [b]Stinks![/b]

Col

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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

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.

at least not for me. Hate hurts the hater, thus is illogical.

Speaking logically, sometimes it is necessary to cut out cancerous cells to keep the disease from spreading. Perverts are cancerous cells, regardless of how they came into being. Unfortunately, someone in our 'enlightened' society decided that tumors have rights.

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 :)

school is not home. plain and simple.

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.

I AM a big meanie!

Hate, love, and what people "deserve".

First your definition of contracting this "disease". Where did the FIRST child molester catch this from? Or is that just a throw back to when it was legal and acceptable to take a 12 year old wife? Or even modern day if your a Muslim that you can take a 14 year old wife?

Is this really just a "social" stigma so there is really nothing wrong with having sex with what we in every CIVILIZED nation consider to be an "underage" child? I don't think we need to DEVOLVE back to a day when sex with 12/14 year olds is acceptable.

How is expecting people to be responsible for their choices in life ME being mean though? Where is the HATE in that?

Are you just jerking my chain here?

Criminalize child abuse and punish the crimials. That is a good thing.

Criminalize ANY abuse and punish the crimials.

You seem big on being pro-drugs. Remember there is a big difference between someone sitting around burning a "fattie" and someone lighting up that crack pipe. The people react differently and the crack addict will do self destructive things and injure people around them in the process.

There are MANY drugs that have no place in a civilized society. Some just have a bad social image and are banned because of that.

It should NEVER be a crime for a cancer patient to smoke as much and as frequently as they choose.

The people that PRETEND to be sick JUST so they can "get away with it" should be shot and hung and then dragged throught the streets and fed to the dogs. I don't think it should be illegal to smoke pot (I CHOOSE NOT to smoke it myself) but to see ANYONE abuse and HARM a system being put in place to help sick people HURTS that system and makes ALL pot smokers look like scum, when only SOME of them are scum. (I have lost several friends and family to cancer, including my dad when I was 17, so I have seen what they go through and NOTHING should stand in their way to feeling human again.)