Yogi isn't a government acting on behalf of other people. The Government has no personal information. Spreading this information is a good thing, the people who lead us should keep their laundry clean, or face the consequences that people might see.

Now they are facing the consequences and hopefully a lot of civilians are having their eyes opened.
>> ^quantumushroom:

I'm totally intimidated by a guy who lifts lines from Billy Madison. I'm glad you're comfortable that you don't have what it takes to debate anything. Seems pretty common around here. BTW why don't you post all YOUR personal information to teh internets? This will somehow lead to greater transparency and freedom for all. I'm sure most people won't use it to enrich themselves at your expense.
(Double birds)

>> ^Yogi:
QM, nothing you've said is remotely factual or relevant. Your incoherent babbling of bullshit is just the stuff that comes prancing out of your closeted mind like word salad. You are not smart, you are not informed, I award you no points and please shut the fuck up.

I'm totally intimidated by a guy who lifts lines from Billy Madison. I'm glad you're comfortable that you don't have what it takes to debate anything. Seems pretty common around here. BTW why don't you post all YOUR personal information to teh internets? This will somehow lead to greater transparency and freedom for all. I'm sure most people won't use it to enrich themselves at your expense.

(Double birds)


>> ^Yogi:

QM, nothing you've said is remotely factual or relevant. Your incoherent babbling of bullshit is just the stuff that comes prancing out of your closeted mind like word salad. You are not smart, you are not informed, I award you no points and please shut the fuck up.

Not going to upvote cause the video is fail and longer then needed to be... but yes the tsa is fail too.

Just like any other service.. I refuse what I don't want. I don't fly anywhere. Unfortunately of all our bitching, no one has ever done something to convince the guys cutting the checks (airplane and airports) that more people would fly if it wern't for the tsa.

Alas if he did pocket personal information, she could have a court case... time to get that missing footage via more authoritative means.

@tsarsfield: Yeah, I believe it is an idea worth spreading. 4chan is more than just a bunch of internet geeks with anti-social disorders. The strength of the anonymity of it's users is simply unparalleled on the web today.

With every website today requiring you to log on, give personal information, identify and so on, it makes me feel good knowing that there are places still out there that both embrace anonymity and say "financial potential? wat is dat?".

>> ^ponceleon:

>> ^Matthu:
wut
how could you people misunderstand what i was saying. i was tired maybe wasn't clear.
im saying quit posting drawings of Muhammad where it doesn't matter(here). post it where it might actually get some attention.
c'mon.. freedom of expression is AT LEAST as important as bra colors.

No, I think we understood pretty well. You called people who posted here cowards, therefore implying that they should post somewhere where their personal information might become available to nut-jobs.
Did I misunderstand?


Correct.

Are you saying that if nut-jobs can find you, and are willing to kill you based on their beliefs. you should live according to their beliefs?

Are you saying that we should enjoy our freedom of expression unless a crazy person who can find where we live threatens us?

I think the sad reality is that more people will have to stand up against these islamic teachings, and some of them will die, before we can put it to bed and go on enjoying our freedom of speech.

Have I drawn Muhammad on my facebook page? Not yet, but Draw Muhammad day hasn't come yet. I did share the video on my wall. We'll see come DMD day if I've got the balls.

Do you have the balls? If not, where are you going to draw muhammad? I don't think many islamic fundamentalists visit 4chan.

>> ^Matthu:

wut
how could you people misunderstand what i was saying. i was tired maybe wasn't clear.
im saying quit posting drawings of Muhammad where it doesn't matter(here). post it where it might actually get some attention.
c'mon.. freedom of expression is AT LEAST as important as bra colors.


No, I think we understood pretty well. You called people who posted here cowards, therefore implying that they should post somewhere where their personal information might become available to nut-jobs.

Did I misunderstand?

It's hilarous when people complain loudly about privacy rights, and then post volumes of personal information on Facebook. Hilarious to me anyway.

Also, awesome *music by Boards of Canada.

Wow... the layers of contradiction in here are staggering...

So I, as a non-believer, can sign up to be a pet caretaker, just in case something happens that I don't believe could ever happen? Does that mean I get paid prior to the rapture, just for saying that I'd help pets after?

I checked... you don't get paid anything... so you just give them your personal information along with the information that you're a non-believer... and they are supposed to contact you after the rapture to let you know that you should be taking care of some animals?

Who's the guy pushing the big red "Push if Rapture" button? The one non-believer they keep in reserve?

I suppose I shouldn't be shocked that this entire thing is utterly retarded.

The case isn't about their use of the state-owned computers in the classroom. In the school, the administrators have every right to monitor the use of their computers. The students shouldn't HAVE to offer any personal information on sites that are to be used for classes, so the privacy issue is moot on school grounds. The case is about whether the school activated the webcams while the students were in their homes.

If the school was peeping on their students in their homes by ANY means, the school is some deep trouble. They could potentially be breaking some obvious and very serious laws whether on purpose or otherwise.

The administration claims the cams were only ever turned on remotely when laptops were lost or allegedly stolen to help locate them.

The only things in this case that I read anywhere said an "image on the student's hard drive" was the reason for the disciplinary action. It didn't say that the image was OF the student in his home, though of course everyone suspects that it was. It's possible, however, that the student WAS doing something inappropriate on the computer while at home and the school found out about it later, legally. It's possible the case against the school is to evade that issue by turning the focus to the obviously dubious potential actions of the school. If the agreement that the students and parents signed prohibited ANY inappropriate use whether in or out of school, and if the school found out about that use later (say while the student was IN the school using their laptop), and if the computer contained the evidence to prove it, than the webcam may never have been remote-accessed at any time off campus in the first place; if that is the case, the school may be within their rights as owners of the laptops. I say all this is "possible" because it IS a feasible explanation, even if it is boring. Honestly, what school administrator would openly come out with a picture of a student in their home taken remotely?! That's almost TOO stupid to believe likely.

The issue is creepy in the extreme, but the school may be innocent, even though they made the enormously monumental failure of judgment by allowing the possibility for abuse at the get go.

>> ^dag:
@shepppard- completely disagree with you on this one. A laptop computer becomes an extension of your personal space. The guy with the goatee who likes to take pictures of the kids is just creepy as all get-out. Is he the principal?? He reminds me of the guy who bags my groceries.
edit: The linked BoingBoing article says it well: "But when schools take that personal information, indiscriminately invading privacy (and, of course, punishing students who use proxies and other privacy tools to avoid official surveillance), they send a much more powerful message: your privacy is worthless and you shouldn't try to protect it."


First some fast facts about internet and computer use at schools:

-Most of the computers being used in schools today were obtained with some kind of grant money
-The high speed internet is also often funded through grants and eve if it isnt it's subject to regulations designated by the state
---Grant money always comes with strict guidelines, if you violate the terms of the grant your school could be forced to pay the money back and possibly be fined in addition to repayment

As someone who is a volunteer member of the technology committee (I get a certificate and everything) at my school, I can testify on behalf of what this school is doing. The grant that funds the internet at my school for example comes with stipulations that the internet is not to be used on social networking sites, video streaming sites (yes youtube is blocked per our grant), pornographic sites, etc. If there is traffic to said sites and there isn't reasonable attempts to block this activity, the aforementioned consequences would go into effect (probably only in an absolute egregious violation of the terms of the grant but it's possible).

All that being said, the internet and the computers dont belong to the kids, they belong to the state or they are bound by the grant that furnished them. It's not unreasonable to monitor the students as they work and make sure they're on task and not looking at anything they shouldn't be.

I didn't see this guy open the camera application in the background and "spy" on anyone. The kids sign a technology agreement before htey can use the internet and the computers. That agreement stipulates exactly what they can and cannot do while they should be working.

Moreover it's the duty of the technology personnel to make sure funding for the school isn't at risk because some 16 year old posts something ridiculous to their facebook page. I'm sure you all would be just as outraged if some kids posted suggestive photos of themselves online (far fetched right???) and then you found out GHASP they posted it while they were at school!!! "Where were the teachers!!?!? Isn't the technology staff doing anything to protect these innocent children!??!"

The whole thing about him taking pictures though is a bit weird. That, and that alone is what crossed the line in this video in my humble opinion.


EDIT__________________________________________________________________________

I didnt read the video description (dumb of me) ok, slight change in my opinion, yes, the computers issued to the students are property of the state and should be subject to monitoring but remotely activating hte webcam is crossing the line. If you look at a kids screen and he has it on, i say it's fair game (fair game meaning you could perhaps stipulate that the webcam shouldn't be used altogether but it's inappropriate for the administration to make discipline decisions based on what's being viewed in the camera unless two conditions were met, 1) the kid turned it on not anyone monitoring, and 2) The student was in some kind of danger (ie doing blow off his mousepad).

>> ^dag:
@shepppard- completely disagree with you on this one. A laptop computer becomes an extension of your personal space. The guy with the goatee who likes to take pictures of the kids is just creepy as all get-out. Is he the principal?? He reminds me of the guy who bags my groceries.
edit: The linked BoingBoing article says it well: "But when schools take that personal information, indiscriminately invading privacy (and, of course, punishing students who use proxies and other privacy tools to avoid official surveillance), they send a much more powerful message: your privacy is worthless and you shouldn't try to protect it."


Easy killer, in my post I was saying that they may have signed a waiver saying they're allowed to be spied on.
I never said it was right.

When they're in school supposed to be doing schoolwork, I don't think it's a huge deal because the kids shouldn't be doing anything on said laptops BUT schoolwork, there it's a good idea. However the second they take it home, that's a moral line that shouldn't have been crossed, waiver or not.

It all lies in the "Did they have to sign something to own the laptops" question now. If there truly was a waiver or form the kids had to sign, and in the fine print said something like:

We reserve the right to be able to access whatever your child is doing on this laptop at any time, and photograph anything improper as evidence.

Then the kid is unfortunately screwed. Right or not, if they signed something the school is able to use their photograph against the kid in question.

If there was no waiver, then the evidence gained is inadmissible and therefore void. The kid will be fine, and the students should set up a counter-suit.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

@shepppard- completely disagree with you on this one. A laptop computer becomes an extension of your personal space. The guy with the goatee who likes to take pictures of the kids is just creepy as all get-out. Is he the principal?? He reminds me of the guy who bags my groceries.

edit: The linked BoingBoing article says it well: "But when schools take that personal information, indiscriminately invading privacy (and, of course, punishing students who use proxies and other privacy tools to avoid official surveillance), they send a much more powerful message: your privacy is worthless and you shouldn't try to protect it."

"The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. [...] [T]he capacity to assert social and political control over the individual will vastly increase. It will soon be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and to maintain up-to-date, complete files, containing even most personal information about the health or personal behavior of the citizen in addition to more customary data. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities." - Zbignjev Brzezinski

>> ^davidraine:
Whoa now. I'm not a fan of most of what qm says either but trying to dig out and expose personal information is out-of-bounds. Even though I feel he or she posts wild accusations without checking facts first (I've downvoted qm's comments for it more than once), he or she is still not directly going after other posters (to my knowledge). It also runs afoul of guideline 36.3 -- If disrespecting anonymity and cross-posting to unrelated videos isn't harassment I'm not sure what is.


>> ^NetRunner:
I think hunting down personal information about someone and posting it is out of bounds, no matter how irritable or misguided they are.


That's pretty hypocritical, coming from the VS community. We've had several instances with video of police brutality/power tripping where someone posted real personal details - full name, address, HOME phone numbers, email addresses etc. and I have never seen anybody objecting in any of those instances - the respective comments got handfuls of upvotes instead. And that was WAY, WAY beyond what vairetube did here, which was merely speculation about gender and approximate whereabouts and age ("Wow, people know I'm a 20-something male living in a city of several million - boy, I'm in trouble, they can find me so easily now!!!").

Also, it's the fucking internets, guys. Any personal info I put out there, especially as public profile info I realize CAN and MIGHT become public knowledge at any given time and nobody should harbor any illusions about that. Besides, it's not like a simple damn Google search for a username really constitutes "digging up personal info". Duh.

Personally, I think vairetube shouldn't have removed the 'info' on quantumushroom (which was probably false anyway, just like the rest of his/her usual array of 'facts') and that nobody should have discarded this even if it is a little pointless making a sift talk about it.


*edit
davidraine and NetRunner: please don't get me wrong - I am NOT saying you're hypocrites. I don't know what your reaction to the couple of cases I mentioned was. I only meant to say that the community has obviously reacted somewhat differently in a similar situation because the 'victim' is a member of the Sift.

Varietube, I've got nothing in the world against you, but this Sift talk is out of line. Even if you hadn't posted personal information about QM, this would still be out of line because basically it's just one giant personal attack. Now if he's guilty of breaking any rules then let one of us know so that we can seek a remedy. Is he flaming you with private messages? Are you flaming him back? If so, could either or both of you please stop? Otherwise one of us might have to hobble one or both of you until this is sorted out, and I don't want that to happen

I'm going to *discard this, because this has no place in Sift talk. Nothing personal, varietube.