December 03, 2005

• Forgot to mention that this was stolen from LF. My parents live in Union County, GA. I wonder if they've heard about this in their local paper, yet. Personally, I think there needs to be an investigation of the principal who installed the camera. Who the hell told him that was a good idea?!
• "Who the hell told him that was a good idea?" His penis.
• Also, official launch of that second website is for Monday. (The mom posted that to the original thread on LF.)
• OK, I understand the designer of her site wanted to make an official looking site and all but what the hell is with the water droplets on the title bar. It totally looks like pee spray. Yuck
• well he shouldn't have taken the camera home.
• Geez, whatever happened to bathroom monitors? (The human sort, I mean.)
• They're now all registered sex offenders
• Insightful
• I don't know. I would have taken the camera home, because to my eighth grade mind, what's to stop the principal from taking the camera and then denying that it ever existed? (In fact, that sounds pretty good to my 29-yr-old mind.) I'm not saying this is the best possible choice, but I can understand why it was made.
• Is it just me or does thatpacir website just scream hoax? Maybe I'm just cynical, but it just looks like a generic template or someone spent a little too much time on it. However, as far as the camera is concerned, duh, someone's a prevert. plain and simple. Where are all the other parents at this school? If it were my school, my parents would already have had the guy's head on a stick.
• I'm with jccalhoun, I doubt he was looking for vandals. "I had told the high school principal, Mr. Fore, that he needed to come up with another solution. That this wasn't appropriate. His response to me was he was going to continue to film." A bit suspicious I'd say. Damn perv. My last year of high school they wanted to put cameras in the bathrooms to catch smokers but everyone objected to it. They ended up with smoke detectors, but you'd still walk into a cloud of smoke when you'd go to the bathroom. Much use that did!
• My school had unofficially designated smokers' and non-smokers' bathrooms. Students, faculty and staff all knew which ones were which. The "smoking" ones were monitored, but at intervals so regular everybody knew when not to go in. Morally ambiguous, maybe, but we all seemed happy with it.
• If this had been the ladies room, there would be no issue about how wrong this was ... therefor, there is no issue about how wrong this was. Nail the principle to the wall.
• Eyewitness News did talk with Bibb County District Attorney, Howard Simms. He says cameras in public school bathrooms are legal because schools have more leeway on privacy issues. WTF? Any lawyers in the building?
• I'm not a lawyer, but I am familiar with US school law in general. The "schools have more leeway" quote almost certainly refers to the principle that schools act "in loco parentis" -- in the role of the parent. This gives the school additional authority over its students that other US government organizations do not have. --Pat
• Monkeyfilter: Nail the principle to the wall.
• Head on a stick. Head on a stick. Head on a stick. Chant with me now: HEAD ON A STICK! the principal's a dick
• What BS... Nowhere in the article does it say the camera was taping anything other than the common area in front of the sinks. Why must we assume this was any more inappropriate then cameras in the hallway. Give it a rest. The kid took the camera, he's a thief.
• The kid took the camera, he's a thief. Cindy Champion says her son, Mac Bedor, and a few of his friends took the camera out of the ceiling because they felt it violated their privacy. Champion says her son brought the camera home to show her that afternoon. She says when she contacted the Jasper County Comprehensive School, she found out high school principal, Howard Fore, put the camera there. Doesn't sound like thieving to me.
• You're right Bob. He's that typical thief that steals a camera from a his school bathroom and takes it home to his mother. Like Meridethea said, the kid probably took the camera to show his mom because the principal may have denied the camera's existence. Yes, it is sad that kids don't have any respect for their authority figures to tell the truth. Then, again the authority figures put cameras in their bathroom. The principal said he put in cameras in the bathroom to stop vandalism. If the cameras are trained on the common area, the vandals would probably continue to vandalize stuff off camera. So then the principal would need to install more cameras giving urinal and stall views? Maybe attach RFID tags to the hall passes. And there is probably vandalism in the girl's bathroom too [although not as bad] so if the school's solution to vandalism is cameras. Put them in the girl's restroom too. Kids may do stupid things but they aren't stupid. The camera won't stop the vandals. But it does take away the perceived privacy one would like when they visit the crapper.
• >>Nowhere in the article does it say the camera was taping anything other than the common area in front of the sinks. Why must we assume this was any more inappropriate then cameras in the hallway.<< In our school, the boys' bathrooms had urinals out in the common area. Unless the boys are also unzipping in the hallway, it's a bit more inappropriate.
• OK folks... assumptions abound here, facts are sort of lacking. Someone please point me to the article/information that states that the camera was positioned in such a manner to film kids in any state of nekkedness. I've missed that. And, while someone is doing that, someone else explain to me what prevented this kid from calling his Dad/Mom and saying "Come on down and look at this." instead of stealing someone else's property. And, while those two are busy, someone show me where the end justifies the means (Correcting an infringement of rights through theft) in a case like this. And, while we wait for those three, someone cite me the actual laws regarding cameras in school. Look, if the Principal put the camera in the bathroom in a manner that showed this poor kid taking a leak, then let's hang the bugger from the flag pole... of course, since the idiot kid vandalized the camera setup by STEALING the camera, we'll never know, will we? I'm sorry, folks, the kid was wrong. Doesn't matter what the administration did, the kid was still wrong. Now...quit jumping all over me until you can come back with some information!!
• So it is ok to assume a kid is a thief but not that an adult is a pervert?
• We KNOW the kid is a thief, he admitted it. We shouln't EVER assume anyone is guilty of a crime until it is proven. Ya know, the principal made a poor call (if he is innocent)...and, it is assumptions like yours that will ruin the career of someone who could have been trying to maintain safety for the whole school. I'm done, folks... Ya'll go lynch this guy..have fun.
• Yes, by the strictest definition of the word, the kid was a thief. I have doubts about whether it would stick in court, though. And isn't there a term them legal fellers use about "reasonable expectation of privacy?"
• I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how "taking property belonging to someone else" can NOT be defined as "stealing" by so many people in this thread. That is THE definition, not the strictest definition. Whether the kid intended any malice or whether the kid had a legitimate concern ... these are separate issues. I don't believe he necessarily made the right choice and I ALSO don't believe suspension was in order. But he did steal the thing, dammit! :)
• 
• Ok, let me reword. We can assume the kid's intentions weren't honorable, but the adult's were?
• Jccalhoun... how about rewording it as we "know" the kids intentions were to STEAL the camera. Why should we assume ANYTHING about the adult... I know Bush is in office, but it's still "innocent until proven guilty" for most of the rest of us! It is responses like this that result in teachers/administrators ignoring so much crap at schools, too afraid of some over-empowering parent whipping out a checkbook and hiring a lawyer...
• someone else explain to me what prevented this kid from calling his Dad/Mom and saying "Come on down and look at this." OK, I will. If I were to walk into my son's school and proceed to the boy's room, I would have the cops on me before I had a chance to examine the ceiling for cameras. Parents have to check in at the office before going anywhere else during school hours. someone show me where the end justifies the means (Correcting an infringement of rights through theft) in a case like this. I'll do that too, right after you show me where the end of preventing vandalism justifies the means of violating the kids' right to privacy. Oh, and when you find that camera I put in your bathroom at work, Bob, please leave it alone.
• erebus...again, and you folks seem to want to ignore this question... Show me where it says that this camera was mounted in a section of the bathroom any more private than a hallway... There may have been no "privacy" violated.... But...who cares about the facts, let's just crucify this administrator and ruin his career without having a clue as to the truth of it. And as for your first point.. call the police first...it the darn camera is illegal they should be interested and go with you.... right? Folks, please don't send my your overempowered kids when they get older... Keep them at home and you deal with them, there won't be a school around that wants them.
• Whether or not the camera was in a position to see anybody's naughty bits, the bathroom is a place where we should be able to expect privacy. And while I'm not condoning thievery, it's entirely possible this kid had reason to believe that going through regular channels wouldn't solve the problem. Did he act in the most mature, adult manner possible? Probably not. Should he receive some kind of punishment for taking the camera? Probably. To me the issue of the camera being there in the first place kind of overshadows that, though.
• I'm pretty sure these guys had a stolen coffeepot.
• Being an eighth-grader, I think he probably can't be expected to behave in the most mature, adult manner possible. That's a situation a kid wouldn't likely expect to find himself in. His judgment may have been bad, but at that age I'd have probably done the same. If the principle was doing this in an honest, nothing-bad-intended manner, he should have sent a notice home to the parents telling them what he was doing and why. And also, he could have told the kids. That would have possibly deterred the vandals, since they'd know they were being watched. Seems to me the sneakiness of it, and also the blowhard way he's handling it now smacks of something suspicious.
• ...the bathroom is a place where we should be able to expect privacy. In a public restroom? What? How often is it that you are completely alone in a public restroom? If you can answer me with more often than not, then you have to start bathing, because you smell worse than a public restroom. If the camera was focued down from above the urinals or toilet stalls the guy is a perv, and I'm guessing it wasn't. Let the facts show that the only thing this principal is guilty of is being an idiot for thinking he could stop public restroom vandalism. Anyone know if the students were made aware of the camera? I used to work at this gas station where we had a camera on the wall. We used to unscrew the lens and hang a long stick of pepperoni out of it to see if the customers would notice. It was a fake. This camera probably wasn't, but at the same time, when you want to stop something you usually use a deterrent, not an incriminator -- especially for a meme like vandalism. I agree with HB, completely. This kind of pure speculation destroys careers and, most of all, lives.
• How often is it that you are completely alone in a public restroom? What the hell are you talking about? We're talking about a camera... in a bathroom. Where's the confusion?
• In a public restroom? Abso-fucking-lutely, and there is a mile-long string of US legal precedent to back this up. Expectation of privacy is regarding the use of ANY kind of recording device, and in a restroom, even a public one, the courts have said again and again that you DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THIS. Doesn't matter where the camera is positioned. I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how "taking property belonging to someone else" can NOT be defined as "stealing" by so many people in this thread. That is THE definition, not the strictest definition. So, if you took a gun away from someone who was going to kill someone else with it, you should be prosecuted for theft? Come on. In no way is placing a hidden camera in a bathroom legal without first obtaining a warrant for that kind of surveillance. The kid took the camera, yes. And then he took it immediately to an adult. He should not be punished for that. He should be applauded.
• Oh, and: Show me where it says that this camera was mounted in a section of the bathroom any more private than a hallway... There may have been no "privacy" violated.... But...who cares about the facts, let's just crucify this administrator and ruin his career without having a clue as to the truth of it. Again, legally speaking, in most states the entire bathroom, every square inch of it, is more private than a hallway, when it comes to the use of video recording devices. The point is not to "crucify" the administrator, but the administrator arguably has more to answer for than the kid. The kid found the camera, took it down, gave it to an adult, and asked what to do next. The administrator was videotaping kids in the bathroom, and TOLD NO ONE. The kid's parents didn't know about the cameras, so I think it's safe to say that none or nearly none of the parents knew. Honestly, which behavior seems more suspect to you? The administrator may very well not be a pedophile, and may have only been concerned with catching vandals. That doesn't make secreting cameras into bathrooms either legal or ethical.
• Oh, and to think at the time of my first post, they called me paranoid...
• Whether or not the principal is a perv is irrelevant to the issue of whether schools should have the right to install such cameras. The fact that the camera was there is not in itself an indication that the principal is the Man-In-The-Van type. We also need to know what the status of the local laws are regarding such cameras before we can come to a proper judgement. However. The fact that this principal did everything surrepetitiously, suggests that he knew it wasn't above board, and that some might become upset with cameras in the john. The fact that he struck out against the kid who pulled the plug (so to speak) also suggests he resented being shown up by some eighth-grader. If there's nothing wrong, don't act like there's something wrong. Post a sign on the door saying 'washrooms under camera surveillance'. Everyone knows, and if you're within your rights to put it there, no-one can complain. Besides -- cameras have a deterrence value. If the principal wanted to stop the vandalism, rather than just trying to catch the perps, bring attention to the camera's existence. All signs point to the principal being a small, petty, power-trippin' man. And the kid learns an important life lesson about screwing such people over. That they should be called out, but you're still going to pay a price.
• Man-In-The-Van type HAHAH never heard that one before. Good one.
• What the hell are you talking about? We're talking about a camera... in a bathroom. Where's the confusion? Read the context of my post. I was defending the principal from the unsubstantiated claims of perversion, nothing more. I don't think there's a need for cameras in a restroom, but I also don't think there's a need to demonize an idiot.
• Abso-fucking-lutely, and there is a mile-long string of US legal precedent to back this up. Expectation of privacy is regarding the use of ANY kind of recording device, and in a restroom, even a public one, the courts have said again and again that you DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THIS. Doesn't matter where the camera is positioned. Read the last paragraph of the article again.
• Eyewitness News did talk with Bibb County District Attorney, Howard Simms. He says cameras in public school bathrooms are legal because schools have more leeway on privacy issues. Well, I stand corrected.
• I stand corrected as well. Still doesn't change the fact that parents should know that their kids are being taped in the bathrooms, and the boy's actions really didn't merit punishment. Really, I hope when I have eight-year-old kids, that they're that smart.
• I would still like to see legal precedent, or a legal opinion from someone who's not trying to prosecute this case. There is a lesser expectation for privacy in a public school but this isn't as clear-cut as the DA would have us think. This is why they can do unannounced locker searches -- the lockers are school property, not the students', and the students know they're liable for anything illegal found in their lockers. At the same time, the lockers are in the hallway, and students know that the admin has the right to search them. The bathroom is trickier, I would think. Some schools do random drug testing for students involved in extra-curricular activities (Yeah! Go after the kids who are involved and have school spirit!), and some parents are fighting this under the students' right to privacy. I agree with the people who said that, if these cameras had been put in a girls' restroom there would be more agreement on the issue. Boys have an equal right to bodily privacy with girls. I also don't think the principal is automatically a perv, though he didn't go about this in the smartest way. Had he sent out a letter to parents and students about the surveillance, I bet that many parents would have felt far more comfortable. It's the secrecy around the surveillance that creeps a lot of people out, I bet.
• I'm surprised no one has mentioned Chuck Berry yet.
• Regarding the "send a letter home". It could be that there had been significant, ongoing damage and the point was to catch the vandels. Bottom line, I guess, is that we have WAY too little information...
• Had he sent out a letter to parents and students about the surveillance, ... he wouldn't have been able to put the camera in there!
• Monkeyfilter: There's a need to demonize an idiot.
• Bottom line, I guess, is that we have WAY too little information... I agree with HuronBob. However... Give it a rest. The kid took the camera, he's a thief. So I take it you're a 'white people borrow, black people steal' kind of guy? Careful with your words. let's just crucify this administrator and ruin his career without having a clue as to the truth of it. Hypocrisy
• I think the kid did right, or at least an approximation of right, and shouldn't have been suspended. But I'm not outraged by it. You can't expect that if you do right all the time you'll never be punished. That's just not life.
• but I also don't think there's a need to demonize an idiot. Idiots should ALWAYS be demonized, often and early. Otherwise they become president. This is an open and shut case. Fire the principle, and probably bring him up on charges.
• principal.
• Remember, the principal of a school is your "pal"!
• meredithea - as a sidenote on the drug testing kids doing extracurricular activities... When I was still in the public schools (not very many years ago), the interpretation I heard was that though schools don't have the right to do that to the student population in general, going along with the privacy thing, they are able to do so when a student chooses to do a school-sponsored and controlled activity. They have considerably more discretion over voluntary activities that they fund than they do over the mandatory activity of going to school at all. On the other hand, they often have hardly any control over activities they don't fund. We found that to be a rather useful fact at my high school.
• Remember, the principal of a school is your "pal"! That's a filthy lie. The principal is The Man, and it's every student's job to Bring The Man Down. At least, that's the education model I've always followed, to some degree of success.
• rushmc!! long time, no see :/ capt renault- i think nickdanger was sharing a little mnemonic device ;)
• it is assumptions like yours that will ruin the career of someone etc, etc It's not our assumptions that will ruin this bozo's career, but his actions. Even if what he did wasn't illegal, even if he isn't some sort of perv, what he did was stupid. Then his behavior shows him to be a petty dictator. There's plenty of good school administrators out there--who needs a stupid petty dictator who may or may not be a perv?
• Call me stupid but my first response is that there is absolutely NO need whatsoever for recording camera devices in the public utilities of anywhere whatsoever but then occasionally i forget about the age in which I live. Is it really so bad that there is a need for cameras in toilets for vandalism or am I still just being dumb and overly cocooned. Do I live in Utopia??? Or am I still overly media bred on the statistics about school teachers and priests??
• Need is the word, fly.
• Wait . . I thought Grease was the word?
• Need also has groove and feeling, so I think that it, too, can be the word.