“Kiss The Shiny, Shiny Boots Of Leather” is a Lou Reed song, not the official policy of the LM School Department for parents and students.

Summary from a website:

“Invoking the Fifth Amendment Privilege is not without risk. A jury is allowed to draw an adverse inference from a party’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a non-criminal proceeding. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976). Conversely, no negative inference can be drawn from the failure of a criminal defendant to testify. A witness who takes the stand in a civil proceeding does not waive the right to refuse to answer an incriminating question, whereas a criminal defendant who takes the stand waives this right.”

http://www.forryullman.com/5thAmendment.htm

Loraan raises a good point. However, I think that the rule is justified because an assertion of privilege in a civil case has a somewhat different context. In those circumstances, it’s not about refusing to answer questions from a cop or to incriminate oneself in criminal court, but only to provide truthful answers in a civil dispute between two private parties.

E.g., in a car accident case, a driver accused of negligence could assert the Fifth Amendment because the driver might have broken the traffic law in the events leading up to the accident (like by driving too fast or missing a light). This rule creates a compromise so that a witness can’t be compelled to testify, but the judge or jury might reasonably conclude from the silence that the person has done something wrong (solely for civil liability).

If pics were taken more often, in salacious situations. For example, boring situations, one pic per kid per week, but if one’s seen doing something “naughty”, it gets cranked to one every thirty seconds.

(I believe installing software to spy on users is covered in a different module)

In my experience, most parents in the district are pretty horrified at the surveillance aspect. The issue that parents who are upset by the lawsuit have is not that school district didn’t do something wrong. Its that a lawsuit seeking monetary damages that will primarily benefit 1 family and its lawyers is not the way to tackle what has been done.

Under the policy of the school, covering the camera was grounds for Expulsion.

That is the issue.

The kids were forced to leave themselves open to this sexual invasion and their educations were held hostage to force them.

2) The hit to the kids I was referring to was the change in the insurance policy. I believe that the total class action right now is for around $2M, which if it was withdrawn directly from the school district funds would be pretty dramatic in its effect.

3) My perspective is that, yes indeed a civil suit seeking financial damages in this instance (barring special harm caused to the plaintiff) is inappropriate.

4) An existing parents group has already filed with court for intervention in the case, but for the opposite reason than the one you suggest.

5) The only sense in which I can make sense of your accusations of self-interest on my part are that I’m not talking about the constitution, principles, the rule of law and all that. I really have nothing at stake in this case at all – it will have no notable impact on my bottom line or the facilities and programs available to my kids. I’m not really very taken by the whole “its the constitution, stupid” perspective on this case. That could come from the fact that I don’t view this as an error/crime committed by “government”. I understand that others believe that I am either factually, legally or “morally” incorrect in that belief. I think this is a case that can be viewed either way, with different long term results. I just happen to think that the long term results from following the “the government tried to spy on my kids and now they need to pay” perspective are not really particularly helpful for anyone, within this school district or anyone else.

Geezuz. Last I was aware, its up to us (our kids and us) and not you to decide if we been wronged. I think its clear at this point that we have been wronged. But is it appropriate that a single family and their lawyers get to decide what the right path toward restitution is? Even if a majority of those wronged don’t agree? In every legal situation there is always more than one path to resolution, so to speak. The objection here is that the path chosen by the plaintiff and their lawyers is one that many (most?) other members of the damaged class don’t agree with. Nobody is saying that the whole situation should be ignored, buried, etc. etc.

Even if it turns out that employees of the school district were actively spying on my kids on a daily basis, I would not support the current lawsuit unless it could be shown that the school board was aware of and had sanctioned that behaviour. And even then, I would have some reluctance about monetary damages against the district, which is fundamentally simply an administrative representative of the township’s public school population, which just happens to be the damaged class. If it could be shown that the plaintiff had suffered special, particular harm in his particular case, that would justify damages awarded to the plaintiff.

If the kind of ubiquitous, intentional photography that some have alleged to have been taking place has really happened, then the right answer involves criminal prosecution of those who initiated it and made it possible. Unless that involves the school district as a “corporate” entity, seeking monetary damages from the district is just a red herring in the quest for justice in this instance. And if it does involve the district in that way, its still not clear to me how it makes things right to simply shuffle dollars from A to B.

1. Surveillance is everywhere.
2. The ‘authorities’ are not to be trusted.
3. People entrusted with the use of surveillance systems will use them for inappropriate purposes, including breaching your privacy.
4. When caught, those responsible will deny everything for as long as they can.
5. Many computer systems represent potential threats to your privacy, and you should consider the risks before using them.
6. A system that you cannot inspect or modify should be viewed with suspicion.

That’s six invaluable lessons right there. I think the Lower Merion school district is doing a first-rate job of educating its students, and should be applauded for their inventive teaching plan.