VanguardLH wrote:

>Didn't know it was stolen. Uh huh. A laptop for $60 and from a
>student. If the substitute teacher tries that defense then she's
>admitting she's too stupid to be a teacher after which the school's that
>hired her should sue for her misrepresentation.

Heh, no doubt.

>And, of course, it's always such a smart idea to leave the OS and apps
>and data files in place on any used computer rather than flatten and
>rebuild.

First thing I do on all brand-new machines with factory ****.

> Hmm, wonder what her excuse will be if they happen to find
>kiddie porn on the laptop.

I think she can claim stupid in that case, why would a 52 y/o woman be
into CP?

Anyhow...

The text I quoted was the back-story, the real issue is if LoJack and
company are guilty of illegal wiretapping. Will be an interesting
precedent. I'm not sure which side I'm on yet. The laptop belongs to
the school and they gave LoJack permission to monitor everything and
anything on it. But...

Wiretapping laws are set at the State level. Some States it's totally
illegal to record any communications, some allow it as long as one of
the parties communicating is privy to the recording.

Ohio's law says one party must know they are being recorded, and these
two lovebirds didn't. In addition, Ohio has a little 'extra' for sexual
communication: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/ohio.html

____________

"But the judge found that there were grounds to believe Absolute had
gone too far, and that a jury might reasonably decide that it had
violated the plaintiffs’ privacy and broken the law. The case raises an
important issue about the length that someone can legally go to recover
stolen goods."

“It is one thing to cause a stolen computer to report its IP address or
its geographical location in an effort to track it down,” Rice wrote in
his decision (.pdf). “It is something entirely different to violate
federal wiretapping laws by intercepting the electronic communications
of the person using the stolen laptop.”