"VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote in message
news:j3kjn4$rs$1@news.albasani.net...
[...]

> 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.

That's what *I* thought, and I wondered why they dropped the receiving
stolen property charge. Anyway, the dropping of the charge is no bar to
using the 'stolen property' aspect as protection for Absolute in her counter
charge of privacy violations.

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

According to the story, it was wiped clean of software (a BIOS rootkit is
able to make the tracking software persist) , and that is one of
the reasons she gave for believing that the low price was legitimate.

I don't believe that for a second.