A South Carolina high school teacher has sued (PDF) the school district that employed her after she was pushed to resign when a student grabbed racy pictures off her smartphone.
Leigh Anne Arthur resigned from her job earlier last month when she was told she would face disciplinary proceedings because a student grabbed photos off her phone while she was on a routine hall patrol.
At the time, Arthur complained that she, rather than the student, was the one being punished. The student shared the racy pictures of Arthur with his friends as well. Arthur said the pictures were a Valentine's Day gift for her husband, and she forgot to erase them from her phone.
"He knows right from wrong," she said of the student in a TV interview shortly after the incident. "Where are you putting the moral of the student?"
The 16-year-old student was hit with felony charges the following week.
In Arthur's lawsuit, filed Friday, she described how she left her phone on her desk during a five-minute interval in between classes. Without her permission, the student opened her photo app, then took pictures of her pictures with his own phone and shared them via social media.
takyon: Many students signed a petition to rehire the teacher.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @08:25PM
A lot of times, they don't have a pants pocket for their phones when they get up and walk around.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Sunday March 27 2016, @08:35PM
I'm not sure how that excuses her for not locking the device.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Professr on Sunday March 27 2016, @08:37PM
How is preventing criminal activity her responsibility? Let's keep the blame where it belongs, on the perpetrator.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 27 2016, @09:13PM
Yeah, the perp is to blame. But if your doctor doesn't protect your medical information, he's liable for neglect. "Victims" do have SOME responsibility, after all.
I remember the concept of "no fault" insurance. Almost no one is 100% responsible for an accident. You may only bear 5% of the responsibility, but you ARE responsible if you fail to avoid an accident. If you are only 5% responsible, then your insurance company (or you) pays 5% of the damages.
If you leave your phone lying around unlocked, then yes, you share responsibility with the perpetrator who steals your data. I leave it to our fellow Soylentils to determine how much responsibililty the teacher is liable for.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @09:32PM
Not at all.
If a thug stabs someone in a wheelchair is the thug more at fault than if they had stabbed someone able-bodied? Of course not.
You've confused a person's ability to protect themselves with a legal responsibility to protect themselves. The fault is 100% that of the perpetrator, your ability to stop the perpetrator is not a factor in his fault.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @10:50PM
i don't think taking nude pics and leaving them unprotected on your phone at school where you work/teach is quite the same as being randomly stabbed, but ok
being in possession of what could be constituted as pornography on a schoolground kinda actually seems pretty fucked up
even notwithstanding the fact that she worked with kids, is anyone really stupid enough to keep nude pics on their phone at all, let alone at work? how stupid can people get?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2016, @01:56AM
That's all it took in the case of Julie Amero.
The Windoze 98 box in the classroom of a substitute teacher was infected to the gunwales and, while kids were looking at it, porn popped up on the screen. [google.com]
The people of Connecticut, in their infinite wisdom, charged her with risk of injury to a minor and 6 of their most brilliant citizens found her guilty [securityfocus.com] on 4 counts.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by anubi on Monday March 28 2016, @05:53AM
What you reported is so absurd I would not have believed you if you had not provided the citation.
This is another data point to me, illustrating just how technically illiterate most of our population is. Not that I expected the teacher to clear the machine of viruses, but even the thought of holding that teacher responsible for something so obviously out of her control.
My sentiments: Teacher is 100% innocent.
This same thing happened to us numerous times in a community college class I took when the internet was just gaining hold, and I wanted to learn HTML. One of the things we did was browse pages to find something interesting, you know, those little tricks a programmer used, then view the same page in an HTML editor to see how he did it.
We had many porn pop-ups - sometimes to the extent we had to cycle power to the machine to make them go away.
Sure, some red faces. We laughed it off.
I do not think it even crossed anyone's mind to hold anyone accountable for it. We all knew exactly what it was, and knew that was the risk of visiting any website on the net. You can't see what's behind the door until you open it. Once in a while, you got something far different than what you thought you were gonna get.
I really hate this "witch-hunt" mentality that seems to run in some of us.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2016, @06:52AM
a CC class ain't the same as 7th grade
it isn't technical ignorance its think of the childrenism + adversarial legal sysrem which cares about winning rather than truth
(Score: 1) by anubi on Monday March 28 2016, @07:03AM
We keep treating teachers this way, and we aren't gonna find anyone willing to take on the risk of turning a computer on in front of children.
Besides, if they want someone to nail, install one of those "parental control programs" on the machine ( The old one I knew was NetNanny, but that was decades ago! ) so you have some entity to blame should a nudie get through.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Monday March 28 2016, @04:09PM
I used to recommend OpenDNS for filtering. Free and way snappier than the NetNanny type software. It's now owned by Cisco though and you know they are gathering data on all its users now. But I suppose EVERY single DNS service does anyway.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday March 29 2016, @03:30AM
I was thinking down the lines of "who cares if the damned thing works, I just want 'plausible deniability' to cover my ass in case something happens"...
I have seen a helluva lot of inferior software specified for that very reason.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Tuesday March 29 2016, @01:50PM
Anecdote time!*
One time at a university PR-day for prospective students, we were showing students this new-fangled thing called the internet.
Friend of mine showed a 16 year old Altavista (this was post-yahoo, pre-google), and asked him his favourite music style. Kid said "hardcore [wikipedia.org]". My friend typed it in, clicked search, saw the results and just said, "errrr... nope, let's close that." :)
* No children's minds were scarred by this tale.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2016, @02:39AM
> is anyone really stupid enough to keep nude pics on their phone at all, let alone at work? how stupid can people get?
Ah, the elder authoritarian mindset. Something that nearly everybody under the age of 30 does is reprehensible!
Well, I have one counter argument -- you better fucking never ever complain about the government wanting access to people's phones without even a warrant. because if having private information on your phone, let alone at work *gasp* is so stupid that must be because you have no right to privacy for the contents of your phone
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2016, @11:19AM
Well, I have one counter argument -- you better fucking never ever complain about the government wanting access to people's phones without even a warrant. because if having private information on your phone, let alone at work *gasp* is so stupid that must be because you have no right to privacy for the contents of your phone
Just because it is stupid for you to have the information on your phone does not absolve others of violating your privacy. Those are two separate matters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2016, @08:18PM
Bullshit.
Either you have an expectation of privacy or you don't.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Monday March 28 2016, @08:52AM
Why do so many people have the quaint idea that there's a fixed amount of guilt for every misbehaviour or crime, and saying some person has some guilt, too, somehow reduces the guilt of others?
Of course the student is no less guilty than if he had e.g. used a security hole in the phone's OS to get the pictures. But that doesn't mean that the teacher is not responsible for leaving her phone unlocked.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Troll) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 28 2016, @05:16PM
If a person commits no crime they have zero guilt. Leaving one's phone unlocked is not a crime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2016, @05:23PM
I think that the fundamental disagreement circles around the difference between guilt and responsibility and "common sense". I think that most see that she isn't guilty but there is a struggle in where in the responsibility or common sense spectrum locking a phone falls.
I personally struggle with assigning responsibility to the teacher because in the same vein the student had at minimum a responsibility to not access his teacher's phone. Similarly if you leave the front door unlocked that doesn't mean that I am allowed to walk in uninvited. If matters not if you keep nude pictures of yourself just beyond the door does it?
This is the other interesting aspect to me. For some reason the fact that there were nude pictures on her phone seems for many to fundamentally change the situation. I disagree that it changes anyone's guilt or responsibility in this scenario. Clearly it changed the consequences. I see that as the misbehavior of the student. He really should have known that sending nudes of his teacher to his friends was going to have serious consequences if/when he got found out.
Finally if we reverse the gender roles is the male teacher still a tramp that should be fired for not locking his phone with teen aged females in the classroom?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @09:33PM
big difference between "I should protect myself against possible accidents" and "I should actively guard myself against people I see every day".
I don't see how she could be held liable, unless there was a history of trouble with some of the students. Phone is private property; there's no difference between looking through her phone and stealing her wallet.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RamiK on Sunday March 27 2016, @09:33PM
Nah.
You have a right to be negligent with your own personal safety and health. Your doctor doesn't. Nor does it give someone the right to kill you.
Similarly, you have a right to leave off your phone unsecured. That doesn't mean the OEM is has a right to neglect good security. It also doesn't mean the criminal has a right to steal your data \ phone.
Also, 1st party, 2nd party & 3rd party; Use, abuse and confuse :D
compiling...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @09:40PM
Your understanding of no-fault insurance must have come to you while smoking pot because it has no connection to what no-fault insurance actually is, if anything you've described traditional tort insurance. If you care to rectify your ignorance go read the wikipedia article on no-fault insurance it isn't very hard to grasp - hint it is in the damn name: "no-fault."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @09:54PM
If someone sideswipes your parked car and drives off how are you at fault for that? For not parking in a garage?
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @10:19PM
How is preventing criminal activity her responsibility?
Exposing minors to pornography that she created and left on her phone is not her responsibility? Let's say they were physical photographs of herself nude and she carried them around at school most days, and left them lying face down on her desk. Do you understand yet, or are you simply willfully ignorant. The school was correct in firing the ignoramus.
Every time a woman does some dumb shit white knights race to her rescue. This is sexist behavior and removes agency from the woman. If it were a male teacher's penis we'd be talking incarceration for indecency here. Get it yet? Both the teacher and student were in the wrong, it's not a false dichotomy. Punish them both, but the teacher more so since she knows damn well bringing nudes to school around curious kids is not professional conduct for a teacher.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Dunbal on Monday March 28 2016, @01:13AM
The minor exposed himself. The phone did not jump out and force him to see the pictures.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2016, @02:21AM
Folks from The South recognize the word "nekked".
Widely-known writer and Son of The South Roy Blount, Jr. is a regular panelist on NPR's quiz show "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me".
During one of his appearances, I heard him give an excellent explanation of the term:
"Naked" means you don't have any clothes on.
"Nekked" means you don't have any clothes on AND YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING.
A photo of someone simply in his|her birthday suit is NOT porn.
Someone in the thread has already mentioned stick-up-your-butt syndrome.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Monday March 28 2016, @08:35AM
Exposing minors to pornography that she created and left on her phone is not her responsibility?
What if the students had simply used her phone to navigate to web based porn, using the cellular network bypassing any school firewalls? That actually would have been easier and more reliable than browsing her photos.
Let's say they were physical photographs of herself nude and she carried them around at school most days, and left them lying face down on her desk.
That's essentially a completely different thing you are trying to equate here on so many levels. Why would I carry physical photos into school with me? That makes no sense. On the other hand it is completely reasonable and understandable why someone would bring their personal phone to work with them. Its probably even a quasi-requirement/expectation that they have a phone, etc. And a public school district isn't going to be handing them devices; so its going to byod. Its also understandable why she'd take nude selfies on her personal phone for private consumption. Its just unfortunate side effect of convergence that the two scenarios involve the same device. So we can all see how this would happen to a reasonable, if perhaps somewhat careless person.
Every time a woman does some dumb shit white knights race to her rescue.
Don't bother to attempt to try and label this using sjw terms like white knight to avoid arguing the actual case. Its bullshit.
If it were a male teacher's penis we'd be talking incarceration for indecency here.
I'd defend him equally in the same circumstances.
Both the teacher and student were in the wrong, it's not a false dichotomy. Punish them both, but the teacher more so since she knows damn well bringing nudes to school around curious kids is not professional conduct for a teacher.
The teacher was careless; and a memo should go out to all teachers to put a fingerprint lock on their devices, or a decent passcode. (preferably fingerprint, it'll be more difficult for curious students to 'intercept'.) In terms of any theoretical harm or whatever to the student they could have used the phone to look at web porn just as easily so the presence of the nudes on her phone really are neither here nor there. Web porn would likely have been far more extreme. Her nudes were just personally embarrassing to herself, and she's already been punished enough by having them released.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday March 28 2016, @11:25AM
Even if the minors were exposed to hardcore pornography, and it wasn't because one of them had decided of their own volition to rifle through someone else's belongings to find it, they wouldn't be hurt by it at all. This puritan nonsense needs to die.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday March 30 2016, @08:46PM
The teacher used her personal device for personal reasons.
The student committed MULTIPLE FELONIES.
And you're seriously sitting here blaming the teacher?? Care to actually show us what she did wrong? And I don't mean some vague and highly misleading statement like you just made (how is she the one who exposed the student to something when she wasn't present and didn't know it was happening and it only occurred because of his own criminal actions?); show me the law you claim she violated. Or even the district policy. Or any evidence at all that she did anything wrong.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday March 27 2016, @11:24PM
Disclaimer: Personally I don't give a shit - I think most people have a stick far too far up their arses on nudity.
HOWEVER
Defending her using some sort of "victim blaming" mentality simply won't cut it here.
The school almost certainly has a policy of teachers bringing pornography to school. And the teacher could have had a defence had the phone been locked or hacked in some way but it was not.
Unfortunately the fact is she brought porno to school (worse, of herself) on a unsecured device and it not only circulated around the school but became a PR issue for the school.
So based purely on a school rules basis her dismissal is could be easily justified.
And before anyone tried to get on their moral high horse, the kid should go down in flames also - I am not defending his douchey actions at all.
TRUE PERSONAL STORY:
When I was 10 or so we had a project to cut things out of magazines that were in a box in the cupboard. We found lesbian porno in the magazine stack which had come from our teacher's home. All the boys fought over them.
I remembered being most interested in the bondage cartoon where the amazon warriors tied and then raped (probably was not thought of that in those days) the white woman. (I am not kidding) I loved cartoons...
She found out after 10 mins or so and I remember being perplexed she was not more horrified we had found them. It was the 80's after all though.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2016, @06:19AM
And the teacher brought her ass and vagina to the classroom as well... covered by layers of fabric.
Should a student yank on the clothing hard enough to cause the fabric to fall off, should the teacher be held responsible for that too?
What I am getting at is it took some doing for the students to violate her personal property... it wasn't like she left her phone out with that picture on its display.
I could hold her a bit on the soddish side for even having those in her possession on school premises, even though they were not on public display, just as I may hold a male teacher a bit soddish for carrying around a nudie pic of his wife in his wallet.
I would hold that the embarrassment of this whole affair to be more than adequate punishment for the act of soddishness.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday March 30 2016, @08:50PM
The difference is that in your case, the teacher instructed the students to look at that material. In this case, the student had to commit multiple felonies to even find that material.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday March 30 2016, @08:58PM
Oh, and one more point -- from what I've read elsewhere the material wasn't really "pornographic". She was topless, that's all. In all but three US states it's legal for a woman to walk around topless *in public*.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday March 31 2016, @06:18PM
The personal story was not being used as evidence of anything. I am not stupid enough to try to use an anecdote to prove a point.
It was just a side note of a related experience.
Using the word "felony" does not make your point stronger. I love how you americans always do that. An act is as bad as it is, just because a bean counter invents a different arbitrary name for it does not make it worse than it is.
And it is legal as an adult to have sex with a 16 year old in my country and in many states in the US. Take a photo of the act and its child porn.
So your topless argument is unrelated rubbish. And school rules probably include "inappropriate material" of which topless selfies are almost certainly covered by.
Again, I PERSONALLY don't think she should be fired. But I can see how applying school rules in this case could easily be justified by school policy. Especially by a school admin with a stick up their arse.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Monday March 28 2016, @02:49AM
Blame is not a zero sum. The student's actions don't mean that the teacher didn't fuck up. If she is in a school with pornographic pictures on an unlocked phone, then she fucked up.
That said, people are way too sensitive about nudity. Clothes are a matter of courtesy, not morality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2016, @07:04AM
and yet you obviously buy into the morality groupthink since you too called the pictures pornography when tfa just calls them racy
it is pretty revealing how the only people who have decided the pictures were pornography despite no evidence having been presented that they rise to that level are the ones who think she deserves blame. its a really straight-forward example of people who have a predetermined bias amping up their version of events in order to rationalize their bias
even worse is how many posts so far have done exactly that, feels like at least half the posters are on the pornography bandwagon, making up their own evidence
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday March 28 2016, @01:52PM
If you haven't seen the pictures either you're pretty much doing the same thing, Mr. Pot.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday March 28 2016, @11:21PM
I just read the text of what he is being charged with and don't get how that is a crime, at least if the first amendment applies to states. Plus, if it is a crime, she is the victim, and I don't think it makes a lot of sense to hold the victim of a crime responsible - instead, it should be up to the victim to decide how much restitution to exact within legal limits after the alleged perpetrator is found guilty, which in this case would give her the choice of extracting zero restitution if that's what she wants.
Really I think people should secure their own data if they want it secure rather than trying to punish people for accessing it after the fact. If you made a security mistake, own it. Learn from it. And if you're a teacher - well, truth is maybe teachers should be the ones who know a little bit more about security, at least in the modern age. Or not. It ought to be up to parents who they want teaching their children and if they want her doing it, nobody should stop them.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2016, @12:40AM
Victim Blaming: +1 for Slitheren.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Sunday March 27 2016, @08:31PM
Why can't we just relax about bare skin already? After all, everybody has it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @08:35PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @08:38PM
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday March 27 2016, @08:39PM
And ruin our angelic children with tawdry sexualization? We may be obsessed with sex in the media, but parents simply don't want to see their teenagers as sexual beings. Oh, they grow up so fast.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @08:42PM
http://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/patient/male-breast-treatment-pdq [cancer.gov]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @09:04PM
You might want expand your sample source to include both genders.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @10:10PM
I think statistically this is close enough of a figure. It doesn't suggest gender at all. After all, there are women who've undergone mastectomies who would push the number down just as there are men with boobs to push it back up again.
Unless you really like talking about boobs and boobs are all you think about. Maybe while thinking about what kind of boobs are the best kind of boobs the context for the exact percentages of male boobs vs female boobs would be relevant, but that rarely comes up in casual conversation. Boobs happen, dicks happen, usually in predefined formulations of one or the other but its not exlusuve either. Me? I'm just looking for reasons to say boobs and dicks online! Ah good times....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @11:19PM
The mastectomy count, relative to the human population, is statistical noise. All humans have breasts. Women's happen to serve a biological function where men's don't, but everyone has them. Surely you're familiar with the expression "useless as tits on a bull".
In North America, at least, women's breasts happen to be regarded as "OMG boobies!" where men's are "meh, whatever". I blame the religious fundies. They've spent centuries trying to convince everyone that nudity in general and female breasts in particular are bad while bloodshed is good ("you must die in support of my superstitious beliefs!") when the reverse is actually true.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Monday March 28 2016, @12:33AM
I blame the religious fundies. They've spent centuries trying to convince everyone that nudity in general and female breasts in particular are bad
That's because life comes from genitals and is sustained by breasts. They want you to believe their god does all that.
(Score: 1) by Kawumpa on Monday March 28 2016, @08:55PM
That's because life comes from genitals and is sustained by breasts. They want you to believe their god does all that.
He doesn't? Blasphemy! You'll burn in hell!!!11!!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 27 2016, @09:18PM
Teachers? Teachers are sexual creatures, like regular common people? Oh, GOD! We simply can't have that. Vasectomies and female genital mutilation for all teachers! We've simply got to purify our teaching staff! Mutilate all of them, remove everything! /sarcasm
(Score: 1) by an Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2016, @05:04AM
It's not going to happen in a society where a not-insignificant portion of the population is obsessed with contriving sexual abuse, especially as a means to get ahead.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Tuesday March 29 2016, @01:59PM
oblig. XKCD [xkcd.com]
Imagine you're at a parent-teacher conference, and the teacher reassures you that he always wears a condom while teaching. Strictly speaking, better than the alternative - yet someone is clearly doing their job horribly wrong.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Thexalon on Monday March 28 2016, @12:31PM
Oscar Wilde said it best: "If people were meant to be naked, they would have been born that way!"
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday March 28 2016, @10:07PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 02 2016, @08:09PM
That depends, is that person teaching a course on security?
(Score: 2, Informative) by VLM on Sunday March 27 2016, @08:34PM
From the "This Story is Useless Without Pics" department, to be sure.
Also before the whining starts, there is a tech angle to the story
Arthur taught mechatronics, a class that combines mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and computer programming.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @08:46PM
There's one pic and it's enough to make the story less tantalizing.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @09:42PM
Where's the -1 douchebag mod?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2016, @02:56AM
SCOTUS guy Potter Stewart famously said about porn "I know it when I see it." [wikipedia.org]
I have seen pornography and a photo with only 1 person in the frame doesn't qualify.
a tech angle [...] Arthur taught mechatronics
In addition, unauthorized access to a computing device is a federal felony.
Just ask Kevin Mitnik.
Copyright infringement has also been mentioned in the (meta)thread.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday March 28 2016, @01:45PM
Because it's not possible to have an orgasm by yourself, sure.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @08:45PM
This whole thing strikes me as a 'looking for a reason' to get rid of her.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @08:59PM
I'm pretty sure using your phone to take pictures of another phone or security system monitor is a felony. Learn to transfer that stuff losslessly, folks!
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @10:18PM
It was just copyright infringement.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday March 28 2016, @09:03AM
It was also unauthorized access to the teacher's phone.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Monday March 28 2016, @06:44PM
I think we can all agree that there is a fundamental difference between making a copy of something distributed in mass without paying for the legal right to do so, and making a copy of data not distributed in mass. One affects profits, and that's about it. The other affects privacy, etc.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday March 27 2016, @10:19PM
Don't public schools receive their funding based on student attendance? If students:
wouldn't the district have to respond quickly or face significant financial losses?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 27 2016, @10:32PM
And the best part is, they get to skip school.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2016, @02:38AM
Think of all the overtime for truant officers, and the bonues for the juvenile dentention centres. It will keep the courts busy too, along with the social workers and foster homes--a banner day indeed for the system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2016, @07:08AM
how can there be overtime for truant officers? You can only be a truant during school hours.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2016, @06:32PM
Students organized a mass "skip school" campaign in retaliation for some perceived teacher pay injustices at a local district. As skipping school for this was illegal, the officers did indeed do overtime, because normally (locally at least) they are only on "truancy duty" for a small portion of the day, and have regular duties at other times.
Now, they didn't actually bring many students - only those that didn't show up at the official protest during school hours, that they were able to find. They did take pictures and write down names, I'm told.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Monday March 28 2016, @06:46PM
Public schools receive funding based on the entire year's worth of (expected/registered) attendance. Just because a skip day happens doesn't mean the budget changes. I mean, a budget has a granularity of "one year" for allocation purposes..
(Score: 4, Disagree) by Username on Monday March 28 2016, @02:40AM
The fact she didn’t want the photos shared is irreverent. She brought pornography into a school. If I bring Backdoor Sluts 9 in and leave it on my desk, and children get a hold of it and make copies, it’ is my fault. Even though kids shouldn’t be going through my stuff, they wouldn’t have it if I didn’t bring it into the school.
The only reason she’s getting sympathy is because she is a woman. A male teacher would already be serving time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Monday March 28 2016, @07:50AM
She brought pornography into a school. If I bring Backdoor Sluts 9 in and leave it on my desk, and children get a hold of it and make copies, it’ is my fault. Even though kids shouldn’t be going through my stuff, they wouldn’t have it if I didn’t bring it into the school.
Actually, yes. Essentially this is true.
The only reason she’s getting sympathy is because she is a woman.
Well no. The reason she is getting sympathy is that the circumstances are a little more nuanced.
1) the so-called porn features herself and was for private consumption. That's quite different from a guy bringing in backdoor sluts 9, which was produced for distribution and presumably doesn't feature the male teacher.
2) bringing in 'selfie-porn' on a smartphone is pretty understandable; we can all understand how it got on her personal phone; and how it came to be that her phone was on school property. It was bad judgement, but most of the people i know have images on their phone that "shouldn't be there"... from female coworkers who receive unsolicited dickpics from randos on tinder, and how many of us get risque and NFSW jokes and such that our friends / siblings etc text and email us (remember this is to our personal email accounts and devices not to our work addresses) to private selfies etc. A LOT of people can relate to this.
3) Opening her personal phone, and launching the photos app is quite a distance from "leaving backdoor sluts 9 DVD" on your desk where it can be seen.
A male teacher would already be serving time.
That's really highly doubtful if he just accidentally brought some in; and clearly had no intention of distributing it or consuming it on school grounds, and had kept it in his breifcase or bag out of sight.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 28 2016, @04:10PM
from female coworkers who receive unsolicited dickpics from randos on tinder,
Citation needed. First off, I think it's only been extremely recently that Tinder has allowed people to send GIFs to each other. And secondly, you **cannot** get a picture, or message, from any random person on Tinder. It's completely impossible. You can only receive communications from people you have explicitly "liked".
So if you're getting offensive material from people on Tinder, that's your own fault, and you need to do a better job with which people you right-swipe for, and maybe be more selective.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Monday March 28 2016, @09:09PM
And secondly, you **cannot** get a picture, or message, from any random person on Tinder. It's completely impossible. You can only receive communications from people you have explicitly "liked".
Right. Story is the coworker swiped right, and the first message she got from him was a dick pic.
So if you're getting offensive material from people on Tinder, that's your own fault, and you need to do a better job with which people you right-swipe for, and maybe be more selective.
Really, how much information do you have about a person before you swipe?
So in my books at least, he's still a "rando on tinder",
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 28 2016, @09:35PM
Story is the coworker swiped right, and the first message she got from him was a dick pic.
This was a woman you know? Did this happen recently (like in the last month)?
Really, how much information do you have about a person before you swipe?
A lot, if you care to look. A lot of Tinderers don't bother, and the UI encourages stupid swiping.
Personally, first off, I wish I could disable swiping altogether. I hate gesture UIs, and it's too easy to make a mistake. I'd rather just have the like/dislike buttons to tap on.
Next, I never "like" someone immediately. I do "dislike" people immediately, if I just don't like their photo (totally not my type). If they pass this first test, I tap on their photo. This brings up more info about them: you can see their bio (non-Plus users can type 500 characters in this section to give a brief summary about themselves), and you can see their other photos by swiping the photo left or right. (This is why I hate the initial swiping: it's really easy to accidently go back to the main left/right-swipe mode and left-swipe someone you like because you were scrolling through her photos.) You can put up to 6 photos in there.
If I see something in her photos I really don't like or consider a dealbreaker (like she's dressed in camo and has is holding a dead deer), I hit the "dislike" button and move on. If I read something in her bio that I don't like, she gets disliked. The only way I "like" someone is after reading her bio and scrolling through her photos.
Now granted, a lot of women get "liked" simply because they're pretty, even if they haven't bothered to write a bio (around 50% don't). Depending on how pretty she is, if I see too many things I don't like (evidence she's really religious, poor educational background, too many pictures involving alcohol, etc.) she'll probably get "disliked'. But since I'm a guy and women **never** send me rude pics (or any pics at all, actually), and in fact never even write me first (and worse, only even reply about 20% of the time when I write first), I can afford to have a much lower bar. If you're a woman and you're getting a lot of rude behavior from men on there that offends you, then you need to raise your bar.
How do you do this? Simple: start looking for men of quality, instead of just right-swiping every guy that looks nice.
Look through his photos: is he doing stupid stuff? Are all his photos of him at bars with his buddies getting drunk? What does his bio say? Did he even bother to write anything?
After getting a bunch of dick pics from men, a smart woman should be able to start seeing some trends. I don't know what exactly these trends would be (I'm just guessing with my points above), since I'm not a woman and don't try to meet men on there, but I'm sure there are some. I would be willing to bet good money that if a woman only "liked" men who had thoughtful, well-written bios, portraying them to be quality men and not just men looking for a "hook-up", for instance, then she would probably have almost no dick-pics, if any. But if a woman isn't willing to take the time to read men's bios this way before right-swiping, then I for one have NO sympathy for her, and AFAIC she deserves all the dick pics she gets. If you're not going to put any effort into finding a quality relationship partner, then you don't deserve one.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday March 29 2016, @06:46AM
I don't use tinder, and really don't know much about it, but it does appear they've had photo support for quite a while now; i see on google an announcement from 2014 that they'd added 'disappearing photos' (http://www.thewire.com/technology/2014/06/tinder-now-lets-you-send-disappearing-photos/372223/), it looks like the much more recent update your referring to lets you send animated gifs??
Yes, I've met the woman; she's my wifes cowoker; and the incident was a few months ago at least. I don't think she was particularly upset by the incident, more amused/bemused and she and her coworkers (including my wife) all had a good laugh over it / at it.
The point I was making was that she's a perfectly normal woman; who happened to have "porn" on her phone. If she came to visit us, and left her phone on the table... and my kids took it, and looked for photos... I'd blame the kids*. And I wouldn't think she was some sort of inappropriate weirdo who did the equivalent of walking into my house with a copy of backdoor sluts 9 or physical photos of someones dick and then left that unattended on the table. Because its simply not the same thing as 'having it on your phone'.
(* I'd discipline the kids for taking her phone and snooping. While I don't see any reason for them to be exposed to tinder dick pics, I'm sure it won't damage them as people.)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2016, @03:56AM
They fire the teacher and charge the student with felony. What's wrong with people nowadays?
There's no need to fire the teacher, how much more punishment should she get? She's now got her nude pics on the Internet, some students will probably make fun of her regularly, what more do you want?
There are less harmful ways of punishing the kid. There's no need to charge the kid for a felony for such a thing. He didn't kill anyone[1]. He's a teenager. Teenagers aren't adults - there's plenty of scientific evidence proving most teenagers brains aren't developed enough for them to be treated as adults ( http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-still-under-construction/index.shtml?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2c0fa9560b-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Full_Text_12_18_2012 [nih.gov]
https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/The-Teen-Brain-Behavior-Problem-Solving-and-Decision-Making-095.aspx [aacap.org] ).
Exposing the kids (and his peers) to the twisted corrupt ugliness of the US Gov and Penal system is likely to be more harmful and scarring than exposing them to pornographic images. There are other better ways of punishing the kid than exposing him to such perversions in his formative years. The school (and parents) should do their jobs of domesticating and conditioning kids properly.
Remember the rest of us will have to live with whatever he turns into later. So which adult version of him do you want to deal with (and pay for)? Someone exposed to the US Penal system for being naughty and spreading nude pics of his teacher? Or someone who was grounded with privileges revoked for that?
[1] If he intentionally killed "innocent" people, then perhaps even if he's a teenager we might want to weed that out of the gene pool.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2016, @01:42PM
This kid did something an adult could be jailed for. Time to accept the punishment. At a minimum put him on the sex offender register. Word will get around fast.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday March 28 2016, @01:18PM
Okay, we got the message. The US legal system is fucked up.
Perhaps some parts of the country could be sealed of until they get a clue? :p
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 28 2016, @04:48PM
The legal system in this country is fucked up all over, not just in the South. Ferguson is in Missouri, for instance, which isn't part of the South. The Flint water debacle is in Michigan, which isn't even close to the South. There's no shortage of corruption in northeast states like New Jersey, or in Illinois. And over in California, BART police officers shoot people dead, in the back and on the floor with handcuffs, while people are watching.
I'm sorry, I just don't see any regions of this country which aren't completely screwed up in one way or another.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday March 28 2016, @05:46PM
Cross the border in the direction of the North pole? ;)