Big Brother Is Watching

Can you say big brother is watching?  Michael and Holly Robbins sure can.  The parents of a Pennsylvania high school student are suing their son’s school, alleging that the district unlawfully used its ability to access a webcam remotely.  They claim that a school official watched their son through his district-issued laptop’s webcam while he was at home and unaware he was being observed.

The alleged incident occurred on November 11 when an assistant principal at Harriton High School told the plaintiffs’ son that he was caught engaging in “improper behavior” in his home which was captured in an image via the webcam.  According to the Robbinses’ complaint, neither they nor their son, Blake, were informed of the school’s ability to access the webcam remotely at any time. It is unclear what the boy was doing in his room when the webcam was activated.  Doug Young, a spokesman for the Lower Merion School District, said the district would only remotely access a laptop if it were reported to be lost, stolen or missing.  Young also said parents and students were not explicitly told about this built-in security feature but to receive the laptop, the family had to sign an “acceptable-use” agreement. In an “acceptable-use” agreement, the families are made aware of the school’s ability to “monitor” the hardware, he said, but it stops short of explicitly explaining the security feature.

Legal pundits have suggested that, if such activity actually did occur, the school district’s electronic eavesdropping violates constitutional privacy rights, intrudes on parents’ right to raise their children and may even be criminal under state and federal wiretapping laws.  Regardless of whether or not the actual invasive act occurred, it is troublesome that the school district would even allow for that type of feature to be activated, with such access and capability; it is almost inevitable that some type of abuse would occur.

The Petit Murders: Can There Ever Be Justice

“Punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrongdoing: and, in order to maintain respect for law, it is essential that the punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them.”  Quoting Lord Justice Denning, Dr. William Petit addresses lawmakers on what punishment he believed was appropriate for Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky, the two men who have been accused of murdering his wife and two children during a home invasion robbery on July 23, 2007 in Cheshire Connecticut.

The jury selection process has recently begun in nearby New Haven, with three jurors selected as of last week, according to the New Haven Superior Court clerk’s office. It is expected to take several months to pick a full jury. Evidence will be presented in the case in September. Komisarjevsky will be tried separately.  This process has re-opened old wounds and brought these horrific acts back to the fore front. 

The recent preparations for trial have also forced many to reexamine their opinions on the death penalty.  Dr. Petit is strongly advocating that, upon a conviction, the men should face the same fate that his wife and two daughters did and be sentenced to death for their crimes. Dr. Petit stated, “My family got the death penalty and you want to give murders life.  That is not justice.”  While many opponents of capital punishment continue to struggle with the moral and religious dilemmas associated with what some define as “state sanctioned murder,” proponents of the death penalty are especially vocal and maintain that if any crime deserves a death sentence, this is it.  Time will determine the fate of these two men but no matter what your opinion is of capital punishment, it is hard to reconcile the fact that these two men, if convicted, would be found guilty of brutally torturing and then murdering 3 innocent victims and depriving a man of his family.  In a situation such as this, can there ever be justice.