3 ms·

I think it depends on what the intent was. If the intent was to surreptitious take pictures of minors with the hopes of catching some nudity, then I'm guess it

I think it depends on what the intent was. If the intent was to surreptitious take pictures of minors with the hopes of catching some nudity, then I'm guess it falls into the CP bucket. I think it would be hard to show though that there could be a different intent though for surreptitiously taking photos of teens at random times.

ErrantX 17y ago
A big part of my job is proving intent in just such cases. It is, as you point touch on, really difficult. There could be a very "innocent" reason; the sysadmin could be simply obbsessed or interested in individuals lives (it's actually not an uncommon problem) and not even consider that something indecent might appear on screen. She might not find it sexually interesting etc. If the intent really was to photograph nude children then I'd fully expect there to be lots and lots of evidence showing this (particularly in terms of other indecent material on her computers).
- elblanco 17y ago
  Supposing intent was not CP, but was some kind voyeuristic intent, what are the possible kinds of ways she could be prosecuted? What about the administration of the school who signed off on this debacle (particularly the forced use of the laptops under penalty of expulsion that contributed greatly to this mess?)
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    > what are the possible kinds of ways she could be prosecuted? Well pretty much what I listed here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1292998 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1292998 > What about the administration of the school Yeh, that's a complicated one - I hope they don't get off the hook or anything silly. But I don't see how CP laws could apply to them in any way. I presume they will get them under negligence / malicious neglect laws.
    - elblanco 17y ago
      > But I don't see how CP laws could apply to them in any way. Yeah, I wasn't thinking along those lines either way. But negligence sounds pretty good.

ErrantX 17y ago

A big part of my job is proving intent in just such cases. It is, as you point touch on, really difficult. There could be a very "innocent" reason; the sysadmin could be simply obbsessed or interested in individuals lives (it's actually not an uncommon problem) and not even consider that something indecent might appear on screen. She might not find it sexually interesting etc. If the intent really was to photograph nude children then I'd fully expect there to be lots and lots of evidence showing this (particularly in terms of other indecent material on her computers).

elblanco 17y ago
Supposing intent was not CP, but was some kind voyeuristic intent, what are the possible kinds of ways she could be prosecuted? What about the administration of the school who signed off on this debacle (particularly the forced use of the laptops under penalty of expulsion that contributed greatly to this mess?)
- ErrantX 17y ago
  > what are the possible kinds of ways she could be prosecuted? Well pretty much what I listed here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1292998 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1292998 > What about the administration of the school Yeh, that's a complicated one - I hope they don't get off the hook or anything silly. But I don't see how CP laws could apply to them in any way. I presume they will get them under negligence / malicious neglect laws.
  - elblanco 17y ago
    > But I don't see how CP laws could apply to them in any way. Yeah, I wasn't thinking along those lines either way. But negligence sounds pretty good.