The other day, I wrote about a dad who set out to spy on his son's online activities and wound up catching the school principal looking at child pornography. I now draw your attention to a very good post on the subject by another writer.
Original post: "The strange consequences of spying"
On the Cybercrime Review website, Justin P. Webb writes that the court's reasoning in the Weindl case was flawed. A brief excerpt:
The court seemed to be quite deferential to Auther when it accepted the argument that he was more concerned about leaving than investigating the principal. Perhaps that is true, but is it not equally likely that he suspected the principal of questionable activities and, before leaving, wanted to confirm his suspicions? After all, the FBI agent did say that he was aware of the Sandusky case and that what happened at Penn State motivated some of his later actions. That coupled with the two-time failure to remove the spyware smells funny.
Read the full post HERE.