Comment Analogy (Score 1) 480
Take the example of someones house.
It has no door of any sort.
A guy walks into the house and sees something they shouldn't - financial records for example. He could say "It's not my fault. There's no security here. Anyone could walk in".
So the homeowner adds a door and a sign saying "Do not enter".
The guy now walks up to the house, opens the door and enters.. He could say "It's not my fault. There's no security here. Anyone could walk in just by opening the door".
So the homeowner adds a lock.
The guy now walks up to the house, picks the lock and enters. He could say "It's not my fault. There's no security here. Anyone could walk in just by opening picking the lock".
So the homeowner adds several locks.
The guy now walks up to the house, pulls out a sledgehammer and breaks the door down. He could say "It's not my fault. There's no security here. Anyone with a sledgehammer could get in".
So the homeowner replaces the wooden door with an all-steel one.
The guy now walks up to the house, and uses an oxy-cutter to cut through the door. He could say "It's not my fault. There's no security here. Anyone with an oxy-acetylene cutter could get in".
Obviously somewhere the 'guy' has crossed the line. I'd suggest that it was at the point that it was no longer possible to accidentally commit the offence.
Honestly, all the school is responsible for is to ensure that a student cannot accidentally bypass their filtering restrictions and set a penalty. It doesn't matter wether it will still be possible to bypass the system. Ultimately it will ALWAYS be possible to bypass it The school just has to ensure that it requires a conscious act by the student. The Student has to make a decision to breach the guidelines laid out by the school; and along with that should be the realisation that there will be consequences if they're caught.
And - yes. I am a school network administrator. I deal with such a situation every day.
We put limitations on what students can reach to protect the students AND to protect the school from possible liability issues. If we're not trying to prevent access to undesirable content it could be claimed that we are endorsing it. It works both ways.
It has no door of any sort.
A guy walks into the house and sees something they shouldn't - financial records for example. He could say "It's not my fault. There's no security here. Anyone could walk in".
So the homeowner adds a door and a sign saying "Do not enter".
The guy now walks up to the house, opens the door and enters.. He could say "It's not my fault. There's no security here. Anyone could walk in just by opening the door".
So the homeowner adds a lock.
The guy now walks up to the house, picks the lock and enters. He could say "It's not my fault. There's no security here. Anyone could walk in just by opening picking the lock".
So the homeowner adds several locks.
The guy now walks up to the house, pulls out a sledgehammer and breaks the door down. He could say "It's not my fault. There's no security here. Anyone with a sledgehammer could get in".
So the homeowner replaces the wooden door with an all-steel one.
The guy now walks up to the house, and uses an oxy-cutter to cut through the door. He could say "It's not my fault. There's no security here. Anyone with an oxy-acetylene cutter could get in".
Obviously somewhere the 'guy' has crossed the line. I'd suggest that it was at the point that it was no longer possible to accidentally commit the offence.
Honestly, all the school is responsible for is to ensure that a student cannot accidentally bypass their filtering restrictions and set a penalty. It doesn't matter wether it will still be possible to bypass the system. Ultimately it will ALWAYS be possible to bypass it The school just has to ensure that it requires a conscious act by the student. The Student has to make a decision to breach the guidelines laid out by the school; and along with that should be the realisation that there will be consequences if they're caught.
And - yes. I am a school network administrator. I deal with such a situation every day.
We put limitations on what students can reach to protect the students AND to protect the school from possible liability issues. If we're not trying to prevent access to undesirable content it could be claimed that we are endorsing it. It works both ways.
