[ziddoap]

>That's the point I am trying to get across - there is no such right to violate privacy.

Who says you have a right to privacy on a device you do not own, provided to you by another organization for a specific use case (school-related learning) and which comes with terms and conditions of use (which, more than likely, includes a monitoring clause)?

Hate to break it to you, but schools and organizations have rights too. One of those being "if you are using our property, we have the right to monitor it. Because it's our property.".

[ClumsyPilot]

"Who says you have a right to privacy on a device you do not own"

The law does. You paid for the device, or a car or a house you are renting. For the duration on your possesion the owner does not get to randomly violate your rights. If they are not happy with it, they should not have given you the device.

"if you are using our property, we have the right to monitor it. Because it's our property."

While you are at it, give them the copyright to any sextapes they record in your house, and a waiver in case it ends up being child porn .

Also give them a waiver in case they record a conversation with your lawyer, doctor or employer, breaking attorney-client privilidge, medical privilidge or sensitive conversation with your employer.

[ziddoap]

>The law does. You paid for the device, or a car or a house you are renting.

You aren't renting a car. You are being provided a laptop, owned by someone else, and allowed to use it subject to the fact that you follow their terms and conditions, which happens to include monitoring. Please tell me specifically what law this violates, rather than hand-waving.

>While you are at it, give them the copyright to any sextapes they record in your house,

If you wanna make sex tapes on company or school provided laptops... By all means, go for it. But I have no idea what it has to do with this conversation

[ClumsyPilot]

"You aren't renting a car. You are being provided a laptop, owned by someone else"

You are being provided a vehicle, owned by someone else. There is no difference, neither is an act of charity

You dont have to use a car, but your kid has to be at school, and has to use their laptop, so you don't have a choice to reject the 'terms and conditions'.

Is you kid's privacy worth less than $300 laptop?

"Please tell me specifically what law this violates, rather than hand-waving."

American Civil Liberties Union director Vic Walczak said that “the school district's clandestine 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.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_v._Lower_Merion_Scho...

https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/is-your-school-spyin...

The amount of folks here willing to jump to defend the 'rights' of organisations at the expence of personal liberty is disturbing

[TedDoesntTalk]

You’re living in some kind of world very different than mine. See “Acceptable Use Policies”, which are standard practice for equipment owned by large organizations lent to their employees, staff, and students. Even universities have these policies for loaned equipment.