<p>^^Yeah, I’d be very curious to see if they end up publishing the policy… if it was ever written down. </p>
<p>I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when this whole plan/policy was discussed in the first instance. “Hey, we’ve got this great new system…”</p>
<p>[Specter</a> to hold hearing on Web-cam issue | Philadelphia Inquirer | 03/16/2010](<a href=“http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/87872352.html]Specter”>http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/87872352.html)</p>
<p>This should be an interesting window on the reach (or shortcomings) of existing federal level computer spying laws.</p>
<p>[‘Webcamgate</a>’ figure tries to quash subpoena | Philadelphia Daily News | 03/19/2010](<a href=“http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/88526367.html]'Webcamgate”>http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/88526367.html)</p>
<p>So Perbix and Matsko agreeing to depositions, a good sign there. Cafiero will be interesting to watch.</p>
<p>Cafiero’s attorney is supposed to be defending her – that’s the way the system works. </p>
<p>I’m not defending Lower Merion, but this is the way the adversarial system is set up. A judge can decide that she is required to testify. She can still take the fifth unless there is some kind of agreement in place that her testimony won’t be used against her in any criminal case, right? None of that is illegal or immoral. Same for the parents fighting class action status. They don’t get to decide, but they do get to make an argument. Even if the class is eventually certified they get to exclude themselves from the class if they choose. Presumably the judge will make the decision about whether there is a class and whether it meets the requirements in the law. </p>
<p>Lower Merion made some really poor choices. There are going to be some consequences, and there have already been some changes. I don’t think that any of that is particularly affected by the normal skirmishing going on right now.</p>