Then that's on the teacher, and punishable as per their employment agreement. You know, the one where they agree to follow district policy, and then make a conscious decision not to?
It would - at the very least - partially insulate the school district from liability in this case. Which doesn't seem like a lot until your lazy teacher brings the federal government down on the school and the district.
If we're going to wield the "What part of illegal don't you understand" hammer, then here's a random thought:
The school district needs to be investigated for probable FERPA violations by the DoE Family Policy Compliance Office. Because based on what's in the article, they clearly have problems controlling access to the computer systems containing student records.
Oh, and the head of their IT department needs to be fired for gross negligence - for allowing the system to be configured to use such a weak password in the first place. Because in Active Directory, at least, you have to specifically enable use of such crappy passwords.
This is, ethically speaking, a highly complex subject. And anyone with a black and white answer in either direction should have their motivations heavily scrutinized.
Imagine, for a moment, that a highly reliable test (say, 95%) was available for a, incurable condition - say, ALS.
Would you want to know, with a high degree of certainty that you would get it?
Tweak that: Now, instead of ALS, it's melanoma.
Tweak that: Now, it's a condition that can only be passed to a child if both parents having a particular recessive gene. And one of your parents doesn't have it.
Tweak that: Now, one of your parents - whom you love dearly - isn't your actual parent, and you live in a culture where adultery is punishable by death?
Does your answer change, based on the scenario?
At a small scale, the implications are enormous. At a larger scale, the implications to society could be staggering.
Some people would absolutely want to know. Others absolutely wouldn't. Some might want their primary care physician to be informed, but wouldn't want to know themselves. The reactions would run the full gambit of possible answers.
I think from both practical and ethical perspectives, all or nothing isn't going to be a viable option here. Some sort of opt-in/opt-out system should be set up.
Goofy systems like the Electoral College aside, I believe that in the general case politicians get elected because a simple majority (50% + 1) of eligible voters who actually vote want them elected.
The will of the non-voter is entirely irrelevant, as is the cause of their non-voting status. Additionally, from a practical perspective, a non-voting constituent isn't a constituent. Voting constituents on the losing side of the election are also irrelevant to politicians.
with the low voter turnouts we've seen the last decade plus, it makes it easy for politicians to know who to try to please - and it only seems to be - on average - 10-15% of the registered voters in any given district.
Cache locally until cell service is restored. Done.
Also, it would be fairly trivial to compare GPS location of vehicle w/ cellular coverage map of provider. If they're using Verizon, and over the course of 8 hours you don't see any cellular coverage while the GPS shows you're in downtown LA, you're busted. Oh, and now you've clearly intentionally interfered with the proper function of their vehicle. You might want to check the fine print for penalties for that.
"Would you go after someone who knows everything about you and can place evidence on your or your friends computers (i.e. child pron or money trace to some terror group) which destroys your/their life?"
...And this is why "Congressional Oversight" has failed so miserably, and will continue to do so.
since I can't edit: Yes, IC/Military have their own set of legislation that they have to abide by, but acts like the CFAA specifically exempt them so long as the activity is "lawfully authorized".
In this case, it's safe to assume that CIA legal counsel has a set of orders stashed way which "authorizes" the activity for the purposes of compliance with the CFAA. And if they don't, well, it's fairly trivial (in practice) to generate such paperwork retroactively.
Most US Federal laws around this type of activity include explicit exceptions for LE/IC/Military organizations.
Easy way to check: Pull up the specific law in question in a browser, and search repeatedly for the word "intelligence". When you get to the phrase "intelligence community", you have arrived. That's where the LE and Military exemptions will be as well.
(f) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.
This type of carve out is pretty much boilerplate.