School Spying Scandal Gets Even More Bizarre 699
Several sources following the recent school webcam spying debacle are reporting that an even stranger twist has surfaced. The student in question that was disciplined for an "improper act" was apparently accused of either drug use or drug selling. Turns out he was eating Mike & Ike candy, not popping pills. While there is probably more to this story than has made it to the general public, the officials involved have done a particularly bad job of actually managing the events.
Ugh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah...because Mike & Ikes look just like illicit drugs. Completely ignoring the privacy aspect of this story, a school official mistaking freakin' Mike & Ikes for drugs is beyond comprehension.
http://www.illinoisnut.com/products/mainLarge_1028200752854pm.jpg [illinoisnut.com]
That looks quite unlike any drug I've ever heard of or seen.
To be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, the "Mike & Ike" claim was made by the kid. And he might be lying.
But the entire "what exactly was the kid doing" tangent is really just an attempt to justify the school's bad behavior.
excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
The news just keeps on getting better and better. The more absurd this story gets, the more it will stand out as an example of why this sort of behaviour is unacceptable.
Still can't, (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't make much difference either way (Score:3, Insightful)
Really doesn't make much difference. The school shouldn't be punishing kids for taking drugs at home even if they really were doing that. If they came by the information legitimately then their choices are bringing the matter to the attention of the parents, the police, social services or some combination of those. If the information was acquired illegitimately then the choice gets a little harder but I can still see an argument for "we shouldn't know this but we really should let the parents know anyway and fire whoever got us into this mess". \deciding to discipline the student for a non-school related incident though is just completely the wrong move to make.
Wait.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, I thought the school made a statement saying they never ever used the laptop "security feature" for anything besides recovering lost and/or stolen equipment.
How is snapping a picture of a student, with _no_ stolen laptop, following in line with their stated security policy?
Ya, we didn't use it for its intended purpose. Ya, we did snoop around to satisfy our curiosity, but.. but.. BUT.. LOOK AT THE DRUGS!
*Facts presented so far in this case are less than facts until a court rules. I don't claim to know what happened, I'm just a sheep parroting the hearsay I come across.
Re:To be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Cardinal Richlieu 2010 (Score:3, Insightful)
“If you give me a 640x480 JPEG of the most honest of men, I will find something in it which will hang him”
Re:Underwear check (Score:5, Insightful)
While off topic, your quote makes me weep for that school system. Take a Assistant Principle who can't follow the rules of the school, let alone the law, and put her in a position to _teach_ the kids.
Not only was that disgusting, the "punishment" is frikkin' SCARY.
Re:To be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
They could have caught him cutting open his little sister for all I care.
The school claims the system was only used to locate stolen laptops. If the kid's laptop had indeed been reported as stolen to the school, all 'bad things' that it caught (like him masturbating) isn't the school's fault.
If it HADN'T been reported stolen, then they have no 'get out of jail free card' on seeing him cutting open his little sister. They're still guilty of illegal wire tapping and if they've done it once, it really should be up to them to prove, no-one has been using the system to spy on people.
Re:Nothing changes but stupidity in public schools (Score:4, Insightful)
Hint: Drugs do not come in big candy colored shapes.
I'm guessing you didn't attend a lot of Grateful Dead shows....
Re:Nothing changes but stupidity in public schools (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently you don't know what it was like being a kid in the 80s and 90s. Prescription pills are the drugs of choice by most these days, easier to get by with in plain sight, generally easy to come up with an excuse for having on you or taking, only illegal if you don't have a prescription ... which you don't typically carry around with you.
and ...
Even less noticeable when you carry them around in a candy box and act completely normal with them.
You clearly were not part of the crowd who 'did drugs in school', thats probably a good thing, just stop pretending to know what goes on with the kids who do. If you have kids, I suggest you ask them about the drugs in their school rather than telling them about drugs, they'll probably already know more.
Re:Underwear, check; broomstick, check; noose, che (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ugh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah...because Mike & Ikes look just like illicit drugs.
Additionally I'd argue it's none of the school's fucking business what candy OR illegal drugs the student was taking when he was not at school. If the student were taking poison, committing suicide, then the school officials have a duty to report it and they'd be thanked for that after their jail sentences for being peeping toms.
Re:Haha, 'ol Mike & Ikes (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope the ending of your story is something like "And then I beat that snitch's ass after class that day"...
Re:To be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
But the entire "what exactly was the kid doing" tangent is really just an attempt to justify the school's bad behavior.
And that's the crux of the issue. The kid could have been running a meth lab for all that it matters. Public schools are not empowered to engage in warrantless video surveillance of private citizens in their own homes. A school can't even get a warrant. For that, they have to call the police, and the police have to go to a judge. And if there is anyone in the audience who wonders why schools aren't empowered to do this sort of thing, this case should answer that question.
Dinner and a show (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:To be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, he might be, but so far we KNOW the other side has a history of lying on record (The school board's public statements would make the picture and the disciplinary action impossible, yet both exist).
For that matter, the school would still be in the wrong even if they had him doing lines in a video. It's just that then they would have the ability to deflect the public's attention away from the issue.
Really, the Mike and Ike thing is just icing on the cake. It just says that in addition to being creepy, voyeuristic, stupid, and on a power trip, the school system is also suspicious, given to unwarranted leaps of illogic, and blind as a bat.
Re:eh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To be fair (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly are the evangelical Christians doing do make you think that their premise is that the ends justify the means?
Re:More info on Network Adminsistrator. (Score:3, Insightful)
Some comments:
1) I wouldn't do any of these things to anyone, who bought a computer from me.
2) If the state offered me a trillon dollars to build laptops with software like this I would not do it.
(Even if they sent me to prison.)
There are plenty of ways to retrieve a stolen laptop without pictures or this kind of control, which is entirely not required.
3) It is a sad day when nobody even bothers remembering what tyranny was, and so how unsurprising it begins with scum bags like this to spy on our children just to start with.
I am getting the names of these guys in the area because they won't ever be working for my company.
I will also object to working with these scum bags on any technology project or new business I get. If the customer doesn't know what they are doing or why I object I will make sure to educate them.
People like this are a danger to our constitution, and should be pitied, and black balled.
-Hack
More BS from the school (Score:4, Insightful)
What are the odds that they took one picture and it just happened to be of a kid doing drugs? Zero. The big question: how many pictures would you have to take in order to guarantee a picture of a kid doing drugs? Hundreds? Thousands? That's the crime here, all the pics they took where someone was NOT doing drugs.
Re:Underwear check (Score:3, Insightful)
Glad to see that they know how to hand out punishment!
If I pulled a stunt like that at a business (inspecting female employee undergarments to ensure compliance with corporate dress code) you can bet that I wouldn't be facing a demotion to a job that pays a professional wage. I'd be lucky not to end up in prison, or with $30M in lawsuits, and I'd almost certainly never get a corporate job anytime in the next three lifetimes.
Re:To be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, the "Mike & Ike" claim was made by the kid. And he might be lying.
But the entire "what exactly was the kid doing" tangent is really just an attempt to justify the school's bad behavior.
Exactly. Even if he was taking pills, there's no way of ascertaining what was in said pills by just looking at a photo, but seeing as how they strip search 13 year-old girls [aclu.org] nowadays for having advil, I'm afraid that this is seeming more and more like par for the course. Even if the pills were illegal, the school had no business monitoring him like that.
Re:Ugh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or legal drug. Checking my most recent Prescription reference book, drugs come in all shapes, sizes and colors. Is the school admin a pharmacist? I think not, so what the f*ck does he know? Unless, of course, they look like something the admin is using... :-)
Re:Haha, 'ol Mike & Ikes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nothing changes but stupidity in public schools (Score:3, Insightful)
The Real Issue (Score:3, Insightful)
1.) Just because they told the kids that they might activate the web cam to find it doesn't give them the right to do so. If the activity is illegal, telling someone you are going to do it beforehand doesn't make it legal. IANAL, but this one sounds pretty shaky.
2.)Even if they had the legitimate authority to use the web cam, once they realized that the laptop was in the hands of the right person, they would have been legally obliged to stop spying. Any information they gleaned from that spying would have been inadmissible in court.
From the posting at that link it looks like the school is on a serious freakout powertrip. Requiring the students to have one of these computers, requiring them to use them to the exclusion of all others and then spying on them periodically even if there was no report of the laptop being stolen.
The school board and school administration of that town should be burned to the ground with metaphorical salt sown in their professional fields.
Re:Ugh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people experiment with ways to alter consciousness from a young age, including spinning around. If they're going to do it, they ought to have the information they need to be safe, not a brick wall of silence. Same goes for sex, another popular way to alter consciousness, among other things.
Re:Ugh. (Score:3, Insightful)
I experimented with a rather wide range through my late teens. Never got arrested, never freaked out, never had a bad trip, never lost a job, and aside from the good memories I have from the experiences, no long term side effects.
I made sure to research ANY substance before taking it...what I shouldn't mix it with (i.e. will drinking orange juice and taking this pill kill me), what kind of environment I should be in, potential side effects, how to deal with them, etc. erowid.org was responsable for me having safe and very enjoyable late teen years.
Remember, drug use and drug abuse are two different things.
Re:To be fair (Score:1, Insightful)
using the system to spy on people.
Correction, you should have said "using the system to spy on underage children". If the 'think of the children' adage is thrown in the face of every authority vs. privacy argument, we damn well can use it when it's pointing in the opposite direction.
Re:To be fair (Score:2, Insightful)
What exactly are the evangelical Christians doing do make you think that their premise is that the ends justify the means?
I don't know, kidnapping Haitian children......
Re:To be fair (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the entire premise of contemporary evangelical Christianity and other extremist religions.
Please define "extremist."
If you wanted to apply that word to a "brand" of Christianity, I suggest the extreme wrongness of the views held by those participating in the Crusades and Inquisitions. Unless, of course, you are simply using "extremist" to refer to beliefs that are very different. But typically, people think of people killing each other when you talk about "extremist religions." Most evangelical Christians are not killing each other.
Furthermore, the ends-justifies-the-means is not a Biblical concept whatsoever. The Bible is full of statements, in fact, that deal very much with how you go about doing the "right thing." And, in fact, the Bible calls doing the "right" thing with the "wrong motive" sin - because the Bible mentions the fact that God very much cares about intents and motives, not outward/external acts.
Before judging "evangelical Christianity" - unless you are simply trying to judge particular groups that you have studied and not the entire group as if they all believe the same way - I'd suggest getting to know what they actually think and how much difference there is amongst the various groups in it. It would seem to me to be a fallacy to assume that just because a bunch of people claim the same name that they believe the same thing. Unless you really want me to go about pointing out that "atheists admit they are faith-based." Some do. And maybe another atheist doesn't think that way. It would be wrong of me to simply assume he actually thinks he has no concrete evidence in his mind for it, just because he shares a label...
Re:Ugh. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is one of the problems I have with the story: drugs taken legally are medicine... not only did the child have an expectation of privacy, but he's covered by some pretty heavy medical privacy laws to boot. Not sure how good the web cam images are, but the kid could have been taking any variety of medicines, vitamin E, flaxseed oil, etc. that are all very roughly the same size and shape as the candy. There were too many potential explanations for what the kid was doing, yet the administrator accuses him of drug abuse?
Is anyone even showing up for classes at the school? I woulda yanked my kid out of there in a heartbeat.
Re:eh (Score:4, Insightful)
Zero tolerance is not an understandable policy. It's an excuse for unhooking the brain of those in authority, an excuse for punishing kids equally for bringing a loaded automatic rifle and a keychain-sized toy gun to school, and an excuse for rampant power trips.
Re:The School is in Pensylvania (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey, pervs gotta work, too. And rarely do they need a justification for their actions.
Re:Chain of evidence (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a school not a court.
"I think he did it" is good enough in that environment.
Re:To be fair (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets keep facts seperate from speculation and assumption here.
Absolutely incorrect on both counts, because we do not know how the school obtained the picture. Because of the acknowledged existence of the webcam security software virtually everyone is assuming the picture was obtained by the school via that software, and the plaintiffs are working very hard to make sure everyone makes that assumption - but there has not been one documented statement supporting that fact by either side. Nor was the student disciplined, though he was threatened with disciplinary action.
Re:Underwear check (Score:3, Insightful)
Holy crap, from the wiki:
# 2 Controversies
* 2.1 Broomstick incident
* 2.2 Underwear incident
* 2.3 Noose incident
* 2.4 Hacking incident
Sounds like the school, and possibly the school district needs all new management.
Also, if we think an administrator was inappropriately inspecting minor's underwear, how does making them a teacher solve a damn thing?
Re:More info on Network Adminsistrator. (Score:2, Insightful)
Obviously 'Mike Perbix' was upset that a student was eating/using 'Mike And Ikes' and Mr. Perbix was not getting a fair licensing deal for using his name sake.
This should be resolved as soon as the likeness licensing is settled. I predict a large payout for Mr. Perbix.
Re:To be fair (Score:1, Insightful)
How about beating people just for walking into buildings, justifying a war and the worst president in history because "god told him to."
Would you like news articles about child abuse in the name of god or brainwashing children to hate at an early age to create an "army of god"? How about terrorism over secular differences? Having the pledge of allegiance changed from agnostic to religious? How about the fact most news media outlets do not translate "Allah" to "God" as that might paint Christianity in a bad light, or more importantly people might realized Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same god?
Guess those ten commandments were more of a guideline than rules eh?
Shall I go on?
Fundamentalist Christians are just as bad as fundamentalist Muslims, they are just part of the popular religion in the western world so are excused in much the same way fundamentalist Muslims are in the middle east.
The fact this will get modded flaimbait just proves it as no one can stand their beliefs being called into question or can face the reality of the world.
Re:Ugh. (Score:5, Insightful)
my god. the kids today are retarded.
Re:Nothing changes but stupidity in public schools (Score:1, Insightful)
dosing someone with LSD is one of the most fucked things you can do (despite the fact that it was one of the CIA's favorite pastimes for a while).
Congrats on being a big fucking asshole with your asshole friends.
Re:Ugh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nights spent staring up at the stars with friends, contemplating our purpose and place in the universe. The night I robo'd with a few other people and we watched every movie John Hughes ever made in a long marathon. The time myself and a few friends took some shrooms, laid in the back yard with our heads together, and felt the life force of everyone in the group shifting back and forth through each others heads.
Those kinds of memories. Hippie drug-induced gibberish to some, life changing experiences that help you deal with anything you encounter in real life for others.
For myself, these memories are the latter.
Re:To be fair (Score:3, Insightful)
In order to "spread the Word of Jesus," and "Save the souls of Heathens" they're forcing their views on people who have no interest in their religion. Look up text book debates in texas, for one thing, or the constant lobbying by Churches in politics. Just as politics is supposed to refrain from establishing an official religion of the country, so should religion refrain from excessive meddling in the politics of the country. But they're not doing that.
That you need examples rather than actually knowing this stuff shows that you're either a troll, a moron, or Christian. Probably all three.
Re:eh (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand the whole zero-tolerance policy of not bringing in any medication
Can you explain it to me then? The world is full of shades of gray. How are we doing children a favor by pretending it isn't? If you want kids to respect authority, it has to behave in a way that's respectable. It cannot be arbitrary and capricious.
Re:Ugh. (Score:3, Insightful)
He's certainly not a pharmacist, but I'm sure he's very soon to be a defendant.
Re:eh (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be good ole Clarence Thomas:
"Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. "Judges are not qualified to second-guess the best manner for maintaining quiet and order in the school environment," he wrote. "
Re:Underwear check (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a complete and utter lie, told to scare parents to allow increasingly strict rule by schools. See also, "rainbow parties", those gel bracelets, etc.etc. These lies get told in every generation. Don't be so gullible.
Re:To be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether he was doing drugs or not is entirely irrelevant. If he was, there is no legal or moral way for the school to have found out unless he was caught doing it at the school.
And to take it one step further - even giving the school Maximum Doubtage, if the student was selling illegal drugs, that's a matter for the police; if he's using, that's a matter for doctors and parents etc. In either case, being written up at school the next day is easily the least effective course of action possible.
not of interest what the kid did (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand why we're even talking about what the kid did or did not do at his home.
School officials have no fucking business sniffing around in other peoples houses. This is just outrageously wrong and illegal. Even if he was taking drugs, the video should not be accepted by any court as prove. Not even the police is allowed to film you in your own home without previous reason.
Re:To be fair (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, the "Mike & Ike" claim was made by the kid. And he might be lying.
Which one has more credibility though: the kid, or the school which enacted a horribly invasive home spying program disguised as free laptops? The school essentially lied to hundreds of families in addition to violating their privacy, and then was so stupid they confronted the victims with proof that they were spying on them.
I'd say even if the kid had a prior drug conviction (which he doesn't appear to), I'd trust his word and judgment over the moronic criminals running his school.
Re:The Crazy loop. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Still can't, (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a school IT guy. I can assure you we have good people working in IT here at this district. Let me stipulate the following.
1)I've had a few MS trainings, and most were "theory" and otherwise worthless for my job. I've been Novel Certified way back when. Everything else I've learned on my own through some 25-30 years of IT work.
2)We don't have a budget. NONE. And that was before the current economic crisis. All spending was (is) "project" spending, meaning we had to beg to get it funded. We had no replacement cycle plans for anything until THIS year, and even that is getting shelved now.
3)Almost guaranteed that no IT guy was responsible for anything other than "can you make this feature work" ... and that was probably after the laptops showed up.
4) Almost as assuredly, the IT guys don't have time to reviews pictures being archived automatically. It was probably someone else, looking for something specific (naked chicks/dudes, specific criminal activity etc).
Our High Schools have ONE analyst for 2000+ students. Our Jr Highs have one Analyst and a couple part time techs for 2400+ students. Between the three analysts and two techs they manage 1500+ machines.
We don't have time to do stupid stuff like this. However the "do-good" people in other departments would. AND they would easily justify their actions with "for the children" statements you often see. You see, it might mean a grant or increase in funding to stop/prevent/help/support (X), "for the children" of course!
Re:To be fair (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no proof the kid did anything for which he needs to "absolved". There is also the constitutional right to be "secure" in our homes against unreasonable search and seizure. What this school did/does most definitely crosses that line.
The fact that crime exists does not give the government the right to spy on what goes on in everyone's home just because something "might" be happening there. Just so, just because a kid "might" be doing something wrong doesn't give the school the right to invade his home.
Re:To be fair (Score:3, Insightful)
They both expect their rules to apply to everyone else and will try to subvert the government to ensure it. And if that doesn't work, they start killing people.
Not true... or if they do start killing people, they are flatly going against what they claim they believe in. Look at what is referred to as the "early church." They were slaughtered by the Romans. And they apparently didn't really even fight back. They "got it." The Crusaders didn't "get it."
As for abortion, some people believe that that is basically murder. And many people believe a lot of the ... "morals" that come from the Bible are in fact good things for society. That's not forcing "their rules" on everyone; that's believing something is good for society or bad for society and trying to influence the government in those respects. Just like most other people try to do with their beliefs. Which is the whole point of a democracy.
Re:Ugh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do they honestly expect us to believe they just happened to be looking at this boy in his home at the exact moment he happened to eat his candy, or were they watching him to see if he did anything?
If the latter, what gives them the right to watch students outside of school property for infractions? They're not police officers, and even if they somehow made the argument that they were... I'd love to see the warrant they had for this.
At the very least, these people need to lose their jobs. There may also need to be some legal action taken. Perhaps a law specifically prohibiting this sort of thing in the future -- since you know there are little dictator wannabe school administrators out there who think the only bad thing about this story is the school had to stop.
Re:destroy all semblence of western liberal democr (Score:4, Insightful)
in order to bring about the glorious christian theocracy of north america:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html [nytimes.com]
of course, jesus' greatest message was tolerance. yet his most vocal advocates today only seem to advance the cause of "christianity" by extending the bounds of intolerance
I don't think you understand what tolerance is. If you think Jesus' message was about tolerance, then completely missed his point. Tolerance implies looking down on other people, put up with their flaws and feel sorry for them. Jesus' message called for Christians to not look down on the world but rather to love unconditionally. Loving does not mean that you have to accept the negative behavior of others while accepting the people themselves. This emulates how Jesus embraced a group of 12 flawed human beings and made them his disciples.
Christians are called to change the world and right wrongs rather than just sit there smugly "tolerating" others.
Tolerance is the lazy man's way because you are not helping others reach their true potential.
Re:To be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's just say the weight of evidence is not on the school's side. Apparently the principal told the parents the picture came from a webcam on the laptop. We know the picture had to come into existence SOMEHOW and had to SOMEHOW end up in the principal's possession. The student and his parents had to SOMEHOW come to know there was software on the laptop that could remotely activate the camera.
We know that for some reason the school has chosen not to offer this perfectly reasonable explanation you seem to think exists despite considerable public pressure (not to mention FBI and the DA) that would go away in an instant if they did.
While in the most literal sense, we cannot with 100% certainty rule out the machinations of evil elves from the 5th dimension, I believe that from a practical standpoint we can say it's not looking good for the school board.
Re:That works... (Score:3, Insightful)
Alcohol is dangerous if you drink and drive, but it's legal above a certain age, certainly once they realize that trying to ban it was causing more harm than the substance itself. Contrast to marijuana...
Agreed. When the laws surrounding a substance are more harmful than the substance itself (marijuana being the current best example), there is a serious problem.
Re:To be fair (Score:3, Insightful)
The essence of something can still be a failure.
Re:Underwear check (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ugh. (Score:3, Insightful)
What I want to know is why they didn't call the police about a possible overdose/suicide when they saw him eating a few dozen of what they thought were pills? I mean, who eats just one or two mike&ikes?
Re:To be fair (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nothing changes but stupidity in public schools (Score:5, Insightful)
Ugh!!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop using "tiny URLs" on slashdot! They are pointless here, a little disrespectful of the readers because they hide the link, and a security risk. STOP! Read how to link using HTML tags, please.
Re:Child Pornography Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
*cough cough*
No matter what the kid was or was not doing in the privacy of HIS OWN HOME, legal or not, it is HIS BUSINESS, and the business of his family. Unless a judge granted a warrant to keep the kids under surveillance 24/7 the school is 100% in the wrong. No matter how crazy kids get, if they are behind closed doors, they are good to go. Believe me - my boys did some wild crap when they were younger. Actually - they still do, sadly.
Re:Ugh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Kiddie porn charges. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, consider that you're talking about high-school students -- almost all of whom are going to be under the age of 18. All of a sudden, you're out of the realm of a simple class action lawsuit, and looking at a charges of 'Creation, Possession, and possibly even distribution, of Kiddie Porn'. . . .
Now, that may not do much more than garner some more interesting headlines, but if you throw in counseling charges against the high-level managers who concieved of, OKed or mandated this stupid idea, I expect that anyplace where a similar plan is in place, the programs will be suddenly stopped. -- and to be honest, I'm more interested in getting this stupidity shut down now than I am in starting a witch-hunt against stupid school administrators.
Re:The School is in Pensylvania (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nothing changes but stupidity in public schools (Score:3, Insightful)
Since he's a right-wing-nut nothing happened of course, but you and I would have been in jail for a long time.
What are you talking about? Conservatives are always consistent in their morals and values. That's why they overwhelmingly voted for McCain over Bush in 2000, since they made it clear in 1992 how much they valued military service and despised draft dodgers. And why Mark Sanford was promptly impeached by the Republican legislature of South Carolina, as Sanford voted for Clinton's impeachment in 1998.