Lower Merion School District Update 367
Mike_EE_U_of_I and jargon82 were among a number of readers who sent an update on the Lower Merion School District webcam spying case (see Related Stories for our discussions of the affair over the last couple of months). The school had originally stated that capturing laptop photos in students' homes had only happened 42 times. It turns out what they meant was that there were 42 instances when they began intensive surveillance on the suspected stolen computers. This consisted of (among other things) transmitting a picture from the laptop's webcam every 15 minutes. This may have gone on for weeks. In total, it appears that there were thousands of photos. One of the key administrators involved has been answering all questions about the program by invoking the Fifth Amendment.
Surprise, Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surprise, Surprise (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Deep" doesn't even begin to cover it. Read the Philly articles if you haven't. Massive Collective Stupidity by Adults that Should have Known Better!
Jon Stewart's got at least a weeks worth of material to joke about here.
Re:Surprise, Surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Surprise, Surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd laugh, but my son (14) is in a new public school this year and I have discovered I have literally enrolled him in what can only be described as a war zone - on top of which the Good Guys are frighteningly stupid, reactionary, and hidebound.
Hey, there's probably a saying about that (Score:3, Insightful)
Cameras show utility after all (Score:2, Funny)
This photo, allegedly taken surreptitiously by the Lower Merion School District through a laptop web camera, shows Blake Robbins sleeping at home at 5 p.m. on Oct 26.
The real question is, WTF was this kid doing sleeping at 5 pm instead of doing his homework? The kid doesn't even bother to take off his normal school day clothes when sleeping, which could mean wrinkles.
It's obvious that this Web 2.0 technology has utility. When parents are too busy to keep an eye on their kids, at least we know the school district will. If these school kids have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to worry about. It's just like going to the doctor; it's for their own good. An ounce of
Re:Surprise, Surprise (Score:5, Funny)
You mean Giggity*.
*Seniors over the age of 18 only.
You know what they caught... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I hope so. Then it becomes a CP case.
But this is bad news. It looks like they have found their patsy, and it is this woman. This woman does indeed deserve severe punishment, as she has seen much of the content and was making fun of the kids and families (according to the local channel 29 news). My fear is that it will stop at this IT administrator, and the school board, and the administration will get off scot-free.
Re:You know what they caught... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You know what they caught... (Score:5, Informative)
Gee, a public servant with utter contempt for the people she is being paid to serve... what a surprise!
Re:You know what they caught... (Score:4, Insightful)
Gee, threads that drag a joke on too long on slashdot, what a surprise.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Probably not more like redundant
Lightbulb? (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the key administrators involved has been answering all questions about the program by invoking the Fifth Amendment.
No doubt he was instructed by his lawyer to do so. At least this means that the 'Oh Shit' lightbulb has finally gone off in someones head, someone finally is realizing that this could very easily end up with jail time and a spot on the sex offenders registry.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He is a she...
Re:Lightbulb? (Score:5, Funny)
He is a she...
...as you are me and we are all together.
Goo goo ga joob.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends on how hot she is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debra_Lafave)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lightbulb? (Score:5, Funny)
Pfft, just like a chick to assume that men are sexist.
Re:Lightbulb? (Score:4, Funny)
Don't call them chicks, broads hate that.
Re:Lightbulb? (Score:4, Funny)
Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY YOU SEXIST PIG!!!!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
they still can anyway.
I believe there are ways you can be asked to answer questions anyway, right? Such as when the evidence is presented? Or is that when they can put you in for contempt of court?
I'm not a lawyer so maybe someone else can help clarify, but I thought fifth amendment has situations where you can't simply invoke it?
Re:Lightbulb? (Score:5, Informative)
I'll undo about 10 points of moderation to comment here.
No. You're free to keep your mouth shut when being interrogated by police or in a courtroom if that information may incriminate you in any crime.
You can still be compelled to testify about another person, under threat of contempt and jail. A good example would be you being ordered by a judge to testify regarding a crime you're aware of, but did not participate in. If you did participate in it though, you could still invoke the 5th amendment and simply tell the judge you believe your testimony may be incriminating.
The right to not incriminate yourself is nearly universal, and for good reason. The original intent was not to allow guilty people to hide behind a legal shield, but to prevent innocent people from being forced to testify against themselves.
In a police state, without the 5th amendment, the police can very easily coerce confessions for crimes people didn't commit. This is one reason why even sometimes a confession isn't an open & shut case. Under some circumstances, the confession is tossed out due to 5th amendment rights. In some cases, something as simple as the interrogator sitting between the door and the suspect has been used, because such can be interpreted as coercion of someone who is otherwise free to leave at any time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whereas, with the 5th amendment, that's the District Attorney's job, and the process is called "plea bargain". Huge improvement.
Re:Lightbulb? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the key administrators involved has been answering all questions about the program by invoking the Fifth Amendment.
No doubt he was instructed by his lawyer to do so. At least this means that the 'Oh Shit' lightbulb has finally gone off in someones head, someone finally is realizing that this could very easily end up with jail time and a spot on the sex offenders registry.
Actually, I hope they all end up on the sex offenders registry, and get the book thrown at them... Not because they are sex offenders per say (I doubt their intention was to see naked kids), but they should have thought through the potential issues with photographing the viewer of the laptop screen. I hope the judgment is harsh for two reasons:
1) Its a gross violation of privacy, the 4th Amendment, and basically human decency.
2) Things that get you on the sex offenders list needs to be changed - its too ea
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lightbulb? (Score:5, Insightful)
You should NEVER answer questions when being questioned. NO MATTER WHAT. Get a lawyer and have them speak for you. As they CAN NOT incriminate you.
Re:Lightbulb? (Score:5, Informative)
Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
Re:Lightbulb? (Score:4, Insightful)
You should NEVER answer questions when being questioned. NO MATTER WHAT.
It can never be said enough: ALWAYS follow the above advice.
Cops and prosecutors are as lazy as anyone else and ten times as suspicious as anyone else. YOU are their first suspect because you have your mouth open and you have some knowledge of the crime.
NOTHING good comes of talking to them without a lawyer present. NO matter HOW innocent you are.
I used to be the designated person to report missing property when I worked for the state IT dept. (Probably because I was the whitest, most eloquent and innocent looking person working there.) I've been seriously grilled, accused and even cuffed to a chair once when REPORTING crimes. I had to do this at least once a quarter. I quickly realized why my boss (an older black woman) had me do it instead of her.
the Fifth (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a "self-incrimination" clause, it is a clause against being a witness against yourself in a criminal case.
excerpt from the Fifth Amendment:
"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"
The difference that I'm trying to make is that there doesn't have to be a presumption of self-incrimination to invoke it, just that you don't wish to testify about something involving yourself.
Re:Lightbulb? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to say...seeing school administrators being treated to "zero tolerance" would be very sweet schadenfreude.
rj
Fifth Amendement Right (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the key administrators involved has been answering all questions about the program by invoking the Fifth Amendment.
Which, to be fair, is entirely his or her right. Trying to infer guilt from this (tempting though it may be) violates what most of us stand for. Tossing that statement in at the end of the summary seems to be an attempt to imply guilt, though.
(Which isn't to say that I don't think this program was stupid and criminal.)
Re:Fifth Amendement Right (Score:4, Insightful)
Where have you been lately? If you're accused of a crime it clearly means you're already guilty. How dare you go against the mob mentality!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Lately?
It's always been that way. The whole innocent until proven guilty concept is actually quite radical - and even then it only applies to the governments assumptions - private citizens are free to assume whatever they want.
Do Not Fall For This Dangerous Scam (Score:5, Interesting)
If you ever hear the phrase 'sovereign individuals,' run. Run away, as fast as you can. You are in the presence of either a moronic patsy or a dangerous con artist. Do not fall for this scam. You will lose money, and perhaps go to jail yourself for attempting to follow the ludicrous and expensive instructions for becoming this imaginary thing called a 'sovereign individual.' Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Citizen_Movement [wikipedia.org]
Re:Do Not Fall For This Dangerous Scam (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
LOLwhat? Where the hell did that come from? Read the fucking page, moron. It's a scam, and has nothing to do with anything you just said. You do not have a 'straw man' bank account that the government set up in your name as collateral. You do have to pay taxes, even if you file all the batshit paperwork suggested.
But you know what? Forget I said all that, I'm just an evil Statist. Go ahead and pay for the material. File that paperwork and become a sovereign individual. Refuse to pay your taxes and try to ca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, using the safety and comfort of modern societies (and lying to oneself that you're "sovereign") plus the goal of contributing back as little as possible.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"dyed in the wool moron to believe that crap."
Like Tim McVeigh. He fell for that whole thing to the point of having home made license tags on his car. Because sovereign citizens don't NEED state issued tags.
That's what brought him to the attention of a cop, who stopped him and saw, if I recall correctly, a pistol on the seat next to McVeigh.
And that's how the prototeabagger schmuck McVeigh was caught after he destroyed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, 19 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought only "natural people" could invoke the fifth amendment... can a school do it? SHE isn't the person on trial, the school is... right?
Regardless of who or what is being investigated, any individual can invoke the 5th unless they have been granted immunity from prosecution. And just because you work for an organization or company does not mean you won't be prosecuted for crimes you commit on the job. Generally, they prosecute you then the victims go after the organization in civil court for not properly supervising you or for encouraging you to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of who or what is being investigated, any individual can invoke the 5th unless they have been granted immunity from prosecution.
Pretty sure you can always invoke the 5th, period. There may be no reason to do so if you have immunity from prosecution, but you can still do it (particularly if there are other things you don't have immunity for).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And I am pretty sure the moment that you do, you will likely lose immunity according to terms of said immunity agreement. So, they just have to leave the best for last, and then everything you said beforehand can now be used against you, since immunity is now null and void. A good attorney can negotiate what you can't be questioned on as a condition of your testimony in exchange for immunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speak through your lawyer people.
Re: (Score:2)
Possessing images of naked children is WAY beyond borderline criminal.
Re:Fifth Amendement Right (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone can invoke the 5th amendment if they believe that answering the question will incriminate them. It doesn't matter if they are on trial or not. If you were accused of murder, and I saw you do it while I was across the street robbing a convenience store, I might choose to invoke the 5th rather than explain what I was doing while I saw you commit your act.
Re:Fifth Amendement Right (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's an attempt to imply guilt, but more show the cracks in the formerly unified stance of the board et al. Fifth Amendment invocation is different than "no comment," and it shows that some members are starting to think of themselves, rather than the message.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's an attempt to imply guilt, but more show the cracks in the formerly unified stance of the board et al. Fifth Amendment invocation is different than "no comment," and it shows that some members are starting to think of themselves, rather than the message.
IANAL but I'm pretty sure "no comment" won't fly in a deposition. If you don't want to answer the questions the Fifth is the only method.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it was put in there, because the students weren't given the opportunity to excercise that right (nor the 4th amendment). How nice of that administrator to hide behind the very document they tried to shred to pieces.
Re:Fifth Amendement Right (Score:5, Insightful)
First, taking home a school laptop in this situation would be a violation of school rules and possibly a civil matter, but not theft. For it to be a theft, there would have to be a reason to believe that the kid intended to keep it.
Second, the school district's excuse doesn't fit the facts. There's no indication that they didn't know that the kid had the laptop. It was issued to him, and there's no indication that, however they discovered that it wasn't at school, they even bothered to ask him about it. In any case, if they had actually been trying to find a missing laptop, why would they have kept the camera on for two weeks? Did it really take that long to identify the kid? And when he was finally confronted by the school administration, why did they not punish him for improperly taking the laptop home if that was the issue? According to the press accounts, that issue was not raised. Instead, they raised the bogus issue of him popping pills that were actually candy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The student stole the laptop.
Really! He stole it?
Did the school file a police report on the “stolen” item? Did they make a reasonable effort to identify the “thief” and then to promptly inform police of whose door to break down to recover the “stolen” item? Did they contact the poor student whose laptop was “stolen” to inform him that the laptop assigned to him had been “stolen” and to assure him that it would be tracked and recovered?
Re:Fifth Amendement Right (Score:4, Interesting)
Bullshit.
Tracking stolen equipment is an excuse they came up with after they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
Why didn't they discipline the student for theft instead of eating Ike & Mikes?
Why didn't they take the laptop back from the kid when they realized that the insurance wasn't paid on it?
Does the student *still* have the laptop in question?
What about the other 41 incidences?
Quit being so disingenuous.
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to infer guilt from this (tempting though it may be) violates what most of us stand for.
There are real differences between civil and criminal juries. In civil suits, a jury is not very likely to give a person who invokes the fifth the benefit of the doubt, so what is happening here is that she's saving her own skin while possibly undercutting the school's defense. As far as a jury would be concerned, that is.
At the end of the day, though, civil suits are decided on a preponderance of evidence rather
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to infer guilt from this (tempting though it may be) violates what most of us stand for.
I disagree. You obviously can't convict someone based on their invocation of the 5th, but you can darn well form an opinion of that person and their actions.
Re:Fifth Amendement Right (Score:4, Interesting)
Or the third option: "You may or may not be guilty of another crime, and talking may incriminate you if you are."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
By your logic, it is impossible to invoke the Fifth Amendment without admitting belief in your own guilt...
Such thinking is wrong, of course, and defeats most of the purpose of the Amendment... One may be perfectly innocent and do the invoking merely to ease their defense, for example...
Re:Fifth Amendement Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law". The cops have no obligation to use anything in court that may help you, so saying you are innocent serves no purpose.
Often the best course is to shut up, get a good lawyer and let the evidence speak for itself.
Re:Fifth Amendement Right (Score:5, Interesting)
Never Talk To Police. [google.com] It's 27 minutes. There aren't many visuals so you can listen to it in the background.
Basically NEVER TALK to police. Just don't. If you do have to say something let it be along the lines of: "Am I under arrest or am I free to go", "Do you have a warrant".
I was once arrested. AFTER being read my rights one cop kept pressing the issue. "What were you doing, why were you there" over and over and over. After the 4th time I asked him to please read me my rights again. Which he did. But he continued to ask. At which point I told him I was invoking my right to remain silent. He still pressed the issue.
This was brought up in court and helped my case, since it was seen as 'badgering'.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was driving a car once and got pulled over. The cop wanted to search our car and I declined. He asked why; I didn't answer that question, and just repeated that I declined. He asked again. He offered to tear up my (very large) ticket if he could search. I declined, because I knew he would very quickly find weed in the car and in the pockets of everyone in the car. The four people in the car all would have gone to jail that night, but instead we drove away and I paid later the ticket.
The car belonged to on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or C:
The answer to the question will make me appear guilty.
Re:Fifth Amendement Right (Score:5, Informative)
The Fifth Amendment reads "no person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". Not "no person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to incriminate himself". So no, we don't know that you're guilty of something, only that you've refused to be a witness in your case.
Every single (fair) judge in the country will instruct a jury that did not hear the defendant's testimony that they cannot infer anything from the fact that the defendant did not testify. That's established precedent.
He can plead the Fifth in jail too. (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the key administrators involved has been answering all questions about the program by invoking the Fifth Amendment.
Hope this asshat understands that pleading the Fifth isn't going to prevent a judge or jury from finding/ruling against him and punishing him.
"If I don't say anything I'm safe." doesn't work in the real world when you've already been caught.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But what it does is protect her superiors. Do you really think that this was undertaken solely on the initiative of one admin?
She'll plead the Fifth, the prosecution will figure that there are bigger fish to be had and offer her immunity or a reduced sentence in return for testimony that will incriminate the others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hope this asshat understands that pleading the Fifth isn't going to prevent a judge or jury from finding/ruling against him and punishing him.
"If I don't say anything I'm safe." doesn't work in the real world when you've already been caught.
It does prevent you from getting yourself deeper into shit, however.
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA ... SHE invoked HER Fifth Amendment rights.
Which will just make things worse for her when the logs are read & the forensics finished.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
RTFA ... SHE invoked HER Fifth Amendment rights.
Which will just make things worse for her when the logs are read & the forensics finished.
No, it will merely mean that she used her Constitutional right. She didn't want to give the opposing attorneys ammo they could shoot her with. They'll have to use evidence and facts instead of her own statements, which doesn't appear to make things too difficult for them.
Subvert it... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
She
And that is a terrible idea. These people need to pay for what they have done. Prison time and sex offender registration, the whole 9 yards.
Pleading the fifth isn't going to do shit to protect them if the prosecutors have documented evidence showing what they have done, which it seems they have.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe the "she" part is the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The guy pleads the fifth. No problem. Then grant him immunity from prosecution and take that off the table. Then let the dozens of civil suits eat him alive.
RTFAs. The case in question is a civil suit. I don't see any mention of criminal charges, but I do see mention of state legislation being introduced that would close the legal loophole the school district used.
Insanity in School Districts (Score:5, Insightful)
I have never understood how school districts think.
On one hand they're terrified of getting sued. They have huge lists of things, even common, ordinary actions, that are not allowed to prevent even the slightest chance of getting sued.
Then, on the other hand, they take actions that random people on the street realize will cause a lawsuit. Strip searching students for searching for asprin, cancelling proms when gay students wish to attend, secretly spying on students with webcams. What the hell are they thinking?
Re:Insanity in School Districts (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually fairly simple.
They don't want pissed off parents coming into the office.
Strip searching children: it's okay, they are preventing our children from using dangerous drugs, you know the things we should be preventing.
Canceling Proms: it's okay, we hate the gays, and we don't want our children exposed to the way the world really is because it doesn't fit in our world view.
Spying on children: AHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhHHHHHHHhhhh you are watching my thieving child when they are home!?!
Parents want the sch
Re: (Score:3)
But they can't help a student out of a tree for safety concerns!
At what point did our Education Society lose all common sense?
It seems like those who work in education aren't the smartest.
I think its because we've built this conception of "those who can't do, teach". A society where being a teacher isn't glorious, when it should be. Just make it harder to become a teacher and pay them more... Like a doctor or a Lawyer.
They are dealing with the insanity of parents (Score:5, Interesting)
In the US, Schools are tasked with the impossible job of trying to please parents, who are also voters, and who are also incredibly rude and stupid about what they think is right for their kids. And what happens is that if you DON'T take action, then you get sued anyway!
Drugs? Zero tolerance because some parents and all politicians have zero tolerance, even for aspirin! Someone wrote the rule that way because some crazy person pushed it.
Gays at the prom? Because there is no equal protection under the law for gays, and too many people in american society still view gay relationships as evil. Allowing gays in the right conservative school district will get you just as sued.
Computer survellience? Well for this one there simply is no excuse. Someone obviously didn't do their homework and thought it was a good idea and forgot to check where the legal line crossed. This example is not like the others because the first two are more about social values in those areas and this is clearly a breach in well established law.
And don't forget these people are voted into office, and they are of the people and by the people. They are politicians as well, and if someone wants them to do something or risk being voted out, well this is how it works when the law isn't more clearly spelled out.
Then again, sometimes parents have an attack of sanity, like the Dover, PA case where the old school board tried to implement intelligent design, and they were voted out en masse the next election and the curriculum was scrapped.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Gays at the prom? Because there is no equal protection under the law for gays, and too many people in american society still view gay relationships as evil. Allowing gays in the right conservative school district will get you just as sued.
I just wanted to point out many states (as well as Canada) have outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity entirely and the US recently recently passed ENDA.
Civil Rights from Stanford Encyclopedia [stanford.edu]
Employment Non-Discrimination Act [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell are they thinking?
Thinking? Thinking? They aren't paid to think! They're paid to boss around students and teachers and convince parents that they're doing a good job.
All kidding aside, they're not proactive, they're reactive. Which means that they'll do something and if it somehow results in a lawsuit, they'll ban it. Otherwise, they'll just keep doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's precisely because the some people working in these school districts are asshats that they have to huge lists of things they can't do. But conversely, these if these asshats don't see something on the list, it means they can do them.
Re: (Score:2)
Suspected stolen? (Score:2)
Did these laptops have rules stating that they were never permitted to leave the school grounds?
If so, this may improve the school district's legal standing somewhat, since the students were not supposed to have the laptops in that situation.
If the students WERE permitted to take the laptops home (other articles I have read implied they were), then under what criteria were these laptops suspected stolen? Unless a student reported a laptop as lost or stolen, or a student missed some sort of required invento
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No. Kids were allowed and encouraged to take the laptops home, but they claim one of the students in question did not pay the insurance fee required, so that gave them permission to use it to spy on him. They refused to answer with regard to the other 41 instances whether those students had reported the laptop stolen or not paid the insurance fee in question.
If the students WERE permitted to take the laptops home (other articles I have read implied they were), then under what criteria were these laptops suspected stolen?
The short answer, they did not suspect they we
Re:Suspected stolen? (Score:4, Interesting)
The students were, in fact, allowed to leave school grounds. And part of the problem here is that the criteria for them determining whether the laptop was "stolen" seemed really fragile.
I can't find the article now, but one of the IT guys for the district was recorded in a presentation (where he was praising the program) that one of the laptop's owners connected to their neighbor's WiFi, rather than their own network (I'm assuming that students needed to register their router's mac address). Anyway, the software detected this as laptop theft, the school reported it stolen, and the police worked with the local ISP to get the address of the neighbor and searched the neighbors house .
As more details about this story come forward, I am increasingly amazed that this program made it past the idea-stage. You'd think at least *one* person in the chain-of-command would have some common sense.
Some additional info (Score:3, Informative)
So here's some more additional info [citypaper.net]. The family which sued failed to pay a $55 insurance policy on the laptop. Now, I'm not saying that the surveillance was justified only that the missed payments may have triggered suspicions whether the laptop had been stolen. Of course, once the school determined that the laptop wasn't stolen, all surveillance should have stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that the pictures should have been held in escrow until it was determined to be stolen in the first place. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Taking the 5th is always right! (Score:5, Informative)
just watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc [youtube.com]
Absolutely must see.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who the heck modded this off-topic? The summary brought up taking the Fifth, and that film is absolutely 100% apropos.
Basically, if you don't take the Fifth, you're an idiot.
The question I haven't seen asked yet (Score:2)
Okay, Macbooks... webcam spying...
Does the surveillance software have the ability to take images without turning on the webcam LED? I mean we always assume those are hardware activated and can't be bypassed, I mean only an IDIOT would leave the LEDs controlled by the driver... right?
Also, if indeed there are laptops out there with software controlled LEDs, is anyone keeping a list of the spy-happy laptops out there?
One thing still bothering me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The least intrusive means would have been to call the student's parents and ask if he had the laptop with him. Yes? OK, please pay the insurance fee before he takes it home again, thanks. Issue resolved.
I'm more convinced than ever that this is BS. (Score:4, Interesting)
Back when this story first broke, I was not at all convinced that school officials were spying on kids. One student had been suspended for alleged inappropriate activity captured by the camera and everyone immediately assumed it was the result of this surveillance system. The only statement the school made on the issue was that the photo had been taken by the student and left on the hard drive of the laptop when he returned it. To me, that seemed a lot more plausible, if less juicy. (After all, who wasn't excited by the thought of photos of horny high school kids in their bedrooms, and equally excited by the thought of school officials getting raked over the coals.)
I saw this story [philly.com] earlier today and now I'm more convinced than ever the whole thing is BS. Look carefully at the photograph (provided by the parents, I might add.) Who goes to sleep with their laptop turned on and the camera pointed right at their face, so that it's perfectly centered in the frame and just well lit enough to show it clearly? If you've ever seen real photographs taken by peeping toms with hidden cameras, they're always grainy and show subjects in unflattering lighting conditions. This picture is just to perfect to be real.
Generally speaking, when there's a lawsuit going on and one side says nothing to the press, citing that it would be imprudent to do so during proceedings, and the other site leaks all kinds of juicy stuff to the press, I tend to believe the party that shows discretion.
As for the Fifth Amendment issue, as others have noted, it's standard practice when you're suspected of a crime to always invoke the 5th and say nothing before the trial. That's perfectly normal and doesn't mean anything at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hip hip hooray! (Score:5, Funny)
Can you send me a picture of your junk?
I don't know how but you can ask my school to send you a few...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sure, right here [phranangdivers.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Harder than if they confessed saying "this was school policy"?
I strongly support the right to plead the 5th. But while it's certainly not an admission of guilt, it would only be done by someone who could contribute nothing, or very little, positive to their own defense (since otherwise they'd be telling their side).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, let's go with that for a second. The school apparently did have some reason to believe that the laptop was stolen, since the student's parents didn't pay an insurance fee that was supposed to authorize the kid to take the laptop home.
However, the laptop was issued to that student. So the correct answer would have been to call the student's parents at home and ask if the laptop is there, and request that payment be rendered for the insurance fee if the kid wants to take it home again, please and thanks