Feds Won't File Charges In School Laptop-Spy Case 398
jamie writes "Federal prosecutors have decided not to file charges against a Philadelphia school district or its employees over the use of software to remotely monitor students. From the article: 'US Attorney Zane David Memeger says investigators have found no evidence of criminal intent by Lower Merion School District employees who activated tracking software that took thousands of webcam and screenshot images on school-provided laptops.'"
Ho hum (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the Fed won't prosecute them. After all, it'd just be hypocritical if they went after a bunch of perverted quasi-Orwellian miscreants for doing, on a much smaller scale, the same kind of espionage the Fed directs against its own citizens on a daily basis.
Not a Pedo Thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe they could. (Score:5, Informative)
Taken from this source [usatoday.com]
"Intent"? (Score:5, Insightful)
since when was there a need to prove "criminal intent" before prosecuting someone?
Re:"Intent"? (Score:5, Informative)
since when was there a need to prove "criminal intent" before prosecuting someone?
Always. Criminal guilt carries to elements:
Actus reus = the guilty act
Mens rea = the guilty mind
This is why "insanity" is a valid defense (there is no guilty mind) and why we don't put children or animals in jail (they are amoral, and cant have a guilty mind).
There are crimes that dont require mens rea (called "strict liability") but they are usually either minor offenses, or when the actor is taking one some obviously large risk that requires a very high standard of care (like when transporting hazardous waste). ... or statutory rape.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess most of the animals guilty of some "crime" would actually prefer jail (not much different to what already happens to many) instead of a typical fate of such "undesirables"...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except we do [wsws.org]. I always think about this when people express shock and disgust at Mullahs marrying off 13-year-olds. We shouldn't prosecute criminal children as adults either, and for the same reasons.
Re:"Intent"? (Score:4, Informative)
That is true, but "guilty mind" is misleading - it doesn't necessarily mean that you had to intend a crime, just that you intended the action. For instance, if you were completely unaware that murder was a crime and you purposely shoot someone with the intent to kill, even though you didn't intend a crime you are still guilty of both the act and the intent.
Furthermore, while the court has to find you guilty beyond reasonable doubt for criminal convictions, it can use the "reasonable man" (i.e. on the balance of probabilities what would the reasonable man have thought or done) in establishing mens rea - therefore even if these officials didn't intend to break the law, breaking the law was an obvious outcome of their actions and the reasonable man would have recognised that before acting. I don't see any issue with proving guilt on both parts here, I guess "think of the children" only applies when it's being used to force through unpopular security theatre, not when it's being used as a defence against it.
Re:"Intent"? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would question that someone 'knew' that their actions would cause harm to others.
The standard is usually "knew or should have known" -- you may not have known that the car was in gear before you tried to scare your friend by revving the engine as he walked in front of you, but you had the opportunity to check and should have done so prior to revving the engine.
Re:"Intent"? (Score:5, Informative)
Deleting child porn can be construed as knowingly destroying evidence of a crime. I can't speak for amusement parks or the legalities of what they may or may not do, but I know that deleting such images without a really strong backing is asking for trouble.
This is one of the things that's dealt with in network security, particularly incident management, and words are rarely minced when it is brought up. Work in the field long enough, and the chances are high that you'll stumble across it. (I've been fortunate not to have done so, but others I know have not been so lucky.) Upon finding it, the first thing that you do is call legal counsel. The second thing is get in touch with law enforcement (probably through your legal counsel).
In most cases, all investigation stops until they show up, because merely viewing them may be construed as a crime. You did not take, store, nor send them, but you did open the file(s), and opening other files where you've already found child porn means that you know or should know that there's a high likelihood that there are others. In the meantime, you don't show anyone else, call anyone over to verify, and you don't move, copy, or save them anywhere else, and you absolutely do not delete them. You just take notes, and wait for your attorney(s) and the guys with guns to show up.
Re:"Intent"? (Score:5, Informative)
So there's been no judgment as to the actual legality of the issues at question, the prosecutor has just decided not to bring suit. In some situations that seems to be the fairer idea - 18yr old having sex with her 17yr old long term partnet being the most cited example - but there's obviously room for a lot of unfairness.
Re:"Intent"? (Score:5, Insightful)
but there's obviously room for a lot of unfairness.
More it seems than most people are willing to say. The wealthy, the powerful, the famous and the politically well connected or their clients always seem to find themselves treated differently, some would say more deferentially, than the common man. It has been this way for as long as there has been courts and recorded history. The best that we ordinary people can do is withhold our votes for those who promise to ever tougher laws because it is invariably the ordinary man who invariably suffers most when these new rules are applied with ruthless zeal by prosecutors seeking to advance political careers regardless of the human cost. Indeed, the present situation here in the United States is enough to convert even the most optimistic citizen into an ardent student of Machiavelli [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While true "mens rae" doesn't neccessarily have to mean that you understand the law you're breaking, only that you intended the action that broke the law. Ignorance is not an excuse, as they say.
So for examble, shooting someone with a gun. If it's a complete accident, and no-one is to blame, that's OK. If you are to blame, that's negligence. If you aimed at someone and fired, that's GBH/murder. Even if you were completely and honestly unaware that shooting people was illegal, it'd still be GBH/murder if you
Re:"Intent"? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, but doesn't the law also have some concept of "sufficiently advance stupidity is indistinguishable from intent"? Like if I go around shooting out car windows and accidentally pick one with a person in it and kill them, I can be charged with murder or manslaughter, despite the fact that I did not *intend* to kill anyone, just vandalize cars.
There is this level of sanity in the legal system, right?
Yes and no. There is not any general concept of "sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from intent", however many specific acts have multiple distinct offenses with differing mens rea requirements.
To use your example of homicide, there are of course several grades. A typical one might have first degree murder, second degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter. First degree murder would be reserved if you had premeditated your killing -- going around shooting in random car windows would not count. (The "pre" part of "premeditation" doesn't have to be long at all, just for clarification. Doesn't mean you have to have slept on the decision, just that you had time to think about it a little.) Much more likely you'd find yourself charged with second degree murder. That typically has wording like you killed someone "with reckless indifference to the value of human life" -- for instance shooting a gun at cars in the streets in your town. Possibly you'd find yourself charged with manslaughter, which has an even lesser mens rea requirement, usually "plain" recklessness.
So you don't always need specific intent in order to commit a crime, and things like recklessness and negligence sometimes can count, but they don't by default. The offenses are specifically written to use those lower standards, and will have a lower grade than what is basically the same offense with a higher amount of culpability.
and the reverse can be true (Score:5, Informative)
http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Murder-During-the-Commission-of-a-Felony.html [lawyers.com]
Felony Murder Rule
Most forms of murder require an intent to commit death. Felony murder only requires the intent to commit the felony. During the course of the felony, any homicide will be considered murder, whether it's intentional or accidental. This is called the felony murder rule.
Under the felony murder rule, all participants of a felony can be charged with murder if a homicide occurs. This is true even if a participant isn't directly responsible for the death. For example, the driver of a getaway car can be charged with felony murder if his partner accidently shoots someone while attempting to rob a bank. The purpose for the felony murder rule is to deter people from engaging in felonies knowing that they can be liable for the actions of their partners.
Re:and the reverse can be true (Score:4, Insightful)
That always has struck me as unfair, and even downright bizarre. I'm all for deterring crime and punishing criminals. But punishing someone for a crime they didn't commit themselves (or, for that matter, that they might not even be AWARE was committed) is just outlandish. IMHO, only the trigger person(s) should be charged with actual murder. In a robbery type situation, his fellow robbers could be charged with "accessory to murder," "armed robbery," etc. But the idea of charging someone with murder who might have never laid a finger on anyone in his life, who walked into a bank thinking his partner was just going to rob it, or who might have been sitting in the getaway car outside unaware that anyone had even been killed...that's just bizarre.
Re:"Intent"? (Score:5, Informative)
While intent and motive can go a long way in helping to prove guilt, neither are by no means necessary. I can commit a crime (and get convicted) without ever intending to have commuted it.
That's true, but not nearly as true as you make it sound. There are two reasons that you'd be convicted:
1) The crime is what's called a "strict liability" crime -- this is one that doesn't require intent. However, most crimes are not strict liability -- more on that in a sec.
2) The jury didn't believe that you didn't have intent. This is much more likely.
IANAL, but I have done a bit of reading of some legal stuff (it was a side interest of mine back as an undergrad). The lawyerfolk will talk about two aspects to crimes -- the "actus reus" ("guilty act") and the "mens rea [wikipedia.org]" ("guilty mind"). The actus reus is the actual thing you did -- punch someone, shoplift a CD, or wiretap. The mens rea describes your state of mind. This is where, say, a negligent homicide differs from a murder. The actus reus is the same in each case, but what matters is your intent.
Most crimes require that you have a substantial amount of intent -- you either "purposely" or "knowingly" carry out the act. Some crimes have a lower burden -- you either "recklessly" or "negligently" carry out the action. There really aren't that many crimes that have no mens rea requirement (the "strict liability" crimes, as mentioned above).
To go to the shoplifting example, let's say you have a backpack/bag/etc you're carrying around. If you accidentally knock a CD into your bag, see it's there, and think "oh, I can walk out with that", you're committing theft because you're knowingly walking out the door with it. If you accidentally knock a CD into your bag, don't notice it, and walk out the door, you're not committing theft because the mens rea isn't there. Whether a jury would buy your excuse that you didn't know it was there is another matter entierly.
(Similarly, "inchoate" crimes -- attempt and conspiracy mostly -- are somewhat the opposite of strict liability crimes. There the offense is almost all the mens rea, and you needn't have committed the actus reus yet. That is a bit of a lie, because you need to have done something concrete, even for inchoate crimes.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where does your sister live? I'll send her a camera... I promise my intentions aren't criminal.
land of the free, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
good lesson to teach the next generation: we will spy on you - sit down and shut the fuck up.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why do you support the terrorists? Constant monitoring is the only way we can be safe!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What one generation accepts...
What one generation accepts... (Score:4, Insightful)
What one generation accepts... ...The NEXT generation embraces.
Because all of us here on the internet (the younger generations) are accepting of the majority of now middle-aged Americans that support monitoring of the internet, support outlawing gay marriage, support a zero-tolerance war on drugs, etc...
And on that note, just as how all the hippies of the 1970's were totally acceptant of the rules imposed on them by the post-WWII generation and the big federal government...
Re:What one generation accepts... (Score:5, Insightful)
And on that note, just as how all the hippies of the 1970's were totally acceptant of the rules imposed on them by the post-WWII generation and the big federal government
Yeah, I really love all those changes that occurred once the young adults of that era grew up and took charge of this nation.
Just because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but the State is always the first in line to throw the book at you if you break the law. Here they just look the other way. What kind of message does this send to any judge presiding over a civil suit? Especially a judge who had hoped to be promoted some day to a higher court.
Re:Just because... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No -- in the USA, only a prosecutor can file criminal charges. People sometimes say here, "I'm going to press charges," but that really just means cooperating with a prosecutor or attorney general. If your father punches you in a drunken fight, and you tell the cops you don't want to file charges, you better hope they want to cooperate... They can charge, or not charge, whoever they want. You have no control over it.
If you read the GPs post, you'll see (s)he said "Just because the feds won't file charges doesn't mean the students themselves or the local DA or state AG can't file civil or criminal charges." [emphasis added.]
I think the GP meant that the students would file the civil suits, and state or local prosecutors would file criminal charges.
Personally, I didn't think this case would amount to anything. Only one family claimed their kid was spied on, and what little evidence there was points to a misunderstanding
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And there was *no* misunderstanding. The vice principal was monitoring the kids at their homes without notification to the students or the parents that the monior system could, and would, be used for such monitoring. This gets directly into basic constitutional issues of privacy: there's nothing to "misunderstand" there, unless you're a mid-level bureaucrat with not the least concern for both published and legal guidelines and precedent.
According to the school, this was only done in the case of stolen or missing laptops. I think you give up a right to privacy when you steal a computer. The family that sued the school did so because the school found an image on a returned computer that concerned the administration, but turned out to be harmless. The parents jumped to the conclusion that the image was obtained via the remote monitoring system. No evidence was later introduced to back up the parents' claim.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While you are partially correct, the prosecutor can opt out if you do not file a complaint.
Once a complaint has been filed it must be acted upon, of course it has to meet certain prerequisites like having some actual likely hood of being true and a crime having been committed.
The prosecutor simply has the option of filing a complaint themselves if you don't.
Re:Just because... (Score:5, Informative)
A: I was going, 'No, I think I better go home,' because I was afraid. So I just went and I sat down on the couch.
Q: What were you afraid of?
A: Him.
(a few minutes later)
A: He sat down beside me and asked me if I was OK.
Q: What did you say, if anything?
A: I said, 'No.'
Q: What did he say?
A: He goes, 'Well, you'll be better.' And I go, 'No, I won't. I have to go home.'
Q: What happened then?
A: He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, 'No,' you know, 'Keep away.'
After Polanski kissed her, the victim alleged, he began to engage in oral sex.
A:
Q: And what did he say, if anything?
A: He wasn't saying anything that I can remember. He was -- sometimes he was saying stuff, but I was just blocking him out, you know.
The victim testified that Polanski began having sex with her, but sodomized her when he learned she wasn't using birth control.
A: He asked, he goes, 'Are you on the pill?' And I went, 'No.' And he goes, 'When did you last have your period?' And I said, I don't know. A week or two. I'm not sure.'
Q: And what did he say?
A: He goes, 'Come on. You have to remember.' And I told him I didn't.
Q: Did he say anything after that?
A: Yes. He goes, 'Would you want me to go through your back? And I went, 'No.'
The victim testified that after the sex, she got dressed and waited in the car for Polanski to drive her home. Before driving her home, he asked her to keep the incident a secret.
A: He said to me, he goes, 'Oh, don't tell your mother about this.'
Q: What did you say?
A: I wasn't saying anything. He says, 'Don't tell your mother about this and don't tell your boyfriend either.'
There's a damn good reason that we don't always let victims drop charges. It could result in people who DRUG AND ANALLY RAPE THIRTEEN YEAR OLD GIRLS getting off without being punished.
Anyway, now you know that your description of what happened is wrong, and so I hope you're intellectually honest enough to never portray Polanski in that favorable of a light again.
A Horrendous Precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
This really sets a horrendous precedent, as it gives school officials the ability to use such invasive and insane actions to spy on kids.
Amazing that the government's "think of the children" response to everything else unrelated isn't being applied to one of the few cases where it actually should be.
Re: (Score:3)
Ahem, a precedent is set by going to trial, not by avoiding it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Ahem, a precedent is set by going to trial, not by avoiding it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent [wikipedia.org]
Unless of course, I was using the word "precedent" in a non-court/legal related way. In which case it applies, and my statement is indicating that, without a change in the government's mindset, it sets a precedent in how the government will handle such things.
Re:A Horrendous Precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why our system of prosecutorial discretion [wikipedia.org] needs to be overhauled. It undermines the concept of equal protection under the law.
While all are ensured equitable and fair treatment in court, the odds of their ever coming to trial is totally dependant on the whim of the prosecutor. And eventually the majority that elected him/her to office. Which is something that our Constitution and Bill of Rights is supposed to protect us from.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why our system of
prosecutorial discretion [wikipedia.org] needs to be overhauled. It undermines the concept of equal protection under the law.
While all are ensured equitable and fair treatment in court, the odds of their ever coming to trial is totally dependant on the whim of the prosecutor. And eventually the majority that elected him/her to office. Which is something that our Constitution and Bill of Rights is supposed to protect us from.
The alternative is what... having it depend on the whim of the plaintiffs? Allowing for the same kind of litigous attidue that permeates the civil courts into the criminal courts, where the accused have a right to a public defender, paid for by public funds?
How with the massive increase in caseload be dealt with? Who will pay for the huge influx of new prosecuting attorneys-- the public? The plaintiffs? All this does is take the undermining of equal protection under the law that already exists in the civil
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The bill of rights was always meant to limit the power of congress.
And the other branches of the government as well.
Plus, the 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the States.
The 'majority of the population' can always elect representatives to revise the bill of rights according to their wishes.
Good luck with that. I don't think you'll find a 'majority' that wants to grant a special class of citizen immunity from the law. In spite of 'prosecutorial discretion' having been assumed by the courts (I don't believe there is a statute or article in the Constitution that grants it), its something that local politicians are usually embarrassed by. Its difficult to justify letting on
Re:A Horrendous Precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
Intent or not, this was a serious breach of privacy. It's also potentially a violation of any number of anti-spying laws. Is it actually legal for a school to install a video camera in my home? If it is, maybe it's time to change the law. If it isn't, why aren't these people being put before a judge? This entire thing reeks. School administrations have gotten just a little out of control lately, and it's about time we smack them back into line. Since we aren't supposed to take someone out behind the gym and beat sense into them anymore, that leaves the political, or legal avenues. The Fed declining to prosecute doesn't constitute an end to the legal front.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, not a LEGAL precedent. But a precedent in how the feds deal with such similar complaints or actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is if you consent to it. Now...if they bend/break the rules on when they turn it on, that's another thing entirely.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm reminded of how security researchers and general white-hats in this country live in constant fear of being arrested for doing the right thing. If it's not some overly broad DMCA interpretation, it's wiretapping or digital trespass. I can only hope the standard of "they didn't mean any harm" will be applied to everyone in the country who didn't mean any harm, and not just people who do this stuff en masse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It distinctly avoids setting a precedent. Prosecuter's are not judges. If enough people leaving flaming bags of dog shit on his doorstep (or the Mayor's), he'll get the message and tow the line. If that doesn't happen, then I guess he will have made the right decision.
Wow, I forgot so many of you play /. lawyers. There are other applicable definitions for the term which apply to my statement. I thought it was OBVIOUS that I was not talking about a legal related precedent. That means the following definition applies to my statement, as I explained... oh, 3 times so far:
a. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
Inotherwords, this may affect how other prosecutors decide to (or not to) deal with similar situations.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is being applied -- think of what the children might be up to, or who might be taking advantage of them, when we're not looking?
It's basically a profound lack of ability to perceive irony [youtube.com]...
Re:A Horrendous Precedent (Score:5, Funny)
could get monitory compensation
I have no words.
Re:A Horrendous Precedent (Score:5, Funny)
It's a perfectly cromulent usage. He's getting compensated for being monitored!
Re: (Score:2)
...No it doesn't, it simply says that the federal government isn't going to press charges, which is probably a good thing because:
...
B) Its a civil matter
It's only a civil matter because the government decided not to prosecute it criminally.
By having this case go to civil court, the victims could get monitory compensation and its simply the proper place to have a trial on something like this. Its not a criminal matter, its fraud and a breach of contract.
Ummm... just so you know... if the govt had proceeded with prosecuting this as a criminal matter, that in no way stops the people from filing a civil suit against the school. Actually, it makes things eas
Re: (Score:2)
Its not a criminal matter
Why would you say that?
Re: (Score:3)
This really sets a horrendous precedent, as it gives school officials the ability to use such invasive and insane actions to spy on kids.
How so? The prosecutor felt that the administrators did not intentionally violate the law; this is a factual determination that doesn't set "precedent." Another administrator is not going to say "ooh, now I can spy on them because of this case"; knowing about this case means if they spy on the students they knowingly violated the law and can be charged.
You honestly dont see all the things wrong in your post? Seriously. ANYONE with a brain knows that spying on someone in their own home is illegal - and via using such technological measures, it's "MORE" illegal (ie: even more laws violated).
And you honestly now think that ignorance of the law is an excuse for being able to violate it? Give that a try and tell me how that works out for you. On top of that, this situation would have to be ignorance by people who's jobs it is to know such relevant laws. Maki
Before everyone gets outraged... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Before everyone gets outraged... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell ya what... tell me where you sister lives and I'll send her a camera... it's ok... I promise my intent is not criminal.. you can trust me!
Re: (Score:2)
I actually think that someone should go to jail over this breach, and that's not going to happen in a civil trial. Fines just don't really do anything anymore.
Fines just don't really do anything... (Score:3, Insightful)
The families in the school district.
If the families sue the district then there is less money to go into the class room. Taxes must be raised to properly educate the children. If the families sue individuals the individuals will just be reimbursed by the district or the district's insurance company. Once again class-room money is drained away and taxes must be raised to replace it.
Unless individuals can be sued and barred from getting any reimbursement.
Re: (Score:2)
its a civil matter and thus should be settled in civil court with such charges of fraud, breach of contract, etc.
Again I ask, why would you say that? I doubt you're an attorney (neither am I, for that matter) but if you were to sneak into someone's home and hide a remote video camera in their children's bedroom, just what do you think would happen when the cam is discovered? For one thing, I can guarantee that law enforcement will be damned interested in charging you with criminal behavior. Parents can file civil suits if they wish, but the cops will nail you to the cross as a criminal, and rightfully so. Your plainti
Re: (Score:2)
So only rich parents deserve justice, right?
criminal intent? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, when the speed limit changes from a 55 to a 35 MPH zone in 100 feet and I didn't see the sign, does that mean I don't get a ticket because I didn't intend to commit a crime?
Legal definition? (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite sure whether the prosecutor was using the laymen definition or legal definition of criminal intent, the article is sparse and the prosecutor was smart enough to use an ambiguous term. The laymen definition of criminal intent is something like wanting to do something evil, or wanting to commit some sort of crime. The legal definition (in Canada, but should be similar in US) of criminal intent (or mens rea) is simply that you intended to do (or should have known that your actions would lead to you d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In order for the federal government to file charges, a federal law would need to be broken. Laws against taking pictures in a private residence would be state, not federal, laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In order for the federal government to file charges, a federal law would need to be broken. Laws against taking pictures in a private residence would be state, not federal, laws.
Seriously, I doubt that. Federal wiretapping laws are pretty explicit about who gets to spy on whom (they get to spy on us, but we don't get to spy on them, or on each other.)
Re:criminal intent? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is very much illegal. It violates so many laws it isn't even funny.
If even one of those pictures caught a kid with their shirt off for example, they just created kiddy porn.
Re: (Score:2)
It is very much illegal. It violates so many laws it isn't even funny.
If even one of those pictures caught a kid with their shirt off for example, they just created kiddy porn.
And if that didn't happen, all I have to say is, man, were they lucky. You're right: that would have meant quite a few years in Federal prison for a number of school personnel. And it may happen yet, who knows what will turn up.
Seriously... Criminal Intent? (Score:4, Interesting)
A student and his family sued the district in February, claiming officials invaded his privacy by activating the software. That case continues.
But still, it really grinds my gears that this whole thing isn't explicitly illegal. The fact that it's legal for the school district to take thousands of screenshots of unsuspecting children is really pretty upsetting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No Criminal Intent (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No Criminal Intent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Never attribute to Evil what can be explained by stupidity (or incompetence)
In this case, the difference is that their stupidity resulted in evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Terry Childs also didn't have any criminal intent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Terry Childs didn't have any criminal intent either, and he caused a lot less harm. Look where that got him... I no longer have any faith in the "justice" system.
The corollary here will be if the school system somehow manages to blame the students for this. I wouldn't put it past them to try (or the legal system to let them get away with it.)
Very stupid question, but... (Score:2)
Now, if the hardwire kept these LEDs on for, say, a minute after the camera was used (change the colour so it's not confusing), it would make thi
Re:Very stupid question, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The students did detect this. They saw the light blinking on and off, and reported it. These claims were dismissed as something wrong with the light. Of course, the fact that the claims were dismissed by the very group of people who could be taking the pictures should have made it seem a bit suspicious...
Re:Very stupid question, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
The students did detect this. They saw the light blinking on and off, and reported it. These claims were dismissed as something wrong with the light. Of course, the fact that the claims were dismissed by the very group of people who could be taking the pictures should have made it seem a bit suspicious...
Not to mention the fact that would have been a heck of a lot of laptops with the exact same "malfunction."
increasingly a police state (Score:4, Insightful)
don't you feel that you are living in an increasingly a police state, where the cops' and generally the government actions are always above the law and justified and the citizens actions are more and more criminalized?
Re: (Score:2)
don't you feel that you are living in an increasingly a police state, where the cops' and generally the government actions are always above the law and justified and the citizens actions are more and more criminalized?
No, not at all, not in the least. Why would you say that?
(Geez, buddy, shut the fuck up, you're gonna get us all disappeared.)
Nonsense (Score:2)
Deciding to spy on the students was the criminal intention. This is the same old story. The law applies only to certain people and not others. If justice were at hand the case would be decided just as if some private person had decided to spy on the kids.
Well that makes sense... (Score:2)
My favorite;
Memeger says he decided to make Tuesday's announcement to close the matter before the start of the school year.
Yeah, lets not have a school being sued while school is in session... nice excuse.
Re: (Score:3)
The fail guy is likey to low to be able to pin it (Score:2)
The fail guy is likely to low to be able to pin it him.
Say they pin it on some tech and try to though the book at him child porn and all but do go after the higher ups who did calm to have used the phots even when the assistant principal used them over the fake drugs thing.
They can't go after the higher ups and the lower guys likely did not even have the choice over the software that was being used.
But the law suit likely will bring out cool info about all of this.
So lets get some things straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not wiretapping
Recording the police on the job in a traffic stop at a public location:
Wiretapping
Source: http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=102616&catid=187 [wusa9.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is correct. From US Code Title 18.2510 [cornell.edu]:
(1) “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign commu
Re:So lets get some things straight... (Score:5, Informative)
We have yet to see what decision will be made by the various state prosecutors on this case. If this case was in Maryland on the other hand there is reason to believe you would be correct.
So it's okay... (Score:2)
to covertly take pictures of teenagers in their bedrooms, but not okay to openly record abusive police actions in public.
Something is seriously wrong.
Union (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait the federal government won't prosecute a bunch of union, jack boot gestapo perverts from the Teacher's Union? No really? In Philly? Why piss off your largest voting block? Makes perfect sense. I don't know about Philly but the first question to ask is "Is this DA elected and did he have the teacher's union endorsement?"
Re:So preventable (Score:4, Informative)
Oh no! Duct tape, electrical tape or pink duct tape on the built in webcam! Problem solved!
If you had been following the case you would know that students were expressly forbidden to put tape over the camera. They would have been punished had they done it.
Re: (Score:3)
If you had been following the case you would know that students were expressly forbidden to put tape over the camera. They would have been punished had they done it.
Hmmm ... That's something that I don't recall ever reading in the copious coverage of this case. If true, I'd think it would imply that the school officials had the intent of using the cameras so spy on the students. But is this actually true?
I've always routinely taped over anything that looks like a camera lens in any computer or other elect
Re: (Score:2)
The laptops were being used at home and snapshots were being taken with the cameras on the laptops, at home.
So, you don't agree with the feds here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Since it seems you were on vacation in LaLa land when the story this is about broke, let me be informative for you:
Yes. The school activated the webcam in the laptops, when they were in student's homes. They did NOT deactivate the webcams when they discovered this fact. Instead, they continued to perform surveylence of the students, and even attempted to expel a student for "Inappropriate Conduct" involving eating Mike & Ike candies at his kitchen table. (School officials though the ginormous red candie
Re:Since when does "Letter of the law" need intent (Score:5, Insightful)
If it had been an ordinary IT clerk, instead of a school system's policy, they would have faced serious prosecution, no ifs, ands, or buts. (except the kind on film..)
That's a really good way of looking at it. If one person had done this alone (like one of the school district's IT staff for instance) without any approval and it was discovered, he would have been hung out to dry. Even if he legitimately had no criminal intent. Even if he didn't necessarily capture any images which might be illegal. He would at the very least have lost his job, would likely be in prison, and would probably have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
Talk about a double standard.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This would really harm the students and the county as a hole.
You know what? It sounds like your county already is a hole. I certainly won't be moving there, and I don't even have kids.
That's something they SHOULD learn early. (Score:3, Informative)
Congratulations. Your school board has taught children that there is a double standard. One law for the citizens. And a different law for anyone who works for the government.
That's something they should learn early. It will prepare them better for life.
Just think: If they didn't get lessons like this they might believe in all that "Constitution" and "Equal Protection" stuff. They might even get angry and join tinfoil-hat wingnuts like the Tea Party movement, and try to throw out government officials with
Re: (Score:2)
Your definition of "don't worry" intrigues me. I would like to learn more.
Re:In Soviet Russia Secondary School (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Couldn't the parents file charges? (Score:4, Informative)
The parents have no legal ability to do so. Only attorneys of the state and federal government district attorneys offices have the ability to press criminal charges.
A private person cannot personally press criminal charges, nor can a private person hire an attorney to press criminal charges.
This is what allows the entire concept of a plea bargain to exist.
The federal or state prosecutor's office with jurisdiction has the sole authority to decide whether charges will be pressed or not.
If private people could press charges, there wouldn't be plea bargains, since "someone else" might decide to chime in and press the charges again. Thus the "bargain" would not be a bargain at all.
Murderers or Bandits caught by police could pay people under the table to prosecute them and do a slipshod job... since due to the constitution 5th amendment, noone can be twice put under jeapordy of life and limb.