FBI Probing PA School Webcam Spy Case 312
On Thursday we discussed news that a Pennsylvania high school was spying on students through the webcams in laptops that were issued to the students. The FBI is now taking an interest in the case, investigating whether federal wiretap and computer-intrusion laws were violated in the process. "The FBI opened its investigation after news of the suit broke on Thursday, the law-enforcement official said. Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman may also investigate, she said Friday." Ferman said her office is "looking to see whether there are potential violations of Pennsylvania criminal laws."
Damn Good. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Damn Good. (Score:4, Funny)
Not Orwell, don't overuse it.
First thing I thought was "Pedobear would be proud."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The easiest way to create child porn is giving free cameras to teenagers.
Obviously, the school wants to promote the creation of child porn by giving webcams to their students.
Re:Damn Good. (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway-
It seems the whole mess was a storm in a teacup.
It seems it was just some setup where if a student reported a laptop missing the school which owned those laptops could remotely access it to try to figure out where it was and who was using it.
1. Did an assistant principal at Harriton ever have the ability to remotely monitor a student at home? Did she utilize a photo taken by a school-issued laptop to discipline a student?
* No. At no time did any high school administrator have the ability or actually access the security- tracking software. We believe that the administrator at Harriton has been unfairly portrayed and unjustly attacked in connection with her attempts to be supportive of a student and his family. The district never did and never would use such tactics as a basis for disciplinary action.
2. How were the decisions made to develop the original security plan? Were there/are there safeguards in place to ensure student privacy with regard to use of the security application?
* Concerned about the security of district-owned and issued laptops, the security plan was developed by the technology department to give the District the ability to recover lost, stolen or missing student laptops. This included tracking loaner laptops that may, against regulations, have been taken off campus.
* Only two members of the technology department could access the security feature.
3. Were students and families explicitly told about the laptop security system?
* No. There was no formal notice given to students or their families. The functionality and intended use of the security feature should have been communicated clearly to students and families.
4. How many thefts have there been? How many times was the system used? What have been the results in terms of recovery of computers?
* During the 2009-10 school year, 42 laptops were reported lost, stolen or missing and the tracking software was activated by the technology department in each instance. A total of 18 laptops were found or recovered. This number (18) is an updated number given the information we have compiled today.
5. What was the total cost of implementation of the laptop program?
* The approximate cost of each laptop is $1,000 and during the two years of the program, there were 2,620 laptops purchased.
6. How was funding obtained for the laptop program?
* Laptops were purchased using a combination of district funds and and Classrooms for the Future grants.
7. When was the district notified of the allegations contained in the lawsuit?
* The district learned of the allegations Thursday, February 18th. No complaints were received prior to this date. The district's initial response was posted on the district webpage and communicated to students and parents the same day. The district will not be commenting on the specifics of the plaintiff's complaint, however, outside the legal process.
8. In the future, will students be required to use district issued laptops?
* The district believes students received significant benefit from the one-to-one laptop program and has no intention of discontinuing the program.
9. Is remote access activity by the district logged?
* Yes. There is a log entry for every instance of the security feature activation. The logs will be reviewed as part of the special review conducted under the direction of special outside counsel.
10. Can parents return currently issued laptops to the district at this time?
* They can, but we note that the laptops are an integral component of the educational program in the district. The security feature has been deactivated and there is no reas
Re:Damn Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of what possible use would a 'camera' be in locating a stolen laptop? Would they be able to identify anything other than a room with 1 or two walls in the background? If they saw a face, would that bring them realistically any closer to an arrest?
Doesn't it make more sense to triangulate the laptop's position via WiFi, or even via a GPS tracker installed in the hardware?
The article states that the laptops cost about $1000 each, and that they have had 42 reported stolen, and have recovered 18. It does not state that the security feature was beneficial in that recovery. Given that they've lost $24,000 dollars worth of hardware even with the security software, and that the resulting lawsuits will probably easily be in the 10's or 100's of times that actual loss value, is this even worth the potential litigation risk?
On page 6 of the class action doc, it specifically says that Lindy Matsko, assistant principal at Harriton High School informed the minor Blake J. Robbins, that he was engaged in improper behavior and she produced a photo of said conduct that was captured from the laptop's cam. The laptop was not reported as stolen, even though the school claims that feature is only activated in the event that a laptop is reported stolen. The parents were not informed of this capability until this incident (rather hard to hide when they produced the picture from the web cam).
The claim in the class action doc directly refutes the claims by the school.
The laptops should have never been placed with a student without notifying them of the security software, it's capabilities, or the potential privacy violations. Had they been notified at that time, I doubt the program would have been allowed to continue with said software installed as it appears to violate a number of statutes, listed beginning on page 6 of the class action PDF.
http://craphound.com/robbins17.pdf [craphound.com]
Re:Damn Good. (Score:4, Interesting)
"The claim in the class action doc directly refutes the claims by the school."
Honestly, I think I can read between the lines of the school statement and see how they could be technically correct, although highly misleading (note that it's a rich district, and everyone involved has hired high powered lawyers).
Did the assistant principal "have the ability to remotely monitor a student"? Well, no, the monitoring was actually done by an IT staff member who then handed off the picture to the assistant principal. (Note that the FAQ question is NOT "does any staff member have the ability to remotely monitor?")
Did she utilize a photo to discipline a student? Well, technically no, if there was no school-based punishment, suspension, etc. handed out... according to the report she met with the parents and just threatened future disciplinary measures. (Note that the FAQ question is NOT "did the assistant principal ever produce a photo taken by a school-issued laptop?")
So I can kind of see this as carefully-chosen weasel words.
Re:Damn Good. (Score:5, Funny)
I hope that by the time the U.S. Government (FBI) is done with this school, not one concrete block is standing atop another.
Every single person involved in this should be fired, and the school closed, to be replaced by a better school that is not corrupt.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I should also note that a perfectly good system cannot be blamed for abusive sys-admins.
After some more reading I've come to the conclusion that there's nothing wrong with the security system itself. it's really quite sensible. Any and all problems are the possibly abusive actions of the people with admin.
Re:Damn Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except the students had seen the cameras come on often enough that they knew how to recognize the symptoms and cover the things with a post it note.
Kids are nowhere near as stupid as the average adult -- including the average school administrator -- thinks. DOUBLY so with technology.
There's a reason the FBI is involved at this point. We need to know just who had access to this system, when it was in use, what policies where in places for access, and how often these policies were ignored.
Yes, we have the school administration's word. Unfortunately, we cannot take them at their word, cause we now know for a fact that they are not trustworthy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all kids were aware they were being spied upon until the story broke. I saw an interview on FOX News* just yesterday where a mom said, "My daughter is worried. She said, 'Mom I have that laptop open all the time. Even when I'm changing. What is they saw me in my underwear or naked?' She is scared of what her teachers might have seen."
No student, not even one, should have to feel like that.
* ;-)
* Please don't reject my story just because it came from FOX.
Telescreens (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Telescreens (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Damn Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Orwell already understood it to be true. 1984=1948
Re:Damn Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let them take away the right to say "Fuck" and you've given up the ability to say "Fuck the Government."
That's not the problem. As Orwell points out in the appendix to "1984", where he discusses "Newspeak" [netcharles.com], one could say "Big Brother is doubleplus ungood" in Newspeak. But the language for saying why wasn't available. So no one could make a convincing argument against Big Brother. "In Newspeak it was seldom possible to follow a heretical thought further than the perception that it was heretical: beyond that point the necessary words were nonexistent."
Watch for this phenomenon. It's real. Especially on talk radio.
Re:Damn Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let them take away the right to say "Fuck" and you've given up the ability to say "Fuck the Government."
That's not the problem. As Orwell points out in the appendix to "1984", where he discusses "Newspeak" [netcharles.com], one could say "Big Brother is doubleplus ungood" in Newspeak. But the language for saying why wasn't available. So no one could make a convincing argument against Big Brother. "In Newspeak it was seldom possible to follow a heretical thought further than the perception that it was heretical: beyond that point the necessary words were nonexistent."
Watch for this phenomenon. It's real. Especially on talk radio.
Now that's just a conspiracy theory. Clearly, you are a nut, for only nuts react with anything for disdain and mockery when presented with a conspiracy theory.
Re:Damn Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Talk radio is more analogous to the Two Minutes Hate, although instead of 2 minutes it's more like a 3 or 4 hour hate.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's because you have the memory and attention span of a gnat, and the cultural experience of a can of soup.
FIST... (Score:3, Insightful)
...of common sense.
Seriously though, as was said on the previous /. thread on this topic: who could seriously have thought that the ability to spy on kids in their bedrooms was (a) a good idea and (b) something to brag about.
Rgds
Damon
Re:FIST... (Score:5, Informative)
I recently watched a documentary (it may of been BBC's The Virtual Revolution [bbc.co.uk]) where they showed a principle in a New York City area school spying on what his students where doing during the day at school via their school issued laptops. He could see what they where doing on the machine and even them via the webcam. They even showed him taking a snap of a student combing her hair to get her attention as in 'get back to work'.
Re: (Score:2)
One wonders what the principle does when he discovers that a student took the laptop with them into the restroom....
Re:FIST... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FIST... (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing I've learned in my life, given the chance, many will choose to do the wrong thing. I used to be cynical so many to me used to be most, but I'm pretty sure most will choose to do the right thing, but many won't. However I also know power corrupts, if only for the reason those who seek power generally suffer from narcissism, so for those with power, perhaps the bell curve is skewed more towards most.
I agree, but it's not so much that power corrupts, but that unaccountability corrupts. If an individual will suffer no consequences for harming another, then you are depending upon that individual's better nature. The problem is ... he or she may not have one. That, in fact, is why we have the rule of law: you may or may not be someone that can be trusted, but the system will hold you accountable. Given that the Feds are involved in this matter, I think that an accounting is exactly what's about to happen.
accountability is inversely proportional to power (Score:3, Insightful)
But I think that accountability automatically scales down as power goes up. When powerful people do bad things, usually there are many other people around them who are complicit in some way, or who should've known better, or who should have spoken up, or who just went along because everyone else did so. Eventually you get to a point where people will give you a pass just because the alternative--admitting that every
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing I've learned in my life, given the chance, many will choose to do the wrong thing.
And I've learned that choosing "the wrong thing" frequently leads to no deleterious effects, so it's not necessary to catch and severely punish every instance of "the wrong thing"; most all of it is self-correcting over time.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They even showed him taking a snap of a student combing her hair to get her attention as in 'get back to work'.
I can't help but wonder what sort of paranoia and acceptance of privacy violations these practices are going to foster in both current and future generations of school children. I'd like to think that it will create loathing and a strong backlash, but I somehow don't think that will be the case.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here is the video on PBS. Links directly to the page hosting it. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/learning/schools/how-google-saved-a-school.html . Interesting how it says, "how google saved a school."
Re:FIST... (Score:5, Insightful)
who could seriously have thought that the ability to spy on kids in their bedrooms was (a) a good idea and (b) something to brag about.
Pedophiles?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is /. you insensitive clod. I don't have a girlfriend...
Innocent until proven guilty (Score:2)
Until I have some more data on this, I won't make an assumption on what happened.
It's one thing to watch kids on their bedroom, it's another thing to find an image the kid made on his or her computer. I suppose that's exactly what the FBI wants to find out, who made those images?
These days when people start screaming "Ohmigod! There's pedophiles everywhere!" the school administration should be very careful if they give computers with cameras to the students.
What if a 15-year-old girl sent a picture of herse
Re: (Score:2)
Hi,
I'm *not* assuming that the school staff *were* looking at dodgy images of children in their bedrooms. Not relevant really, though if they *have* been doing it...
It's the *ability* to do so, and the fact that the parents found out post hoc that is the issue IMHO.
If I discovered that our school had done this to our child I'd withdraw my child from school immediately AND call the UK Information Commissioner to start an investigation pronto AND ask the school governors to suspend all the staff involved unt
Update from Dr. McGinley, LMSD, 2010/02/19-10PMEST (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Apologies and remorse are too late. Coulda-woulda-shouda. You guys fucked up big time and you are going to have your asses handed to you. Deservedly so.
Very interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
VERY interesting.
Did the district remotely access any laptops which were not lost, missing or stolen?
No.
Aha! So why was the laptop reported lost/missing/stolen if the student had it? It seems like the administration had a legitimate reason for turning on the security software! If this is true, it complicates things. I do not fault the school system for putting security software on the system. Especially since they claim that 42 were reported lost/missing/stolen and they recovered 18 of them.
The details about this will be very interesting...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally I don't buy their story. The odds of catching someone doing something "interesting" (as was reported earlier) when taking a single snapshot have gotta be astronomically low. They also claim that no student was disciplined or this brought up—if so, how did they learn of the tracking software?
Re:Very interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
So why was the laptop reported lost/missing/stolen if the student had it?
Yesterday's news quoted parents, and they say that the laptop was NOT reported stolen. They obviously wouldn't file a lawsuit otherwise.
The latest missive from the school is just building their defense. IMO, when FBI or court checks the computers and it turns out that there were other, unauthorized activations of cameras, or a way to bypass logs alltogether, then the people who claimed otherwise can say "we didn't know" and will blame someone who isn't important.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite some reports to the contrary, be assured that the security-tracking software has been completely disabled.
I think completely *removed* would be the only assuring thing they could do. Half-measures like this open up re-enabling in the future, whether by the school district, or someone else who now knows the software is present and has in interest in 're-purposing' it.
Re:Update from Dr. McGinley, LMSD, 2010/02/19-10PM (Score:4, Insightful)
"Disabled" might mean "removed" Disabled means not working, removing it would stop it from working. Yes I know that's not normally how the word is used, but non-tech people might use it as such.
So, is it a case of a person using the wrong word and accidentally being misunderstood, or a person using the right word and hoping his audience misunderstands him?
Re:Update from Dr. McGinley, LMSD, 2010/02/19-10PM (Score:4, Interesting)
considering that they official said previously that it was never used and are now admitting to less than 50 uses, they're pretty screwed.
Re:Update from Dr. McGinley, LMSD, 2010/02/19-10PM (Score:4, Funny)
Not necessarily:
n = 0
n < 50
I don't see any incongruencies there.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong punishment.
Chain them to a webcam. With sound. The punishment *should* fit the crime.
Student privacy lost laptop (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the security measure is not forgivable. Don't even bother with hypothetical situations ("But if we could save someone's life ... "). Student privacy is more important than a lost laptop. Grok that concept.
Once you've got that down the gullet, there are no hypothetical situations in which this behavior becomes permissible. If we can't take the photos by remote control, then there's no point discussing situations in which such a photo might be justified.
Others have pointed out that this is about the most
Just plain WRONG (Score:2)
Despite the fact that the school OWNS the machines, this is just so wrong on so many levels.
Now that this news is out, kids will stick tape over the cameras, shove gum into them, or worse. On MOST laptops, just plugging something in to the MIC jack disables the built-in mic.
Label them as sex offender (Score:5, Interesting)
Vice Principal used a photo taken by the webcam as evidence.
All people who were responsible for this should be labelled for the rest of their lives as sex offenders with all the consequences. Hey, they could have watched the children naked at home. I am not an American, but from what I hear from news, some people got this sex offender stigma for much more ridiculous incidents. In this case it would make sure that something like this would never happen again.
Re:Label them as sex offender (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the part that tickled me - while there may be some (flimsy) justification for using the AV for tracking down lost laptops, where is the justification or authority for disciplining children for activities off school grounds? Amazing how some educators think that they own kids 24/7, just because they sit in their class for an hour a day.
Simple immediate solution for parents - refuse the laptops. Tell the school that you don't accept spyware in your home. And be vocal about it - school boards will let stuff rot in court for years, but a few weeks on the front page will change their minds ASAP.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The justification is in the lack of action against it when it happens. Of the parents who see a problem with this, few make it past the "threaten to sue" stage.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like the key criterion is: "Is the off-school behavior potentially disruptive to the educational process in school?" You can see how liberally that might be applied. For example, earlier this month the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court upheld a suspension for a girl mocking the principal on a MySpace page, after the school argued that students were talking about it in class instead of studying. (At the same time, a different court ruled the opposite in a separate case. My guess is if any of this goes to the curr
Re:Label them as sex offender (Score:4, Insightful)
More to the point, they could NOT be sure they wouldn't see the student naked when they turned the camera on.
If peeing on a dumpster at 2AM can get someone branded as a sex offender because a school (clearly unoccupied at 2AM) happened to be next door then surely any school official that activated a webcam in the absence of a theft report would deserve at least as much.
If authorities believe that's a bit much, they should also be protesting the branding of non-government employees for much lesser offenses. Especially since school officials should have been much more aware of and sensitive to the potential issues surrounding any dealing with minors.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When laws become insane, sometimes the only way to fight back is to have everyone labelled the same way. Remember the writings of the Roman orators on this, and you'll understand the concept even better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't forget to charge the kid too. It's the American way.
As an American, I suppose I should be irritated by that remark ... but it's uncomfortably close to the truth. We're not handling many of these cases very well, it seems.
Sometimes you have to look at stories like this and say, "Well, we don't have all the facts in our possession, so maybe there were some extenuating circumstances." In this case, I can't really see any justification for what this school has done. It just sounds like a group of administrative types who thought they were invulnerable to cons
Re: (Score:2)
... the real responsibility lies at the top.
And it will be those at the bottom who take the blame.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>> Don't forget to charge the kid too. It's the American way. ... but it's uncomfortably close to the truth. We're not handling many of these cases very well, it seems
>
>As an American, I suppose I should be irritated by that remark
When you consider that the majority of 'offenders' prosecuted in this country under child pornography laws are 15-year-olds, I'd say that "not handling well" is somewhat of an understatement.
A.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
as a taxpayer without children, I am not welcome at PTA or other school meetings where I would be permitted to voice my opinions as to the misguided actions of educators and administrators
Well, sure, because as someone without children you might be inclined to ask where the hell all of your money is going, and the "but, it's for the children" argument most likely won't work on you. Me either ... I don't have kids but 56% (fifty six percent) of my real-estate taxes go to "education." Think about that: education overshadows all other civil services in my area: police, fire, social and medical services, everything. That just seems entirely out of proportion, somehow.
And even if you aren't we
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's quite probable that 56% of the real estate taxes SHOULD go to the school.
And it's just as likely that it isn't. Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure it isn't. I've seen the overbuilt, overfunded, underutilized facilities built around here, and I'm not happy with the way public officials have been handling my money.
I'm not going to dispute the importance of education to our society, I hope I didn't give that impression. But we are spending an enormous amount of money on this, and we're not receiving enough in return. We're just not. Given the misuse of public funds that goes on in
Good deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good deal (Score:4, Informative)
About damn time. I feel a bit pumped that the tide is shifting here, the things we know are immoral are starting to get called on why they're done, even with the best of intentions.
I think the only reason they're getting nailed for this is because they went so far over the line. A less flagrant violation - one that didn't raise ZOMG KIDDIE PORN fears - wouldn't have caused any uproar.
So stupid (Score:2)
I hope that entire school board gets fired and some should even see some jail time. How can anyone in their right mind think this was a good idea? And how could it get so far without someone on the school board objecting and putting a stop to it.
Prey (Score:4, Informative)
I've seen both commercial and open source webcam enabled anti-theft software advertised for personal use: Prey [preyproject.com]
I don't know the software well enough to know how it is designed and marketed for business/institutional use. How many of these programs can capture full or stop-motion video.
This strikes me as a minefield for both the developer and his clients.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see the need for all this. There's insurance against theft and using proper full disk encryption, there's no risk of data loss for companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prey (Score:4, Informative)
I don't see the need for all this. There's insurance against theft and using proper full disk encryption, there's no risk of data loss for companies.
They do require insurance for most students Laptop Insurance [lmsd.org]
Insurance Information
Re: (Score:2)
This strikes me as a minefield for both the developer and his clients.
For some of the clients, perhaps but not the developer. Well, not if he can afford any decent lawyer. There is a legitimate use [dreamindemon.com] for that kind of software.
LK
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be honest, this story sounds like they did almost exactly that.
Obviously an investigation is needed, but doesnt this situation seem most likely:
Student reports his school laptop stolen so he can keep it for himself
School activates anti-theft software (which includes webcam)
School recieves image of said student, proving he lied to steal the laptop
School sends letter to student's parents telling them what their child has done.
Now I don't know if that's true, but frankly it sounds more believable than some
Re:Prey (Score:4, Informative)
Okay, I just read a bit more and it looks like apparently they aren't even *allowed* to take the laptops home, they're just lent out for a couple of lessons. So the laptop WAS stolen, and the camera correctly identified the thief.
Based on this Laptop Capabilities at Home [lmsd.org] info from the LMSD website, they do expect the kids to take the laptops home.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where did you find that the students aren't allowed to take the laptops home? From what I've been reading, it appears that they certainly were. Relevant portion, from Cnet: [cnet.com]
The other stories, such as one who talked to the kid's sister, seems to confirm that use of the laptops at home was quite common practice, and I can find nothing in the school's statement in
Slap 'em down. (Score:4, Insightful)
Slap 'em down.
Make an example of these self important fools.
Lojack (Score:5, Informative)
If they were really interested in theft recovery why didn't they use a system specifically designed for that purpose. Lojack costs $30/year per machine and I'm sure they would have gotten a volume discount.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If they were really interested in theft recovery why didn't they use a system specifically designed for that purpose. Lojack costs $30/year per machine and I'm sure they would have gotten a volume discount.
That's exactly what I was thinking. It almost certainly costs less than paying someone to set up the spycurity software, maintain it, watch kids, and that's not even getting into the lawyer fees and the possible damages.
This is all allegations (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is all allegations (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of news outlets are quoting the vice principal on this:
http://americasright.com/?p=3159 [americasright.com]
On November 11, 2009, Plaintiffs were for the first time informed of the above-mentioned capability and practice by the School District when Lindy Matsko, an Assistant Principal at Harriton High School, informed minor Plaintiff that the School District was of the belief that minor Plaintiff was engaged in improper behavior in his home, and cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam embedded in minor Plaintiff’s personal laptop issued by the School District.
Re:This is all allegations (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of news outlets are quoting the vice principal on this:
http://americasright.com/?p=3159 [americasright.com]
On November 11, 2009, Plaintiffs were for the first time informed of the above-mentioned capability and practice by the School District when Lindy Matsko, an Assistant Principal at Harriton High School, informed minor Plaintiff that the School District was of the belief that minor Plaintiff was engaged in improper behavior in his home, and cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam embedded in minor Plaintiff’s personal laptop issued by the School District.
From the way I read this, a lot of people are quoting the plaintiff's version of what the vice principal said (and probably from the lawsuit), not quoting the vice principal himself. To me that counts as hearsay and is not reliable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's unclear from this statement whether this means that the school had remotely and secretly activated the webcam, or the student's "improper behavior" somehow involved him using the webcam to capture images which were stored on the hard drive and which the school subsequently accessed.
Re: (Score:2)
"So in other words, assistant principal Matsko, you admit you were invading the privacy of your pupil?"
Re: (Score:2)
The only concrete fact that the two parties agree on is that the laptops have tracking software.
They agree that the tracking software was not disclosed to the students or their families.
They agree that the use of the webcam by the tracking software was not disclosed to the students or their families.
I believe they agree that the software also send screen captures - which opens another can of worms.
The school - after some un-gentle prodding - admitted that the logs show about 40 uses of the cameras.
It is no
Still Illegal - Doesn't matter why (Score:2)
1) It doesn't matter why they used it, it's illegal if it was used in anyone's home.
2) The opportunity for abuse is huge and they absolutely should have informed the parents in advance.
Bullshit on "stolen" computers.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Who's FBI is this? (Score:4, Funny)
Isn't the FBI in charge of invading our privacy, not protecting it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the FBI in charge of invading our privacy, not protecting it?
Well, the point is that law enforcement, in general, is not going to look kindly upon this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Student saved picture onto desktop (Mike & Ike (Score:2)
Did the student save a picture of himself eating Mike & Ike candies at home, which a school teacher or official later noticed on the desktop? That would be different than the school remotely viewing him at home. I'm as suspicious of anyone of authority, but lets get the facts straight. This could be the lawyer fishing on the *ability* the school had, not what it actually did. Both are bad, but one is worse.
The problem for the teacher or whomever is that once they saw the Mike & Ike picture, assumed
this will go nowhere. (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not a lawyer, but I've investigated Supreme Court decisions on rights of students several times. They always start "The student doesn't shed his or her constitutional rights at the schoolhouse doors, but...." and then go on to describe rights of administrators that describe a situation where the students have no rights.
All the lawyers have to do is describe a reasonable case that the admins were trying to "keep order" in the schoolhouse and this goes nowhere. The Supreme Court has often went out of its way to make school administrators despots in their own little fiefdoms. Anyone that has attended a public school since 1970 knows this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not a lawyer, but I've investigated Supreme Court decisions on rights of students several times. They always start "The student doesn't shed his or her constitutional rights at the schoolhouse doors, but...." and then go on to describe rights of administrators that describe a situation where the students have no rights.
All the lawyers have to do is describe a reasonable case that the admins were trying to "keep order" in the schoolhouse and this goes nowhere. The Supreme Court has often went out of its way to make school administrators despots in their own little fiefdoms. Anyone that has attended a public school since 1970 knows this.
I think the angle to go with here is that (a) the activities being punished happened off school grounds and on the student's personal time (unless the school wants to start taking responsibility and liability for all actions students take), and thus outside of the fiefdom, and (b) the surveillance extends to persons who are not attending the school (and again, outside the school realm).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Visible from school grounds. (Also, it makes a huge difference whether this was a public or private school. I don't know which it is.)
Actually, I don't see why it would matter if it was visible from school grounds - it's after hours, and it's *not* on school grounds. The student is not under the authority of the school at that point.
I suppose the question to the parent is, what did you do about it?
If this does not violate laws it sure should. (Score:2)
Another note: If they retrieved one photo of someone underage engaged in a sex act (this includes the "m" word, I assume), they are guilty of manufacturing and distribution of c. p, which means 10+ years in federal prison.
What were these people thinking when they set this up?
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot imagine--if this did happen as reported--it did not violate laws.
How could it not? Doesn't matter what technology you use to do it, either a computer with a webcam or a zoom lens and a slightly-opened curtain or hiding in a closet with a Polaroid, taking pictures of someone without their knowledge or permission while they're in their home is illegal. Hell, just plain old LOOKING without recording it is still illegal.
Another note: If they retrieved one photo of someone underage engaged in a sex act (this includes the "m" word, I assume), they are guilty of manufacturing and distribution of c. p, which means 10+ years in federal prison.
Never mind sex act - a person undressing could be enough.
What were these people thinking when they set this up?
They were thinking of "security" (actually control in the guise of security) and nothing else.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hell, just plain old LOOKING without recording it is still illegal.
Plain old looking is _not_ illegal, depending on the expectation of privacy. Many people's homes sit on widely used roads, and if glancing in at someone as you walk or drive past their house is now a crime, I'd guess just about everyone is a criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
They were of course thinking of the children!
In what context ... umm... I'm not gonna touch that with a 10 foot pole.
Re: (Score:2)
What were these people thinking when they set this up?
More to the point, if the people who are running our schools have so little capacity for critical thinking, what the hell are they doing in charge of our children's education?
Washington Post (Score:2)
The Washington Post has changed the linked article in the last 30 minutes to something about administrators denying everything. Talk about big brother and controlling the masses.
Orwell Method:
Link reads -
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/02/19/us/AP-US-Laptops-Spying-on-Students.html [nytimes.com]
Link should read -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/20/AR2010022000679.html [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Link should read - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/20/AR2010022000679.html [washingtonpost.com]
That link hauls in junk and tracking from a huge number of sites, including
That's embarrassing.
Re: (Score:2)
PA's "Constructive Possession" laws (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, the constructive possession doctrine in PA says that it is an equivalent situation that the administrators were physically located in the child's bedroom with a camera. This is the same law that is used to charge kids with minor possession of alcohol for simply being in a place where alcohol is present, regardless of whether the minor actually has physical possession of any. The beer may as well have been in their hand, just like the administrators may as well have been in the child's bedroom, where at some point during the constructive possession of the photographic equipment, one can reasonably conclude the child was undressed.
QED. The administrators are guilty of photographing naked minors by the constructive possession doctrine.
Gatto: Schooling is a form of adoption... (Score:4, Interesting)
Another great reason to homeschool: "State Controlled Consciousness"
http://www.the-open-boat.com/Gatto.html [the-open-boat.com]
"""
Schooling is a form of adoption. You give your kid up in his or her most plastic years to a group of strangers. You accept a promise, sometimes stated and more often implied that the state through its agents knows better how to raise your children and educate them than you, your neighbors, your grandparents, your local traditions do. And that your kid will be better off so adopted.
But by the time the child returns to the family, or has the option of doing that, very few want to. Their parents are some form of friendly stranger too and why not? In the key hours of growing up, strangers have reared the kid.
Now let's look at the strangers of which you (interviewer) was one and I was one. Regardless of our good feeling toward children. Regardless of our individual talents or intelligence, we have so little time each day with each of these kids, we can't possibly know enough vital information about that particular kid to tailor a set of exercises for that kid. Oh, you know, some of us will try more than others, but there simply isn't any time to do it to a significant degree.
So what we do is accept and if we don't accept this we are fired or harrassed, we accept the state's prescription that's written in manuals. You do this first, and this second, and this third, and here you have a little latitude to talk to the kid. And the way the state checks on whether you've followed that diet is your standardized tests given at intervals
If your kids do badly, it does not mean that they're bad readers or anything else. It means they haven't been obedient to the drills the state set down and they're marked for further treatment later on with a mark to be excluded from responsible jobs. Perhaps some way is to be excluded from the colleges that lead to responsible jobs, in other ways from the licenses that lead to responsible jobs.
This was ALL worked out. It didn't evolve by a lot of rational people saying we'll take this this and this from the past, then the next generation says we'll take this this and this. This was set down largely in a handful of places. Prussia was perhaps the most prominent of those places. The Prussian experiment leapt into the United States almost immediately in the 1840's. Leapt into the United States; its propagandists covered the country here. Its backers, its financial backers set up the most important teacher training institutes and then financed those institutes and then no one was allowed to become a teacher who didn't more or less subscribe to the fact that experts could create a curriculum and pedagogues could administer it.
Well, that's exactly what Horace, the Roman essayist, talked about in several of his essays. He said, "the master creates the lessons, the pedagogue (the teacher) administers the lessons." But if you find the teacher creating the lessons or deviating from the direction the lessons are headed in, you get rid of the pedagogue.
But the people who gave us schooling, weren't these wealthy people, they were Utopian thinkers who believed the family and tradition were the greatest obstacles to making a perfect society, a utopia. Every utopia that survived, invents schooling, long before we had universal forced schooling for all these little neighborhood schools. They all invented universal schooling of a homogenous variety in order to reach Utopia.
Now let's shift to the basis of your question which is Rockefeller and Carnegie and J.P. Morgan. These people saw a different kind of utopia. Through solving the problem of production with highspeed machinery they saw material abundance could be created and that want - first of all, of course, they thought they could become supremely wealthy which they did - but secondarily, they weren't beasts, they thought that this material abundance, since they had abandoned a belief in a Creator or an Afterlife, this material abund
Re: (Score:2)
It's similar to the way a government stays in power by maintaining a monopoly over violence.
As long as they do a good job of it, people will put up with much.
If the only people that are allowed to kill or bash people up are the Government/Ruling Party, and they usually only happen after a bunch of fairly predictable (and avoidable) events then most people will be fine with that.
That's how dictators stay in power for so long. If you have some confidence that you and you
Re: (Score:2)
We hear what you did, comrade!
In Soviet Russia, laptop tapes YOU!
Re:The school was within their rights... (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately, the fact that the school could and would remotely active te web cam for any reason at all, was not in an AUP or in fact any type of document that the parents and/or child signed, read, or was given.