School used students' computer webcams to spy on them at home

[RainDog]

via boing boing

According to the filings in Blake J Robbins v Lower Merion School District (PA) et al, the laptops issued to high-school students in the well-heeled Philly suburb have webcams that can be covertly activated by the schools' administrators, who have used this facility to spy on students and even their families. The issue came to light when the Robbins's child was disciplined for "improper behavior in his home" and the Vice Principal used a photo taken by the webcam as evidence. The suit is a class action, brought on behalf of all students issued with these machines.

If true, these allegations are about as creepy as they come. I don't about you, but I often have the laptop in the room while I'm getting dressed, having private discussions with my family, and so on. The idea that a school district would not only spy on its students' clickstreams and emails (bad enough), but also use these machines as AV bugs is purely horrifying.

this is sick.

[Hannah Bell]

1. um, why do i not believe this? sure, the schools can get away with "disciplining"

"well-heeled" students for "improper behavior in their HOME".

uh-huh. in what universe? the thought that school administrators in a "well-heeled" district would even try it is crazy.

[RainDog]

3. the invasion of privacy is stunning n/t

[Hannah Bell]

5. i don't believe the charge. public school administrators in rich districts are

more politically saavy than to even attempt to "discipline" a student for behavior that occurred in their *home* for god's sake, or to attempt to *prove* the non-enforcable charge with a spy picture.

i think someone's trying to float some anti-school bullshit.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

21. hilarious

You must know some very different school administrators than the ones I know and work with. I think you are ridiculously naive.

[pnwmom]

39. You must not work in rich districts then. Their administrators are perfect.

:sarcasm:

[Hannah Bell]

50. i didn't say they're perfect. you seem to have missed the point, unsurprisingly.

i said it's unlikely they'd try to sanction a student for some behavior that occurred in the students' HOME, which they only discovered by (illegally) surveilling the student on a SPY CAM.

[pnwmom]

60. You didn't say that it was "unlikely." You were much more decided than that.

You made the blanket statement that : "public school administrators in rich districts are more politically saavy than to even attempt to "discipline" a student for behavior that occurred in their *home* for god's sake, or to attempt to *prove* the non-enforcable charge with a spy picture."

[Hannah Bell]

63. fine, i used stronger language. tell me when the case goes to court.

[pnwmom]

98. It will probably be settled quietly with a substantial payment

if the district concedes the facts.

[JetCityLiberal]

173. so says corporate charter schools now pnw

enough.

[Quantess]

156. School administrators are generally wary of potential lawsuits.

This scenario reeks of potential lawsuit.

[RainDog]

32. really? I didn't take the to be "anti-school" at all.

I took it to be anti-privacy for ANYONE.

I took it as a "lesson" that, obviously, the FISA-less wiretaps, for instance, most surely are also abused, etc. etc. That's why the feds needed written permission to invade everyone's privacy.

as someone else mentioned, boing boing is not a right wing site. Cory Doctorow is one of the bloggers there.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipi_k]

43. Political stupidity knows no economic boundaries

One look at the idiocy of some of our richest government figures sort of proves that.

[pnwmom]

61. That's for sure. n/t

[Autonomy]

140. I find it difficult to believe too

It's like a 'stupid criminals' show on TV, but 10 times worse. I can't imagine how they could justify saying, 'We're punishing you because we've been illegally, immorally, and creepily spying on you, and we don't like what we saw, and if you don't believe us, here is the proof of our crime.' It's stupid beyond belief.

[digidigido]

167. Hannah read this

Back in 1983 I went to the store to buy a telephone answering machine. It was a Panasonic, and I had a young child at the time.
The salesman tried to sell me a machine that had this very cool feature. If I was out and I called the machine, when the conversation
ended and the person who answered my machine hung up, the machine would stay active with the receiver acting as a microphone for
30 seconds. The point was since I had a young kid if I had a baby sitter there I could lsten in to make sure she wasn't having a party.
It was a pretty weird concept and kind of freaked me out, but observing that there is no privacy anymore, I've just been waiting til
it got as bad as this story

[Krashkopf]

125. I just submitted this to SNOPES.

They'll get to the bottom of it.

[pnwmom]

126. The Courthouse News Service is the ultimate source, and they have a link

to the PDF.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/18/24789.htm

What's more, here is a link to the School District's web page with its response:

http://lmsd.org/sections/news/default.php?m=0&t=today&p=lmsd_anno&id=1137


Note that the school district denies that it is district policy to use the web cams in this fashion, but says the "feature" has now been de-activated. They've left open the question, however, of whether district employee(s) abused the feature on their own.

[Hannah Bell]

175. the suit has been filed. that's true. the matters of fact in the case aren't for snopes to

determine, but the courts.

what's irritating is that half the posters here are already certain they know the facts. as well as the requisite punishment.

[krispos42]

4. There was a case recently...

...a high-school senior, 18, went hunting one evening after school. Left his gun locked in his truck when he went to school the next day. Had truck parked on the street by the school but not in the "gun-free zone" some places have around the school.

A teacher or whoever sees the gun and the kid gets suspended, even though he broke no law.

[Hannah Bell]

6. link?

[krispos42]

9. Here:

"Zero tolerance--student expelled for possessing weapon OFF CAMPUS"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=281304

"UPDATE: Explusion overturned of student that had hunting rifle in car off-campus"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=285175

[Hannah Bell]

11. and the expulsion was overturned by the board of ed. nice to have public schools, isn't it?

[krispos42]

12. Fortunately it was overturned.

Publicity helps, as it probably will the story in the OP. But the fact that they did it in the first place...

[Hannah Bell]

13. one principal did it. fortunately, public schools have open appeals processes & open public records

& principals are subject to the discipline of communities, school boards, district & state superintendents.

[pnwmom]

17. Which they need, because everyone employed in them is just as liable to make mistakes

as the rest of us. Even this principal, who you say can't have done this because he works in a "rich district"!

[Hannah Bell]

49. i completely agree that school records & finances should be open, & that school personnel are as

liable to make mistakes as the rest of us.

[Raster]

118. I also like your sig line and graphic. "You will be fabulous, OR ELSE!

[JetCityLiberal]

174. guns guns guns

right wing reads only one amendment to the Constitution crap.

more GLBT mods now.

[pnwmom]

16. First you claim that principals never make stupid mistakes, then you imply

it's okay when a principal does error because a wrong decision was overturned.

[Hannah Bell]

52. i didn't say anything like "principals never make stupid mistakes."

nor did i say anything like "it's ok because it was overturned."

[pnwmom]

99. You said that in rich districts

"public school administrators are more politically saavy than to even attempt to "discipline" a student for behavior that occurred in their *home* for god's sake, or to attempt to *prove* the non-enforcable charge with a spy picture."


In other words, that they're too "saavy" to do what they're being charged with -- which to a reasonable person, would have been a very stupid mistake.

[Hannah Bell]

177. you don't get into a very public & vulnerable management position by

sending cameras into people's homes to film them surreptitiously.

nor by presuming you have the authority to discipline students for their home behavior.

sorry you find fault with that claim. i can't help it that you hate public schools.

[PCIntern]

213. You make friends EVERYWHERE...

a real skill...

[timtom]

244. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but...

I've always found Hannah Bell's posts to be well-modulated and lacking in name-calling and aspersions.

[Swamp Rat]

10. Links:

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?id=4832232

http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/2483630.html

[activa8tr]

95. I like your gay agenda signature lines, and agree with them.

How can I put that on my profile to show up every time I post?

[TheMadMonk]

143. No law perhaps. But he did violate school policy and put the school in legal Jepardy.

Simple fact is that the moment a student begins a journey to their school, the school becomes legally responsible in a good many ways for the student and for their actions. Once the presence of the gun was made known to it, the school would have been in violation of the law if it had not taken action.

[piedmont]

149. Which law are you referring to?

"the school would have been in violation of the law if it had not taken action."

What law would they be in violation of?

[TheMadMonk]

166. Sorry missed a bit. The school could be found liable,

if that gun was used while the school was legally responsible for the student, given that the school was made aware of the gun's presence. Once they knew it was there they had no choice but to act. Failure to act once it knew, would leave the school open to charges of willful negligence if the gun was used.

[piedmont]

171. I don't agree. Knowing of the gun's presence is moot because the gun wasn't present.

The gun was not on school grounds, and not within the "gun-free" limit. It was not present. And beside that, even if they (unreasonably) felt they had to act, there's no justification for the action they took against a kid who didn't break any rules or laws.

[Hannah Bell]

181. then the suspension was appealed, & repealed by the school board.

aren't public school policies great?

[pnwmom]

7. Did you read the copy of the lawsuit in the PDF?

If this isn't real, someone went to an awful lot of trouble to write this document. It looks very real to me.

http://craphound.com/robbins17.pdf

[Hannah Bell]

8. people can write whatever they like in a lawsuit. doesn't mean it's true.

let's see: where is this story from:

well, the oldest link is from free republic, who links to something called "america's right", which seems to be the original source for the story. no legit news stories two pages into google.

http://americasright.com/?p=3159

sorry, i'll wait for something more credible before i start jumping up & down about the outrage of it all.

some people think school administrators have nothing better to do than spy on students in their non-working hours -- & then TELL the students they were spying on them (illegal in all states)! In a "well-heeled" district, no less!!

oh, & the principal supposedly brought the student to his office because the kid was doing something "improper" IN HIS HOME!!! He has the evidence right here ON THE SPYCAM!!

Right, because public school principals are all completely retarded.


rofl.

[pnwmom]

14. Since it's an actual lawsuit that has been filed, whether or not it has a link

from the freepers doesn't matter. Some freepers actually do care about civil liberties. But "Boing Boing" isn't a freeper type of site.

As for your statement that "people can write whatever they like in a lawsuit": lawyers who routinely lie in the factual issues of their lawsuits are risking their standing before current and future judges -- and having their lawsuit tossed out of court, with the attendant bad publicity. I doubt that these lawyers would have filed this without something fairly substantial to back it up, but that's just my opinion. It will be easy enough to determine if those laptops are set up to allow for long-distance observing through the web-cams. And easy enough to determine what the student was charged with and what the school's basis for the charge was.

No one's asking you to jump and down in outrage. But the outcome of this story is something to pay attention to. Don't be surprised, however, if the school district doesn't decide to quietly settle this -- which means someone finally saw that this particular principal made a gigantic mistake.

[Hannah Bell]

53. doesn't keep people from filing false suits. you seem to take the stated facts as gospel.

as if the case had already been argued.

i don't.

the story initially came from a winger site, & is all over the net on winger sites.

[pnwmom]

62. The story didn't come initially from a winger site, it came from a LEGAL site.

And I didn't say the lawsuit's "facts" were proven. But I disagreed with your idea that most attorneys are willing to put anything in a lawsuit, even outright lies. An attorney has an obligation to the court not to deliberately lie or to allow his client to do so. Any attorney who deliberately acts to the contrary is risking his own career.

[Hannah Bell]

66. it did? show me the legal site.

also show me where i said *most* attorneys are willing to put *anything* in a lawsuit.

you have a big talent for putting words in people's mouths & making unwarranted assumptions.

you also don't seem to like anyone saying this suit could be anything but gospel.

[pnwmom]

101. You said "people" -- meaning attorneys --

" can write whatever they like in a lawsuit. Doesn't mean it's true."

That's close enough. You're implying that attorneys are likely to lie about factual issues that can be clearly established, such as the capability of these web cams and whether permission was granted. I think that attorneys are unlikely to lie about clearly establishable factual issues -- as opposed to writing positions or statements about the meaning or intent of the law that will be "argued" in court.

Here is the Court site I'd linked to elsewhere. It's a news service for attorneys.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/18/24789.htm

[Hannah Bell]

179. i mean that people can make any claim they want in a legal filing.

i don't need your link, thanks anyway.

i've stated a dozen times that it's a legal filing.

[tonysam]

80. I personally know of one attorney who filed a fraudulent lawsuit

in which I am named making sensational allegations of negligence, and it is a LIE.

You see, they get paid by school district insurance companies when the cases are settled, which they almost always are, so there is plenty of motive to want to file fraudulent cases.

[pnwmom]

102. Negligence would be a much "squishier" thing to prove than whether

a web-cam on a computer was peering into students' rooms without their permission.

[Fumesucker]

15. Officials do make mistakes, bureaucrats do overreach..

And depending on the "violation" Frei Republik could be all in favor of monitoring students in their homes.

[Hannah Bell]

57. I never said they didn't. However, do they often sit the victim down to say

"I'm going to punish you for this bad behavior you engaged in IN YOUR OWN HOME (which I have no legal authority to do), & which I only know about because i've been illegally SPYING ON YOU"?

[pnwmom]

65. No, they don't do that "often." But that doesn't mean no principal

would ever do that. Or that it didn't happen in this case.

Strange things do happen, and people -- even in rich districts -- are capable of acting like idiots.

[Hannah Bell]

67. yes, they are. that would include the couple who filed the suit as well.

[pepperbear]

29. well, here's five different links to the story. All I had to do was google "PA" and "privacy."

http://www.newser.com/story/81237/school-gives-kids-lap...

http://newsolio.com/students-spied-on-via-laptop-comput...

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/18/24789.htm

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/84688077.html

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/18790/Your_childs_school...

[Hannah Bell]

69. the first two links say "not found". of the rest, one is a court site reporting filings, one

is a non-PA newspaper blog saying a suit was filed, & the other is a blog.

tell me when it comes to court.

[pepperbear]

73. Oh, you're my first call.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9158818/Pa._schools_spy_on_students_using_laptop_webcams_claims_lawsuit?taxonomyId=84

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/02/school-district-accused-of-issuing-webcam-laptops-to-spy-on-students/1

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/84715512.html?cmpid=15585797


these are new links that have popped up since this morning. according to google, there are 179 stories so far.



http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4TSNA_enUS358US358&q=pa%20privacy&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

[Hannah Bell]

78. gee, it sure moved from the conservative blogosphere into the media quickly.

[quark219]

94. I live where this story is occurring.

And because you didn't believe the story initially, Hannah Bell, you now seem to have invested a lot of your ego into dismissing it.

Get your ego out of the way and smell the coffee: the high school's use of a webcam on a school-issued laptop to build a case against a student in his or her own home is Orwellian and sick.

http://americasright.com/?p=3159

[Hannah Bell]

178. i don't care where you live. you don't know what happened. you know what the rumor mill says

happened.

my ego has nothing to do with my opinion about the information made public thus far.

[quark219]

191. See my response to your post #184. [N/T]

[pepperbear]

100. oh OK. It's not true because it's being reported by conservatives?

Sounds like you believe that every single story that criticizes a public school official or policy is a de facto attack on the public school system. I see this as an attack on over-reaching authority. It really doesn't scare me that, say, Free Republic might have the same reaction as DU about this. I'd be surprised if they didn't. Conservatives and progressives can both agree that a school has no business spying on students outside of school property and without their knowledge. You never know; this kind of thing could wind up in the Supreme Court one day. I would rather see 9-0 for the plaintiffs then 5-4 against. Imagine the precedent it would set. Sorry, but it is a relief to me to know that conservatives are equally aghast.

Having said that, even though the veracity of the suit has yet to be established, the fact that the lawsuit was filed seems to be true. Can you maybe cut down on the attitude, at least with me? It's getting old and I hate the idea of having to put yet another person on ignore.

[Hannah Bell]

182. i didn't deny the lawsuit was filed. in fact, i've repeatedly said "a lawsuit's been filed."

many lawsuits have been filed, for many reasons.

[pnwmom]

105. Tell me why, when it doesn't go to court, but is settled quietly instead,

this wasn't an abridgment of the students civil liberties.

[Hannah Bell]

185. Tell me when it's "settled quietly," then.

But if it is, how will you know who it was that did the settling?

[MicaelS]

51. "Public school principals are all completely retarded."

No, not all of them, but many are with their "Zero Tolerance" bullshit. And if you want to know why people dislike public school administrators and teachers, it is shit like this, and zero tolerance.

[yurbud]

54. a lot of administrators are bad teachers who promoted themselves out of the classroom by taking some

night classes.

They can be breathtakingly stupid. Also, the job attracts authoritarian personalities.

[TorchTheWitch]

112. the well-heeled in this area send their kids to private school

I went to school in the well-heeled district next door to Lower Merion. The public schools here are for the low to middle middle class. The wealthy in these districts have to fund the public schools but they sure as shit don't send their kids there. Because their kids don't go to the public schools in the district they don't give shit one what goes on in them, how they're run or who's on the board.

[Krashkopf]

120. Here's a link to the actual COMPLAINT . . .

I had such a hard time believing this, that I had to dig into it. This is what I found. http://americasright.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/robbins17.pdf

It is not possible to exaggerate how OUTRAGEOUS this is.

Equally outrageous is the fact that we, as a country have become so accustomed to invasions of our privacy by the government that this is not HEADLINE NEWS. I had to drill down through 10 pages of hits on a google search to find this.

[wroberts189]

169. Thx ..... "JURY TRIAL DEMANDED" Damn straight....amazing just amazing. nt knr

[Pab Sungenis]

130. Bong Hits for Jesus.

Scalia and company ruled that schools can discipline their students for actions off school grounds.

[lazarus]

2. they're just following the example

of the feds. Privacy? Whuzzat?

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. It would be sicker if they can get away with it because they are

a private school.

Does anyone know if there's a way to determine if someone activates your webcam?

[Lance_Boyle]

22. One way to know for sure

disable it. Of course, the laptops were school property, so that could be some sort of "tampering" that would get a student in trouble. Probably the best advice on this would be to leave the laptop closed and off when not doing schoolwork on it. Use another PC for facebook and whatnot after school hours.

[TommyO]

33. A small piece of paper folded over the top of the display frame

viola, no tampering, and it's effective.

For those more adventurous, a small piece of electrical tape over the webcam would work as well.

[pnwmom]

40. You might want to take care of audio, too. n/t

[pnwmom]

41. I'm not sure but turning it off might not disable the webcam. Any experts out there?

[piedmont]

150. I have a piece of tape over mine, put there the day I bought my computer. nt

[TorchTheWitch]

31. this is a public school

I went to public school in the wealthy district next door to Lower Merion.

And incidentally, the rich kids didn't go to the public schools. Most of the kids in the public schools in these districts are lower to mid middle class with a few upper middle class. The wealthy families aren't going to give a hoot what the hell goes on in the public schools since they send their kids to the many private schools in the area. The districts here have well-funded schools because it's a middle class area with a lot of wealthy people that live here and have to fund the public schools, but the well-heeled don't send their kids to the public schools.

[conscious evolution]

36. Yes

Go to any adobe flash video.Right click on the video.A box should pop up with 'about adobe' and 'settings'.Click on 'settings'.There should be a bunch of tabs.Click on the camera/microphone tab.There will be a line saying 'give www.so&so.crap permission to access your camera/microphone'.Look at whether the allow or deny permission box has been checked.

This is one way to check for access.I'm sure there are other hidden ways for them to do so also but I do not know how to check for them.

[Feron]

45. An even easier way to do that..

There is an html based http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings_manager02.html">settings panel.

If a camera is USB, then it's a good idea to unplug it from the computer when not in use. Either that or close the lens cover.

[unc70]

117. The Flash settings are easily circumvented.

If I can get software onto a laptop, I can get to the camera and mike. Flash just makes it trivial to hijack almost any PC with something dragged in from an ad service somewhere.

BTW easvesdropping problem is going to explode into the news soon involving cell phones or smart phones of various types. Hijack one, then completely spy on someones entire life. Recording conversations, taking pictures, tracking with GPS, looking at messages and web histories.

Fun for all!

[greiner3]

123. Go into the administative 'services;'

Click on the link that says something about webcam. It will be set to Automatic and be on at that point. Right click the entry and choose 'Properties.' Under the bar that says start up, or similar depending on OS, choose 'Disabled.' Then click the 'Stop' button. Click 'Apply' then 'Ok.' This turns off the webcam completely and it cannot be started remotely. The only way you can start it would be to go into 'Programs' and open the folder where the webcam is located. Then double click the xxxxx.exe icon. This should start the webcam. The other way would be to reverse what you did above but then the webcam would be liable to remote manipulation again. Not known if the terms of agreement between the students (Parents) and school district would consider this a breach of contract under usage.

[TheMadMonk]

144. Two probable problems. First the student may well not have admin access.

Secondly, there's a damned good chance the laptops will have been set up with remote access enabled. Anything setting changes made by the student could be undone through remote administration. That the school in its non-addmission of guilt, claims that this "feature" has now been disabled on ALL computers, strongly suggests that remote administration is enabled. It also means that this "feature" can be turned back on at any time.

[pnwmom]

19. Here's more from the Courthouse News Service.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/18/24789.htm

SNIP

The complaint states: "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 ('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.
"Michael Robbins thereafter verified, through Ms. Matsko, that the school district in fact has the ability to remotely activate the webcam contained in a student's personal laptop computer issued by the school district at any time it chose and to view and capture whatever images were in front of the webcam, all without the knowledge, permission or authorization of any persons then and there using the laptop computer.
"Additionally, by virtue of the fact that the webcam can be remotely activated at any time by the school district, the webcam will capture anything happening in the room in which the laptop computer is located, regardless of whether the student is sitting at the computer and using it.
"Defendants have never disclosed either to the plaintiffs or to the class members that the school district has the ability to capture webcam images from any location in which the personal laptop computer was kept."

SNIP

[cdsilv]

20. Hmm - electricians tape, or one of those 'round' band-aids will fix this problem n/t

[cdsilv]

23. Hmm - electricians tape, or one of those 'round' band-aids will fix this problem n/t

[KittyWampus]

24. when I studied it was in my bedroom. So my laptop would have been in my bedroom.

Now I'm not going to speculate or go into imagining lurid details BUT would like to point out this could result in unintended results.

It is an invasion of privacy with the potential for some serious abuse.

[MineralMan]

27. Yup. And if this story is true, I'm sure there were occasions when

someone was watching, too. It boggles the mind. I can see the title on the porn site:

Hidden Cam Video: Teen Girl Exposed

[pnwmom]

38. Or "Teen Girl and Teen Boy make it." n/t

[MineralMan]

48. Yup. And can't you just picture the night janitorial staff

sitting around the PC and ogling the views? I hope they're going to go hunt through the school's computer for compromising stuff. What an opportunity for pervy folks!

[Hannah Bell]

71. sure, because the janitorial staff always has the passwords to the school computers.

[MineralMan]

72. Oh, the janitorial staff has access to way more than you might think.

At one point I had a set of master keys to my entire high school, and I was just a student. Schools are not secure places, I'm afraid.

[Hannah Bell]

76. whatever you say.

[MineralMan]

83. Thanks. I often say "Whatever.."

[TheMadMonk]

146. Are you even remotely aware of the number of people who keep their passwords...

...written down in a desk drawer; a diary; even on a postit note stuck to the monitor; or that use ludicrously insecure passwords?

[Hannah Bell]

176. so the hell what? on what basis does anyone speculate that the janitors are

peeping at students in their homes through the school's computer system?

there's not one scintilla of evidence for it, yet people are acting like the entire school is a nest of voyeurs & pedophiles.

[TheMadMonk]

183. Someone makes an off the cuff remark and you get remarkably defensive.

It is common knowledge that a lot of people (including many who should know better) are less than careful with their passwords and computer security in general. It is very likely that a janitor COULD access this system as a result of such laxity. Whether or not they did is irrelevant, it's the fact thet COULD.

No specific accusations have been made. It has simply been pointed out that many people who should not have access to such a system may potentially be able to.

Janitors in the service tunnels behind showers and toilets with hammer drill in hand are not unheard of events.

[Hannah Bell]

186. I'm not defensive at all. It's not me you're speculating might be stealing people's

passwords at my place of employment to hack into spycams placed in underage students' homes so i can see them in their knickers.

but i guess if i worked in a school, you might.

business owners peeping through holes drilled in the ladies dressing room aren't unheard of either. or doctors screwing their patients when they're under anesthesia. or librarians having sex in the stacks with a library patron. or ministers asking their parishioners to masturbate in front of them. or presidents getting blow jobs from their interns.

but because i've "heard of" these things happening, i do not thus leap to the conclusion that when a lawsuit is filed alleging such things of someone in one of these jobs, it must be true, or that every rumor & speculation swirling around the filing is also gospel.

[Hannah Bell]

70. not only stupid, but pedophiles. that's the ticket.

[Fumesucker]

74. Pedophiles (ephebophiles actually) do try to gain access to children quite often..

It's a well known technique for pedophiles and ephebophiles to get a job or volunteer position that puts them in regular contact with children.

[Hannah Bell]

77. sure, therefore school employees = pedophiles.

[Fumesucker]

79. I didn't say that..

And I notice that you did not disagree with what I did say.

All else being equal it is statistically more likely that someone in a position of authority over children is a pedophile or ephebophile than in the general population for the reason I outlined in my previous post.

[Hannah Bell]

81. that may or may not be; i've often seen it asserted, but not seen it demonstrated scientifically.

my beef is more with the automatic leap to thoughts of pedophilia. also the automatic leap to "guilty" so many posters seem to be making, as well as the comments about janitors & staff using the computers to sexually spy on kids - the underlying assumption "The school is a nest of perverts".

A suit has been filed making allegations. Suits are filed daily, most never come to trial.

The vice-principal who supposedly did the deed = woman, btw.

[Fumesucker]

84. Someone has a camera in your home using it without your knowledge..

The "leap" to pedophilia or just plain simple peeping tomism is a rather short and obvious one.

I suspect the majority of kids would have the laptop, and hence the camera, in their room at some point and it's very likely they would be disrobing in view of it.

This story, if true, is remarkably creepy and people are going to speculate, that's just human nature.

Edited for clarity.

[Hannah Bell]

85. "if true". the vice-principal in question = female. the policy of providing laptops =

district wide.

which district administrative pedophile decided to give everyone laptops with spy cameras? and to let other staff know about the spy cameras? etc.

[Fumesucker]

86. Three can keep a secret..

If two of them are dead. -Ben Franklin

And of course all pedophiles/ephebophiles are male, no female teachers have ever been caught in flagrante delicto with students.

[Hannah Bell]

87. didn't say that, did i? nevertheless, having sex with an underage person is distinct

from consuming child porn, voyeurism, etc.

at any rate, the "secret" of the spycam would have had to have been shared amongst at *least* three people. perhaps it's a big *ring* of pedophiles, eh?

[Fumesucker]

88. All it takes is one...

At no point have I said this is necessarily something sexual, just that the potential is there and people are going to speculate in such a situation.

[dbmk]

107. Hardly spy cameras

Many, if not most, laptops come with built-in webcams these days.

And they can be accessed remotely given the right/wrong set of skills and setups on the computers.

The story sounds a bit impressive though.

[Fumesucker]

133. If you are not aware the camera is activated then it is indeed spying on you..

I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out it's possible to activate the camera without also triggering the light that's supposed to let you know it's active.

[dbmk]

198. Yeah - but they are not bought as such.

Which was the implication.

Damn, its hard to have a conversation here sometimes.

And very likely, yes.

[Hannah Bell]

222. But supposedly the way the students knew they were being watched was

because the light went on.

Which also seems weird to me. If you were going to spy on people, would you do it knowing the webcam light would come on & somebody would likely get suspicious?

[LeftyMom]

134. What does her being a woman have to do with it?

Women do some sick shit too.

[Hannah Bell]

187. they do. do they usually tell the person they've done the sick shit to, so he can tell his parents?

[TheMadMonk]

147. The child was male. Women can be perverts too. nt

[Hannah Bell]

193. they can. & usually when they are, they like to tell the kid they've been looking at him through

their little spycam.

knowing the kid might tell his parents really heightens the sexual "frisson."

i thought conservatives were obsessed with sex, but the obsession seems to extend to democrats as well.

[npk]

131. There are pedophiles in all walks of life

It's the fact that anybody at the school could have accessed this program. It's not just high school kids that they could have spied on, but anybody in the house. Imagine the computer is left on and a much younger kid walks into the room, or the computer is placed in a younger siblings room. This is the kind of thing that can spawn all kinds of inappropriate use. Somebody at the school could record a child nude and nobody would be any wiser. It doesn't look like there was much oversight in this program.

[Hannah Bell]

194. lol. you don't even know it *happened* & you already know there was no oversight.

god, these are democrats.

we're doomed.

i resign myself to the crackhead nazi future.

[npk]

240. Actually I never said it happened

I said there was the potential there for abuse. Also I didn't say there was no oversight, I said there was little oversight. The principal was the one person responsible for overseeing the tracking system. That is a situation that is ripe for abuse. I find it odd that you use the word nazi and yet you seem to have no problems with this programs potential for misuse. Pardon me if I would feel uncomfortable knowing that my child's laptop had a tracking system that could be used for very inappropriate purposes and there was very little oversight to monitor and make sure no abuse was taking place.

[namelessone]

25. My dog ate my laptop

Just leave the thing in your locker at school. Like we used to do with our homework LOL

No, I do think this is a gross over reaching of the school to monitor what the kids are doing after hours in a private home. Privacy will be a thing of the past if this is let stand.

[dgibby]

26. I would so OWN these assholes if that happened to me.

Sorta wish it had, I could use the money!

[pepperbear]

28. for skeptics, more links:

http://www.newser.com/story/81237/school-gives-kids-laptops-spies-on-them-via-webcam.html

http://newsolio.com/students-spied-on-via-laptop-computers-by-lower-merion-school-district-in-philadelphia-claim,5537

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/18/24789.htm

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/84688077.html

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/18790/Your_childs_school_issued_computer_may_be_spying_on_you.html

[dbmk]

111. Isn't it all recaps of the same story?

None of them goes any further than stating that the lawsuit was made.

That the same story is propagated across multiple news sites is hardly proof either way. You could probably find 100 links more like it.

To me it sounds likely that a picture was taken by the webcam by the user and was then discovered by administrators for some reason. And then its another can of legal worms. Because if it is not your private computer then administrators might have the right to monitor the status and content of the machines. Not quite sure where the privacy rights line is drawn there.

[TheMadMonk]

148. Except that the School has addmitted that the ability/"feature" existed...

...in its claim that the anti-theft "feature" has now been disabled.

Being school property, the school may well have the legal right to monitoring content of the computer, and even that is questionable given that in a public school locker searches require a warrant or prior warning.

AND it most certainly should not have (or be able to claim) the right to initiate a clandestine camera feed from the computer without the knowledge or consent of the person operating it under any circumstances whilst it is in the possession of the student authorised to use it.

[dbmk]

197. Did I contest that the feature existed? n/t

[TheMadMonk]

233. No. Just that it probably wasn't used when it is very clear from context...

...that it almost certainly was.

[dbmk]

239. Context established by plaintiff alone

[pipi_k]

30. I personally can only hope that some of that spying included

those bastards seeing images of Grandma and Grandpa using the kid's room for a weekend visit.

They'll want to set their eyeballs on fire after that.

[Echo In Light]

34. Big Brother Society

[npk]

96. An actual big brother would have had more ethics and sense then this

I know siblings that wouldn't commit this kind of intrusion. I have an older brother and a older sister and never worried for a sec about something like this. Really sick that a school would do something like this.

[MicaelS]

35. Words escape me to describe this...

I'm truly glad I don't live in that district and have a child there. Otherwise, I would most likely be in jail. :banghead:

[conscious evolution]

37. I would subpeona the schools copies of the videos

look for vid of students getting it on,then nail everyone of the school officials on child pornography charges.

[pipi_k]

42. And if the kid has a toddler sibling

who likes to run around in the buff after having a bath...


Let those pigs try to explain what they're doing watching THAT.


Oh, man...the more I think about this, the more I want to spit in their faces. And nobody is going to convince me that there are absolutely NO pedophiles getting their rocks off watching that stuff...

[dbmk]

113. No videos have been mentioned

As far as I can tell from the articles linked, they found a picture - taken by the webcam - on his computer.

And they have admitted to, potentially, having access to the webcam - which would probably be a lie to deny as that would automatically fall within the system administrators possibilities - by the shear definition of having administrator rights on the machines.

There is nothing, so far, that states that the picture was taken as an active part of an act of surveillance. More likely a picture was found by system administrators monitoring the machines content as per their job description. Or outside their job description as it might be, in which case they still have a case.

But I doubt that they actually had someone activating and monitoring the webcams.

[TheMadMonk]

154. The school admitted that the remote activation "feature" existed.

(For anti-theft purposes) The suit filed, claims that the administrator who sanctioned the student for activities in the home, revealed the existence of this "feature" and admitted to using this specific "feature" to obtain their evidence of off campus wrongdoing.

This is not a case of an adiministrator scanning the contents of a hard disk and finding material that should not be there. Given that the anti-theft "feature" was was used in a manner inconsistent with its stated purpose there are two likely conclusions that can be drawn: 1) that the administrator was randomly or systematically monitoring students' activity at a time when the students were not in the school's care; or 2) the administrator was cyberstalking this one student.

[dbmk]

201. The lawsuit might claim whatever n/t

How about we stick to established facts?

[MilesColtrane]

225. Neither the complaint nor the article make it clear whether the cited photograph was...

on his computer or taken remotely by the person monitoring it.

The complaint doesn't even make it clear whether the vice principal showed the kid a picture, or if she simply said she had one.

Hope the judge orders a seizure of the schools computers and files to get to the bottom of this. Files and logs are easy to erase.

[Hannah Bell]

206. lol. what makes you so sure there are videos, let alone of students

"getting it on"?

christ on a cracker, a den of pervs.

[alittlelark]

44. My kids used to make fun of me for draping a beanie baby

over the camera on my Mac.....

Not anymore. They are freaking out and posting this on Facebook.

[Initech]

46. Holy crap... this is The Dark Knight come to life!

:scared:

[NashVegas]

47. Weren't Notebooks and Pens FANTASTIC, In Retrospect?

For the life of me, I think it's nuts that taxpayers ever bought into the bullshit of school-issued laptops.

We really do get the government we deserve.

[pipi_k]

68. Nooooooooooo..........!!!!

When I was a kid, my parents said that Santa could hear me through the microphone in the eraser on the ends of all my pencils....

:scared:

[gatorboy]

55. Spying on underage students? Possible child porn charges?

[dbmk]

121. If they were indeed spying

Nothing in the story that supports it. So far at least.

They had a picture taken by his laptop. That can have gotten into their possession in an unintended way. The tracking feature might have been enabled by mistake or by the user himself - or he took it himself and the picture was discovered by an administrator monitoring the content.

It is not unusual for administrators of business or school material to scan for content that is potentially illegal or presents a threat to the system security. And in such a process the picture might pop up for whatever reason.

Not saying that they didn't spy on him actively. The alternative sounds a lot more likely though.

[XemaSab]

56. I have a friend who worked for a bible college

and the president asked him to make a bot that would spy on all the students and monitor all their online activity.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

59. If this is true, then it was an act of monumental stupidity.

It could easily expose anybody with access to the video streams to what is effectively child pornography.

[donco6]

75. Lovely.

Someone has way too much time on his hands. I'm a school administrator and if this actually happened, I hope they throw the dumbass in jail forever.

[NightWatcher]

82. I'm a wingnut, but at least I have electrical tape over my camera and microphone

nuts, but happy

[crazyjoe]

89. via boing boing?????!!! HAHAHAHAAHAHHHH

[pnwmom]

108. Boing boing probably got it from a news service for lawyers

called the Courthouse News Service. Here:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/18/24789.htm

[Hannah Bell]

199. except it appeared in the winger blogosphere the day before it appeared

at courthouse news.

2/18 at courthouse news
2/17 at boingboing
http://boingboing.net/2010/02/17/school-used-student.html

and when the story from boing boing was posted here at du, it was already at free republic & a host of other conservative sites. as i noted in my post when the boing boing story was first posted.

the regular media got it the next day.

so some little winger elves did some quick footwork.

[Hannah Bell]

209. here's the link from "america's right" : published 2/17, as noted in my post at

1:58 am, 2/18

http://americasright.com/?p=3159

at which time i noted i saw the story on "that conservative site which cannot be named" as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7738094&mesg_id=7738136

i also, at that time, found the story on a blog by a "patriotic lesbian", a fundamentalist catholic, & (though i didn't go further) about 2 pages of what looked like winger sites judging from the google listings.

i think it's interesting the story appeared in those places before it appeared at the court reporting site or in the mainstream media.

also of interest: "america's right" claims to have broken the story:


February 18, 2010 by Jeff Schreiber

Yesterday evening, America’s Right broke the story of a class action lawsuit filed in Federal Court in Philadelphia alleging that the Lower Merion School District had been spying on students and students’ families in their own homes through the use of remotely accessible webcams on laptops which had been distributed to each of the district’s <...>


http://americasright.com/?author=16

[Hannah Bell]

246. Lamm Rubenstone client list: Banking industry

•Bank of New York
•Univest Bank
•Bancorp Bank
•Susquehanna Patriot Bank
•Bank of America
•Citizens Bank
•Sovereign Bank
•Firstrust Bank
•Fulton Bank
•Harleysville National Bank
•Partners' Equity Capital Company
•Mercantile Business Credit
•North Fork Bank
•Stonebridge Bank
•Suburban Community Bank
•Penn Liberty Bank
•Fifth Third Bank
•Commerce Bank
•M&T Bank
•National Penn Bank
•Wilmington Trust
•Banco Popular
•Dakota Financial, LLC
•Pentech Financial Services, Inc.
•Pinnacle Capital, LLC
•Hitachi Capital America Corporation
•Business Alliance Capital Corporation
•Financial Pacific Leasing
•Key Equipment Finance
•Lease Corporation of America
•Wells Fargo Bank

•Information Leasing Corporation
•Carlton Financial Corporation
•Preferred Capital
•Spring Leasing Corporation
•US Bancorp & Leasing
•The CIT Group
•De Lage Landen Financial Services
•IFC Capital
•Eastern Funding, LLC
•Lehman Brothers
•People’s Capital & Leasing Corporation
•Wells Fargo Financial Leasing
•Imperial Business Credit
•American Express Equipment Finance
•Pitney Bowes Credit Corporation
•GE Capital Commercial Equipment Finance and Vendor Services
•Mercantile Capital Corporation
•Center Capital Corporation
•Sterling Bank Leasing
•Madison Capital
•Merrill Lynch Business Credit
•Commerce Bank Commercial Leasing
•DAP Financial Management Company
•The Strick Corporation
•McGoldrick Leasing Company, Inc.
•AIG Insurance Company
•Air, Land and Sea
•Lumberman’s Mutual Casualty Company
•Bankers Capital Corporation
•Irwin Business Finance
•FirstLease, Inc.
•All Points Capital
•Portfolio Financial Servicing Company
•Master Food Distributors, Inc.
•Reliable Equipment & Service Company
•Predco, Inc.
•Full Line Distributors, Inc.
•Garney Morris, Inc.
•Warren-Knight Industries, Inc.
•Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Medical Professional
•Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund
•Transact Properties
•Orleans Homebuilders, Inc.
•The Solomon Organization, LLC
•Liberty Management Services, Inc.
•Philadelphia Suburban Development Corporation
•CITICAPITAL
•Citicorp Vendor Finance
•Unity Bank
•Valley National Bank
•Keystone Nazareth Bank and Trust
•PNC Bank


http://lammrubenstone.com/clientlist/index.html

[downtrodden41]

90. Is this for real?

The school actually said it spied on a student at home then tried to discipline the student for what it saw?


This seems like an Onion article or something.

[lifeliberty345]

91. WTF!?

This is disgusting! :yoiks:

[pnwmom]

109. There's more at the Courthouse News Service, including a PDF with the

actual lawsuit filed. It's no onion thing.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/18/24789.htm

[dbmk]

114. As far as I can tell they have not said that

As far as the stories linked goes, they have said that they found a picture on the students computer - taken by the webcam. And as such it sounds to me like the actual taking of the picture was not done by the school.

[TheMadMonk]

157. Are you really that obtuse? The administrator who used the picture...

...as a reason to sanction the student, did most certainly reveal the existence of this clandestine remote monitoring "feature" at the time they presented the picture as "evidence" of wrongdoing. The very clear implication is that this adminsitrator did use this "feature" to obtain that picture.

I really can not imagine the adminstrator saying something to the effect of: "Well I found this picture on your kid's laptop and by the way, we can ALSO use the camera on the laptop to see what your kid is up to any time we want."

[dbmk]

195. Oh...

"did most certainly reveal the existence of this clandestine remote monitoring "feature" at the time they presented the picture as "evidence" of wrongdoing."

Where do you find the proof for that claim? Link?

All I have been able to establish is that they confirmed the existance of the tool _AFTER_ the parents made a case of it. All the school has confirmed is that they had a picture taken by the webcam on the computer. As far as I can tell.

Again; Not saying they didn't misuse it. But the presented facts are less clear to me than you present them.

[jberryhill]

200. Then the kid's lawyer must be obtuse as well, because...

The lawsuit does not allege that the kid's picture was taken using the security software.

[Enrique]

92. school denies it, sort of

they say the webcams were only used for tracking and security.

It's not reassuring that they don't specifically deny the claim by this kid, about the principal showing him the picture she took of him at home, etc.

http://lmsd.org/sections/news/default.php?m=0&t=today&p=lmsd_anno&id=1137

LMSD response to 'invasion of privacy' allegation

Updated 2/18/10 5:26 PM

Dear LMSD Community,
Last year, our district became one of the first school systems in the United States to provide laptop computers to all high school students. This initiative has been well received and has provided educational benefits to our students.
The District is dedicated to protecting and promoting student privacy. The laptops do contain a security feature intended to track lost, stolen and missing laptops. This feature has been deactivated effective today.
The following questions and answers help explain the background behind the initial decision to install the tracking-security feature, its limited use, and next steps.
• Why are webcams installed on student laptops?
The Apple computers that the District provides to students come equipped with webcams and students are free to utilize this feature for educational purposes.
• Why was the remote tracking-security feature installed?
Laptops are a frequent target for theft in schools and off school property. The security feature was installed to help locate a laptop in the event it was reported lost, missing or stolen so that the laptop could be returned to the student.
• How did the security feature work?
Upon a report of a suspected lost, stolen or missing laptop, the feature was activated by the District's security and technology departments. The tracking-security feature was limited to taking a still image of the operator and the operator's screen. This feature has only been used for the limited purpose of locating a lost, stolen or missing laptop. The District has not used the tracking feature or web cam for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever.

• Do you anticipate reactivating the tracking-security feature?
Not without express written notification to all students and families.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

104. Ah. Starting to make sense.

Sounds like the kid took the computer without permission (not necessarily stolen, per se, but checked out improperly, or something similar). School used the camera to see who took it. Figured out it was this kid and punished him for it.

That, IMO, is the scenario which makes the most sense. And would make the school justified.

[Hannah Bell]

227. that does make sense, except that at least one student reports the security feature

of taking a picture when a computer was lost or stolen was known to students.

so why the lawsuit?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

237. Schools receive a lot of frivolous lawsuits.

Some from parents who are just completely fucked in the head. Some from parents who think they can force the school to settle and make money that way.

Maybe the parents think that using the camera as a security feature for a missing computer was improper, even if it wasn't.

[pnwmom]

110. All they're denying, really, was that it was ever District policy to spy on students.

That leaves the question open as to whether an individual principal used the "feature" to spy on students.

They also say they "deactivated the feature as of today." If there was nothing wrong with the "feature" -- and if they could trust their employees not to abuse it -- then why did they do so?

[dbmk]

116. Because of the media attention to it?

How many well meaning procedures, rules and even laws have not been stopped because someone managed to whip up a storm over it?

[pnwmom]

119. I suspect it was deactivated because of the potential for abuse.

A potential which had probably been realized in at least one particular case.

[dbmk]

124. Or that. That possibility is definately there.

But there is a leap from that and to it being abused. I don't see them deactivating it as admittal that they did use it for spying.

And whoever is in charge of it and had the opportunity to do it could probably still reactivate it at will and with little traceability. The potential for abuse is still there.

So tape over the camera lens never hurts.

[TheMadMonk]

159. The District didn't. One of their employees most certainly did.

If one did. The very real chance exists that others also did.

No matter what way you cut it, an incredible breach of privacy appears to have taken place. And there is absolutely no denying that such breaches are possible.

School didstrict policy made this breach of privacy possible. One might even say inevitable. Given the means and opportuntity officious busybodies WILL pry. Furthermore ephebophilic interest is a lot more common than anyone is willing to admit. The chances that absolutely no individual with such interests had access rights to this "feature" is effectively zero.

[dbmk]

188. "One of their employees most certainly did" - not exactly proven

They had a picture from the webcam found on his computer, as far as I can tell.

Wildly different from someone spying via the webcam.

[dbmk]

115. I don't think they deny being in possesion of the picture.

As far as I can tell at least. It does not sound like the school administator actively took the picture, though. But that someone found it on his computer - it having been taken by the webcam. Or that it was, for some reason, forwarded by the tracking feature.

As far as the tracking feature goes, it is not abnormal to have the such running on laptops issued in a business or school setting - for the stated purpose.

I have it on my laptop. If I activate the "burglar alarm" it will take a picture and send it to my mail account and send a text message - in case it is being moved/used.

Even without this feature installed, I still think its possible for the schools system administrators to access and activate the camera. As a more or less unavoidable effect of them having administrator rights.

I still see nothing in the story that says that they did, though.

[TheMadMonk]

163. That the administrator revealed the existence of the "feature" at the time...

...they presented the picture as evidence of wrongdoing makes it almost certain that the "feature" was in fact used to obtain the picture. Your scenario of them "finding" the picture as the result of a routine scan of hard disk contents just plain does not hold water.

[dbmk]

192. There is nothing to back that up.

As far as I can tell, they were asked about the feature as a part of the parents inquiry. And confirmed its existence - which, as posted by PCIntern, they had done prior to that as well.

Not saying they didn't misuse it.
But a lot is being read into this story based on the simple fact that the school confirmed the existence of the tracking system - that is a pretty common tool in relation to protecting laptops in such settings from theft.

[Kablooie]

137. Sounds like GW Bush. "We only spy on terrorists."

[Matariki]

205. Whenever I hear someone say "for your security" - I know my privacy is about to be compromised. n/t

[Blue Owl]

93. Let's go back and read the fine print

in GWB's "No Child Left Behind" act...

[jberryhill]

202. It was "No Child's Left Behind"... The right side is fine /nt

[Therellas]

97. people have been able to do this for many years unfortunately.

anyone can learn to do it.
cell phones too.
the speaker can be a microphone.
technologification r kewl/!1!

[upi402]

103. prison time

and lots of it, if proved

[Grand Taurean]

106. From experience, I do not take kindly to

school bureaucrats getting into the personal lives of the students.
HEADS MUST ROLL!

[RainDog]

122. I'm adding a link to PCIntern's post

just for reference.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7744154

[RainDog]

127. a comment over at boing boing

via the same link in the OP, comment #147

I attend Lower Merion High School (in 10th grade) and I am worried that the full picture has not come into view. Most children and faculty at the school were aware (via rumors and the light that went on that took pictures) that the student loaned computers could photograph them at anytime, even at home. This article also didn't mention what Blake was doing. Blake was smoking weed and, according to some of his friends, visiting pornographic websites. When he faced disciplinary action, he sued. I think that it is disturbing my school district can watch us, but I believe that the majority of observation is only done when there is probable cause of criminal activity or child abuse (not sure, that's what I've heard).

[pnwmom]

128. Wow. They probably thought he'd never complain because of the fear of exposure.

I suspected it was something like this though. Poor kid.

[Hannah Bell]

189. lol. you really avoid the obvious, don't you? if he was visiting porn sites,

the school would know that without any spycam being involved. they can log page views. & would be perfectly within their rights to call him in & sanction him for violating the use policy on the school computers.

because if underage students are using school computers to access porn -- that leaves the school open to lawsuits. and schools don't like lawsuits, & try to avoid them. thus, as a matter of policy, they tend not to install secret cameras to surreptitiously film underage students in their homes.

and, if they do (for whatever evil reasons) -- they'd be highly unlikely to call a student in to tell him so. because, as i said, schools don't like lawsuits, have a lot of experience with lawsuits, & yes, are "saavy" about lawsuits.

however, they *would* be likely to call the student in to tell him they knew (because they logged pages) he'd been using the school computer to look at porn, & he should cease & desist or they were going to throw his ass out of school.

[vegiegals]

129. No, it was wrong to snoop. Plain as that.

[Fumesucker]

132. Visiting porn websites would not be probable cause to take a picture of him at home..

How would they have probable cause that the student was smoking pot at home?

Rumors from other students?

Hmm.. Me no likey..

[JoeyT]

142. Probable cause?

This is a school, not the police. There's no such thing as probable cause.

The actual police do have probable cause to search the PCs of everyone with admin privs on that network, though.
Digging through the IT peoples' hard drives wouldn't be a bad idea.

[Fumesucker]

145. So the school can do what police cannot?

In both cases it is the government taking the picture and the school does not have jurisdiction in the student's home.

A picture taken at school by the school authorities is one thing, a picture taken at home by the same authorities is entirely another.

[JoeyT]

160. I meant the opposite.

The school can't do it no matter how much cause they think they have.

[Hannah Bell]

211. nothing would be probable cause to take a picture of him at home.

and unless he was dealing pot on the school grounds, i don't see why the school would have any interest in his alleged home pot-smoking habits. that's a can of worms i don't see that school administration would care to look into.

[TheMadMonk]

165. Probable cause won't get them out of this.

I presume these computers are configured to access the web via a proxy server rub by the district and that viewing the logs showed this kid accessing porn, this might give them the right to disable web access and haul the kid over the coals the next schoolday.

Taking a picture while he was accessing the porn would just plain be asking for trouble since there would be every chance that he'd have "matters in hand", as it were, at such a time.

If they have any reason to believe that child abuse (or other crime) might be taking place, the district is under legal obligation to report their suspiscions immediately to the appropriate authorities. The district has absolutely no right whatsoever to attempt to obtain clandestine evidence that such abuse (or crime) is taking place. That is for duly warranted officers of the law to do.

[Hannah Bell]

184. That kind of fits my speculation about the matter.

The school owns the computers.

The school loans them out to students with a use contract stating they are to be used for school business only.

The student was called in to the principal because of some "behavior" at home related to the computer.

Now, what does the school have authority over & legal interest in?

Not whether the kid is smoking pot in his home. And not, despite the prurient fantasies of so many DUers, in looking at the kid's weiner.

But if the kid is using a school-owned computer to look at porn, it places the school in potential legal jeopardy. The use of the computer is within their authority, & their legal interest.

A vice-principal would not call a student into her office to tell him the school had been spying on him in his home & knew he was smoking pot. 99% of parents would be more outraged about the spying than the pot, so why would any school open that can of worms? Schools get sued or threatened with suits on a routine basis. They don't like it. They try to avoid it. So why would they spy on students as part of some secret policy? Any 12 year old knows it's illegal.

It's my belief the kid was looking at some kind of material on the computer that could have made the school vulnerable to prosecution. *That* is why the female vice-principal called the student into her office. And if that's the case, she had the authority to do so.

And the "picture" he was presented with wasn't a picture of him in his underwear smoking pot, but a screenshot of the questionable pages he visited. Logging page views on a computer the school owns & lends to students under a defined use policy *isn't* an invasion of privacy.



My speculation.

[quark219]

190. This isn't speculation; it's disinformation

The vice-principal confronted the student with a PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN WITHIN THE STUDENT'S HOME BY THE LAPTOP'S WEBCAM. That is a basic fact of the case. It was NOT a screenshot.

You may not care that I live where this story is taking place; fine. But your desire to avoid acknowledging that your first post on this topic was in error does not give you license to make up your own facts.

[Hannah Bell]

196. link?

ps: check my post. i clearly label my speculation as speculation.

unlike most of the good democrats posting on this topic.

thus, your claim it's "disinformation" is bullshit.


so anyway, the school, per you, took a picture of the student in his house -- looking at porn, is that it? or smoking pot?

and then they called him into the principal's office to say, hey we were spying on you smoking pot at home and we're going to.....

what, exactly?

[quark219]

203. Wrong again. (But it's fun to watch you swing and miss.)

You have license to speculate about the unknown. But when you make up facts contrary to known facts, that's disinformation, regardless of what you label it.

As far as your request for links: Over half a dozen links have already been provided for your perusal by others. All of that coverage--news stories, the complaint that's been filed, the statement issued by the school district--specifically reference the laptops' webcams and state that the image shown the student by the vice-principal was a photograph taken by the student's laptop, and not a screenshot.

But in case those half dozen links somehow weren't enough for you, here's yet another:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/84761852.html

[Hannah Bell]

204. unlike some, i'm a careful reader when i try hard:

STUDENT CLAIMS school spied on him via computer webcam

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court, THE FAMILY SAID the school's assistant principal had confronted their son, told him he had "engaged in improper behavior in home, and cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam embedded in personal laptop issued by the school district."

BUT THE SCHOOL SAID "the district would never utilize that security feature for any other reason. (than in case of theft)"

Victoria Zuzelo, a senior at Harriton, said she and other students HAD BEEN TOLD ABOUT THE SECURITY FEATURE the security feature, and knew the district HAD THE RIGHT TO SEARCH COMPUTER HARD DRIVES at school.

She (school official) said that the feature had been used several times to trace stolen laptops, but that there had been no discussion of using it to monitor students' behavior. "I can't imagine anyone in the district did anything other than track stolen computers," she said.

In a published policy statement, the district warns that laptop users "should not expect that files stored on district resources will be private," and says the network administrator "may review files and communication to . . . ensure that students are using the system responsibly."



I ask you again: the vice-principal called the kid into her office & said: Hey, we have this illegal surveillance photo of you in your own home doing something bad, so we're going to punish you by doing.....

what, exactly? how was the school going to punish him for this alleged bad behavior in his own home?

[quark219]

207. Interesting.

Let's recap this because--as you've done throughout this thread--you keep twisting and worming around.

1. Despite numerous sources referencing the laptops' webcams and referring to a photograph, and not a screenshot, you make a post ignoring the information surrounding the case and "speculate" that there was no photograph involved, but a screenshot.

2. I point out that your "speculation" is "disinformation" and is contrary to all information available about the case. Everyone living in the school district, and anyone following the story in the news, is aware that without the laptops' built-in webcams, there would be no story. Yet somehow this escapes you.

3. You say that my claim of disinformation is "bullshit" and ask for a link.

4. I provide a link to the most recent coverage in The Inquirer. After reading said coverage, any reasonable person would come away with the understanding that this is a case involving a webcam photograph, and not a screenshot. In fact, the word "screenshot" doesn't appear once in the story, nor has the LMSD ever made the claim that the webcam photograph was a screenshot.

5. You come back after reading the link, evidently quite proud of yourself, and seem to think that because the reporter, in following the tenets of journalism, used the words "claim" and "said" that it somehow proves your point.

I'm trying to understand your position, and I simply can't make it work logically. It's your contention that the student encouraged his parents to hire an attorney and file a lawsuit in federal court over a nonexistent webcam photograph? And that the LMSD issued its press release in defense of the use of laptop webcams--even though it was a screenshot, and not a webcam photograph, that was shown to the student?

[Hannah Bell]

208. Speculation by definition goes beyond the given information. Kind of like

the folks speculating about the janitors stealing passwords, the IT guys getting their jollies, the pervert assistant principal, etc.

None of those speculations have any basis in any information given. Yet you aren't upset about them. Why is that?

I labeled my speculation as speculation. You can call it "disinformation" if you like, but as I clearly labeled it speculation (unlike posters who take the allegations in the lawsuit as gospel, since "lawyers wouldn't lie"), that's a misuse of the term. It is, clearly stated, my speculation.

I'm not proud of myself or unproud of myself. My opinion of myself is irrelevant. I've not commented on your opinion of yourself.

It's my position that:

-a lawsuit has been filed
-the allegations in the lawsuit may be true, or not
-the story about the assistant principal calling the kid in about bad behavior in his home, unrelated to his computer use, proven by an illegally obtained photograph of the student which is clearly actionable, smells like bullshit.
-Or else the assistant principal is an imbecile. The degree of her imbecility, if that's the case, is astounding.
-a lot of people at DU seem sex-obsessed to a perverse degree & willing to jump to the worst conclusions about school personnel - including personnel not mentioned in the suit in any way, shape or form.


I've very patiently answered all your questions. Now I wait for you to answer mine. The assistant principal who brought the kid in for some unnamed bad behavior in his home & allegedly told him she had a photo from her spycam to prove it: why?

[quark219]

210. A few final points (this is getting old)

Yes, speculation goes beyond what is known. It does NOT, however, controvert the known. Your contention that this story is about a screenshot, and not a webcam photo, controverts everything that is known about the case. Thus my use of the word "disinformation."

I really don't care what off-the-wall speculations other posters may be engaging in. In short, speculation doesn't offend me; disinformation does.

No, you didn't comment on my opinion of myself. Kudos for that. Rather, you simply said that my earlier statement was "bullshit" and implied, with the title of your last post, that I can't read.

Regarding your positions:

1 & 2: Your first two "positions" aren't positions, they are facts.
3: You say the story smells like "bullshit." That's fine; I happen to disagree with you there, but I see where you're coming from.
4: In allowing that the allegations in the lawsuit may be true, you say the assistant principal would have to be an "imbecile." I have a much easier time than you do, I guess, believing that an overzealous administrator would do something this stupid. (More on this below.)
5: I can't really comment on this one because I haven't read the speculative posts about janitors and whatnot. I'm not much interested in groundless gossip. So I suppose we have some common ground here in disliking baseless finger-pointing at janitors.

Your question as to motive is a request (I guess?) for me to speculate, to provide a plausible scenario whereby the events described in the complaint transpired. Here goes:

I speculate that the assistant principal and the student have had multiple run-ins previously (student passes her and gives the finger shielded by the other hand, making other students laugh; has done a "bullshit cough" when she was addressing other students, etc.), to the point that personal animosity had developed. I further speculate that many of the laptops provided the students, by remote access, have had the webcam scheduled to snap a single pic once every 48 hours, perhaps as a test of the school's anti-theft software. The student's laptop sits on his desk in his bedroom, and when one of the pics was taken, I speculate that the student had a bong on the desk, which was captured in the photo. Somehow (I speculate) the assistant principal came into position of the bong photo and instantly recognized that the school's zero tolerance policy meant the student would not only be expelled for 30 days, but also would be forbidden to participate in team sports for the remainder of the year. Seizing this "gotcha" moment (and blind to the legal ramifications), the assistant principal calls the student into her office and confronts him with the photo. The parents, learning that an incriminating photo was taken without permission inside their son's bedroom, say HELL NO and seek counsel.

The local consensus is that an overreaching assistant principal, focused solely on getting even with the student, made a colossal error of judgment that will cost the school district plenty before this is over.

[Hannah Bell]

212. i speculate the boy used the webcam to take photos of himself doing something stupid

& stored them on the hard drive or sent them to his friends.

because the law suit doesn't allege the school took the photo in question remotely. It says the school has the capacity to take pictures; it says a picture from the webcam was cited as "evidence" - but it never alleges the school took the photo using its remote capacity.

"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."


The suit alleges the district told them they had the capacity to activate the webcam at any time.
The suit alleges the district cited as evidence a photo from the webcam.

But the suit does *not* allege the district (or its personnel) took the photo using its remote capacity.

I think that's interesting.

[quark219]

214. What you are posting is (again) simply NOT TRUE

Nature of the Action, Part 2:

"Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and members of the Class, and without their authorization, Defendants have been spying on the activities of the Plaintiffs and Class members by Defendants' indiscriminate use of and ability to remotely activate the webcams incorporated into each laptop issued to students by the School District."

[Hannah Bell]

215. It doesn't say the photo was taken by the school using its remote viewing capacity.

That's your inference.

[quark219]

216. Wrong (yet again) *sigh*

"Class Action Allegations:

14. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class, as Plaintiff and all other members were injured in exactly the same way--by the unauthorized, inappropriate and indiscriminate remote activation of a webcam contained within a laptop computer issued to students by the School District and the intentional interception of their private webcam images in violation of federal and state laws as complained of herein."

What you don't seem to be understanding is that remote access allows the system admin to dictate when a webcam photo is taken: immediately, once a day, once an hour, or on some other schedule. Once taken, the image is stored on the laptop's hard drive.

But wait a minute: Whatever happened to your "speculation" that it was a screen shot and not a webcam photo? Have you finally given up on that?

[Hannah Bell]

218. That doesn't say the school took the photo in question either.

This suit began when the vp called a student into her office for some alleged misbehavior that occurred at home. A photo was presented in evidence.

The suit doesn't allege that photo was taken by the school using its remote capacity. You can sigh all you want, but the suit doesn't make that claim.

[quark219]

219. Who's paying you?

What member of the LMSD is paying you to provide this kind of disinformation? Because you're either collecting a check from them or you have an amazing ability to argue losing points interminably. I applaud your stamina!

If you read points 23, 24, and 25 within the lawsuit's Substantive Allegations section, you'll understand that:
(1) The assistant principal called the student into her office on November 11, 2009.
(2) She then brought up the image on the laptop that had been captured. I now believe the photo showed not a bong on the desk, but the student smoking marijuana .
(3) The student was (understandably) stunned to see the image and asked where it came from.
(4) At that point, the assistant principal explained that the webcam in the laptop issued by the school district could be activated by remote access.

OF COURSE this won't satisfy you. You've got way, way, way too much invested in this thread to concede that maybe, just maybe, you were mistaken in your original post and that at least one official within LMSD appears to have used a webcam photograph taken via remote access within a student's home in an attempt to incriminate. And if that's the case, it's not just wrong, it's Orwellian.

[Hannah Bell]

220. I live on the west coast. so no.

Please copy me the part of the lawsuit that claims the school took the photo of the student using its remote capacity.

You can personally attack me as you please. Like water off a duck's back to me. Just show me where the suit makes that claim.

Additionally, explain to me why a school would be interested in a student's home pot-smoking to the extent that they would produce an illegally obtained photo to "prove" it?

[quark219]

221. Hannah, I've typed more than six paragraphs for you already.

If you can't understand legal English, it's regrettable. Hint: Look up the word "passim."

Let me see if I understand your position.

(A) Instead of accepting what the lawsuit says, passim, that the LMSD has been using webcam photographs taken remotely to incriminate students, including the Plaintiff, and displayed one such taken photograph to the Plaintiff on November 11, 2009;

YOU believe:

(B) The Plaintiff took an incriminating photo of himself using the school laptop's webcam, and stored the photo on the school laptop's hard drive, knowing that he'd be turning in the laptop for weekly maintenance (virus scan, defrag) with the incriminating photo on it.

Seriously, Hannah? You're holding out for (B) here?

And you never have told me what became of your screenshot theory. Where did it go? You spent about two hours arguing for it and now it's vanished.

[Hannah Bell]

223. Well, you can stop chatting anytime you please if it's onerous.

but actually, now that i think about it, your post 218 about the vice-principal "bringing up the photo on the *student's* computer" makes me ask -- you're saying the school is taking surveillance photos & leaving them stored on the students' computers where they could be found by the students?

if the school were using the web cam to remotely take illegal surveillance pictures, wouldn't they arrange to store them on their administrative computers, not on the students' computers, where tech-saavy students might find them & wonder where they came from?

[quark219]

224. Not onerous, so much as frustrating.

I'll be polite as pie here, Hannah. Seriously.

My frustration is borne of the fact that I cannot make it any clearer, yet the point somehow eludes you.

Here it is again:

"Plaintiff injured ... by the unauthorized, inappropriate and indiscriminate remote activation of a webcam contained within a laptop computer issued to students by the School District."

That's point 14 in the Class Action Allegations. My edits are for clarity and are honest edits, removing only references to the Class Action Parties.

I just don't know how to make it any clearer.

If you don't think Point 14 is referring to the photo shown the student in the assistant principal's office, to which photo do you think it's referring? Some other "mystery photo" that has never been mentioned elsewhere?

And per my last post, do you really think it's more likely that a student would be engaging in an illegal/illicit activity in his bedroom and think, "Let me turn on my school computer's webcam and document this so it will be on my hard drive when I turn my computer in for servicing and review on Monday"?

[Hannah Bell]

226. I have some lawyer friends. If the charge isn't stated specifically, don't make

inferences.

The suit doesn't state that the school took the photo at issue. Nor does point 14.

Nor does it allege any *particular* activation of the camera.

I'm not educated enough to understand this webcam stuff & remote viewing. I turn the question back to you; if the school is taking all these surveillance photos, would they store them on the students' computers where the students might find them?

Is it the case that the students turn their computers in every week for servicing & review? Do you have a link? I'm not being snarky, I'd like to know.

[quark219]

228. I come from a family of lawyers and one federal judge (now deceased)

But if you can read that complaint believing that the photo shown the student was taken by the student himself, and not by remote activation, I don't know what to tell you. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

As for myself, I work in IT. The students' laptops have (I am quite certain: it's standard procedure) partitioned hard drives with user-level access. That means the student can access part of the hard drive, but only the admin (administrator) can access other parts. This is done for a few reasons: (1) you don't want relatively unsophisticated users (i.e., high school students) messing up their program files, and (2) it allows you to store files related to monitoring in a place where the user cannot access them or delete them.

Every school program I know of that issues laptops, including my stepdaughter's, collects them on a regular basis (weekly or fortnightly, typically). This, too, is done for a few reasons: (1) hardware check (is laptop missing? stolen? screen cracked?); (2) virus scans and defragging (reordering the data on the hard drive for efficiency); and (3) an optional review of the files to check for inappropriate content in the user area and to review any monitoring data in the admin area (Web tracking log and, in the case of LMSD, evidently, webcam images).

I don't have a link for the above; I'm thinking you can trust me on this, but you're welcome to confirm by a Google search.

[Hannah Bell]

229. I read the statement as not alleging the school took the photo in question.

So my question then is, why doesn't it?

Everything else is an attempt to answer that question.

It sounds logical that they would be returned weekly, or on some regular schedule. I don't doubt the principle. I just like to pin down the facts specifically if i can.

"That means the student can access part of the hard drive, but only the admin (administrator) can access other parts."

thanks, that answers my earlier question.

next question: could the student use the webcam himself?

[quark219]

230. Well, we seem to be having a better dialogue here...

...for which I'm thankful.

I have read a fair number of lawsuits. And while we'd like to think that in the lofty world of law, things are written perfectly, I have yet to see a lawsuit that didn't contain some ambiguity, omissions, or outright errors. The lawsuit we're reading here is, I think, guilty of an omission that is tripping you up. You want it to be explicitly stated: "The assistant principal then showed the Plaintiff a photograph that was taken by remote access that caught him in an illicit activity." I think the lawyer omitted that statement simply because he felt it was abundantly clear from the many statements prior to and following Point 14 that clearly state that the whole lawsuit is based upon webcam photographs that were programmed to occur, or triggered in real-time, by remote access.

I do not for one second believe the attorney deliberately avoided making the A connects to B connects to C sentence you're looking for on purpose in order to pull a fast one. Remember that they're requesting a trial by jury here. There is no way any lawyer worth his salt would set up the defending attorney with a slam-dunk such as your scenario would provide:

Defending attorney to Plaintiff: The whole basis of your lawsuit rests on the fact that Lower Merion School District has been taking, you allege, webcam photos of students by remote access, does it not?

Plaintiff: It does.

Defending attorney: And the spark for this ENTIRE EXPENSIVE LAWSUIT was an image of yourself that you were shown in the assistant principal's office on November 11, 2009, is that correct?

Plaintiff: Yes.

Defending attorney: And that one photo, that ONE IMPORTANT PHOTO that your entire lawsuit is based on--was it taken by remote access... or did you take the photo yourself?

Plaintiff: Uhhhh... I took it myself.

Defending attorney: HE TOOK. THE PHOTO. HIMSELF. No further questions, your Honor.

No prosecuting attorney is going to set himself or herself up for failure like that. (Well, never say never... but it's a lot harder to imagine that an attorney would do that to himself than it is to believe he thought the words "remote access" were a given in Point 14.)

As far as the webcam goes: Unless the school district chose to disable the webcam for users, yes, a student could still access it to take his or her own video or pictures, which would be stored on the user-accessible portions of the hard drive. Different applications can use the built-in webcam independently, so you could have an anti-theft/surveillance program accessing the camera to take snapshots, while the student could also access the webcam for video chat online. There might be a stutter or delay if both apps tried to access the camera at the same time, but it wouldn't hang the machine.

If you're looking for local info, I can tell you that LMSD students had suspected that the laptop webcams were occasionally taking snapshots because once in a blue moon, one of them would see the webcam LED light flash momentarily.

[TheMadMonk]

238. The lawsuit does not state such because the vice-principle did not say I did X and here is Y.

However, the lawsuit does make 2 separate but very clear claims as to what the VP did say.
1) I have here this picture which is irrefutable evidence of your wrong doing.
2) The webcam on your laptop can be activated at any time by remote access.

The very clear implication is that the VP did use 2 to obtain 1. However, because they did not specifically state that they used 2 to obtain 1 such a charge can not be levelled in the afidavit and you can be damned sure that if/when the VP takes the stand, they WILL be asked exactly how the were able to obtain that picture.

The school did not take/obtain the photo. An individual school official did. The school/district is named as a defendant because the school/district is responsible/liable for the actions of its officials when acting in their capacity as officials of the school/district. The school/district's actions in installing the monitoring software made it possible for the individual official to carry out the alleged action deepens their liability since it is fairly clear that they had no mechanism in place to prevent or detect misuse of the monitoring software. Further, that they did not do the smart thing and immediately cut the VP loose or at least suspend them pending investigation, suggests that there was no actual formal statement of policy in place at the time specifically limiting the use of the monitoring software to recovering a stolen computer.

The school would not. A moral crusader very well might.

[TheMadMonk]

236. Earlier posts quite clearly state that the school district DID NOT inform...

...students or parents of the existence of the anti-theft "feature". That it was common knowledge about the school makes no matter, if the district did not make proper disclosure in the acceptable usage agreement that students (or their parents) were given with the computers.

Whatever the District has to say about its policy has no bearing on the actual activities of an individual with "right" on their side. Dr. Tiller's killer is a prime (if extreme) example of such an individual, but none of us have to look very far to find lesser examples in our lives of those who ignore common courtesty (if not the law) to play moral watchdog.

All those statements of the district that you are quoting are nothing less than what they would have to say, what their lawyers almost certainly told them what to say, in order to even minimally cover their arses. There is however, one very damning omission. Not once do they appear to have said, "We will investigate these allegations and if there is any substance to them, we will take appropriate action against any individual(s) who violated distric policy."

I have a strong suspiscion that the District may have already investigated and discovered that one or more people have been systematically abusing the monitoring "feature" and that they are hoping like hell that they can confine any legal inquiries to this one specific incident.

And I say to you again: A moral crusader with "right" on their side may very well ignore legal niceties. As for punishment, who knows. Perhaps they simply delivered a "wakeup call" along the lines of shape up and fly right or I'll let your parents know you've been smoking pot.

Why do you keep harping back to what the school (or district) would or would not do? This is about what an INDIVIDUAL did. The district is not being sued for its actions as an entity, it is being sued as a result of the alleged actions of one of its officials, and because it made it possible for that official to do what they are alleged to have done.

[TheMadMonk]

235. Monitoring in real time anything a student is doing in their own home...

...regardless of ownership of the equipment being monitored is a big no-no. Monitoring their traffic on a school owned proxy server occupies murky legal waters, but may be permissible. Either way, the first question I'd be asking is where is their blocking software?

The in home behaviour was both porn surfing AND pot smoking. The image he was confronted with was apparently of him smoking pot not a screenshot of his surfing activities. BTW the school/admin would legal be in the wrong to confront him with such as screenshot as they would be guilty of showing him pornographic images.

A school as a legal entity would almost certainly not reveal to a student (or their parents) that anti-theft software was used to monitor in home behaviour of a student. A nosey administrator flying solo recon (there are the rumours that other students have noticed their cameras randomly activating) might well be sufficiently morally outraged to not think of the legal implications before confronting the student.

All that aside, the anti-theft monitoring system has an undeniable potential to be abused. Any system which can be abused will, sooner or later, be abused. I doubt very much whether legal advice was sought when this system was first implemented, and I can damned near guarantee that when this particular pile of fecal matter hit the rotary oscilator the District's lawyers told them: "Get it off those computers NOW!"

[RainDog]

135. Press Release from School

...posted on the Lower Merion School District website at 2/18/2010 @ 4:54 ET

Initial response regarding LMSD 'invasion of privacy' allegation

Last year, our district became one of the first school systems in the United States to provide laptop computers to all high school students. This initiative has been well received and has provided educational benefits to our students.

The District is dedicated to protecting and promoting student privacy. The laptops do contain a security feature intended to track lost, stolen and missing laptops. This feature has been deactivated effective today.

We regret if this situation has caused any concern or inconvenience among our students and families.The allegations are counter to everything that we stand for as a school and a community. We are reviewing the matter and will provide an additional update as soon as information becomes available.

[RainDog]

139. this story was picked up by computer world

here

[conscious evolution]

161. I would bet a bunch of hard drives are also being scrubbed also. nt

[Kablooie]

136. Wonder if the confiscated the school disk drives to see if any pictures had been stored?

[troubledamerican]

138. Innocent people have nothing to hide.

Now bend over.

[djp2]

141. Who knows what Bush and his cronies forced...

onto computer manufacturers.

I've always worried about a "Backdoor" into my computer so outside "persons" could get on my computer and even activate the webcam remotely. They could be spying on you right now and compiling a dosier on your "habits".

Even if not nationwide, what about our Congressmen? Is that what they are holding over their heads to get them to vote against our best interests?

[Maat]

168. HeeHee.

If they are spying on this little ol' lady now, they are getting what they richly deserve.;)

Just kidding, sort of, this invasion of privacy is outrageous (I'm a non-practicing law school graduate - no active license or anything). That having been said, in my humble opinion, the school district had better settle as quickly and cheaply as possible. It doesn't matter if anyone thought they had probable cause - unless a judge signed a warrant, backed by an affidavit STATING the alleged probable cause, backed up by an oath by the officer in question; this principal is toast. One important factor here is that no one legally capable of giving consent was fully informed of the feature in advance or agreed to use of the feature. Another important factor is that not all members of any pertinent household in question, subject to the potential abuse of this feature, were informed of the feature (so, they certainly did not all consent to use of the feature). This is a horrific abuse of power and the right to privacy, in my opinion, just based upon what the school district has admitted, and a real warning to parents. Notice that the school district appears to be hanging the principal out to dry - the DISTRICT is denying that the DISTRICT acted inappropriately. If I were the principal, I'd be shopping for a good attorney right now.

Having been sued when I was a social worker (it was dismissed quickly, fortunately), it's my opinion that one should have one's own attorney. I believe that the school district usually pays for that, if it see that the interests of the employee vary with its own.

[onehandle]

151. .

.

[RainDog]

153. this is a legitimate story

that received coverage in the PA area news.

I posted a link and indicated the words in the OP were part of the source. I posted links as I saw them later that reflected the latest information.

if you don't like that, don't read this freaking thread.

the issue of privacy in these matters is genuine. if you read the school site's information after the incident, they explain they have webcams in the computers and have the capacity to take photos from those and have in cases they allege are theft only.

your sarcasm is sort of worthless, in other words.

[RainDog]

155. the blogger at boing boing has long been involved with Electronic Frontier Foundation

he has had ongoing concerns with issues of privacy and technology.

again, your criticism is bull. you seem to think that you are the only one who can read the OP's wording and parse the importance of the same.

aren't you important.

[nikto]

152. If they will do this in a relatively-RICH neighborhood...

Think of what MUST be happening in some POOR areas?
:o :o :o :o











The future is a disaster that has already happened.

[RainDog]

158. link to Lyric thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7746302

[DirkGently]

162. Gobsmacking

Had to look around to see who else is reporting it, and nothing seems to cut against the notion this was (alleged) spying on a student, by an administrator, in his home:

The Robbinses said they learned of the reported webcam images in November, when Lindy Matsko, an assistant principal at Harriton High School, told their son Blake that school officials thought he had engaged in improper behavior at home. The behavior was not specified in the suit.

"(Matsko) cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam embedded in minor plaintiff's personal laptop issued by the school district," the suit states. The behavior was not specified in the suit, which did not make clear whether the family had seen any photographs captured by school officials.

Matsko later confirmed to Michael Robbins that the school had the ability to activate the webcams remotely, according to the suit, which was filed Tuesday and which seeks class-action status.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011123347_laptopspy19.html

You can allege anything, of course, but this is one to watch.

Good find.

[Hekate]

164. This is completely creepy, all right. And goodness, "Ignore" is certainly busy and argumentative...

... in this thread. :eyes:

Hekate

[Hannah Bell]

180. lol. yes, she is. proud to be ignored by such a one.

[omega minimo]

170. 1984

[dashrif]

172. #1 reason

I don't have a web cam on any lappy and don't use voip log into paypal, mail or anything in hotels without hitting my vpn with a one time password generator, MIM folks it is easy as pie http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/19/ssl_busting_demo/

It looks like they may have had a laptop lowjack type service

yes I get payed to be this paranoid

[bobburgster]

217. I can't believe the stupidity.

I was busy yesterday and missed the whole scholasticam story until last night when my wife told me about it. Speechless, thinking I misinterpreted what she said, I asked her to repeat what had taken place. After she did....well suffice it to say I can't repeat the words that spewed from my mouth like rocket-propelled projectile vomit.

[RainDog]

231. this situation might help Americans to see the problem with invasive tech

that is used w/o permission.

as well as establishing some boundaries between the province of personal life and school life, even when in possession of school property.

I detest that google and yahoo and god knows who else mines data from my emails sent to private people (and, yes, they do this) to target advertising to me.

I hate it b/c the advertising has the opposite effect - I reject that targeting - I am nearly to the point of canceling google mail b/c of their intrusiveness...the latest thing being assuming they have the right to publish people's photos, friends, etc. w/o permission.

I don't use facebook - b/c I think it's stupid, but also because of its policies. and I was encouraged to get on facebook back when it was limited to university students.

[Gormy Cuss]

234. Technology not only used without permission, but used without informed consent.

I make the distinction because lots of user agreements have broad language that allows for much data collection without making explicit which data are gathered, analyzed, and shared with third parties.

[blogslut]

232. I'm wondering how the security software works

A quick perusal of the MAC-based program, Lockdown, shows that the camera/alarm feature can be activated via motion sensor, mouse gesture, keystroke, removal of the power cord, but...the operator can only enable the software with a remote device.

My guess is that the school system runs exclusive security monitoring software but I'm wondering what "sets it off"?

[MicaelS]

241. The FBI is now invloved

From the AP http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LAPTOPS_SPYING_ON_STUDENTS?SITE=CAACS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A law-enforcement official with knowledge of the case says the FBI has opened a criminal investigation into a Pennsylvania school district accused of activating webcams inside students' homes without their knowledge. The official, speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity, says the FBI will explore whether Lower Merion School District officials broke any federal wiretap or computer-intrusion laws. Lower Merion officials say they remotely activated webcams 42 times to find missing student laptops in the past 14 months, but never did so to spy on students, as a recent lawsuit claims. The Montgomery County district attorney also is gathering information to determine whether to open an investigation.

So... the idea that they were only taking screenshots to see if kids were surfing for porn is now blown right our of the water. The school officials admit they remotely activated webcams to look for "stolen" laptops.

[MilesColtrane]

242. A little more information from the family suing the school district...

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=7288199

Holly Robbins, her husband Michael, and their son Blake sat with talked to Action News about the ordeal that involves Lower Merion School District, laptops, webcams, and the issue of spying.
They say it began with the principal of Harriton High calling them up and accusing Blake of selling drugs at home, saying they saw it all through the webcam on the school issued computer.

"She said that she had pictures of Blake that were taken on his computer of him holding up little, what she thought, were pills, but what turned out to be Mike & Ike candies," Holly said.

-snip-

Lower Merion officials concede they remotely activated webcams 42 times to find missing student computers in the past 14 months, but did not spy on students as the Robins' are claiming in their lawsuit.

But the Robbins point out, they never reported Blake's computer stolen.

In another article, a school district spokesman implies that the laptop WAS reported stolen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/20/AR2010022000679.html

The suit does not say if the boy's laptop had been reported stolen, and Young said the litigation prevents him from disclosing that fact. He said the district never violated its policy of only using the remote-activation software to find missing laptops. "Infer what you want," Young said.

Don't know why the school district's legal counsel wouldn't let him confirm that it was reported stolen if it indeed was.

[RainDog]

243. wow. this school is big trouble. and rightfully so.

I hope this case will provide a standard for families across the U.S. who have children regarding personal privacy.

[Bozita]

245. link to text and video from Friday's CBS Evening News

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/19/eveningnews/main6224726.shtml?tag=cbsnewsTwoColUpperPromoArea