I really dont know how anyone could defend this case, of a high-school giving out laptops to students and then remotely activating the webcam to spy on the kids. One student was actually disciplined for "innapropiate behavior in the home" for some reason the vice principal thought he had the right to do this...
Is there anyone or anyplace in which you can hope children will not be violated?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'd punish the teacher for being absolutely ignorant of constitutional law.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
At this point I don't know if the web cam accusation has been substantiated as we haven't yet heard a response from the school. It's possible, for instance, that the kid uploaded a photo or video of "inappropriate behavior" to school systems on his own accord.
So yeah, if true it's horrible. Waiting to see if it's true...
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I work in a school that provides laptops to the students. The students are definitely monitored while using the server on campus - especially since they like to watch pirated movies and play games (caught one kid playing poker online during class...). They do not have webcams and can only be monitored while using the school server. HOWEVER they are strongly cautioned that they only use the laptops appropriately when on other servers because the systems are set up to automatically download and save the computer content when they log in or off at the school. So if they have inappropriate content on their computers - even if they accessed it at home - it will be discovered when the servers backup their systems.
Perhaps that happened in this case.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
There's a scene in the Digital Nation episode of Frontline where a teacher showed how they can use the cameras to keep an eye on students during class -- it's at about 33:27 in the link above.
The clip's kind of funny; the asst. principal caught a student playing with her hair and clicked a button to take a photo (the girl apparently noticed and ducked out of the frame before it snapped). I'd assumed that that capability could only be used if the computer is connected to the school's network.
--j_k
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Did it just break that the assistant principal showed a photo that was secretly taken? The last I heard was that the school was claiming that they looked through cameras only of stolen computers to help locate them.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Wendybird: How is this stuff implemented in your case anyways? Is it done on a hardware level, a custom OS, or as a software program?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm curious to know the nature of the "inappropriate" behavior involved. I think it makes a difference.
If the school issued the computer, they have a right to specify how the computer can be used. If the school was punishing the student for inappropriate or forbidden use of the computer while at home, I would see that as within their rights.
Some schools (mostly private schools) have an honor code which students are expected to follow outside school. It is not uncommon for such schools to punish students for honor code violations that happened outside of school (if they are aware of them).
The bigger issue in my mind isn't that the school was punishing the student for something they did at home, its how they got the information. If they were in fact secretly using the computers webcams to spy on students, that was seriously out of line and a violation of the students right to privacy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm curious to know the nature of the "inappropriate" behavior involved. I think it makes a difference.
If the school issued the computer, they have a right to specify how the computer can be used. If the school was punishing the student for inappropriate or forbidden use of the computer while at home, I would see that as within their rights.
Some schools (mostly private schools) have an honor code which students are expected to follow outside school. It is not uncommon for such schools to punish students for honor code violations that happened outside of school (if they are aware of them).
The bigger issue in my mind isn't that the school was punishing the student for something they did at home, its how they got the information. If they were in fact secretly using the computers webcams to spy on students, that was seriously out of line and a violation of the students right to privacy.
Entirely agree.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:If the school was punishing the student for inappropriate or forbidden use of the computer while at home, I would see that as within their rights.
Agree with this part.
quote:Some schools (mostly private schools) have an honor code which students are expected to follow outside school. It is not uncommon for such schools to punish students for honor code violations that happened outside of school (if they are aware of them).
This makes me uncomfortable. I'm not entirely against such policies, but I would want them to be pretty narrowly defined.
Either way, even if the school didn't intend to spy on kids at home, and it was simply an accident that such spying happened anyway (say the camera was activated and a picture uploaded automatically)...it's completely wrong.
If the kid intentionally recorded something, it's different.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:The suit states that on Nov. 11, Lindy Matsko, an assistant principal at Harriton High School, informed Blake that he “was engaged in improper behavior in his home, and cited as evidence a photograph from the Webcam embedded in [his] personal laptop issued by the School District.” (The complete text of the suit was posted online by The Philadelphia Inquirer.)
The suit adds that Ms. Matsko subsequently confirmed to the boy’s father that the district “in fact has the ability to remotely activate the Webcam … at any time it chose and to view and capture whatever images were in front of the Webcam.”
That sure as heck sounds like Ms. Matsko used the security feature in question to snap the picture.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
From what I read, it sounds like the kid wasn't using the laptop, just doing something with the laptop in the room. Which makes it a huge invasion of privacy, regardless of any school policies.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Here's another article, from a local paper that makes it sound like the camera was remotely activated by the principle intentionally: Article Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
This is also a complete violation of Pennysylvania's wiretapping laws. This district is in very serious trouble...I hope mine pays attention and makes some changes as well
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Why, DK? What kinds of stuff do they do that you think might be similar?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Some schools (mostly private schools) have an honor code which students are expected to follow outside school. It is not uncommon for such schools to punish students for honor code violations that happened outside of school (if they are aware of them).
This makes me uncomfortable. I'm not entirely against such policies, but I would want them to be pretty narrowly defined.
The policies themselves don't make me uncomfortable. Private schools should have the right to establish any standards for their students why deem appropriate to the schools goals.
The part that makes me squirm a bit is the question of enforcement. How do schools find out if students are violating the honor code outside of school? How do they verify they aren't punishing students based on hearsay? How do they ensure they aren't harshly punishing the one kid who got caught while a hundred who did far worse things get off scott free? It just seems like there is no way to justly and fairly enforce such and honor code that wouldn't be so invasive that no one would consent.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:The superintendent stated in an announcement that the system was only used in rare cases to locate PCs that were reported as missing or stolen,
...If the student's PC wasn't reported missing or stolen, heads are going to roll.
I'd be tempted to try to seize any relevant records so those in hot water couldn't retroactively create such a "report".
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
We have iBooks and the Time Machine and HomeSync features automatically run when the student logs in. I'm sure some students get away with stuff but just not logging in and out but they also risk losing papers and work because the backup servers also backup those items so when the laptop crashes they can restore to a previous point and not as much work will be lost.
I know while on campus the tech office can remote access any laptop on the server and see what they are doing.
***** As more info comes out on this case I think the principal and school are in huge trouble!
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I used to have remote access to any of my students' (or teachers) computers, but only to their desktops. I could see what was being done on their computers, but I certainly couldn't turn on a camera and look around the room. I can't imagine how anyone would think that even having that ability was ok.
The thing that gets me here is not merely that the principal did this, but that the district set up the computers so they could do this. That's like conspiracy or something.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:The superintendent stated in an announcement that the system was only used in rare cases to locate PCs that were reported as missing or stolen,
...If the student's PC wasn't reported missing or stolen, heads are going to roll.
I'd be tempted to try to seize any relevant records so those in hot water couldn't retroactively create such a "report".
The computer in question was not reported missing or stolen.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I really dont know how anyone could defend this case, of a high-school giving out laptops to students and then remotely activating the webcam to spy on the kids.
The school says that's not what happened, though.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
They say that, but their logic's either fuzzy or the reporter mangled the facts. Here's the follow up on Yahoo.
quote: The suit, which seeks class-action status, alleges that Harriton vice principal Lindy Matsko on Nov. 11 cited a laptop photo in telling Blake that the school thought he was engaging in improper behavior. He and his family have told reporters that an official mistook a piece of candy for a pill and thought he was selling drugs.
So either the family are conspiracy theory nut jobs with no evidence and bad logic who are being treated seriously by the AP, or the vice-principal is doing a lot of backpedaling. Either there were pictures of the kid's bedroom or there weren't.
Someone is incompetant either way, in my opinion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Reporters nearly always mangle the facts.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:So either the family are conspiracy theory nut jobs with no evidence and bad logic who are being treated seriously by the AP, or the vice-principal is doing a lot of backpedaling. Either there were pictures of the kid's bedroom or there weren't.
There's also the possibility that there were pictures but that they were taken by the student himself and then saved on the school's computer, where they could be accessed remotely by administrators.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I'll concede the point with the caveat that there would still be incompetence at work. It would just be on the kid's part then. Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Apparently the kid was video chatting with another kid, held up some Mike & Ikes, and said "You want some?". So it might have been that the other kid thought he was being asked to buy some drugs, saved some images, and turned them over to the school. (I heard this on the radio as another possible explanation.)
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:The district has said it turned on the camera in Robbins' computer because his family had not paid the $55 insurance fee and he was not authorized to take the laptop home.
While perhaps technically falling within the "lost or stolen" policy because the laptop was not where it was supposed to be, it's pretty hard to justify using the "locating" software in this situation since they knew exactly where it was, it just wasn't supposed to be there. I think the school district is going to come out of this very, very badly.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
At this point, the only people who will win are the lawyers.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Did the parents sign anything acknowledging that by participating in the laptop program they were accepting allowing a surveillance device into their home...?
Unless there are details missing, it doesn't sound as though the school did any of the obvious steps on finding the computer was taken home without the insurance fee being paid, like, oh, ask for the computer back.
It sounds like someone was given a) sensitive information, and b) power, and chose to use both really, really stupidly when given the opportunity.
In other news, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is using this as a springboard to push for a bill with "new protections against video surveillance". Link Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: At this point, the only people who will win are the lawyers.
If a ruling comes down against the school district, it will set a precedent to protect the privacy of student's and their family's, so I would say that is a win for all of us. If it goes the other way then I will lose all (of my already shaky) faith in the government's desire to protect our right's under the constitution.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: At this point, the only people who will win are the lawyers.
If a ruling comes down against the school district, it will set a precedent to protect the privacy of students and their families, so I would say that is a win for all of us. If it goes the other way then I will lose all (of my already shaky) faith in the government's desire to protect our right's under the constitution.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
I'd also like to add that the what the pictures were used for, or for what purpose they were originally taken for is irrelevant, it is still a gross invasion of privacy. Motivation is irrelevant and really discussing whether or not it's voyeurism or something else only takes away from the already disturbing Orwellian fact that these pictures are being taken at all. Anyone not outraged by this does not take the constitutional anything more than an archaic and outdated document that has no bearing in American life today.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Yes, with this new info it seems pretty clear that the school district went way over the line.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:If a ruling comes down against the school district, it will set a precedent to protect the privacy of student's and their family's, so I would say that is a win for all of us.
I disagree that this will be the outcome. It's far more likely to end with massive damages or a huge settlement. So, I guess we'll see in a few months or years, if anyone is still paying attention. Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
After actually looking at this case I'm realizing I have a couple friends that go to that school. Strange. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"In a few other cases, Hockeimer said, the team has been unable to recover images or photos stored by the tracking system. And in about 15 activations, investigators have been unable to identify exactly why a student's laptop was being monitored."
I'd suspect that any overlap between unrecoverable images and unexplained activations are clear indicators of perving and subsequent coverup.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I might find it hard to avoid some Schadenfreude if these school administrators get fired. I might find it really hard. LOL
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm:
quote:If a ruling comes down against the school district, it will set a precedent to protect the privacy of student's and their family's, so I would say that is a win for all of us.
I disagree that this will be the outcome. It's far more likely to end with massive damages or a huge settlement. So, I guess we'll see in a few months or years, if anyone is still paying attention.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)