This is a bit disturbing. A school district is being sued and accused of spying on kids at home via webcams in school issued laptops. Quite a tale. Check it out:
PHILADELPHIA – A student who accuses his suburban Philadelphia school district in a lawsuit of spying on students via their school-issued webcams will ask district officials not to remove any potential evidence from student computers.
Lawyers for the Lower Merion School District are due in federal court on the issue Monday afternoon, on an emergency petition from student Blake Robbins of Penn Valley.
Lower Merion officials confirmed last week they had activated the webcams to find 42 missing or stolen laptops, without the knowledge or permission of students and their families. Both the FBI and local authorities are investigating whether the district broke any wiretap, computer-use or other laws.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief in support of the student Monday, arguing that the photo amounts to an illegal search.
"That school officials' warrantless, non-consensual use of a camera, embedded in students' laptops, inside the home is a search cannot be doubted," the ACLU wrote in a brief filed Monday morning.
Students at the district's two high schools have taken to taping over the webcam and microphone, even as school officials insist they have stopped the practice.
Robbins sued last week, alleging that Harriton High School officials took a photo of him inside his home. He learned of it when an assistant principal said she knew he was engaging in improper behavior at home, according to his potentially class-action lawsuit.
In the wake of the outcry over the allegations, school district officials have said they have abandoned the practice of remotely activating the webcams. Still, the Robbinses' lawyer does not want the district to remove any information or programs from the 2,300 laptops issued to students at its two high schools.
"Defendants intend to reclaim each laptop from the possession of members of the class for the purpose of wiping clean the hard drive or otherwise engaging in the spoliation of evidence," family lawyer Mark S. Haltzman wrote in the emergency petition.
Lawyer Henry E. Hockeimer Jr., who represents the district, urged families and community members not to jump to conclusions.
"These are important issues and we view them seriously," Hockeimer, a former federal prosecutor, said in a statement.
While courts have held that students can be searched at school given "reasonable suspicion" of a crime — a more relaxed standard than "probable cause," designed to ensure school safety — the lower standard does not apply in the home, the ACLU argued in its brief.
source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100222/ap_on_re_us/us_laptops_spying_on_students (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100222/ap_on_re_us/us_laptops_spying_on_students)
Just read about this. Pretty much an invasion of privacy. That's why my wifi is encrypted and feel a bit nervous whenever I am on an unencrypted wifi.
Is there a way to keep files on the hard drive private when using unencrypted wifi?
Quote from: sheldar on February 22, 2010, 10:18:22 AM
Just read about this. Pretty much an invasion of privacy. That's why my wifi is encrypted and feel a bit nervous whenever I am on an unencrypted wifi.
Is there a way to keep files on the hard drive private when using unencrypted wifi?
I'm not sure encrypting the Wifi would solve this. You could easily write a script to snap a pic on the students laptop at set intervals when it's running - say one every 30 minutes. The files are saved to the local hard drive and when the laptops get back to school and hooked up to their network - boom - download the pics. Again, I'm not quite sure how this took place but they mention wanting the computers back to wipe them. That sounds like the machines stored the pics locally. Pretty sneaky if it's true.
How irresponsible of the school. They couldn't see this lawsuit coming??? Morons.
BTW, I've heard of people locating stolen Macbooks by turning on their computers remotely through their Apple web accounts. The owner of one such Macbook was able take a photo of the jerk who stole their computer and the police used it to track the culprit down. For every upside though, there seems to be a down side...which really stinks.
This sounds soooo wrong. My first thought us what if you've got your laptop on and getting changed and they take pics. I mean how sick is that?
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on February 22, 2010, 11:24:22 AM
This sounds soooo wrong. My first thought us what if you've got your laptop on and getting changed and they take pics. I mean how sick is that?
Exactly.
I can't think of any reason for a kid to be getting dressed in the front of a webcam. My own child knows not to change in front of open windows or the webcams in the house.
Hell, my computer illerate father in law knows that people can hack your webcam.
This generation grew up on the tech. They should know better. Mant of us have also heard about the remote activation of mac cams.
I'm hoping that the school informed the parents of monitoring before they issues them. I would hate to see it blow up in their faces.
The good part is that once the lawsuits are over, the school probably won't have the laptops and if they lose will be hard pressed to afford text books.
It's my hope that teachers concerned that the student might have been taking drugs won't blow up and force a great tool to be removed.
I got to be honest I didn't know that. I'm sure hundreds of people check mails while getting ready to go to work, laptop on but no web cam on, but now your saying some git can turn your cam on?? I didn't know that ( I don't have a web cam or laptop by the way but wife does).
At least my webcam has a little blue light that comes on when it's active. :)
If this is actually true about what the "school" did, they are in for a HUGE mountain of trouble.
Quote from: Jen on February 22, 2010, 11:20:06 AM
How irresponsible of the school. They couldn't see this lawsuit coming??? Morons.
BTW, I've heard of people locating stolen Macbooks by turning on their computers remotely through their Apple web accounts. The owner of one such Macbook was able take a photo of the jerk who stole their computer and the police used it to track the culprit down. For every upside though, there seems to be a down side...which really stinks.
I remember that story. Very funny and cool. I wonder why this is ok but not the incident with the school?
The school being sued was my high school, Harriton (class of 1987, god I'm old) I find it amazing that they are issuing Macbooks to every student in the school. Pretty unbelievable. I guarantee you regardless of the outcome this school will not be hard pressed to afford anything, it is one of the wealthiest neighborhoods/school districts in the country. They just recently (this year) blew up the old school buildings and opened up a brand new, $100 million dollar building.
*looks at my school provided netbook and puts duct tape on the webcam
I have a feeling this is going to start a bit of a chain reaction in school districts with school issued laptops or netbooks.
Aside from the local catholic school I'm not aware of any public high schools in my area that supply laptops to their students. Is this a common practice elsewhere?
Quote from: Just X on February 22, 2010, 11:39:39 AM
I can't think of any reason for a kid to be getting dressed in the front of a webcam. My own child knows not to change in front of open windows or the webcams in the house.
Hell, my computer illerate father in law knows that people can hack your webcam.
This generation grew up on the tech. They should know better. Mant of us have also heard about the remote activation of mac cams.
I'm hoping that the school informed the parents of monitoring before they issues them. I would hate to see it blow up in their faces.
The good part is that once the lawsuits are over, the school probably won't have the laptops and if they lose will be hard pressed to afford text books.
It's my hope that teachers concerned that the student might have been taking drugs won't blow up and force a great tool to be removed.
From what I understand the web cam on this particular model can be turned on remotely and it doesn't have a light to warn you that it's on... So a kid with a laptop open (not knowing it was on) could be spied on. If you lived in an apartment, It would be the equivalent of having a hole in your bathroom mirror that a neighbor is using to watch you through.
Quote from: sheldar on February 22, 2010, 12:20:32 PM
Quote from: Jen on February 22, 2010, 11:20:06 AM
How irresponsible of the school. They couldn't see this lawsuit coming??? Morons.
BTW, I've heard of people locating stolen Macbooks by turning on their computers remotely through their Apple web accounts. The owner of one such Macbook was able take a photo of the jerk who stole their computer and the police used it to track the culprit down. For every upside though, there seems to be a down side...which really stinks.
I remember that story. Very funny and cool. I wonder why this is ok but not the incident with the school?
I think the difference is intent. In one case an individual is nabbing a criminal...in another a school is violating the rights of its students by "watching them" without their knowledge. If they had been warned of this it would be a different matter I think.
Quote from: ChadH on February 22, 2010, 02:34:15 PM
Aside from the local catholic school I'm not aware of any public high schools in my area that supply laptops to their students. Is this a common practice elsewhere?
I wouldn't call it common at all, but some districts are doing it now. They also sometimes provide discount methods for purchase. Where my wife teaches they have groups of laptops for the kids to use and I think can be checked out of school, if needed.
To be fair, we don't know what they were warned. I'm guessing that the parents had to sign something to get them.
I'm also pretty sure that they didn't read anything past the part giving a free computer.
Having a kid in school currently, I can tell you that her school makes you sign off on a lot of thing and I have done so without fully reading on occasion.
Hell, I've had to give permission for field trips and then regive permission when the time leaving changed. And I was chaparoning it.
Yeah our contract said "don't pirate, nothing illegal, nothing adulty, etc" but nothing saying "we can spy"
2 of my nieces are in that school district. I think that release statement they (the parents) signed was vague and didn't explicitly mention this type of monitoring. The Legal Eagles (and vultures) are circling on this one.
Yeah they said they could monitor in school things with a program called "dyknow" but you can't monitor outside of school
Quote from: Bromptonboy on February 22, 2010, 03:29:10 PM
2 of my nieces are in that school district. I think that release statement they (the parents) signed was vague and didn't explicitly mention this type of monitoring. The Legal Eagles (and vultures) are circling on this one.
They are already being sued. They talked about this on the TWIT podcast today. I can easily see jail time if this goes to court.
Well, like Heinlein said - TANSTAAFL [There ain't no such thing as a free lunch] - or laptop in this instance.
Quote from: Jen on February 22, 2010, 02:45:21 PM
Quote from: sheldar on February 22, 2010, 12:20:32 PM
Quote from: Jen on February 22, 2010, 11:20:06 AM
How irresponsible of the school. They couldn't see this lawsuit coming??? Morons.
BTW, I've heard of people locating stolen Macbooks by turning on their computers remotely through their Apple web accounts. The owner of one such Macbook was able take a photo of the jerk who stole their computer and the police used it to track the culprit down. For every upside though, there seems to be a down side...which really stinks.
I remember that story. Very funny and cool. I wonder why this is ok but not the incident with the school?
I think the difference is intent. In one case an individual is nabbing a criminal...in another a school is violating the rights of its students by "watching them" without their knowledge. If they had been warned of this it would be a different matter I think.
See, I thought they turned the cameras on for only the stolen laptops. That may be completely legal given the precedent of the story you mentioned.
Quote from: sheldar on February 22, 2010, 04:44:09 PM
Quote from: Jen on February 22, 2010, 02:45:21 PM
Quote from: sheldar on February 22, 2010, 12:20:32 PM
Quote from: Jen on February 22, 2010, 11:20:06 AM
How irresponsible of the school. They couldn't see this lawsuit coming??? Morons.
BTW, I've heard of people locating stolen Macbooks by turning on their computers remotely through their Apple web accounts. The owner of one such Macbook was able take a photo of the jerk who stole their computer and the police used it to track the culprit down. For every upside though, there seems to be a down side...which really stinks.
I remember that story. Very funny and cool. I wonder why this is ok but not the incident with the school?
I think the difference is intent. In one case an individual is nabbing a criminal...in another a school is violating the rights of its students by "watching them" without their knowledge. If they had been warned of this it would be a different matter I think.
See, I thought they turned the cameras on for only the stolen laptops. That may be completely legal given the precedent of the story you mentioned.
There were no stolen laptops that I have read of. And there is nothing "legal" about invasion of privacy - especially given minors were involved. Even with a school laptop. The people and district that did this are in a big amount of trouble.
Quote from: Rico on February 22, 2010, 04:58:59 PM
Quote from: sheldar on February 22, 2010, 04:44:09 PM
Quote from: Jen on February 22, 2010, 02:45:21 PM
Quote from: sheldar on February 22, 2010, 12:20:32 PM
Quote from: Jen on February 22, 2010, 11:20:06 AM
How irresponsible of the school. They couldn't see this lawsuit coming??? Morons.
BTW, I've heard of people locating stolen Macbooks by turning on their computers remotely through their Apple web accounts. The owner of one such Macbook was able take a photo of the jerk who stole their computer and the police used it to track the culprit down. For every upside though, there seems to be a down side...which really stinks.
I remember that story. Very funny and cool. I wonder why this is ok but not the incident with the school?
I think the difference is intent. In one case an individual is nabbing a criminal...in another a school is violating the rights of its students by "watching them" without their knowledge. If they had been warned of this it would be a different matter I think.
See, I thought they turned the cameras on for only the stolen laptops. That may be completely legal given the precedent of the story you mentioned.
There were no stolen laptops that I have read of. And there is nothing "legal" about invasion of privacy - especially given minors were involved. Even with a school laptop. The people and district that did this are in a big amount of trouble.
I don't think it will go to court and if it does, I'm betting the parents signed something that will bite the parents in the ass for not reading.
We'll see. I really doubt that anything signed said, "We can spy on your kids at anytime. Even when they are not at school and half naked in their rooms at home."
Here's that referenced story...
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/mac-thief-caught-on-webcam/2008/05/12/1210444306538.html (http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/mac-thief-caught-on-webcam/2008/05/12/1210444306538.html)
I don't know. It sounds like the school used the webcams on all laptops - in which case they are in big trouble. If they can show they did this for only the missing/stolen laptops I find it hard to believe it would matter if the thieves were minors.
Quote from: Rico on February 22, 2010, 05:37:33 PM
We'll see. I really doubt that anything signed said, "We can spy on your kids at anytime. Even when they are not at school and half naked in their rooms at home."
All they had to do was sign something that says the school has monitoring devices in the computer and will use them at their discretion.
Ummmm..I think you mean "discretion" :)
Quote from: Just X on February 22, 2010, 06:12:04 PM
Quote from: Rico on February 22, 2010, 05:37:33 PM
We'll see. I really doubt that anything signed said, "We can spy on your kids at anytime. Even when they are not at school and half naked in their rooms at home."
All they had to do was sign something that says the school has monitoring devices in the computer and will use them at their discretion.
Well, they were not made of aware of the webcam software and use. Here is a quote from one of the articles on this:
The school district has admitted that parents had not been informed of the software's installation or operation. "This notice should have been given and we regret that was not done." said Dr. Christopher W. McGinley, superintendent of schools for the Lower Merion School District.The FBI is also now investigating since wire-tapping like this breaks several Federal laws. I'm telling you, the district is in deep poo-doo.
Even if that had signed something, that LARGE majority of things parents/schools/business/etc sign would hold no water in court at all. They're not legally binding at all. But the issuing body wants the signee to think that they are, so they won't press the issue. That how they unnamed "they" can get away with as much as they do - no one questions it.
I'll bet you that any other school districts out there that are giving laptops to students are scrambling.
Thus the reason I'm glad for my own computer. But, ductape works just as well :P
This is wrong on a lot of levels. Sure makes me wary of buying computers from such a local source again. Still, that's why my camera has a cover over it. In case someone tried to hack and take a picture. Going to be one black picture they are going to get back.
As per encrypted Wifi, tbh, its really not that well protected. Its mostly to keep the average consumer out. Hackers probably could easily hack it, and even myself have been able to access protected wifi networks before. There are tricks to it. Even non-unlawful.
King
Video of this story....
http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/school-allegedly-spied-via-web-cams-19196035 (http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/school-allegedly-spied-via-web-cams-19196035)
The high school my youngest son is currently attending has recently announced that they will be issuing laptops to their students next year. In the announcement they did confirm that the laptops will be equipped with cameras. This particular story was the first thing I thought of. I'll be watching to see what happens over the next couple of years.
What continues to impress and shock me more than the story itself is that there are school districts out there that can afford to buy and pass out laptops to students. Most school districts are really suffering these days for $$$. Laying off teachers and closing schools. Not sure what the taxes are like in these areas that give out laptops to use.
Frankly Rico, since our school board recently announced some upcoming big budget cuts, I wonder where the money is coming from as well. I haven't had a chance to do any real research on the story. Ted Waitt, one the co-founders of Gateway computers is from this area. Waitt continues to be philanthropically active locally, so it wouldn't surprise me if they were a donation on his part. Purely speculation on my part though.
Quote from: ChadH on April 18, 2010, 03:57:03 PM
Frankly Rico, since our school board recently announced some upcoming big budget cuts, I wonder where the money is coming from as well. I haven't had a chance to do any real research on the story. Ted Waitt, one the co-founders of Gateway computers is from this area. Waitt continues to be philanthropically active locally, so it wouldn't surprise me if they were a donation on his part. Purely speculation on my part though.
That would be one way to explain it - if the laptops were donated specifically on their own. Still, it seems a bit of a shame when so many are struggling to keep their jobs in schools to see this happening.
Quote from: Rico on April 18, 2010, 03:06:17 PM
What continues to impress and shock me more than the story itself is that there are school districts out there that can afford to buy and pass out laptops to students. Most school districts are really suffering these days for $$$. Laying off teachers and closing schools. Not sure what the taxes are like in these areas that give out laptops to use.
*Warning, bitter short post ahead*
Post removed by Tim because frankly it added nothing but bitterness.
King
Regarding the cost of the laptops, basic school-grade laptops are only a few hundred dollars (think $300 "netbook"). Compare that to purchasing multiple copies of required texts for three-six years (assume $400 'puter over four years = $100/year... not bad at all). Plus, the laptop provides the advantage of up-to-date materials. Some of the texts these kids have to use are woefully out of date. This technology also allows for the savings of printing and paper as assignments and other "handouts" can be shared online. Plus, no more hassle for the kids who don't have computers at home and therefore have more hurdles in getting their work done, getting the learning/grades they are capable of, and potentially enjoying learning.
In our high school, there's a kid enrolled in the regular curriculum via skype and other technology because he cannot physically attend classes and sit in desks... some kind of degenerative back problem, I think. He "attends" class through his computer, and his teacher can see if he's understanding the material because he can see the expression on the kids' face (I've heard from math teachers that this is the primary way to really know if someone's "getting it").
Ok, I'm done :)
~katekitty
This all took place in an area of the western Philadelphia suburbs that is very affluent. It is usually rated as the top school district in Pennsylvania (Lower Merion). The school taxes are very high in that school district, giving them the money for these sort of projects. Just a few miles away in the Philadelphia school district, things are quite a bit different.
Not fair, but there it is.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20100817_U_S__ends_webcam_probe__no_charges.html (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20100817_U_S__ends_webcam_probe__no_charges.html)U.S. ends webcam probe; no charges
By John P. Martin
INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
Federal prosecutors on Tuesday closed their investigation into Lower Merion School District's secret use of software to track student laptops, saying they found no evidence that anyone intentionally committed a crime.
The decision, announced by U.S. Attorney Zane Memeger, ended a six-month probe by the FBI into allegations that district employees might have spied on students through webcams on their school-issued laptops.
In a brief statement released by his office, Memeger didn't disclose details of the investigation, but said agents and prosecutors concluded that charges were unwarranted.
"For the government to prosecute a criminal case, it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charged acted with criminal intent," his statement said. "We have not found evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone involved had criminal intent."
The announcement represented an unusual step for federal investigators. The FBI and U.S. Attorneys' offices rarely acknowledge when they begin or end a criminal inquiry.
Memeger's predecessor, Michael Levy, disclosed the probe in February because of the community interest and visibility in the allegations, he said at the time. Memeger's announcement on Tuesday was intended "to close at least one part of this matter" before the new school year opens, he said.
His decision came a day after the Lower Merion School Board adopted new policies governing how, when and why staff will track the take-home laptops Lower Merion issues to every high school student.
Henry E. Hockeimer Jr., a lawyer for the school district, welcomed the news.
"The district is certainly gratified that after a hard look into this matter, the FBI and United States Attorney have concluded that no criminal conduct occurred," Hockeimer said.
He noted that it was consistent with the findings of internal investigation that he supervised earlier this year.
The FBI probe included interviews with the two school district information technology employees who were suspended with pay when the laptop tracking program came to light in February. Both had the authority to activate the laptop tracking software and access webcam photos, though have denied any wrongdoing.
The district has maintained that technicians used the software only to find lost or missing laptops, but acknowledged that staffers often forgot to turn off the tracking system after they turned it on.
Hockeimer declined to say whether either suspended employee will return to work this fall, saying it was a personnel matter.
Meanwhile, two civil lawsuits over the laptop monitoring program remain unresolved. Both were filed by students who claim the district invaded their privacy by secretly snapping hundreds of webcam photos, including shots of them inside their homes.
The students' attorney, Mark S. Haltzman, said the prosecutors' decision bolstered the need for new laws. He noted legislation proposed by U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter (D., Pa.) that would expand wiretap laws to cover technology such as laptop webcams.
"The inability of the federal government to prosecute those persons involved in the spying on the LMSD students and their families through school issued laptops underscores the importance of Sen. Specter's efforts to amend the criminal statutes to close the loop holes in our current laws," Haltzman said.
Lame! So as long as you don't "intentionally commit a crime" it's still ok??
Quote from: Rico on August 17, 2010, 02:12:44 PM
Lame! So as long as you don't "intentionally commit a crime" it's still ok??
For this particular charge, it makes sense. We do a lot of things without criminal intent and still get prosecuted for it. We are fortunate when we don't. Take for instance your hosting of videos. I'm 100% sure they could sue for copyright infringement. You mean nothing illegal, but I'm pretty sure that if they did file charges, you would be very pleased if they passed down a similar ruling. They made a very bad mistake. It wasn't a criminal mistake, but I'm sure that they will still have to deal with civil charges. It's one thing to pay fines an another to go to jail over it.
I don't really agree. But then again I don't know all the facts. For me even the idea of having software to activate webcams on laptops being used by under age kids is such a crazy idea to begin with that someone really needs to step down for all this. I don't really care if they were "only intended" to locate lost laptops. You don't need a webcam for that. There are other ways. Anyway, the only real benefit is I think schools might think twice over trying this type of thing again. And that's a very good thing.
I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be consequences. I'm pretty sure that there will be many from the civil cases. I just don't think that someone should go to jail over this.
It's amazing to me how though we don't expect to much from our schools; IMO to provide lessons, good nutrition, and some exercise, it's amazing all the deviations and messes they get into. And do the above mentioned things poorly in too many cases.
Keep in mind, public schools curriculum and guidelines come from above - typically the district and the state. So, if you don't care for what they are doing write to those people. These days, teachers are hobbled by bureaucracy more than ever before.
The problem in my eyes is now the punishment is shifted to the students, families, and taxpayers that would be impacted by the huge monetary settlement that is sure to come from a civil trial, while the policy makers who supported or mandated the spying and the voyeurs who did the actual spying get a pass.
Quote from: Jobydrone4of20 on August 18, 2010, 06:16:17 AM
The problem in my eyes is now the punishment is shifted to the students, families, and taxpayers that would be impacted by the huge monetary settlement that is sure to come from a civil trial, while the policy makers who supported or mandated the spying and the voyeurs who did the actual spying get a pass.
I think you should read the story closer. This wasn't supported or mandated. It was human error using tracking software with no clear understanding on when to use that software.
Again, the big error was putting that software on the laptops in the first place. And that was something that was known about and supported. It's like showing a kid where the cookie jar is and then walking away. What do you think will happen? Better to not have the cookies available to start. Then there is no room for 'error.'
In a related story I found earlier (sorry don't have the link handy), a man stole a laptop out of a car. Shortly after that the police tracked him due to a "lojack" type of software on the PC when he began to use the machine. They found where he was and arrested him and got the laptop back. No need to turn on any webcam. Much easier than trying to identify a face from a webcam pic. That's the way to do things.
Quote from: Rico on August 18, 2010, 12:51:04 PM
Again, the big error was putting that software on the laptops in the first place. And that was something that was known about and supported. It's like showing a kid where the cookie jar is and then walking away. What do you think will happen? Better to not have the cookies available to start. Then there is no room for 'error.'
In a related story I found earlier (sorry don't have the link handy), a man stole a laptop out of a car. Shortly after that the police tracked him due to a "lojack" type of software on the PC when he began to use the machine. They found where he was and arrested him and got the laptop back. No need to turn on any webcam. Much easier than trying to identify a face from a webcam pic. That's the way to do things.
Rico, they didn't install the software. It comes preloaded with it. Remember the news story a few years ago where someone got their mac stolen? They caught the thief because the software snapped an image of his when he opened it. There software also traces computer locations while taking pictures of the thief. Hidden is one of them.
The pic taking is a proven technology. My problem is that there shouldn't be a problem. Sure they could catch a child in some very wrong state of dress, but people can hack your web cams now and do that anyway. Instead of decrying how it could be bad, why not use a common sense solution and teach your kids not to get dressed and or be naked in the front of any camera?
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/05/11/woman-logs-into-stol.html (http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/05/11/woman-logs-into-stol.html)
http://www.switched.com/2007/09/27/stolen-laptop-self-uploads-photo-of-suspect-to-web/ (http://www.switched.com/2007/09/27/stolen-laptop-self-uploads-photo-of-suspect-to-web/)
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/stolen-laptop-pics-not-a-hoax-after-all-251009.php (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/stolen-laptop-pics-not-a-hoax-after-all-251009.php)
We will have to agree to disagree. Preinstalled doesn't matter. That's why schools have IT people. Sorry, it's wrong to me, plain and simple.
So..maybe I'm just not getting the big picture here at all, but why enable the webcams at all? I mean, isn't LoJac a pretty decent way of finding lost or stolen laptops? I'm not so sure that I buy in to the whole we're protecting our property crap on this. There is really NO excuse in my opinion for "spying" in kids like this. If I ever found out that my daughter had something like THIS happen, I'd keep hammering until something was done about it. In this society that we are all blessed to live in, we enjoy some terrific technological gifts, like the ability to turn on your webcam and "visit" with loved ones thousands of miles away. But, as with anything, when you have something good, there will ALWAYS be those who will perfect a way to pervert it. I think creating a software that covertly enables a webcam, there is really no other way to interpret the intent, other than observing someone without express consent. Period. I think the school district was misguided in this endeavor and they dodged a very powerful bullet. They should not have gotten away with this. Al
Quote from: QuadShot on August 18, 2010, 09:09:29 PM
So..maybe I'm just not getting the big picture here at all, but why enable the webcams at all? I mean, isn't LoJac a pretty decent way of finding lost or stolen laptops? I'm not so sure that I buy in to the whole we're protecting our property crap on this. There is really NO excuse in my opinion for "spying" in kids like this. If I ever found out that my daughter had something like THIS happen, I'd keep hammering until something was done about it. In this society that we are all blessed to live in, we enjoy some terrific technological gifts, like the ability to turn on your webcam and "visit" with loved ones thousands of miles away. But, as with anything, when you have something good, there will ALWAYS be those who will perfect a way to pervert it. I think creating a software that covertly enables a webcam, there is really no other way to interpret the intent, other than observing someone without express consent. Period. I think the school district was misguided in this endeavor and they dodged a very powerful bullet. They should not have gotten away with this. Al
The intent of the software was exactly what it says on the tin. It allows the owner of a computer to activate the webcam remotely. It doesn't allow for random Joe to activate the web cam, but there are hacks where random joe can in fact activate your web cam without your permission.
99 time out of 100 this is a non-issue because only the owner can active the cam. However, this does allow schools and businesses that give out company or school PCs to activate them.
Also, they haven't gotten away with anything. There is still the civil trial that is going on. The only thing the criminal case would have done is sent people to prison. They looked over all of the evidence and I am pretty sure that if there were naked children in the evidence, it would have generated child porn charges. This is not the case. A mistake happened. The people that activated the software saw one of the images and thought a kid was in trouble with drugs. They then notified the parents of the discovery. This wasn't some covert porn ring that people stumbled on. This was someone, regardless of how we feel about the software, noticed something that might be harmful and notified the parents of the child.
Would it have been better if they didn't activate the software? Sure. Invasion of privacy sucks, especially when some people still assume we have some measure of privacy. Was the act of informing the parents a positive thing in the context of the software? I think so. Sure it turned out to be nothing, but so has this camspy case.
Sorry, it's an invasion of privacy - period. They had no cause to snoop around. And the idea of telling kids, "oh make sure to cover up when you're in your own bedroom because someone might be peeping in on you" is ridiculous. Kids should feel safe and secure in their own home. My own boys are savvy enough about PC's so I don't have to worry about this. My younger one would even probably set up some fake pics to be sent back and catch the school with their pants down. But most kids and parent are not this experienced and they shouldn't have to be. Anyway, again the best part of this to me is I'd be shocked if schools try something like this again. So, lesson learned - maybe.
Quote from: X on August 18, 2010, 09:27:44 PM
Quote from: QuadShot on August 18, 2010, 09:09:29 PM
So..maybe I'm just not getting the big picture here at all, but why enable the webcams at all? I mean, isn't LoJac a pretty decent way of finding lost or stolen laptops? I'm not so sure that I buy in to the whole we're protecting our property crap on this. There is really NO excuse in my opinion for "spying" in kids like this. If I ever found out that my daughter had something like THIS happen, I'd keep hammering until something was done about it. In this society that we are all blessed to live in, we enjoy some terrific technological gifts, like the ability to turn on your webcam and "visit" with loved ones thousands of miles away. But, as with anything, when you have something good, there will ALWAYS be those who will perfect a way to pervert it. I think creating a software that covertly enables a webcam, there is really no other way to interpret the intent, other than observing someone without express consent. Period. I think the school district was misguided in this endeavor and they dodged a very powerful bullet. They should not have gotten away with this. Al
The intent of the software was exactly what it says on the tin. It allows the owner of a computer to activate the webcam remotely. It doesn't allow for random Joe to activate the web cam, but there are hacks where random joe can in fact activate your web cam without your permission.
99 time out of 100 this is a non-issue because only the owner can active the cam. However, this does allow schools and businesses that give out company or school PCs to activate them.
Also, they haven't gotten away with anything. There is still the civil trial that is going on. The only thing the criminal case would have done is sent people to prison. They looked over all of the evidence and I am pretty sure that if there were naked children in the evidence, it would have generated child porn charges. This is not the case. A mistake happened. The people that activated the software saw one of the images and thought a kid was in trouble with drugs. They then notified the parents of the discovery. This wasn't some covert porn ring that people stumbled on. This was someone, regardless of how we feel about the software, noticed something that might be harmful and notified the parents of the child.
Would it have been better if they didn't activate the software? Sure. Invasion of privacy sucks, especially when some people still assume we have some measure of privacy. Was the act of informing the parents a positive thing in the context of the software? I think so. Sure it turned out to be nothing, but so has this camspy case.
Right, the intent of the software is right on the tin...well, Smith & Wesson could write something on the boxes of THEIR products like "for protection only", but that doesn't mean some bonehead isnt' going to use it to commit a crime. Nor is it a legal defense. Bottom line is that there is little to no need for any type of agency, public or private, to spy on kids. I don't buy the argument that they were protecting anything. Rico is right. it's invasion of privacy period. What's next? Implanting us all with tracking chips like our pets, "just in case"? Nonsense. I for one would be livid. It's stupid to think that we have to teach our kids to be careful what they do in front of their computers. It's bad enough that we have to continually monitor their play outside because of some sick freak who would do harm, but now it's being suggested that we have to make sure that in the sanctity of our own HOMES we have to be on alert too? Well, it came 26 years later than expected, but 1984 is HERE...bah.
Quote from: X on August 18, 2010, 11:04:20 AM
I think you should read the story closer. This wasn't supported or mandated. It was human error using tracking software with no clear understanding on when to use that software.
Oh I've been following this case very closely, for several reasons. The first reason is because the high school in the center of this case is my alma mater, that I attended for four years. So I've been very interested to follow what's been happening since the news first broke. The second reason is because Blake Robbins' father, Michael Robbins, who instigated this lawsuit, is very well known to my family for reasons that are personal and private. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that all Mr. Robbins is interested in is the huge payday that is sure to come from the settlement of the civil suit. It makes me literally sick to my stomach to think that this person will make a small or large fortune at the expense of the school, students, and taxpayers.
Frankly I don't care about the criminal charges, putting someone in jail for this seems ridiculous to me. But I think it's more appropriate to punish the people who actually committed these acts than to award some ridiculous sum of money that comes from the pockets of taxpayers.
As for your comments about "human error" being a factor, that would seem to imply you believe that the cameras were activated accidentally? I'll point you to this article that shows the discussions some employess allegedly had regarding the pictures that were downloaded:
http://www.infosecurity-us.com/view/8845/lower-merion-school-district-in-voyeur-scrape-over-webcam/ (http://www.infosecurity-us.com/view/8845/lower-merion-school-district-in-voyeur-scrape-over-webcam/)
Lower Merion School District in voyeur scrape over webcam
20 April 2010
Administrators at Pennsylvania-based Harriton High School downloaded over 400 screenshots and webcam pictures of student Blake Robbins rather than the one or two previously estimated, according to a new motion filed in the court case between Robbins' family and the lower Merion School District. They also downloaded many images of other students, the District has admitted.
The motion, part of an ongoing case alleging unauthorized webcam spying on the student by the school, accuses the IT department at the school of snapping images of various members of Robbins' family, including pictures of the boy partially undressed and sleeping. Numerous screenshots of private instant messenger communication between Blake and his friends were also harvested, according to the filing.
The motion also alleges that the IT department has poached some images, making it difficult to retrieve them for legal purposes. "Discovery to date has now revealed that thousands of webcam pictures and screenshots have been taken of numerous other students in their homes, many of which never reported their laptops lost or missing," the motion said. Incidents allegedly included a student with a similar name to another reporting a laptop missing, causing webcam pictures and screenshots to be taken off the wrong individual.
The lawsuit also documents the plaintiffs' suspicion that one Lower Merion School District employee may have been downloading pictures obtained by the LANRev monitoring technology to a home computer, based on invocation of the Fifth Amendment when asked about the subject. "Second, emails suggest that [employee] may be a voyeur," said the filing. "For instance, in one email, when one IT person commented on how the viewing of the webcam pictures and screenshots from a student's computer was like 'a little LMSD soap opera', [employee] responded 'I know, I love it!'."
The plaintiffs pressed the court to let them obtain access to the employee's computer in order to image the hard drive.
In a response filed the following day, the Lower Merion School District argued that it was not appropriate for anyone other than the investigators to dictate the timing of the investigation and the release of complete findings. "A substantial number of webcam photos have been recovered in the investigation," it said, explaining that it had proposed a process to the judge to notify the families involved and give them the opportunity to view such photographs.
"While we deeply regret the mistakes and misguided actions that have led us to this situation, at this late stage of the investigation we are not aware of any evidence that district employees used any LANRev WebCam photographs of screenshots for such inappropriate purposes," added David Ebby, president of the school district's board of school directors.
No matter how you slice it, or which angle your look at it or what position you defend, this is only the tip of a large iceberg. It's a very fine line we have to walk anymore that defines our rights to freedom and acts being done for our "protection". I do not envy those in positions of authority or "protection" since no matter what you do, you're violating someone or something. Believe me, I undestand and fully appreciate the "if we only knew what was done to protect American citizens" concept, but let's leave that up to the professionals, not our school system. I'm not defending the person who wants to profit off of this, and Joby, it seems that you know this guy better then we, but truly someone one screwed up in the first place, allowing the likes of him to full charge into the legal profiteering racket.
I can fully appreciate everyone having opposing views on this topic - it's very touchy. Like religion. Everyone has an opinion and that's great. It's also great that we can debate these things here openly. But just remember, before you (and me, and everyone) get's upset with the person we're debating with, we're all a happy (dysfunctional) family and it's OK to not always agree! :) Peace out...
Again, the thing I'm most happy about is unless some school district is living under a rock I really doubt they will be trying something like this again anytime soon. And that's a very good thing.
Unfortunately I'm certain there are many school districts living under rocks.
Quote from: billybob476 on August 19, 2010, 10:11:43 AM
Unfortunately I'm certain there are many school districts living under rocks.
Like in Arkansas...get it? Little ROCK...:P HAHAHAHAHAH
Quote from: Rico on August 19, 2010, 09:51:09 AM
Again, the thing I'm most happy about is unless some school district is living under a rock I really doubt they will be trying something like this again anytime soon. And that's a very good thing.
I totally agree with this. We might not agree on the underlying issues, but we both can agree that we hope some changes come down from this and stick. BTW My wife totally agrees with your side of the debate Rico. I'm just stubborn. I try to assume the best of people unless there is proof that they behaved wrong.
I also tend to follow the path of no harm no foul. I hate lawsuits for the sake of making money. I've backed out of several Class actions that I could have been a part of because I saw no intent to harm me. I didn't sue my ex-wife's quack of a doc who failed to notice she was having twins that we later lost. I like to think that humans make mistakes and as much as much as we want those mistakes to not affect us, we don't have that luxury.
I see the civil suits less punishment to the school, but punishments to the students who will suffer from any loss of funds.
Just the preliminary costs to the students and taxpayers of Lower Merion School District:
Lower Merion School District ordered to pay plaintiff's lawyer $260,000
By John P. Martin
Inquirer Staff Writer
A federal judge Monday ordered the Lower Merion School District to pay about $260,000 now - and potentially much more later - to the lawyer who brought the lawsuit over the district's webcam monitoring.
In a 14-page opinion, Senior U.S. District Judge Jan E. DuBois said Mark S. Haltzman deserved to be paid for work that led to a preliminary injunction against the district in May. And he said Haltzman could submit the rest of his bills when the case ended.
The injunction banned Lower Merion school employees from activating webcams on students' district-issued laptops without their consent and required new policies governing the use of technology.
A spokesman for Lower Merion said school officials were "deeply disappointed" in the decision. Haltzman called the ruling fair and appropriate.
The order seemed to end a bitter skirmish over fees in an ongoing legal saga that could cost district taxpayers several million dollars. Each side pledged Monday to continue working toward a settlement, but each also slammed the other.
Still unresolved is the underlying lawsuit Haltzman filed for Harriton High School student Blake Robbins and his parents, claiming Lower Merion staff members spied on students through the webcams. The district contends it activated the software only when laptops were lost or missing.
Haltzman had asked that Lower Merion pay him more than $435,000 in fees and expenses that he said he and his firm, Lamm Rubenstone L.L.C., incurred through July investigating Robbins' claims and initiating a proposed class-action lawsuit. In class-action cases, plaintiffs' legal fees usually become part of a settlement.
Lawyers for the school district countered in court papers that Haltzman's bills were excessive and lacked detail. In a 46-page filing Aug. 12, they scrutinized his request, questioning items such as $87,000 for a computer consultant, $4,800 to videotape depositions, and $15,000 he said he spent preparing the motion asking to be paid.
Lower Merion's lawyers also challenged his motives, arguing that most of the work was designed to win money for the Robbinses, not to protect the district's students.
The judge brushed aside nearly all of those arguments. He noted that neither side took issue with Haltzman's $425 hourly fee, and concluded that much of the other costs he had submitted were reasonable expenses to investigate the claims and seek a broad injunction.
He did, however, find that Haltzman's costs for preparing his fee motion were a bit too steep. He sliced the $15,000 down to $10,000.
The judge also said Haltzman at this point is entitled to collect only fees and expenses incurred up to the May 14 injunction, and cannot submit the rest of his bills until DuBois enters a final injunction.
The order did not include a bottom-line figure, but it instructed the sides to agree on a sum. Haltzman said that should be about $260,000.
In a statement, a spokesman for the school district said officials believed the judge "gave only fleeting consideration" to their arguments and repeated that Haltzman did not deserve to be paid.
"We believe that the Robbinses' attorney has protracted this matter, increasing costs to taxpayers," said the statement from spokesman Doug Young.
Haltzman said DuBois' order validated the "valuable service" his firm provided and repudiated the district's case against him.
"They went after us and everybody and used it as a shot to attack us," Haltzman said. "And at the end of the day, not a single one of their arguments was bought by the court."
What a mess still. :(
So, final tally at a $610,000 payout. :)
A Pennsylvania school district accused of remotely activating webcams on school-issued laptops has reached a settlement with two students who sued the district over the breach.
The Lower Merion School District will pay a total of $610,000 to settle cases filed by students Blake Robbins and Jalil Hassan. The move comes after the district's insurance carrier, Graphic Arts, agreed to cover more than $1.2 million in fees and costs associated with the litigation.
At issue are school-issued Mac laptops provided to 2,300 students at Harriton High School. Unbeknownst to those students and their parents, the laptops were equipped with tracking software that could remotely activate the computer's webcam to take photos of the user, as well as capture screen shots. It was intended as a means to locate lost or stolen laptops, but was apparently activated in more questionable circumstances as well.
The tracking software came to light when Robbins, a student at the high school, was allegedly called into the assistant principal's office and accused of taking drugs. The evidence was reportedly screen shots of Robbins from the school-issued laptop that appeared to show him taking pills. Robbins said he was actually eating candy.
His parents filed suit against the school district in February. Several months later, Hassan was informed that the software on his computer had also been activated, capturing 469 pictures from the webcam and 543 screen shots over the course of several months. Since he was 18, Hassan then filed his own lawsuit.
The $610,000 deal includes $10,000 for Hassan and a $175,000 payout that will be placed in a trust for Robbins. The district will also pay $425,000 in legal fees.
"We believe this settlement enables us to move forward in a way that is most sensitive to our students, taxpayers and the entire school district community," board president David Ebby said in a statement.
In late August, the U.S. Attorney's Office announced that it would not bring criminal charges against the district. No one involved in the case had criminal intent, U.S. Attorney Zane David Memeger said at the time.
"That was an important moment for us; it confirmed the results of an independent investigation and the District's own initial findings," Ebby said Monday.
The school district has since apologized and admitted that it should have informed students and parents about the software. An updated school policy now requires the district to get a student's permission before activating the monitoring software.
The district chose to settle because a trial would have been costly and distracting, Ebby wrote. The district also "wanted to be sensitive to the welfare of the student involved in the case," though he went on to essentially say that the lawsuits have been a major waste of taxpayer dollars.
"I want you to know that had concerns about privacy been brought to the Board without legal action, they would have been addressed effectively and immediately as well, without additional costs to taxpayers," Ebby said.
story:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2370622,00.asp (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2370622,00.asp)
Good to hear they fessed up. You do not do shady deals with privacy, not even the school districts. Not warning anyone about that "feature" was wrong and stupid. I hope they realize this for future ideas.
This is justice served. But it also means I will never trust any computer given to me from a school. I'll buy my own technology, thanks
King
Isn't it funny how the lawyer gets magnitudes more money from this than the people involved?
Quote from: X on October 12, 2010, 04:22:46 PM
Isn't it funny how the lawyer gets magnitudes more money from this than the people involved?
Yep - pretty sad about that.
Not unnusual that the lawyers get the payout :( How much education will be cut in order to pay for it?
Quote from: Feathers on October 14, 2010, 01:46:47 PM
Not unnusual that the lawyers get the payout :( How much education will be cut in order to pay for it?
If you see the article above, the school district insurance is picking up the tab.
Now that I'm reading this again, I truly wish those involved, IE: the administration were fired over this. But they won't be...
King
Quote from: Rico on October 14, 2010, 02:17:03 PM
Quote from: Feathers on October 14, 2010, 01:46:47 PM
Not unnusual that the lawyers get the payout :( How much education will be cut in order to pay for it?
If you see the article above, the school district insurance is picking up the tab.
Fees and costs, yes. It wasn't clear that they were covering everything though.
Quote from: Feathers on October 14, 2010, 11:37:21 PM
Quote from: Rico on October 14, 2010, 02:17:03 PM
Quote from: Feathers on October 14, 2010, 01:46:47 PM
Not unnusual that the lawyers get the payout :( How much education will be cut in order to pay for it?
If you see the article above, the school district insurance is picking up the tab.
Fees and costs, yes. It wasn't clear that they were covering everything though.
I think it was pretty clear. The insurance is paying out $1.2 million. Covering both sides legal fees and the fines. Only half of it is needed to go to those that brought the case against the district. The rest must be to pay their own sides legal fees. School districts have to have pretty hefty insurance policies. For example, any kid hurt during school, bus accidents, etc. can turn into huge payouts. And of course silly people giving out laptops and snapping pics of kids in their homes can cost them too! ;)
Just when you thought it was safe to turn on a laptop again. God this family makes me sick to my stomach. I can't stand that they continue to clog up the courts and abuse the legal system to benefit nothing more than their pocketbooks and their lawyers bank accounts. What an absolute disgrace.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20111209_Sister_of_Lower_Merion_webcam_plaintiff_files_her_own_suit.html?viewAllLatest=y&#comments (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20111209_Sister_of_Lower_Merion_webcam_plaintiff_files_her_own_suit.html?viewAllLatest=y&#comments)
Sister of Lower Merion webcam plaintiff files her own suit
By Bonnie L. Cook
The sister of the student who brought the first webcam lawsuit against the Lower Merion School District two years ago has filed her own federal lawsuit, which administrators have slammed as "an attempted money-grab and a complete waste of tax dollars."
Paige Robbins, 19, of Penn Valley, alleges the district invaded her privacy when it remotely snapped pictures via a laptop in her home while she was undressed.
She is the sister of Blake Robbins, 17, who as a sophomore at Harriton High School sued the Lower Merion district for invasion of privacy and agreed to a $175,000 settlement.
A photo taken by his laptop webcam showed him asleep in bed.
Like her brother, "Paige Robbins was an innocent victim whose privacy rights were violated by the school," said her attorney, Mary Elizabeth Bogan.
Paige Robbins was issued a laptop during her junior and senior years at Harriton High School. She graduated in 2010.
The suit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court, charges that the webcam spied on her while she "was in the bathroom, or in the nude, or partially dressed or sleeping or in her bedroom in a compromised state."
The source of the allegation was a deposition given by Lynn Matsko, Harriton's assistant vice principal, on April 7, 2010, which the suit said included the following:
Q: "Was she - Paige Robbin [sic] naked in the pictures that you looked; Do you remember? Her top was off, right? In the picture that you looked at?"
A: "There was a picture of probably Paige Robbins'. I can't imagine any IT person umm, I mean, it . . ."
Bogan said Thursday that Paige Robbins delayed filing the suit for two years "due to the sensitivity of the subject matter of what had occurred."
The school district, through spokesman Doug Young, issued a blistering response, questioning both motive and content.
"The complaint is deceptive and misleading, relying on excerpts from a deposition transcript that have been edited to omit key words," Young said.
Young said a federal investigation determined that "no one ever saw a compromising image of Ms. Robbins or anyone else."
Further, he said, Bogan misstated what Matsko said in her deposition. According to Young, Matsko actually said she saw a picture of Paige's face; that final word was dropped in the complaint's iteration of Matsko's testimony.
"There's no indication whether this was a webcam image or some other image," Young said, and he questioned Robbins' motives in filing the legal action two years after the fact.
"It appears Ms. Robbins simply waited to turn 18 so she could attempt to obtain a payout of her own from [Lower Merion] taxpayers."
Told of those comments, Bogan replied: "Who did the wrongdoing here? The school district is attempting to shift the focus to . . . a 19-year-old woman standing up for her constitutional rights, when the school district has a track record of wrongdoing."
Bogan declined to say what the photos depicted or whether her client had seen them.
The lawsuit asks for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and $1,000 per day for every day on which the state's electronic wiretapping laws were violated.
When Blake Robbins filed his lawsuit in 2009, he was represented by attorney Mark Haltzman. As part of the settlement with the school district, Haltzman earned $425,000. It wasn't known why the Robbins family switched attorneys; a call to the family home Thursday was not returned.
Court scrutiny led the district to acknowledge flaws in the system it used for two years to track missing computers. The webcam function has been deactivated by court order.
The case catapulted the Robbins family and the district into a national spotlight, stirring debate on the use of technology in schools.
Wow! My brother pays taxes in that school district, he will no doubt be delighted.....