• Welcome to TREKS IN SCI-FI FORUM.
 

News:

The next podcast will be on Feb. 19th and will be a guest cast by Mark.

Main Menu

School district spying on kids at home

Started by Rico, February 22, 2010, 10:06:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rico

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.

X

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.

alanp

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. 

Rico

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.

Jobydrone

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'm not crazy about reality, but it's still the only place to get a decent meal."  -Groucho Marx

X

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.

Rico

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.

X

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://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

Rico

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.

QuadShot

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

X

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.

Rico

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.

QuadShot

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.

Jobydrone

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/

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.


"I'm not crazy about reality, but it's still the only place to get a decent meal."  -Groucho Marx

QuadShot

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...