School plays Peeping Tom? FBI demands answers
February 23, 2010 by Jake SimmsPosted in: Latest News & Views, Security
You can’t blame schools for trying to protect their property. But spying on students via laptop Webcams might be taking things too far!
Parents in Lower Merion Township, PA, just sued the school district for violating their privacy. Reason: A high school vice principal disciplined a 15-year-old student for “improper behavior” in his home. And the vice principal showed the student “proof” – images of him taken by the Webcam on his laptop.
The school district bought Macintosh laptops through state grants, then let students use them at home. The schools wanted their property protected from theft or criminal use, so they installed software for activating the Webcams remotely.
That’s how the vice principal found out the 15-year-old wasn’t doing book report research on his laptop!
Now Lower Merion has bigger problems than just the class-action suit. The FBI is investigating whether the school district violated federal wiretapping or computer intrustion laws.
Here’s what the editors of this blog think:
Scott’s take: Some media critics are painting the school district as “Big Brother.”
Truth is, Lower Merion Township is the highest-ranked school district in southeastern Pennsylvania. Educators there expect students to act like young men and women, and treat school property with respect.
Don’t count on those facts swaying the judges who consider these parents’ class-action suit though.
Carol’s take: This gaffe shows that students aren’t the only ones who are getting tripped up by technology! Just because technology lets schools monitor students at home doesn’t mean that it’s OK to do so. Schools have an obligation to respect students’ privacy.
What’s your take? Sound off below.
Tags: laptops, Lower Merion, privacy, spying
Loading ...
February 26th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Thats just a gateway for a cyber peeping tom.
February 26th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
School Spying On Students via Computers…This Is Surprising In 2010?
Is this an isolated incident, or just one school that got caught?
Does it really matter?
Not if you understand and practice 2.1C!
Any 2.1Certified citizen will tell you that this story seems pretty vanilla and is not too shocking except for the fact that, in this case, the school was the C.E.L
If this video clip makes you feel uncomfortable or surprised, you may want to think about upgrading your sense of responsibility, safety and awareness into the 21st century (2.1C) ASAP before you find yourself surprised again, but at your own expense and consequence.
This video illustrates that even a school can play the role of a C.E.L.
What it does NOT illustrate is the myriad of issues that could arise from just one second of this school’s lack of 21st Century digital responsibility, safety and awareness or “2.1C”.
If you are not 2.1Certified, you probably have no idea how severe, or what kinds of issues (referred to above) could materialize.
If anyone outside the school obtains the media / data being recorded through theft, malware, and so on, how does the school defend itself as the “provider” of exploitable content to a C.E.L that will essentially destroy the reputations and futures of anyone the school was watching or recorded (for “safety reasons”)?
Just another example of an institution and group of individuals who are living, working and playing in a 21st century world, with 20th century sensibility. And just another example of why technology will catch a negative wrap (by some) for the organization’s lack of 2.1C.
It does NOT take a genius to know that what this school did is tame compared to what really happens in the digital world if you are being IRRESPONSIBLE with your technology.
February 26th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
I think their story is bull.
If you want to recover computer from theft you use theft recovery software like lojack for laptops
not a web cam fro remote surveillance.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
The question is a matter of property ownership and distinguishing between a right and a privilege. The district owns the computers. Students’ use of them is a privilege. Parents, however, should be made of aware of the possible use of the camera…not necessarily the students (if under 18.) No privacy issues violated here.
Otherwise, the school should restrict the computers’ uses to school gounds. If the parents complain that the student’s should be able to use the school-provided laptops off school grounds, first they would have to justify their use of the word “should.”
There is a strong ill-informed sense of entitlement when it comes to a school district’s ability to provide certain perks like this:
Parent: Thank you for letting my child use a district owned laptop off campus.”
School: “Your welcome. Please know we can monitor a students use of our computer and his or her activities while on the computer.”
Parent: “Ummm, that’s a violation of privacy rights.”
School: “Are you suggesting your son has a Constituional right to take our computer home and use our property in any shape, way, or form…and not be accountable to the school…who owns the machine?”
Parent: “What?”
School: “If you disagree, you can always turn the computer back in to the school.”
Parent: “That’s not fair!”
School: “Um, but we own the laptop. We are permitting its use off campus as a privilege. In accordance with that privilege, comes the responsibility of using it for school purposes.”
Parent / Student: “Well….we want the privilege, and also want to be free from any responsibility for how it is used.”
Unfortunately, this false (and arrogant) sense of entitlement is not limited to only the students…they learn it from those who model it for them.
Secondly, if the parents or students are offended or think it is a violation of privacy that the school can use the cameras on its own computers, the parents and students can always turn the computers back in to the owner. This is yet another example of a school providing a nice service through the provision of laptops, then those who get the privilege think they can exploit the privilege and be free from responsible use of someone else’s property. this mindset is flooding our culture – freedom from accountability. Tell the kid he should have behaved. Problem is he and his parents probably (my opinion) do not regret misuse of the laptop, but just that he got caught.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
That district is screwed.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
@David
Well said. I agree completely.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Well stated, David!! Laughably, sadly, true!! the only problem I have with the school district using the webcam is possible “spying” of students in various stages of undress. It is for that reason, and that reason ONLY, that I think the students should have been made aware of the webcams.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
If it’s the school’s property, they have every right. If the kid wants to @#%$%$ at home…then do it on HIS laptop.
It’s like someone taking YOUR computer from your home and not expecting you to be upset if that person decides to look at porno on YOUR computer.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
I can sell you an aftermarket privacy security device that will solve the problem in the future… a folded piece of paper that blocks the camera when you need privacy (and you could plug a dub-plug into the microphone jack if you want to soundproof it, too.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
My children’s district also has a similar policy. The one problem I see with it is that when the school issues the computers, they give way too much information and legalease for most people. This is one of the things that I think should be in bold, and stressed so that parents are diefinitely made aware.
If a child has left the laptop open, everything in that room and private discussions can be seen and heard.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Easy for parents/students to counter the “spying” when using the computer at home. Put a piece of dark tape over the camera lens.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
I’m afraid I think this is disgusting behaviour by the school, especially if students/parents not made aware.
This would be a serious breach of privacy in the UK I’m sure. Monitoring a students use of software is one
thing but spying with a camera and microphone is ill-advised at best, and must surely be tantamount to criminal behaviour at worst.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
@Jan
Good observation on how invasive the vice principal’s action was. It will be interesting to find out if the school official had reason to suspect a violation of the school’s computer policy or if that person was doing a little pre-emptive voyeurism in the name of protecting school property.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
David, I have to agree with you on principle.
However, in practice, the school should be a lot more careful when it comes to this sort of thing. They really should make parents and youth fully and painfully aware of the policies when using the laptops.
I also have to agree with Mrs, by having the image capturing software, they are basically giving themselves access to the private lives of students, including the possibility of the students getting undressed in front of the camera. This is dangerous ground for the school to be walking on. Personally, I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes right now.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
There is a thing in this country called the U.S. Constitution it should be REQUIRED reading for POLITICAL LEADERS and school district administrators. The Fourth AMENDMENT should be memorized by them.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
David,
You forget that the students were not allowed to use anything other than the school supplied laptops. If a student brought in any non-school provided laptop, he would be expelled. And this laptop was required for all classes.
Also the students could be expelled if they covered up the webcam or even used a ‘jailbreak’ or other method to monitor their own webcams to see who was watching them.
Finally, when students to complained that the webcam lights were blinking when they were at home, the principal LIED to them, claiming it was a computer glitch. So even as a school official was bragging about this ability to spy on students to outside security specialists, the school was denying the truth to the students.
The Stryd Hax blog has some of the most up-to-date info about this scary situation: http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2010/02/spy-at-harrington-high.html
February 26th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
No organization, whether its a business or school, can or should reasonably expect that any of their property loaned to individuals will only be used for “approved” purposes. They have every right to express their wishes in the matter, but their options for enforcement become severely limited once the property is no longer in their possession. There are several sticky areas in this case. First there’s the question of whether or not the students/parents were informed that surveillance might be a possibility. Second, the student was in the privacy of their family home during non-school hours. What gives school authorities the right to decide whether their student’s off-campus/off school time behaviors are “appropriate?” The actual behavior in question hasn’t been described to my knowledge, and even if it were the third party had no business acting as judge and jury.
I don’t even want to think about the dilemma of switching on that camera and seeing someone being beaten, an animal tortured or killed, or a child being the victim of a sex crime. The good that would come from reporting/documenting such acts for law enforcement intervention would quickly be overcome by the Orwellian implications and legal challenges. Then again, should we all simply assume that Big Brother will be watching us everywhere we go and temper our behaviors accordingly? Oh, wait…he’s already watching us everywhere we go in public these days.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Having read the filing, the school district is screwed. And it is entirely their own doing.
Because of the financial relationship between the school district and the state (laptops acquired through grants), there is the possibility that (depending on how the grant application was worded, along with the grant approval documents): The state could also be held responsible, and/or the state could file on the school district.
On a personal level, the school’s business stops at the front door of a person’s residence. Students (or their guardians) don’t get to set up webcams in the home of school district officials…
February 26th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
David, that’s the best summary I’ve heard yet. I agree totally.
I had a novel thought this morning: parents are trending toward wanting schools to raise their kids anyway so why should should anyone be upset that they were watching what they were doing in their rooms and repremanding them for it ? (tongue in cheek)
February 26th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Privacy rights in a digital age haven’t even been clearly defined. Since every computer is “reaching out” into a public space to connect to the internet even things done in the confines of a home could be construed as public acts. Once a person connects or transmits it is no longer a private act, just as if someone was shouting profanities over the radio. Yes you may be in your basement, but your actions affect the larger world outside your home.
If the students were notified that this type of monitoring could occur on school-owned property then they may have an out. But if the students were not aware of the potential exposure (pardon the pun) of their actions then I don’t think the district has a leg to stand on. They will be lucky to avoid criminal prosecution if any explicit images were taken. It is foolish for the district to send something home with a student that they don’t expect a good number to come back damaged or not at all.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
I am saddened and somewhat surprised by many of the posts here, especially David’s post and those who say they agree with him. First, in this case, the school DID NOT tell parents or students that the webcam may be turned on and viewed remotely. The option to refuse the laptop for that reason, therefore, was not given. Second, even if the school were to (attempt) to institute this as a policy, how does turning on the camera to view anything going on in the privacy of somebody’s own home have ANYTHING to do with acceptable use policy of school equipment? The two are COMPLETELY unrelated. Of course the school is allowed to view the website a student visits using school equipment. Of course the school is allowed to view documents, even once they’ve been deleted that were created using school equipment. Of course the school has a reasonable right to locate stolen pieces of school equipment — that’s what law enforcement is for — you know, the police department. But to turn on a video camera in somebody’s home? Are you insane? That is absolutely, unequivocally, unquestionably wrong. It is unethical. It is a major violation to even the most liberal concept of privacy.
Is masturbation illegal? Is it unethical? Is it immoral? I don’t think so. But your school assistant principal might think so.
Would every staff member in the IT department of a school be interested in watching young girls undress? No. But some very well may be.
Would some savvy students who know more about computers than any staff member at a high school be able to figure out how to access these cameras? Almost certainly.
Shocking. Just mind bogglingly shocking.
Besides, if turning on a camera remotely is the best idea that the school can come up with to find stolen or missing laptops, then anybody involved in that decision should be fired purely for incompetence. There are FAR more simple and LEGAL ways of doing that.
Please reconsider your positions…
February 26th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
MG Nagy,
I agree with you. We should be able to put cameras in their houses, they are working on our dime.
Read the link that Humbug posted, he is totally right.
http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2010/02/spy-at-harrington-high.html
February 26th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Words cannot express how disgusted I feel at the thought of the school activating web cameras without the knowledge of BOTH student and parent. What if a student leaves the laptop on while changing clothes, having no idea someone is watching?
I have a hard time believing no one thought of that possibility before the policy was implemented.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Phil C,
You said, “No organization, whether its a business or school, can or should reasonably expect that any of their property loaned to individuals will only be used for “approved” purposes.”
If your statement is true, Phil, and no organization (and “no” is a big word in this case) can have reasonable expectations for things they own loaned for a specific purpose (and hold a position of authority over said individuals), then we are in much more trouble as a culture than I previously thought. You are suggesting that in the professional setting, regarding mismanagement/misuse of company property – when not on company real estate – no one should think people can behave with somebody else’s stuff. If you provide me with a company car, and I take it to the other end of town and sell crack out of the trunk or use it on weekends to transport female escorts to their clients addresses, are you telling me that you would be out-of-line to expect me to use it more appropriately? I find this thinking not only disturbing, but wholly false. It is absolutely reasonable. It is also absolutely necessary that those who misuse be held accountable for that misuse.
humbug,
If what you have asserted is accurate, then most certainly the school is in trouble for the witholding of certain information. However, that does not detract from the fact that they own the computers and can dictate the parameters of their use. If the parents did not know about the cameras, that is quite another issue. But apparently they did, if the school had a policy against blocking the camera eye’s with tape. The criteria you stated for expulsion, i.e. taping camera, not being able to use another computer for an assignment, requiring the use of this particular laptop to pass…well, now that;s genuinely setting the student up for trouble, isn’t it. Perhaps you know much more about the specifics than I. Does being the “highest ranking school in its area” mean this is the first time some parents are having a problem with school policies? Have there been other decisions that stirred the waters for this school? Was the camera monitoring a board decision, or was this put in place only under the auspices of a few district techs and a principle?
February 26th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
What was the behavior that was punished? That is very important missing information. Did it have something to do with misusing the computer? If it didn’t, then why was the student punished by the school for something done in his own home? Not enough information here to make an informed opinion.
Spying with a webcam is certainly very questionable behavior in any case.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
David, what utter nonsense. “We won’t give you a computer unless you allow us to spy on you”? Let’s not forget that the computers do not come from the school system, but from the taxpayers. And also, let’s not give away all our rights to privacy–even in the digital age.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
I fully agree with David’s comment, posted February 26th, 2010 at 4:00 pm.
For me, it is a matter of disclosure. The laptops are the property of the school so, as long as the terms of use are disclosed to the users, they can do with them what they want. In this case, however, it sounds like the district did not disclose their “theft recovery” policy and it will probably serve to bite them in the rear.
This program is otherwise beneficial for all involved and could be used elsewhere to allow students equal access to technology, but, sadly enough, I suspect this situation will cloud the issue for similar programs to follow.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
It sounds like the school certainly took some inappropriate measures…but the property owners can, and should, set expectations for use.
Jake,
I am afraid you are looking at the situation through a cardboard tube. Most of your claptrap is a bit naive. You are asking some to reconsider their position. Is that something you are willing to do, too?
(Or are you just asking those with whom you disagree with to change?)
February 26th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“spying on students via laptop Webcams might be taking things too far” You have to be kidding right?? “might”?? Everyone who has ever heard of a teacher, coach or administrator planting a camera in the school locker room to tape naked students (or similar), please raise your hand. Yes, a lot of you.
This is a hideously obvious violation of the students’ privacy. Like it or not, in most states, it would be legal for high-school age students to have sex with one another. Imagine some perv at school who can access a webcam to watch; or just watching them naked, etc. With this sort of temptation, it is inevitable that somewhere, someone will do just that.
This is a slam-dunk folks. No way, no how can this be allowed to happen. Keystroke logging? Sure, no problem. Peeping whenever you feel like it? No.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Hi Jack,
You said: >>”David, what utter nonsense. “We won’t give you a computer unless you allow us to spy on you”? ”
Is it still spying if you know you are being monitored? (I doesn’t seem like, in this case, they did…I am just wanting you to clarify. If you are asking the question, then you’re divugling your intentions.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
When that student was caught was the ‘educator’ who was watching her hoping that she/he would undress in front of him? This software should never be on a computer that anyone under the age of 18 is given. Especially, if the student/family doesn’t know it is there! Most especially if some Unkle Pervie educator might have a new way to spend his evenings, surfing for nasty things his students are doing, which only sometimes would actually involve schoolwork.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
I see other problems. Lets say one of the girls uses the Mac in her bedroom, leaving it on while she gets dressed, goes for a shower, gets changed…
What’s to stop the ‘school webcam monitor’ watching these events avidly?
Martin
February 26th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Sorry David, but you haven’t a leg to stand on here. If you want to make an argument for acceptable use policies, you’ve chosen the wrong case. Not only should these administrators be fired, but they should be indicted. And, it looks like the FBI might actually be of that same mindset.
This has absolutely nothing to do with a sense of self-entitlement, regardless how deep you want to dig for it. This is about an egregious misuse of technology, and if you don’t find it particularly alarming, then it’s safe to say that we will not be coming to an agreement.
Would you feel ok if the school said this: We’re going to allow you to take these textbooks home, but since we’ve found that some students steal them, we require that we mount a video camera in their bedroom so we can track down our missing property. You have every right to decline if you don’t like the policy, but your child will only be allowed to use textbooks while on campus.
Sounds pretty wacky, no?
February 26th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
There are really two separate and very different issues here. One is the use of school property – certainly the school district has a responsibility to its constituents and to the providers of the funds used to purchase the computers to make sure that the property is protected and is being used for valid educational purposes. I’m assuming that the district made clear to students that the computers were provided for educational use only. With that said, logging software could keep track of documents created, web sites accessed, and so on.
However, the camera raises an entirely different issue, because it captures behavior that has nothing to do with the educational (or other) use of school property. A student’s state of dress (or undress) while working on a paper is not, I believe, relevant. The actions of the student’s family members in their own home, where they have a clear expectation of privacy, are not relevant. The actions of the student while he or she is not using the computer are not relevant. Yet all of these behaviors will be captured, even if they are only captured incidental to observation of the student while he or she is using the computer (and I don’t see that the observation is actually restricted to times the computer is being used.) Even if they are not used in a disciplinary case against the student they are still invasions of the privacy we can expect in our own homes. When my kids are out of the house, it’s just possible that my wife and I might do something that I would not feel comfortable doing if I knew the high school principle was watching.
So the school district, it seems to me, has a perfect right to monitor the use of it’s property. It does not have the right to violate the privacy of the home by planting a device, with no notification or any prior evidence of wrongdoing, that monitors activities that are not directly related to the use of its property.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
A tiny square of good quality electrical tape over the optics might be in order. It wont harm anything when it’s removed.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
In principle, it’s understandable that the school would want to monitor their property, especialy because they were purchased with grant money. If a student was conducting ilegal activities on those laptops it would be an embarrasment to the school for providing the student with the tools to commit the Crome with NO supervision. However, there are a NUMBER of methods and/or software to monitor and restrict student’s online activities. Spying on them in the privacy of their own homes is so unbelievably over the line. Obviously there is the issue of the child being viewed undressed. As an adult I would feel violated if I found out that ANYONE was watching me without my knowledge, even more so if it was a supervisor. But as a parent,,, finding out this happened to my child,, outrage doesn’t even begin to describe it. What if, for example, the principal had accidentaly caught the student engaged in a sexual act(while not doing his-or-her report)? How do you justify to a parent that you recorded their child having sex in order to catch them not doing homework. And, wouldn’t the very fact that the recording or images exist make them illegal? How, as an administrator, would you defend yourself in a court of law for having what ANY law enforcement agency in the country would consider “child pornography”? And this is just addressing the issue of “right & wrong/appropriate & inappropriate”….. As if this wasn’t enough to make parents uncomfortable, the true issue of INTENT hasn’t really been addressed from a criminal justice standpoint. Consider the possibility of discovering, years later, that a viewing administrator turns out to be a pedophile/child molester. Please keep in mind, that these are just a FEW of the problems posed by what might become “acceptable practices”.
February 26th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
” the camera raises an entirely different issue, because it captures behavior that has nothing to do with the educational (or other) use of school property.” -Randy
DING! DING! DING!
February 26th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
This an incredible offense against privacy and good taste. To all those who think this is acceptable… will it be okay for your boss to remotely activate the microphone on your school/company-owned computer/PDA/smartphone and listen in to your private conservations after hours at home, on dates, at any and all times? Or to use the GPS feature to see where you go after hours? Or for the government to listen through the SYNC mic in your Ford Focus that you, after all, bought with money from the cash-for-clunkers program? Contrary to what David and all our friends here from the Stasi are saying, Jack Dharma, Jake Knight and others hit the nail on the head. The truly frightening thing is that these posts not only considering this to be acceptable but almost encouraging this behavior are coming from a site related to education. These people might actually interact with children.
February 26th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
@David and others agreeing with him:
I work in technology, so I may have a little more understanding of this than some of you. Let me explain. A webcam does not show any part of what a person is doing on their computer. It does not show administration what is on the screen, or what software is being run — that can be accomplished via remote management software that is commonly employed by corporations and educational institutions for legitimate asset protection and workplace employee monitoring. What a webcam shows is the user, and perhaps their surrounding environment. That environment, in this case the home, is not school property. It is the domain of the individuals residing within it, and the fact that it is their home offers those individuals some very strong constitutional protections against prying eyes. The fact of the matter is that the school wanted to be able to watch its students, even outside the classroom. Equipment protection was merely an excuse, and any decent lawyer will be able to destroy that argument by more eloquently stating what I just said.
On a related note, as a former Lower Merion taxpayer who has recently moved away, I am glad that this mis-use of my tax money has been exposed, and I hope that all the guilty parties are punished to the fullest extent of the law.
February 26th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
@David
Actually I respectfully disagree with you, at least to some degree. I will grant you that the school/district has a right to protect its property. However, that does not give them the right to violate privacy laws. As has been mentioned, there are other forms of theft protection available that do not require a webcam to be used. Moreover, the student who was punished by the school was not on a “stolen” computer, so there was no justifiable reason to enable the webcam while the computer was off-site. In addition, in some schools it is not just a “privilege” to use a computer, but a requirement. So, why should parents or students be required to give up the right to privacy for the school-mandated policy of school-owned computer usage? That may not have been the circumstance here, but your argument falls apart in that scenario.
What has also been widely reported is that when students or parents asked about the camera indicator light coming on they were told it was a malfunctioning laptop and that they shouldn’t worry about it. When in fact, based on forensic investigation into the software, it appears that it was not a malfunction, but a feature that the camera was in fact turning on to surreptitiously snap a picture. The report over at http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2010/02/spy-at-harrington-high.html is worth a read.
Also, David, you seem to be uninformed about the “inappropriate activity” of the child involved. He was not misusing the laptop. He was popping Mike & Ike candies while in front of it and was hauled into the principal’s office for using “drugs.”
[I know the following can be done with an iPod, but for the sake of argument...]
Imagine for a moment that school textbooks can have geotracking chips embedded in them for theft recovery purposes. Just because the school owns the textbooks, should the school be able to associate the textbook with a student to a degree that would allow them to monitor everywhere a student goes after school hours? Should the school then be able to punish a student for going somewhere inappropriate based solely on the geolocation data?
This school/district has decided that there is educational value in making laptops available to its students. Moreover, they feel that the value extends beyond the school grounds and permits students to take the computers home. Therefore, these are tools to serve an ACADEMIC mission of the school, they should not be used as tools to POLICE student behavior while off school grounds, just because they can be used in that manner, especially not without the full consent and understanding of the students and parents. And that goes beyond signing off on an AUP in the student handbook. Workshops explaining the AUP as well as describing what can and can’t be done with the computer (limits put in place by the school) should be mandatory before that computer goes home at all.
While I agree with you that many parents are guilty of not modeling appropriate behavior, modeling and accountability goes both ways. I do not think that you can make a justifiable argument for the school’s “right” to use the cameras, even on its own computers, when they are off-campus, other than for the purpose of loss recovery. And even then, there should be a policy in place that guides a record-keeping of the process and who should be present when the camera is enabled. By all accounts, the school administrators and IT workers were not using the software for prurient purposes, but that door was wide open to the possibility, and in this case, it seems, the “inappropriate use” of the computer [to police students] was done by the school, not the student.
February 26th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
I would be willing to bet a little cash that our friend David is somehow employed by or connected with the school board. His continual return and the idiocy of his original arguments. Welcome to the new social media world, where “commenters” try to shape the discussion toward ends that suit that “commenter’s” employers.
The use of the laptops was mandatory.
The regular use of the remote webcam had nothing to do with the security of the computer.
The school did not disclose its surveillance.
When consulted about the cam, the school outright LIED, saying it was a “glitch” when it knew full well it was not.
Talk of arrogance and entitlement and claptrap is just away to appeal to the prejudices of those of us who see that as a problem, even though it has NOTHING to do with the case.
February 26th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
[...] them to watch the students whom they provided laptops through those laptops’ webcams. While at home. A vice principal disciplined a student for actions viewed on a laptop webcam in the [...]
February 26th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
I think the school needed to inform the parents and the students that video/sound monitoring will occur. This then can be left up to the family and the community to decide if a laptop is a good tool to be used in the format provided. I agree with the post about other peoples bussiness stops at the front door/property line and items we as consumers paid with our own earnings.
February 26th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Vasken,
Well articulated. Thanks for the insight.
It should also be asked, “Why is the cam this student’s particular laptop being remotley accessed if it had not been reported missing/stolen.” This, I think, is the deathnail for the school.
February 26th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
If this school district wanted to protect their property they should have equiped the laptops with theft deterents (lojack type) and montioring software so that they could track the laptop usage rather than the unrelated activities in the room where the laptop is used. That solution would have been more effective and far more appropriate. Additionally, making the students and their parents aware that browsing activity is being recorded provides an effective deterent itself.
Whoever had the idea of watching their students at home and whoever approved it should not only be dismissed but should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I cannot even imagine how upset I would be to find out that my childrens’ school was bugging my house!
February 26th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Is the theft or damage of the school issued computers the primary reason for the web cams? If so, why didn’t they give the parents the option for this proactive device, letting them know it will be their financial responsibility to replace the computer if it is stolen or damaged. The schools thought process and actions are very questionable and has “Big Brother” or let me “watch you” written all over it. There is just no way to justify their actions.
February 26th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
My thoughts echo David’s – well said.
The only real question here is whether or not the school established the terms of use for the laptops with the student and the parents before loaning it.
If so, then there is a contract between the owner and the user and should be upheld – and right to privacy under these circumstances can not be in question. If it was agreed to use the laptop only for a certain purpose then consequences for not doing so are appropriate.
February 26th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Computer access is not “optional” in today’s high schools. Any argument that concerned students and parents could simply decline the “free” laptop should be met with derision.
Let’s play pretend for a moment. Let’s pretend this was not a laptop, but a video conferencing system, and that the school district was so geographically large that it’d be unfeasible to bus all the students to the same location. Long-distance education is the only feasible alternative.
Let’s pretend that this system was provided free-of-charge to the student as long as s/he used it only for long-distance education, virtually attending lectures, engaging with tutors, conversing with classmates regarding school-related projects, and so on.
Let’s pretend that the use of this particular system was mandatory, due to compatibility with the school board’s systems and to reduce IT support calls, and that in either case the acquisition and management of a different system would be outside of the financial and technical means of many of the students’ families.
Let’s pretend that you could opt out of using the system, but that the only alternative would be communication by post, drastically reducing the quality of your education.
And finally, let’s pretend that the school board considered it within their right to turn the on system at any hour of the day, without any notice, warning or indication, ostensibly to ensure that the system was not misused but in practice to give district officials the ability to wiretap the students in their home, to monitor their extracurricular behaviour or for even more insidious and invasive purposes. Whether they were secretive, obfuscative, or blatantly open about this fact isn’t even that important.
In what world would this not be corrupt, immoral, unethical, illegal, unconstitutional, utterly criminal behaviour? Who, other than confused David here, could possibly argue for the right of the school board to place mandatory wiretap devices in our students’ homes?
The fact that the item in question is a general-purpose computing and telecommunications device which can demonstrably be used for all manner of illegal purposes is a red herring, thus the analogy is required. The school wasn’t trying to block P2P or pass adult sites through a web filter to shield themselves from liability, they were stealthily wiretapping students’ personal life to monitor their conduct. Any “Big Brother” accusations are 100% accurate.
February 26th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
You know what’s scary? The person who suggested the webcams. That’s who should be punished for invasion of bedrooms of teens in that High School. This is the angle I think most people of concern for their children should take regarding this issue. Those who don’t, well, they aren’t concerned about protecting children from predators- especially those hired by educational institutions or they just plain have their heads stuck up their you know what’s.
February 26th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Invasion of privacy, to the utmost degree. Wrong if it is done for school purposes, work purposes, or any other rational unless you have signed a contract for a reality TV show. They will be heavily prosecuted. I agree with all of you, the school had the right to monitor the web sites visited by students through history or a remote view, but even this action ought come with a disclosure to parents.
Yuck. Big Brother comes squarely into our home spaces.
February 26th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
“My thoughts echo David’s – well said.
The only real question here is whether or not the school established the terms of use for the laptops with the student and the parents before loaning it.”
Since that is not a question at all, but rather it’s clearly established that the school did no such thing, one wonders if Janey read anything other than David’s comment. Or perhaps Janey and Steve are David’s sockpuppets.
February 26th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Janey, you are dead wrong about that being the only question here, and if you read more of the posts here, you will see why. At the risk of offering up more “claptrap” as David accused me of, I feel it is justified to be blunt in this case because it is so wildly beyond the realm of acceptable that to argue otherwise frankly makes me question your intelligence.
I know that sounds hyperbolic and a lot of people prefer to be much more filtered with their method of communication, but I believe that sometimes tough things need to be said in order to get through tough skulls.
Please try to think past the first move, and into the second, third, and fourth moves of this game. This is dangerous stuff, and it is extremely important that people react strongly to cases like this.
As another poster stated, if I found out that ANYBODY at my daughter’s school had captured video of my daughter changing her clothes (or her tampon), there would be very significant ramifications for anybody involved. I’d rather I never have to make decisions based on that type of scenario, and I hope that the fallout from this case saves me from ever being forced to.
February 26th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
As a network administrator that has had the displeasure of having to testify in federal court as an expert witness in downloading of child pornography this case sets off all sorts of bells and whistles. All individuals in this district with the ability to secretly monitor children via web-cams should have their computers immediately confiscated and forensically searched. Some may end up in jail for a very long time.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
The argument of private property is a smokescreen for false entitlement. Here is a simple analogy of this case. I have a cigar and you are using my property. So as the owner of the property, I have the authority if I so wish, to blow smoke in your face without giving you notice. And out of the computer screen, a cloud of smoke hits your face within your own home. There was no implied or stated prior agreement that I could even do this. Clearly, your common, everyday, down to earth, easy to understand, human rights have been abused, violated and impaired. My ownership of the private property, which you are using, does not make it permissible for me to use my property to blow smoke in your face, in your own home. Any argument otherwise, especially based on private property, is nonsense, arrogant and not supported by law. A small, wealthy, privileged and misguided segment of our society consistently tries to promote notions of private property as legal grounds for their aristocratic rule. They are blowing smoke in our face.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Jake and Boyd,
You should quit with the ad hominem attacks. Your point is well made with the severity of the case. All facts revealed thus far, the school is in serious trouble. I’ve already said that. I’ve without doubt struck a nerve with you and you continue to refer to those here whose views may differ slightly from yours with belittling and degrading comments.
…But the fact that you launch personal attacks with those who have varying degrees of disagreement with you is not cause to question their intelligence. Emotions should not rule the day here, but common sense and facts. I have many issues with public education in general, and am not one to rush to the defense of a school district. People are having some serious emotional responses to this issue, and rightly so. I agree with you completely with regard to your daughter and your reaction. Should I find myself and family in that situation, you and I would likely pursue the same avenues of justice.
I read the initial post, and responded based on that information. I am glad you are so much more well informed on the case than I am.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
School restrooms are the target of vandalism, drug exchanges, bullying, fights, smoking. Good place for a camera?
Should rental cars have non-disclosed, hidden video cameras? They belong to agency and could be stolen or misused.
Theft in store dressing rooms?
Where should it end?
Lets try to build good working relationships between schools and parents, not discourage them with more mistrust.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
There was absolutely nothing ad hominem about my words. I have read the posts and formed my opinions about certain posters based on their publicly expressed sentiments. Like I said, it may not feel nice or fit well into our filtered ideas of pleasantries, but if you can’t be bothered to inform yourself before taking a position on such a shocking display of injustice, then everything I have said is self-evident.
If, after reading everything on this page, you are finding yourself changing your tune, then I applaud you for taking to heart my very first suggestion, “please reconsider your positions,” which you initially found to be such a distasteful thing to suggest.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Mainline Media News (in Ardmore, PA) has several articles, interviews & videos concerning this issue. http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/
One is a Q&A with LSMD Supt. Chris McGinley (http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/02/26/main_line_times/news/lmspygate/doc4b80262a61b47516959685.txt)
Good news: A judge has banned the activation of webcams
(http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/02/26/main_line_times/news/lmspygate/doc4b831d3571ff7435051420.txt)
and LSMD must preserve laptop evidence (http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/02/26/main_line_times/news/lmspygate/doc4b83d9c0a38d5450032172.txt)
Also, it seems that the school district has other problems involving a potentially racist redistricting plan. (http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/02/26/main_line_times/news/doc4b845a309c16e566378094.txt)
It just keeps looking worse for this school board. How long before they quit?
February 26th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Sorry, it’s LMSD (Lower Merion School District).
Mainline Media News (in Ardmore, PA) has several articles, interviews & videos concerning this issue. http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/
One is a Q&A with LMSD Supt. Chris McGinley (http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/02/26/main_line_times/news/lmspygate/doc4b80262a61b47516959685.txt)
Good news: A judge has banned the activation of webcams (http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/02/26/main_line_times/news/lmspygate/doc4b831d3571ff7435051420.txt)
and LMSD must preserve laptop evidence (http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/02/26/main_line_times/news/lmspygate/doc4b83d9c0a38d5450032172.txt)
Also, it seems that the school district has other problems involving a potentially racist redistricting plan. (http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/02/26/main_line_times/news/doc4b845a309c16e566378094.txt)
It just keeps looking worse for this school board. How long before they quit?
February 26th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Hopefully, the question of quitting their jobs will be answered for them when they spend some time in the clink. If you or I did this to a tenant or to a neighbor, we’d already be in jail — and rightfully so.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
I find this quite offensive. Why not use a tracking device? Webcam does not even make sense it is a blatent invasion of privacy. It gives me a creepy ‘pedafile-isk’ notion and the parents should sue.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Last time I checked public schools are governmental agencies funded by taxpayers. Thus the property rights ultimately originate with the taxpayer. Governments are owned by us and supposedly controlled by us. I am sorry that schools seem to feel that they actually own the property and assets entrusted to them by the public.
The concept of in loco parentis pertains only to school administrators when the child is entrusted to the care of the school during the day not when the child has an expectation of privacy in his/her own home.
If the school district was in fact looking for missing/stolen equipment why did it turn on the web cam of a piece of property they were not looking for. Each laptop has a unique mac or ip address to identify it on the web. This is the only way to specifically identify a particular computer So, unless this laptop was reported stolen the arguement that they were looking for a stolen laptop is
fallacious.
Thus, this is a prima facie case of unwarranted spying with no probable cause combined with incompetent administrators trying to cover their ________ with a rationale that that barely holds water.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
David,
You invite attacks by your own statements, such as, “The question is a matter of property ownership and distinguishing between a right and a privilege.” Your line of reasoning is banal, vapid and irrelevant. What do you expect?
February 26th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
David, even if you are not informed of all the details of the case, you should be as mad as a hornet at this invasion simply by what was stated on the surface. As someone wrote, “Your line of reasoning is banal, vapid and irrelevant.” Your statement is as silly as those who defend breaches of personal privacy with the ridiculous assessment that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, then why worry.” May all those who condone such atrocious behavior eventually fall into the hole they are helping to dig.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
At school is one thing but at home is another, we want children to fill safe and enjoy learning, because that what makes them try harder.
If what the child did at home was illegal then by all means report it and let the legal system decide if they can use the evidence or not. But if what was done was not illegal anywhere but at school, and there at home then it is the parents responsibility to supervise them, not the schools and if the web cam was on all the time or just when the laptop was on, was the parents and the students aware of the fact that the laptop had a cam to see what was going on when they were not in school? And without a sign document waving the rights of the parent. Then most defiantly they violated the student’s rights and their parent’s rights as well.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
WHAT were they thinking?
And WHO was looking at the videos.
Some kind of pervert-Watching girls and boys?
Isnt this called pedophilia?
I am horrified.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Also,
The schools are always ADAMANT about not dealing with situations that happen off school grounds, Or after school hours. Having worked with some troubled youth in public schools: it was clear to me that a LOT of what happened in school had to do with after-school activities. (Workplaces have always dealt with any domestic problem that comes to the workplace because it kept the workplace safe).
Read Jodee Blasco’s book: “please stop laughing at me” if you want to see the degree to which public schools will ignore, or even add-to-, after-school problems. What this child was doing was “after school”.
So, why are they not only ignoring their own lazy policy, but ALSO breaking state and federal laws, to spy on children after school , and IN THEIR bedrooms?
Again. Horrifying.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Misologist: Not sure I care about this article from Education Tech but I love the image they use. http://bit.ly/98wO7y...
February 26th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Why not let students use a ‘jailbreak’ or other monitoring system to know who is watching them? If this had been on the up-and-up, the school could have even provided them with such a system. Instead, the school did everything possible to hide the monitoring from the students and their parents. At least until someone (who should not have been able to access the webcam) attempted to use the captured images to punish a student for actions outside of school.
If the laptops were not to leave the school, why was no other securitythere? Shouldn’t there have been a siren to ring as a laptop goes out the door (like when a library book was not checked out)?
To David and his supporters,
Would you be okay if your workplace issued you a laptop, gave you work that you had to do at home, but failed to mention that the laptop might be used to monitor your activities while you were away from the office? And you would not know about the monitoring until your supervisor called you into the office to ‘discuss’ the number of glasses of wine you had with dinner last night? When you challenge him, he pulls out webcam pictures of you holding a glass of dark liquid as evidence that you were imbibing at home.
Or would you be okay if said supervisor asked who in the house was a fellow ‘The Office” fan? (Remember, the microphone is able to pick up background noises in the room).
Would you be okay with that? After all, it is company property even when it is in your home. Or would you get in touch with your lawyer and sue for illegal wiretapping and breaching your 4th amendment rights?
February 27th, 2010 at 12:10 am
What a frightening story. Many of the previous commenters have laid out the numerous wrongs committed by school officials (spying, nondisclosure, using the camera before the laptop was stolen, etc.), but one thing that outrages me is the school’s decision to reprimand a student for actions he took at home. If the actions had no effect on behavior/performance in the school, this is another way in which the school severely overstepped its bounds. I don’t teach in the K-12 environment, so perhaps some of you who do could clue me in on how often this happens.
February 27th, 2010 at 4:22 am
In the midst of all this, I just want to remind people that the statements in the lawsuit are allegations. Allegations are not necessarily facts. Right now, it is very much a case of “he said, she said.”
As a parent of a child in this school district who has one of the laptops in question, I am very concerned with the outcome of this case, but I’m not ready to assume that the lawsuit allegations are 100% true or that the school district is 100% wrong because there aren’t enough facts to go on. Again: Allegations are not necessarily facts. I am withholding judgement until the case comes to trial.
February 27th, 2010 at 5:09 am
This is an outrageous violation of privacy. Once again we see a demonstration of the utter lack of common sense which seems to characterize public school administrations. Recall the strip search case involving a 13 year old girl not to long ago. Before that, I recall that a teen age girl was suspended because she brought motrin into the school, vilating the zero tolerance drug policy.
The school system has already been ordered by a judge to destroy the equipment used for the spying. That’s a start. I hope that the parents’ lawsuit prevails and that the vice principal involved is asked to find work elsewhere.
February 27th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
@Bernard, your statement that “The school system has already been ordered by a judge to destroy the equipment used for the spying” is inaccurate. What the judge actually ordered was that the school district not use the security tracking software while the litigation is pending, and I might add, the school district had already deactivated the software in advance of the order. See http://www.lmsd.org/sections/laptops/default.php?&id=1150. As for your other two examples, your wording makes it sound like those two cases involved the Lower Merion School District, and they did not.
February 28th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
I don’t care who owns the laptop. This Vice Principal is sick. If I were given a laptop to use by an educational institution I would expect that they would not be using it to spy into my private life and personal affairs. In my country this sicko would be in jail for this.
March 1st, 2010 at 5:50 am
What is not clear is how the photo was obtained. IF the computer was not reported stolen, there is no justification for turning on the camera and taking a picture without the knowledge of the student.
If, on the other hand, the student was taking pictures or movies with the webcam and storing them on the computer’s hard drive, that is a completely different story. Any information stored on the hard drive of a district-owned computer is subject to inspection and scrutiny as well as disciplinary action, regardless of where the computer was located at the time the images were captured.
March 1st, 2010 at 9:59 am
I wonder how many people, who have left comments, have used a computer to view porn? Also, if Florida is so religious, why is it the biggest exporter of porn?
March 1st, 2010 at 12:53 pm
@ David
I agree with everything you say in your well-reasoned comment (dialogue). However, the major complaint pertains not to property but to disclosure. The students and their parents were never informed that this method of surveillance was part of the deal. Any agreement such as this, with one party using the property of one party and being subject to some responsibility for how that property is used, seems fine, as you suggest. The problem is that such an agreement does require full disclosure of all relevant information in order to be ethically (and legally) unproblematic. In this instance, it appears that the school district was less than fully forthcoming.
March 1st, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Regardless of the ability to electronically eavesdrop, this has shades of “1984″.
March 1st, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Property, property, property. This country has developed an exaggerated regard for property rights at the expense of human rights. It doesn’t matter who owns the laptops: people have a right (not a privilege) to expect that outsiders can’t peer through the solid walls into their homes.
Unfortunately our Constitution never explicitly spelled out the expectation of personal privacy (except against search and seizure by government agents), but reasonable privacy rights have long been inferred, and this violation certainly goes beyond “reasonable”. See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/weekinreview/28liptak.html?hpw.
March 1st, 2010 at 4:45 pm
First of @ David: well said! I couldn’t agee more.
Secondly, someone said “This district is screwed!”. I think this whole country is screwed if cases like this get all kinds of attentions and lawsuits. Boohoo!! for those kids and parents taking advantages of the tax monies and lawsuits after lawsuits.. I don’t know about the you but I think it comes down to all of us who are tax payers. Where do you think the monies are from to pay up those expenses? If you want to keep your privacy? do every thing right in the first place, period. I do really hope they (the parents) get NOTHING out of this ordeal.
March 1st, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Here’s a nice little “fact”:
http://webcast.macenterprise.org/2008Webcasts/2008-05-20-LANrev-Webcast.zip
In this webcast you hear the LMSD IT admit that he has used the remote webcam feature to take “several” snapshots. He is identified at the beginning but the comment that he took several snapshots is at/around the 35 minute mark. I can’t believe that none of the parents [at LMSD] said anything about this in the last two years! ”
Here’s a link to the video of the accused vice principal, Lynn C. Matsko’s press conference:
http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/03/01/main_line_times/news/lmspygate/doc4b855c720aa56234120422.txt
Her’s the video of the press conference the student held in response to the school’s vice principal’s comments (video):
http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/03/01/main_line_times/news/lmspygate/doc4b8595e7ec7dc146172357.txt
JD
I agree with you 100%. The school had no business repremanding a student for what he did at home. Unfortunately, that is only the tip of the iceberg of this mess.
March 1st, 2010 at 4:57 pm
JD,
I agree with you. Nobody at the school had any right to repremand a student for what he did at home.
This is the video of the vice principal’s press conference:
http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/03/01/main_line_times/news/lmspygate/doc4b855c720aa56234120422.txt
Here’s a link to the student’s comments on the VP’s press conference:
http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/03/01/main_line_times/news/lmspygate/doc4b8595e7ec7dc146172357.txt
Here’s a nice little “fact”:
http://webcast.macenterprise.org/2008Webcasts/2008-05-20-LANrev-Webcast.zip
In this webcast you hear the LMSD IT admit that he has used the remote webcam feature to take “several” snapshots. He is identified at the beginning but the comment that he took several snapshots is at/around the 35 minute mark. I can’t believe that none of the parents [at LMSD] said anything about this in the last two years!
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:34 pm
@ Ben (March 1st, 2010 at 4:45 pm)
I was the one who said, “Having read the filing, the school district is screwed. And it is entirely their own doing.”
I don’t know if that is the comment you are referring to. If so, I wasn’t saying the district is screwed up. I have no idea what the district’s record is, etc. I am only talking about this incident. It will go to court, and the district will lose.
Tax monies were not “taken advantage of.” Your circular argument is interesting: If I want my right to privacy, I must do what is “right.” To determine if what I am doing is “right,” my right to privacy must be violated in pursuit of that determination. You would have been a big hit in the (former) East Germany.
As an aside, the student in question was not doing anything “wrong.” We know, because the school district violated their rights finding out. So, I guess the student in question does not have to worry about any future violation(s) of their right to privacy. They’ve been “cleared” in the court of public opinion, etc.
Re: the parents getting “something” out of this ordeal. I like your use of the word ordeal, “An ancient form of test to determine guilt or innocence, by appealing to a supernatural decision, — once common in Europe, and still practiced in the East and by savage tribes. [1913 Webster]”
I know, I know, it’s an old dictionary definition. After all, we have… evolved so much since then, no?
P.S. This is a class action suit filing. Typically, the only people that make out financially are the lawyers on the winning side.
March 3rd, 2010 at 5:48 pm
For the folks that are suggesting that it is proper to allow the school to watch students at home I have a few thoughts.
Yes, the computers belong to the school, but lending the computer to students does not give the school the right to “monitor” the students (minors) without notifying the parents and the student. I can’t think of a single parent that would allow an unknown adult to randomly view their teenage daughter in the privacy of her own room.
Here is another example of why the school is wrong. If I own a pencil, and I lend you the pencil to do your homework, do I have the right to watch you in the privacy of your home simply to determine if or how you use my pencil? The pencil is still my property, and you don’t have a “right” to misuse my property, so why is it different when using a computer? It is not.
There should be no “right” granted to the school which permits any invasion of privacy once they have loaned the computer. If they are so concerned about damages, they can examine the laptop when it is returned and charge for damages. If they are concerned about theft, they can insure the laptop. There is NO reason for violating the privacy of a minor child. THAT is why the FBI is looking into the actions of the school.
If the student is a girl and she is walking around changing her clothes, or walking around getting dressed without any clothes on when someone at the school randomly decide to “monitor” her, would that be ok? I think not. Who decides when to “monitor” the students? Why do they decide to monitor using the camera? Are they using a keystroke logger? Are they watching children because they are viewing banned materials? Would they start viewing the student if they started to read books online that were banned by the school district or is it only when they are playing video games? WHO DECIDES? Do they have an obligation to report when they have viewed a minor child naked? Do they make a report to the parents, child and police if the employee who is monitoring a naked child continues to watch the minor child?
Watching children using a webcam while they are unaware is always going to be worse than whatever that child is doing on the computer. If the FBI does not put a stop to this practice, I would love to be a child or parent in this district. As a minor teen, I would only do my homework without my top on and then report the school for child porn and child abuse. If I were a parent, I would leave the laptop on in my bedroom and report the school for invasion of my privacy. Either way, the school would wind up paying big bucks just to save a few bucks on a laptop. There are other ways to protect the computer without compromising the privacy of our children.
March 17th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
IF the school told the students/parents that the software was installed and they intended on monitoring the use of the laptops, they would not be in this mess period.
April 15th, 2010 at 6:02 am
[...] recent alleged laptop spying incident in Pennsylvania proves that parents can get into litigious moods when they aren’t [...]
April 17th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Did the school have the students read/sign an agreement on how to use these laptops at home? That would have protected the schools property by holding the students responsible for the borrowed laptops. The Webcams are a total violation of the students’ privacy. Even the police need probable cause to enter a person’s home.
May 6th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
The school’s behavior gives me the creeps. A part of me says that there must be something more going on here, and that “something more” appears to be sinister.
Webcams are not a good way to ensure the security of the computers, it doesn’t add up. That is the elephant in the room. Why has no one put two and two together and looked at possible intent.
Questions that comes to mind: Is this a single pedophile or a ring of pedophiles? Was this a system to spy on private citizens, 1984-style? Is this a Stepford community of some sort? These things sound like fiction, but then the idea of the webcam SYSTEM, and the SYSTEMATIC use of this system is stranger still. I cannot conceive of a rational explanation for this system and its use. So, we need to look further into the motives of those involved. Whatever it is, it seems likely to be strange.
There is no way to know, but I hope that any investigation looks beyond the idea that this was a computer security and theft issue. As has been pointed out, there are all kinds of security systems that are superior and don’t involve taking photos of kids in their bedrooms, which is where kids usually hang out when using computers.
What might have been the motive for this? I’ll say it again: This really creeps me out.
September 18th, 2010 at 1:43 am
Try putting a webcam in a classroom and the schools and teachers scream “invasion of privacy!” This is true even in public schools.