Slashdot Mirror


PA School Spied On Students Via School-Issued Laptop Webcams

jargon82 writes "A Pennsylvania high school is using laptops they issued to students to spy on them in homes and outside of school. According to a class action filling the webcams and microphones in these laptops could be remotely activated by school officials, and have been used in this role. One student was accused of 'improper behavior in his home' and the school provided a photo taken via his laptop as proof."

941 comments

  1. Tape by mano.m · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Solves all problems. At least the ones that WD-40 can't.

    --
    Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
    1. Re:Tape by Pojut · · Score: 0

      How is OP offtopic? Tape could have been used to cover the webcam...

    2. Re:Tape by dfm3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All problems? Good luck using that tape to cover the microphone...

    3. Re:Tape by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Eyedropper filled with water...problem solved :-)

    4. Re:Tape by Spatial · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Solves all symptoms. The problem remains.

    5. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "ohhh, so close!
      The correct answer was obviously "duc[k|t] tape", the reference to WD-40 should have been a dead giveaway!
      Jack, tell him about the nice consolation prizes for playing..."

    6. Re:Tape by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He simply wasn't paying attention when Kowalski explained it to Toad. It's THREE magic tools -- duct tape, WD-40, and a pair of vicegrips. The vicegrips will fix the microphone problem, and actually should be used on the school's principal.

      I hope the parents of the affected kids get a million bucks apiece from the district, and somebody in the school's administration goes to prison. A peeping Tom would get prison, how is this not the same thing only worse? School administrators should be made to realize that they're not gods, and the kids and their parents have rights.

      If any of the parents are like some people I know, those administrators should be fearing for their personal safety.

    7. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      These guys were taping the kids, and look where it got them!

    8. Re:Tape by Deadstick · · Score: 1
      Good luck using that tape to cover the microphone

      Simple. Get one of those little plastic containers of jelly they serve in restaurants and tape it over the mike. Near-total sound absorption. Of course it looks a little dorky, but if you don't know how to disable the mike input, you play the cards you're dealt.

      But as mccgrew says, the elegant solution involves a lawyer interested in a cut of your new-found wealth.

      rj

    9. Re:Tape by lorenlal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A problem with that lawsuit is that the district would be using funds from the taxpayer... Which hardly punishes the right people. This was clearly a problem with the individuals who made and approved the asinine idea of spying on the kids at home. They're the ones who should be sued, and fired.

    10. Re:Tape by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I had a hole in a heater hose, and duct taped it until the auto parts stores opened, and never got around to replacing the hose. Whe I got rid of the car three years later, the hose still didn't leak.

      I'd say it fixed THAT problem.

    11. Re:Tape by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Peeping Toms go to prison. People who peep in on kids get "special" treatment in prison.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    12. Re:Tape by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      It does.
      You just need to apply it properly.
      Not to cameras, but to mouth and wrists of school employees as you drive them away to a far closed quarry to dispose of.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    13. Re:Tape by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      I hope every citizen of the US gets a million bucks from the district. That'll show that pesky district!

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    14. Re:Tape by kimvette · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hope the parents of the affected kids get a million bucks apiece from the district,

      Honestly, I hope that they get a lot more than that, that any elected officials who were aware of the situation and didn't work to prevent it are impeached and convicted (and given serious prison time as well as any government benefits including pensions revoked), and the school administration officials receive the same - and the district be blocked from "making up" for the "losses" through taxes. Tax increases should be outlawed in that district and if it means the schools must declare bankruptcy, it should be chalked up as a learning experience.

      This is a serious constitutional issue. It is a violation of the fourth amendment rights, at minimum, not to mention violation of video surveillance laws (i.e., reasonable expectation of privacy - this is why lavatories, changing rooms, etc. do not have video surveillance in place) and wiretapping laws. This is a serious, serious issues and the fucks behind this hare-brained idea need to be made an example of. I'd be all for tar and feathering them, but then, I'm a proponent of wild west-style frontier law since it works. Sadly, today that kind of thing is politically incorrect and is considered "cruel and unusual punishment."

      However, if this is overlooked, the district pays out some money to the families affected, and is allowed to increase taxes to make up for any shortfalls, it will appear as a "win" on the side of fascism, where "patriot act" style spying/monitoring activities are deemed worth the cost of doing business, just as Microsoft looks at a few million dollar "antitrust" fine to be the cost of doing business. There need to be dire consequences for knowingly and willingly violating constitutional rights of citizens regardless of the level of government someone resides in, from the President at the top all the way down to the lowliest of low janitors at public schools, street cops, receptionists at colleges, and everyone in between. The Constitution is not in place to "grant" the people rights, the Constitution is in place to limit what the government is allowed to do . Sadly, this has long since been forgotten, and the very fact that we are a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy has long since been forgotten as well, and it's to our own pain as the difference is key to our system of checks and balances.

      But, apathy will reign here. There is some sign of the people awaking from the slumber with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts (did you think you would ever see this uber-liberal state vote for a real conservative?!) but let's hope that it's a sweeping change across the nation. I for one am sick to death of both moonbat liberals and neo-con Republicans - who claim to have different platforms, but really, both extremes are so far apart from what their party platforms used to stand for that the end result shows that they are simply the same horse painted different colors. What we need is more centrist, true conservatives, and what I mean by that is people who understand that words mean things, and the Constitution in this country really is the supreme law of the land, and needs to be followed rather than paid lip service.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    15. Re:Tape by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      All problems? Good luck using that tape to cover the microphone...

      On most laptops I've seen the microphone is usually located under a small hole, and doesn't work great to begin with.

      I think a little tape over that hole would make it much harder (if not impossible) to listen in on conversations.

      At the very least you'd greatly reduce the effective range of the microphone. It could mean the difference between hearing everything in the room and only hearing whats 6 inches away.

    16. Re:Tape by alexborges · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Everybody gets raped in prision if they are in there enough time.

      I wish we already dropped the cliche so that somebody would worry about that. Jails in japan, germany or spain are much better places of actual rehabilitation. The american way of jailing people is really third world rate.

      --
      NO SIG
    17. Re:Tape by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 2, Informative

      A peeping Tom would get prison, how is this not the same thing only worse? School administrators should be made to realize that they're not gods, and the kids and their parents have rights.

      Seeing as how Zero Tolerance systems are having 12yo kids taken away in handcuff for drawing on desks, I don't see arresting the school board for this kind of behavior is out of line. http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20100206/school-girl-arrested-drawing-school-desk-id-1099589.html (according to that link, it was an erasable marker)

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    18. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you kids and your new fangled tools...all I had was a rock and it proper application solved ALL problems

    19. Re:Tape by bensode · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Don't bankrupt the tax payers because PA residents pay school taxes by district. Instead, flog them publicly and lock them up for something appropriate, like say 1 year for each laptop given out. I mean come on. What people could come to the conclusion that what they have done was a Good Idea(tm) ? Total douchebaggery.

      --
      "Keep at least 3-6 full bottles of hard alcohol on hand, a 2 week resignation notice,..." - Poetmatt
    20. Re:Tape by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Well, shouldn’t be that hard to accuse half the school administration of employing in the production of child porn videos. (Most of them boys jacking off to porn. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    21. Re:Tape by zill · · Score: 1

      Destruction of private property...

    22. Re:Tape by zill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Easy, just fire them first and then sue them.

    23. Re:Tape by Surt · · Score: 1

      I've used tape to defeat a mic before, why would that be a problem?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    24. Re:Tape by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      If tape was used to cover the camera and the mic was intentionally obscured, how do you think the school would have reacted?

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    25. Re:Tape by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Closed quarry ? You must be one of those wishy-washy liberals, letting them off easy. Unless you wanted to drop them into the quarry from, say. 15000 feet above. . . Feet-first into a wood-chipper for these. . . .

    26. Re:Tape by sconeu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why should they? How were the kids to know they were being spied upon?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    27. Re:Tape by WCMI92 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. Don't bankrupt the tax payers because PA residents pay school taxes by district. Instead, flog them publicly and lock them up for something appropriate, like say 1 year for each laptop given out. I mean come on. What people could come to the conclusion that what they have done was a Good Idea(tm) ? Total douchebaggery.

      Actually, you are wrong. The taxpayers of that district SHOULD be punished. Why? How else are we going to get responsible government? Those taxpayers have been paying the school levies and they elected the school board. By facing consequences of electing Orwellian statist morons who would do such a thing would better ensure that they not continue to do so in the future!

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    28. Re:Tape by Hurricane78 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But... but... I thought people would love it that way?

      Child porn on the net? Block the site. Let the rapist continue doing what he does.
      Headache because of eating fast food? Take a pain killer. And continue eating fast food.
      A tornado wrecks the house? Build a new one. And wait for the next hurricane.
      The boyfriend turns out to be an asshole? Whine about it to your friends. And go fuck the next guy who is an asshole, but sooo cute.
      A political party lied to and fucks up the nation? Vote for “the other” party. And vote for this one again next time, when the other one turns out to be just as bad.
      Rinse and repeat.

      Isn’t that how most “people” “solve” their problems?
      “Cattle” might be a better term. Then again, at least a donkey never does an error more than twice. :/

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    29. Re:Tape by Pojut · · Score: 1

      While I certainly don't fault them (as you said, they would have had no idea), I personally would cover up any webcam or microphone built into a laptop given to me by school or work and just use external solutions.

      My webcam at home that is attatched to my work-provided computer has cotton stuffed in its onboard mic when not in use, and is turned sideways so it is looking at the side of a printer.

    30. Re:Tape by TheLinuxSRC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I cannot comment on German or Spanish prisons, but your knowledge of Japanese prisons is lacking at best.

    31. Re:Tape by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      Solves all symptoms. The problem remains.

      Author! Author! -- Succinct and provocative. Well played.

    32. Re:Tape by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We're diverging pretty far off-topic, but if you treat people like animals and tell them they have no place in society, don't be surprised when they develop this anti-institution mentality.

      We then release them back into society with no real effort at rehabilitation. We need more low-security prisons with a focus on rehab, education and therapy. I know people don't want to spend money taking care of prisoners, but ultimately we're preserving society by trying to cut down on repeat offenders.

      Our current prison system is broken.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    33. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be surprised. My boss could never hear me when he skyped me but I could hear him just fine. After a few failed calls, I discovered that a piece of cellophane tape was covering the mic hole on my monitor. Once removed, the sound quality was great!

    34. Re:Tape by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 1

      How about trespassing? Then its all fair and square

      --
      All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    35. Re:Tape by Adaeniel · · Score: 1

      There is some sign of the people awaking from the slumber with the election of Scott Brown. . .

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! HAHAHAHAH! HAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh wait, that wasn't a joke? Also, you seriously spout about violations of the Constitution and then go on to propose vigilantism through "wild west-style frontier law" and support crowd mentality justice and humiliation while claiming it is not cruel and unusual? Give me a break.

    36. Re:Tape by sheph · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or WD-40 thereby validating the first post.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    37. Re:Tape by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't get me wrong, I agree with the sentiment and the emotion but throwing one of our basic civil right out the window (no cruel and unusual punishment) in an effort to protect a different one (privacy) is exactly the kind of thing that we need to be fighting against. Our basic rights exist for a reason, and while I hold privacy and the first ammendment especially close to my heart, I don't want to see any of them eroded. Besides, the legal system had better be more than capable of dealing with this situation, it's so clear cut that I can't even imagine what was going through the heads of those responsible. If our legal system can't deal with it correctly... well then I'm one step closer to believing that our country is heading for the sewers (if it's not already there).

    38. Re:Tape by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      I hope the parents of the affected kids get a million bucks apiece from the district, and somebody in the school's administration goes to prison.

      It is difficult for me to fault the taxpayers of the district for the administrator's action, or to see this as something that can be properly offset by money. As for the prison term, though -- completely agreed. And not just for any one person; for every person who helped make it happen. Just as the military has the concept of unlawful orders, so should the private world.

    39. Re:Tape by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      If it was covered only at home, that they react at all is sufficient evidence.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    40. Re:Tape by wjousts · · Score: 1

      the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts (did you think you would ever see this uber-liberal state vote for a real conservative?!)

      You know Scott Brown isn't a "real" conservative by any measure right? He's pro-choice and pro-gay rights for one. But don't let the facts get in the way or your nonsensical rant.

    41. Re:Tape by OldSoldier · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No mention of what the picture was, but if it was something involving nudity then... wouldn't a better course of action be to sue the school district for being in possession of child pornography?

    42. Re:Tape by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --I for one am sick to death of both moonbat liberals and neo-con Republicans - who claim to have different platforms, but really, both extremes are so far apart from what their party platforms used to stand for that the end result shows that they are simply the same horse painted different colors.--

      I think you meant donkey or maybe elephant of a different color but not a horse.

    43. Re:Tape by paimin · · Score: 1

      You vastly overestimate the quality and sensitivity of laptop microphones.

      --
      Facebook is the new AOL
    44. Re:Tape by dangitman · · Score: 1

      There is some sign of the people awaking from the slumber with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts

      Holy fuck, you think that electing a massive douchebag who campaigned with the slogan "I drive a truck!" is people waking from their slumber?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    45. Re:Tape by pclminion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The taxpayers are exactly who should be punished. They elected a set of officials who apparently believe it's okay to spy on families in their own homes. Government is not apart from us. The government is established by us and draws its powers from us. If taxpayers can't be bothered to learn about the political persuations and tendencies of those they elect, then they deserve the blow-back when things go wrong. Hopefully, this will teach the public to think more critically when filling out their ballot.

      You might say that this outcome could not possibly have been foreseen. That may be true, but the fault is still the people, who did not demand the appropriate levels of oversight of their educational institutions. You send your kids for 6 to 8 hours every day to this place. To not know what's going on is absolutely unacceptable. You ARE the root of the power of the government. You ARE responsible for what it does.

    46. Re:Tape by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      >I hope the parents of the affected kids get a million bucks apiece from the district, and somebody in the school's administration goes to prison.

      It is difficult for me to fault the taxpayers of the district for the administrator's action, or to see this as something that can be properly offset by money. As for the prison term, though -- completely agreed

      Why should the taxpayers pay this? Garnish the administrators' wages for the rest of their lives if that's the appropriate award. Moral people don't do things like this, so maybe the constant reminder will help.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    47. Re:Tape by Mistlefoot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And jailed.

      If even a single 14 year was viewed naked in the privacy of their own home by a covert camera laws will have been broken.

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/28/webcam_coersion_suspect/

      A life sentence is what this guy faced.........

      Be interesting to see how much of this is hype and how much really happened.

    48. Re:Tape by DadLeopard · · Score: 1

      One image of an under 18 year old nude will get them convicted of possession of Child Pornography, doesn't come much worse than that now a days, especially for anyone connected with a school!

    49. Re:Tape by pclminion · · Score: 1

      No mention of what the picture was, but if it was something involving nudity then... wouldn't a better course of action be to sue the school district for being in possession of child pornography?

      You don't sue somebody for a criminal act. You indict them, prosecute them, and send them to prison.

    50. Re:Tape by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even simpler, onboard mics turn off if an external mic is connected. Just take an old pair of headphones, cut the 1/8 plug off of them and stick it into the mic jack. Easily removable too.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    51. Re:Tape by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I hope the parents of the affected kids get a million bucks apiece from the district,

      Honestly, I hope that they get a lot more than that, that any elected officials who were aware of the situation and didn't work to prevent it are impeached and convicted (and given serious prison time as well as any government benefits including pensions revoked), and the school administration officials receive the same - and the district be blocked from "making up" for the "losses" through taxes. Tax increases should be outlawed in that district and if it means the schools must declare bankruptcy, it should be chalked up as a learning experience.

      While I understand and agree with your anger at such a blatant violation of privacy laws, there are probably in excess of 10,000 other children in this school district, and such a course of action will screw them over pretty heavily. This isn't quite as drastic as the Roman discipline techinque of decimation, where they'd kill one out of every ten people in a community that was harboring criminals, but it's the same general mindset, and I don't think it's any more acceptable behavior for civilized people than spying on children in their own homes.

      What we need to do is find out who authorized this, and who was using it, and make sure they're charged with felonies. The threat of federal jail time will get the attention of other people who are thinking about trying similar things.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    52. Re:Tape by Angostura · · Score: 1

      But just a minute - how are the taxpayers to know of the decisions? The school board would have to have cameras in their laptops that wer... ah. Yes.

    53. Re:Tape by Khisanth+Magus · · Score: 1

      So he isn't a fanatical neo-con...this is bad how?

    54. Re:Tape by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

      But he is right. Pedophiles do have a harder time in prison.

    55. Re:Tape by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're right - and all of them should be made into examples of what not to do with public trust.

      On the other hand, most voters will be more interested in what "improper behavior in the home" was, rather than why your government knows about it.

    56. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's with you Americans and the perverse pleasure you take from the fact that your prisons are growing grounds for hardened criminals and rapists?

    57. Re:Tape by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can do both.

      For instance, OJ was tried under criminal charges for murder. He was found not-guilty because jurors said they flat-out didn't understand the DNA evidence.

      Later, OJ was taken to court for civil charges in which the victim's families were awarded monetary damages.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    58. Re:Tape by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Japanese prisons are far from ideal, but it is quite true that they do not have the problems that American prisons do. There is next to no prisoner-on-prisoner violence or rape.

    59. Re:Tape by joocemann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Technically, being in line with the constitution as a REAL conservative would be, the government has no place in abortion and is obliged to provide the same and equal/fair rights to all (aka gays treated equally).

      But the people who claim to be 'real' conservatives right now are actually just judeo-christian theotards thumping bibles and parading apple pies like they are the true real Americans of constitutions' past. NOT. A real conservative would actually care about the constitutionally founded separation of church and state and enforce it. The people claiming to be real conservatives are far from that...

      Ron Paul was a real conservative.

    60. Re:Tape by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      What we need is a fair trial followed by a first class hangin'

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    61. Re:Tape by pclminion · · Score: 1

      That's because there is a specific civil claim of "wrongful death." There is no such equivalent for most other crimes. Of course, you can sue for pretty much anything. I'd go for emotional distress.

    62. Re:Tape by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 1

      I would agree with you except that i suspect that the lesson would be completely lost on the general populace.

      --
      RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
    63. Re:Tape by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      because then the people who were harmed won't be properly compensated - they'll probably get $0.50 each per month for the rest of their lives. Taxpayers should front the money to compensate them, and then recover what they can from the guilty parties by garnishment etc.

      --
      FGD 135
    64. Re:Tape by diamondsw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And what about those who voted or spoke against this? Should they be punished? Should you be held personally responsible for every dishonest thing someone you voted for does?

      No. You vote them out of office, and levy criminal charges against the person who committed the crime.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    65. Re:Tape by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      My point was directed more at the topic of the parent post. That of the reaction of the school mentioned arresting a girl for drawing on a desk with an erasable marker and a similar response of the school in the original story making a claim that school property was damaged... by the tape.

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    66. Re:Tape by noidentity · · Score: 1

      All problems? Good luck using that tape to cover the microphone...

      That's what the WD-40 is for. Eliminates squeaks and other sounds.

    67. Re:Tape by WCMI92 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would agree with you except that i suspect that the lesson would be completely lost on the general populace.

      That's why they should face the consequences of voting for people who, by proxy, break the law on their behalf. Everyone who voted for the school board that approved/was responsible for this has a share of the guilt. By having to pay higher taxes/lose services to cover the lawsuit penalties will force them to learn the lesson.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    68. Re:Tape by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Funny

      they'll probably get $0.50 each per month for the rest of their lives

      A million dollars is more like $1500/mo given average life expectancy.

      Oh, you meant after lawyers fees. ;)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    69. Re:Tape by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind, though, that the standards are different in civil vs. criminal court. In criminal law, you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Plus, there is no such thing (IIRC) as jury nullification in a civil court. In civil law, you only need to prove by a preponderance of the evidence.

    70. Re:Tape by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Do you think anybody ran for office on the "I'll spy on your kids" ticket?

      I suspect it would take a good bit of digging -- vastly more than could reasonably done on a public candidate -- to determine if they are the kind of person likely to spy. Unless they had been found guilty of it before.

    71. Re:Tape by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what makes you think our system can handle this properly at all?

      You know what I see?

      I see fifteen years of litigation. I see suits and counter-suits, and appeals and such going on for years and years. I see the prinicpal and board walking way free as a bird. I see the taxpayers not only having to pay huge amounts in legal fees and such, but also huge jury awards.

      I see, in the end, nothing will change. Lawyers get rich, government power expands, taxes go up, power consolidates with a few bureaucrats, unelected by anyone.

      If it was up to me, I'd be going for Prison, and not ClubFed prison, but PMITA Prison for everyone involved. From the Principal, Board of Education, Technical people involved. Even the teachers if they were involved. ANYONE that had touched the decision that this was a good idea.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    72. Re:Tape by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The american way of jailing people is really third world rate.

      This shouldn't be too surprising, because America is a third-world country. As I once heard it said, "America is a third-world country that won the lottery." The main difference between the USA and Mexico is that the USA has a lot more money. There's some smart people in both places who aren't typical of the culture around them, but by and large, the USA, just like its poverty-sticken neighbor, is a third-world country. Notice for instance how professional wrestling is one of the most popular sports in both countries. The corruption in the government is also quite blatant in both countries. And both have very high levels of drug-related violence and crime.

    73. Re:Tape by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Actually, we should bring back stocks, in the town square. Free rotting fruit provided for free.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    74. Re:Tape by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Invasion of privacy and deprivation of civil rights are probably even better.

    75. Re:Tape by zero_out · · Score: 1

      One of my best friends has a daughter that attends that school. I haven't spoken to him in a few days, but I'll be sure to ask him about this tonight. He is not the type of person who would physically harm someone, but if this were me... well... all I'm saying is that I consider someone spying in my home to be the same thing as physically invading it. What would YOU do if someone invaded your home?

    76. Re:Tape by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      But the people who claim to be 'real' conservatives right now are actually just judeo-christian theotards thumping bibles and parading apple pies like they are the true real Americans of constitutions' past.

      And ironically (or perhaps hypocritically) these "Christians" promote anti-Christian ideas and these "conservatives" promote anti-American ideas.

      These people do not worship God, they worship money. They don't love their country, they love their money. They only pretend to worship God; the "wolves in sheep's clothing" we were warned about.

    77. Re:Tape by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You mean pro-Republican. Those issues are neither "conservative" or "liberal", even though many Republicans are against them and many Democrats are for them.

    78. Re:Tape by jargon82 · · Score: 1
      That's the cost of allowing something like this to happen. I have to imagine that a fair number of people knew it was possible and "think of the children" kept it going. This place is only about 4 miles from where I sit right now, so I have a vested interest in this issue... I have friends in this district!

      The administrators need to be punished, criminally. The district needs to be punished by whatever means are appropriate, and perhaps this will mean bankruptcy and a state takeover. Whatever is necessary.

    79. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're the ones who should be sued, and fired, and jailed, and violated in prison, and registered as sex offenders for life, etc.

      There, fixed that for ya.

    80. Re:Tape by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You can opt out of a class action suit and institute a private suit on your own. If it was one of my kids (they're grown now) that was being spied on at home by the administration, you can bet your wife's ass that I'd hire my own lawyer and file individual suits against the district and every individual who had a part of this evil stupidity.

      It's a damned shame we have morons educating our children.

    81. Re:Tape by schlick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sorry but you're wrong about punishing taxpayers. Your suggestion punishes people who voted AGAINST the officials who broke the law. The people who voted against were doing all they legally could and do not deserve to be punished. You keep saying, "people" and "taxpayers" as if everyone is unanimous which is not true. Taxpayers are not the same as stockholders who can divest anytime they don't like the performance of a company.

      The officials who acted are the ones to be punished and removed if applicable, and "the people" should be required to hold another election.

      --
      "It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
    82. Re:Tape by dmacleod808 · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't knock Pro-Wrestling... And where are your statistics on this... if we add the ratings of WWE+TNA+ROH we get less than one normal NFL Game.

      --
      There Can Be Only One...
    83. Re:Tape by ShagratTheTitleless · · Score: 1

      Holy fuck, you think that electing a massive douchebag who campaigned with the slogan "I drive a truck!" is people waking from their slumber?

      Holy fuck, you think "I drive a truck!" was the centerpiece of Brown's campaign and not just giddy disbelief at the fact that his opponents thought that pointing out that he drove a truck might disqualify him from the "governing class"?

      --
      Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
    84. Re:Tape by wjousts · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Didn't say it was. The point is that acting like this is some major change in Massachusetts is silly. Either way, he won't get re-elected. If he tries to please he's party and become conservative on social issues, the voters will kick him out. If he doesn't tow the party line the crazy right-wing will run a "true" conservative again him in the primary and he won't make it to the election.

    85. Re:Tape by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      We're diverging pretty far off-topic, but if you treat people like animals and tell them they have no place in society, don't be surprised when they develop this anti-institution mentality.

      We then release them back into society with no real effort at rehabilitation. We need more low-security prisons with a focus on rehab, education and therapy. I know people don't want to spend money taking care of prisoners, but ultimately we're preserving society by trying to cut down on repeat offenders.

      Our current prison system is broken.

      Part of the idea of prison is punishment. Sure, there should be some attempt at rehabilitation, but I don't want the guy who rapes my little girl spending a mere five years of counseling sessions. I want to know that he experiences punishment! Look at the death penalty, for example. There is no hope point in rehabilitating death row.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    86. Re:Tape by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      wouldn't a better course of action be to sue the school district for being in possession of child pornography?

      If nudity was involved, this goes beyond mere possession of child porn - this is production and distribution of child porn.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    87. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Hence the distinction between "neo con" and a real conservative. Real conservatives do not want to use government to establish religion. Why should government be in the business of conducting the religious sacrament called "marriage" anyhow? It is an arrangement the government never should have gotten into in the first place.

      Why the fuck should I care whether Johnathan wants to marry Cynthia or George? It's not my business what they will be doing in the bedroom, or whether their actions offends their "god." It is not up to you and me to legislate morality beyond laws which prevent my infringing on your freedoms, for example, I have the right to swing my arm, and my right to do so should not be infringed, but if I form a fist with my hand and use my hand to injure you, I have exceeded my right and infringed upon yours. That kind of legislated morality I think everyone should agree is something government should legislate. But, as far as who gets jiggy with whom, why should anyone else care? If two guys grosses you or me out, it's up to us to not watch them as they are humping one another. We in America do not have the right to not be offended.

    88. Re:Tape by sodul · · Score: 5, Informative

      The taxpayers are exactly who should be punished. They elected a set of officials who apparently believe it's okay to spy on families in their own homes.

      taxpayer != voter

      Do you realize that I am a taxpayer and have absolutely no right to vote ? There are quite a few people in this situation. At the same time a lot of US citizens have the right to vote but do not pay taxes.

      Why should I be punished for something I had absolutely no control over while the ones who voted these criminals into office are not ?

      The US has taxation without representation and representation without taxation, so stop blaming me for paying my fair share of taxes.

    89. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All problems? Good luck using that tape to cover the microphone...

      He said WD-40 would fix any problem tape doesn't. What teh problem is?

    90. Re:Tape by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I hope that they get a lot more than that, that any elected officials who were aware of the situation and didn't work to prevent it are impeached and convicted (and given serious prison time as well as any government benefits including pensions revoked), and the school administration officials receive the same.

      Spying for sake of influencing government is a horrible offence. To remove someone's rights, intentionally destroy their reputation, or because they're a perverted letch, are all awful reasons to spy on someone. These people should be arrested immediately and the book thrown at them.

      Spying because you have a sense of responsibility about the activities of teenagers that you can't control, because you're acting on a sense of right and wrong that has been taken to extremes, is more forgivable. My high school principal had to deal with knife fights, drive-bys, underage pregnancies, suicides, pipe bomb creations gone wrong, heroin overdoses, cocaine overdoses, rape, arson of the school, animal husbandry, animal mutilations, bomb threats, murders, drug dealing... And that's just the stuff that I had heard about, at a relatively safe suburban school. We had basically everything operating out of that high school from prostitution rings to sophisticated computer parts fencing operations to fly-by-night bootleggers. I'm surprised the principal survived, let alone had enough sanity left to plan out how to spy on the students.

    91. Re:Tape by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      You forgot:

      Eating Chipotle burritos makes you crap blood? Clean your underwear with Chipotlaway and keep eating their burriots.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    92. Re:Tape by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      A tornado wrecks the house? Build a new one. And wait for the next hurricane.

      We don't have hurricanes here in Illinois, but we do have tornados. I doubt there's anywhere that a natural disaster of some sort or another never occurs. There are some things you can't prevent.

    93. Re:Tape by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I agree. But we don't want to release that person after 5 years only to have them rape another person's daughter.

      Our prisons are over-crowded to the point that we're letting many criminals go without doing jail time.

      Texas has had over 120 cases of convincted murderers not doing a single day of jail time because of prison overcrowding.

      And the stats on repeat offenders is just mind-boggling.

      The system has officially broken and yet we continue to ignore the situation.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    94. Re:Tape by pclminion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why should I be punished for something I had absolutely no control over while the ones who voted these criminals into office are not ?

      You have control over it. You are funding the behavior by paying taxes. You have a choice. You can influence others to vote more intelligently. You can run for office yourself. In the extreme, you can move to another political district where your tax dollars won't be used to finance child porn. I know, democracy and responsibility can sometimes be inconvenient.

    95. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A problem with that lawsuit is that the district would be using funds from the taxpayer... Which hardly punishes the right people. This was clearly a problem with the individuals who made and approved the asinine idea of spying on the kids at home. They're the ones who should be sued, and fired.

      Actually, the school districts have insurance policies that cover these sorts of things so it won't cost the taxpayers anything except lawyer fees.

    96. Re:Tape by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Unless they were unanimously elected, how do you propose we figure out the specific people who voted for them?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    97. Re:Tape by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Holy fuck, you think "I drive a truck!" was the centerpiece of Brown's campaign

      No, I never said that.

      and not just giddy disbelief at the fact that his opponents thought that pointing out that he drove a truck might disqualify him from the "governing class"?

      Who said that?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    98. Re:Tape by tftp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I personally would cover up any webcam or microphone built into a laptop given to me by school or work and just use external solutions.

      Personally, I out of principle do not have a webcam - this laptop has none built in, and I don't connect an external one either. There is simply no need for anyone, authorized or not, to see anything here.

      However it would require an advanced degree of tinhattedness on part of students to even be aware of the danger. IMO, a common student would have no reason whatsoever to tape the camera, especially if it has a legitimate use, such as with Skype, whether those uses are private or related to education.

      In addition to that, the complaint mentions that other people, who have no reason whatsoever to even be aware of presence of the laptop in the room (let alone the camera in it) may consider the setting private, while in fact it is not.

    99. Re:Tape by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      I think you misjudge the situation with your "pox on both their houses" comments.

      The Democrats are about the same place they were back in the 70s. Just as a few examples, they were pro-gay rights then, and the D's have been trying to get through health care reform since the Truman administration. The D's are also the party that jacked up government spending to fight the Great Depression, and did so again now.

      What's new is the Republicans have moved further right, into the territory that used to be held by the Birchers.

    100. Re:Tape by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      much has been written about when the GOP ceased to be the party of Goldwater and started being the party of Pat Robertson. Without rehashing too many of the sorted details, it started with Nixon's silent majority race bait, and was complete by the time Regan realized Roe v. Wade was the ticket to electoral success. The problem is, the people who fund the republican party don't give two shits about abortion, and the rise of Sarah Palin has them terrified, that and the handful of remaining conservative intellectuals are universally disliked - like George Will.

      As a liberal, I am both captivated by and terrified of the teabaggers, but either way, it's going to make for an interesting next 3 years.

      There's plenty of truth to the statement that the dems came to power by being "not George Bush," but now Scott Brown is the avant-guard for the republicans - we're not Washingtonians. Deep down, I really think Americans really want to see Washington accomplish something, and while obstructionism may lead to electoral victory in the midterms, I think it's a flash in the pan. The GOP has to do something constructive - and not ideologically pure, or in the long haul they're in trouble.

      Of course never count the democrats out in a foot-shooting contest. How Obama went from a PR Jesus, to not being able to convince Americans that unemployment benefits and tax cuts (i.e. the stimulus) are a good idea in a recession is beyond me.

    101. Re:Tape by sodul · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can run for office yourself

      If I am not allowed to vote do you really think I can run for office ?

      I'm not discarding your whole argumentation, just pointing out that not all taxpayers are equal or equally responsible. Again why should I, the taxpayer, be punished because of the voters bad choices ?

    102. Re:Tape by jitterman · · Score: 3, Informative
      The lawyers have made provisions for this eventuality in their filing. The footer on page 16 states:

      Should discovery disclose that Defendants are in possession of images constituting child pornography within the meaning of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 6312, et. seq., Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to assert a cause of action thereunder.

      --
      For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
    103. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if this would make a good argument against the Milwaukee mayor's attempt to turn the school superintendent into an appointed position? If he's not elected by the voters, what are they supposed to do when he does something that ends up costing them so much money?

    104. Re:Tape by Muros · · Score: 1

      He simply wasn't paying attention when Kowalski explained it to Toad. It's THREE magic tools -- duct tape, WD-40, and a pair of vicegrips.

      Clint Eastwood missed the most important one in that movie. When all else fails, a sledgehammer will make a problem go away one way or another.

    105. Re:Tape by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      I took that to mean that rebuilding another house just as vulnerable to bad weather as the first one was is a bad idea. See, for instance, monolithic domes for tornado-proof construction methods (that are incidentally incredibly energy-efficient due to sky-high insulation factors).

    106. Re:Tape by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      No mention of what the picture was, but if it was something involving nudity then... wouldn't a better course of action be to sue the school district for being in possession of child pornography?

      Only if the school officials were complicit in the students' "activities". Otherwise, any store or institution that has surveillance cameras that record would be liable for criminal prosecution if someone underage does something "inappropriate" in front of a camera. The University where I work has surveillance cameras all over campus, including many outdoor areas such as parking lots. If a couple of high school students decide to "do it" in the bushes one night and it is picked up by a camera, are the campus police guilty of production and possession of child pornography? (They would be if they made copies to take home and give to their friends, but there's no evidence the school district here did that.)

      I'm not saying the school district isn't guilty of anything here, I'm just sick of child pornography being used as a catch-all law.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    107. Re:Tape by blackwoodf · · Score: 1

      To pclminion, saying that taxpayers should be punished and that it's our fault; that's absolute rubbish. It's one thing to "to learn about the political persuations and tendencies of those they elect", it's a whole other ballgame to know or to foresee Every Single Thing they think or might do in the future. Especially when one of those things might turn out to be illegal. That's just a ridiculous thing to expect. Should all taxpayers be published for all transgressions by public figures? If Joe Public turns out to be corrupt or a psychopath or a thief, is it our fault? Let's not get unreasonable. How exactly do we know everything that's going thru their heads and how exactly do we stop it? ....in between elections! And did we Elect the Superintendent and the principal, vice-principal etc??

    108. Re:Tape by pclminion · · Score: 1

      If I am not allowed to vote do you really think I can run for office ?

      I admit your point. The set of taxpayers and the set of voters do not completely overlap. My wife can't vote either, so I understand.

    109. Re:Tape by Leebert · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Constitution is not in place to "grant" the people rights, the Constitution is in place to limit what the government is allowed to do.

      Close, but you're missing an important distinction. The Constitution exists to grant rights to the Federal government. All other rights not explicitly enumerated for the Federal government in the Constitution are reserved for the States or the People.

      The Bill of Rights is a non-exhaustive list of rights that in particular the Government must absolutely never be permitted to infringe.

    110. Re:Tape by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

      this is the THIRD time this Member State has been caught abusing teenagers' rights. Twice before teens were thrown into jail (for one night) because boyfriends/girlfriends were sending naked images of their own bodies to one another (naked humans; oh noes!), and now here's the third time this Member State was caught abusing the rights of our teenaged citizens.

      I think this Pennsylvania Government is getting out of control. The sad part is, because this school is part of the government, it will probably not be charged. Government tends not to charge its own people, or if it does, the charges are so lenient as to be effectively no punishment at all.

      But if WE did something like this, we'd spend 7 years in jail and have to wear a Scarlet Letter (name on a child molester list) for the rest of our lives. There are two standards for normal citizens and government citizens.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    111. Re:Tape by George+Beech · · Score: 1

      Don't bankrupt the tax payers because PA residents pay school taxes by district

      Ha, the school districts around here ALREADY do their damnedest to bankrupt the homeowners in their districts.

    112. Re:Tape by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

      Again why should I, the taxpayer, be punished because of the voters bad choices ?

      You are free to move to a school district that isn't ran by idiots*. Then your tax money will (hopefully) be spent more closely with how you'd like it spent.

      (*) Assumes such a district exists

    113. Re:Tape by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah but there's a difference between cameras catching teens having sex in a public area, and cameras that were snuck-into private homes and caught sex or nudity in the bedrooms.

      I recall one landlord who mounted cameras in a tenant's apartment was severely prosecuted - not for child porn of course, but for invasion of privacy, production of lewd images, and so on. The school principal/teachers will face all of that PLUS the underage porn charge.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    114. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The taxpayers are exactly who should be punished. They elected a set of officials who apparently believe it's okay to spy on families in their own homes."

      Yes, because taxpayers/voters can reasonably be expected to be clairvoyant.

      It's just like how the boss at the post office is held responsible for hiring an employee who later "goes postal".

    115. Re:Tape by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      well as theres resonable suspicion that some of the people may have been spying on minors who may or may not have been in states of undress - maybe all of the scholl staff should be suspended and their computers searched for kidde porn. Just to be safe think of the children.

    116. Re:Tape by lorenlal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Something that I think is worth pointing out from the first paragraph:

      the laptops issued to high-school students in the well-heeled Philly suburb have webcams that can be covertly activated by the schools' administrators, who have used this facility to spy on students and even their families.

      The elected officials are usually someone like the school board. The administrators are typically the people running the school itself... Namely... the people responsible are probably not directly elected. So, having the voter pay the bill at best punishes someone indirectly responsible. That's not at all like punishing voters for who they elect. This also means that the taxpayers who can't vote there are punished with no say.

      In fact, using myself as an example: I work in Detroit, an elected official here was recently convicted for perjury, which resulted in $8.4 million in cost to the city taxpayer (which means I paid some of it). I didn't even get to vote against the guy because I live outside the city... Yet I have to help pay the bill. That's not even remotely right.

      So... I disagree that the taxpayer *should* be held responsible... It just turns out that they end up being held when public figured get involved... And they probably will be in this case.

    117. Re:Tape by Cat+Panic · · Score: 1

      While I find your argument about the people being responsible for those they elect entirely agreeable I have to wonder how realistic you're being in saying that we are all responsible for any thing that any elected official does.
      Are you really suggesting that we, as voters, can be held accountable for every single policy decided upon by our elected representatives?
      Do you really expect (or want) to know what goes on for every minute of every day in each area of life which happens to be devolved? For each person of influence who is elected there will be thousands more who are not.

      As an exercise, try standing for election under the banner "I'm gonna watch your kids' behaviour through their webcams even when they don't know I'm watching"
      against an hypothetical rival:
      "We're gonna make our educational system as safe as possible" blah blah - please do it,see how many votes you get.
      YOU (I'm assuming you are an American, because you sound like one. Forgive me if I'm wrong) live in a democracy, YOU are responsible as anyone else.

    118. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Removing the flesh from the school officials backs in the public square would do better. 10 solid lashes and no medical care for for 24 hours while strapped to the post.

    119. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats with Germans and scheisse porn?

      What's with the Japanese and tentacle rape?

      What's with the French and their stinky armpit hair?

      What's with you foreigners and your gross generalizations of Americans based on pop media?

    120. Re:Tape by treeves · · Score: 1

      Why not just uninstall the driver? Less messy, and reversible, if you ever want to use the mic.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    121. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you are wrong. The the non-voting taxpayers should get to horsewhip the voting taxpayers.

    122. Re:Tape by mikael · · Score: 1

      The official legal document describes that the users of the system (the administrators of the school) acquired pictures of the students in various states of undress, and that the whole system was exposed when the administrator reprimanded one of the students for "inappropriate behavior" in his own home.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    123. Re:Tape by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      Not to be a dick, but WD40 is non-conductive, so it won't really do anything to the microphone.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    124. Re:Tape by t0p · · Score: 0, Troll

      Do you own a cellphone? Are you aware it is possible for someone with access to the network to activate your phone's mike, turning it into a listening device? Are you aware that some cellphones can actually be switched on remotely? Now you know, I assume you'll keep your phone in a sound-proof box when you're not using it.

      --
      http://ihatehate.wordpress.com
    125. Re:Tape by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      The sad part is, because this school is part of the government, it will probably not be charged. Government tends not to charge its own people, or if it does, the charges are so lenient as to be effectively no punishment at all.

      Or in other words, the government will fine the school district, not the asshat school employee that did this. They will turn around and either give crappier educations to the children under the guise of having a budget problem due to the fee--or they will just steal more money from the taxpayers.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    126. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, taxpayer != voter, but the overlap is quite large. Most taxpayers do vote, most voters pay taxes. If you get caught in the crossfire, too bad. If it is something that needs to be done to ensure such policies are not implemented in the future, your inconvenience is not only worth it but necessary. Whether or not such a suit will encourage the proper change is another debate, but assume for a second that it will. Such a change needs to be made, why should it be held up to please a small subset of the population? Not everyone gets exactly what they want all the time and when members of the population start believing they should, it is a sure sign of decline.

      Personally I'm not sure millions of dollars is appropriate, surely every last bit of expense for bringing the suit should be repayed to the families, but the purpose of such a suit is to force the schools to stop such a practice and never allow it again, not make millionaires.

    127. Re:Tape by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      The government will be unlikely to fine itself (the school). That was my point. Criminal charges will not be pressed for Pennsylvania versus itself, or if they are, the charges will be so lenient as to be effectively non-punishment.

      Kinda similar to how our Treasury Secretary broke the law (did not pay taxes), but nobody ever bothered to charge him because he's part of the government. Government protects its own, and the school will be protected.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    128. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The taxpayers are exactly who should be punished. They elected a set of officials who apparently believe it's okay to spy on families in their own homes.

      Kiss my asshole, you sanctimonious fucking son of a bitch. No voter can possibly know every hare-brained idea every elected official might come up with. You don't even know everything your closest relative thinks.

      The correct response is to send in US marshals (yeah, the ones who show up on SBA raids for illegal software) and seize all school computers. If they find evan a single image of an underage student who unknowingly undressed while the camera was runnibg, round up every involved official, charge them with production of child porn, strip them of theoir jobs, slap them on a sex offenders list so they can never enter another school in the US and jail their loose asses. But only after tieing them to a pole in the gym where the students and their parents can kick their genitals bloody.

    129. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      taxpayer != voter

      Do you realize that I am a taxpayer and have absolutely no right to vote ? There are quite a few people in this situation. At the same time a lot of US citizens have the right to vote but do not pay taxes.

      Why should I be punished for something I had absolutely no control over while the ones who voted these criminals into office are not ?

      It depends on why you don't have a right to vote. If the reason is age, I sympathize. I can't think of another situation where I can wholeheartedly sympathize though. Even DC has local representation enough to control the school boards.

    130. Re:Tape by selven · · Score: 1

      The problem is, people who did not vote for the politician get hurt just as badly. It's collective punishment, which is immoral and wrong.

    131. Re:Tape by douglasdoughty · · Score: 1

      I read the article and the PDF, but I didn't find anything that stated an underage person was seen naked. From where does the underage porn charge stem?

    132. Re:Tape by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      The government will be unlikely to fine itself (the school).

      You should start reading Injustice Everywhere. It's an eye-opener. The number of government retards that get off the hook, or get fined but the gov steps in to take the fine.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    133. Re:Tape by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      Why should they? How were the kids to know they were being spied upon?

      The school gave them webcams - that should have told them they were about to lose all privacy. Did they think the cams were to do silly dances and upload them to Youtube or to show their bits off to a BF sitting on his laptop elsewhere?

      Whenever someone gives you something, try to remember what they taught you in school about Trojan Horses...if they taught that.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    134. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree with you except that i suspect that the lesson would be completely lost on the general populace.

      That's why they should face the consequences of voting for people who, by proxy, break the law on their behalf. Everyone who voted for the school board that approved/was responsible for this has a share of the guilt. By having to pay higher taxes/lose services to cover the lawsuit penalties will force them to learn the lesson.

      I think the assumption here is that any person who is eligible to vote, whether voting or not, whether registered or not, or whether casting a vote for the winner or loser accepts the outcome as "theirs" by acceptance of the process as a proxy for their rights. Elected officials who commit crimes in their names should be held personally responsible since they are acting outside of their authority when committing a crime. Still, the government as an institution is also responsible since it abetted the official in the crime and the voters put them there.Monetary awards are necessary to to affect an awareness of the culpability of all involved.

    135. Re:Tape by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      No, you leave them there, bound and gaged, to slowly dehydrate and starve, then be eaten by wild animals and insects.

    136. Re:Tape by fractoid · · Score: 1

      You have control over it. You are funding the behavior by paying taxes. You have a choice. You can influence others to vote more intelligently. You can run for office yourself. In the extreme, you can move to another political district where your tax dollars won't be used to finance child porn. I know, democracy and responsibility can sometimes be inconvenient.

      Wait what? If he has no right to vote then I doubt he'd be able to run for office (or can you? I don't know American plolotics). Are you suggesting that he can withhold taxes if he doesn't agree with current policy? (why didn't anyone tell me you can do that?!) Otherwise your comment that he can move to another political district to escape his current government is pretty weak; the same argument applies to places like Iran and North Korea too (although admittedly Pennsylvania is less likely to shoot you or your remaining family if you do so).

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    137. Re:Tape by BillX · · Score: 1

      A peeping Tom would get prison, how is this not the same thing only worse?

      Maybe part of the discovery process should include scouring the school officials' PCs for any 'interesting' student footage they decided to save. If they disciplined one student after watching an (undisclosed) 'inappropriate' act at that student's home, what other inappropriate acts might they have watched with greater interest? Even in the likely case that no kiddie porn is found, it would be appropriate for them to experience the humiliation and privacy invasion of forensics folks scavenging around in their personal files.

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
    138. Re:Tape by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "That's why they should face the consequences of voting for people who, by proxy, break the law on their behalf."

      Does this imply the current state of the US economy is natural justice?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    139. Re:Tape by BillX · · Score: 1

      If these same taxpayers allegedly did not know about the spycams even while holding said spycammed laptops in their hands, how would they have known about them at voting time? Crystal ball? (And no, I don't believe the argument of "they voted republican, they should have known what they were getting" would hold legal significance ;-)

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
    140. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ron Paul was a real conservative

      Maybe he was at some point, but he supports Federal legislation against abortion with the Sanctity of Life Act. His support of gay marriage only extends to letting states decide individually, which simply moves the government decision from one area to another while playing both sides. He also believes there is a war on religion and Christmas.

      Ron Paul is simply another one of today's neo-cons with a different marketing scheme.

    141. Re:Tape by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "There is simply no need for anyone, authorized or not, to see anything here."

      I think i speak for all of us: thank you

      ;)

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    142. Re:Tape by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Most new laptops with a built-in webcam have a hardwired LED that lights up when the webcam is powered on, you should feel safe with one of those.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    143. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except if he like, wanted to actually use the cam or the mic

    144. Re:Tape by Michael+Hunt · · Score: 1

      Spying because you have a sense of responsibility about the activities of teenagers that you can't control, because you're acting on a sense of right and wrong that has been taken to extremes, is more forgivable.

      No, it's not. Get your inflated sense of right and wrong out of my house.

    145. Re:Tape by tftp · · Score: 1

      Most new laptops with a built-in webcam have a hardwired LED that lights up when the webcam is powered on, you should feel safe with one of those.

      Yes, as long as you stare at that LED all the time. I'm sure there are people who are OK with that, but most of them are in psychiatric facilities. The rest of us may not even look at the laptop if we aren't using it.

      Also, does the LED activate in the single frame mode, when a still picture is taken? That could happen pretty quickly. Another possibility is that the LED may be always on - that depends on the software that reads from the camera.

    146. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^^ This

    147. Re:Tape by yacoutamia · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, there was no capability to remotely record a video. It was an anti-theft measure that could be used to snap photos (same as some of those iphone apps, or http://www.orbicule.com/undercover/ for macs, or one of the million programs that can be used to take a picture with a webcam on your stolen laptop) and that was supposed to only be activated after a theft was reported.

      So obviously someone made use of that capability when they shouldn't have. The question is, was that person following policy or acting on their own? The software and capability isn't unjustified, it seems like a good thing to have on a school-given laptop. My guess is that there was one or a few people who were taking these snapshots when they weren't supposed to, saw a kid doing something bad, decided it was their job to do something about, and are now going to get the school district in a whole shitload of trouble.

      See the school district's response here: http://www.lmsd.org/sections/schools/default.php?m=&t=hhs&p=hhs_today_anno&id=1138

    148. Re:Tape by Kalriath · · Score: 2, Funny

      Free rotting fruit provided for free.

      As opposed to...?

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    149. Re:Tape by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      everybody involved should be facing felony charges (with stalking/molesting a minor sanctions) even if they get just one day in jail... they'll never hold a position of trust again. These things need to be punished extraordinarily harshly because people don't ever get punished for them I hate to break it to IT folks, but they should have not installed this software knowing how the "paper pushers" had used it. I'm against a lawsuit, they do no good anymore. We need to start passing out felonies for this stuff all around.. let's ruin some people's careers as an example.

      My school (college) uses webcams in certain online classes like public speaking where you need to video conference. There is one group of online educators pushing for webcams to be activated while taking online tests... I could even understand if this was something like the programs people set up to catch laptop thieves or track damage... but office administrators and principals had absolutely no right to this information.

    150. Re:Tape by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1

      A problem with that lawsuit is that the district would be using funds from the taxpayer... Which hardly punishes the right people. This was clearly a problem with the individuals who made and approved the asinine idea of spying on the kids at home. They're the ones who should be sued, and fired.

      In the State of Australia I live in Govt Departments were exempt untill recently from any fines under the OHS laws. They argued the same way - it's the taxpayer who will ultimately pay because the fine will come out of the budget that pays for schools, hospital beds, the police and so on.

      As a result, the OHS practices of the govt were appalling untill this situation was changed.

      My experience from this tells me that, if the school district were to be fined, the taxpayers wouldn't pay directly - the money would be deducted from the school district budget, and the parents would raise an outcry when the services and programs were available to their kids were cut. This would mean that the Govt/School Board etc would make sure it didn't happen again.

      Individuals can also (and should also) be fined. But this is not just about unnaceptable behaviour from individuals, it involves senior decision makers not acting/

    151. Re:Tape by icebraining · · Score: 1

      The LED is located above the screen, so it's hard to miss unless you're not using the laptop (especially those in HP laptops, they almost burn your eye).

      But yes, when you're not using the laptop it could record unnoticed, but I would prefer closing the lid over sticking tape in it.

      Also, does the LED activate in the single frame mode, when a still picture is taken? That could happen pretty quickly.

      Mine does.

    152. Re:Tape by pjmburg · · Score: 1

      While I agree with the gist of your post, the point of view taken by anti-abortion advocates is that abortion is murder. And I don't think even the staunchest libertarian would advocate the government not punishing murder.

    153. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    154. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they need to charge anyone that accessed the computers with attempt to create Child Pornography.

    155. Re:Tape by cgenman · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. Get your inflated sense of right and wrong out of my house.

      Are you saying someone spying on someone else to get their jollies off is exactly the same thing as someone spying on someone else because they're afraid they might hurt themselves? Intent is generally taken into account in sentencing, and in this case it seems like it should be as well.

    156. Re:Tape by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Everybody gets raped in prision if they are in there enough time.

      I wish we already dropped the cliche so that somebody would worry about that. Jails in japan, germany or spain are much better places of actual rehabilitation. The american way of jailing people is really third world rate.

      Do you have proof of this?

      You speaking from personal experience, or what you watch on tv and movies?

      While I'm sure prisons aren't a fun place to spend time at, no where I have I ever seen any proof that lots of people get raped in american prisons and jails.

      I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm just saying, show me some proof that it is a big problem.

      Everyone seems to accept that it's this way, but is it really?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    157. Re:Tape by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it isn't murder. Murder is the killing of a person. Most abortions are the killing of a cluster of cells. There is a difference and it isn't semantic.

    158. Re:Tape by ryanov · · Score: 1

      To be clearer, it does NOT say that such images were acquired, just that it is reasonable to believe they may have been based on the usage of the laptops. A subtle difference.

    159. Re:Tape by alanshot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The taxpayers are exactly who should be punished. They elected a set of officials who apparently believe it's okay to spy on families in their own homes. ...

      RIIIIGHT.... and your sister should go to jail for child abuse because she married a guy that 5 years into the relationship started drinking and then suddenly snapped, and beat the kids severely. Since he was beating the kids and she CHOSE to marry him, she therefore is just as liable for the abuse to the kids as he is, from the first unforseen blows, with no allowances for hindsight (eg she left him after the first time he became abusive).

      Using your logic, the above scenario makes sense too.

      I think the individuals responsible for the decision should be brought up on criminal charges PERSONALLY, and not as a member of the administration. Intent or no, this was clearly a bad idea dreamed up by a warped individual.

    160. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How else are we going to get responsible government?"

      In this case? How about punishing the moron responsible for spying on kids in their bedrooms. Seriously, who THE FUCK thought this was a good idea?

    161. Re:Tape by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      I think it was an episode of 24. I agree. Citation needed.

    162. Re:Tape by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      Actually, by it's very definition USA is a first world country. I quote: "The concept of the First World first originated during the Cold War, where it was used to describe countries that were aligned with the United States."

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
    163. Re:Tape by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      I was watching a documentary about an Aussie prison (I forget which one, it was somewhere in West Australia). One of the inmates was from the US, but for whatever reason was being allowed to serve his sentence in the Australian prison. He actually said that he has really good incentive to be a good inmate because if he does anything wrong he could get deported to serve out his sentence in an American prison, and the US prisons are apparently much much worse than the Australian ones. So there's a citation for you, a documentary that I can't remember the title of about a prison I can't remember the name of...

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
    164. Re:Tape by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      They should only tax the people that voted this idiot in by your measure.

    165. Re:Tape by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      buy 5 fresh get 1 rotten free.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    166. Re:Tape by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Watch this documentary

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    167. Re:Tape by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      I can't think of another situation where I can wholeheartedly sympathize though.

      How about "not having the correct citizenship" (yet)?

    168. Re:Tape by qbast · · Score: 1

      Well, that's what you get if you completely ignore rehabilitation aspect and focus solely on punishment. Sure, victims get their vengeance but don't be surprised about repeat offender stats. Why just not return to good old lynching? Way cheaper and more effective.

    169. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without knowing GP's situation: If he can't vote, he probably can't run for office.

    170. Re:Tape by Sir+Mouse · · Score: 1

      Does that mean the 40% who voted for the other side don’t have to pay? How about the huge percentage of the population so rightfully disillusioned with the governmental process that they don’t vote? (The other side often being no different)

      “The government is established by us” ?? – I don’t recall drafting any early American legislation. The government was established long ago, and now is a self perpetuating entity which is not really controllable in any serious fashion by the average person. The system presents us with one or two equally poor choices for the various offices to create the illusion that the average person has some kind of power over the government.

      “can't be bothered to learn”, “not know what's going on” – I agree, but you have to realize how many people get up, get their kids to school, go to work, get home, fix dinner , clean the house, then have all of a half hour to themselves before they have to do it again. Many do not have the time necessary to play watch-dog on the governmental agencies that control their lives, not to mention the fact that technological issues such as this are often outside the general knowledge of the average lay-person.

    171. Re:Tape by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The people who voted against were doing all they legally could and do not deserve to be punished.

      They deserve to be punished for not being more persuasive.

    172. Re:Tape by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      And what about those who voted or spoke against this? Should they be punished? Should you be held personally responsible for every dishonest thing someone you voted for does?

      No. You vote them out of office, and levy criminal charges against the person who committed the crime.

      Unless the taxpayers feel the hit, they are unlikely to vote anyone out of office.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    173. Re:Tape by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Disagree, the democrats are where the Republicans were last election. I'm just talking about their differences in monetary policy seems to be the same.

      He'll O even followed the same advice B and gave those 1% the bailout. He should have let them all fail instead of using tax payer money to prop them up. He made the same mistake x 10 that Bush did here.

      So, once again, they get elected by saying different stuff, but do the same things.

      If what you say about health care is true it just proves it goes even further back. The democrats have had control of all houses and the Presidency and couldn't get this passed? They must not have wanted it passed despite what they have said.

    174. Re:Tape by fl!ptop · · Score: 1

      I work in Detroit, an elected official here was recently convicted for perjury, which resulted in $8.4 million in cost to the city taxpayer (which means I paid some of it). I didn't even get to vote against the guy because I live outside the city... Yet I have to help pay the bill.

      I'm confused, if you don't live in the city, and there's an $8.4m cost to the city taxpayer (your words), how exactly are you paying for it? Aren't the city taxpayers paying, and not you?

      In any case, claiming you can't vote the guy out because you don't live in the city isn't a valid argument. No one is stopping you from moving somewhere where you can cast your vote.

      --
      When you recognize love in another and realize how precious it is, everything else seems so insignificant.
    175. Re:Tape by lorenlal · · Score: 1

      The City of Detroit levies a 1.5% tax on people who work in the city. Residents pay 1.5%, but you get a vote. If you live and work in Detroit, you pay a total of 3%.

      Meaning: I work in Detroit, so I pay 1.5%. I am someone who pays a city tax from employment.

    176. Re:Tape by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Given that the USA is the one that invented the whole "First World" etc. terms, well of course it calls itself that.

      But if you look at the way it behaves and operates, it operates much more like a Third World country than a modern First World country.

      The definitions came about during the Cold War, but they've evolved since then. There is no "Second World" any more, there's just 1st and 3rd. 1st refers to Western, industrialized countries like the Western European nations and Japan. 3rd refers to underdeveloped nations like Zimbabwe and Mexico. Back during the Cold War, the western European nations were bombed out and still rebuilding, and the USA was leading the world in technology and industry, as well as standards of living. Things have changed now; the European nations have caught up and overtaken the USA in most things, especially standards of living and quality of life, while the USA has been stagnating badly. 3rd-world countries haven't all been standing still either, and many have been advancing rapidly, India and China especially. How does the USA fare in regard to education, for instance, compared to India and China? Science and math are deemed far more important in those 3rd-world nations than it is here in the USA, where they're derided as a waste of time, and no one wants to "waste" money on space exploration like they did in the 50s-60s. Therefore, while the USA may have started out as "1st world" (and that was an accurate description back in 1955, compared with all the other countries at the time), it's really fallen to "3rd world" status.

    177. Re:Tape by Evtim · · Score: 1

      I agree, but you have to realize how many people get up, get their kids to school, go to work, get home, fix dinner , clean the house, then have all of a half hour to themselves before they have to do it again. Many do not have the time necessary to play watch-dog on the governmental agencies that control their lives, not to mention the fact that technological issues such as this are often outside the general knowledge of the average lay-person.

      Exactly right! May I also add something that came to mind while reading the tread: that it is time for a change that would allow parents to spend more time with their kids and less time working/commuting? All kinds of studies have shown decisively that interaction between parents and children, especially in the early years is crucial.

      I am appalled that in the much despised by me totalitarian regime in which I was born and raised my parents had an easier time bringing me up than my western colleagues would have today with their kids! My mom got 2 years full paid maternity leave and after that kindergarten and school was free (including the textbooks) and available everywhere, even in remote, small, rural villages (basic schools and kindergarten only, but still!) The quality of the kindergarten / school system - it was variable, I would give it an average score of 7 out of 10 at least in my experience.

      It is unbelievable that my colleagues have to subscribe for day care/kindergarten the moment the woman conceives (talking about waiting lists!!) and then they are ripped 900 Euros a month per kid for 3-4 days care only (so one or both have to switch to 4-day working week and earn less). I am not even a parent and I cannot stand this situation.

      It was unbelievable to discover on my first visit to America that my cousins have 1 hour per working day to talk to their children and in this one hour they have to repair the damage that TV, schools and so on, have inflicted on the youngsters. Sure, not everything the kids absorb from the culture is damaging, but you know what I mean. Both kids absolutely adored me for being with them the whole day (it was school vacation period) and having non stop good time. Useful time too, as the teacher, /not like the ones we talk about I feel compelled to add/ in me never sleeps. I did teach chemistry and physics only for a year and then went full time scientist but everyone said I was doing a pretty good job.

      Don't tell me that /sarcasm/ our mighty civilization /sarcasm/ does not have the knowledge and resources to give us a bit of happiness, a bit of air to breath and time to improve ourselves! And I really think that for once, it will be good for the children!

    178. Re:Tape by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Do you own a cellphone? Are you aware it is possible for someone with access to the network to activate your phone's mike, turning it into a listening device?

      This isn't anything new with cell phones. The old-style desktop phones that go back to the 1920s had the same property. This was essentially because they contained no power source themselves, but were powered by the 50V DC supplied on the line by the phone company. Hanging up didn't cut the power, because without the power, there was no way to ring the phone or make an outgoing call. So the phone was effectively "live" all the time. When "hung up", the phone was generally disconnected from any connection. But a lot of court-ordered "wire tapping" was done inside the phone company's central offices, by simply establishing a permanent connection from your phone to the recording equipment. This would produce a recording of any sound in the vicinity of the phone. (The more sophisticated tapping equipment would stop recording when the incoming sound was below some threshold.)

      This was mentioned in assorted articles over the decades that such phones were in use, but it never much entered the public conscience. Much of the public image came from movies, where setting up such a secondary connection wasn't interesting video, so they used a more visually interesting physical tapping scene instead. Physical taps don't make much sense with cell phones, of course, so the movie makers have to go to the more realistic approach of talking to the telco workers to establish a link.

      Actually, since cell phone have to have their own power supply, it's feasible for a cell phone to turn off its microphone's power when not in use. But most of them probably do have the ability to turn the mic on in response to an incoming connection, and the software could easily do this without telling you about it.

      I've occasionally got calls from my wife's cell phone, and it was obvious when I answered that she hadn't actually called me. I was listening to the background noise, or occasionally to a conversation in her vicinity. Nothing embarrassing to her so far, though. (Or maybe I just didn't listen long enough. ;-) I've told her about it each time, and she always gets a bit annoyed, but not annoyed enough to research methods of doing something about it.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    179. Re:Tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a cultural thing (christianity), americans want blood. In other cultures prison is supposed to be crime-rehab, producing law abiding citicens. In the US that is not not what the public cares about, thee guilty shall be punished with harsh times.
      Prison rape and even prison violence is not very hard to prevent, unless you specificly create the prison the way its done in US (and many other countries in the americas)
      With Christianity i mean the variant of Christianity that removes the love Jesus taught and replace it with double extra hate from the old testament (New tetsament was supposed to be the 2:nd edition obsoleting old shit)

    180. Re:Tape by heson · · Score: 1

      and think of the ad revenue from televised lynchings

    181. Re:Tape by dark_requiem · · Score: 1

      Yes, except that means that EVERYONE in the district is forced to pay for the decisions of elected (and non-elected) officials who they did not support. Everyone, including those who voted in opposition, and including non-voting anarchists and anarcho-capitalists. You're not promoting the idea of responsible government, you're reinforcing the (correct, as it happens) notion that government screws you coming and going. That's a lesson I'm already intimately familiar with; I don't need a refresher course courtesy of the ignorant masses.

    182. Re:Tape by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      I meant that if the person responsible earns $36,000 per year, and there were 1500 victims, and garnishment is at 25%;

      $36k is $3k per month
      25% of that is $750
      Shared between 1500 people is $0.50 each.

      Obviously, this won't every accumlate to anything like the full compensation amount over the rest of the person responsible's remaining working life.

      --
      FGD 135
    183. Re:Tape by passion · · Score: 1

      paranoia is a healthy adaptation to reality

      --
      - passion
    184. Re:Tape by ElecCham · · Score: 1

      Applying "slippery slope" to that logic, then if the secretary to the manager of the Widget Reshuffling Department within the FBI steals a car, then it's the taxpayers' faults, because ultimately the chain of command leads to someone The People(tm) elected??

      --
      Sig broken, watch for .finger
    185. Re:Tape by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also pull the paper trail and fire and sue each and every person who had authority and signed off on it. I don't want a scapegoat, I want full accountability.

      Suing the School/District only punishes taxpayers and students.

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
    186. Re:Tape by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Mexico is a typical middle income country like Brazil, South Africa or Russia that has it's share of problems. You have not been to real third world country if you think Mexico is third world.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    187. Re:Tape by yacc143 · · Score: 1

      No, but they did not run on a "we'll protect your constitutional rights" ticket, ...

    188. Re:Tape by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      If it's ATTACHED to your computer then a better solution would be to unattach it. i.e. unplug it from the computer. Also, if your company can activate the camera/mic remotely then why do you not suspect that they can monitor attached peripherals as well? Covering up the built in webcam and plugging in your own doesn't help anything if you're concerned about privacy.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    189. Re:Tape by BZ · · Score: 1

      > You can run for office yourself.

      It is in fact quite rare that someone cannot vote but can run for office....

    190. Re:Tape by aunticrist · · Score: 1

      Lets remember that there are also a TON of people taking up space in prisons here in the states that are in there for having a little too much marijuana on them or in their home during some drug raid and they are serving longer prison sentences than people in jail for rape and murder. Most of our over-crowding is actually due to this very problem, to the point that -judges- are trying to get those mandatory sentences for pretty minor drug charges changed. Yay for our "war on drugs".

    191. Re:Tape by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Please take the "Judeo" out of your "Judeo-Christian". We Jews have nothing to do with this crap.

  2. Hmm by LogarithmicSpiral · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does anyone see some child porn charges coming here?

    1. Re:Hmm by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Insightful

          No shit. Not that I advocate underage people doing anything, but all it takes is one girl changing clothes in her room with the laptop turned on, and then they have a stack of federal charges.

          I'm pretty sure there are some federal charges that can be associated with that anyways.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:Hmm by joaommp · · Score: 1

      I can. I hope they get nailed. I can't imagine what would I do if I was the one targeted by those webcams.

    3. Re:Hmm by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think they'd have to record it for it to be child pornography. Streaming would be sexual exploitation of a child and whatever the legal term for peeping-tom is.

      But then I knew of some teachers in my high school who had no problem watching students have sex in a car in the school parking lot. Not via cameras; live viewing through a window overlooking the parking lot. (They just wouldn't let me have a look.)

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    4. Re:Hmm by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To me, the whole idea that a school could possibly accuse a student of "inappropriate behavior in the home" is worse than the web cams. Seriously, WTF? This is taking the whole "school as babysitter" thing a bit to far.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope it didn't happen, but if it did, I hope they're prosecuted to whatever extent the somewhat ridiculous porn laws in the US will allow.

    6. Re:Hmm by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's the full list of claims they're making:

      Electronic Communications Privacy Act - interception of communications
      Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - exceeding authorized access
      Stored Communication Act - more unauthorized access
      Civil Rights Act - Invasion of Privacy
      4th Amendment - Invasion of Privacy
      Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act - wiretapping
      Pennsylvania common law (1) - Invasion of Privacy

      (1) footnote reads: "Should discovery disclose that the Defendants are in possession of images constituting child pornography [...] Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to assert a cause of action thereunder."

      Bonus: Not only does the class action include the 1,800 students, but all their family members.
      That school district is fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Hmm by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      If you were underage, file kiddie porn charges...
      You would get a huge damages award and some IT flunky would get nailed for it, the administration would walk away scott free.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    8. Re:Hmm by inviolet · · Score: 1

      Bonus: Not only does the class action include the 1,800 students, but all their family members. That school district is fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked

      Yep.

      On the one hand, that will be a nice loud signal to other demigovernmental agencies (transit authority, anyone?) who are executing or contemplating similar shenanigans.

      On the other hand, this evil sprung from the minds of probably just a few individuals... but the punishment upon the school district will cause pain for many more people than that. In the final analysis, it will raise the school taxes (by requiring issue of a new bond) levied on all citizens, in order to pay out to the parents whose children attend. As such, it will be yet ANOTHER transfer of wealth from non-parents to parents.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    9. Re:Hmm by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      So, other than the huge damages (which would get paid out of tax dollar revenue anyway), how is this a win? The only way to win is to make the administration pay -- and pay heavily -- not necessarily in money, either.

    10. Re:Hmm by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Doesn't matter if the child is male or female ... naked + underage = trouble for whoever made/possesses the image. Of course, there are problems with the puritanical, nanny-state mindset of the zealots who use those laws to jail teens who take pictures of their own bodies, but its use seems strikingly apropos here, given the voyeuristic nature of the complaint.

      What I want to know is
      a) Who thought it would be a good idea to allow remote control of the camera and mic? Sounds like it would require school administrator and systems administrator knowledge and cooperation.
      b) Who thought it would be a good idea to actually use and review the video streams? Having the theoretical ability is one thing, but to actually make use of it is worse.
      c) With regard to the student who was spoken to about their "innappropriate behavior", what directed the school's attention to the laptop in question? With all the laptops potentially involved, the sheer numbers make it impossible for a school's admin staff to monitor them all.
      d) When was the student's "inappropriate behavior" monitored? Was it after school hours, at home? Was it during school hours? What was the conduct in question?
      e) IF YOU ARE A SCHOOL OFFICIAL PEEKING AT KIDS' PRIVATE MOMENTS, HOW MUCH OF A FREAKIN' BONEHEAD DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO CONFRONT THEM WITH EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY SUCH QUESTIONABLE MEANS?

      I hereby sentence the offending individuals to take whatever Civics/US Government 101 class is mandatory for all students in their school. Anyone with less than an A final grade will be shot. Anyone who gets an A will be forced to write the complete Bill of Rights 10,000 times, before being forever exiled to the set of Big Brother.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    11. Re:Hmm by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As much as I'd like to see several people go to prison over this, I feel bad for the local taxpayers and their kids who will have to go to a school $50 million in the red..

    12. Re:Hmm by SpuriousLogic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This really warrants criminal charges against the school officials who are behind this, not just a civil action. The FBI and local law enforcement should be reading those officials Miranda.

    13. Re:Hmm by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The good that can come of this is not within the guity school district, but within all other school districts that might be thinking that something like this is a good idea. If this suit leaves a financial smoking crater, other school boards are sure to notice.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    14. Re:Hmm by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bonus: Not only does the class action include the 1,800 students, but all their family members. That school district is fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked

      You mean the taxpayers in that school district are fuuuuucked.

      But I sure hope anyone who had a hand in it is canned.

      That said... the laptops were provided by the school. Just like my employer, I'm sure the school made it clear that use of the laptops would be monitored, non-official use is verboten, etc. Turning the webcams on definitely crossed the line in terms of monitoring, IMO. What if some kid was doing their homework in their underwear, or naked? That's using the laptop for sanctioned purposes.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    15. Re:Hmm by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      If you had a teacher who was on your side, present for that decision, and willing to testify, you could file charges against the administrators themselves.

    16. Re:Hmm by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      It isn't the first time a school has punished a kid for something that happens outside of school grounds and hours.

      For instance, if you get busted for pot by the cops at a party, I've seen schools suspend kids, kick them out of extra-curricular activites, etc.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    17. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. If the children's laptop contained pictures of naked children, then the children should of course be charged with child pornography. It's a strict liability crime: mere possession is sufficient evidence to convict.

      Oh, that's not what you meant?

    18. Re:Hmm by JustNilt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They clearly DID record it. They used a picture of the child in the case engaging in "improper behavior in the home" then confirmed to the child's father that this is true. I'm horrified by this and want to know why the heck there aren't also criminal charges filed against every staff member who knew of this without alerting the public.

      What an incredibly terrifying thing this must be to each family in that district who has had such a laptop in their home. Aside from basic states of undress they may have caught kids in there's the likelihood of actually having captured sex acts, whether adults or children. This is just insane! It's not just stored, either. Clearly someone actually reviews these recordings!

      This is all aside from what exactly a school is thinking for disciplining children for something that happens int he home. As a father myself I'd be furious if such a thing happened to my child. Sure, some things can impact schools but this takes it to an entirely new level.

      Un-fucking-believable.

      --
      You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
    19. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bonus: Not only does the class action include the 1,800 students, but all their family members.
      That school district is fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked

      Yeah but it really comes down to that the citizens of that district are on the hook for any payouts. The town will just raise taxes or reduce services to cover the payout. So in effect the parents are suing themselves.

    20. Re:Hmm by pitdingo · · Score: 1

      What if my kid(s) go over to one of these students house to say spend the night? And my kid(s) are not in that school district? I guess i need to open another suit?

    21. Re:Hmm by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the school will produce their Acceptable Computer Use Policy where all of the above is authorized by the parent or other legal guardian of each student, and transferring the responsibility of any illegal acts upon the student or upon their parent or other legal guardian (including prevention of anyone being in the presence of the laptop in any state of partial or complete undress or engaging in any form of sexual or excretory activity, real or pantomimed, in the presence of the laptop).

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    22. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope someone saved the cheerleader. OOps thats likely what got them into trouble in the first place.

    23. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly it's not PC nowadays for a bunch of parents to grab baseball bats and have an "honest" discussion with the responsible administrators who then slip out of town forever before first light leaving resignation letters behind. Damn shame.

    24. Re:Hmm by shogarth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's assume for a minute that the complaint is correct and that the school was remotely monitoring some set of students. (This might not be correct. Did the snapshot come from some public source like FaceBook?).

      If it were my daughter's computer, I would not be talking about a class-action suit with a civil attorney. I would be sitting down at police HQ and the district attorney's office pursuing criminal charges against the individuals involved. They would need to face the felony charges that their behavior warranted. Once that was rolling, I would go after the individuals (not the district) for civil damages.

      Why give a pass to the deep pockets? Simply because I don't want to have to look my neighbors in the face when a fractional point increase in their property taxes is required to pay a civil settlement that made me wealthy. I have no problems bankrupting the people who authorized and deployed the tech.

    25. Re:Hmm by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      They clearly DID record it. They used a picture of the child in the case engaging in "improper behavior in the home" then confirmed to the child's father that this is true.

      One still image of alleged "improper behavior" does not equate to a device recording all the time. It could just be a screen capture of the streaming video that was otherwise only viewed live. And the nature of the behavior is not disclosed, but had it been of a sexual nature involving the child, the district would have already been charged with creating child pornography, which it has not.

      Capability to record a single frame doesn't equate to proof that actual recording all the time took place.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    26. Re:Hmm by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Oh come on people. This is the government leadership trying to protect us from terrorists by monitoring all internet communications. Did they make a mistake? Sure, but they are doing the BEST they can and they don't need our constantly criticizing them about problems they are already fully aware of.
       
      /end sarcasm

      I stole that quote from Babylon 5. In reality I find this story horrific. It violates Pennsylvania Constitutional rights (Article I; sections 8 and 25). I also note this is the THIRD time this Member State has been caught abusing teenagers' rights. Twice before teens were thrown into jail (for one night) because boyfriends/girlfriends were sending naked images of their own bodies to one another (naked humans; oh noes!), and now here's the third time this Member State was caught abusing the rights of our teenaged citizens.

      I think this Pennsylvania Government is getting out of control. The sad part is, because this school is part of the government, it will probably not be charged. Government tends not to charge its own people, or if it does, the charges are so lenient as to be effectively no punishment at all.

      But if WE did something like this, we'd spend 7 years in jail and have to wear a Scarlet Letter (name on a child molester list) for the rest of our lives. There are two standards for normal citizens and government citizens.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    27. Re:Hmm by dissy · · Score: 1

      I think they'd have to record it for it to be child pornography.

      It is recorded if they even viewed the image. Temp file cache ftw in this case.

      Judges have put people in prison for decades for the same thing, even when no other pictures or media was found outside of the cache.

      Even if no prison time is involved, being on the sexual offender list will force the school to let them go as they are no longer allowed within 100 yards of any school grounds.

    28. Re:Hmm by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I think that sentencing someone to take no classes is a bit light. Although, since there are no classes, it would be impossible for those individuals to get an A, I guess the problem is solved.

    29. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I sure hope anyone who had a hand in it is caned.

      FTFY

    30. Re:Hmm by Aeros · · Score: 1

      and imagine how much this is going ot cost the tax payers for this big-time screw up. nice!

    31. Re:Hmm by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      That school district is fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked

      No, the insurance company takes a hit and the school district will pay higher premiums. The only people who are even remotely considered 'fucked' are the people who did it directly and the management that approved it as they are likely to be released from their contracts and the job probably isn't the best reference in the world. They aren't even going to get it that bad, they'll just move far enough away that no one knows about it or wait until next month when its forgotten about, and get a job elsewhere.

      The guy who gets fucked is the one who gets his computers seized because of this and it ends up he/she has got gigs of kiddie or even legal teen porn. That person will get raped, literally. After being sent to jail the prisoners will go to work on them. Even murdering thieving 'low life's' by most peoples definition have a problem with pedos and they don't tend to last real long in the general population of a prison.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    32. Re:Hmm by flahwho · · Score: 0

      The problem I see here is the school's faculties not focusing enough on student's in-school activities and more interested in social out-of-the-classroom happenings. This should be illegal and the individuals should be fired and sued

    33. Re:Hmm by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      What if some kid was doing their homework in their underwear, or naked? That's using the laptop for sanctioned purposes.

      In hindsight, if they haven't already added it, I'm sure they'll add a clause to the contract stating you can't be undressed using the laptop. To be honest, that should have been in the contract regardless, spying via the cam or not. No one wants the laptop back after its been sitting on the balls of some school kid while he hot chats some 40 year old guy claiming to be a 18 year old female elf pixie fairy load on WoW.

      Its rather messed up that they are spying on the kids this way, but the thought of kids screwing around with a loaner laptop while indecent is not appealing in the least, and unsanitary for a number of reasons.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    34. Re:Hmm by Ihmhi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Welp, the parents can take the money and pay for a (typically superior IMO) private school anyway.

    35. Re:Hmm by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the school made it clear that use of the laptops would be monitored, non-official use is verboten, etc.

      They aren't monitoring the use of the laptop, they're monitoring the room the laptop is in. I can't see how they thought this was a good idea at any level, the downright pervi-ness of putting a camera and microphone in every students' bedroom is well beyond what could possibly be considered reasonable.

    36. Re:Hmm by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      No shit. Not that I advocate underage people doing anything, but all it takes is one girl changing clothes in her room with the laptop turned on, and then they have a stack of federal charges.

      I would like to think that the system is not yet insane enough such that "changing clothes" qualifies as "pornography".

    37. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Due to the surprised discovery by one of those students and the huge negative reaction by him and the parents it's most probably that the school did NOT make their surveillance or policies clear.

      I also believe that the schools controls and rights end once the student is no longer on school property.

      Besides, you can be sure there is only one password for all the machines, and the local pedos will have that soon, if not already...
      Heck, these things are internet enabled, pedos worldwide!

    38. Re:Hmm by barberousse · · Score: 1

      Pennsylvania common law (1) - Invasion of Privacy

      (1) footnote reads: "Should discovery disclose that the Defendants are in possession of images constituting child pornography [...]

      Why possession? If they viewed naked children, especially on purpose, they should get child pornography charges. Proving it might be hard though.

    39. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      e) If you are a school official peeking at kids' private moments, how much of a freakin' bonehead do you have to be to confront them with evidence obtained by such questionable means?

      It would appear that being Vice Principal qualifies one as sufficiently boneheaded.

    40. Re:Hmm by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      In the final analysis, it will raise the school taxes (by requiring issue of a new bond) levied on all citizens, in order to pay out to the parents whose children attend. As such, it will be yet ANOTHER transfer of wealth from non-parents to parents.

      I don't know how it would work there but here all bonds for the schools have to be voted on. So that would never pass as a way to pay it off.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    41. Re:Hmm by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of punching someone in the eye with your fist, and then suing him for attacking your fist with his eye.

      “Hey child, I was watching you play with yourself yesterday, and I have to call you in my room later, to... uuum... punish... you for that inappropriate behavior in your home!”

      But you know: This is only a fucked up world, ...if you let them define that as normal reality.
      It’s still your choice. Do you play along with the madness. Or do you don’t accept that world to be your world, no matter what?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    42. Re:Hmm by ElSupreme · · Score: 1

      Yeah if I got that picture I would be busting some heads. And not my childs!

      --
      My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
    43. Re:Hmm by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      On the plus side: This is a clear sign of what is inappropriate or acceptable behavior... for a school administration! ^^

      [I hope it’s only the start of other parents demanding their rights too (to not have their children indoctrinated into being slaves who blindly accept everything as if it were $deity-given).]

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    44. Re:Hmm by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Capability to record a single frame doesn't equate to proof that actual recording all the time took place.

      No, but it does prove that actual recording was possible, which is grounds for a search to find out just what was recorded.

      And it’s an illegal privacy violation even if they didn’t record any naked teens. They should go to jail for a significant length of time. If any naughty pictures turn up in the search, they should go to jail for even longer.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    45. Re:Hmm by macs4all · · Score: 1

      One still image of alleged "improper behavior" does not equate to a device recording all the time.

      Oh, yes it does, as far as the law is concerned. There is ample statutory and case law on the subject. People have been IMPRISONED (not just sued civilly) for images in a browser's CACHE.

      Now go back to preparing your defense brief for these Nazi motherfuckers.

    46. Re:Hmm by More_Cowbell · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your assertion is correct, but you gave a sort of bad example. If a kid signs up for a sport at school (for example), generally there is a contract signed by the kid that he or she will not do drugs or will be tossed off the team. This is above and beyond what the rest of the student body is subjected to, and the kid makes the choice to sign. If the cops report it to the school, the issue is clear cut.
      But there are many other examples out there to back what you said.

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    47. Re:Hmm by Japher · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is another great argument for privatizing the school system. If this was a privately run school, there would be no taxpayer involvement. The students could sue the offending school into oblivion and not worry about destroying local education (or their own property values) for years to come. Of course that would mean that the school wasn't an agent of the government which would kill the fourth amendment charges, but it also (probably) removes some protections that school officials have as a result of being government agents.

    48. Re:Hmm by macs4all · · Score: 1

      It's 1,000 yards here in Indianapolis!

      By the way, that is a nearly impossible distance to maintain, as there is always some sort of school, playground, or daycare within 1,000 yards.

      Not in any way defending these assholes, just FYI.

      Personally, I can't think of a single good reason why the entire school board hasn't been ARRESTED for this. They are all "co"-conspirators (I hate that term, btw).

    49. Re:Hmm by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      You can't grant the school permission to perform illegal acts (although of course some acts do become legal once permission is granted). An agreement doesn't always give absolute authority, especially to do things that are only suggested by the agreement. I'm sure someone would have noticed if it said "we have the right to spy on you for any purpose"

    50. Re:Hmm by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to record all the time for it to be recording. The fact that they have a 'record' aka the picture of the child means that recording took place. Even if all they have is 1 photo, they RECORDED that photo

      --
      All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    51. Re:Hmm by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > Bonus: Not only does the class action include the 1,800 students, but all
      > their family members.
      > That school district is fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked

      Don't know how class action suit mechanics work, but they could go even further: Anybody who owned any private property it was used on (inside buildings anyway) and any person, relative or otherwise, who was inside at the time. Don't know about a food court, but your out-of-district friend's house, their stepdad, and the guy inside fixing the plumbing.

      Good question, would snooty sitting areas in coffee shoppes count?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    52. Re:Hmm by macs4all · · Score: 1

      This is taking the whole "school as babysitter" thing a bit to far.

      A bit too far???

    53. Re:Hmm by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      I was thinking jobs/jail time. Some IT worker shouldn't take the fall for doing what the policy was, if this was even in fact the policy, and it sounds like it was. The administration needs to be held accountable, and the monetary damages really just are going to ruin everyone in the county, for, as i noted above, they're going to get paid out of tax dollars.

    54. Re:Hmm by psithurism · · Score: 1

      CP charges would be the most embarrassing, but just a drop in the flood of potential charges.

      I was thinking of myself in a parental position (though I don't have kids). I have proprietary papers and work on my LCD screens (viewable through cameras); giving my employer reason to get into the suit. Attempted identity theft, misc privacy violations and emotional distress of the parents could be added to the charges. This isn't just about the kids the administrators (intentionally?) bugged the whole household.

    55. Re:Hmm by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      That school district is fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked

      They might be able to successfully use the defence of the student involved got the wrong end of the stick and they did not and do not have the ability to do what was claimed in the lawsuit. I mean this may or may not be the case but we don't know al the facts.

    56. Re:Hmm by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Well, let's get the perps in jail, then, instead of all this "settlement" crap.

      Doesn't this school have an American Government class? They tend to be run by libertarian-types who have no problem yapping at length about what the government is permitted to do.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    57. Re:Hmm by wjousts · · Score: 1

      Nope. There is no evidence that anything that might constitute porn was ever recorded here. Stop jumping to conclusions.

    58. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      b) Who thought it would be a good idea to actually use and review the video streams? Having the theoretical ability is one thing, but to actually make use of it is worse.

      Not to repeat what is extremely derivative and what I would think would be a truism these days, but...

      If it's possible or likely someone will do it. Almost immediately. If it's thought to be impossible it will take a while longer. If it's illegal or could be used for profit - a while longer may not be as long as you think.

    59. Re:Hmm by Nothing2Chere · · Score: 1

      You're right they'd be Fcuked if this thing every actually gets a trial.
      What'll probably happen is that the greater portion of the image evidence will be suppressed under some claim that there is no way to determine where the image was taken.
      Then, when there's only testimonial evidence the lawyers will cut a deal with the school system (and each other) to settle before going to trial.
      I hope I'm wrong, but I'm a cynic.

      N2C

    60. Re:Hmm by haydon4 · · Score: 1

      How much you want to bet there was a fine print clause buried in the Equipment Issuance paperwork that allows the school to monitor their student issued equipment in any way they deem fit?
      That any information that is stored on that computer is school property?
      That the school reserves the right to monitor, intercept, or act on any information gathered by said computer?

      I bring this up because it is standard for any government owned computer, and I bet the issuance form was read by and signed by both the parent and the student.

    61. Re:Hmm by toastar · · Score: 1

      What if some kid was doing their homework in their underwear, or naked? That's using the laptop for sanctioned purposes.

      In hindsight, if they haven't already added it, I'm sure they'll add a clause to the contract stating you can't be undressed using the laptop. To be honest, that should have been in the contract regardless, spying via the cam or not. No one wants the laptop back after its been sitting on the balls of some school kid while he hot chats some 40 year old guy claiming to be a 18 year old female elf pixie fairy load on WoW.

      Its rather messed up that they are spying on the kids this way, but the thought of kids screwing around with a loaner laptop while indecent is not appealing in the least, and unsanitary for a number of reasons.

      That's elf pixie fairy lord

    62. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want to have to look my neighbors in the face when a fractional point increase in their property taxes is required to pay a civil settlement that made me wealthy.

      If the schools are this badly managed, I'd be moving anyway. If my ex-neighbors don't like the rising taxes and falling property values, then maybe they should pay more attention to local politics.

    63. Re:Hmm by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      But to be charged of child pornography, that one image would have to be child pornography. Without evidence of any other recorded imagery that contains child pornography, it is just speculation. They can get a warrant to seize every computer in the school and the home computers of every faculty member to search for some, but until they find any, the ability to see children nude without producing a record of it ever happening doesn't rise to a charge of producing child pornography.

      So put down the torches and pitchforks for now.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    64. Re:Hmm by DadLeopard · · Score: 1

      If they watched it on their computer or had it recorded to later check their conduct, then it is on the hard drives somewhere! Makes no difference to the police whether or not it was erased! Guilty!

    65. Re:Hmm by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      No, you pay property taxes regardless as to whether you go to public or private school, so you either pay for school once or twice depending on where your kid goes.

    66. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all the laptops potentially involved, the sheer numbers make it impossible for a school's admin staff to monitor them all. and run this on your work server (or whenever you need the ip)

      I'm sure they are only concerned with monitoring a small number of "potential troublemakers". Who coincidentally happen to be attractive females, especially those on the cheerleader squad.

    67. Re:Hmm by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      It would appear that being Vice Principal qualifies one as sufficiently boneheaded.

      Or a whistleblower walking the line between disclosure and doing his job.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    68. Re:Hmm by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 4, Informative

      The class action suit describes the agreement under which the laptops were provided; no mention is made of remote monitoring. I suggest you read the original filing.

    69. Re:Hmm by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      ...charges filed against every staff member who knew of this without alerting the public.

      Let no good deed go unpunished!!

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    70. Re:Hmm by joocemann · · Score: 1

      I am a father as well and I am completely and utterly disgusted that PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR THE SCHOOLS SOMEHOW EVEN FELT LIKE THIS WAS AN OPTION OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

      The only business the school has with watching my child is when she is at school. I don't care if the principal is at the mall on a saturday and my kid is there... he had better not be there to WATCH her... maybe he can come say hi and be cordial like normal people but they have NO FRIKKING BUSINESS MONITORING/SURVEILLING MY CHILDREN OUTSIDE OF THEIR PREMISES.

      I know a good few people in that school deserve a helluva lot more than a lawsuit.

    71. Re:Hmm by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Not that I advocate underage people doing anything, but all it takes is one girl changing clothes in her room with the laptop turned on, and then they have a stack of federal charges.

      If the underage person is aware that they are being recorded, then they could (and probably would) be charged with creating child porn of themselves. So I certainly would NOT encourage anybody to try this.

    72. Re:Hmm by BlueBat · · Score: 1

      Possibly, you should have read the article.

      According to the filings in Blake J Robbins v Lower Merion School District (PA) et al, the laptops issued to high-school students in the well-heeled Philly suburb have webcams that can be covertly activated by the schools' administrators, who have used this facility to spy on students and even their families.

      This means they can choose when to take any photos/videos of the students.

    73. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't imagine what would I do if I was the one targeted by those webcams.

      I can. If it were my daughter caught on the web cam, I would first request a meeting with the school administrator who sent me the photo. I think I will decline to describe what step two -- in the administrator's office -- would be, but let's just say that step three would be a phone call to the very best lawyer I can afford, and not because I wanted to share my newfound wealth with him.

      Posting anonymously so I don't undo the moderation I've already done in this forum.

      --Element-O.P.

    74. Re:Hmm by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm not going to read that PDF on my work system where I have no control over what reader it will open in. Especially with the local SWAT running an "exercise" in this building tonight.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    75. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting busted for pot at a party is different from getting busted by a spycam inside your own home. If you get busted for pot at a party the police had a reasonable suspicion that something illegal was going on/noticed said illegal activity in person while investigating another complaint. Getting busted by your webcam is different. If a cop planted a camera in my room without a warrant and I got arrested based on evidence gathered from that cam, the case would be tossed instantly. We have a right to privacy inside our homes; those webcams violate that right.

    76. Re:Hmm by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      They used a picture of the child in the case engaging in "improper behavior in the home" then confirmed to the child's father that this is true.

      You know, if a school official did that with me, I would beat the shit out of him in front of my child and tell my kid "that's what free people do to fascists!"

    77. Re:Hmm by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Aside from basic states of undress they may have caught kids in there's the likelihood of actually having captured sex acts, whether adults or children.

      School funding problem... SOLVED!

      --
      That is all.
    78. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again posting anonymously, due to moderation above.

      With all due respect, everyone involved needs some quality time with Bubba in a federal penitentiary, from the school officials who concocted this brain-dead scheme to the IT stiffs who implemented it. If you don't have the morals to tell a suit where to shove it when they ask you to do something illegal/unethical, then you shouldn't be trusted to work in IT. "I was just doing what I was told" was not a suitable defense in Nuremberg and it's not a valid excuse now. If my boss told me he wanted me to spy on kids in their own home with a web cam, I'd tell him to put it in writing. Then I'd take the written order to the cops. And if I got fired for doing that...well, I wouldn't want to work in that place, anyway.

      --Element-O.P.

    79. Re:Hmm by LtGordon · · Score: 1

      That said... the laptops were provided by the school. Just like my employer, I'm sure the school made it clear that use of the laptops would be monitored, non-official use is verboten, etc.

      Given that the laptops were assigned to students, I'm sure the school board was smart enough to at least get a standard Acceptable Use Policy, i.e. something to the effect of "communication and use may be monitored, etc". However, having the laptop take discreet pictures without specific consent is far and beyond "monitoring use" and borders on "covert surveillance of a private dwelling".

    80. Re:Hmm by bdwlangm · · Score: 1

      And how are the IT workers not responsible? They would have known best the technical potential of the system. I have no sympathy for them. Aiding the administration in violating the rights of the students (see 4th amend.) is a serious offence. I'm usually willing to give people a break for not quitting jobs when they're asked to do questionable things, but monitoring students at home is way beyond questionable.

    81. Re:Hmm by SpaceCadets · · Score: 1

      I don't know how it works in America, but in Aussieland, you can't sign away your rights. Even if they signed something that said (and who would have signed, parents or the kids?) "I waive my 4th Amendment rights", the contract is not valid, and the school is still in the crap. I'm not a lawyer... ;)

    82. Re:Hmm by bdwlangm · · Score: 1

      Monitoring a person, their family, friends and the place they live is not the same as monitoring the computer. Giving someone permission to monitor my computer usage does not imply permission to monitor anything else.

    83. Re:Hmm by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      It isn't the first time a school has punished a kid for something that happens outside of school grounds and hours.

      Re:"BONG HiTS 4 JESUS", the Supreme Court ruled "It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," even though the banner was on a public sidewalk off of school property but adjacent to a school event.

      But the school probably considers the laptop to be school grounds much like an embassy is considered foreign soil. Anything done on it is done on school property, including reflecting photons onto its webcam's lens and vibrating particles of air against its microphone.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    84. Re:Hmm by srpape · · Score: 1

      For some reasons, high schools don't seem to think students are people with rights. I remember being told the 4th amendment didn't apply to me while I was at school.

    85. Re:Hmm by LtGordon · · Score: 1

      And the school will produce their Acceptable Computer Use Policy where all of the above is authorized by the parent or other legal guardian of each student, and transferring the responsibility of any illegal acts upon the student or upon their parent or other legal guardian.

      I'm sure that will be the case. However, the typical acceptable use policy is mainly focused on the school's ability to monitor "communications" and activities central to the computer itself. I'd be willing to bet that said policy doesn't do much to protect the school in taking covert pictures in a private location without consent. Furthermore, given that kids were expected to take the laptops home with them, it's not unreasonable to suggest that covert surveillance of the webcam would produce images that, let's just say, aren't legal for possession, even for the school board.

      This story really sounds like a case of a school administrator or technology specialist trying to "bust" a student improperly using the laptop or committing some other school-related misdeed. Just like most cases of abuse of authority in schools, except that this particular individual has set the new high water mark for federal laws broken in the process.

    86. Re:Hmm by bill_beeman · · Score: 1

      I absolutely don't feel sorry for the local taxpayers who have elected a board of such staggering incompetence as to bless this administrative voyeurism project. There should be personal liability for the administrators who have been peeping away, both civil and criminal.

      If we turn idiots loose to govern in our name, we're ultimately responsible for their actions...in this case by the taxpayers of that district taking a (hopefully) heavy hit in the pocketbook.

      And I don't excuse the tech folks that implemented this scheme. They had to either be totally blind to the implications of this, or knowingly complicit. They should share in the liability as well.

    87. Re:Hmm by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      Some IT worker shouldn't take the fall for doing what the policy was, if this was even in fact the policy, and it sounds like it was.

      Ahh, the good old "I was just following orders" defense....

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    88. Re:Hmm by jemenake · · Score: 1

      e) IF YOU ARE A SCHOOL OFFICIAL PEEKING AT KIDS' PRIVATE MOMENTS, HOW MUCH OF A FREAKIN' BONEHEAD DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO CONFRONT THEM WITH EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY SUCH QUESTIONABLE MEANS?

      Exactly! That's why I think the suitable punishment is to have this person's reproductive equipment deactivated. Someone this stupid just shouldn't breed.

      This reminds me of a story about England's cracking of the German enigma codes during WW-II. Apparently, Churchill had ordered that, if any action were to be taken based upon information gleaned from the enigma intercepts, that they'd first have to have some other plausible reason for taking that action. For example, when they intercepted the location of a U-boat through the enigma messages, they couldn't just send a bunch of destroyers out there to sink it, because the Germans would have deduced that there was only one way the English could have found out. So, instead, the English arranged to have a reconnaissance aircraft just "happen" to be patrolling the area... spot the U-boat... and then they send the destroyers.

      Okay, so back to the brain-dead school official. So, you decide to start surveillance on your students. Okay, I get that. You're a douchebag, but whatever. You discover some student doing something that you don't like and decide that you can't let that go unchecked. Okay. So, what you do then, is concoct some other way to accidentally and legally, "discover" what the student did, and then nail them with that evidence. So, to summarize: do the illegal snooping to discover where to go to "accidentally" discover what you already know. Jesus... how do you not know this? Don't you know any cops?!?!

    89. Re:Hmm by captjc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It isn't the first time a school has punished a kid for something that happens outside of school grounds and hours.

      It also depends on what is considered "school grounds." When I was in school, about 5 years ago, our school district stated (I am not sure if this is district policy or that of state or local government) that school grounds is not just school land but also the buses and any area within a few hundred feet from any bus stop. This bus stop consideration can lead to some interesting side effects.

      I remember an incident from back in middle school about a kid who liked to engage in horseplay with his little brother. Typical sibling rivalry stuff. They would occasionally have bruises or whatnot from their wrestling and carrying on. One day the little brother showed up to the bus stop with a black eye. He got it when they were playing tackle-football or something in their back yard after school. From what I was told, a teacher asked what had happened and went to the principal of the elementary school. This then went to the principal of the middle school and the kid was suspended for a two weeks for bullying. Because his bus stop was right in front of his house, they used the bus stop clause to designate his back yard as "school property".

      Typically this rule is used to keep people from getting beat up or doing stupid stuff at the bus stop. In this case it was grossly misused. I'm assuming the parents contested, but the kid was out for two weeks anyway. Just as well, he was a real asshole and probably would have been suspended sooner or later for something else just as dumb.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    90. Re:Hmm by pclminion · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt a judge will look kindly on the "But the contract said I could do it" defense to child porn charges. You cannot contract away the illegality of things. A contract which stipulates or allows illegal activities is non-binding.

    91. Re:Hmm by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      If it were my daughter's computer, I would not be talking about a class-action suit with a civil attorney. I would be sitting down at police HQ and the district attorney's office pursuing criminal charges against the individuals involved.

      So if the local officials at the schools are misbehaving, you'd go to the local officials down the street to complain? I think a civil case is better, once the misconduct is documented in court you can still involve the authorities. OTOH there is a chance that local politics could influence a criminal investigation. Their lawyer is personally motivated by profit in addition to any other motivations (s)he may have.

    92. Re:Hmm by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between being responsible and taking the fall. It's not justice for an IT guy to go to jail and for his boss who ordered him to do it to walk. That's just straight up b.s., which is what I'm trying to get out.

    93. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why the American school system is fucked. In the UK the schools compete for the kids, the parents get a choice on which school the child goes to on their grades in primary (elementary) school. I had a choice of 4 schools if I remember right. If the school was a "bad rep" school, then for the most part you would avoid going there unless all other places were taken in the others (it paid to do it early).

      Here in America, you send your kid to wherever you pay your taxes, be it that school is bad or good. The teachers are in a job that will not go away as long as there is taxpayers spawning children in the area.

      This is the wrong way to do it IMO. If that happened back home the school would lose staff, credibility and would end up not being a good school anymore. Would eventually close and the kids would all go to other schools in the area instead. Free enterprise in the schooling system, just like if a restaurant is bad it goes out of business so should schools.

      Stupid fucked up American way, I feel sorry for the taxpayers too like you said!.

    94. Re:Hmm by phantasmagoric · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you read the linked court documents, the plaintiff says that the school did not tell anyone that the laptops would be monitored

    95. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did the parents sign when they took possession of the laptops? They may have signed off on this use...if not, the district folks are idiots.

    96. Re:Hmm by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      If class action is granted, this will hardly make the plaintiffs wealthy, unless there were 5 of them (hah!) and the school is hit with a 7-figure judgment.

      But on the whole, I agree with you-- the parents should have gone to the cops/DA first to try and press charges. Of course, the DA may have scoffed at them for offering him a case that's not an easy way to the AG office, and they're now going the civil route as a result.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    97. Re:Hmm by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      I hope these assholes have their brains sued out of them. This couldn't be done by a single person, a group of people must have been involved. I'm amazed how they were not only stupid enough to actually implement this system, but also to accuse a student based on it.

      This is just too stupid to be true.

    98. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly didn't read the filing, then.

      The school not only didn't make it CLEAR, but they also gave NO indication that it would be going on at all in the copious amounts of documentation that came with the laptops.

      If you're going to make an argument, at least read the court papers.

    99. Re:Hmm by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I think I will decline to describe what step two -- in the administrator's office

      TWO MEN ENTER ONE MAN LEAVES

      Posting anonymously so I don't undo the moderation I've already done in this forum.

      Sorry, slashdot undoes the mods without warning you.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    100. Re:Hmm by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      If a single student out of the hundreds left their laptop open and running just a single day out of however many days the laptops were in use while changing their clothing, then we have a child pornography issue. That is hardly an absurd conclusion to jump to.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    101. Re:Hmm by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

              Oh a perfectly good post, and you go and invoke Godwin.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    102. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a really intresting case for the right to privacy. Does it matter if the equipment is state-owned and you signed a waiver to your privacy? Maybe it's more reasonable that you had an expectation of privacy?

      I think a reasonable person could presume that some low level monitoring of laptop security settings was happening, like antivirus logs being centrally managed, patches being managed. If something was spotted to be astray there, and it led further and further to the conclusion that activities incompatible with a student's studies were being performed... that's one thing.

      But to switch on the microphone and camera and start recording... didn't that cross a line?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

    103. Re:Hmm by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      I'm just imagining how that first meeting with the parents went:

      Administrator: Sir, we believe your son is engaged in "inappropriate behavior" at home.
      Parent: My little snowflake would never do something like that
      Administrator: Well we have this photo that we took covertly using his laptop in his bedroom.

      ...

      How fucking dumb can someone be?

      At first I really wanted to think that the student hoisted himself on his own petard and was claiming the photo was taken surreptitiously, to deflect some of the blame, but according the school district's website:

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

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

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

      So now I'm starting to think someone at the school really is that dumb. Second, someone should let the school board know that no one appreciates it when you pat yourself on the back during damage control - and I'm guessing that right about now the laptop program isn't all that "well received."

    104. Re:Hmm by tftp · · Score: 1

      But to be charged of child pornography, that one image would have to be child pornography.

      Indeed it's just speculation. However consider these facts:

      • A teenage boy
      • A working computer
      • An "inappropriate behavior"

      What is the most likely activity that took place?

    105. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kids who will have to go to a school $50 million in the red..

      This is Lower Merion , richest township in the richest county in the state. A large percentage of the families of those kids could write a check to cover that debt...

    106. Re:Hmm by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      >

      I would like to think that the system is not yet insane enough such that "changing clothes" qualifies as "pornography".

      I'd like to think that to. But I'm pretty sure that if I *did* think that, I'd be wrong.

    107. Re:Hmm by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      That's elf pixie fairy lord

      Shut up, McGeek.

    108. Re:Hmm by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      What the fuck has the school to do with that? If they don't want kids to use the laptops while naked, don't give them laptops. It's better than inventing absurd and unenforceable rules.

      By your point of view, the contract should have 1000 pages specifying all the different little things kids are not allowed to do with them, like wiping their ass or pissing on them.

    109. Re:Hmm by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I know in some areas, the acceptable distances have really made things impossible. It's frequently, "any place that children may congregate, including but not limited to residences, schools, playgrounds, daycares, and bus stops" ...

          Being that I've gone driving around when the buses are picking up kids for school (something I strongly advise everyone against, unless you like slow painful drives), you'll find those little demons are everywhere. At 1k feet, it's easy enough to get someone in trouble. "Hey kids, go play over there while we call the cops on that guy."

          Sometimes the offenders were caught for stupid things that didn't really deserve any punishment. That is completely unlike what we're discussing here though. They gave themselves the keys to a peophile's wet dream.

          Anyways, it's become such a problem that many of those convicted go on the run. They'll live under bridges, or in camps, or abandon houses. Pretty much anywhere that they can without disclosing where they live. I've read about a few areas setting up specifically so those convicted have somewhere to live. Those measures have been taken away. Hell, one was a trailer park in the middle of nowhere. The owner and residents were good with it. It was busy bodies across town who didn't like it.

          It's just another stupid thing with law. You can't (or shouldn't) enact laws that make for impossible situations.

          You're on probation, so you can't leave the country.
          You can't live virtually anywhere in the US, without breaking the law.

          It's like lawmakers are driven by action groups who don't think through their requests.

          Sure, I'd like to know there are no pedophiles or other sex offenders within 100 miles of me. Well, except maybe a few select hot freaky chicks, but I digress. If you made the law to say that they aren't allowed with 100 miles of a non-sex offender (i.e., me), I'd be happy, but it's set up an impossible situation to maintain.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    110. Re:Hmm by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      Smoking a joint while updating his MySpace page?

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    111. Re:Hmm by dkh2 · · Score: 1

      A screen capture would be more of a challenge (not impossible, just more difficult) for the school to get - and doesn't fit the description in the linked article in which the student was described as being engaged in improper behavior, and the proof was in the form of an image captured by the built in camera. Unless that still image shows a discernible reflection on the kid's glasses revealing unauthorized material your screen capture theory fails.

      Had it been of a sexual nature involving the child the school would probably never have tipped their hand and shown themselves to be in possession of child porn.

      The term "improper behavior" is vague enough that it could be anything. If the school has a zero tolerance policy regarding any controlled substances then a minor smoking a cigarette could fit that description as much as any sexual act.

      At any rate, all the time recording doesn't have to take place. A single frame of a 14yr old with no clothes is all it takes for a child porn charge to stick. The fact that the school had and used the covert ability to activate and operate these devices remotely without regard to the students personal privacy and without any communication regarding that capability will be central in this case.

      If the school district had required students receiving these systems to sign a usage agreement that included that information (even buried deep in paragraph 8 on page 14 in 6pt type) and indicated an assertion of the districts right to access and monitor the systems remotely they might have a leg to stand on.

      --
      My office has been taken over by iPod people.
    112. Re:Hmm by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      CP charges would be the most embarrassing, but just a drop in the flood of potential charges.

      More than embarrassing. These are school administrators. CP charges would be career-ending.

      And exactly what the fuckers deserve.

    113. Re:Hmm by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Nope, but there's evidence that it could have been. If it gives a valid reason to go after the bastards, I say go to town

    114. Re:Hmm by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      From an article cited above, the remote activation of the webcam was in place to help locate a laptop if it was stolen. Definitely a legitimate use from an IT perspective.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    115. Re:Hmm by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      had it been of a sexual nature involving the child, the district would have already been charged with creating child pornography, which it has not.

      That's not true at all. If nobody raised the child porn issue, it is unlikely anyone would be charged with it, even if the crime fits. Some authority actually has to identify it as a crime first, which may only happen if there is a complainant.

    116. Re:Hmm by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      I'd say enraging more than terrifying. I would not afraid if someone in the local school board was watching my son at home: I'd just want some nice retribution, all the way up the chain to the person who approved that madness.

    117. Re:Hmm by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      A screen capture would be more of a challenge (not impossible, just more difficult) for the school to get - and doesn't fit the description in the linked article in which the student was described as being engaged in improper behavior, and the proof was in the form of an image captured by the built in camera. Unless that still image shows a discernible reflection on the kid's glasses revealing unauthorized material your screen capture theory fails.

      A screen capture of the teacher's computer viewing the streaming video from the student's computer would show the student's physical activity.

      Beside the point, also monitoring what is on a student's computer desktop is pretty easy: every laptop may automatically connect to GoToMyPC.com and share whatever is happening on the computer with a computer back at the school. I haven't used that service, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't also stream webcam video of the user simultaneously.

      Part of the point of anyone doing streaming video (or audio) is that the data doesn't touch the hard drive thus preventing (casual) recording, only screen captures of single frames. That's why it is preferred by those wanting to have TV shows viewable to people on the Internet while preventing them from making a copy.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    118. Re:Hmm by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      I don't live in that area, but in deference to the precedent it would set I am going to call the D.A. to protect my daughters here. Everyone needs to call the D.A. or Sheriff's dept in that jurisdiction to report the class action and point out that it should be considered highly likely these people have a personal collection in their possession. Administrators have enough to do as it is. I don't see any of them cheerfully going out of their way to monitor students in their homes after hours unless there was some great personal gain.

      If the students were being monitored in their homes it's highly likely the admins were too.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    119. Re:Hmm by tftp · · Score: 1

      How much you want to bet there was a fine print clause buried in the Equipment Issuance paperwork that allows the school to monitor their student issued equipment in any way they deem fit?

      Not much, because the Plaintiff's attorneys went through that paperwork with a fine-toothed comb and certified in their filing that there is no such clause in the documents. I'm sure they did a better job searching for a specific item than a 3rd rate lawyer for the school district when he was writing the whole thing.

      Probably there isn't one indeed because it would be stupid and dangerous to claim that. It's one thing to monitor the *computer* - this is usually legal. But it's a very different thing to monitor the room where the computer is. The school's IT has no reason to see the room. Intercepting webcam images is not a "computer maintenance" like a scheduled defrag would be, for a simple reason - the image has nothing to do with the computer.

      Note that the complaint does not list any items that would be a legitimate maintenance target - like documents saved by the user. Those indeed might be a fair game for the school. The complaint is about images that users never recorded themselves, and had no reason to suspect that they were recorded by others.

    120. Re:Hmm by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Correction:

      it's highly likely the admins were in their homes too.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    121. Re:Hmm by tftp · · Score: 1

      Smoking a joint while updating his MySpace page?

      Stinking up the whole house, when it's much safer to smoke outside, with his buddies?

      Besides, I know a few smokers, and most of them see smoking as a separate thing to enjoy. If you are in an expensive restaurant, looking at the table full of delicacies, you probably aren't that likely to flip a computer open and start hacking on some obscure SNMP code.

    122. Re:Hmm by nobodyman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sure the school made it clear that use of the laptops would be monitored, non-official use is verboten, etc.

      That's just the thing though, according to the lawsuit, the school district did not indicate that it would be monitoring students via the webcam.

    123. Re:Hmm by tftp · · Score: 1

      You can't (or shouldn't) enact laws that make for impossible situations.

      The law may be fair or unfair, that I don't know. However it doesn't result in an impossible situation. It only bans sex offenders from cities. Once you leave a city you can live anywhere; even your nearest neighbor can be a mile away. A school is probably 10 miles away, if not more.

    124. Re:Hmm by GrubLord · · Score: 1

      I would like to think that the system is not yet insane enough such that "changing clothes" qualifies as "pornography".

      And you would be wrong.

      Teens have been prosecuted for 'sexting' images of their girlfriends, etc., in their underwear (ie. not naked, but changing clothes or about to take a shower), not under the charge of invasion of privacy, but possession and distribution of child pornography.

      Can't find the story right now, but Wired's got it online somewhere.

    125. Re:Hmm by DarkMagician07 · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you read the complaint, there was NO indication in any documentation that was agreed upon by the parents that the school would access the webcam. The documents that were filed have this stated within them several times.

    126. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "22. An examination of all of the written documentation accompanying the laptop, as well as any documentation appearing on any website or handed out to students or parents concerning the use of the laptop, reveals that no reference is made to the fact that the school district has the ability to remotely activate the embedded webcam at any time the school district wished to intercept images from that webcam of anyone or anything appearing in front of the camera at the time of the activation."

      Yeah. That school district is fucked.

    127. Re:Hmm by Yuuki+Dasu · · Score: 1

      If this was a privately run school, there would be no taxpayer involvement. The students could sue the offending school into oblivion and not worry about destroying local education (or their own property values) for years to come.

      Err...

      I'll grant that it would be nice if taxpayers didn't have to pay for the school's wrongdoing, but I think you'd find that privatizing schools wouldn't stop such a thing from destroying local education. If a school is driven to ruin, regardless of the circumstances, it's a disruption to the education of hundreds of students. The schooling market is also not quick to respond to a change in demand, as well; it would be quite difficult to spit the defunct school's students among the few other schools in the area, likely result in overcrowding of the classes and schools, nor could you expect a new school to jump right into existence to fill the gap.

      There are strengths to the idea of a privatized school system, but it's not a total panacea, that's for sure.

    128. Re:Hmm by haruharaharu · · Score: 1

      do you really think that would fix anything? You still have the same possibly illegal surveillance going on, and burying some crap about monitoring in a contract signed by a minor(!) doesn't change the fact that a) it probably doesn't constitute notification and b) monitor doesn't really capture the idea that they're planning to actually watch the kids on the laptop.

      --
      Reboot macht Frei.
    129. Re:Hmm by mikael · · Score: 1

      It's very easy to set up ... either in Linux or Windows . In each case it would require a user account set up on that machine which is what the administrators did.

      For Linux, you can use 'sshfs' to map a remote file system to your system. You can run commands remotely using rexec/rexecd. To record audio, you can use xawtv/record. To record video you can use any number of command line applications such as 'streamer', 'bttv'.

      Windows PC's would come with all of this setup, especially as the laptops were provided by the school. They would just need to use the video-conferencing and remote-desktop control features instead.

      I've mentioned this before, but my aunt had difficulty is setting up her broadband service. The Indian call-center staff were able to patch her PC configuration files without ever having to ask for a password. She said she just saw the mouse pointer whizzing around the screen and configuration windows opening and closing, so getting adminstration access is no problem.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    130. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter if the child is male or female ... naked + underage = trouble for whoever made/possesses the image.

      I agree, but in practice a man will go batshit insane if some pervert gets a naked picture of his daughter, and only get mildly upset if the same happens to his son.

    131. Re:Hmm by Improv · · Score: 1

      I would hope whomever is responsible for the policy (and for supporting it) gets the brunt of the suit. Is the whole district responsible for an outrageous policy (that's presumably not very well known, or people would've been making a lot of noise about this before it reached this point)?

      Still, it's an interesting issue - how *do* we handle things when the people we elect (or those they hire/appoint), on behalf of us, do something bloody stupid like this? Huge settlements/fines might be fine for businesses because they're external to society (in that if they fall over because of improprieties it's no big deal, usually), but we can't really fine ourselves, as that's just moving our money around.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    132. Re:Hmm by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      In the final analysis, it will raise the school taxes (by requiring issue of a new bond) levied on all citizens, in order to pay out to the parents whose children attend. As such, it will be yet ANOTHER transfer of wealth from non-parents to parents.

      I don't know how it would work there but here all bonds for the schools have to be voted on. So that would never pass as a way to pay it off.

      They'd probably attempt to pay out all they have in their coffers for operations, maintenance, etc and then hold the childrens' further schooling hostage to passing a bond initiative as all the districts' funds to keep the school open & functioning would be exhausted.

      Whenever a monetary penalty is assessed against any branch, department, or division of any level of government from townships to the federal level it is ALWAYS taxpayers who pay, as government has no money. All government has is OUR money. Fining the government is fining yourself.

      Serious state and federal criminal felony charges against the individuals responsible for the policies and actions is the only realistic option that doesn't force citizens to pay for the governments' financial liabilities in the case of any fine or settlement against the government being assessed or adjudicated.

      Passing more laws is redundant as there are already laws making these actions illegal just as with "hate crime" laws, but be prepared as politicians will almost certainly react by introducing yet another set of laws as a cover for government wrongdoing and to provide a campaign-ad "Look, I did something and my opponent doesn't care about the children!" video clip talking-point.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    133. Re:Hmm by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          "changing clothes" equals a nude person. Unless of course, you don't take off your clothes when you change clothes. I'm sorry my friend, that may be by some people avoid you. :)

          So back to your question. Would a full nude photo of your 14 year old daughter be considered anything less than child pornography? Not just nudes shot by herself or her boyfriend, but nudes shot by an adult, who is in a position of authority over her. A person she didn't even know was watching her. They weren't peeping through an open window. Despite her beliefs that she was alone and unseen, safe in her own room.

          Wouldn't you now admit that those pictures were pornography created by a pedophile, and look for the absolutely worst sentence you could as the prosecution to give them? I would. Or I'd make sure justice was handled Dexter style. We never know how we'd react, until it happens to us. Hopefully it never does, because I don't want to find out what I'd do.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    134. Re:Hmm by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      If you're not underage, file 'sick perverted bastard snuck a camera in my house and filmed me naked' charges.

    135. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Copyright Violation.

    136. Re:Hmm by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Well, "a bit too far" could, and probably should, be translated to "criminally and civilly illegal"

          Once the criminal trials are complete, the civil trials could begin and bankrupt the school system and ensure everyone involved never worked in any capacity resembling ever again, once they got out of jail.

          And as a lovely side note, pedophiles don't do well in prison. Inmates aren't just bad guys. The are people who do have families back home. They have little sisters, daughters, and nieces. When the other inmates find out that one committed a crime against a child, they think "that could have been *my* kid." Now they're not just serving time. They're serving time with a bunch of people who don't necessarily respect the law.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    137. Re:Hmm by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      I can easily imagine what I'd do if I found out my kid's school issued laptop were doing that. I might be careful enough to avoid prison, but I might be mad enough to forgo planning and precautions.

    138. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the taxpayers in that school district are fuuuuucked.

      Why does that sound so unbelievably American?

      1) Why do taxpayers in a school district directly pay for the schools in their district and their district only?
      2) Why would a school have to pay $WHATEVER? The appropriate people should go to jail and that's it.

    139. Re:Hmm by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      So back to your question. Would a full nude photo of your 14 year old daughter be considered anything less than child pornography? Not just nudes shot by herself or her boyfriend, but nudes shot by an adult, who is in a position of authority over her. A person she didn't even know was watching her. They weren't peeping through an open window. Despite her beliefs that she was alone and unseen, safe in her own room.

      Like I said, I hope not. It'd basically make any photos I might take at a nude beach that just happened to catch someone under 18 in the background, child pornography (or at risk of being so).

      Wouldn't you now admit that those pictures were pornography created by a pedophile, and look for the absolutely worst sentence you could as the prosecution to give them?

      Hell no. Though, of course, I believe in proportional responses, not "save the children at all costs" hysteria. Someone undressing is not inherently pornography, and even if someone is playing peeping tom at a minor, it's highly unlikely they are deserving of the same sentencing as someone coercing or physically harming a child with the intent of producing material to be provided to others.

    140. Re:Hmm by moortak · · Score: 1

      After the whole bong hits for Jesus case it is pretty clear that our legal system has given up on the idea of rights for minors.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    141. Re:Hmm by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      no they only need to spend 1 day in jail. They should have some low-level peeping or sexual harassment felony on their record. They give those out for peeing in public and having a little girl see your willy.... this is far, far worse.

      That will require "sex offender" registration for life in every state they live in. It will threaten their ability to keep their children in custody cases. It will bar them from schools and other places children gather. It will limit where they can live and show on a background check for any job.

    142. Re:Hmm by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      this is where good old lynching comes in. Announce what they did to the parents, march them into the gym naked in handcuffs and lock all the doors... with so many people in there "nobody" will be to blame if somebody got "hurt"...or worse. bummer. Invite kids they peeped on to watch!

    143. Re:Hmm by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      flashing boobies and mailing it to your boyfriend counts as child porn... and they try the 15 year olds as adults! Yeah, these guys are legally bound to protect children... throw the book at them.

    144. Re:Hmm by Japher · · Score: 1

      You're right, it's not a panacea but under the current system, a case like this one could bankrupt an entire district. Under a private system it would destroy just the one school.

      The problems that you list all exist now with public schools, and probably wouldn't be any worse under a private system. The upside, however could be huge. The defunct school's property could be bought and it's teachers (minus the offending staff) hired immediately by a competing school with very little disruption to the current student body. The problem here was the administration, not the educators, so one can assume that they would roll right into the next school year as if nothing had happened.

    145. Re:Hmm by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      IF YOU ARE A SCHOOL OFFICIAL PEEKING AT KIDS' PRIVATE MOMENTS, HOW MUCH OF A FREAKIN' BONEHEAD DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO CONFRONT THEM WITH EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY SUCH QUESTIONABLE MEANS?

      Bonehead is practically the definition of low-level admin staff in K12 schools. I deal with technology and provide services for K12 schools. So I pretty much have to deal with the high school administrators and tech staff at schools. All the time. And while there are people I certainly admire, there are far more than follow a certain mold:

      1) They are not only incompetent, they are grossly so. Their main claim to fame is that they can reload windows. Sometimes they follow the lead of Mordac, Preventer of Information Services and make life a living hell for the other staff, in order to show that they are actually doing something and are "needed".

      2) They are terrified that somebody might come along and expose them for the useless consumers of oxygen that they are. So they are very, VERY quick to dismiss any technology or solution that doesn't involve them installing and/or administering it. Especially if there's a cost benefit to doing so. I've seen such people actually shoot down proposals that would benefit the school by over a million dollars because the change was specifically recommended against earlier. In spite of the fact that there were no security or legal risks that could be enumerated by the party involved!

      3) They purposefully use barely applicable technical jargon as often as possible to sound intelligent and "on the ball". Often the words are used in a laughably inappropriate manner. Phrases like "The FTP protocol probably had a virus that caused the network routr to hang up". No, I'm not kidding.

      4) It seems that they avoid any situation where they might learn something for fear of giving away what they don't know. I think it's a variation of "better to keep quiet and have them wonder if you are a moron than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". Thus, not only are they clueless, they will forever remain so.

      5) The school administrators often have a deep-down fear that the tech weenies are incompetent and/or malevolent, but because they can't understand what's going on or why, they are uniquely incapable of doing anything about it. They are afraid of being held "hostage", and rightly so, because it does happen!.

      When I'm faced with such people, I have to make sure that every solution or mention of a solution includes mentions of the "capable tech staff" and brown nose until my eyes hurt from the smell. People who think that being "secure" means having an FTP password like "1337god" or their login name spelled backwards.

      I'm not at ALL surprised that one such tech got the idea of enforcing their version of justice when they found that they had the technical ability.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    146. Re:Hmm by Yuuki+Dasu · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the response.

      It is certainly true, as you suggest, that the damage would be limited much more in a private system. I'm a bit torn whether that's really better, though; if a large settlement is justified in a case like this (which I think we'd all agree, as it's an egregious breach of privacy), the school district has the pockets to pay for it, whereas little barebones private schools could only pay out the proceeds from the fire-sale prices of the now-defunct school's property. In other words, the school district has the money to actually pay up; a private school would fold and grant little restitution.

      Of course, the "best" solution would be the fee being levied upon those ultimately culpable for the situation (the voters whose elected officials either condoned or didn't stop it), with their resultant wising up and electing responsible and right-respecting school board leadership. The much more likely scenario for public schools is a pay freeze or cut for staff and a freeze on repairs and maintenance for the foreseeable future, which is considerably less appealing. Because of this, I can't say that I'm at all unsympathetic to your position on limiting damages.

    147. Re:Hmm by Ifandbut · · Score: 1

      I dont know how it works in your area, but when my parents were putting me through private school they still had to pay taxes that funded the local public school.

    148. Re:Hmm by mpe · · Score: 1

      If it were my daughter's computer, I would not be talking about a class-action suit with a civil attorney. I would be sitting down at police HQ and the district attorney's office pursuing criminal charges against the individuals involved. They would need to face the felony charges that their behavior warranted.

      So why are the several thousand people involved wasting time and money on a civil suit? Especially one which won't do much to punish those responsible even if they "win".

    149. Re:Hmm by mpe · · Score: 1

      The class action suit describes the agreement under which the laptops were provided; no mention is made of remote monitoring.

      Even if it did an "agreement" can't allow something which is illegal. About the only difference such a thing should make is to the length of the prison sentence. i.e. trying to get someone to agree to be "bugged" means a longer stay in prison.

    150. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hereby sentence the offending individuals to take whatever Civics/US Government 101 class is mandatory for all students in their school. Anyone with less than an A final grade will be shot.

      Shouldn't the grade they get determine how they are shot? e.g. b+ shotgun at long range to F- machine gun at close range.

    151. Re:Hmm by mpe · · Score: 1

      They used a picture of the child in the case engaging in "improper behavior in the home" then confirmed to the child's father that this is true.

      The question for the child's father is "Why didn't you call the cops?"

    152. Re:Hmm by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      You’re being much too lenient.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    153. Re:Hmm by Byzantine · · Score: 1

      In Mississippi where I live, private school teachers are not required to meet the same standards as public school teachers. Obviously, it's in the private schools' interest to hire the best quality teachers they can—but they're not required to, and in fact private schools in the state often pay their staff less than public. Not to mention that in the South, private schools have a lot of the time been historically a way to legally continue segregation.

      In other words: ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.

    154. Re:Hmm by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      Wiretapping charges come to mind.

    155. Re:Hmm by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 0

      Its worse though. Sure, I bet they *did* put a clause in the terms of use to say that they'd monitor the laptop's usage - but I seriously doubt that it included a paragraph stating that they'd be monitoring the house, room, and occupants of such as well. That isn't "bordering on", that *is* covert surveillance of a private dwelling.

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
    156. Re:Hmm by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Let's assume for a minute that the complaint is correct and that the school was remotely monitoring some set of students. (This might not be correct. Did the snapshot come from some public source like FaceBook?).

      That's what I've wondered all along... There's any number of ways the picture could have been taken and any number of ways the school district could have come into possession of the picture... And only one of those myriad ways adds up to "the school engaged in routine surveillance of the students".
       
      And really, at the moment, the entire case rests on the word of a single kid - and we all know that kids never lie to avoid getting into trouble for their own acts.

    157. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The missing detail is whether or not the "inappropriate" behavior captured in the image is of a sexual nature. If it is, I really can't see how the district can bring a defense into court, since they would actually have to be willing to enter child pornography into evidence and affirm that they created it.

    158. Re:Hmm by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      No shit. But read the post I replied to:

      As much as I'd like to see several people go to prison over this, I feel bad for the local taxpayers and their kids who will have to go to a school $50 million in the red..

      He was inferring that the quality of the education at that school district will greatly suffer because their budget will be hugely constrained by a legal settlement. That was my point; with the money they get from the settlement (if they win) this won't be a problem for the parents.

      Yeah they'll still pay taxes and that's something you can't avoid. But just because you have to pay taxes doesn't mean you'll also have to send your kids to a struggling school. See Sunk cost fallacy.

    159. Re:Hmm by FluffyWithTeeth · · Score: 1

      And the parents whose children will be going to school there in a couple of years time? Should they have to pay out of their own pockets to get their children a decent education because some individual or group of individuals committed a stupid crime?

    160. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it had been my child, I would have removed someone's testicles.

    161. Re:Hmm by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      You can't (or shouldn't) enact laws that make for impossible situations.

      The law may be fair or unfair, that I don't know. However it doesn't result in an impossible situation. It only bans sex offenders from cities. Once you leave a city you can live anywhere; even your nearest neighbor can be a mile away. A school is probably 10 miles away, if not more.

      Sounds perfectly reasonable to force someone to move so far away from civilization that they have to drive 60 miles to get to a decent job, if they can get one at all.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  3. I dont see the problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They were obviously trying to weed out all those terrorists, commies, subversives or whatever the government is at war with this time.
    Its better to start at an early age.
    I cant wait until they can scan foetal DNA to find out if its going to be a paedophile or terrorist.

    1. Re:I dont see the problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      find out if its going to be a paedophile or terrorist.

      And the way most americans see things as all-or-nothing, it's soon going to be the only two kinds of people in their country.

    2. Re:I dont see the problem here by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      I cant wait until they can scan foetal DNA to find out if its going to be a paedophile or terrorist.

      Fetal scans? How about "deposit here so we can check up on your child-to-be"????

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:I dont see the problem here by sconeu · · Score: 2, Funny

      They were obviously trying to weed out all those terrorists, commies, subversives or whatever the government is at war with this time.

      No, this is PA, not South Carolina.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    4. Re:I dont see the problem here by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Your looking at it wrong...
      They are just Telescreens, 1984 was just a bit optimistic of an implementation date. Don't talk about big brother at home, you never know when the Telescreen is watching...

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    5. Re:I dont see the problem here by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      I cant wait until they can scan foetal DNA to find out if its going to be a paedophile or terrorist.

      Are those the only two options? If so, will I be allowed to chose which one my unborn child will become?

    6. Re:I dont see the problem here by zill · · Score: 1

      And the way most americans see things as all-or-nothing, it's soon going to be the only two kinds of people in their country.

      I don't think being a paedophile or a terrorist is mutually exclusive, so there will be a third category: pedophiliac terrorists.

      The paedophiles and the terrorists will be working together to hunt down the pedophiliac terrorists.

    7. Re:I dont see the problem here by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      They are at war with children. Obviously.

      Think of the children!
      We’re a war with the uncontrollable youth!
      Think of the children!
      We’re a war with the uncontrollable youth!
      Think of the children!
      We’re a war with the uncontrollable youth!
      *pling* Invention of the concept of doublethink *pling*

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    8. Re:I dont see the problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Commies?

      This is Lower Merion Township. Try to find someone there who ISN'T a commie.

    9. Re:I dont see the problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pedophiliac terrorists

      Mohammed married a 9 year old girl... and killed a lot of people... any connection?

    10. Re:I dont see the problem here by mjwx · · Score: 1

      They were obviously trying to weed out all those terrorists, commies, subversives or whatever the government is at war with this time.

      What do you mean, we are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    11. Re:I dont see the problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget liberals, global warming alarmists, tree huggers, vegetarians, hippies, non christians, geeks, nerds, and anyone else that doesn't fit their world view.

  4. Turn it around by initialE · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And accuse school officials of pedophilia. This will be fun...

    --
    Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    1. Re:Turn it around by skine · · Score: 5, Funny

      But I was only recording the students' every action!

      How could I have known they'd undress at some point?

    2. Re:Turn it around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah. Sounds like some of the Administrators were doing a little too much "thinking of the children."

    3. Re:Turn it around by martas · · Score: 3, Funny

      yeah, and my cat's really into CP.

    4. Re:Turn it around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll assume you meant "KP" (kitty porn)

  5. at the very least by heffy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    School officials might avoid child porn charges if they prove they didn't see any lewd images, but I definitely see a lot of people getting fired.

    1. Re:at the very least by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the very least this should be considered stalking.

    2. Re:at the very least by MartinSchou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      School officials might avoid child porn charges if they prove they didn't see any lewd images,

      First of all, you cannot prove that. Secondly, they knew the software was there, making them guilty of TRYING to produce child pornography.

      Seriously. If they "happen" to have pictures of some kid "behaving improperly", they will definitely have pictures/movies of everything else that kid has been doing.

    3. Re:at the very least by WCMI92 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First of all, you cannot prove that. Secondly, they knew the software was there, making them guilty of TRYING to produce child pornography.

      Seriously. If they "happen" to have pictures of some kid "behaving improperly", they will definitely have pictures/movies of everything else that kid has been doing.

      That is exactly what everyone who had a hand in setting this up, or who KNEW that this had been set up, should be charged with ASAP. Conspiracy to create child pornography, because they set up a situation almost CERTAIN TO PRODUCE IT!

      People certainly have been charged with child porn or similar charges for a lot less, including activity that didn't actually involve a minor (ie: a cop pretending to be one). These monsters were ACTUALLY RECORDING VIDEO AND AUDIO OF CHILDREN WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT!

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    4. Re:at the very least by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you know, mere possession of CP is grounds for a conviction. I recall a case where the only thing found on the individuals computer was a 150 X 150 thumbnail of CP and the individual was convicted seemingly without difficulty. You seem to be suffering from a common affliction in today's society, belief in common sense. At least in today's US legal system this is as foreign a concept as compassion & equality was to the NAZI's during WWII.

    5. Re:at the very least by Rary · · Score: 5, Informative

      School officials might avoid child porn charges if they prove they didn't see any lewd images, but I definitely see a lot of people getting fired.

      The AP is reporting that they allegedly did see lewd images.

      The lawsuit alleges the cameras captured images of Harriton High School students and their families as they undressed and in other compromising situations.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    6. Re:at the very least by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Informative

      These monsters were ACTUALLY RECORDING VIDEO AND AUDIO OF CHILDREN WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT!

      There is no consent in child pornography. If the students are under 18, they cannot consent, and if they are 18+, it's not child pornography. But it will definitely be a violation of various other things.

    7. Re:at the very least by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      We have no problem with Dateline specials arresting men for attempting to sleep with teenagers. I can see intent to produce child pornography here.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    8. Re:at the very least by srjh · · Score: 1

      If these allegations are true, it will be an outrage if the end result is only "a lot of people getting fired".

      The child porn angle is only the tip of the iceberg, and I would hope that anyone signing off on this faces severe criminal charges.

    9. Re:at the very least by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      "As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly!"

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    10. Re:at the very least by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      That is exactly what everyone who had a hand in setting this up, or who KNEW that this had been set up, should be charged with ASAP. Conspiracy to create child pornography, because they set up a situation almost CERTAIN TO PRODUCE IT!

      Just to play devils advocate - nude pictures of children aren't necessarily considered child-pornography. Go google "nudism" and you're bound to run into several sites which feature underage children in the nude, all of them perfectly legal. So while this setup was certain to violate numerous laws, and would almost definitely produce nude photos of children, it wouldn't necessarily produce child pornography.

    11. Re:at the very least by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The AP is reporting that they allegedly did see lewd images.

      The AP may be reporting that, but it's not what the lawsuit claims. Here's what the lawsuit actually says:

      "it is believed, and therefore averred, that many of the webcam images captured and/or intercepted consist of minors and/or their parents in compromising or embarrassing positions, including, but not limited to, in various stages of dress or undress."

      They're saying "we think this probably happened", not "we have evidence that this happened". Since they don't have evidence that such images were created, they certainly can't prove that anyone actually viewed them.

    12. Re:at the very least by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      they set up a situation almost CERTAIN TO PRODUCE IT!

      Nice use of caps to emphasize "CERTAIN TO PRODUCE IT" and deemphasize the "almost". You have a future in politics my friend.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    13. Re:at the very least by sargeUSMC · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is definitely that kind of moment. Stupid beyond stupid turning a corner on sanity.
      I’m betting people are going to jail for this.

      The first time someone looked into a child’s bedroom through the laptop webcam, they sank their own battleship.

    14. Re:at the very least by Rary · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What you quoted from the lawsuit isn't really much different than what I quoted from the AP article. The lawsuit does, as the AP stated, allege that the webcams captured these compromising images. As you quoted, it is "averred", meaning "it is asserted as a fact of the case". Of course they haven't proven it. That's for the trial. But they are certainly alleging that it happened.

      As to whether or not anyone saw those images, that is immaterial. It is likely those images were created, and that is all that is necessary for a crime to have been committed. You'll notice that, in cases where child pornography is found on someone's computer, no one ever asks whether it was proven that the individual looked at the material. Simply having it, or creating it, is enough.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    15. Re:at the very least by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      The lawsuit alleges the cameras captured images of Harriton High School students and their families as they undressed and in other compromising situations.

      Emphasis added. I know there's a lot of strong emotions going around on this subject, but lets try to keep it reasonable shall we?

    16. Re:at the very least by wjousts · · Score: 1

      School officials might avoid child porn charges if they prove they didn't see any lewd images,

      First of all, you cannot prove that. Secondly, they knew the software was there, making them guilty of TRYING to produce child pornography.

      Seriously. If they "happen" to have pictures of some kid "behaving improperly", they will definitely have pictures/movies of everything else that kid has been doing.

      First, did somebody forget that the burden of proof lies with the person making the accusation. They don't have to prove they didn't made child porn, you have to prove they did. Innocent until proven guilty. Second, I pretty sure there's no law on attempted child porn, it's either child abuse or not. I've not heard of anybody ever being charged with attempted child porn. Thirdly, and most importantly, all this stuff about child porn is hysterical nonsense, there is no indication that they did any such thing.

      There are many things that are worrying and wrong about this, but you weaken the argument with all this child porn crap.

    17. Re:at the very least by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The lawsuit does, as the AP stated, allege that the webcams captured these compromising images. As you quoted, it is "averred", meaning "it is asserted as a fact of the case". Of course they haven't proven it. That's for the trial. But they are certainly alleging that it happened.

      Fair enough, but your comment, in context, seemed to be making a much stronger claim. If I said that I believed the moon was made of green cheese, I doubt you'd be on here saying:

      "c6gunner is reporting that the moon allegedly is made of green cheese!"

      As to whether or not anyone saw those images, that is immaterial.

      It's not immaterial when the claim you were making is that "they allegedly did see lewd images". It's mostly immaterial to the case, sure, but if it's so unimportant then why did you say it in the first place?

    18. Re:at the very least by Rary · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The lawsuit alleges the cameras captured images of Harriton High School students and their families as they undressed and in other compromising situations.

      Emphasis added. I know there's a lot of strong emotions going around on this subject, but lets try to keep it reasonable shall we?

      The emphasis was unnecessary. I even used the word "allegedly" in my introduction to that quote. What exactly was unreasonable about my post?

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    19. Re:at the very least by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      The real question isn't "if", as you imply in your also-cleverly-worded response, but "when".

    20. Re:at the very least by Rary · · Score: 1

      I misspoke (er, mis-typed?) when I used the word "see". My point was simply that there were, in fact, allegations being made that compromising images had been captured. Of course, looking back at the thread, I see that "seeing" was the point of the original post, so my comment didn't really fit in the thread. Whatever. The point is that such allegations have been made, and further to that point, whether or not anyone saw those images is immaterial to the actual case.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    21. Re:at the very least by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's all well and good, but ... well, look, the original guy said:

      "School officials might avoid child porn charges if they prove they didn't see any lewd images"

      and you responded with:

      "The AP is reporting that they allegedly did see lewd images"

      So if all you're saying is that "these guys say they're probably guilty", I guess my question would be how is your response in the least bit relevant to his statement?

      Judging by the +5 mod you got, I'm guessing that many people read your comment as I did - as stating that the plaintiffs possess solid evidence of these images having been created. That's the only interpretation that makes sense in the context of the comment you were responding to.

      You're right - their guilt or innocence is going to be determined in court ... but that's what the first guy was saying, too, so your response to him was redundant at best.

    22. Re:at the very least by Rary · · Score: 1

      So if all you're saying is that "these guys say they're probably guilty", I guess my question would be how is your response in the least bit relevant to his statement?

      I already answered that in the previous post when I said "looking back at the thread, I see that 'seeing' was the point of the original post, so my comment didn't really fit in the thread".

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    23. Re:at the very least by mother_reincarnated · · Score: 1

      Haha, you don't remember being a teenager do you!

    24. Re:at the very least by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      These monsters were ACTUALLY RECORDING VIDEO AND AUDIO OF CHILDREN WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT!

      Which shouldn't constitute child pornography. Otherwise any recording that at some point includes a minor can be construed as child porn. I'm not even constructing a slippery slopes here; you just defined child pornography as "video and[/or] audio of children without their consent". Even if we assume that children can give their consent (which they legally can't, only their parents can) we still have any video recording with a random child in the background wrongly classified as child pornography.

      Yes, spying on people is wrong but please let's not take the stance of the child pornography fearmongers and assume that any depiction of a child is pornographic unless you have a signed and notarized voucher from the parents that states they're okay with the contents and swear it's not pornographic.
      Yes, American law allows child porn charges to be brought against this school district if they happen to have filmed a child naked (I'm not going to debate whether or not that should actually qualify as pornography). American law doesn't and definitely shouldn't allow child porn charges just because they happened to film a child at all.


      The plaintiffs' lawyers have already pointed out that they reserve the right to tack on child porn charges if they find any applicable material. Asking them to just tack them on and then advocate a very paranoid stance on child porn in court is neither good for their case nor for society as a whole.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    25. Re:at the very least by tftp · · Score: 1

      Which shouldn't constitute child pornography.

      And that's, IMO, why the class action does not accuse the defendants of CP unless CP is found. First of all, it's not needed to start the wheels, and once the lawsuit is going every single computer that is involved with sending or receiving images will be turned upside down. Chances are, they will find incriminating images. A disproportionally large number of pedophiles are teachers; we read about their arrests every few weeks, as it seems (and because laptops today don't take much energy anyway, and because it takes forever to reboot a Windows box.)

      Otherwise any recording that at some point includes a minor can be construed as child porn.

      Obviously not. However they gave students the laptops with clear understanding that students will keep them on their desks in their bedrooms. Very few students have separate offices. And if the laptop is in bedroom, it is unavoidable that students will be [un]dressing there at least twice per day. And chances are good that the laptop will be powered up all the time, since kids need 24/7 communication, as it seems.

      let's not take the stance of the child pornography fearmongers and assume that any depiction of a child is pornographic

      It isn't - it's still legal to take pictures of children. However if children are naked then it's much more difficult to prove innocence. I'm not a lawyer, and from what I remember courts have all kinds of tests for CP, including the "I know pr0n when I see it". All in all, if you are not an MD who took a photo for a specific medical purpose, statistically you are done for.

    26. Re:at the very least by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      no they helped "make" an image so even the amdin who set this up could get busted in the UK

    27. Re:at the very least by haruharaharu · · Score: 1

      First, did somebody forget that the burden of proof lies with the person making the accusation. They don't have to prove they didn't made child porn, you have to prove they did. Innocent until proven guilty.

      It's CP - I'm pretty sure people lose all sense of rationality when thinking of the children. Besides, what'll happen is the names of the people who started this mess will come out and some nut will burn their house down. Not saying that it's right, but I understand.

      Second, I pretty sure there's no law on attempted child porn

      How about conspiracy?

      There are many things that are worrying and wrong about this, but you weaken the argument with all this child porn crap.

      If I did something like this, it'd most certainly be prosecuted and I'd end up in a hole for decades or dead. I just want a bit of parity.

      --
      Reboot macht Frei.
    28. Re:at the very least by jc42 · · Score: 1

      "it is believed, and therefore averred, that many of the webcam images captured and/or intercepted consist of minors and/or their parents in compromising or embarrassing positions, including, but not limited to, in various stages of dress or undress."

      They're saying "we think this probably happened", not "we have evidence that this happened". Since they don't have evidence that such images were created, they certainly can't prove that anyone actually viewed them.

      Hmmm ... The summary and several articles about the story state:

      One student was accused of 'improper behavior in his home' and the school provided a photo taken via his laptop as proof."

      This sounds like a confession by at least on school official that such photos existed and he/she had seen them. How else could they have known about the kid's "improper behavior"?

      Of course, by now the school has probably destroyed the images, and will deny having had them or seen them. But it could be interesting to ask whether regular backups had been made on the school computers.

      What I'm curious about is how long it'll take for these photos to appear on random web sites not associated with the school. We do have a bit of history with such things ...

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    29. Re:at the very least by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AP isn't reporting it quite accurately. The lawsuit only mentions they potentially COULD or COULD HAVE seen people undressed or in compromising situations; it does not claim evidence that they DID.

      t was just emphasizingwhy clandestine video spying in someones home without their permission is potentially problematic.

    30. Re:at the very least by Rary · · Score: 1

      No one said they had direct evidence, only that they made an allegation, which they did. The lawsuit clearly states this, and further up this thread you'll find discussion of the exact text of the lawsuit.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    31. Re:at the very least by Rary · · Score: 1

      This sounds like a confession by at least on school official that such photos existed and he/she had seen them. How else could they have known about the kid's "improper behavior"?

      None of the articles that I've seen discuss the specifics of the "improper behavior". It could be that they saw the kid smoking pot in his room. This would not constitute a lewd image.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    32. Re:at the very least by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Actually, what I imagined was him realizing that the camera might be active and spying on him. So he'd occasionally make rude/insulting/obscene gestures at the camera, just to let them know he was onto them. I can see your typical school admin type getting very upset at this, and labelling it "inappropriate".

      I generally put a piece of tape over computers' cameras when I see them. In one place I worked, I noticed that the tape was removed every night. So I taped it again. For some reason, nobody ever mentioned this to me.

      Something similar happened in a testing lab where I worked for a while. Lots of the lab's machines had cameras, so everyone in the lab taped them over when they weren't needed for testing. Occasionally, the tape would disappear overnight, and the next day, we'd tape them again. We understood that this wasn't accidental, and we waited for someone to try to "discuss" it with us. Nobody ever did.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    33. Re:at the very least by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      But so far, that allegation appears to actually be an assumption. There's damn few facts in the filing - in fact it mostly appears to be justifying a witch hunt/fishing expedition to find evidence of improper/illegal behavior on the part of the school district. (That is, not to find out whether or not such behavior occurred, but rather to find evidence of acts the suit treats as if they had already occurred completely absent any indication that such acts occurred.)

  6. If a student was dressing in front of their laptop by scoser · · Score: 1, Redundant

    You could probably nail the school for possession of child pornography.

  7. Think of the children by OzPeter · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The schools sure were .. and now I'm waiting for all of the school officials who had access to this or contributed to performing this act to be charged with child porn.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Think of the children by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      "-1 Redundant", my ass. This is a case where "Won't somebody please think of the children!?" actually applies, and it can't be said enough.

  8. This world needs a "reset" button by l0l0_ph0r3v3r · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Anarchy is the REAL democracy and freedom.

    1. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Anarchy is the REAL democracy and freedom.

      If the world returned to anarchy, you would be enslaved or eaten by the man with bigger arms. Your friends' popular votes against that man's actions would be worthless. How is that democratic?

    2. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      when the popular militia stands up and says enough's enough. Comardes, whether Spanish or English, American or Chinese, we are one class of people with the same hopes and aspirations. Every victory that takes Franco closer to power in Spain also takes the Fascists closer to power here, soon enough dragging all freedom-loving peoples down to barbarism and war.

      Oh, wait... that shit already happened. Never mind.

    3. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Franco won.

    4. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately there's no change without a body count.

    5. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by Jeian · · Score: 1

      If you're 14, it probably does seem that way.

      Things will look a little different when you're older.

    6. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      Yes, and its probably one of the greatest travesties in history, as well, and directly responsible for WWII and indirectly so for the Cold War

    7. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are sadly dissillusioned (or just young and ignorant, or incredibly stupid). Anarchy always leads to monarchy; with anarchy, the strong (meaning rich and powerful) can do anything they want to the weak. Anarchy means I can shoot you in the back without provocation and without fear of reprisal. I can get an armed mob and enslave you. I can rape your mother, sister, girlfriend, and two year old daughter before torturing them to death. No law.

      "Anarchy is the REAL democracy and freedom" is the dumbest statement I've heard all week. What grade are you in, kid?

    8. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by Tony+Stark · · Score: 1

      Good idea. Because then, no one would have recourse against what this school does because it wouldn't be against the law, because there would be no law. To really believe in anarchy you really must have a lot of faith in human nature. I can't even trust my neighbors not to break into my car when I'm asleep with laws against it. How the hell am I going to trust them not to murder me without laws. Let me explain what would happen in the event you got what you want. You'd go live in your squat with your crust punk friends and frolic in urban gardens and dumpster dive your dinner all happy-like while everyone else is dealing with the chaos and crime-sprees and whatnot. Stronger groups of people will battle each other to take control of certain areas, someone will win and calm the chaos, they will keep control by force if they have to. Oh wait, isn't that where we're at right now? Let's just take a shortcut and stay where we're at. Anarchy is not democracy. Anarchy is the path to government. Hierarchy is not necessarily a bad thing.

    9. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      "Anarchism" is really just sort of a pejorative term levied at what is more properly called Libertarian Socialism, which has its roots in the Enlightenment and was advocated by such thinkers as Mikhail Bakunin (who was Marx's major opponent in the First International, saying that his ideas would lead to the establishment of a "red bureaucracy"), Daniel Guerin, and in more recent times, Noam Chomsky. None of these guys are 14 year old punk rock dorks.

      The Anarcho-Syndicalist CNT established a fairly successful revolution in Catalonia in the 1930s, until the Communists turned on them, split the Popular Font, and caused Franco and his allies to win. It's not just a "smash everything" ideology. It is one that calls to account all institutions of power and authority, and those that cannot show actual value by their existence are those which are deemed un-necessary and that should be done away with. It is based on direct democracy and cooperative economics, and really is a perfectly valid framework for making a livable society. Communities would just need to be smaller

    10. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the cut of your jib.

      BTW I stumbled across your journal a week ago today. Cost me several hours of my life as I couldn't stop reading the damn thing.

    11. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      I can get an armed mob and enslave you. I can rape your mother, sister, girlfriend, and two year old daughter before torturing them to death. No law.

      You can do all that now. You'll just be punished if caught. Previous anarchic systems had ways of divying out punishment too. Namely blood feuds and such. You hurt my family, and I kill you. Then your family might kill me - and then someone from my family kills them. That prospect of a cycle of everyone killing each other generally kept people out of trouble. There is NO system where your actions are completely free of consequences.

      Not that I support complete anarchy, but really - the government should be in the business of national defense a small police force to enforce the most basic of laws against theft, rape, murder, and other such crimes. I honestly think that if a concerted effort was made, a nation could function fine with a complete set of laws that fit on less than 50 pages that any citizen could read and clearly understand. Instead you can find a bill the thickness of a book prescribing exactly how to lawfully import an apple from a certain country. It's gotten insane.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    12. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I hope to keep wasting more of your time! ;)

    13. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I honestly think that if a concerted effort was made, a nation could function fine with a complete set of laws that fit on less than 50 pages that any citizen could read and clearly understand.

      I agree with that completely; well, almost completely. The legalese is needed because of all the lawyers corporations hire. I'd hate to see a loophole in the envorinmental laws that allowed Monsanto to spew the filth they did before the Clean Air Act, when you couldn't drive past the damned place with your windows down. I'd like to see term limits not on legislators, but on laws. Let no law stand more then ten years; they can always resubmit and revote it. Good laws (like those against pollution or bank robbery) would quickly be reestablished, stupid laws like those against pot would fail quickly.

    14. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by M8e · · Score: 0

      Representative democracy = vote on "plague or Cholera".
      Anarchy = kill plague and Cholera.

      The people want neither plague or Cholera, ergo anarchy is the real "rule of the people".

    15. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1
      Not that I am disagreeing with your main point, but...

      no one would have recourse against what this school does because it wouldn't be against the law

      Assuming this kind of thing could even happen in anarchist conditions, you would still have recourse. That recourse just wouldn't be through the government (which wouldn't exist in this situation anyway). Take the webcam and shove it up the responsible party's urethra. Just be sure the webcam is still attached to the laptop. I'd say that's pretty good recourse right there.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    16. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by CecilPL · · Score: 1

      The Anarcho-Syndicalist CNT established a fairly successful revolution in Catalonia in the 1930s

      I guess they didn't have a lord, and took turns acting as a sort of executive officer for the week

    17. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by bugi · · Score: 1

      Anarchy leads to *tyranny*, dominance through violence.

    18. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by M8e · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, we have more than we need.

    19. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Anarchy = big people beating the living shit out of smaller people on the streets.

      Representative democracy = big people beating the shit out of little people either on the streets or in the marketplace.

      They do the same thing. You just get to pick which game to play in a system like the US.

    20. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by FrankSchwab · · Score: 1

      All laws would be re-upped with a simple bill that says "All laws expiring this year are re-authorized".

      If you insisted on more detail, you'd get ""All laws expiring this year, as listed in Appendix A, are re-authorized".

      You would have to require an individual, roll-call vote of each law. In which case, an "Omnibus" law would be passed that contains the text of all the laws expiring this year, and only one vote would be required for all time.

      It's just not clear to me how you generally apply a "sunset" clause to all laws.

      /frank

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    21. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by msauve · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    22. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, there would be a lot of unnecessary deaths.

    23. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by Grygus · · Score: 1

      Representative democracy = vote on "plague or Cholera". Anarchy = kill plague and Cholera.

      The people want neither plague or Cholera, ergo anarchy is the real "rule of the people".

      Just to be clear, here: people created and continue to maintain both plague and cholera at great cost, even while complaining about them, and your position is that they actually don't want them.

      I think you have a lot to learn about the difference between what people say they want and what they actually want.

    24. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by Tony+Stark · · Score: 1

      Of course, but then the responsible party's buddy shoves something up my urethra. Then my buddy shoves something up his urethra, etc etc. Before we know it the whole world has stuff lodged in their urethras because we're anarchists and have no law or hierarchical structure to turn to to put a stop to the urethra clogging. Thus it still ends in chaos until someone takes power and puts an end to it.

    25. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With law:
      Your neighbor breaks into your car and risk a punishment from the state.

      Without law:
      Your neighbor breaks into your car and risk a punishment from you/the neighbourhood.

      If the majority of people in an anarchy wanted anarchy, they would fight the groups that wants power and possibly win. If the majority wanted anarchy the anarchy would be an democracy.

    26. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      Oh I agree with your point, I was just objecting to the idea that you would have no recourse.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    27. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by Demonspawn · · Score: 1

      Anarchy is mob rule on a local level.
      Democracy is mob rule on a national level.

      Governments tend to work better on the local level. More direct influence, more accountability.

      So, in a strange quirky way... he's correct.

    28. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Anarchy means I can shoot you in the back without provocation and without fear of reprisal.

      No fear of reprisal? You're not worried about all of his friends and relatives who now want you dead? You seem to be implying that the reason people don't run around killing each other all the time is because there are laws against it. That's crazy. The laws allow us to punish the offenders in a well-defined way, they don't PREVENT crime. Criminals don't care about laws (obviously), and most non-criminals act nicely because they are nice people, not because they are afraid of the consequences if they don't.

      Yes, you could shoot me in the back. Then my brother will come shoot your sister in the back. Then your mom will shoot my dog in the back. Etc. Most people don't need a government in order to understand how this is a bad thing.

    29. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, everybody is going to die anyway, it's just a matter of time...and place.

    30. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by Tony+Stark · · Score: 1

      But what if I think the thief should have his hands cut off, one neighbor thinks he should be fined, another thinks he should be imprisoned, and yet another thinks he should just be let go? So I chop off his hands, my neighbor disagrees with what I did, but what I did was just as right as what he would do since there's no law governing these things, but he disagrees so he stabs me, then my brother gets angry and shoots him for stabbing me, etc etc. Anarchy = chaos. But you seem to be very trusting of human nature. I'm not.

    31. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by mjwx · · Score: 1

      You are sadly dissillusioned (or just young and ignorant, or incredibly stupid). Anarchy always leads to monarchy;

      Fairly major nitpick, but no.

      Anarchy typically leads to despotism. There is a huge difference between a monarchy and a despotism. Monarchies are typically highly organised (class based, gentry and pedantry), a despotism for the most part makes no distinction. The emporor rules because he has the power, a monarch rules because he was born to it (succession). Monarchies can be constitutional (like the vast majorities of monarchies today) where as a despots rule is always absolute. Despots are people like Sadam and Iran's government, Monarchs are people like the house of Windsor (good monarch) and the house of Saud (terrible monarch).

      with anarchy, the strong (meaning rich and powerful) can do anything they want to the weak. Anarchy means I can shoot you in the back without provocation and without fear of reprisal. I can get an armed mob and enslave you. I can rape your mother, sister, girlfriend, and two year old daughter before torturing them to death. No law. "Anarchy is the REAL democracy and freedom" is the dumbest statement I've heard all week. What grade are you in, kid?

      Agree 100% with this one, very accurate description of Anarchy. Often the only difference between an Anarchy and a Despotism is that there is one guy/group controlling the murders and torture.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    32. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Previous anarchic systems had ways of divying out punishment too. Namely blood feuds and such. You hurt my family, and I kill you.

      Under this system, all tribes must acquiesce to the whims of tribe with the most swords. As far as a system of punishment goes, it's pretty ineffective as the powerful (rich or have weapons) gets to do what they want to the rest.

      Now all forms of government from Despotism to Democracy use their own rules to balance the distribution of punishment, despotism skews it towards the rulers, democracy aims to make it fair. With democratic justice system they seek to give the least powerful individuals the same rights to life, happiness and what not as the most powerful individuals or in other words all must be equal before the eyes of the law.

      This is a pretty big distinction, to say that Anarchy is in anyway comparable with any governmental system because it has a method of punishment is like saying coal is the same as diamond because they are both made from carbon.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    33. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by mjwx · · Score: 1

      No fear of reprisal?

      Not if you're the biggest guy in the cave, sunshine.

      This is the problem with anarchy that the GP was trying to point out, everyone becomes a victim of the strongest person. Democratic legal systems are built with the premise of treating the strongest person the same as the weakest person.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    34. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's your own fault if you chose a punishment that is to big, and one that is permanent. If you chose to chop his hand of for an stolen carstereo(etc) you deserve to get staped in the leg.

      "An eye for an eye" is an reasonable limmit, except that corporal and other punishment that can't be undone should be avoided.

    35. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by shentino · · Score: 1

      They already ARE worthless.

      Survival of the fittest based on raw strength instead of on raw weath might not be an improvement but it would be a change.

    36. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by JonStewartMill · · Score: 1

      > the government should be in the business of national defense a small police force to enforce the most basic of laws against theft, rape, murder, and other such crimes. So in such a world, you would have no problem with me buying property right next to your home and putting a trash dump, an animal stockyard, or a nuclear reactor there? Yup, that's a real paradise.

    37. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by JonStewartMill · · Score: 1

      Note to self: LOOK AT THE DAMNED PREVIEW SCREEN.

      Edited to improve readability:

      > the government should be in the business of national defense a small police force to enforce the most basic of laws against theft, rape, murder, and other such crimes.

      So in such a world, you would have no problem with me buying property right next to your home and putting a trash dump, an animal stockyard, or a nuclear reactor there? Yup, that's a real paradise.

    38. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by Psmylie · · Score: 1

      Anarchy is the perfect system of government, up until you start adding people. One is the optimum number for an anarchistic government. For two people, the weaker must constantly be concerned about being bullied by the stronger. With three, you have the possibility of factions. The more people you add, the less stable it gets as a system of government.

      But yeah with just one person, it works great! :P

      --

      psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

    39. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me? That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. If you buy property next to mine that that's YOUR FUCKING PROPERTY. Do with it as you wish. This freaking nanny state where people think they have the right to tell people what they can and can't do with their own property is exactly what I'm against.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    40. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by JonStewartMill · · Score: 1

      Okay then, you are insane. Glad we could clear that up.

    41. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by pclminion · · Score: 1

      This is the problem with anarchy that the GP was trying to point out, everyone becomes a victim of the strongest person.

      I don't see how that's different than what we have now.

    42. Re:This world needs a "reset" button by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I don't see how that's different than what we have now.

      Because if the strongest person in our current system shoots your mother, they will get charged for murder. Fortunately even as corrupt as our systems are, money will not guarantee a favourable outcome.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  9. Es-ca-pe by G2GAlone · · Score: 1

    How did they think would get away with that? It's one thing if they detected the laptop was on the school's Wifi and then they can activate the webcam then. Still a privacy issue but at least it's within their grounds. If everything was recorded I would have to assume that one of the adults watching saw what could be considered "kiddie-porn". This isn't going to end well for the school I'm sure.

    1. Re:Es-ca-pe by rugatero · · Score: 1

      How did they think would get away with that?

      My thoughts exactly. And to have the audacity to use it as grounds for accusations of "improper activity"? Outrageous. I would chuckle at the irony were it not so reprehensible.
      I hope they have the book thrown at them.

      --
      This comment is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to real insight or information is purely coincidental.
  10. convict them - then home monitor THEM! by rcpitt · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Personally I hope those responsible for this invasion of privacy are subjected to home monitoring - by the whole internet. Strap a camera around their neck and make them wear it and broadcast continuously for at least 1 year.

    Idiots!

    --
    Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
    and didn't get it
    1. Re:convict them - then home monitor THEM! by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          It wouldn't last for a year. The first time they take a shower, {{KERZAP}}

          Not a bad plan though. I can think of worse ways to put a pedophile out of his misery. Then again, I could write a pretty wicked murder mystery book, or horror film. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:convict them - then home monitor THEM! by hamburgler007 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather see them rot in a jail.

    3. Re:convict them - then home monitor THEM! by Bloopie · · Score: 1

      Strap a camera around their neck

      Oh that's just great! So you'll get a clear view of everyone/everything in the house but them.

    4. Re:convict them - then home monitor THEM! by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cover the walls with mirrors.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    5. Re:convict them - then home monitor THEM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously don't work for a school system and it has been a while since you attended one. Have you seen the people that work in those ahem... Institutions of learning! The good looking ones are already locked up for sleeping with their students and the rest... Well let's just leave it there.

    6. Re:convict them - then home monitor THEM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I hope those responsible for this invasion of privacy are subjected to home monitoring - by the whole internet.

      Unfortunately, "Not-so-Hot Middle-Aged School Administrators" won't be so much a porn site as a shock site.

    7. Re:convict them - then home monitor THEM! by Petaris · · Score: 1

      Hrm,

      That sounds like a good idea for every politician who is pushing for more monitoring whether it be via camera, internet access logs, warrant-less wiretaps, etc.

      It might just change their minds. ;)

      --
      ~Petaris "The world is open. Are you?"
    8. Re:convict them - then home monitor THEM! by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Strap a camera around their neck

      Oh that's just great! So you'll get a clear view of everyone/everything in the house but them.

      No; you missed an important point: The camera strapped about the official's neck is pointed down.

      And the video stream is online.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  11. Fuck you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    One student was accused of 'improper behavior in his home'

    Fuck you I won't do what you tell me
    Fuck you I won't do what you tell me
    Fuck you I won't do what you tell me
    Fuck you I won't do what you tell me
    FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME!
    Motherfucker!
    Ughhh!

    1. Re:Fuck you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Strangely enough this captures my beliefs 100%, normally posts like this come off as trollish, but this is 100% dead the fuck on.

  12. Stupidity by NiceGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    WTF is "improper behavior in the home", and why does the school seem to think that it's their business?

    1. Re:Stupidity by Spatial · · Score: 1

      What does it mean? It means whoever said it needs to be slapped in the face until they die.

    2. Re:Stupidity by mdm-adph · · Score: 1

      Masturbation. Obviously, the child was cheating on their Abstinence-Education class.

      Seriously, this whole thing is sick.

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    3. Re:Stupidity by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1
      There is no way that Lower Merion School District had an abstinence education class. I imagine that "improper behavior in the home" is the plaintiff's euphemism for whatever it is that the school district accused their child of. The plaintiff is unlikely to want to make public whatever activity the student was involved in, either because it is illegal (for example, smoking pot), or embarrassing (masturbating). That is fine, the problem isn't what activity the child was involved in. It might indeed have been inappropriate behavior, but since it didn't happen in the school or at a school function, it is none of the school's business

      .

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:Stupidity by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      For the same reason they think what parents' teach their children about anything (culture, religion, science grammar, etc) is their business just because they are a public school.

      The really bad part? Parents' don't care until something like this happens. When this blows over, it will be back to normal: public school raises your children and gives them what conceptions, perceptions, and ideas it wants. At the moment, ideas from the 60s seem to rule, for the most part.

    5. Re:Stupidity by psithurism · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing.

      I mean giving administrators the right to remotely control students computers does not strike me as crazy, but I expect any administrator found to have abused this to be barred from any such position on suspicions of being a pedo and all around despicable person; then take on top of that whatever they are accused of from spying on the kids' parents.

      Any school admin should know the consequences; To have several administrators think his behavior was so bad as to risk their careers and reputations over this photo, he must have done something more than toke up.

    6. Re:Stupidity by Derekloffin · · Score: 1

      I wonder that myself. Short of something criminal, which the School should not be involved in punishing, what exactly could the school possibly have authority over in a person's home?

    7. Re:Stupidity by dangitman · · Score: 1

      WTF is "improper behavior in the home"

      Using your dessert fork to eat steak, not pulling a seat out for a lady, eating with your mouth open. That kind of thing. Just what the hell is wrong with you barbarians that you don't know this stuff?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    8. Re:Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder about this too. As far as I know, my home is my home, and I can freely walk around half-naked wearing a purple tutu, yellow feathers up my *ss, look at Megan Fox pictures while liberally indulging in a lot of depraved sex acts with green stuffed bunnies imagining one of them is Bill Clinton, and I still wouldn't be doing anything wrong?

    9. Re:Stupidity by Nareth · · Score: 1

      It could just be something like smoking weed. It couldn't be fapping because they would have child porn on their hands, so it has to be underage drinking or something else like that.

    10. Re:Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probaly sexting, while using school property

  13. Why boingboing? by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Associated Press is covering this (link is to Yahoo; just about any paper will have the same content). Boingboing (who I see no reason to visit) is probably quoting or otherwise parroting the AP. It makes me wonder if jargon82 works for or is part owner of boingboing?

    Google News lists 25 separate, highly respected news sites such as the London Telegraph, Philadelphia Enqiuirer, USA Toady, Toronto Star, Ars Technica, The Consumerist... Yet slashdot links boingboing?

    WTF?

    1. Re:Why boingboing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The submission system is broken. If you submit something with a crappy summary and it gets rejected, it will block submissions with that article link, so someone with a good summary must find another source.

    2. Re:Why boingboing? by vadim_t · · Score: 2, Informative

      What's wrong with boingboing's coverage of it? Seems like a perfectly good article to me. Ars even links to the boingboing one.

    3. Re:Why boingboing? by anonymousJUGGERNAUT · · Score: 1

      If you think the info is going to be the same AP stuff at any of those locations, why _not_ boingboing? Do you have a problem with boingboing for some reason?

    4. Re:Why boingboing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I suspect it's because BoingBoing scooped everyone else on this one yesterday. There were blogs for pennsylvania city papers (like http://citypaper.net/blogs/clog/tag/big-brother/) that were citing BoingBoing as the source. BoingBoing didn't link to a news article, they linked to the court documentation. If you look at all of those links from Google, none of them have a timestamp earlier than the BoingBoing post either. I suspect this wasn't on the paper's radars until BB posted it in the first place.

    5. Re:Why boingboing? by Bogtha · · Score: 4, Informative

      Boingboing (who I see no reason to visit) is probably quoting or otherwise parroting the AP.

      If you didn't visit, then why are you guessing at the contents of the link and criticising them for your imagined contents? You seem to have an axe to grind.

      The BoingBoing article has commentary beyond simple reporting of the facts, which you may or may not appreciate, but it isn't simply parroting the AP. More importantly, it has a link to the class action complaint itself, which the AP article and the "highly respected news sites" do not.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    6. Re:Why boingboing? by TrippTDF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think that says more about our media consumption habits- I know I read blogs these days before I look to traditional media sources.

    7. Re:Why boingboing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it's because boingboing linked directly to the PDF of the law suit, whereas your link on Yahoo does not?

    8. Re:Why boingboing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I link this story to one of my friends or put it on my blog, I would probably use the slashdot story. Does that mean I work for slashdot?

    9. Re:Why boingboing? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Just for reference, the timestamps google shows are last updated time for the article, not when it was initially published. Wait a few hours, some of those same stories will likely have their last updated bumped up again because of minor edits to the page.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    10. Re:Why boingboing? by jargon82 · · Score: 1
      I neither work for nor have any association with boingboing. It was just the link that was introduced to me, and it also happens to be the one everyone else is using all day long... which is perhaps because they got it from this summary, but either way, no bias intended.

      My interest in the story is primarily because I am only a few miles away from this school. Perhaps you are upset because you work for the AP? :)

    11. Re:Why boingboing? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, and after reading the answers to my comment I went there; I am a Doctorow fan. It was indeed the best link you could have provided. My bad.

    12. Re:Why boingboing? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The BoingBoing article has commentary beyond simple reporting of the facts

      Which it pretty much has to have - as the known facts can pretty much be fit into one short paragraph.
       
      "A student claims the school was in possession of a photograph and he was chastised for improper acts. The school district admits cameras were installed on the computers it provided to the students. The parents of the student making the claim have sued the school district claiming to represent a class."

  14. Why am I not surprised. by fyrewulff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    School officials tend to think themselves as above the law / the law way too many times in my personal experience, not surprised that some decided they would also be the police in these kids homes.

    I hope they lose this suit. Hard.

    --
    "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
    1. Re:Why am I not surprised. by WCMI92 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      School officials tend to think themselves as above the law / the law way too many times in my personal experience, not surprised that some decided they would also be the police in these kids homes.

      They are pretty much being trained to think of themselves as such, as it suits the government educational establishment and the goals of the statists who maintain a near government monopoly on education.

      IE: control the kids, control the eventual adult. Teach them that this is "normal" and that they aren't to step out of line or the state will be on them.

      I hope they lose this suit. Hard.

      So do I, but you will see the school district start pleading poverty, and they will get sympathetic treatment by the courts. The courts, being another government entity aren't exactly impartial.

      This case should go beyond suing. These people should be locked up. They should ALREADY be locked up pending trial. People who would do such a thing, to monitor children in this way without any reason, without any consent, without any standing in law to do so are a threat to society and shouldn't be walking the streets, much less running a school!

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    2. Re:Why am I not surprised. by CorporateSuit · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have to agree. My daughter's elementary wants to press criminal charges against us for taking her on a 4-day trip to see Grandma on Thanksgiving. We notified the teacher and the school beforehand, got her classwork and homework, and had her turn it in the day she got back. As it turns out, 3 days would have been ok. Because it was 1 day more, I'm harboring a future-gang member and deserve to go to jail! The school officials here are completely insane.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    3. Re:Why am I not surprised. by NiceGeek · · Score: 0, Troll

      Please shoot yourself if you think that private education doesn't do the same thing, even home schooling is mostly based on indoctrination.

    4. Re:Why am I not surprised. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I consider myself a moderate politically. Some might even say conservative but in this case I must say.
      WHAT THE HECK DO THEY THINK THEY ARE DOING!
      This has got to be in violation of federal wiretap laws!
      And as far as what is inappropriate behavior at home! Unless it is breaking the law the only person that gets to say what is inappropriate behavior in my home is wife and myself!
      In this case I say that criminal charges should be filled.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Why am I not surprised. by WCMI92 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please shoot yourself if you think that private education doesn't do the same thing, even home schooling is mostly based on indoctrination.

      I graduated from a private school. I left public school because they were both indoctrinating, and discriminating against students based on their socio-economic background.

      And your home schooling example is inappropriate. Parents have the RIGHT to teach their children what they wish. They are the ones responsible for the child, after all. A parent would even have the right to install this kind of monitoring on their kid's computer. (not something I would ever do, but they do have the right to). The government does not have the right to do either.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    6. Re:Why am I not surprised. by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you had simply called in sick, you'd be fine.

      You're being punished for honesty.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    7. Re:Why am I not surprised. by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 2, Interesting

      pleading poverty should not get a school very far when it doled out macbooks to all of its seignior class...

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    8. Re:Why am I not surprised. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      School officials tend to think themselves as above the law / the law way too many times in my personal experience

      Agreed, however it kind of a requirement of the job. They deal with a bunch of students, most of which have parents with the skills of salamon who let their kids run the house. Most of the time the only way the school admins get any sort of control over the school is by being more of a parent than the actual parents.

      Its not right, but having been one of the 'bad kids' in school and spending a lot of time in the office, I can understand why they act like they do at times. I don't think there is anything you can change about the school system, in this respect that will make things better. Parents have to put more effort into being a parent for schools to change the way the operate, otherwise they have to continue to play the roll of parent/daycare provider.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    9. Re:Why am I not surprised. by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

      Something else I neglected to add:

      FYI, my idea of responsible parental monitoring of a child's computer use:

      The computer (at least the one with internet access that the kids can use) is in the family room. Where I will be to watch them.

      Any parent who gives their child unfettered internet access in a private place is a foolish and negligent one.

      It's certainly not the job of the government or school to do monitor this, or to impose it.
       

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    10. Re:Why am I not surprised. by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      There is no education system or any way for a child to grow up that will not cause them to reach adulthood seeing the world through a tinted pair of glasses. You have to pick which world view you child reaches adulthood with, there are no neutral options.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    11. Re:Why am I not surprised. by howe.chris · · Score: 0

      I consider myself a moderate politically. Some might even say conservative ...

      This isn't conservative!!! In the book 1984 the government was helping its people. Make them stay in shape and all the other crap. Communism is extreme liberal. That really bad Stallone and Snipes movie where salt was illegal. For the health of everybody. Government knows what is right is definition of liberal.

      Maybe it is all in the eye of the beholder. You probably look at the above and compare it to how Bush acted. You can't spend as much money as he did and actually be a conservative. Obama isn't exactly running an open government and repealing the Patriot Act either. You want conservative go look at Ron Paul.

    12. Re:Why am I not surprised. by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      The school officials here are completely insane.

      The answer? Private school. The public school teachers and administrators don't give a shit about parents. Why should they? They can treat you like crap and they will not be fired. The only answer to this is to pay out of pocket for your childrens' education with after tax dollars. At private school they take care of their customers (i.e. the parents) and don't create hassles. You have a problem? The private school wants to hear about it and will go out of their way to fix it because you are paying them cash money and money talks.

    13. Re:Why am I not surprised. by SandwhichMaster · · Score: 1

      Schools are out of control. Between this and "Zero Tolerance" policies, I'm scared for kids. Kids as young as 12 are getting fined for things as stupid as being tardy, and ARRESTED for doodling on desks. What posses someone to think its a good idea spy on children, or to arrest a 12 year old girl? Schools need to mind their own business, and realize that kids get into trouble. Mischief and stupid mistakes are part of growing up.

    14. Re:Why am I not surprised. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please shoot yourself if you think that private education doesn't do the same thing, even home schooling is mostly based on indoctrination.

      I graduated from a private school. I left public school because they were both indoctrinating, and discriminating against students based on their socio-economic background.

      Because every private school is benevolent and doesn't care whether you pay them? They say "You're the poorest, join us for free!"? They don't have any agenda, religious or otherwise? They don't have a mission to make you think that they're the coolest school, and make your parents think that they're the best school, so they keep paying?

      Keep dreaming.

    15. Re:Why am I not surprised. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Luckily a school can't press criminal charges, only law enforcement can, and unless they are REALLY stupid, they won't. (and will probably laugh at the school)

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    16. Re:Why am I not surprised. by djdavetrouble · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you had simply called in sick, you'd be fine.

      The problem with this is then you have to coach your child to lie also, when he/she is asked about it upon return to school, thereby putting you squarely in bad parenting territory.

      This would not be an interrogation, more along the lines of:
      "I hope you are feeling better, little Janey"
      "Feeling better? I was visiting my grandma"
      "So you weren't sick at all, I see"

      and viola, the lie backfires.

      Most teachers will ask this out of genuine concern, not looking for a lie at all.

      --
      music lover since 1969
    17. Re:Why am I not surprised. by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not advocating lying.

      I'm merely pointing out that the situation punishes honesty. I do so to criticize the situation.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    18. Re:Why am I not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? It appears that the system punishes non adherence to the policies.
      This man clearly violated a policy, and even though he communicated his
      plans and thought he was ok, he is still not in the right. As a parent, I empathize
      with his plight, since pressing charges for something like this seems insane.

      Presumably he lives in an area where missing school is a big deal and they
      have to deal with the problem aggressively. The situation does suck.

    19. Re:Why am I not surprised. by noidentity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Feeling better? I was visiting my grandma"
      "So you weren't sick at all, I see"

      and viola, the lie backfires.

      Hmmm, I'm just still not understanding what this has to do with a stringed instrument.

    20. Re:Why am I not surprised. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "My daughter's elementary wants to press criminal charges against us for taking her on a 4-day trip to see Grandma on Thanksgiving. We notified the teacher and the school beforehand, got her classwork and homework, and had her turn it in the day she got back. As it turns out, 3 days would have been ok. Because it was 1 day more, I'm harboring a future-gang member and deserve to go to jail!"

      Turn that right around and file suit for defamation of your character and your daughter's character, and the character of your family.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    21. Re:Why am I not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Demolition Man was NOT a bad movie, damn it!

    22. Re:Why am I not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Howard County here in MD pulled the same crap. My kids visiting their mother the week of Thanksgiving and were sick a couple of times. They sent a note home threatening to involve child services because of their "constant tardiness and extended absence". I called the Principal and gave him my thoughts on the note. The schools here are ridiculous.

    23. Re:Why am I not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I personally would stab the school official who thought doing that was a good idea. Trying to ruin my life and cost me money that I earn to raise my family? See how shitting through a tube feels.

    24. Re:Why am I not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is insane. When my son was in 4th grade I took him out of school for an entire month to visit family on the other side of the country. His teachers response, "Him traveling and visiting family, a new part of the country, will provide him with a much richer experience than we can give him sitting in a stale classroom." OK, I'm thankful I had the Canadian schools (and teachers) we ha.

      BTW.. he turned out just fine 20 years later.

    25. Re:Why am I not surprised. by Psmylie · · Score: 1

      Anyone who thinks they can get their child to go along with a lie should remember these immortal words:

      "You said we did this for the show"

      --

      psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

    26. Re:Why am I not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously ? I mean, in real ? I'm soooooo fucking glad I'm not an American !

    27. Re:Why am I not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got punished for something that happened at a non-school event. I basically got pissed and called someone who was giving me a line of crap at a soccer game an asshole.

      I was in the 6th grade at the time, and I got a month of detention for it.

      When my parents complained, they just extended it another month, called me a criminal, and threatened to have me held back as I couldnt possibly learn because "I kept getting myself into trouble, and a criminal is all I will ever be."

      yeah I'd love to sue them, actually, a lawsuit would be an act of kindness for these assholes.

      They also liked to claim they had more power than our parents, and were above the police when it came to powers, and that their rules were above the laws outside of the school, and as long as we were students of that school, we were at their mercy.

      After I left that shit hole, it got struck by lightning and part of it caught fire.

      It disgusts me how much shit these assholes get away from, and lawsuits just make them go after the kids in question more.

      Sadly, I had no alternative to go to, the other school in town was a city school, which because of zoning, we could not, even under special circumstances, go to. I was out in the county.

  15. Could be embarrassing by grahammm · · Score: 1

    It could be rather embarrassing for the school, and they may even get in trouble, if they turned on the camera when the student was using the laptop in a situation where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy - such as while sitting on the toilet.

    1. Re:Could be embarrassing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >a situation where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy - such as while sitting on the toilet.

      Or, you know, merely existing within the privacy of your own home should be enough. Let's not give these gung-ho school officials any leeway where they clearly broke the law regardless of what the students ever did.

    2. Re:Could be embarrassing by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

      Like sitting on the toilet? How about stepping through the front door of their parent's house?

      --
      How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. Kiddie porn by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I were one of those students and under-aged (18), I'd claim that they were guilty of producing child pornography because I had been naked in front of my laptop.

    Hell, I'd go as far as to tell them that I have masturbated in front of it.

    Fuck them and whomever came up with that idea, that includes IT personnel, school administrators, PTA and whoever else have have even a superficial finger in this and haven't said 'no'.

    1. Re:Kiddie porn by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Hell, I'd go as far as to tell them that I have masturbated in front of it.

      Did you? If not, keep in mind that they will have evidence of that as well. Falsely accusing someone of a felony probably won't get you very far.

  18. If I went to school there... by calibre-not-output · · Score: 1

    ... I'd undress and masturbate vigorously in front of my laptop the minute I heard of this, just to have grounds for suing. And then I'd wipe the hard drive and install Linux. Am I the only person reminded of Orwell's Telescreens?

    --
    Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
    1. Re:If I went to school there... by starglider29a · · Score: 1

      Orwell is so '1984'!

      This is Nineteen Eleventy! Seriously, you think anyone in charge of a school has ever read 1984? No one cares about history anymore...

    2. Re:If I went to school there... by mustafap · · Score: 1

      >Am I the only person reminded of Orwell's Telescreens?

      No, my mind went numb after "masturbate vigorously in front of my laptop". :o)

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    3. Re:If I went to school there... by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      1984 is probably banned in most public schools. Can't have anything getting in the way of government/corporate indoctrination.

    4. Re:If I went to school there... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      ... I'd undress and masturbate vigorously in front of my laptop the minute I heard of this, just to have grounds for suing. And then I'd wipe the hard drive and install Linux. Am I the only person reminded of Orwell's Telescreens?

      Irony of Ironies.

      Here in AU 1984 is required reading in year 11, at least for my level of english.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  19. Boundaries Exceeded by areusche · · Score: 1

    Someone over stepped his boundaries, whether it is an administrative or some low level tech. Either way there will be heads rolling.

  20. What does inappropriate behavior mean? by zenchemical · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the most disturbing things in this story is that the school deemed "inappropriate behavior" of the student. I have read the legal briefs and a number of other sources and have not been able to determine what this is. What on earth could a school say about MY child that would be considered inappropriate behaviour? Drinking? No, sorry, covered by privacy rights. The only thing I can think of would be inappropriate use of school equipment. The inappropriateness of anything in the home would be determined by the parent.

    1. Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean? by sunking2 · · Score: 0

      How is this insightful? There are scores of things that would fall under this category. Killing kittens, having sex with his mother, watching WWE come to mind. Privacy rights have no bearing on whether something is appropriate or not. Only on whether the evidence is usable or not. Which obviously in this case it isn't. What he did has no bearing on the case, which is why it isn't talked about.

    2. Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean? by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only thing I could think of would be inappropriate use of the school-issued laptop, and that's the one thing the laptop's web cam couldn't see! What's sacry is there there are people (across the political spectrum) who would support the idea that the government would spy on your kids to make sure they never do anything naughty.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean? by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

      Abusing their little sister? In cases of child abuse they are required to report it. More likely, though, the inappropriate behavior was something stupid like making out with their girlfriend.

    4. Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean? by hazem · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are scores of things that would fall under this category. Killing kittens, having sex with his mother, watching WWE come to mind.

      These things, when done in the home, are not the purview of the school. They may be legal issues, but if so, should be handled by the proper legal authorities, not some school administrator with an Orwellian streak. The school has no jurisdiction over the home or anywhere else that isn't the school.

      Now, if the kids are killing kittens or having sex with their mothers at the school, then that is the only time the school administration should be involved.

    5. Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean? by MartinSchou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Abusing their little sister? In cases of child abuse they are required to report it

      That would be ILLEGAL behaviour, not inappropriate.

      The school has no say in what is inappropriate behaviour in a student's home.

      And even if they had caught a student raping and killing a 9-year-old kid via the web-cam, that wouldn't make the monitoring any more acceptable.

    6. Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing I can think of would be inappropriate use of school equipment.

      This case clearly shows that running untrusted software such as software you haven't compiled yourself is inaproppriate use of school equipment.

    7. Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um no, "killing kittens" in this context is the last thing any sane individual would point out to police that they'd been making records of.

    8. Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      We accidently killed our kitten while having sex when mom rolled over... she's a big girl.

    9. Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Even if they're doing this outside the school, they may want to offer help to the parent and/or student in the form of counseling. But they shouldn't have carte blanche in terms of their power.

    10. Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I know.

    11. Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean? by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      "Inappropriate behavior"
      n. Anything the school deems inappropriate. "Bart Simpson was given detention by Principal Skinner for inappropriate behavior observed on a school-issued laptop. He was brushing his teeth."

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    12. Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean? by ebuck · · Score: 1

      So watching WWE at school is ok? No wonder your school district is f*ck'd.

    13. Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean? by zero_out · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that the kid was looking at smut, and was caught self-abusing. Or maybe he was using the webcam to post a picture on his Facebook page of himself making a rude gesture and adding a profane tag to it. Perhaps he was searching Google for information about how to roll a joint, and he was caught practicing. Any scenario I can think of would stem from the kid doing something on the laptop that raised a red flag to a network admin, who then investigated the incident.

    14. Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost certainly some kid was skinning up on the keyboard. The grooves between the keys are perfect for that.

    15. Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      One of the most disturbing things in this story is that the school deemed "inappropriate behavior" of the student. I have read the legal briefs and a number of other sources and have not been able to determine what this is. What on earth could a school say about MY child that would be considered inappropriate behaviour? Drinking? No, sorry, covered by privacy rights. The only thing I can think of would be inappropriate use of school equipment. The inappropriateness of anything in the home would be determined by the parent.

      I read the comments attached to the original article, some submitted by students of the school. The "inappropriate behavior" was smoking weed. And they didn't remotely access the camera. The student took a picture and returned the laptop with the picture on the hard drive. No evidence has been presented that the school even had the ability to remotely activate the camera let alone that the ever did so. Once school official (not an expert) apparently incorrectly stated that they did have that ability, but it has been denied by everyone else.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    16. Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean? by tftp · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that the kid was looking at smut, and was caught self-abusing

      I agree with the hypothesis, but object to the "self-abusing" part. What planet are you from?

      Or maybe he was using the webcam to post a picture on his Facebook page of himself making a rude gesture

      It is not inappropriate to make any gesture when you are alone. Social taboos are against communicating such a gesture to another. The school has no way (or authority) to see what he does with the picture (I'm not even touching the freedom of speech angle.)

      and adding a profane tag to it

      The webcam can't see the screen.

      Perhaps he was searching Google for information about how to roll a joint

      Unfortunately a public school student doesn't need Google to see how it's done. And even if that was captured by the camera, rolling cigarettes with tobacco is not illegal, and the webcam can't say what was in them.

      Any scenario I can think of would stem from the kid doing something on the laptop that raised a red flag to a network admin

      I don't think a network admin is a teacher or is qualified to be a teacher. Most likely the spying was done not by an IT guy but by a teacher who knows the kid personally and felt OK to call the parents to talk about it. That requires a God complex that only teachers have.

    17. Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I have read the legal briefs and a number of other sources and have not been able to determine what this is.

      Probably had his pecker out!

    18. Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      The school has no jurisdiction over the home or anywhere else that isn't the school.

      I agree with what you mean, but the school does have "jurisdiction" over the children when they're not on school premises if they're on a school trip or other school-sponsored or school-controlled activity.

  21. Don't take candy from the government by WCMI92 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is why you don't want "free" computers from the government, you want the government to NOT take that money away from you to begin with so you can buy your own computer...

    It's shocking, given the general lack of tech competence by school bureaucrat types that they did this and thought they could get away with it. And why aren't there criminal charges? This isn't any different than them putting cameras (potentially) in the bathrooms of minors for the purposes of procuring child pornography.

    This goes far beyond stupid school administrators, this is a blatant case of GOVERNMENT actors out of control, willfully violating the Constitution (and scores of other laws) and they need to be punished. Not just fired, everyone responsible for this need to spend some quality time in a "pound me in the ass" prison.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
    1. Re:Don't take candy from the government by Sir+Holo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why you don't want "free" computers from the government...

      Um, I don't think you'd want "free" computers from a for-profit company either.

      Nothing is for free.

    2. Re:Don't take candy from the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are poor enough to need a computer from the government, the government already doesn't take away enough from you to affect anything.

    3. Re:Don't take candy from the government by Dalambertian · · Score: 1

      My spidey sense is telling me this has been going on in other school districts across the country; it's only by sheer stupidity that this instance was brought to light.

    4. Re:Don't take candy from the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing is for free.

      Exactly. TANSTAAFL.

    5. Re:Don't take candy from the government by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      This goes far beyond stupid school administrators, this is a blatant case of GOVERNMENT actors out of control, willfully violating the Constitution (and scores of other laws) and they need to be punished. Not just fired, everyone responsible for this need to spend some quality time in a "pound me in the ass" prison.

      If I may be so bold as to interrupt your little robotic anti-government ideological dance, you might want to consider the inconsistency and irony involved in decrying the violation of constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure while simultaneously clamoring for unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment. Or did they decide that anal rape was now okay at the last gathering of the local teabaggers?

      It's also worth considering that private actors have vastly more leeway when it comes to invasion of privacy that the government. In many states, I can record telephone calls without the other party's knowledge, and in all of them, I can personally wear a hidden recording device on public or private property, and if I run a business that you patronize, there's hardly any limit to the information I can collect. The government requires warrants for that crap, and the failure of this particular local government agency to do so makes it possible for its victims to seek redress in the courts. If it had been a private business monitoring its employees, there'd be a lot less their victims could do about it.

      But yeah, government is evil. So keep calling for the government to press criminal charges. And after driving them from government courts in government vehicles over government roads to a government prison, lock the government door and throw away the government key. I presume the ass-pounding will have to come from some imprisoned private entrepreneur, though.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    6. Re:Don't take candy from the government by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      More like, this is what you get for not formatting it as soon as you get it.

    7. Re:Don't take candy from the government by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

      Public school employees are government employees. Therefore they are subject to every restriction that a police officer would be subject to with respect to dealing with citizens.

      If the police can't stick an audio/video "bug" in a student's bedroom and then monitor it without a warrant, it's a pretty darn good assumption that a school bureaucrat can't either.

      You get +5 trollage for calling me a "teabagger" because I happen to insist that government employees not trample on the Constitution when dealing with citizens.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    8. Re:Don't take candy from the government by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      I'd be happy to get a free computer. The first thing I'd do is nuke it from orbit (DBAN) and install Ubuntu.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    9. Re:Don't take candy from the government by psithurism · · Score: 1

      This is why you don't want "free" computers from the government

      Well, something like 1/4 kids nationwide is on government food aide. Many of them can't afford school supplies; they can't be expected to provide their own computers.

      And why aren't there criminal charges?

      There better be some. The school district is the defendant right now though, which is crazy, and does seem to support your hypothesis that it was not just a few pedo administrators out of control who would be charged personally.

    10. Re:Don't take candy from the government by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Well, something like 1/4 kids nationwide is on government food aide.

      Huh? Where do you live? Zimbabwe?

    11. Re:Don't take candy from the government by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      This is why you don't want "free" computers from the government, you want the government to NOT take that money away from you to begin with so you can buy your own computer...

      You don't understand how it works.

      I agree that you don't want a government computer unless their are rules in place regarding how the government can access the system.

      The laptops weren't bought with money the parents provided in taxes and then given back to the students.

      The laptops were bought with money that EVERYONE in the tax area (probably based on school district naturally) provided, for the students to borrow.

      You see, my tax money helped by those laptops as well, even though I don't have kids. Those laptops were also probably bought with the intention of reusing after the students left, maybe given to another student or donated to somewhere else that can use them.

      The students don't own the laptops, they are borrowing them, they are not there for the students to use in whatever way they want. There is no rule that says 'you must use the school laptop while you jerk off at the pictures the head cheerleader sent you over AIM'. They can use their own laptops if they don't like the rules that are attached to the government provided loaners.

      I'm sure there are some administrators who crossed the line, by a mile, in this situation. In the end, we may see criminal charges filed, but at this point there have been no obvious signs of a broken law. The civil trial code very well (and I'm sure its part of the intent) point out the laws broken and result in a criminal trial.

      But heres reality.

      The kid did something wrong, otherwise we'd hear more about what he/she did from the lawyers for the kid.

      The parents don't really give a shit about the fact that the kid was spied on, they want money. They don't want to punish the responsible parties, they just want to get paid. If the parents when 1 billion dollars, then it'll come from an insurance company and the school district's premiums will go up. The administrators involved will be fired, move across the country and work at some other school who can't be picky about who it hires.

      If the parents wanted to be responsible parents or even just actually punish the people who did wrong here, they'd have focused on finding a lawyer to chase the criminal aspect. A criminal case could likely result in the people being put on Megan's list and would keep them out of working for any school system anywhere ever again, which would be far more effective as punishment and to ensure the safety of other children than a class action suit.

      The parents don't even give a shit about their kids, its all about the greenbacks.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    12. Re:Don't take candy from the government by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Nothing is for free.

      How much did you pay for that air you're breathing? How much did this morning's beautiful sunrise cost? Odd, I haven't gotten a bill for them yet.

      IMO anyone who equates "free" with "worthless" is a fool. Stop worshiping the dollar and start enjoying life.

    13. Re:Don't take candy from the government by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      everyone responsible for this need to spend some quality time in a "pound me in the ass" prison

      You're for brutal rape? Please get some psychaitric help, you obviously need it. NOBODY deserves to be raped, not even scum like these school admins, not even rapists themselves.

    14. Re:Don't take candy from the government by lgw · · Score: 1

      But yeah, government is evil. So keep calling for the government to press criminal charges. And after driving them from government courts in government vehicles over government roads to a government prison, lock the government door and throw away the government key.

      I'd like to think those were the people's courts, the people's roads, the people's vehicles, etc. We simple hire the government to perform services, and should be outraged when they overstep that role.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:Don't take candy from the government by lgw · · Score: 1

      The government has recently been aggressive in encouraging people to participate in food stamp programs. It might well be 1/4. I'd be outraged at the waste, except that it's so tiny in the big picture of government overspending.

      Also, a really large percentage of children participate in "school lunch" programs, probably more than 1/4, because it's (indirectly) a major source of federal school funding. Schools sometimes encourage parents "even if you never want your child to get a free lunch, please sign up because it means more money for the school".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    16. Re:Don't take candy from the government by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is why you don't want "free" computers from the government...

      Um, I don't think you'd want "free" computers from a for-profit company either. Nothing is for free.

      How about herpes?

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    17. Re:Don't take candy from the government by Sir.Cracked · · Score: 1

      "Public school employees are government employees. Therefore they are subject to every restriction that a police officer would be subject to with respect to dealing with citizens."

      Unfortunately no. This case among many others... http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Safford_United_School_District
      Among other things, the requirements for searches is much lower, no warrant requirements, etc.

      --
      Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
    18. Re:Don't take candy from the government by lgw · · Score: 1

      The kid did something wrong, otherwise we'd hear more about what he/she did from the lawyers for the kid.

      Of course he's a witch, why else would be have been accused?

      The kid did something at home that the school considered inappropriate - it's outrageous that the school is even making such a claim, let alone that they're backing it up with a web cam.

      If the parents wanted to be responsible parents or even just actually punish the people who did wrong here, they'd have focused on finding a lawyer to chase the criminal aspect.

      The lawyers are chasing the criminal aspect.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    19. Re:Don't take candy from the government by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      No I'll take the free computer, and then pave the hdd ;).

    20. Re:Don't take candy from the government by dangitman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is why you don't want "free" computers from the government, you want the government to NOT take that money away from you to begin with so you can buy your own computer...

      That's a very twisted argument. This is not a reason for the government not to give students computers, because the government shouldn't be doing this, and nobody would really expect them to.

      You might have a point somewhere in there, but you undermine it by taking a bizarre outlier of a case and portraying it as the norm. After all, if a school can do this, what's to say that you are not being monitored by the laptop that you buy privately from a company?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    21. Re:Don't take candy from the government by dangitman · · Score: 1

      More like, this is what you get for not formatting it as soon as you get it.

      Ah, but if a student did that to school property they would be tried as an adult for computer crimes and possible terrorism.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    22. Re:Don't take candy from the government by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      Well, something like 1/4 kids nationwide is on government food aide.

      Huh? Where do you live? Zimbabwe?

      The USA.

      "According to figures released by the U.S. Census Bureau in September 1996, 13.8% of Americans live in poverty. Many more are on the borderline. Poverty affects all ages, but an astonishing 48% percent of its victims are children."
      22% of Americans under the age of 18 -- and 25% under age 12 -- are hungry or at the risk of being hungry.

      Those numbers would have been from the 1990 census.

      The USA has a boatload of rich, childless people. (Most rich people with children only have one or two. The poor tend to have many more.)

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    23. Re:Don't take candy from the government by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the abbreviation that really doesn't just pop like alot of others do.

    24. Re:Don't take candy from the government by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      lol. "at the risk of being hungry"? I'M at the risk of being hungry ... if I forget to pickup the groceries! What the hell does that even mean??

      Anyway, you're not quoting the 1990 census, you're quoting heartsandminds.org, which automatically makes me skeptical of the claims. Let's try to find a non-biased source of info, shall we?

      The stats do show that around 20% of American children live in "poverty", but the western definition of poverty is rather loose. According to wikipedia:

      In 2007, 46% of poor households in the US owned their own homes, 30% had two or more cars, and 63% received cable or satellite TV.

      When a "poor" family owns two cars, a TV, and all manner of electronics, it's ludicrous to claim that they can't feed their children. You're either saying that these people have a truly fucked up sense of priorities, or your claims make no sense, and these children are in fact getting plenty of food.

    25. Re:Don't take candy from the government by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      Before you continue your anti-government rant, answer this question: Are you saying that this wouldn't happen at a private school?

      Because you can bet your pounded ass that power trips have nothing to do with the federal government.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    26. Re:Don't take candy from the government by zero_out · · Score: 1

      Putting cameras in the bathrooms is considered procuring child pornography? My HS phys ed teacher would enforce a showering rule after every class. If we didn't take a shower, we got a demerit. Get enough demerits, you lose a letter grade. He enforced it by watching us shower, and checking off our names in a notebook. This was in the mid-90s. BTW, I'm male, the same gender as the phys ed teacher. It really creeped me out, but my parents didn't seem to care. Neither did any of the other kids' parents.

    27. Re:Don't take candy from the government by srpape · · Score: 1

      I don't know why everyone thinks wiping the hard drive is foolproof.

      What about firmware or special hardware?

    28. Re:Don't take candy from the government by tftp · · Score: 1

      When a "poor" family owns two cars, a TV, and all manner of electronics, it's ludicrous to claim that they can't feed their children.

      A young family that pays a 30-yr mortgage on the house, two car loans and a c/c bill and has children is especially likely to be very poor, to the point that if the government offers subsidized lunches at school they gladly take that offer.

    29. Re:Don't take candy from the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the motherboard self-destructs on you, copy the school's provided image back onto the hard drive, and return the laptop has 'broken'. Repeat as necessary. Eventually they will get the message.

      Don't forget the obligatory ??? and profit.

    30. Re:Don't take candy from the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He enforced it by watching us shower...

      That is really fucked up. Why are many students willing to prostrate themselves for a letter on a stupid progress report?

    31. Re:Don't take candy from the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about herpes?

      Not free if you paid for the hooker, or even the date...

    32. Re:Don't take candy from the government by selven · · Score: 1

      Sexually transmitted micro-organisms want to be free!

    33. Re:Don't take candy from the government by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      They probably came with a utility pre-installed that's required to access the school stuff the kids were supposed to be using.

    34. Re:Don't take candy from the government by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, that's a valid point. In that sense - and, given the right statistics to back it - I'd be willing to accept that a large percentage of American children make use of subsidized or free food programs. However, the original commenter (and the subsequent response) suggested that these children would go hungry without the availability of such services, and that claim has not been substantiated.

      It's the same as saying that people in Canada rely on government-funded health care. It's not that we / they can't afford to do without it, it's just that most people will make use of free services when they're provided.

      (yeah, ok, not a perfect analogy - in Canada we have to use the "free" health care because no private option exists - but it's close enough)

    35. Re:Don't take candy from the government by Gaffod · · Score: 1

      This is why you don't want "free" computers from the government, (...) so you can buy your own computer...

      (emphasis mine)

      Way to fail reading comprehension, asshat. Who the hell modded you 5?

    36. Re:Don't take candy from the government by MadCat · · Score: 1

      Funny, this also happened at my highschool back in the 90's, but since PE class was usually at the end of the day, I'd just get dressed, go home, and take a bath in my own comfortable bathtub where the hot water would actually be hot, and the PE teacher wasn't doing a pedobear impression.

      --
      There is no sig...
    37. Re:Don't take candy from the government by zero_out · · Score: 1

      That was actually forbidden. Even if we had PE for our last period of the day, we still had to shower after class. Skip it, get a demerit. Do that 5 times (2.5 weeks) and lose a letter grade. Do that 10 times, and fail the class entirely. I skipped it 9 times. Just enough to not fail.

    38. Re:Don't take candy from the government by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      No, this is the reason that you demand a FOSS operating system and root access to your free computer. This is why, when given a free government computer, you exercise your right to wipe the drive and install code you trust.

    39. Re:Don't take candy from the government by MadCat · · Score: 1

      Heh, yeah, same at my school but after it got to the point I was going to be failed I was called to the principals office to "explain my actions", at which point I made clear (I used to be and still am an insufferable little smartass) that a) failing PhysEd wasn't one of my worries, b) my grades in my other classes were high enough to compensate for failing PhysEd so I wasn't going to be held back a year, c) the classes are at the end of the day, so the minute the bell rings (which is end of PE class as well), I'm theoretically on my own time, so whether or not I decide to shower is at that point solely at my own discretion, and d) I didn't like that the PE teacher had an unhealthy obsession with looking at everyone's genitals to "make sure you wash properly".

      Principal basically at that point threatened to inform my parents, and actually called them after I told him he could go for it, and they basically told him the same things - so that was the end of that, never heard jack shit about it again.

      Showering good, but not if there's a rather slimy pedobear staring at my nuts... funny thing is that a few years after I graduated, a friend's sister went to the same school and found out that my PE teacher was fired for "improper conduct", and that there was now a female PE teacher. Who was lesbian. And basically spent most of the time after PE class in the girls' locker room doing the pedobear-stare.

      Oh well.

      --
      There is no sig...
  22. What kind of crack were they on? by panoptical2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First, there's no way that you can take illegally obtained "evidence" and punish the student for it. It goes against the 4th amendment, and is unethical on so many levels. I strongly doubt that this case will go too far in court.

    Second, why the hell do they need to spy on students anyway? It's good that they're giving the students laptops, but what they do at home (regardless of all the stupid shit they do) is none of the school's business, nor is it in their jurisdiction. I could make a rant about how parents need to step it up and take better care of their kids, but I'll just sum it up: schools should stay out of parental territories. It's bad for the student, and it's bad for the school.

    Whoever was running this, either the school IT admins or even the higher school administration should be at least suspended pending further review.

    1. Re:What kind of crack were they on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think again. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule .

    2. Re:What kind of crack were they on? by rev_sanchez · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Schools don't generally punish students for breaking laws, they punish students for breaking rules so if they were thinking detention, suspension, or expulsion then they can generally expect to get away with violating the rights of a student as long as they don't push it too far or descriminate too blatently. If they try to hand iffy evidence over to the police for use in a criminal complaint against a kid then the prosecutor might have some issues with being able to use it but there is very little chance of a school getting in trouble for that kind of thing.

      As for the other point this seems to be final act in a string of monumentally stupid decisions on the part of everyone involved at the school.
      - In theory giving them laptops might save money by requiring fewer expensive text books and it could help out with a couple of classes but in practice it's probably a pretty bad idea because of porn, warez, vandalism, and apparently the terrible judgment of the administrators etc.
      - Getting them laptops with webcams is a terrible idea because kids are dumb enough to take pictures of themselves nude on a school computer without help of the administrators. It's a damn good idea to keep yourself out of the equasion when it comes to pictures and videos of nude children.
      - Setting those laptops up with spying software is beyond stupid unless it was intended to help track down stolen laptops and even then they should have exceptionally tight controls on the use of something like that. I'd say that the bare minimum for using this kind of thing would be a police report filed by the student stating the laptop was stolen and having a police officer present when the software is used.
      - Using the software to track down students skipping school, drinking, looking at porn, doing drugs, having sex, etc. is a horrible idea that is almost certainly criminal.

      --
      If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
  23. Why Slashdot's Cory Doctorow Fixation? by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    Answer one question and you have the answer to the other.

    I'm not sure, but I think polaroids are involved...

    1. Re:Why Slashdot's Cory Doctorow Fixation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because of the microsoft drm speech: http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

    2. Re:Why Slashdot's Cory Doctorow Fixation? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I'm a Doctorow fan, love his novels and agree with a lot he has to say, but boingboing is NOT a news source. I'll bet Doctorow himself would agree that the AP or any newspaper that uses it would be a better link.

  24. The bigger question... by wandazulu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What exactly is "improper behavior in the home", and who would believe it was appropriate for a school to accuse the kid of it?

    1. Re:The bigger question... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, please let us speculate about the "improper behavior in the home" in a fact-free vacuum!

      Oh, I have one: they caught the student smiling and doing his homework on the laptop at home during school hours looking perfectly well when he had claimed to be sick, thus being truant!

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    2. Re:The bigger question... by weicco · · Score: 1

      Questioning the teachers' authority, of course.

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    3. Re:The bigger question... by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh yes, please let us speculate about the "improper behavior in the home" in a fact-free vacuum!

      The GPP wasn't speculating about what the student was doing, but instead about why a school would think it had the right to care.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:The bigger question... by sowth · · Score: 1

      Or maybe he was having sex with a teacher?

    5. Re:The bigger question... by aldld · · Score: 1

      It would probably have something to do with improper use of school equipment. So... using the laptop to look at porn?

  25. Hang on there.. year 2010 is coming.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and World War III is around the corner. In the New Age, the eastern civilization will replace the barbaric western civilization and true enlightenment will come. A society without government and slavery.

  26. No surprise here by Jawn98685 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In a society where we are now so ready to trade privacy and other personal liberties for the (often empty) promise of security, it is no surprise at all that this or that government entity should feel no compunction at this gross affront to the privacy of their students and their families. And let's be clear, someone had to have had second thoughts about this, and still they went ahead with this staggeringly stupid plan.

    I hope that not only do the tools responsible for this have their asses handed to them in civil court, I sincerely hope that those asses are then tossed into prison for what has to be a long list of criminal statutes that have been violated.

    1. Re:No surprise here by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I can't wait for the stellar decision:

            "Students have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes"

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:No surprise here by TheP4st · · Score: 1

      Despite having excellent karma I haven't had any mod points in a very long time, and haven't really cared. But, seeing Jawn's comment getting modded Troll together with http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1555240&cid=31188392 and http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1555240&cid=31188348 [i]do[/i] make me wish I had them now.

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    3. Re:No surprise here by Jawn98685 · · Score: 1

      Meh...
      That's part of the beauty of the mod system here. The outliers (usually) get washed away by the crowd. It isn't perfect, but what is?
      BTW, if you hadn't mentioned it, I'd have not even known that someone objected to protecting our civil rights. Some "patriot", obviously. :)

  27. The ever growing list of reasons by CranberryKing · · Score: 2, Insightful

    to homeschool. These education people are pretty fucked up.

    1. Re:The ever growing list of reasons by psithurism · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These education people are pretty fucked up

      To say the worlds educational system is run by fuckups is a leap from the article's evidence that a few school admins at one school are fucked up.

      Given the parents I know, I would trust many kids more to the public/private schools than their parental tutelage.

    2. Re:The ever growing list of reasons by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      I'm out of points but I'd mod you up.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    3. Re:The ever growing list of reasons by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Whether, they want to believe it or not, this is the kind of 'Socialization' that kids are getting in public schools. This may be a slightly more extreme example, but part of the 'Socialization' program that schools run is to train students to believe that they have no rights at all. I can remember in school, both students and faculty trying to claim that school rules WERE laws. I have heard that same thing parroted many times since I have been out of school. Many times right here on slashdot.

      The first time I heard a home school advocate talk about how public school was never intended for education, but was in fact a socialization program, I thought she was a loon. Since then, the pro public school advocates (many here on slashdot) have convinced me that she wasn't as crazy as I thought. The constant insisting by public school advocates that the education may be lacking, but the public school is for socialization pretty well spells it out.

    4. Re:The ever growing list of reasons by theskipper · · Score: 1

      Given the types of people I interact with everyday, I'd strongly disagree. A lot of parents are truly clueless and would only serve as indoctrinators, not educators.

      As a general solution, private schools, sure. Home schooling, no.

    5. Re:The ever growing list of reasons by CranberryKing · · Score: 2, Interesting

      School is NOT indoctrination?! 'Clueless' parents have been raising people since the dawn of man. Ah the state knows what's best for the people, your right..

    6. Re:The ever growing list of reasons by CranberryKing · · Score: 1

      Given the parents I know, I would trust many kids more to the public/private schools than their parental tutelage.

      I guess it's lucky for those parents that their kids are not yours to to hand over then!

    7. Re:The ever growing list of reasons by CranberryKing · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given the parents I know, I would trust many kids more to the public/private schools than their parental tutelage.

      Sorry, 2nd reply here.. I find your statement here pretty disturbing. Karl Marx probably would not have phrased it differently than you do. Would you consider that your well intended ideas are the very justification for state tyranny and destroying families?

    8. Re:The ever growing list of reasons by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, 'cause being able to indoctrinate your crotchfruit into your own delusional belief system is the foundation of being a family. Down with schools and their "facts"!

    9. Re:The ever growing list of reasons by theskipper · · Score: 1

      Public school these days may indeed be described as "indoctrination". Properly done though, school is not indoctrination it's education. Hence my mention of private institutions as one viable alternative.

      But to your original point, let's try it this way. What percentage of parents do you think could clearly define acceleration in terms of velocity using a derivative?

      Or creatively compare the styles of Yeats and Longfellow?

      Or describe why the blockade of Berlin was important and the subsequent consequences of the action?

      Or all of the above?

      Stuffing facts into someone's head is not education. My contention is that's all that most parents would be qualified to do.

    10. Re:The ever growing list of reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep they're called "dittoheads" and "Fox News watchers".

    11. Re:The ever growing list of reasons by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Stuffing facts into someone's head is not education. My contention is that's all that most parents would be qualified to do.

      Not just a contention, it's pretty much proven over here in AU.

      Home schooling is practically a death sentence for your kid over here. With costs not being an issue due to things like HECS uni placement is done via academic merit, not on ones ability to pay thus there is a lot of competition. Even if you pass TEE (Tertiary Entrance Exam) equivalency tests the statement "home schooled" on your application will result in it's near instantaneous rejection. Uni's would rather give a placement to foreign students with actual school degrees (most Indian and Asian students who come to AU have tertiary degrees from their own nations and must pass TEE equivalency tests, HECS is not available to them so they have to pay up front).

      Home Schooled, to an educator shows that you are likely not have the full breadth of education needed to pass a university course and have no experience in learning in a classroom environment. This is ignoring the fact that a home schooled student's social growth was severely stunted and likely will have trouble with social situations on campus. School is more then just a book education, you learn how to interact with people at school as well. You'll also severely limit your kids career opportunities, relegating them to the level of high school drop-out even if they are incredibly smart for the just this reason, employers don't want to hire potentially anti-social people.

      Over here in Australia, the phrase home schooled is synonymous with nutter and forced indoctrination as the only reason you'll refuse to let your kid be educated in a proper environment is if you're afraid they'll develop subversive ideas (read: disagree with the parents political philosophy). If you don't like any of Australia fine public schools, we have many private schools to choose from, but you'll have to pay for that.

      Given the GP's baseless rant comparing public education to Marxism (they couldn't be more opposite) I'd say this was true of the GP.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  28. Legal? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    That cannot be even close to legal.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  29. Big Brother by AMDuser · · Score: 1

    Big brother one it way to a school near you. I think we should do this to School officials and Government officials. The Students should have a Ubuntu live CD so that they can go off the record.

    1. Re:Big Brother by psithurism · · Score: 1

      Big brother on its way to a school near you.

      Naw, I think all the administrators behind this are going to be blackballed from any school position in the future and put on national, at least informal, pedo-lists and it will be years before someone tries this again in the US.

  30. Hang on there.. year 2012 is coming.... by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 0, Redundant

    fixed that title for you.

  31. Bigbrother tag by dvoecks · · Score: 2, Informative

    Finally a 1984 reference that I can get behind. People toss out "Big Brother" any time surveillance comes up, but it never quite fits. There was so much more to that novel than the pervasive surveillance. I always feel like referencing it in a discussion about surveillance does the book a disservice. However, I'm going to bless this one. Selectively watching students at home is about as close to the "telescreen" as you're going to get.

    1. Re:Bigbrother tag by MozeeToby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only reason the school got away with it for as long as they did was because it was a secret and the students didn't know they were being watched. If the students had known they were being watched they would have taken the school to court, taped over the cameras, or just closed the laptops. Contrasted to the telescreen which everyone knew about, couldn't be turned off, and couldn't be legally fought. This was, undoubtably, a fuck up by the school, but Big Brother would be if this was an official policy of the federal government and there existed no way to fight it, since even the act of fighting it would be enough to have you tortured and/or killed.

    2. Re:Bigbrother tag by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Assuming that the school was spying on the students, which is not evident from the facts at hand.

      We know the a student claims the school had a photograph. We do not know if such a photograph existed or how it came to be in the hands of the school. It's not impossible that they obtained it from another students laptop that had been turned in (for repair or because the student was moving out of district), of from the parent of another child who found the picture and forwarded it to the school. (For just two of many possible routes.)

  32. I hate this by djfuq · · Score: 0

    I hate this country even more from reading this article.

    I hate it! I hate the news that comes out of here! I hate the way we treat people! I hate the religions! I hate the commercialism! I hate the advertising industry! I hate small print! I hate the eduction system! I hate the city, county, and state governments! I hate the laws that are made to suck money from ordinary people! I hate the credit system! I hate the banks! I hate the housing industry. I hate the military! I hate wars! I hate the loss of privacy! I hate the paternalism! I hate the rampant ideological belief in superstitious bullshit! I hate republicans! I hate democrats I hate Libertarians! I hate the entertainment industry! I hate!!! I hate Slashdot's karma system for making people like me who disagree with the status quo out to be trolls.... I hate it all!

    Have a nice day! :-)

    --
    Dj fuQ [url="http://djfuq.org"]djfuq urges you to listen to the beats[/url] [url="http://djfuq.org"]http://djfuq.org[
    1. Re:I hate this by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      I hate you.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    2. Re:I hate this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you could always steal an airplane and...

    3. Re:I hate this by djfuq · · Score: 0

      I am not a terrorist just because I hate the way things are going. I hate people like you who think if someone disagrees with the way things are done here that they must be a terrorist in the making.

      --
      Dj fuQ [url="http://djfuq.org"]djfuq urges you to listen to the beats[/url] [url="http://djfuq.org"]http://djfuq.org[
  33. I forsee criminal charges. by Montezumaa · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If law enforcement in that area, along with the DA, are willing to do their jobs, then I foresee serious criminal charges for the person or people involved with this mess. As agents of the government, which any government employee is, such a person or people must have a warrant in order to engage in such activities. Since this spying was going on in the student's home and not at school, the school official(s) cannot claim they were within their right to spy.

    Looking a computer logs, while a stretch itself, might be legal in some circumstances, actively spying on a person's activities in their home is highly illegal. This should get very interesting, if the people involved with bringing the lawsuit are willing to go the distance with the case.

    1. Re:I forsee criminal charges. by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Law enforcement (and DA's) have kids, too.

      Heaven help whoever spied on Officer So-and-so's innocent son or daughter.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  34. Bad method of correction by SirWhoopass · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Beautiful job by the lawyers in this case. They're the only winners. It is a class action where all students in the district are members of the class. Seeking liquidated damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees. Assuming they "win", then these same families will be able to vote themselves a new tax levy to pay for the damages awarded, plus the attorney fees of both sides.

    On the face of it, the school screwed up royally. No doubt about it. But did anyone even try to work this out via another method? Did the school board know about this? Since they are probably parents in the district, my guess is that they did not know.

    I think the board should fire the administration for cause. If they have to pay some lawyers to make that stick, so be it. It would still be less expensive than this class action.

    1. Re:Bad method of correction by pclminion · · Score: 1

      On the face of it, the school screwed up royally. No doubt about it. But did anyone even try to work this out via another method? Did the school board know about this? Since they are probably parents in the district, my guess is that they did not know.

      Other methods? If this happened to my kid, and a lawsuit was not an option, my "other method" would probably involve firearms. You obtained pictures of my kid in his own home, possibly in various states of undress? Watch your back.

      The point is not to just punish the school district for what they did. The point is to instill absolute terror into the hearts of other administrators in other districts and other states, to never EVER contemplate doing something like this. The message needs to be, if you do this, you will receive utter financial ruin. It's too bad that taxpayers will ultimately pay for it, but the government is rooted in the people, and the people must take responsibility for the actions of their government.

    2. Re:Bad method of correction by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually I would say that somebody should be up on criminal charges. How do they know that my wife or daughter are not changing in that room when they decide to spy. How do I know that they are not recording nude pictures of my children?
      Your right that a class action law case will only help the lawyers. I want to see people go to jail for this.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Bad method of correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those that can afford to move would probably move, thereby moving tax revenue to a different school district, leaving the poorer district residents with an even larger chunk of the debt pie.

    4. Re:Bad method of correction by SirWhoopass · · Score: 1

      What "terror" would a class action ruling instill in other administrators? They don't face personal financial ruin, the administrators won't pay a dime. It is the district that faces the ruin, which is ultimately these very same families whose children were involved.

      Firing them for cause, and making it stick, would have direct personal consequences for the individuals involved.

      Criminal charges (if appropriate, the whole "child porn" thing is all wild speculation right now) would have severe direct personal consequences.

    5. Re:Bad method of correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a class action where all students in the district are members of the class.

      No, it is -way- worse than that. It's all the students in the district's two high schools AND all of their families.

    6. Re:Bad method of correction by alen · · Score: 1

      the school district most likely has insurance to cover this. once this is litigated i bet every insurance company will be telling all the other school districts that if you spy on kids at home than they won't cover the liability

    7. Re:Bad method of correction by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      The filing names not only the district as a corporation but also the school board and the superintendent, by name. At the very least, the superintendent is personally in trouble, and will have to personally defend himself. I suspect he can't use school money to hire his lawyer.

    8. Re:Bad method of correction by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      then these same families will be able to vote themselves a new tax levy to pay for the damages awarded, plus the attorney fees of both sides.

      maybe the public school district should go bankrupt. Then the parents can take their settlement money and re-found their local school as a charter school or send their kids to private school instead. As for the local government falling on hard times, most people probably wouldn't shed a tear about spending cuts; they already believe that government spending everywhere is out of control.

    9. Re:Bad method of correction by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Take everyone who knew about this, liquidate their kidneys on the black market, and use that to pay for damages.

    10. Re:Bad method of correction by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Beautiful job by the lawyers in this case. They're the only winners. It is a class action where all students in the district are members of the class.

      Who fucking cares if lawyers end up with money? Those who did your kid wrong are taken to the cleaners WITHOUT you having to spend tens of thousands of dollars on attorneys and appeals.

    11. Re:Bad method of correction by SirWhoopass · · Score: 1

      Because nobody is getting "taken to the cleaners" but the parents themselves. The school district gets its money from local taxpayers... the very parents filing this lawsuit. If the parents win, then that money comes from themselves. They money to pay the lawyers (both theirs and the school's) comes out of the parents own pocket. It's lose-lose.

    12. Re:Bad method of correction by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Other methods? If this happened to my kid, and a lawsuit was not an option, my "other method" would probably involve firearms. You obtained pictures of my kid in his own home, possibly in various states of undress? Watch your back.

      Nice, resort to violence. Nothing like a lynch mob to exact justice - so much better than a legal system after all.

      It's a fucking photo. It's not as though they bulldozed your kitchen wall in, tied up your wife, stripped your daughter naked and raped her three at once. I could understand a violent response to that. But you're talking about fucking photographs, that the person being photographed didn't even know were being taken.

      Clearly there is legal recourse, and I think prison sentences are proportionate and appropriate. They're also "another method" that doesn't bankrupt the district the people suing live in.

    13. Re:Bad method of correction by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Except of course that the school district can make most of that lawsuit go away by firing the offending officials and making changes to their rules and regulations. But without huge lawsuits hanging over their heads, they have no reason to do either one.

  35. Not snooping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was no snooping, it turns out the student in question was on Chatroulette...

  36. Les jeux sont faits. Translation: the game is up. by TrentTheThief · · Score: 0, Offtopic
  37. I must say, when they came out with _1984_ by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

    I must say, when they came out with actual implementation of 1984's technology and systems for control and oppression, I expected it would be part of something a little more... sophisticated. Just a little. Maybe even a little cool. (Dare I hope?)

    This is sad. Very sad, only.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  38. Should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone should go to jail for this.

    Child porn charges should be raised, of course. Further, the cameras/mics could be used to spy on anyone in the house, including adults who are not in any way, shape, or form under the guardianship of the school. So any argument about guardianship is moot.

    Sadly, no one will go to jail for this. Some administrator will be told not to do it again, and the school board will be fined, and that will be the end of it. At least, that is all that happened when a school nurse (not a cop) forced a child to strip and wiggle (without probable cause, for that matter).

    I don't understand how a society that is so obsessed with protecting the children that it tries children as adults for crimes that wouldn't have been crimes if the children were adults can turn around and let adults off scott-free when they directly break the law to the detriment of children.

    Irrationality really frustrates me. And scares me, too.

    1. Re:Should by sowth · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how a society that is so obsessed with protecting the children that it tries children as adults for crimes that wouldn't have been crimes if the children were adults can turn around and let adults off scott-free when they directly break the law to the detriment of children.

      You have it wrong. The government sees it as protecting children from themselves in the case of them distributing CP. When the school officials spy on children, the government sees it as the officials "just doing their job." This is why an uncontrolled government is the enemy to free people.

    2. Re:Should by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Further, the cameras/mics could be used to spy on anyone in the house, including adults who are not in any way, shape, or form under the guardianship of the school. So any argument about guardianship is moot.

      I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it schools have guardianship of children due to in loco parentis. While the child is in the care of their actual parents/guardians, the school's responsibilities no longer apply.

      Therefore there is no argument about guardianship, it does not apply while the child is not in the direct care of the school. (Yes of course if the school has reason to believe that a child is being mistreated at home, etc, they should take their concerns to the appropriate authorities, just as anyone else should, but that's nothing to do with guardianship)

  39. Milton said it best: by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm going to have to burn down the building.

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
    1. Re:Milton said it best: by selven · · Score: 1

      We have to destroy the education system in order to save it.

  40. Webcams probably not activated remotely by m_dob · · Score: 1

    If, on the other hand, the student had a program like Photo Booth or Skype and in use, the school administrator would have been able to see what the webcam saw. The court filing does not seem to state with any authority what software or system was used.

    1. Re:Webcams probably not activated remotely by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      news article seems to indicate they where macbooks, so we can assume OS X.
      if this is the case, the most /facepalm part of the whole thing is that the webcam on macbooks has a bright green LED when they are on.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    2. Re:Webcams probably not activated remotely by m_dob · · Score: 1

      This video (at 4:39) shows how it can be done with fairly standard screen grabbing feature: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/learning/schools/how-google-saved-a-school.html

    3. Re:Webcams probably not activated remotely by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      "Now kids, make sure you pay attention to the green light at the top of your screen... This light indicates that the laptop is Green(sm) and energy-saving." :>

  41. Re:If a student was dressing in front of their lap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got a few better ideas:

    - Not punishing them for unrelated reasons which ignore the bigger issue.
    - Not exploiting the ignorance and fear of the common person for our short-term benefit.
    - Not encouraging the use of easily-abused laws and damaging the already tenous fairness and justice of our society.
    - Not lowering ourselves to the level of pond scum.

    How about, you know, punishing them FOR WHAT THEY DID WRONG? You know, justice? Spirit of the law?

  42. If that's true, they are in so much shit... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    Clear cut illegal eavesdropping. Likely civil rights violations. Possibly child pornography if they turned it on at the wrong time.

    Really easy to get the jury on your side with the crying 13 year old telling how she always left the laptop open on the desk in her bedroom, where she got changed each day and how the thought that her teachers were watching gives her nightmares.

    I can't fathom how anyone could possibly have thought this was a good idea...

    And then to try and punish someone for what they did in their own home as well?

    It's not the school kids that need civics lessons.

  43. WTF?! by ogdenk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I absolutely DARE some school official to try this with my kids. I don't play the stupid game where they think they have even an ounce of authority over what my child does after stepping off the bus. In fact, if they punished my son for anything he did at home, I'll buy him ice cream for every day he's suspended and encourage him to make noise about it and resist in a smug, non-violent way as well as writing every official, politician and journalist I can find in a 100 mile radius. And then, I'll just be getting started. I'm not afraid of DSS either. I even *gasp* spank my kids.

    The problem is sticking up for yourself and actually exercising your rights gets you branded as a radical, a criminal or a terrorist. This needs to end. I'm willing to live a harder life to live it with my liberty, pride and self-respect intact and I have. I've lost jobs, promotions, etc solely on sticking to values and principals and refusing to do the wrong thing. It's cost me.....dearly in some cases but at least I can honestly say that I'm free. There used to be a lot of people like this.

    The school's job is to pour a bit of knowledge in his head. Teaching morality and values is the parent's job. They need to stay the hell off of my turf and stop overstepping their bounds. Period. What my son's personality is like, his habits, etc is none of their business outside that building.

    1. Re:WTF?! by unixguy43 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're right on the money with this one. Outside of school grounds, there is absolutely no reason that anyone at the school has any business to question what goes on with my kids. At best, they can maybe have some rules about Internet usage if it's a laptop which the school owns.

      Let's face it- for the most part, the kids aren't going to be using these laptops in the kitchen or in the family room- they're going to be using them in their BEDROOM. I'm sorry, but I don't even go into my kids' bedrooms without knocking first. What gives some useless administrator from the school the right to go into any kids bedroom? Whoever came up with this plan has to be missing something in the intelligence area. And can you imagine what effect this will have on the kids when they turn around to find that little light on that indicates the webcam is active? All I can say is there's going to be a lot of therapy for kids who feel victimized if this is actually allowed to go forward.

      If I was the parent of one of the kids that got a "school laptop" and found out that this was part of the usage policy, I'd be delivering it back to the school along with a letter from my lawyer.

    2. Re:WTF?! by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "The school's job is to pour a bit of knowledge in his head. Teaching morality and values is the parent's job. They need to stay the hell off of my turf and stop overstepping their bounds. Period. What my son's personality is like, his habits, etc is none of their business outside that building."
      I agree except I also demand that they teach the morals as represented by the Constitution! I refuse to stand by have them teach my children that his or her rights can be ignored.
       

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:WTF?! by cdrguru · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is today that so many parents are more than happy to turn over teaching morality to someone else - anyone else that might be handy. This includes school, church, fellow students, random adults at the mall, anybody. Anyone that is willing to spend the time.

      Of course, what this results in is a totally borked situation where you have people thinking that as long as they get away with it, anything is OK. And a good portion of the folks that in yesteryear might have helped the parents out either no longer exist or just aren't interested in anymore because of overload and mission creep.

      So if you actually want to try to instill some sort of morality in your children, great. Except unless you accept the idea that you are in the minority you are going to be trying to get everyone out of "parent's territory". A lot of parents, and I'd say most of them today, aren't as interested as you are. So trying to get things changed so it is always only the parent's role is just going to leave us in a much worse situation than we are in now in 20 years.

      It isn't great that schools try to get into this when they are generally incapable of doing a good job. However, in today's world what else is there? TV? Movie stars? Are there any role models that would be good for children to look up to? Is there anyone that has enough interaction with children today to actually be able to provide a role model and some kind of morality? The answer for the most part is that if the parents, grandparents and siblings aren't going to do any "parenting" then the only other actor in the child's life is school. Sucks, doesn't it?

      This doesn't really excuse what is described here, but what we are faced with is some kind of "community parenting" and nobody knows who is doing what or what they should be doing exactly. So you see a lot of experiments. Some of these experiments involve people convincing teenagers to run away from home, become prostitutes and give their new guardian the money. Some get the children into strange cults in the name of "giving the children religion" which the adults seem to think is necessary and important. I'm sure there are other experiments which turn out to be good, worthwhile and constructive. Sadly, you don't see very many of those.

      We're going to have to learn how to manage this because for the most part, the parents aren't going to do it. This is especially true when the parent is a 15 year old girl that saw the father once or twice and managed to get pregnant.

    4. Re:WTF?! by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      I'm not a parent nor am I prone to violence, but I can only think of one proper response to finding out some jackass has been secretly watching kids through school-issued laptops: a swift fist to the face.

      Followed by criminal charges for both the fist and the watching and heck, it would be worth it...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    5. Re:WTF?! by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      We're going to have to learn how to manage this because for the most part, the parents aren't going to do it. This is especially true when the parent is a 15 year old girl that saw the father once or twice and managed to get pregnant.

      It's not our place to manage it. Period. If society wants to be in the crapper, it's not the job of the government to decide what is moral and right. We own THEM not the other way around.

      And by the way, I was a teenage parent at 15. My oldest daughter was born a couple months after my 15th birthday. I dropped out immediately, got an A+ cert and a job as a PC tech/embedded hardware tech and within a year and a half I was in the IT Dept as a Jr. Admin.

      Just because you're young doesn't make you clueless and just because you have a lapse in judgement doesn't make you a useless moron for life unless you LET it happen.

      I'm a damn good parent and I've had to fight for everything I have twice as hard as anyone else and still generally got treated worse than everyone else. I was walked on and taken advantage of quite a bit just because the company knew they had me by the balls and getting another tech job would be difficult.

      I don't care how bad things get, government intervention in every aspect of daily life is not the answer. It's just a road to tyranny, stress and poor quality of life.

    6. Re:WTF?! by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      I'm not "prone" to violence but I'm certainly not above it when the situation calls for it.

    7. Re:WTF?! by jmichaelx · · Score: 1

      Perverts.

  44. You have got to be kidding me... by yoshi_mon · · Score: 1

    Consitutional scholars have been debating privacry rights for a long time now. But with our own laws and the added British Commonlaw is there nothing to prevent this type of thing?

    If I recall correctly there was a peeping tom case that had some poor smuck who was getting some coffee in the buff, in his own home, and yet he was the one who was charged.

    Look, I'm a big fan of jurance prudence. But we need to make our system work because when it's a joke then nobody will respect the laws.

    As an American (USAian) I see that what is holding us together is a sense of purpose. We ignore the really stupid stuff that is on our books and really try to do what is correct. But we should make an effort to make sure that the books are correct too. It's not like we don't have the manpower. (Most barristers per capta.)

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
    1. Re:You have got to be kidding me... by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      Consitutional scholars have been debating privacry rights for a long time now. But with our own laws and the added British Commonlaw is there nothing to prevent this type of thing?

      If I recall correctly there was a peeping tom case that had some poor smuck who was getting some coffee in the buff, in his own home, and yet he was the one who was charged.

      Look, I'm a big fan of jurance prudence. But we need to make our system work because when it's a joke then nobody will respect the laws.

      As an American (USAian) I see that what is holding us together is a sense of purpose. We ignore the really stupid stuff that is on our books and really try to do what is correct. But we should make an effort to make sure that the books are correct too. It's not like we don't have the manpower. (Most barristers per capta.)

      There's just something about your post that makes me doubt the claim that you're an American, but I can't seem to figure out what it is...

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    2. Re:You have got to be kidding me... by yoshi_mon · · Score: 1

      I'm not really sure what to make of your reply. So since your UID is over 1m I'm just going to go with troll unless you can prove otherwise.

      --

      Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
  45. Fat Chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suggest you to do research on your local gun laws and prepare an alternate plan of action.

  46. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Eh? Blue state? PA has long been considered a swing state, though it has voted democrat for president a few times in a row. In the house, democrats hold an 11-7 edge. In the Senate there are two democrats (if you can call Arlen Specter a democrat..). So currently they are a majority democrat, but in the past have been republican... they switch back and forth a lot. Anyway, the politics of the state have nothing to do with the Florida/Texas comment. Florida and Texas school systems are often viewed as some of the most authoritarian/big brother in the country.

  47. Which Software Was Used? by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    I'm curious: what specific software did they choose to do this with?
    Inquiring minds want to know. :)

    1. Re:Which Software Was Used? by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it still works, but Back Orifice would do this. My guess is there is some current version of this that will do it as well.

    2. Re:Which Software Was Used? by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

      The school wouldn't need back orifice since they had physical control of the computer to begin with. They could (and did) put whatever software they wanted on it and sent it on its way.

  48. If you have something that you don't want anyone.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

    Eric Schmidt, Google

  49. Occams Razor will serve you well by RapmasterT · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When the media reports a story that sounds utterly beyond the pale of sensibility, take a deep breath and exercise some skepticism.
    I got $100 that says the next few days will see some "clarification" of this story that will make it seem significantly less reprehensible.
    My bet is the kid used the webcam to take some photos that then ended up back at school.

    1. Re:Occams Razor will serve you well by aaribaud · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well the class action complaint (yes, I did Read The Filed Material linked to by the boingboing page) explicitely talks about remotely activating cameras, so the hypothesis that it would only be the kid taking pics and then leaving them on the laptop clearly doesn't match the available facts at this time.

    2. Re:Occams Razor will serve you well by RapmasterT · · Score: 1

      Well the class action complaint (yes, I did Read The Filed Material linked to by the boingboing page) explicitely talks about remotely activating cameras, so the hypothesis that it would only be the kid taking pics and then leaving them on the laptop clearly doesn't match the available facts at this time.

      I would argue that at this time there are NO facts, only allegations. The details of a lawsuit filing are not exactly unbiased.

      The point being that the behavior being alleged is so utterly ridiculous that there are far more plausible explanations. That doesn't mean the allegations aren't true, just that it would be VERY surprising if so.

    3. Re:Occams Razor will serve you well by tftp · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean the allegations aren't true, just that it would be VERY surprising if so.

      If I was a partner in a law firm that files a class action lawsuit on behalf of 1800+ people I'd probably spend $100 on a private computer specialist who can look at the laptop and see if there is (or is not) a software that can do this remote webcam thing. It's not like the school would write such a program from scratch, they'd simply buy one.

    4. Re:Occams Razor will serve you well by aaribaud · · Score: 1

      I would argue that at this time there are NO facts, only allegations. The details of a lawsuit filing are not exactly unbiased.

      Granted there are only allegations, and they are most certainly biased. However, as the fact they allege is central to their claim, I would tend to think that they are factual regarding the capacity of defendants to control the webcam at least--and such a capacity is anything but ludicrous.

      The point being that the behavior being alleged is so utterly ridiculous that there are far more plausible explanations. That doesn't mean the allegations aren't true, just that it would be VERY surprising if so.

      It would seem ridiculous from the viewpoint of the family or students or observers with an objective grasp of the legal situation. This does not mean that it seemed so to school PHBs who would probably tend to know, and take into consideration, school-related laws and regulations more than any other law. They may have considered that i) the school has authority on the kids and ii) the laptop is school property which the school has a right to retain control on. Doesn't make the school PHBs right, mind you; but they might well have simply missed the legal unsoundness of their idea because of the apparent soundness of the two arguments they relied on.

    5. Re:Occams Razor will serve you well by Psmylie · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the reminder to take this hysteria with a grain of salt until some proof is actually obtained. I'm embarrassed that I needed it, honestly.

      --

      psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

    6. Re:Occams Razor will serve you well by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The class action complaint mentions the ability to remotely activate the cameras (a capability the school district confirms the existence of) - but it only alleges (without evidence) that said ability was used to take the photograph in question. So the hypothesis that the kid took the picture and the school district obtained it via an indirect route completely matches the facts available at this time.

  50. If you read the filing... by istvaan · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...it's actually quite interesting. I have a feeling that the folks who are looking to see child porn charges pressed might actually get their way. According to the filing, "...it is believed and therefore averred that many of the images captured and intercepted may consist of images of minors and their parents or friends in compromising or embarrassing positions, including, but not limited to, in various stages of dress or undress."

    Seriously, what could have made the school district think that this was, in any way, a good idea? The district itself, the school board, and the superintendent are all listed as defendants. This could be really, really interesting...

    1. Re:If you read the filing... by British · · Score: 3, Funny

      "...it's actually quite interesting. I have a feeling that the folks who are looking to see child porn charges pressed might actually get their way. According to the"

      And knowing the IQ of most DAs in matters like this, the students will be pressed with charges of distributing, but the watchers won't be charged with anything.

    2. Re:If you read the filing... by istvaan · · Score: 1

      I would think that, to be charged with distribution, it would be necessary to show intent. Since the children didn't even know they were being recorded, they couldn't possibly have had intent.
      Then again, I'm not versed in PA decency laws, so I have no idea.

    3. Re:If you read the filing... by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

      I would think that, to be charged with distribution, it would be necessary to show intent. Since the children didn't even know they were being recorded, they couldn't possibly have had intent.
      Then again, I'm not versed in PA decency laws, so I have no idea.

      They "distributed" child porn soon as they received it over whatever network connection they had to the computer that recorded it.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    4. Re:If you read the filing... by alen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if you have ever worked for the government, a lot of the people that work there think they know what is better for all the peons and how they need to make up all kinds of crazy rules for everyone to live by

    5. Re:If you read the filing... by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Again, no intent. While I agree that there have been a slew of ridiculous prosecutions of kids for snapping nude pics of themselves, ALL of these cases had the element of intent.

    6. Re:If you read the filing... by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Anybody that spies on children in their own home without their knowledge quite rightly deserves to be classified as a sex offender and forced to register as one for the rest of their lives. And of course, sex offenders should not be allowed employment that brings them into contact with children, which pretty much rules out them working for the school district. If there is any justice, the assholes behind this have just committed career suicide.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    7. Re:If you read the filing... by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Seriously, what could have made the school district think that this was, in any way, a good idea?

      Nothing. They are complete dumb asses. All of these years of "get tough on crime" and sex offender moral panics are now coming home to roost. Maybe if enough of the "wrong" people are punished in witch hunts, the legislatures will be forced to reconsider making CP the root password to their state constitutions.

    8. Re:If you read the filing... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      You didn't even read the summary, did you.

      It was the child doing something in front of the camera, not the parents, and the class they're trying to certify includes every single enrolled student AND their parents. As in, there are no "other residents in the school district who were in no way involved in the crime or the legal battle". They're all involved in the legal battle. The parents are named because the plaintiff is a minor child who isn't legally allowed to sue on his own behalf (except in extraordinarily unusual circumstances in front of a particularly understanding judge and only in some states for some situations).

      And yes, 'freedom' and 'right to privacy' (ooo, scare quotes) ARE reasons to start a lawsuit, since apparently the DA can't be bothered to file the obviously applicable criminal charges.

    9. Re:If you read the filing... by Dorkmaster+Flek · · Score: 1

      This undoubtedly will be really, really interesting. I'll be watching this one, that's for sure. Ye gods, if this was my kid, I'd be demanding the school board's head on a silver platter. The people responsible should be publicly crucified as far as I'm concerned. This is seriously one of the most disturbing things I've ever read.

      --
      I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
    10. Re:If you read the filing... by ibennetch · · Score: 1

      Very interesting, but compare the details of the filing to the statement released by the superintendant that states:

      Upon a report of a suspected lost, stolen or missing laptop, the feature was activated by the District's security and technology departments...This feature has only been used for the limited purpose of locating a lost, stolen or missing laptop. The District has not used the tracking feature or web cam for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever.

      Seems someone needs to get their story straight...

      Seriously, what could have made the school district think that this was, in any way, a good idea?
      Well, it seems bone-headed now but a year ago when (theoretically, I don't actually know) a few laptops were stolen on the bus, from the locker rooms...figuring out which students were stealing them doesn't seem so bad, does it? Okay, you're right, it still seems like a bad idea...

    11. Re:If you read the filing... by istvaan · · Score: 1

      Uhm. I did read the summary.
      I read the filing, too.
      In fact, the quotation came from it.
      I never commented on who was doing something in front of the camera. I quoted from the filing, which said that the cameras could potentially have seen the child, the parents, or anyone else in the house.

    12. Re:If you read the filing... by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      And of course, sex offenders should not be allowed employment that brings them into contact with children

      A noble idea, but in a society where taking a piss outdoors in your own garden can get you labelled a sex offender, it's a bit much to say that they SHOULD not be allowed.

      That doesn't mean that all responsible parties (including PTA members) oughtn't be put up on charges of child abuse, conspiracy charges (colluding to do something illegal), manufacturing child pornography etc.

    13. Re:If you read the filing... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Don't get me started... yes, there should be several different classifications, and the term "sex offender" should be reserved for those that have instigated non-consensual acts. The guy that thought it was okay to take pictures of an underage child in their bedroom without their consent and then tell them about it after the fact is not the sharpest tool, and fully deserves to lose his job over this.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  51. No foresight? by NetNed · · Score: 1

    WOW who was the idiot that didn't see any possible legal ramifications in doing this? In a public school no less.

    If I didn't RTFA I would have said "dam private school"!

  52. Re:Logistics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Going through the data generated by this would require a ton of manpower, I would imagine... so were they actually paying people to spy on students after school hours were over?

    No, they just look at the teenage girls with boobies.

  53. They don't care by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    The big brother don't care about being legal, because they don't have to. If they do they won't exist.

  54. Re:Logistics? by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

    My guess is that they decided to set up this option in cases of theft or otherwise missing laptops. A while back slashdot had an article about a macbook that was found because the thief didn't realize in time that the camera was enabled by the owner.

    I doubt they intended to watch kids regularly...even "problem" kids. But perhaps if the kid was playing hooky then they might have thought it'd be okay to turn it on, find where they are and inform the parents. Still incredibly stupid and wrong but more understandable how people could justify it in their minds.

  55. I saw something like this on TV by hodet · · Score: 1

    I think it was the 5th estate (I think...but don't hold me to it) doing a feature on some school using laptops only and using all kinds of new techniques including social networking. They were saying how modern they were and actually demonstrated the laptops and how they could activate the webcam and even demonstrated with a live image of some kid going about his school work. Gave me the creeps and I was thinking this is technology usage gone amuck. I would never allow this on my kids laptop. These school admins were proud of it.....ridiculous.

    1. Re:I saw something like this on TV by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      FYI, someone else saw the same thing. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1555240&cid=31188824

    2. Re:I saw something like this on TV by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Digital Nation and NO they did NOT show the staff turning on the web cam. The vid is linked here a few times so I won't do it again but maybe go WATCH it again?

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    3. Re:I saw something like this on TV by hodet · · Score: 1

      Ya Digital Nation, that's it....couldn't remember. Well they clearly showed the kid at his computer, that was coming through the Webcam. You think the kid knew he was being watched?

    4. Re:I saw something like this on TV by hodet · · Score: 1

      Aagh, disregard, he was watching the desktop i can now see. Webcam just happened to be open. I still think their remote surveillance is creepy. As is your use of CAPS.

    5. Re:I saw something like this on TV by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      I do not think the kid knew the desktop was being watched. However when the guy took control of the desktop to snap a picture the kid knew about it with enough advanced notice to duck out of the way of the camera and the guy said something along the lines of "they always do that". Obviously the faculty and students play cat and mouse with the silly desktop, frankly it's kind of sad they spend so much time policing the kids like that. Also it's obvious that they attempt to take pictures often enough that the kids spot it and know to react. Other parts of the clip showed them typing comments to the kids to get back to work or somesuch - I'm sure with some research by an Apple freak someone could tell us what app was being run on the desktop to exercise control and provide comms.

      All of that aside - yeah I think it's kind of creepy. It's also possible, if the software phones home, that this level of control could be used in the home situation as well. Frankly I don't like it but it's for those sorts of reasons I decline access to a corp laptop - I have plenty of my own and don't need the headaches. I wouldn't be surprised if the kids are finding ways to disable this big brother and still get on the school network - wouldn't that be humorous? :-)

      YES I like caps - adds emphasis! :-P

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  56. Students! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start masturbating. Get the entire school system in trouble for trafficking in child pr0n.

  57. Implications at work? by psithurism · · Score: 1

    8^O

    This is a timely article given a coworker just pointed out to me that my work laptop, which is always running a plethora of mandatory software I'm not allowed to touch, is equipped with a microphone.

    I've already signed about a dozen contracts that allow them to monitor anything I do with the computer. I'm going to go back back and reread those _very_ carefully.

    1. Re:Implications at work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of Linux live distros. I believe Backtrack can even install to a thumbdrive so that changes are preserved.

    2. Re:Implications at work? by psithurism · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of Linux live distros. I believe Backtrack can even install to a thumbdrive so that changes are preserved.

      That's probably helpful to most people, but they encrypted my hard drive with proprietary software and to copy anything significant outside the encryption would be a violation of security policies. So I have to boot windows (and all the mandatory software) to do anything work related.

      I suspect its all coincidence, but I really couldn't do much to stop my company if they wanted to record my conversations while working from home or maybe they wanted make sure I was actually coughing often enough to deserve to telecommute that day.

    3. Re:Implications at work? by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      I've already signed about a dozen contracts that allow them to monitor anything I do with the computer. I'm going to go back back and reread those _very_ carefully.

      NOTICE: Your recent anti-company speech (excerpt: "What the hell did I sign here?") has been recorded, transcripted, and reported to your superior.

      Also, don't take your work laptop into the bathroom anymore. We don't need that.

      Have a nice day.

      - The Mgmt.

  58. In what sort of society.. by euxneks · · Score: 1

    In what sort of society is this even thought of as being a good idea? Spying on your students? Invasion of privacy, breach of trust, unlawful covert observations, not even to mention the possibility of there being unscrupulous watchers of the kids. (how many pictures did they take?)

    "Sure, let's spy on other people's children, that can't end badly!"

    --
    in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
  59. Re:How? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Some school officials are so red that they're pink.

  60. This is too protect the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does anyone see some child porn charges coming here?

    Quite the opposite. These Web cams were meant to protect the children, so that if any inappropriate sexual behavior is observed, included but not limited to self-abuse, we can stop it before harm is done. If these kids and their families have nothing to hide then they won't mind being observed. It's all for the safety and in the best interests of the teenagers. And yes, teenagers are NOT adults, so they shouldn't be expected to have the same privacy rights as adults. They need to be protected. If you are a parent who is against incest then you would want all your school officials to have Webcam access to your home. Parents have Parental controls for kids, and teachers, who act as guardians, have the same responsibility to Think of the Children.

    1. Re:This is too protect the children by mustafap · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >if any inappropriate sexual behavior is observed, included but not limited to self-abuse

      Masturbation is not self-abuse.

      >and teachers, who act as guardians

      While the children are at school, not when said children are at home.

      The 1950's called, they want you back.
       

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    2. Re:This is too protect the children by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Masturbation is not self-abuse.

      You've never seen the way I do it.*

      *Unless you have remote access to my webcams.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:This is too protect the children by dferrantino · · Score: 1

      I sincerely, sincerely hope you're just trolling.

    4. Re:This is too protect the children by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I’m pretty sure it was a joke, but I didn’t think it was very funny.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    5. Re:This is too protect the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 1950's called, they want you back.

      Everybody on Slashdot should read A Modest Proposal before (ever) commenting or Moderating. It's amazing how quickly people are to react without thinking. Now, I'm off to my GNAA meeting...

    6. Re:This is too protect the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoooooosh!

    7. Re:This is too protect the children by sa1lnr · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm hoping your nick isn't a clue.

    8. Re:This is too protect the children by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Abandon all hope ye who enter here.

      Let's just say that the previous mention of duct tape, WD-40, and vice grips only describes the half of it.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    9. Re:This is too protect the children by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      *Unless you have remote access to my webcams.

      Yeah, you know those porn sites that require Flash? Flash has access to your webcam. Those sites have an 'amateurs' section.

      Don't ever buy a webcam without a hardware LED 'active' light. Apple and ASUS at least have this.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:This is too protect the children by pete_norm · · Score: 1

      Masturbation is not self-abuse.

      You've never seen the way I do it.*

      *Unless you have remote access to my webcams.

      If it has anything to do with your name, i really don't want to see it :)

    11. Re:This is too protect the children by ashridah · · Score: 1

      So do some logitech, but you do realize that flash always asks for permission before allowing a flash app to touch your webcam, right?
      I wouldn't be surprised if it was buggy enough to get around, and some subset of people might have clicked 'always allow' but i suspect it's a subset that's vanishingly small.

    12. Re:This is too protect the children by hkgroove · · Score: 1

      You're confused, the district was too cheap to install the Virgin Alarm program.

    13. Re:This is too protect the children by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you know those porn sites that require Flash? Flash has access to your webcam. Those sites have an 'amateurs' section.

      Who in the hell still uses the internet for porn?

      By the time I get through the first few petabytes of my collection, I can go back to the beginning and it's like I've never seen it before.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    14. Re:This is too protect the children by Cloud+K · · Score: 1

      Those 'camera active' LEDs can be disabled. Or at least the iMac one can - you can use an app called Telekinesis to activate and watch it from an iPhone without the light coming on (which I thought seemed a very creepy idea)

    15. Re:This is too protect the children by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure it was sarcasm. But it does bring up a point...

      Why would the school laptops have webcams? Certainly some company could make a good niche profit making school-use hardware...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    16. Re:This is too protect the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It greatly amuses me that your callsign is "Red Flayer"...

    17. Re:This is too protect the children by Cloud+K · · Score: 1

      Correction, after some extensive Googling and some testing I can't find any mention of this. I could've sworn it did this when I tried the app on my iMac a couple of years ago (and that the app did a live stream rather than just taking a photo) - not that I'm some sort of creep who would use it without anyone's knowledge, and the app is mainly designed for remote access to the desktop etc - but I remember thinking "wow that's a bit dodgy". But everything I can find online now suggests that the light is hard-wired into the camera's power supply, so I guess getting a laptop with one of those lights would work after all.

    18. Re:This is too protect the children by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      >if any inappropriate sexual behavior is observed, included but not limited to self-abuse

      Masturbation is not self-abuse.

      >and teachers, who act as guardians

      While the children are at school, not when said children are at home.

      The 1950's called, they want you back.

      Dude, that's more than a whoosh. His tongue had PENETRATED his friggin cheek and was hanging out around his ear.

    19. Re:This is too protect the children by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      So do some logitech, but you do realize that flash always asks for permission before allowing a flash app to touch your webcam, right?
      I wouldn't be surprised if it was buggy enough to get around, and some subset of people might have clicked 'always allow' but i suspect it's a subset that's vanishingly small.

      It's good that it asks. I know some people who have been on webinars and poked around the WebEx client to find other participants sitting at home, in their bras, at the computer (a polite PM fixed that...).

      Why this happened, I'm not sure. Maybe they checked the box at some point in the past.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    20. Re:This is too protect the children by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      the light is hard-wired into the camera's power supply

      Good, this is the only acceptable design. Thanks for checking.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    21. Re:This is too protect the children by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      By the time I get through the first few petabytes of my collection, I can go back to the beginning and it's like I've never seen it before.

      Ain't alzheimer's grand?

      Hey, c'mon, I'm trying to start a rumor here.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  61. Frontline covered this by TrippTDF · · Score: 4, Informative

    PBS's Frontline had an interesting episode earlier this month - "Digital Nation" there's a section where a school official is remotely watching what kids are doing from a laptop, and showing a reporter how he does it... it's all inside the confines of the school, but it still scared me.

    At the core of the problem here is that we have an education system that is still stuck in the 19th century.

    1. Re:Frontline covered this by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      it's all inside the confines of the school, but it still scared me.

      I'm pretty sure that students have no expectation of privacy on school grounds unless they are in a bathroom or locker room.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Frontline covered this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PBS's Frontline had an interesting episode earlier this month - "Digital Nation" there's a section where a school official is remotely watching what kids are doing from a laptop, and showing a reporter how he does it... it's all inside the confines of the school, but it still scared me. At the core of the problem here is that we have an education system that is still stuck in the 19th century.

      True. I am sure there were lots of 19th century schools in which the school officials were watching the kids remotely.

    3. Re:Frontline covered this by TrippTDF · · Score: 1

      No, but the remote viewing is the evolution of the "sit in your chair, be quiet, pay attention" that school's have always used. As kids use technology to goof off in class, schools use the same tech to crack down on goofing off.

      It's a terrible cycle to begin with, and goes against what we know about how to teach children in the first place.

    4. Re:Frontline covered this by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      At the core of the problem here is that we have an education system that is still stuck in the 19th century.

      A few high-profile prosecutions and new sex offender registrations should shock them into the 21st century; welcome to the jungle people.

    5. Re:Frontline covered this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm fairly certain that if an educator from the 19th century had been caught watching what one of their students were doing in the privacy of their home, it would not have ended well for the educator.

    6. Re:Frontline covered this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure they didn't have laptops in the 19th century.

    7. Re:Frontline covered this by NetNed · · Score: 1

      Yea I watched that too. The whole time I was thinking "I guess actual interaction with the kids was overrated?"

      Nothing like using technology to make ones job performance even worse.

    8. Re:Frontline covered this by GvG · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link. I was wondering how the school officials got access to the webcam. From the video it appears they don't interact with the webcam directly but use an app that allows them to seen the screen. If the student happens to run an app that displays the webcam view on their screen then the school official would be able to see it too. That also explains why the students didn't notice the "webcam is on" light that most webcams have, they expected it to be on because they switched it on themselves.

    9. Re:Frontline covered this by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      it's all inside the confines of the school, but it still scared me.

      I'm pretty sure that students have no expectation of privacy on school grounds unless they are in a bathroom or locker room.

      While stupid, it's entirely possible for a laptop to be taken into a bathroom or locker room, especially if the kid just chucks it into their bookbag and takes it with them.

      If any device is capable of doing 24/7 surveillance, I think it's a good idea to assume it IS doing 24/7 surveillance.

    10. Re:Frontline covered this by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      He's remotely watching the DESKTOP not the kids. The kids are running a program named Photobooth in order to use the camera as a mirror and it is THAT on the desktop that the teacher sees not a direct feed from the web cam. As it happens this school is ALSO using OSX based computers and it's possible that something similar was done or that the child took a pic at home and it was found on the desktop later by a snooping teacher. Watch that video carefully and you will see the teacher take control of the desktop to try and snap a picture, the child realize what's up and duck away, and the guy tell the reporter that that's what they usually do when he attempts to catch them by taking a picture to yank their chain.....

      It's not as bad as it could be if that Digital Nation video is accurate but it's not great either IMO. The Superintendent of that school system has issued a statement saying that they can take pics but normally just due to a theft situation and that only the IT group sees the pics....

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  62. Join the club on the hate of this country by drachenstern · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    And remember it in November. Rant this stuff every day to everyone around you (except the /. stuff) and rant it fully.

    Remind everyone that this system is something that we allowed to get fucked up, and that we're taking it back.

    And if they look at you all o.O - ask them if they minded the bankers getting rich while this country was slammed into a recession and 10%+ unemployment from relative peace of 10 years ago. If they are ok with that, then encourage them not to vote.

    We're taking this country back, and we're starting in November. (well, I've been preaching this for 6 years now, but critical mass is only starting to take off)

    --
    2^3 * 31 * 647
  63. The staff involved in this are all fucked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously.

  64. Re:If a student was dressing in front of their lap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What hunny? Your principal wants to see me? He says I'm hot? He said I look good in lether?
    Tell him Mommy wants to know how he knows so much about me and my private life.

  65. Great, now I want to know how they did it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to their news website (considering upgrading to OS X 10.6) and the list of compatible programs, it is/was Macbooks running OS X 10.5...hey, at least it had a real security model so the only way to be rooted is, uh, by root...

    1. Re:Great, now I want to know how they did it by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

      Well if that's the case, then they used VNC to view the desktop. No software install required. That capability is wired into Mac OS and very easy to enable.

  66. Life Imitates Art by sehlat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Cory Doctorow's novel, "Little Brother" predicted exactly this happening in schools, where the school-issued laptops were used to monitor student behavior, websurfing, etc. etc.

    I didn't think it would actually happen this soon, however.

    1. Re:Life Imitates Art by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      I think you misspelled "Ender's Game" there...

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  67. Can't wait to find out by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    Will be really good to know if they were biased based on sex too... as in watching female students in general and nailing only a few of the males or minorities.

    Yes, I know the statement is loaded but I didn't want to go back and fix it.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  68. Jail time, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the love of justice, this needs to end in jail time for the people responsible. This is way beyond what any reasonable person could find acceptable. It can only be the outgrowth of demented minds. If they could even imagine that they had the right to do this to students, imagine what else they might decide they have the right to do. These people are sick and should not be allowed power over kids.

  69. bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much you want to bet that it also logged sites visited and key strokes to find out what the student published on those sites?

  70. Good for the parents by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

    I really hope they rain down Hell on that fucking school district. School admins and/or faculty have had God complexes for far too long.

  71. Teaching them early by TnkMkr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What really discourages me about all of this, is teaching the students to expect and accept this kind of treatment. I realize they are minors and often (necessarily) children's rights are limited or curbed to facilitate time to learn and understand consequences for exercising those rights.

    As I watched my younger brother go through high school I was shocked to hear how the students were given no right to privacy in their lockers or personal vehicles, were under constant surveillance and could be patted down or searched at any time the school felt it wanted to (without parental consent or notification, and without any sort of probable cause requirements). The kids just accepted this and thought it was the way things worked... everywhere. No one told them that this was only possible because of the school setting; no one told them that when they became adults in the real world this sort of treatment from authorities was illegal and a violation of their rights. I don't like what we are teaching our kids, in the name of 'protecting' the kids. I'm afraid the level of scrutiny and personal rights violations that we are subjecting them to is desensitizing them to how wrong it is.

    We wonder why citizens seem to just accept the erosion of their personal liberties, but what should we expect when we've been teaching them to just accept it since they were kids.

    1. Re:Teaching them early by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have to pee in a bottle for a drug test every time I apply for a new job... what makes you think the "real world" is that different from school?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Teaching them early by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I watched my younger brother go through high school I was shocked to hear how the students were given no right to privacy in their lockers or personal vehicles, were under constant surveillance and could be patted down or searched at any time the school felt it wanted to (without parental consent or notification, and without any sort of probable cause requirements). The kids just accepted this and thought it was the way things worked... everywhere. No one told them that this was only possible because of the school setting; no one told them that when they became adults in the real world this sort of treatment from authorities was illegal and a violation of their rights.

      And so it amazes me that people are surprised that school principals, teachers, IT administrators and police officers also think it is perfectly normal for them to violate peoples rights. It's the way they were brought up. And now people are being informed and taught by the same authority figures that things like warrantless wiretaps are good to help fight crime and protect people from themselves.

    3. Re:Teaching them early by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      Jesus H Christ Ian Huntly woudl have loved this.

    4. Re:Teaching them early by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does your boss also pat you down or search your car?

    5. Re:Teaching them early by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      I don't have to. You have the choice of not pursuing that job.

    6. Re:Teaching them early by galadriel · · Score: 1

      Kid from the school defends admins' use of the remote surveillance here (in essence "because what he was doing was wrong"):
      http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/17/school-used-student.html#comment-716313

      Yes, they're indoctrinating kids to think that this kind of thing is okay.

    7. Re:Teaching them early by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      You also have a choice of not attending that school, if you can get your parents to shell out for a private school or home school you. When EVERY prospective employer requires it, you have a choice between peeing in a bottle and not getting paid. I have two mortgages and 5 dependents... not really much of a choice, is it? When somebody points a gun at your head and says "Your money or your life!" you've technically got a choice there too, but the guy with the guy is already fairly certain which choice you're going to make.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  72. Re:If a student was dressing in front of their lap by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

    Because, due to the level of brokenness in our legal system, punishing them for what they did wrong may well be significantly more difficult (read: expensive) to pull off.

  73. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PA as a whole swings very slightly democratic. There are, however, large swaths that are overwhelmingly republican.

  74. As a person who's admin'd a school laptop program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've worked as a tech for a similar laptop program. The students were all paranoid about us looking through their cameras all the time. They would tape them up and cover them. Of course, we had far better things to do than look through 6000 student's cameras, the little green light would come on if we did, and we couldn't even access their machines anyway when they were off our network. I don't work their anymore, but I can only assume this justifies all the student paranoia, and there will likely be some backlash from the student body in since they already believed we were looking through their cameras anyway.

    Honestly, what I find most horrifying about this is someone had enough free time to actually individually look through all the laptops, pull live feeds, and spend enough time looking for illegal activity. They had to be intentionally looking for underage lewd activity, it's not just an accident. Again, there is no easy way to look through a few thousand camera feeds at once. Totally illegal, and I hope they all get sued for tons of money. (Caveat: we did have a bit of code where if a laptop was reported stolen, it would begin snapping pictures and uploading them online. We had to trigger this per MAC address. I suppose it could have been abused, but it's hardly an all seeing eye on the student body, and the student had to report it stolen themselves.)

  75. Agreed by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    I am usually pretty relaxed on all the YRO stuff like camera's on the street but this one REALLY deserves a "1984 is NOT a HOWTO".

    Mind you, I am curious to see what has lead up to all this.

    I am reminded of a level rail crossing. In the olden days it had just red lights, it was enough. Now it has full bars with folding down barriers across the entire road so absolutely nothing can pass, not even an emergency vehicle. Why? Because year after year people kept crossing and getting killed and so more and more protection was demanded when a red light should be all the warning you need (oh okay, it had a bell for the blind).

    What in this school district prompted this action? Is it someone who lost it or what? Is this school district so out of control that this was the only way they could think of to keep things in check? Did an extremist gain total control over the system? What happened? I would be very intrested to hear what lead to all this. Is the district a particularry bad one, or a prudish one?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Agreed by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Why? Because year after year people kept crossing and getting killed
      And even then people STILL get themselves killed on level crossings.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  76. Really? by cwire4 · · Score: 1

    I'm amazed that it only got attention when it was put into practice and used against a student. I don't really know who had access to the cameras and such, but at the very least the administration, IT staff of the school (or an outside company) had to know what was going on and no one objected to this? I'd quit and blow the whistle on any company that had me basically bug equipment that was going out to users, especially kids. I hope all of the families in the suit get enough money to retire on.

  77. This story has not been confirmed by TrueRock · · Score: 2, Informative

    The AP is trying to confirm the story. The story has not been confirmed:

    By MARYCLAIRE DALE, Associated Press Writer Maryclaire Dale, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 30 mins ago

    Superintendent Christopher W. McGinley did not immediately return a message left by The Associated Press.

    I have found nothing on the internet that would suggest this story is true.

    1. Re:This story has not been confirmed by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Uh, the second link in the slashdot summary, also linked from the BoingBoing article, which is a PDF copy of the actual court filing? Not only is it confirmed, you can read the complaint yourself.

    2. Re:This story has not been confirmed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fucking retard troll is smacking you with the retard dead fish of idiocy. You RTWFA (Read the wrong fucking article) Try the one linked to in the summary, and you may notice everything you seek is there.. The retard troll has spoken

      -The Retard Troll

    3. Re:This story has not been confirmed by TrueRock · · Score: 1

      BoingBoing is pointing at a story that is probably not true.

      http://americasright.com/?p=3159&cpage=1#comment-30138

      The attachment originates from the same website - not a government web site.

      There is no reliable sorce of information backing this story. It is probably fabricated.

      And give me a break - who is stupid enough to think this story is true - just based on the facts, alone?

    4. Re:This story has not been confirmed by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      If main stream news sources in copious quantities isn't sufficient corroboration for you, call the court and ask.

      Not my fault the school administrators are monumentally stupid.

      Oh, and dial back the paranoia a notch. It got away from you.

    5. Re:This story has not been confirmed by TrueRock · · Score: 1

      The story is probably fictitious. All reference repeat heavely from this web site:

      http://americasright.com/?p=3159&cpage=1#comment-30138

      All reliable news sources such as AP and USA Today specificaly say they have not been able to get in touch with the parents, student, lawyer or school district.

      No source of the PDF file containing the "supposed" lawsuit comes from a reliable location - for example a governemnt's web site.

      The school district released this information at the school district web site:
      http://www.lmsd.org/sections/news/default.php?m=0&t=today&p=lmsd_anno&id=1137

    6. Re:This story has not been confirmed by TrueRock · · Score: 1

      From the Lower Merion School District web site:

        Why was the remote tracking-security feature installed?
      Laptops are a frequent target for theft in schools and off school property. The security feature was installed to help locate a laptop in the event it was reported lost, missing or stolen so that the laptop could be returned to the student.

        How did the security feature work?
      Upon a report of a suspected lost, stolen or missing laptop, the feature was activated by the District's security and technology departments. The tracking-security feature was limited to taking a still image of the operator and the operator's screen. This feature has only been used for the limited purpose of locating a lost, stolen or missing laptop. The District has not used the tracking feature or web cam for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever.

    7. Re:This story has not been confirmed by jargon82 · · Score: 1

      http://www.archive.org/details/lowermerionlaptops This might provide a little more trust?

    8. Re:This story has not been confirmed by BLKMGK · · Score: 1
      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    9. Re:This story has not been confirmed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The retard troll thinks your even more retarded then you pretended to be.

      -The Retard Troll

  78. If a student was dressing in front of their laptop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could probably nail the school for creation of child pornography.

    Fixed that for you.

  79. What software? by spurioustruth · · Score: 1

    I do not see anything in the complaint about what software (or in a more general sense: HOW) the school administrators were able to remotely take control of the webcams.
    Does anybody out there have any idea what was used for this purpose? Or has anybody gotten to place hands on one of these laptops to take a look at what was loaded?
    And would it have been possible for someone knowledgeable to find and defeat this software as part of a normal computer cleanup process?

  80. Re:OLPC by kenh · · Score: 1

    Do the OLPC XOs have webcams?

    Yes they do... http://laptop.org/en/laptop/hardware/specs.shtml

    --
    Ken
  81. Re:Logistics? by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

    I doubt they intended to watch kids regularly...even "problem" kids. But perhaps if the kid was playing hooky then they might have thought it'd be okay to turn it on, find where they are and inform the parents.

    The naivety of this statement is absolutely mind blowing.

    --
    Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
  82. A Teachable Moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. stand in front of webcam nude

    2. have school official arrested for creating and possessiong child pornography

    3. teach schools officlas to stop this crap

    "zero tolerance" is just another way of saying "zero intelligence"

  83. Number 2 may be wrong by harl · · Score: 1

    If the school district owns the computer the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act may not apply.

    Also what agreement was signed to get the laptop? Could this all have been prevented if someone had read it?

    --
    I find being offended by me offensive.
    1. Re:Number 2 may be wrong by Improv · · Score: 1

      There are many things that people cannot sign away by contract. This is a very important and good thing.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    2. Re:Number 2 may be wrong by harl · · Score: 1

      Relevance or point?

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    3. Re:Number 2 may be wrong by Improv · · Score: 1

      The relevance is that you can't assume that blame falls on the parents or students for not reading the contract or that such a contract, if it mentions stuff like this, immunises the district from lawsuits.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    4. Re:Number 2 may be wrong by harl · · Score: 1

      But I didn't assume that. Which is why I asked for relevance.

      I made two points. The first was that it's impossible for the school district to intrude on computers it owns.

      The second point was asking if there was an agreement signed. If there was an agreement was this remote access mentioned? If so we could have solved this problem before the school district commit a crime rather than after. Thus simplifying the whole situation.

      Where did I mention signing away rights?

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    5. Re:Number 2 may be wrong by Improv · · Score: 1

      Ahh, I misread you. Oops.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  84. TANSTAAFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Laptop.

  85. dear diary: JACKPOT by royler · · Score: 0

    if theyre picking out the bad kids to spy on for inappropriate behavior... one of them must have been stupid enough to save some of the pictures.

  86. close to legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, "close to legal" was the title of the DVD the teachers were passing around with a compilation of the footage from these laptops.

  87. IT admins by phorm · · Score: 1

    And what kind of IT admins do they have that they'd agree to set this sort of shit up? Seriously, if my boss asked me to do something so blatently illegal like this, I'd be talking to a lawyer and likely to the cops.

  88. I would place my bet on it will happen. by d474 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you have 1800 highschool students being monitored by their webcams on their laptops, IN THEIR BEDROOMS, you know some of those kids were probably masturbating to internet porn or having sex with their girlfriend/boyfriend. IN HAPPENS. They are humans.

    These school officials are entering a world of hurt.

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  89. Don't forget the lawyers by rsborg · · Score: 1

    As such, it will be yet ANOTHER transfer of wealth from non-parents to parents.

    Correction: add laywers to that list... they always win. I hope the class-action isn't settled out of court. This needs to set precedent.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  90. Who set it up? by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

    Seriously, I've seen contact information for everyone from the Janitor to the President of the Board but what I want is contact information for the G.i.C. (Geek in Chief). SOMEONE implemented this technology for the district, maintained it, and even trained the Pointy Haired Administrators on how to use it. That means that at least one person, more likely a team, of I.T. people were involved in this at all stages.

    I'd like to ask these people why they never saw fit to let anyone know what was happening? Did they think it was a good idea? Were they scared for their job or contract? Were they just so ecstatic at the idea of a digital girls locker room that they willingly participated?

    It's disturbing to me, as an I.T. Professional, that the I.T. people involved weren't waving red flags left, right, and center. They should have informed _someone_ that this capability was not only implemented but was actively being USED.

    1. Re:Who set it up? by pclminion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd like to ask these people why they never saw fit to let anyone know what was happening? Did they think it was a good idea? Were they scared for their job or contract? Were they just so ecstatic at the idea of a digital girls locker room that they willingly participated?

      Maybe I'm paranoid, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that the entire plan was invented by the IT person, expressly FOR the purpose of generating child porn. It's an easy sell to the administrators, because they're all about crushing the life force of children, and on the back side he's making major profit selling naughty images.

    2. Re:Who set it up? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      There are legitimate uses for this technology and capability. It's quite possible that it was implemented for a benign purpose and subsequently misused.

      It's also very possible for to set something like this up without no IT help at all. Some teachers have been known to use a computer all by themselves (allegedly).

      Even if IT assistance was requested/provided and the stated requirement was "spying on children at home" it's possible that the IT person was forced to sign an NDA, threatened with losing their job, or maybe even thought it was a good thing to be doing.

      Why should the school administration be the only people without a clue?

    3. Re:Who set it up? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Logic is so simple and easy to follow. You're right on.

      Sometimes people are scared by the possible discoveries of "what really happens in life" when they use logic to analyze it. Therefore, we must simply play the game of LALALALALANothingHappenedEverything'sOkayLALALALA.

      Gawd. *sigh*

  91. Someones head will roll for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am certain that someone in that school system will be going down for this. It likely wont be the people most responsible, but someone is going to pay for this rediculously stupid and offensive idea. Just image how much "child porn" they must have collected and maybe sent across the internet . . . shweeew this will be fun to watch.

  92. Re:If a student was dressing in front of their lap by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    It's easier to throw books at them than to read and apply what it says in them sensibly?

    BTW, nice cropping of the subject there to fit the "Re:", Slashdot.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  93. vice principle should be fired for stupidity by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    really, how intelligent do you have to be to realize that revealing to people that you spied on them at home is something that you should not do.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  94. Huh? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If they recorded audio, then the school has blatantly violated federal and state wiretap statutes. Video is only barred if the subject is naked in some place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy (yes, our laws are irrational and inconsistent.) Actually, I think the reasonable response to this would be to get one of the students to dance around in front of the webcam naked, then sic the feds on the school for child pornography... this is not only a dick move by whoever set this up, but it could also land them serious jail time.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  95. Let's see now by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    An underage student taking naked pictures of themself and sending them to another underage student violates the child pornography statues, but a school administrator taking possibly naked pictures of an underage student unbeknownst to the student is perfectly legal?!? There is something seriously messed up about our legal system if the person that did this doesn't get jail time. What makes the school staff think they are above the law?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Let's see now by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      I'll leave this reply to you instead of top-level; you are right-on with what I was thinking.

      My response (in-head) when I read the article was ".....and you came public with that information expecting WHAT? People screaming about privacy and you breaking the laws thereto? Or, wait, did you think that out-in-the-open is the best place to hide something of that topic and magnitude?"

      I'll shut up before I digress.

  96. You are cutting yourself with the razor by rimugu · · Score: 1

    You are cutting yourself with the razor.
    That is not what "Occam's Razor" is or how it is used.

    Occam's Razor is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".

    Not the principle of doubting the capacity of the media (that should be common sense).

    1. Re:You are cutting yourself with the razor by RapmasterT · · Score: 1

      You are cutting yourself with the razor. That is not what "Occam's Razor" is or how it is used.

      Occam's Razor is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".

      Not the principle of doubting the capacity of the media (that should be common sense).

      Apparently cutting and pasting from wikipedia doesn't bestow comprehension.

  97. Insightful? More like sarcasm-challenged. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not the GP, but I would like to state in an anonymous and cowardly manner that missing obvious sarcasm displays anything but insight.

  98. Re:Logistics? by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

    Who came up with this?! It boggles the mind.

    Now you begin to see why these school teachers and administrators would never make it in the private sector.

  99. Room 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Winston...

  100. I bet the teacher taught P.E by random+string+of+num · · Score: 1
  101. Waterfall by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Funny how totalitarian practices by the government slowly trickle down to the local level; cops, school administrators, local government. No surprise at all.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Waterfall by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Funny how when I pointed out to the school district that their recording video and audio of my daughter on the school bus without her or her parents knowledge or consent was a violation of state and federal wiretap laws, their response was "It must be legal because everybody is doing it!" They even made her sit in the front seat and pointed the camera directly at her, meaning it was only videotaping the first 3 rows of the bus! I'm sure it is just a coincidence that she was the only black person on the bus.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Waterfall by Existential+Wombat · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately though in todays society, surveillance is a necessary evil. After all, won't someone think of The Children? Oh, wait...

    3. Re:Waterfall by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Precisely my point. The government rationalizes torture and illegal surveillance to the People, then they all say "well, if it's so effective, why shouldn't I try it at work?" We've already had cops waterboarding suspects.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    4. Re:Waterfall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm sure it is just a coincidence that she was the only black person on the bus.

      She must have been messing up the white balance in the camera . . .

    5. Re:Waterfall by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      We've already had cops waterboarding suspects.

      I thought you were kidding, but that has happened in London

  102. Re:Logistics? by howe.chris · · Score: 1, Funny

    No, they just look at the teenage girls with boobies.

    They had the computer club look over the footage. I would like to see the multi monitor setup in these kids homes.

    I could see the school district saying. "The computer club students were really good kids. They had straight A's before we gave them this task. I haven't really seen any of them in school since though. They must really be taking their handy work seriously."

  103. Re:How? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

    Primary schools are run by stupid, bitter people. Many teachers are those who scored low on aptitude tests, and who harbor, perhaps unconsciously, dislike of achievement and achievers. I tend to think that these low scorers can actually be a good choice for teaching basic subjects, if they can overcome their bitterness. Then there are the predators. I'm not talking about criminals, I'm talking about fundamentalists who constantly run for school board positions so they can target the most brainwashable group in society, children, to indoctrinate them with nonsense.

    Characteristic of all these is thinking that lots of petty rules, constant surveillance, severe punishments, absolute power, and absolute refusal to admit being wrong about anything are the best ways to maintain order, that order, not education, is the top priority. Very popular to reason that this is all for teenagers' benefit, as they are most in need of discipline. Children can find such an environment very educational indeed, though perhaps not as intended. With good parental support, some will see that rights are important. Others may see that it's good to be the king, and become tyrants in adulthood.

    This story is not surprising, unfortunately. Don't see any easy way to solve the problem. Just have to keep playing whack-a-mole with the schools.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  104. Spoiler Alert by johncadengo · · Score: 1

    Masturbation is not self-abuse.

    You've never seen the way I do it.*

    *Unless you have remote access to my webcams.

    Have you seen the movie World's Greatest Dad?

    I don't want to ruin the movie, but the son dies of erotic self-asphyxiation. Does that count as self-abuse?

    --
    My page.
  105. Public Schools: Spearpoint of American Fascism by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

    It isn't the reality of this that is frightening so much as the fact that, because it's happening to children, they will grow up thinking that this is how figures of authority are supposed to interact with them. Because public and private have dangerously non-intuitive meanings now that communication is such a trivial, even accidental thing, we live in a world where some people, just in the course of going with the flow of what seems to be sociable, have no "private" lives and have forever destroyed their employability. Schools seek to solidify that as the natural state of affairs in the mind of the public. Children coming out of public school will believe that the only way to avoid the wrath of the government and their boss is to conform, because disconnecting will never seem like a reasonable option.

    Don't let yourself or your children be consumed by your paper trail. Remember the temperature the stuff burns at.

  106. Somewhere in China.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... a newspaper article is being printed detailing the Big Brother State of U.S.A and the horrific conditions children must suffer in the West to complete an education.

  107. Tip of the Iceberg? by boudie2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If some high school in Pennsylvania is doing this it seems to logically follow that they can't be the only ones doing this. It would also seem to me that if Dick Cheney thought that spying on american citizens was a good idea, and you like Dick, you would think this was a good idea. Where's it all leading, I ask?

    1. Re:Tip of the Iceberg? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      A few pages above your comment on my screen was a comment by another person who pointed out that videotaping of the children was a violation of state and federal law, and was told that "It can't be illegal, because everyone's doing it".

      So this story is likely just the "tip of the iceberg", the rare case of a common practice that happened to get publicity in this one instance.

      Others have (proudly?) described their school's new policy of assigning a laptop to every child, with large savings in textbook costs as a result. Tiny onboard cameras are becoming ubiquitous, and we can expect a growing number of (unintended?) images of children dressing or undressing without first closing their computer. I haven't looked, but I'd expect that this is likely starting to happen now. Of course, as with cell phones, some of the images will be made by the kids themselves to entertain their friends.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  108. gift horses by bugi · · Score: 1

    This is why one thoroughly examines a gift horse before rejecting it as more trouble than it's worth.

  109. Photoshop contest by legio_noctis · · Score: 1

    I'm loving comment #115 on TFA:

    This could lead to a fun photoshop content. I suck at it, but still: http://i944.photobucket.com/albums/ad288/mickmellen/lmsd.jpg

  110. Good use of tax dollars? by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

    I think it will be a good use of tax dollars to keep the people responsible for this in jail; forever.

    Preferable where the stick all the violent offenders.

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    1. Re:Good use of tax dollars? by cheros · · Score: 1

      .. and if they have abandoned soap in the showers, I hope they have mounted the new wall soap dispensers really, really low..

      --
      Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  111. Child Porn... by Ponder+Stibions · · Score: 1

    So thats why they added a webcam into the OLPCs! It suddenly becomes so clear.

  112. What are the chances of immunity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if they are charged, the idea of immunity and authority will dilute the punishment until this whole thing will do no more than provide some push-back on this sort of surveillance for a little while so as to not make an event of much significance. No doubt they will make all the usual claims.

  113. Impeach Bush! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait for Bush to get kicked out of office. Schools spying on school children at home wouldn't happen with a Democrat in the White House.

  114. Why are they issuing laptops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is obvious that the officials stepped way out of bounds, but let's start at the beginning.

    Why were the issuing laptops for the students to take home?

  115. Now wonder our children fail at school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our eduactors are industrial strength... giant economy size... brain-dead stupid!

  116. Were the parents notified? by Carbaholic · · Score: 1

    If the parents were clearly notified that the cameras and microphones would be remotely activated and were given the choice whether or not they wanted their kids to use the laptops, I don't see a problem. It would then be their choice to refuse the laptop, or have their kid leave the laptop at school in their locker.

    If this was done in secret then those responsible should pay according to the rule of law.

  117. what the hell... by Lueseiseki · · Score: 1
    This is a little disturbing, actually. I live in West Chester, another Philly suburb thirty minutes away from Lower Merion, the county that issued out these laptops.

    I'm on my last year of high school, and this year many of our students have also been loaned laptops in the exact same manner. The only ones who got the laptops were some kids in some of the basic classes, but I have no idea how they're supposed to be used.

    I think this is very worth investigating.

  118. OTOH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But, but.. The taxpayers are the parents of those kids.. My head is spinning now..

  119. It goes deeper than the School Board by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is obvious that the school board acted in an inexcuseable manner. For this they should face have to face a jury trial for those offenses found worthy by Grand Jury. My question is more on the IT side. What kind of IT personnel are employed by the district that captured the images, stored the images? Would there personal computers come into the scope of the investigation, to ensure any images found on "District" disk/storage has not left, or found its way off campus to a home computer. I personally believe that the IT staff involved, should face the same charges. Lets face it, this could not have been done without the help of IT personnel. I don't buy the excuse "I was told to do it, or lose my job". That is a cop out for a weak person with no morals, and I would highly suspect them of copying the images and taking them home. The big question is, if found guilty in a court of law, how could they really pay back society?

  120. I'm fighting a similar problem, but not as severe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My son's school is seeking to punish my son for calling another student's mother a whore... outside of school property... after the other boy struck him. The other boy is excused because he was "provoked". Huh? What part of after and the First Amendment does the school not understand?

    O.K. So, -1 for loss of being beyond reproach for being rude, but what about +10 for constitutional rights?

  121. Truancy? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Was this a case of truancy? Maybe a truant officer looked through the video camera to check if Johnny or Sally was *really* sick, and found them playing xbox360 instead of going to school. Still wrong on multiple levels (privacy, 4th amendment, kid probably *was* sick), and the guilty parties still need to be punished hard, but at least it makes more sense that way.

  122. Pile of Shit Control Freaks... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When are school officials going to realize that their authority ends at school??? I don't normally advocate violence, but a good old-fashioned drawing and quartering is certainly in order here!

  123. Very Nice! by motorhead · · Score: 0

    Stay classy, Philly!

    --
    Employee Of the Month - Cyberdyne Systems Corporation - September 1997
  124. Funny comment on the bottom of the page by codepunk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Having been a school IT manager for years I find the fact that you would be able to enable a webcam on a specific machine outside of schools network a little far fetched unless you had some pretty elaborate software or pretty serious intent (Like a warrant).

    This guy is certainly MCSE material, certainly speaks volumes about the level of skill of our child educators.

    elaborate software, he must mean like wget and cron....ba ha ha ha ha...

    --


    Got Code?
  125. Principal Ceiling Cat... by Scragglykat · · Score: 1

    ...could not been reached for comment at this time.

  126. Mmm... Telescreens by EXMSFT · · Score: 1

    The educators are idiots who will soon be without jobs, and potentially on sex offender lists. This has to be one of the most idiotic ideas I've ever heard of.

  127. Perversion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when has it been a school's job to monitor a student's behavior anywhere? It is the school's job to provide students with an atmosphere which is proper for learning, and nothing more. Additionally, what if that person had been unclothed during such video taping? Cameras are only allowed to be put up in certain places express written consent of the police or another government agency. In other words, cameras are not allowed in bathrooms in order to grant people privacy. For what reason, then, would these bastards be able to get away with this? What if it was some pedophile just trying to look at kids who happen to use their computer in their bare essentials or less? Who's to say that they did not see a naked 15 year old girl? The line stops when the student leaves school property- whether the laptop is school property or not, it has no place being used for this.

    As for the people who did this- they deserve excessive jail-time. I'd love to say the death penalty, because their arrogance offends me so greatly, however some might view this as severe. Either way, everyone involved deserves to be turned down from every job they ever apply to.

  128. filing not filling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt;

  129. Flying through Heathrow by wurp · · Score: 1

    If your children fly through Heathrow, or went through Denver airport while it was under trial there, a millimeter wave scanner already took nude pictures of your children.

    1. Re:Flying through Heathrow by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I didn't and frankly you know that it is happening and in the US they are supposed to have safe guards in place.
      But one doesn't have anything to to do with the other.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  130. All I can say... by PagosaSam · · Score: 1
    About these administrators:

    "He's nothing but a low-down, double-dealing, backstabbing, larcenous perverted worm,
    Hanging's too good for him.
    Burning's too good for him!
    He should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!"

    --
    :q! Oh crap, not again...
  131. Duress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..if that computer were _required_ by the school, that AUP would be null and void anyway - a contract entered under duress doesn't count.

  132. Re:If a student was dressing in front of their lap by phantasmagoric · · Score: 1

    Mod up. Its funny how everyone here complains about the stupidity of child porn laws. Then, when there is a chance to nail someone with child porn charges, whose actions had nothing to with child porn, everyone wants them to be crucified as pedophiles.

  133. New definition of ironic by Tazor · · Score: 1

    Cool, i learned a new definition of ironic today: "School tries to punish students for improper behavior in their homes after SPYING on them".

    I'm still thinking "nah, this has to be fake" because it seems impossible that so many people went along with this and no one said "hey, this cant be right". The school should be glad that they are only getting sued, instead of being burned alive ontop of a big pile of laptops.

    --
    "I find your lack of faith disturbing"
  134. Bounce 'em by zogger · · Score: 1

    They'd have to do it once, just eat the costs of the lawsuit, and then bounce the lot of them. They are elected, get rid of the entire schoolboard and administration and any spiers, anyone who remotely turned those cams on to gawk (and you know that probably happened) and start from scratch with people who aren't so intrusively lame.
    This is *seriously* wrong on so many level it ain't funny. A buncha them mofos need to see the inside of a pokey over this as well.

  135. there is a way to bypass the schools abilities by n0tquitesane · · Score: 0

    The solution to this is pretty apparent. Use Knoppix or another LiveCD linux of your choice. The school can't connect if the software needed isn't running, and if you don't modify the installed software, they cannot punish you for "destruction of school property" or similar charge

  136. They want to see shit...they'll see shit by binford2k · · Score: 1

    I'd take a photo of my asshole and mount it in front of the camera. And I'm sure I could figure out how to redirect an 80's porn groove into the mic input.

  137. Sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That right there is an invasion of privacy. Sue the pants off of them.

  138. "For every problem... by weston · · Score: 1

    I honestly think that if a concerted effort was made, a nation could function fine with a complete set of laws that fit on less than 50 pages that any citizen could read and clearly understand.

    "For every problem, there exists a solution which is simple, neat and wrong."

  139. School Admintrators: Please Note! by 517714 · · Score: 1

    George Orwell's 1984 is a lot of things, but it is not to be used as a handbook.

    --
    The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
  140. "In theory..." by WAG24601G · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Having the theoretical ability is one thing, but to actually make use of it is worse...HOW MUCH OF A FREAKIN' BONEHEAD DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO CONFRONT THEM WITH EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY SUCH QUESTIONABLE MEANS?

    Exactly.

    It's easy to pose a shaky, but ultimately successful, argument for installing remote-activated cameras in the laptops. Let's see: anti-theft, child welfare investigations (since abuse reports often come through the school), think of the children(!), etc. But the dynamic duo of principal and sysadmin can't foresee their own (or their colleagues) patent stupidity. This is the why seemingly great ideas, like the full-body scanners in airports, are actually awful: because they are great until the *inevitable* critical mass of stupid is reached. Nobody wants to hear that though, "Your idea is good in theory, but in reality some bonehead (possibly even you!) will abuse it and the cost will be greater than whatever benefits we gained along the way." So we live and don't learn.

    Of course, I have to be a jerk about it, but your (probably joking) recommendation to shoot school admins who fail to learn the Bill of Rights is exactly one such idea. We can all get behind that idea and say "YEAH! SCREW THOSE JERKS! MAKE SURE THEY LEARN!!" And then we all forget to ask "wait, who is doing the grading?" Granted we aren't likely to implement that idea... but there are plenty of morons who would try!

    --
    Everything is easy when you don't understand the problem.
    1. Re:"In theory..." by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      "Inevitable critical mass of stupid" made my day. I'll use that someday, and hopefully remember to credit you.

      Sorry if I failed to include the appropriate indication of hyperbole in my closing. Bad idea in reality, although it has a poetic way of solving itself; anyone stupid enough to follow through is probably also too stupid to avoid jail.

      Read elsewhere, unattributed, but apropos: "I'm not saying I'm in favor of killing the stupid people, I'm just saying we should remove all the warning labels and let the problem solve itself."

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    2. Re:"In theory..." by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      You hit the nail on the head. If it was used responsibly, say full-body scanning used in a limited way like strip-searches are or cameras being activated on theft of a laptop there would be no problem, and such technology would be useful. Instead we get bone headed idiots wanting to invade the privacy of every man, woman and child in the country 'just in case'.

    3. Re:"In theory..." by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Just for reference, those airport scanners have already been abused. I don't have the link handy but there was a famous person in europe who's scans were distributed.

  141. Bill of Rights 101 by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    forced a child to strip and wiggle (without probable cause, for that matter).

    The Fourth Amendment specifically outlaws forced wiggling without probable cause.

  142. Criminal Charges: Attempted Child Porn by illumnatLA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally, I think the individuals involved with this policy should be charged with attempting to acquire child pornography. After all, the laptops in question could easily have been in the child's room where they would absolutely have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's no different than if the teacher/administrator had drilled a peephole in that child's room and had anytime access to watch them change their clothes.

    Also, if I were a parent, I would be unbelievably angry if school faculty came bursting into my home uninvited. This is no different.

    School faculty only has a right to deal with a student's behavior when they are on school grounds or attending school functions.

    Personally, I hope criminal charges are filed against the school administration that did this.

    --
    Web hosting that doesn't suck!Dreamhost
    1. Re:Criminal Charges: Attempted Child Porn by BillX · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the eyeful they've collected if your daughter is a Twitter Shitter.

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  143. district's response by stacybro · · Score: 1

    The superintendent has posted a "LMSD response to 'invasion of privacy' allegation"

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

    pretty typical politico. totally avoids or ignores what caused it all in the first place.

  144. Improper Behavior in His Home? by srobert · · Score: 1

    I'm curious about what behavior the school officials deemed improper in the student's home environment, and why they thought it was any of their business. But mostly I'm curious how they thought that revealing to the student how they had uncovered the activity wouldn't cause them to wind up in a civil suit, or in jail. Are they really that presumptuous about what limits there are to their authority?

  145. Why can't you vote? by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    Why can't you vote?

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
    1. Re:Why can't you vote? by jofny · · Score: 1

      I dont know about sodul, but my wife pays taxes but cant vote because she's a resident alien with Finnish citizenship

    2. Re:Why can't you vote? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people who are caught giving handjobs for crack can't vote, either...

    3. Re:Why can't you vote? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      Why can't you vote?

      Maybe GP can't vote for reasons of age or lack of US citizenship.

  146. I am a PhD student in Computer Science by l0l0_ph0r3v3r · · Score: 1

    from University of Chicago. I am introducing you guys a new type of thinking. Being raised and born in India, WE are proud of our culture and our race!

  147. OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm still in a state of shock and disbelife that any school would have the audacity to even think of such things.

    Obviously whoever thought of this needs to be fired, sued into oblivion and made somebodies "buddy" in the state penn.

    We need to lobby congress to pass blanket laws requiring indicator lights hard wired (NOT under software control) on activation of all cameras and mics on mobile devices.

    If my teachers showed me pictures of myself in my home whatever offence I was committing would pale in comparision with the obsenity laden tirade that would follow.

    Its fairly safe to say this will get national attention and heads will roll. The class action lawsuit is just the tip of the iceburg.

  148. LMSD response to 'invasion of privacy' allegation by detritus. · · Score: 2, Informative

    The school district has responded to the allegations in this press release.

    LMSD response to 'invasion of privacy' allegation
    Updated 2/18/10 5:26 PM

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

      Do you anticipate reactivating the tracking-security feature?
    Not without express written notification to all students and families.
    We regret if this situation has caused any concern or inconvenience among our students and families. We are reviewing the matter and will provide an additional update as soon as information becomes available.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Christopher McGinley
    Superintendent

  149. Picture of the Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd think that school district would get a clue.

    http://dualisanoob.com/images/lmsdwtf.png

  150. Too many n's by John.Banister · · Score: 1

    But I sure hope anyone who had a hand in it is canned.

  151. Is there clean up? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    any idea on the software used?
    MS, flash ect?
    Good admins and school officials should lock this down in the OS so no outside person can ever access a cam.
    If it was sypware, look for it and remove.
    Change the intro class for the new laptop to include a cover then not doing class work.
    Will not help if chatting with a friend, but makes most aware that the cam may be 'on'

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  152. consent by KingPin27 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What does the agreement look like that the students / parents signed when the devices were loaned? Is there any fine print about monitoring the device for safety or that there are measures in place to check on the safety of the device etc etc etc.... not to undermine the seriousness of the situation as i'd be seriously peeved if someone had turned on the webcam / microphone etc on my kids loaner laptop.

    --
    "i lost my dignity on a slippery wiener"
  153. The School District has responded... by PRMan · · Score: 4, Informative
    Here

    According to them, the system only took 1 single picture to recover a stolen laptop. Now, the thief's parents are suing the school.

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    1. Re:The School District has responded... by IsoRashi · · Score: 1

      Close but not quite...

      Upon a report of a suspected lost, stolen or missing laptop, the feature was activated by the District's security and technology departments. The tracking-security feature was limited to taking a still image of the operator and the operator's screen. This feature has only been used for the limited purpose of locating a lost, stolen or missing laptop. The District has not used the tracking feature or web cam for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever.

      They're a little too vague for us to know the exact circumstances. Thanks for the link, though.

      --
      This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
  154. Minors' Rights Organizations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This story has me wondering if there are any organizations dedicated to protecting minors' rights in the United States. Does anybody know of one?

    When I was a teenager I saw the way adults treated us and thought it was unfair. I also couldn't say if it was truly unfair or just a lack of experience and a misperception as the "wronged" party, so I never raised more of a fuss than whining to a teacher or two. It did help that they agreed with me, but I still decided to wait.

    Now that I'm older and have seen more of the world, I know I was right. Too many people treat teenagers as if they are less than people. Schools are especially terrible. The rights abuses they get away with are disgusting. If adults were treated by the police the way school administrators sometimes treat students we would raise holy hell. For example, Columbine brought more ridiculous and invasive policies and practices to schools in months than 9/11 has brought to the United States in eight and a half years, and yet the disgust about treatment of students never passed more than some inane rantings by Jon Katz while disgust about the reaction to 9/11 is a continual broad-based reaction. Personally my reaction to the treatment of minors has changed from being irritated to being disgusted to, with this, being deeply disturbed.

    If there are no Minor's Rights organizations, there should be. What these students need representing them is not some ambulance-chasing lawyers, but a group that will be dedicated to bringing those responsible for this abuse to justice and doing what they can to make sure it doesn't happen again.

    Does anybody know of any such organizations?

  155. Obligatory xkcd by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    "I know you're listening" http://xkcd.com/525/

  156. Re:LMSD response to 'invasion of privacy' allegati by pclminion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That is a non-response. He does not address the allegation that the image of a student was captured by the web cam. The fact that the district is not denying it is an indicator that it did in fact happen. So, why was the web cam used? According to this letter, it would only have been used if the laptop was suspected as stolen. Was it? Again, had it been, it would have been easy to say so, and it would have gone a huge way toward calming people down. But there is no denial here. This letter is bullshit and only serves to confirm that they must be shitting their pants right about now, hoping people who aren't paying attention will just read this crap and forget about it.

  157. streaming != download prevention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Part of the point of anyone doing streaming video (or audio) is that the data doesn't touch the hard drive thus preventing (casual) recording, only screen captures of single frames.

    Most streaming media can be downloaded to the hard drive easily. Have you never heard of
    Streamripper?

    If the protocol is HTTP, Squid can be configured to always cache large files. As a last resort, the simple BSD licensed PacketProxy program can intercept TCP connections on any port.

  158. NO HARD SWITCH FOR MIC/CAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a) Who thought it would be a good idea to allow remote control of the camera and mic?

    Manufacturers carry a large part of the blame, remote activated mic/cam? Thats a great idea, spy on everyone.

    1. Re:NO HARD SWITCH FOR MIC/CAM by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I would expect that the school's sysadmins locked down the systems to a certain degree before they were handed out. No way this capability should have been enabled.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  159. Re:LMSD response to 'invasion of privacy' allegati by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    That is a non-response. He does not address the allegation that the image of a student was captured by the web cam. The fact that the district is not denying it is an indicator that it did in fact happen. So, why was the web cam used? According to this letter, it would only have been used if the laptop was suspected as stolen. Was it? Again, had it been, it would have been easy to say so, and it would have gone a huge way toward calming people down. But there is no denial here. This letter is bullshit and only serves to confirm that they must be shitting their pants right about now, hoping people who aren't paying attention will just read this crap and forget about it.

    I wouldn't be surprised to find that the student in question reported the laptop lost or stolen. If the School district is pressing charges, they shouldn't comment directly on the case until the student is tried and convicted of theft of the laptop. This is starting to make a lot more sense. Kid reports laptop stolen (to steal it himself), School activates lo-jack photos, kid tries to smear School before he goes to jail himself.

  160. Response from the school; "the feature existed". by Enrique1218 · · Score: 1

    School Response. They acknowledge that the feature existed and was only to be used in case of theft.

    --
    You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
  161. Re:LMSD response to 'invasion of privacy' allegati by pclminion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wouldn't be surprised to find that the student in question reported the laptop lost or stolen. If the School district is pressing charges, they shouldn't comment directly on the case until the student is tried and convicted of theft of the laptop.

    If that was true, why did the school discipline the kid for "inappropriate behavior in the home?" I realize that this information was released by the parents/lawyers, not the school district, but if the district's purpose was to nail the kid for theft, why punish him for something else? It makes more sense to keep quiet while you collect your evidence, then bring the hammer down. By punishing the kid too soon they tipped their hand and opened themselves up to this mess. This would not even have become news. Something still doesn't add up.

  162. It's a LAWSUIT by laing · · Score: 1

    The lawsuit has been filed. The allegations have been made. Evidence will be presented (if it ever goes to trial). Remember that as of now this is a CIVIL case so it can be settled. Thus far there are no CRIMINAL charges.

    1. Re:It's a LAWSUIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look... I hate incompetent news reporting – and, I loathe stupidity - especially stupidity that doesn’t know it is stupid.

      Every news source on this topic is has repeated what was written at:

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

      The first problem is that almost every news publication has failed to note that the story came from that web site.

      Also, every reliable news source has said that they have not been able to contact the lawyer, parents, student and/or school district.

      Perhaps the story is true – but, nobody who is intelligently critical would assume it is true.

      At the very least, they would assume that the facts are twisted to distort and obscure what has actually occurred – if indeed something has occurred.

      The school district has issued this statement:

      http://www.lmsd.org/sections/news/default.php?m=0&t=today&p=lmsd_anno&id=1138

      If the school district's statement is correct, then the facts of the case as reported at SlashDot are essentialy misleading.

  163. LMSD response to 'invasion of privacy' allegation by t0p · · Score: 1

    The district superintendant's response is available here.

    --
    http://ihatehate.wordpress.com
  164. WTF JAIL TIME by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    Obviously the teachers and the rest of their union thugs have never heard of illegal wiretapping, oh wait they're use to being above the law...

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  165. Mac Myth by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Nowhere in The Fine Article (or the fine PDF) does it mention that these machines are Mac's. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, rather simply bad journalism but I would think this little tidbit of information would be of interest to the Slashdot Crowd. Gizmodo at least pointed out that the Machines were Apple. Surely being able to remotely activate a camera is a pretty bad thing, even Windows requires third party software for this "feature".

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    1. Re:Mac Myth by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Informative

      If these are Macs, then I can state with a fair degree of certainty that it is NOT possible to spy on people without their knowledge. A few days after they started shipping cameras in Mac laptops, I actually had a conversation on this subject with some people familiar with the camera hardware in question.

      As shipped, the green light beside the camera turns on as soon as the camera is activated, and at the time, I was told that there is no way to disable it in software even by writing custom drivers. You would actually have to flash the camera with new firmware, and I'm not even sure if you could do it even then. You'd probably have to physically disable the light.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Mac Myth by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Unless you're not actively using the laptop but you leave it on like many people do.

    3. Re:Mac Myth by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Better to read the link the guy pointed us at, where it's explained that students were being told that the green light was just a glitch.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    4. Re:Mac Myth by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      Being able to activate the camera remotely (or, as actually happened, set the camera to upload to a remote ftp site) was seen as being a great thing a few years back when a guy caught a laptop thief doing exactly that. The problem here is the user was a legitimate one having their privacy invaded, rather than a criminal.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
  166. LMSD response to 'invasion of privacy' allegation by Trazn · · Score: 1

    Decided to check LMSD website, and found that they posted a response to the lawsuit. It's fairly slick, and the major point they make is that when a laptop is reported missing or stolen, the 'remote tracking-security feature' (probably the webcam? They make it sound like they could activate a GPS tracker in the laptop) was used to take a still picture of the user and what the user was looking at. If the laptops were only leased to the students, and remain "school property", then I could see the implementation of such a safeguard as just preserving school property. However, if the laptops were given away to students, then it seems a bit weird that they had an anti-theft measure that they never mentioned and it's also unconceivable that they just so happened to turn on the system to find the one person who was written up for improper behavior. -- http://www.lmsd.org/sections/news/default.php?m=0&t=today&p=lmsd_anno&id=1137

  167. Re:LMSD response to 'invasion of privacy' allegati by tftp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wouldn't be surprised to find that the student in question reported the laptop lost or stolen.

    If so, the kid would never allow his parents to go ahead with a major lawsuit.

    If the School district is pressing charges

    Apparently they don't. And they'd do that in an instant if a theft is reported.

    kid tries to smear School before he goes to jail himself

    In that scenario the kid only needs to say "Sorry, the laptop fell behind the seat in the car and I only found it a moment ago."

  168. My Prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What should happen and what will happen are probably unrelated. While these same officials would probably charge a teen with child porn for having an unshared photo of themselves, they'll walk away without even a suspension and citing no harm and their official "only in the event a laptop was stolen" mantra.

  169. Evil Apple Laptops -- Shoulda Used Linux! by hduff · · Score: 1

    Note that the school provided evil Apple laptops. Could have worked with evil Microsoft laptops, too.In this case, had they provided laptops with Linux, the webcam hardware support would have been so broken, there would never have been this problem in the first place.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  170. Re:Logistics? by _LORAX_ · · Score: 1

    School is reporting that it's a "phone home" feature activated for suspected stolen or missing laptops. This kid and his parents are full of it.

  171. School District's Response to Lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LMSD Response
    Dear LMSD Community,

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

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

    The following questions and answers help explain the background behind the initial decision to install the tracking-security feature, its limited use, and next steps.

      Why are webcams installed on student laptops?

    The Apple computers that the District provides to students come equipped with webcams and students are free to utilize this feature for educational purposes.

      Why was the remote tracking-security feature installed?

    Laptops are a frequent target for theft in schools and off school property. The security feature was installed to help locate a laptop in the event it was reported lost, missing or stolen so that the laptop could be returned to the student.

      How did the security feature work?

    Upon a report of a suspected lost, stolen or missing laptop, the feature was activated by the District's security and technology departments. The tracking-security feature was limited to taking a still image of the operator and the operator's screen. This feature has only been used for the limited purpose of locating a lost, stolen or missing laptop. The District has not used the tracking feature or web cam for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever.

      Do you anticipate reactivating the tracking-security feature?

    Not without express written notification to all students and families.

    We regret if this situation has caused any concern or inconvenience among our students and families. We are reviewing the matter and will provide an additional update as soon as information becomes available.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Christopher McGinley
    Superintendent

  172. They're checking out ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... the kids' bedrooms, looking for pedobears.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  173. What spyware was Lower Merion School Dis. using? by TrueRock · · Score: 1

    I use Prey from http://preyproject.com/ to track my computers in case they are stolen.

    Does anyone know of a better product?

    I'd like to put a similiar product on my iPhone. Any suggestions?

  174. Official Statement from the school district... by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

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

    They claim that the capability was designed to find lost or stolen laptops ONLY so if it was used in this manner is was apparently done so improperly. The Superintendent seems to claim that only the IT group can activate this or see the images so it remains to be seen as to what happened here but I have some thoughts....

    From watching a video from another school district that I found in the comments on BoinBoing some schools sometimes see the students because the students run apps on their desktop that display video from their own WEB cam. Photobooth was the app mentioned in that story and the desktop appeared to be OSX so not likely the same software here but possible a similar program.

    Lastly, if they have the capability to remotely control, as this other school did, then they could also be launching apps or installing apps that are allowing this kind of peeping - not cool IMO.

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    1. Re:Official Statement from the school district... by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Ah, I stand corrected on one point - this IS an OSX based computer so it sounds much like the ones used in NYC! Here's the DigitalNation video http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/ At about 4:39 or so the administrator shows how he takes over the desktop and attempts to snap a picture in order to get the kids to behave and stop using the cam as a mirror.... It is possible that the kid in THIS story was posing for pictures at home privately and the teacher somehow got a look or perhaps the teacher saw the pic on the computer when he was back at school? Lots of possibilities but so far NO clear story yet IMO. I'm not quite ready to go nuts but something certainly smells here if they retain this capability when the kids are off-campus...

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  175. Re:As a person who's admin'd a school laptop progr by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

    The theft angle is exactly what the Superintendent is claiming they had software for and that only the IT group could see it. However if it was possible to remotely view the desktop and the student had an app up taking pics of himself then they might have seen something they didn't like. If the staff could remotely control the desktop they could also have downloaded and installed software that allowed remote viewing - policy be damned.

    So far I'm not quite ready to string up the staff for doing this wholesale but it is possible that one of them did a bit of hackery to enable functionality that the IT group hadn't intended. Oh and while you guys didn't have the time to watch all those feeds other schools apparently DO, there's a video linked in the BoingBoing comments that interviews teachers at a NYC school and apparently the teachers are assigned time to go through and monitor the kid's desktops and ping them if they aren't doing stuff they're supposed to be doing. This allowed them to see via the webcam when the kids ran programs that activated it and the teacher demonstrated taking control and snapping pics too - posisbly the case in this story but honestly there's not enough detail provided in the story or in the lawsuit PDF to know exactly WTF happened - yet....

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  176. Like my school? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    If this school is anything like the schools I remember growing up from my and my siblings' childhood, then I'd say the chances of many of these "faculty" being "students" is fairly high.

    I'm not saying the faculty didn't do it (I didn't RTFA, I heard about it on the radio w/ skepticism about whether the claims were real), but these are "educators" we're talking about here. They're the soft, squishy types (or the limp-wrists who hang hang out with them) with nothing between the ears (for the most part).

    My youngest sibling graduated high school in 2004. One of her classmates was caught "hacking" computers in the lab (access to unrestricted file servers which should have been). One of my brother's siblings got caught for accessing the teacher electronic grading system (from the lab, not from a special computer, using the last names of the teachers and blank passwords - as observed from the classroom as the teacher typed it). When I was in school, I know there were at least a couple people gaining juicy gossip and hotmail account login credentials through keyloggers, and I imagine such things go on still today.

    I remember this nonsense going on back into the early 1990s. No matter what, there will always be one or two curious, creative, and inquisitive kids within a student populace which will be able to get around the simple restrictive measures put in forth by a group self-selected for mediocrity.

    Let's put it this way: If you were a high school geek with a mischeivious streak and knew that all of the laptops - which every student had one of and could be remotely administered/accessed - had web cams, would you see if you could acquire images from that hot cheerleader you've had a crush on since middle school? Damn straight you would, consequences be damned. Boobs have a strange way of enticing geeky high school kids to do stupid shit.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  177. The Letter from the District to All Parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The following letter was sent to all parents in the district:
    --
    Dear LMSD Parents/Guardians,

    Our history has been to go to great lengths to protect the privacy of our students; whether it comes to student health, academic or other records. In fact, many of you may remember the heated debate over whether to have security cameras monitor some of our food vending machines. Privacy is a basic right in our society and a matter we take very seriously. We believe that a good job can always be done better.
    Recent publicity regarding the District’s one-to-one high school laptop initiative, and questions about the security of student laptops prompted our administration to revisit security procedures.
    Laptops are a frequent target for theft in schools and off school property. District laptops do contain a security feature intended to track lost, stolen and missing laptops. The security feature, which was disabled today, was installed to help locate a laptop in the event it was reported lost, missing or stolen so that the laptop could be returned to the student.
    Upon a report of a suspected lost, stolen or missing laptop, the feature was activated by the District's security and technology departments. The security feature’s capabilities were limited to taking a still image of the operator and the operator's screen. This feature was only used for the narrow purpose of locating a lost, stolen or missing laptop. The District never activated the security feature for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever.
    As a result of our preliminary review of security procedures today, I directed the following actions:
                      Immediate disabling of the security-tracking program.
                      A thorough review of the existing policies for student laptop use.
                      A review of security procedures to help safeguard the protection of privacy; including a review of the instances in which the security software was activated. We want to ensure that any affected students and families are made aware of the outcome of laptop recovery investigations.
                      A review of any other technology areas in which the intersection of privacy and security may come into play.
    We are proud of the fact that we are a leader in providing laptops to every high school student as part of our instructional program. But we need to be equally as proud of the safeguards we have in place to protect the privacy of the users, as well as to safeguard district-owned property while being used by students.
    We regret if this situation has caused any concern or inconvenience among our students and families. If you have any questions or concerns, please email us at info@lmsd.org. Additional information has been posted on our website, www.lmsd.org.
    Thank you for your time and attention.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Christopher W. McGinley
    Superintendent of Schools
    Lower Merion School District

    Do Not Reply. This is not a reply e-mail address.

  178. Team Spirit! by nanospook · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, I wonder whether the cheer leading team is doing their homework (and stretches), let's take a peek shall we?

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
  179. This is already happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Students in Australia with laptops issued by the federal government are photographed by the webcam each time they open the laptop. As you might guess, they also have a tendency to abuse this "function". I'll leave you to imagine what they do to the poor government bureaucrats looking at all these images.

  180. what about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here have a webcam to get undressed to... There is a problem with this as well. Just nowhere near as fucked up

  181. Slopes and whatnot by Therilith · · Score: 1

    As much as I hate these jerkwads for this and understand the "get them with whatever law could even remotely apply" mentality, is child porn of all things really a good idea?
    Do we have any evidence that they were actually trying to created "child porn"? For all we know it's just the usual big brother BS.
    We have enough people being locked up for "accidental child porn" as it is, even without making it the go-to crime whenever we feel that someone should be punished more than is possible under the current laws.

    1. Re:Slopes and whatnot by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      Do we have any evidence that they were actually trying to created "child porn"?

      What does "intentionally planting a camera and a microphone in a childs bedroom" look like to you?

  182. Re:Logistics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They pick the good looking kids.

  183. try religion, was Re:Why am I not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Grandma was in town, she and my daughter wanted to visit a museum on a school day. So I just looked up the full list of religious holidays (all denominations), found a Catholic Saint's birthday that day, and wrote a note saying 'She is celebrating [Saint's Holiday Name] with her grandmother.' She was excused without an issue, problem solved. Because, you know, saying 'visiting a museum' would be unacceptable to the educational system.

  184. Email response from PA school superintendent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear LMSD Parents/Guardians,

    Our history has been to go to great lengths to protect the privacy of our students; whether it comes to student health, academic or other records. In fact, many of you may remember the heated debate over whether to have security cameras monitor some of our food vending machines. Privacy is a basic right in our society and a matter we take very seriously. We believe that a good job can always be done better.
    Recent publicity regarding the District’s one-to-one high school laptop initiative, and questions about the security of student laptops prompted our administration to revisit security procedures.
    Laptops are a frequent target for theft in schools and off school property. District laptops do contain a security feature intended to track lost, stolen and missing laptops. The security feature, which was disabled today, was installed to help locate a laptop in the event it was reported lost, missing or stolen so that the laptop could be returned to the student.
    Upon a report of a suspected lost, stolen or missing laptop, the feature was activated by the District's security and technology departments. The security feature’s capabilities were limited to taking a still image of the operator and the operator's screen. This feature was only used for the narrow purpose of locating a lost, stolen or missing laptop. The District never activated the security feature for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever.
    As a result of our preliminary review of security procedures today, I directed the following actions:
                      Immediate disabling of the security-tracking program.
                      A thorough review of the existing policies for student laptop use.
                      A review of security procedures to help safeguard the protection of privacy; including a review of the instances in which the security software was activated. We want to ensure that any affected students and families are made aware of the outcome of laptop recovery investigations.
                      A review of any other technology areas in which the intersection of privacy and security may come into play.
    We are proud of the fact that we are a leader in providing laptops to every high school student as part of our instructional program. But we need to be equally as proud of the safeguards we have in place to protect the privacy of the users, as well as to safeguard district-owned property while being used by students.
    We regret if this situation has caused any concern or inconvenience among our students and families. If you have any questions or concerns, please email us at info@lmsd.org. Additional information has been posted on our website, www.lmsd.org.
    Thank you for your time and attention.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Christopher W. McGinley
    Superintendent of Schools
    Lower Merion School District

  185. WTF by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    is "improper behavior in his home'" exactly?

  186. Alternate explanation? by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

    An article says the "incriminating" image was taken off of the hard drive of the laptop. Any school administrators invading students privacy by snooping through their laptops deserve what they're going to get out of all of this.

    But consider: The laptops had anti-theft security software installed on them. This seems perfectly reasonable when you're distributing laptops to thousands of kids. Any decent anti-theft software (e.g. Undercover for the Mac) will have a feature to remotely enable the webcam so as to take snapshots to try and identify the thief. In many cases the anti-theft software can only be activated by the company providing the service, in response to a declaration that the laptop was stolen.

    Is it possible that these two things are completely unrelated? How do we know that the school activated this software so as to spy on the student? If the image was sufficiently embarrassing, and the student took the snapshot himself, maybe he'd prefer to just let everyone believe that the school did it covertly? Snooping through files is certainly wrong, but actually remotely activating the webcam so as to snoop on the kids is just so absurdly wrong that I cannot imagine anyone doing this and believing they're in the right.

  187. what if photograph of mother changing clothes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    taken by male school employee?

    What are the laws that the family can use to sue the school for this?

  188. Re:LMSD response to 'invasion of privacy' allegati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did the security feature work?
    Upon a report of a suspected lost, stolen or missing laptop, the feature was activated by the District's security and technology departments. The tracking-security feature was limited to taking a still image of the operator and the operator's screen. This feature has only been used for the limited purpose of locating a lost, stolen or missing laptop. The District has not used the tracking feature or web cam for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever.

    "I suspect that Hottie McCheerleader's laptop has gone missing again."
    "Better fire up the tracking software... Nope it looks like it's still sitting in her bedroom."
    "We better keep an eye on it, just in case it's a set, created by the thief, so that we'd believe it hadn't been stolen. I saw that in Ocean's Eleven."

  189. Re:Logistics? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    Assuming of course that they were routinely spying on the students - an assumption not entirely supported by the known facts.

  190. do you have a court order? by meta · · Score: 1

    The first count of the lawsuit claims the school is guilty of unauthorized wiretapping under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. To support this, it calls the retrieval of the webcam images from the laptop a transmission (which is reasonable), but then characterizes the school's receiving equipment not as receiving equipment but as an unauthorized wiretap---which intercepted the
    school's own transmission.

    Based on my own reading, the ECPA does not take receiving your own transmission to be a form of wiretap. But if I am wrong, then all web surfing---including reading this comment---is unauthorized wiretap unless you have a court order.

    --
    Sometimes they fool you by walking upright.
  191. Re:Logistics? by sjames · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they chose the students they really wanted to see naked.

  192. Re:Logistics? by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

    sourceIt seems my suspicions were correct.

  193. Re:If a student was dressing in front of their lap by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

    Now *THAT* is the "priceless" that everyone's been looking for.

  194. Re:How? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

    I'm proud to meet someone who can grasp the logic of this. I'm on-board with you 100%.

    Trust isn't something that can be tested for. It's something that grows with time. You have to hope (really, really hope) that the person isn't going to turn to the dark side in a way that hurts people.