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."

Comments

Tape

[mano.m]

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

Re:Tape

[dfm3]

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

Re:Tape

[Spatial]

Solves all symptoms. The problem remains.

Re:Tape

[mcgrew]

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.

Re:Tape

[lorenlal]

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.

Re:Tape

[mcgrew]

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.

Re:Tape

[Enderandrew]

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

Re:Tape

[kimvette]

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.

Re:Tape

[alexborges]

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.

Re:Tape

[Maximum Prophet]

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)

Re:Tape

[zill]

Easy, just fire them first and then sue them.

Re:Tape

[sconeu]

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

Re:Tape

[WCMI92]

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!

Re:Tape

[Hurricane78]

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. :/

Re:Tape

[TheLinuxSRC]

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

Re:Tape

[Enderandrew]

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.

Re:Tape

[sheph]

Or WD-40 thereby validating the first post.

Re:Tape

[MozeeToby]

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).

Re:Tape

[OldSoldier]

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?

Re:Tape

[pclminion]

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.

Re:Tape

[Mistlefoot]

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.

Re:Tape

[plantman-the-womb-st]

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.

Re:Tape

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Tape

[Enderandrew]

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.

Re:Tape

[joocemann]

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.

Re:Tape

[diamondsw]

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.

Re:Tape

[WCMI92]

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.

Re:Tape

[bill_mcgonigle]

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. ;)

Re:Tape

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Re:Tape

[Grishnakh]

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.

Re:Tape

[Jane Q. Public]

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

Re:Tape

[mcgrew]

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.

Re:Tape

[schlick]

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.

Re:Tape

[wjousts]

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.

Re:Tape

[sodul]

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.

Re:Tape

[pclminion]

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.

Re:Tape

[tftp]

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.

Re:Tape

[sodul]

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 ?

Re:Tape

[jitterman]

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.

Re:Tape

[Leebert]

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.

Re:Tape

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:Tape

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:Tape

[lorenlal]

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.

Re:Tape

[Kalriath]

Free rotting fruit provided for free.

As opposed to...?

Re:Tape

[alanshot]

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.

Re:Tape

[TheQuantumShift]

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.

Hmm

[LogarithmicSpiral]

Does anyone see some child porn charges coming here?

Re:Hmm

[JWSmythe]

    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.

Re:Hmm

[HTH NE1]

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.)

Re:Hmm

[lgw]

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.

Re:Hmm

[TubeSteak]

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

Re:Hmm

[NotBornYesterday]

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.

Re:Hmm

[Brian Gordon]

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..

Re:Hmm

[SpuriousLogic]

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.

Re:Hmm

[lgw]

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.

Re:Hmm

[Red Flayer]

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.

Re:Hmm

[Enderandrew]

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.

Re:Hmm

[JustNilt]

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.

Re:Hmm

[HTH NE1]

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).

Re:Hmm

[shogarth]

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.

Re:Hmm

[More_Cowbell]

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.

Re:Hmm

[Japher]

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.

Re:Hmm

[HeronBlademaster]

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.

Re:Hmm

[captjc]

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.

Re:Hmm

[phantasmagoric]

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

Re:Hmm

[nobodyman]

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.

I dont see the problem here

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I dont see the problem here

[sconeu]

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.

Turn it around

[initialE]

And accuse school officials of pedophilia. This will be fun...

Re:Turn it around

[skine]

But I was only recording the students' every action!

How could I have known they'd undress at some point?

Re:Turn it around

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Sounds like some of the Administrators were doing a little too much "thinking of the children."

Re:Turn it around

[martas]

yeah, and my cat's really into CP.

at the very least

[heffy]

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.

Re:at the very least

[MartinSchou]

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.

Re:at the very least

[WCMI92]

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!

Re:at the very least

[Rary]

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.

Re:at the very least

[MartinSchou]

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.

Re:at the very least

[Rary]

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.

Re:at the very least

[Rary]

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?

Re:at the very least

[c6gunner]

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.

convict them - then home monitor THEM!

[rcpitt]

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!

Re:convict them - then home monitor THEM!

[clone53421]

Cover the walls with mirrors.

Stupidity

[NiceGeek]

WTF is "improper behavior in the home", and why does the school seem to think that it's their business?

Why boingboing?

[mcgrew]

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?

Re:Why boingboing?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why boingboing?

[vadim_t]

What's wrong with boingboing's coverage of it? Seems like a perfectly good article to me. Ars even links to the boingboing one.

Re:Why boingboing?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why boingboing?

[Bogtha]

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.

Re:Why boingboing?

[TrippTDF]

I think that says more about our media consumption habits- I know I read blogs these days before I look to traditional media sources.

Why am I not surprised.

[fyrewulff]

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.

Re:Why am I not surprised.

[WCMI92]

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!

Re:Why am I not surprised.

[CorporateSuit]

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.

Re:Why am I not surprised.

[WCMI92]

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.

Re:Why am I not surprised.

[Enderandrew]

If you had simply called in sick, you'd be fine.

You're being punished for honesty.

Re:Why am I not surprised.

[Jarik C-Bol]

pleading poverty should not get a school very far when it doled out macbooks to all of its seignior class...

Re:Why am I not surprised.

[blackraven14250]

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.

Re:Why am I not surprised.

[djdavetrouble]

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.

Re:Why am I not surprised.

[Enderandrew]

I'm not advocating lying.

I'm merely pointing out that the situation punishes honesty. I do so to criticize the situation.

Re:Why am I not surprised.

[noidentity]

"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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Kiddie porn

[MartinSchou]

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'.

What does inappropriate behavior mean?

[zenchemical]

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.

Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean?

[lgw]

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.

Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean?

[hazem]

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.

Re:What does inappropriate behavior mean?

[MartinSchou]

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.

Don't take candy from the government

[WCMI92]

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.

Re:Don't take candy from the government

[Sir Holo]

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.

Re:Don't take candy from the government

[smellsofbikes]

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?

Re:Don't take candy from the government

[dangitman]

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?

What kind of crack were they on?

[panoptical2]

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.

Re:What kind of crack were they on?

[rev_sanchez]

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.

The bigger question...

[wandazulu]

What exactly is "improper behavior in the home", and who would believe it was appropriate for a school to accuse the kid of it?

Re:The bigger question...

[lgw]

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.

No surprise here

[Jawn98685]

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.

The ever growing list of reasons

[CranberryKing]

to homeschool. These education people are pretty fucked up.

Re:The ever growing list of reasons

[psithurism]

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.

Re:The ever growing list of reasons

[CranberryKing]

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..

Re:The ever growing list of reasons

[CranberryKing]

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?

Bigbrother tag

[dvoecks]

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.

Re:Bigbrother tag

[MozeeToby]

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.

Bad method of correction

[SirWhoopass]

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.

Re:Bad method of correction

[LWATCDR]

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.

Should

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Milton said it best:

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

I'm going to have to burn down the building.

WTF?!

[ogdenk]

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.

Re:WTF?!

[unixguy43]

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.

Re:WTF?!

[cdrguru]

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.

Occams Razor will serve you well

[RapmasterT]

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.

Re:Occams Razor will serve you well

[aaribaud]

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.

If you read the filing...

[istvaan]

...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...

Re:If you read the filing...

[British]

"...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.

Re:If you read the filing...

[alen]

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

Re:If you read the filing...

[Locke2005]

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.

Re:This world needs a "reset" button

[mcgrew]

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?

This is too protect the children

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is too protect the children

[mustafap]

>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.
 

Re:This is too protect the children

[Red Flayer]

Masturbation is not self-abuse.

You've never seen the way I do it.*

*Unless you have remote access to my webcams.

Re:This is too protect the children

[sa1lnr]

I'm hoping your nick isn't a clue.

Re:This is too protect the children

[Red Flayer]

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.

Frontline covered this

[TrippTDF]

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.

Life Imitates Art

[sehlat]

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.

Teaching them early

[TnkMkr]

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.

Re:Teaching them early

[Locke2005]

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?

This story has not been confirmed

[TrueRock]

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.

I would place my bet on it will happen.

[d474]

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.

vice principle should be fired for stupidity

[whoever57]

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.

Re:Who set it up?

[pclminion]

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.

Huh?

[Locke2005]

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.

Waterfall

[GodfatherofSoul]

Funny how totalitarian practices by the government slowly trickle down to the local level; cops, school administrators, local government. No surprise at all.

Re:Waterfall

[Locke2005]

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.

Re:Waterfall

[GodfatherofSoul]

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.

Pile of Shit Control Freaks...

[Foobar of Borg]

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!

Funny comment on the bottom of the page

[codepunk]

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...

"In theory..."

[WAG24601G]

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!

Criminal Charges: Attempted Child Porn

[illumnatLA]

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.

LMSD response to 'invasion of privacy' allegation

[detritus.]

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

consent

[KingPin27]

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.

The School District has responded...

[PRMan]

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.

Re:LMSD response to 'invasion of privacy' allegati

[pclminion]

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.

Re:LMSD response to 'invasion of privacy' allegati

[pclminion]

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.

Re:LMSD response to 'invasion of privacy' allegati

[tftp]

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."

Re:Mac Myth

[dgatwood]

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.