Slashdot Mirror
FBI Probing PA School Webcam Spy Case
On Thursday we discussed news that a Pennsylvania high school was spying on students through the webcams in laptops that were issued to the students. The FBI is now taking an interest in the case, investigating whether federal wiretap and computer-intrusion laws were violated in the process. "The FBI opened its investigation after news of the suit broke on Thursday, the law-enforcement official said. Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman may also investigate, she said Friday." Ferman said her office is "looking to see whether there are potential violations of Pennsylvania criminal laws."
Sometimes you're so indignent you don't get it all out the first time: Telescreens, the screen that looks back at you. Orwell'd.
Shh.
http://www.lmsd.org/sections/schools/default.php?t=lmhs&p=lmhs_today_anno&menu=lmhs_today&id=1143
I've seen both commercial and open source webcam enabled anti-theft software advertised for personal use: Prey
I don't know the software well enough to know how it is designed and marketed for business/institutional use. How many of these programs can capture full or stop-motion video.
This strikes me as a minefield for both the developer and his clients.
when other parties try to move in on their turf!
If they were really interested in theft recovery why didn't they use a system specifically designed for that purpose. Lojack costs $30/year per machine and I'm sure they would have gotten a volume discount.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
I recently watched a documentary (it may of been BBC's The Virtual Revolution) where they showed a principle in a New York City area school spying on what his students where doing during the day at school via their school issued laptops. He could see what they where doing on the machine and even them via the webcam. They even showed him taking a snap of a student combing her hair to get her attention as in 'get back to work'.
In middle school, I borrowed a book. The library in their stupidity didn't have a drop box. You left it on the counter. The librarian was hardly ever there. They then billed my parents because it was never returned.
Boy did I get a beating over that.
I think some little dirtbag stole it off of the counter.
Also, what about the kids who get bullied. Bully takes away device, tells bullied kid that if he "narcs" he's "dead". Now, that poor kid gets blamed for the theft.
Considering all the dirtbag thieves in school, especially the trash in public schools, there would have to be a better way.
A lot of news outlets are quoting the vice principal on this:
http://americasright.com/?p=3159
On November 11, 2009, Plaintiffs were for the first time informed of the above-mentioned capability and practice by the School District when Lindy Matsko, an Assistant Principal at Harriton High School, informed minor Plaintiff that the School District was of the belief that minor Plaintiff was engaged in improper behavior in his home, and cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam embedded in minor Plaintiff’s personal laptop issued by the School District.
About damn time. I feel a bit pumped that the tide is shifting here, the things we know are immoral are starting to get called on why they're done, even with the best of intentions.
I think the only reason they're getting nailed for this is because they went so far over the line. A less flagrant violation - one that didn't raise ZOMG KIDDIE PORN fears - wouldn't have caused any uproar.
A lot of news outlets are quoting the vice principal on this:
http://americasright.com/?p=3159
On November 11, 2009, Plaintiffs were for the first time informed of the above-mentioned capability and practice by the School District when Lindy Matsko, an Assistant Principal at Harriton High School, informed minor Plaintiff that the School District was of the belief that minor Plaintiff was engaged in improper behavior in his home, and cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam embedded in minor Plaintiff’s personal laptop issued by the School District.
From the way I read this, a lot of people are quoting the plaintiff's version of what the vice principal said (and probably from the lawsuit), not quoting the vice principal himself. To me that counts as hearsay and is not reliable.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
It's unclear from this statement whether this means that the school had remotely and secretly activated the webcam, or the student's "improper behavior" somehow involved him using the webcam to capture images which were stored on the hard drive and which the school subsequently accessed.
Don't forget to charge the kid too. It's the American way.
As an American, I suppose I should be irritated by that remark ... but it's uncomfortably close to the truth. We're not handling many of these cases very well, it seems.
Sometimes you have to look at stories like this and say, "Well, we don't have all the facts in our possession, so maybe there were some extenuating circumstances." In this case, I can't really see any justification for what this school has done. It just sounds like a group of administrative types who thought they were invulnerable to consequence went too far.
When you get right down to it, the reason our schools SUCK at this point in time is because of power-mad, empire-building administrators that really couldn't give a rat's ass about the students. Teachers take a lot of the blame (much of it deserved, I agree) but just as with a staff of software developers managed by an idiot, the real responsibility lies at the top.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Students are regularly punished by schools for things that happen off of school grounds. My stepdaughter was suspended for smoking because an administrator saw her smoking a block away from the high school, outside of school hours. Also, I will direct you to the case of the student that was suspended for holding up a sign indicating support for marijuana use at a parade in the downtown area of his home town.
Anyway-
It seems the whole mess was a storm in a teacup.
It seems it was just some setup where if a student reported a laptop missing the school which owned those laptops could remotely access it to try to figure out where it was and who was using it.
1. Did an assistant principal at Harriton ever have the ability to remotely monitor a student at home? Did she utilize a photo taken by a school-issued laptop to discipline a student?
* No. At no time did any high school administrator have the ability or actually access the security- tracking software. We believe that the administrator at Harriton has been unfairly portrayed and unjustly attacked in connection with her attempts to be supportive of a student and his family. The district never did and never would use such tactics as a basis for disciplinary action.
2. How were the decisions made to develop the original security plan? Were there/are there safeguards in place to ensure student privacy with regard to use of the security application?
* Concerned about the security of district-owned and issued laptops, the security plan was developed by the technology department to give the District the ability to recover lost, stolen or missing student laptops. This included tracking loaner laptops that may, against regulations, have been taken off campus.
* Only two members of the technology department could access the security feature.
3. Were students and families explicitly told about the laptop security system?
* No. There was no formal notice given to students or their families. The functionality and intended use of the security feature should have been communicated clearly to students and families.
4. How many thefts have there been? How many times was the system used? What have been the results in terms of recovery of computers?
* During the 2009-10 school year, 42 laptops were reported lost, stolen or missing and the tracking software was activated by the technology department in each instance. A total of 18 laptops were found or recovered. This number (18) is an updated number given the information we have compiled today.
5. What was the total cost of implementation of the laptop program?
* The approximate cost of each laptop is $1,000 and during the two years of the program, there were 2,620 laptops purchased.
6. How was funding obtained for the laptop program?
* Laptops were purchased using a combination of district funds and and Classrooms for the Future grants.
7. When was the district notified of the allegations contained in the lawsuit?
* The district learned of the allegations Thursday, February 18th. No complaints were received prior to this date. The district's initial response was posted on the district webpage and communicated to students and parents the same day. The district will not be commenting on the specifics of the plaintiff's complaint, however, outside the legal process.
8. In the future, will students be required to use district issued laptops?
* The district believes students received significant benefit from the one-to-one laptop program and has no intention of discontinuing the program.
9. Is remote access activity by the district logged?
* Yes. There is a log entry for every instance of the security feature activation. The logs will be reviewed as part of the special review conducted under the direction of special outside counsel.
10. Can parents return currently issued laptops to the district at this time?
* They can, but we note that the laptops are an integral component of the educational program in the district. The security feature has been deactivated and there is no reas
Here is the video on PBS. Links directly to the page hosting it. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/learning/schools/how-google-saved-a-school.html . Interesting how it says, "how google saved a school."
Hell, just plain old LOOKING without recording it is still illegal.
Plain old looking is _not_ illegal, depending on the expectation of privacy. Many people's homes sit on widely used roads, and if glancing in at someone as you walk or drive past their house is now a crime, I'd guess just about everyone is a criminal.
Unfortunately, the fact that the school could and would remotely active te web cam for any reason at all, was not in an AUP or in fact any type of document that the parents and/or child signed, read, or was given.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Looks like the key criterion is: "Is the off-school behavior potentially disruptive to the educational process in school?" You can see how liberally that might be applied. For example, earlier this month the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court upheld a suspension for a girl mocking the principal on a MySpace page, after the school argued that students were talking about it in class instead of studying. (At the same time, a different court ruled the opposite in a separate case. My guess is if any of this goes to the current SCOTUS, they will uphold extensive power rights to school administrators.)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35244016/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/rulings-leave-us-student-speech-rights-unresolved/
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/22/nyregion/at-issue-discipline-off-school-grounds.html
PA School District Rules: "When and where the rules apply. The Code of Student Conduct covers students when they are on school grounds, or on the way to or from school. The rules also cover behavior at school events off grounds, as well as any off-grounds behavior (including behavior in the neighborhood) that is likely to lead to disruption at school. (The law is not clear on how far schools can go in punishing students for misbehavior that occurs off grounds or outside of school hours. If your case is of this type, you may wish to seek further advice from a private attorney or the Education Law Center.)"
http://www.elc-pa.org/pubs/downloads%202009/School%20Discipline%20in%20the%20Philadelphia%20SD%202-6-09.pdf
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes