Federal Judge Orders Schools To Stop Laptop Spying

CWmike writes "A federal judge on Monday ordered the Pennsylvania school district accused of spying on its students to stop activating the cameras in school-issued MacBook laptops. According to the original complaint, Blake Robbins was accused by a Harriton High School assistant principal of 'improper behavior in his home' and shown a photograph taken by his laptop as evidence. In an appearance on network television last Saturday, Robbins said he was accused by the assistant principal of selling drugs and taking pills — but he claimed the pictures taken by his computer's camera showed him eating candy. Also on Monday, the company selling the software used by the school district to allegedly spy on its students blasted what it called laptop theft-recovery 'vigilantism.'" jamie found two posts from stryde.hax pointing out suggestive information about one school district network administrator, and coaching students how to determine if their school-issued laptops were infected with the LANRev software used to operate the cameras remotely and in secret.

Comments

The important question:

[The End Of Days]

When are the "cheerleaders getting dressed" videos going to leak? You know someone was making them...

Re:The important question:

[Frosty Piss]

Silly, cheerleaders don't know how to use laptops.

But they know how to give lap dances!

Re:The important question:

[interkin3tic]

When are the "cheerleaders getting dressed" videos going to leak? You know someone was making them...

I didn't know you were into that. I'll borrow my mom's car after this hot pocket and go by salvation army today to get a cheerleader outfit and e-mail the video to you. Not sure what the odds are that they'll have a 3xl cheerleader skirt though...

Re:The important question:

[Bacon Bits]

You must be a software developer. While technically fulfilling what was asked for, you managed to satisfy none of the goals of the request.

why isn't this

[Presto Vivace]

criminally actionable under peeping Tom laws? Probably other laws too.

Because it was done on a computer,

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

thus laws from the normal world don't apply.

Re:Because it was done on a computer,

[epee1221]

s/"on a computer"/"in a school"/

Re:Because it was done on a computer,

[Fluffeh]

why isn't this... criminally actionable under peeping Tom laws? Probably other laws too.

Because it was done on a computer. thus laws from the normal world don't apply.

Now that a judge has sided with the rest of the world that uses it's brains to choose right and wrong, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a class action lawsuit pops in. I dare say that many onlookers and also people involved would have been looking at this as a litmus test to see what the judicial reaction is. The judicial system has clearly said "This is a no-no!". As far as I can see, this is a green light for the "Well, you did wrong, now make it right with a bundle of cash" for those with the laptops etc.

* Side note: Stop putting half a sentence in the damned heading and finish it in the body. It's bloody annoying to quote.

Re:Because it was done on a computer,

[sconeu]

There already is a class action suit filed.

Re:Because it was done on a computer,

[ElectricTurtle]

Computer labs were once 'enough' when computers had a marginal role in business and society (and were many times more expensive than now), but computers now occupy a primary role in both business and personal life. It is only natural that this be extended into the classroom so that students can adjust themselves to functioning productively with them, even in spite of them, because that is what they are likely, depending on career, to have to face for the rest of their professional lives.

Your attempt to link increased exposure to computers in schools as causal to the effect of this exceptionally ill conceived institutionalized voyeurism carries no water. The problem was only that these were computers issued by the state for the purposes of the state, which, shockingly (that's sarcasm), turned out to be directly opposed to the best interests of those to which they were issued. If these had been private laptops, as happens in many schools already, the problem, even the temptation of the problem would be so remote and infeasible as to be nearly impossible.

Your appeal to 'common-sense' might have been reasonable once, long ago in the dim before-time when computers cost thousands of dollars each, but now they are cheap commodities. Some kids go to high school with shoes that cost more than a serviceable laptop.

You lastly make the argument that you would have personally enjoyed a computer because it would have enabled you to fully express your personal deficiency of character. That is tragic for you perhaps, but I brought a laptop to high school (now almost a decade ago, sad to say), maintained a 4.0 GPA, graduated with honors, etc. Don't blame the tool for the person that you may be and how you might use that tool. That's like blaming guns for murder while ignoring the times that they have been used to save the lives of others being assaulted. The tool is only as good or evil as the one who wields it.

But I

[Monkeedude1212]

* Side note: Stop putting half a sentence in the damned heading and finish it in the body. It's bloody annoying to quote.

Like to.

The court needs to stop them from wiping HDD's in

[Joe The Dragon]

The court needs to stop them from wiping HDD's in the systems before any evidence is wiped away.

The real story here

[TheQuantumShift]

Is how does any public school district have the cash to afford one macbook per child? That exceeds the total $ per student budget from when I was in school by a good amount...

Re:The real story here

[dclozier]

The cost was largely offset by the StudentSpyCam.tv website subscriptions.

Re:The real story here

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a long-time Slashdot user (5-digit uid!) posting anonymous for obvious reasons: you can't say this stuff and attach your name to it. Also, I'm not trolling: if you'd like to disagree, point out why.

Have you considered that the problem might be that some schools have less talented students?

I know it's not politically correct to say this, but inner-city schools are predominantly full of minority children, and suburban schools are full of white ones. When you control for different demographics, the differences in performance between the two systems largely disappear. The theory that inner city schools simply have more children who are genetically predisposed to poor grades, poor attention, and poor behavior is the one that fits the data best. The idea that all children can excel is a fallacy. Really, people are born with a wide range of different talents, and some are simply not built to shine academically. We should just accept that fact and make the best of it. Disparity of outcome is not necessarily indicative of a disparity in opportunity: if we accept hereditary variations in ability, we explain a lot.

You're probably thinking I'm some kind of bigoted skinhead, but nothing could be further from the truth. All people should be alike in dignity. Does the man with an IQ of 80 who gets up at six every morning to work in a factory deserve any less respect than I, a software developer, do? If anything, he works harder. How about soldiers, or construction laborers, or dockworkers, or any of other essential professions that do not require education and intelligence? They deserve respect too.

But they don't receive that respect. The problem is that we've economically structured our society so that it is increasingly difficult to lead a dignified life without an exceptional mind. With the sole remaining path to dignity being intellectual pursuits, it's no wonder that schools benchmark themselves on the academic performance of their students. When we combine that trend with the tragically incorrect belief that all people are born with equal talents, we get to our current system of pumping ever-more money into "failing" schools and trying to force them one way or another into producing brilliant pupils. Of course that doesn't happen, which leads to a sense of shame, further "failing" grades, movement out of the city into the suburbs, and so on. You can't squeeze blood from a stone, and sometimes you have to realize that a stone is good too.

So what would be my positive program to remedy the situation?

1. Consolidate all school districts: suburban "good" schools are a self-reinforcing phenomenon. If we accept the heritability of intelligence, then parents who have the money to move to one of these districts are on average more intelligent and have more intelligent children, which boosts the performance ratings of the suburban "good" schools. That in turn attracts more intelligent parents in a cycle of gentrification. Consolidating school districts over a wide geographic areas eliminates this demographic distortion, and as a side effect, would allow now-larger districts to take advantage of massive economies of scale.
2. Track students aggressively: within the now-larger districts, set up gifted and special needs schools and direct students to the appropriate program based on test results. That's the fairest way to ensure that everyone can develop on the way that best suits him. It's a lot more equitable than the system we have today: a genius born in the south side of Chicago will probably never use that talent, which is a tragedy for both him and society.
3. Provide dignified non-intellectual jobs: this point plays into larger socioeconomic econohistorical factors, but there is no reason that the wealthiest nation on earth cannot find dignified positions for people of normal intellectual means. We need to restore domestic manufacturing, extraction, and construction industries for many reasons, not least of which is to give people who aren't built for a university a chance to lead a dignified life. When these positions are available, the pressure to attend college at all costs will be greatly ameliorated.

Wow.

[Toonol]

Normally, when I come across stories like this, I figure that there are two sides to the story, that the school or business didn't really behave as ridiculously as the accuser is describing. There's usually a certain amount of sensationalism to such stories.

But in this case... the school really seems to be as stupid and as criminal as they first seemed, or MORE so. Every new piece of evidence is making it seem more and more like not only a screw-up, but that there should be some mass firings, if not jail time.

Re:But where's the fines?

[Animats]

I'm almost a little surprised that the school wasn't being penalized for this beyond the "Don't turn on the cameras".

This is just a preliminary injunction. The big legal hammer is being assembled and raised into hammering position. The school district is now in the very uncomfortable position of having the FBI, the Justice Department, and the ACLU all against them. Both Fox News and NPR are against them.

Re:This is absurd

[Em Emalb]

The absurd part is that a frigging Federal Judge had to step in and order them to stop. You know, ordered them to stop something they shouldn't have been doing in the first damned place.

Unreal.

It gets worse. They've been harrassing students

[jeko]

FTFA:

"...school district employees, including the superintendent, Christopher McGinley, ... making 'loud speaker announcements to all students allegedly commenting on the litigation, making false and untrue accusations [and] disparaging the Plaintiffs.'"

Who doesn't understand that once the lawyers get involved, you shut the Hell up? What is wrong with these people?

Re:Nothing a little tape can't fix...

[Monkeedude1212]

Right. So you visitting a hospital fixes the issue of me stabbing you.

School = Government

[headkase]

So, the government turned on cameras that made their way into Citizen's homes without a warrent? Hmm. Also, the administrators: "We didn't do it! Must have been IT." That doesn't fly, the school is an indivisible entity, I don't care if the janitor did it: the school is responsible.

Re:School = Government

[belmolis]

The school district certainly is the government. The story is about a public school district, which is part of the state government. It is funded by the state and its employees are government employees. It is legally a government entity for purposes such as constitutional litigation. If what you meant was that the school district is not a law enforcement agency, that's true, but concerns about invasion of privacy and improper search by the government are not limited to law enforcement agencies.

Re:But where's the fines?

[WiglyWorm]

As aa parent, I can say that no matter how my child's school comes across pictures, they have NO BUSINESS what my child does off of their property unless *I* ask for their involvment. The exception would be if my kid is getting in trouble for bringing in inappropriate pictures to school. I don't care what they thought they saw this kid doing, theirrights stop with informing the parents.

Re:'At school' versus 'not at school'

[Anonymous Coward]

Your long winded bull shit post failed to touch on the one pertinent topic here, why was the school monitoring the kid AT HOME. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Re:Camera question

[pclminion]

Would you people please read up on the fucking background before commenting?

Why didn't these people see the green light next to the camera?

Students DID notice the little green lights turning on. Many, many times. When they reported this to the district, the district said it was a "glitch."

Why didn't they cover the camera with a little electrical tape?

Why don't you walk around wearing a bullet proof vest? "Who cares if the district can spy on you, you can defeat them with tape." Uh, the school district shouldn't be fucking spying on students.

Re:Camera question

[fred fleenblat]

"blame the victim" doesn't fly in any US court.
it *really* doesn't fly when the victims are children.

My initial theory is looking more likely.

[Anonymous Coward]

The stryde.hax writeup is enlightening and also terrifying. My initial theory, that this was all a scheme cooked up by a perverted IT "professional" in order to acquire a rich, on-demand source of child porn, is looking a lot more likely. If true, the IT admin, school board, and any administrators who approved the use of the technology should be tried under RICO statutes for conspiring to produce child pornography. These people should be imprisoned for life.

One part of this story...

[interval1066]

...I don't quite get; isn't it conceivable to these Penn. school admins that kids eat candy, and that a lot of candy is the same approximate size and shape as many pills? How in the world did that particular school admin make the immediate leap to dealing drugs from a video of a student eating candy while using the notebook? Is this particular "scholar" so out of touch that he had no way to imagine the kid was eating candy? Like "I would never eat while using school equipment, so obviously that student is using drugs, and from there he's obviously dealing"? It boggles my mind that these people, who are supposed to be intelligent, would embark on a so completely unconstitutional (public school == county agency, and the Constitution blankets any such agency in all American jurisdictions) procedure, and then top it off by using this illegally obtained evidence to accuse a student (who has now gone from "student" to "victim") of dealing drugs. I mean, you have to really be off your rocker to believe this chain of stupidity would make sense to any sane judge.

I'm guessing there was some problem with drugs, or truancy, or something in this school system and a new teacher or young, idiot admin fresh out of liberal arts school with a goal to fight problems in public schools but completely ignorant of the law (but spent many hours playing video games in high school; Ms. Pac Man all time winnah) thought this might be a good idea. Its the only way I can make sense of the story...

Re:Camera question

[tftp]

1. Why didn't these people see the green light next to the camera?

Some did. As the comment above explains, some even asked the school what's going on, and the school replied (lied, as it seems) that it's nothing to see here, move along.

2. Why didn't they cover the camera with a little electrical tape?

Some did. Majority, though, didn't - in part because they never noticed the light and in part because they were assured by the school that there is nothing to worry about.

It would be perfectly reasonable for a long-time /. reader, to smell the rat. But it is just as reasonable for a school student who is not a geek to not realize what may be happening. The students were also required to accept and use those laptops, and many would be rightfully afraid that any attempt to mess with them would result in expulsion, execution on the spot, or worse.

Apple

[MarkCollette]

If I was Apple, I would also sue the school. Apparently the school created the impression that the camera light flickering on was some wide-spread glitch with the iSight cameras on the notebook computers.

Re:So what?

[hduff]

Wow look what happened, the school got in trouble. Here's how you figure out if the software is installed, on Windows just look in the registry with regedit, on Mac just use the terminal, if you can't do either because you don't know how then log off facebook and get some real skills that will serve you in life.

I realize this is Slashdot, but RTFA or STFU before you log off MySpace and attempt to get modded 'insightful' here.

Admins disabled the terminal. Students are disciplined severely for jail-breaking the laptop. None of the laptops ran Windows. What's your next tech comment, Senator Stevens?

Re:This is absurd

[element-o.p.]

Assistant Principle Masko, is that you? Either that, or you simply don't know what you are talking about.

I know this is /. and jumping to half-baked conclusions on the basis of others' comments is a time-honored tradition here, but from TFA's:

According to the original complaint, Blake Robbins was accused by a Harriton High School assistant principal of "improper behavior in his home" and shown a photograph taken by his laptop as evidence.

and

Michael and Holly Robbins of Penn Valley, Pa., said they first found out about the alleged spying last November after their son Blake was accused by a Harriton High School official of "improper behavior in his home" and shown a photograph taken by his laptop.

That establishes the context -- the photo was taken in the student's home. As for how it came to be in the school's hands, I see two options: either the student provided the photo himself or the school snapped the photo. If the student provided the photo himself, then what lawyer would even consider filing a class-action lawsuit? Furthermore, this article states, "On Friday, Christopher McGinley, the superintendent of Lower Merion, sent another letter to district parents, acknowledging that the district had turned on laptop cameras 42 times thus far in the 2009-2010 school year." However, even if the school district never turned on the camera in a single student's laptop, they still deserve to be run through the wringer:

The Robbins...added that there was no mention of the functionality [the ability for the school district to turn on the web cam remotely] in any of the documentation they received or on the district's Web site.

And the privacy of non-students has been violated, the Robbins said. "By virtue of the fact that the Webcam can be remotely activated at any time by the School District, the Webcam will capture anything happening in the room in which the laptop computer is located, regardless of whether the student is sitting at the computer and using it," the lawsuit charged.

Sorry, your "fixed that for you" is dead wrong. The evidence at this point strongly supports that the school district f****d up and is now (rightly) being called on the carpet for it.