Slashdot Mirror
Lower Merion School District Update
Mike_EE_U_of_I and jargon82 were among a number of readers who sent an update on the Lower Merion School District webcam spying case (see Related Stories for our discussions of the affair over the last couple of months). The school had originally stated that capturing laptop photos in students' homes had only happened 42 times. It turns out what they meant was that there were 42 instances when they began intensive surveillance on the suspected stolen computers. This consisted of (among other things) transmitting a picture from the laptop's webcam every 15 minutes. This may have gone on for weeks. In total, it appears that there were thousands of photos. One of the key administrators involved has been answering all questions about the program by invoking the Fifth Amendment.
Pics of the kid sleeping and "half dressed". Who knows what else they have of other kids. They are in deeeeeeep guano.
I'm sure they must've caught some of the kids masturbating.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
One of the key administrators involved has been answering all questions about the program by invoking the Fifth Amendment.
No doubt he was instructed by his lawyer to do so. At least this means that the 'Oh Shit' lightbulb has finally gone off in someones head, someone finally is realizing that this could very easily end up with jail time and a spot on the sex offenders registry.
One of the key administrators involved has been answering all questions about the program by invoking the Fifth Amendment.
Which, to be fair, is entirely his or her right. Trying to infer guilt from this (tempting though it may be) violates what most of us stand for. Tossing that statement in at the end of the summary seems to be an attempt to imply guilt, though.
(Which isn't to say that I don't think this program was stupid and criminal.)
One of the key administrators involved has been answering all questions about the program by invoking the Fifth Amendment.
Hope this asshat understands that pleading the Fifth isn't going to prevent a judge or jury from finding/ruling against him and punishing him.
"If I don't say anything I'm safe." doesn't work in the real world when you've already been caught.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I have never understood how school districts think.
On one hand they're terrified of getting sued. They have huge lists of things, even common, ordinary actions, that are not allowed to prevent even the slightest chance of getting sued.
Then, on the other hand, they take actions that random people on the street realize will cause a lawsuit. Strip searching students for searching for asprin, cancelling proms when gay students wish to attend, secretly spying on students with webcams. What the hell are they thinking?
just watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Absolutely must see.
Can you send me a picture of your junk?
I don't know how but you can ask my school to send you a few...
In the US, Schools are tasked with the impossible job of trying to please parents, who are also voters, and who are also incredibly rude and stupid about what they think is right for their kids. And what happens is that if you DON'T take action, then you get sued anyway!
Drugs? Zero tolerance because some parents and all politicians have zero tolerance, even for aspirin! Someone wrote the rule that way because some crazy person pushed it.
Gays at the prom? Because there is no equal protection under the law for gays, and too many people in american society still view gay relationships as evil. Allowing gays in the right conservative school district will get you just as sued.
Computer survellience? Well for this one there simply is no excuse. Someone obviously didn't do their homework and thought it was a good idea and forgot to check where the legal line crossed. This example is not like the others because the first two are more about social values in those areas and this is clearly a breach in well established law.
And don't forget these people are voted into office, and they are of the people and by the people. They are politicians as well, and if someone wants them to do something or risk being voted out, well this is how it works when the law isn't more clearly spelled out.
Then again, sometimes parents have an attack of sanity, like the Dover, PA case where the old school board tried to implement intelligent design, and they were voted out en masse the next election and the curriculum was scrapped.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
It's not a "self-incrimination" clause, it is a clause against being a witness against yourself in a criminal case.
excerpt from the Fifth Amendment:
"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"
The difference that I'm trying to make is that there doesn't have to be a presumption of self-incrimination to invoke it, just that you don't wish to testify about something involving yourself.
And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
If you ever hear the phrase 'sovereign individuals,' run. Run away, as fast as you can. You are in the presence of either a moronic patsy or a dangerous con artist. Do not fall for this scam. You will lose money, and perhaps go to jail yourself for attempting to follow the ludicrous and expensive instructions for becoming this imaginary thing called a 'sovereign individual.' Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Citizen_Movement
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Shouldn't school officials deal with problems by the least intrusive means possible? Once the laptop surveillance was enabled, the first few pictures would have established the laptop's location. But they continued to take 400 snapshots over the course of 2 weeks! The only rational explanation for the continued surveillance is pure voyeurism -- and I expect that is what the student's lawyer will argue in court.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
In our society, men are terrified of being accused of sexual predation, and we steer clear of it. We know where the lines are, and we know we can be accused at any time. Maybe this administrator just wasn't as aware because, after all, she's a she and nobody would ever think that she would use the camera for illicit purposes! Seriously, the reason why that stereotype is there is because, on a whole, men tend to be more interested in pornographic images. Maybe part of the problem here is that, in the female dominated world of education, no man ever saw this policy and said, "uh, ladies... you do realize what people could use these cameras for, right?"
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
The students were, in fact, allowed to leave school grounds. And part of the problem here is that the criteria for them determining whether the laptop was "stolen" seemed really fragile.
I can't find the article now, but one of the IT guys for the district was recorded in a presentation (where he was praising the program) that one of the laptop's owners connected to their neighbor's WiFi, rather than their own network (I'm assuming that students needed to register their router's mac address). Anyway, the software detected this as laptop theft, the school reported it stolen, and the police worked with the local ISP to get the address of the neighbor and searched the neighbors house .
As more details about this story come forward, I am increasingly amazed that this program made it past the idea-stage. You'd think at least *one* person in the chain-of-command would have some common sense.
Back when this story first broke, I was not at all convinced that school officials were spying on kids. One student had been suspended for alleged inappropriate activity captured by the camera and everyone immediately assumed it was the result of this surveillance system. The only statement the school made on the issue was that the photo had been taken by the student and left on the hard drive of the laptop when he returned it. To me, that seemed a lot more plausible, if less juicy. (After all, who wasn't excited by the thought of photos of horny high school kids in their bedrooms, and equally excited by the thought of school officials getting raked over the coals.)
I saw this story earlier today and now I'm more convinced than ever the whole thing is BS. Look carefully at the photograph (provided by the parents, I might add.) Who goes to sleep with their laptop turned on and the camera pointed right at their face, so that it's perfectly centered in the frame and just well lit enough to show it clearly? If you've ever seen real photographs taken by peeping toms with hidden cameras, they're always grainy and show subjects in unflattering lighting conditions. This picture is just to perfect to be real.
Generally speaking, when there's a lawsuit going on and one side says nothing to the press, citing that it would be imprudent to do so during proceedings, and the other site leaks all kinds of juicy stuff to the press, I tend to believe the party that shows discretion.
As for the Fifth Amendment issue, as others have noted, it's standard practice when you're suspected of a crime to always invoke the 5th and say nothing before the trial. That's perfectly normal and doesn't mean anything at all.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?