Slashdot Mirror
Lower Merion School's Report Says IT Dept. Did It, But Didn't Inhale
PSandusky writes "A report issued by the Lower Merion School District's chosen law firm blames the district's IT department for the laptop webcam spying scandal. In particular, the report mentions lax IT policies and record-keeping as major problems that enabled the spying. Despite thousands of e-mails and images to the contrary, the report also maintains that no proof exists that anyone in IT viewed images captured by the webcams."
I sure hope those "IT Dept" folks have emails archived indicating the request to do this.
Otherwise...wow. I feel bad for them.
Sent from your iPad.
It's Lower Merion.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Ok, really "Lax IT policies" and "record keeping"? How is that even an excuse? Yeah, if perhaps like 30 pictures were taken it could be blamed on that. But seriously? 58,000 pictures? There is more than lax IT policies. Yeah, perhaps someone might do it once to get a laugh, but no (sane) person is going to do it 58,000 times.
How hard is it not to activate software unless the laptop has been stolen? It it isn't like its too hard to determine if it has been stolen or not...
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I probably watch too many cop shows but when a suspect says, "No proof exists", it's usually a sign of moral guilt. Maybe even of distruction of evidence. Regardless, this is weak and should be treated as a serious infringement against the privacy of the students and their families.
IMHO, of course. Oh, and IANAL but I do watch Law and Order. ;)
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
put the gun in jail, we are innocent.
Really how did they see the kid eating Mike and Ike's candy?
And isn't a crime to spy even if you don't look at the data?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
You never know where there may be a camera, especially outside. You never know where your intertube bits may end up. Assume the worst. This is just a preview of the future.
The "independent" report was written by a law firm hired by the school system.
The IT guy made forum posts talking about the "security" system.
The school used the software to do more that locate and retrieve lost or stolen laptops with all this starting because one student was accused of dealing "drugs" (aka Mike & Ike candy) based on a captured image.
This report is just posturing by adults who should know better but who have stupidly done something unethical and illegal.
The adults involved should be subject to a "zero tolerance" interpretation of the law. They can make new friends in prison and learn a trade since they won't again be employed in education in their lifetime.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
One would think a teenager alone in his own bedroom would have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Especially since we all KNOW what teenagers do when alone in their own bedrooms!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
This is not a case of a photograph taken in public, it is a case of a photograph that was secretly taken inside someone's home. There are specific protections against that sort of behavior, particularly when it is a government agency engaging in it. Yes, privacy still matters, despite the fact that it has become cool to voluntarily abandon it.
Palm trees and 8
It is the minions fault, of course no one in management would ever do anything amoral.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
To be clear, this was a report done by a law firm retained by the school district to "investigate" the situation. One shouldn't take it as conclusive or impartial.
But who is "you" in this case?
Any of the school employees that had access to and/or "Dominion and Control" over the images.
Isn't that the standard for illegal things found in your car/apartment, etc? Even if they're not yours, if you had access or dominion and control over them, you're presumed to 'own' them.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
An assistant principal looked at images of a student in their home and punished the student for what they saw.
I'll buy their excuse once the can explain how the I.T. department did the above. Explain how the assistant principal didn't know of the capability while punishing the student for a picture taken in the students home using this very capability.
The capability was known and the invasion of privacy was just fine with the administration until the moment they got sued. If it weren't, the situation causing the lawsuit could never have happened in the first place.
This sentence no verb.
We do? ...or are you trying to tell us that you were one of the school district IT guys, so you know for sure?
so then everyone from the IT guys on up? Including the Governor, and state house/senate, and appointed school chairman? or? what about the whole teachers union(they are a union, one for all and all for one)?
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
The monitoring software is a commercial product, isn't it? Anyone know how much it costs? If the cost is non-trivial, it seems likely that someone reasonably high up in the school administration had to approve the purchase and therefore knew what it was for.
Are you just not familiar with the terms "access" and "control"? That was a ludicrous question that goes beyond hyperbolic. The Governor doesn't have access to school networks and resources unless given to him. It's not his job to do it, either. That's him out on both strikes. On a cursory use of logic, anyone involved with the decision to include the software originally, anyone involved in deploying it, and anyone with a user account capable of accessing that part of the network gets scrutiny. From there, you get to either add or remove people based on evidence.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Did the IT department decide on its own to install this monitoring software? No, the school administration did. Were the IT workers free to do whatever they wanted? No, they were required to perform jobs assigned by the school administration. Who suspended a student because the picture showed him taking drugs? Yup, the school administration.
Do we believe what the lawyers are saying? Of course not; they're paid to lie and their "you can't prove it" comment shows how they feel about the truth here. It's no surprise that the school administrators are worried - because they've jumped into the same pit as many other child molesters and kiddie porn vendors with both feet. They're even worse because their victims didn't even know they were being filmed.
Justice would require that their occupation and standing be disregarded and the mere facts of their crimes be considered: secretly installing video monitoring in the bedrooms of hundreds of minor children and using that equipment to take at least 60,000 pictures of those minors in various states of undress. These are serious crimes and the excuses they are offering are just the same sort of excuses other felons who have been caught would offer in their own defense. Considering the number of offenses, it would be multiple life sentences - if the law works the way it is supposed to.
You'd better believe that if one of us were secretly taking pictures of hundreds of minors they'd put us in prison and throw away the key. Let's see what happens when school administrators do that same thing. If they don't draw long prison sentences, I'd be asking loudly why not.