Slashdot Mirror
Feds Won't File Charges In School Laptop-Spy Case
jamie writes "Federal prosecutors have decided not to file charges against a Philadelphia school district or its employees over the use of software to remotely monitor students. From the article: 'US Attorney Zane David Memeger says investigators have found no evidence of criminal intent by Lower Merion School District employees who activated tracking software that took thousands of webcam and screenshot images on school-provided laptops.'"
Do you know what the word 'aural' means? If not, here it is: of or relating to the ear.
Actually, in all fairness yes that is what I originally assumed it meant as well, being as that is the English definition of the word and all.
I was pretty shocked to see the courts decide time and time again that digital communications also falls under wire communications and wiretapping, although the shocked part was how many times the trial outcomes bounced back and forth on when interception of digital information did and did not require warrants and fall under existing wiretap rules and limitations.
The story at hand is another one of those that seems to reverse the past few years of case law.
I tried a quick Google but most case results that turn up are PDF links which is fairly annoying.
A lot of law was set with the FBI carnivore tapping in this matter, which is a good keyword to search on.
Both "internet wiretapping" and "electronic wiretapping" turn up a bunch of results too, although the latter has a whole ton of unrelated fluff mixed in.
I'm not going to pretend to understand the reasoning behind why some of our laws are the way they are, or even what is currently law or not down to those details. All I remember is the outcome of various trials that sparked my interest, and one consistent theme for awhile now is digital communications are included in wiretapping laws, ever since the telephone lost its status as the major and most advanced communications system available.
Why some cases like this one jump back to being legal with no good explanation is beyond me.
But limited to voice communications it is decidedly not.