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.'"
Of course the Fed won't prosecute them. After all, it'd just be hypocritical if they went after a bunch of perverted quasi-Orwellian miscreants for doing, on a much smaller scale, the same kind of espionage the Fed directs against its own citizens on a daily basis.
good lesson to teach the next generation: we will spy on you - sit down and shut the fuck up.
Just because the feds won't file charges doesn't mean the students themselves or the local DA or state AG can't file civil or criminal charges.
This really sets a horrendous precedent, as it gives school officials the ability to use such invasive and insane actions to spy on kids.
Amazing that the government's "think of the children" response to everything else unrelated isn't being applied to one of the few cases where it actually should be.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Well, they couldn't spin it as a Pedo Teacher thing, so they decided it wasn't worth it. You know, "think of the children..."
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Before everyone gets outraged, the fact that the fed won't file charges on it doesn't mean the case is dropped. In fact, I think that the fact that the feds aren't filing charges is really the right thing to do, the goal wasn't criminal, its a civil matter and thus should be settled in civil court with such charges of fraud, breach of contract, etc.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
U.S. Attorney Zane David Memeger says investigators have found no evidence of criminal intent...
So, when the speed limit changes from a 55 to a 35 MPH zone in 100 feet and I didn't see the sign, does that mean I don't get a ticket because I didn't intend to commit a crime?
A student and his family sued the district in February, claiming officials invaded his privacy by activating the software. That case continues.
But still, it really grinds my gears that this whole thing isn't explicitly illegal. The fact that it's legal for the school district to take thousands of screenshots of unsuspecting children is really pretty upsetting.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
since when was there a need to prove "criminal intent" before prosecuting someone?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Never attribute to Evil what can be explained by stupidity (or incompetence)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Oh no! Duct tape, electrical tape or pink duct tape on the built in webcam! Problem solved!
If you had been following the case you would know that students were expressly forbidden to put tape over the camera. They would have been punished had they done it.
Since it seems you were on vacation in LaLa land when the story this is about broke, let me be informative for you:
Yes. The school activated the webcam in the laptops, when they were in student's homes. They did NOT deactivate the webcams when they discovered this fact. Instead, they continued to perform surveylence of the students, and even attempted to expel a student for "Inappropriate Conduct" involving eating Mike & Ike candies at his kitchen table. (School officials though the ginormous red candies were drugs.)
It is a continuing problem with school officials (exacerbated by individuals like yourself who keep offering more surveylence powers and additional "outside the school" powers to public educators and their administration, rather than halting the slide down the slippery slope like everyone else wants.), in that they invoke their government granted powers of coersion^V^V^V "disciplinary discretion" in circumstances and venues far removed from the schoolyard and classrooms. For instance, a student can be expelled for being seen in his own yard, punching another kid, for "Fighting", if he is seen by a school administrator. This could be MILES away from a school zone. I have had school administrators brag to me about this before.
Granted, I will agree with you that "When on school grounds, in a school building, in a classroom, Students should be doing School Work, and not looking at/posting pics of boobs on facebook using school equipment." However, the power to effectively enforce that does NOT require any sort of additional "Off grounds" powers, and any extension of such powers to administrators is an open invitation for abuse, given the total lack of arbitration or appeal processes available to students of public schools. (which creates a situation rife with abuse, in which students literally can do nothing about pathalogically officious school administrators. It is NOT a myth, they DO exist. EVERY school has them, and for this very reason.)
Back to the issue of the student photographed eating Mike & Ikes at his own kitchen table; The authoritarian school system tried to expell him, and when evidence of secret "in the student's own home" surveylence came out, an inquiry was launched which turned up evidence that many other students had been similarly imaged by the project, and confiscated emails of school officials showed that they thought this "In the home" surveylence was "A good thing", "like our own soap opera."
Next time, THINK before you support extention of powers and authority to an already notoriously corrupt/incompetent system, like our public school admin.
Terry Childs didn't have any criminal intent either, and he caused a lot less harm. Look where that got him... I no longer have any faith in the "justice" system.
Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
don't you feel that you are living in an increasingly a police state, where the cops' and generally the government actions are always above the law and justified and the citizens actions are more and more criminalized?
You can't handle the truth.
The students did detect this. They saw the light blinking on and off, and reported it. These claims were dismissed as something wrong with the light. Of course, the fact that the claims were dismissed by the very group of people who could be taking the pictures should have made it seem a bit suspicious...
Recording children in their rooms without anyone's consent:
Not wiretapping
Recording the police on the job in a traffic stop at a public location:
Wiretapping
Source: http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=102616&catid=187
If it had been an ordinary IT clerk, instead of a school system's policy, they would have faced serious prosecution, no ifs, ands, or buts. (except the kind on film..)
That's a really good way of looking at it. If one person had done this alone (like one of the school district's IT staff for instance) without any approval and it was discovered, he would have been hung out to dry. Even if he legitimately had no criminal intent. Even if he didn't necessarily capture any images which might be illegal. He would at the very least have lost his job, would likely be in prison, and would probably have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
Talk about a double standard.
This would really harm the students and the county as a hole.
You know what? It sounds like your county already is a hole. I certainly won't be moving there, and I don't even have kids.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The students did detect this. They saw the light blinking on and off, and reported it. These claims were dismissed as something wrong with the light. Of course, the fact that the claims were dismissed by the very group of people who could be taking the pictures should have made it seem a bit suspicious...
Not to mention the fact that would have been a heck of a lot of laptops with the exact same "malfunction."
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Taken from this source
Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
Congratulations. Your school board has taught children that there is a double standard. One law for the citizens. And a different law for anyone who works for the government.
That's something they should learn early. It will prepare them better for life.
Just think: If they didn't get lessons like this they might believe in all that "Constitution" and "Equal Protection" stuff. They might even get angry and join tinfoil-hat wingnuts like the Tea Party movement, and try to throw out government officials with a more realistic understanding of how politics works.
Horrors!
B-b
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If you had been following the case you would know that students were expressly forbidden to put tape over the camera. They would have been punished had they done it.
Hmmm ... That's something that I don't recall ever reading in the copious coverage of this case. If true, I'd think it would imply that the school officials had the intent of using the cameras so spy on the students. But is this actually true?
I've always routinely taped over anything that looks like a camera lens in any computer or other electronic gadget that I'm working on, and remove the tape during brief periods when I actually use the camera. So far, nobody has ever questioned this.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
The families in the school district.
If the families sue the district then there is less money to go into the class room. Taxes must be raised to properly educate the children. If the families sue individuals the individuals will just be reimbursed by the district or the district's insurance company. Once again class-room money is drained away and taxes must be raised to replace it.
Unless individuals can be sued and barred from getting any reimbursement.
What one generation accepts... ...The NEXT generation embraces.
Because all of us here on the internet (the younger generations) are accepting of the majority of now middle-aged Americans that support monitoring of the internet, support outlawing gay marriage, support a zero-tolerance war on drugs, etc...
And on that note, just as how all the hippies of the 1970's were totally acceptant of the rules imposed on them by the post-WWII generation and the big federal government...
Not quite sure whether the prosecutor was using the laymen definition or legal definition of criminal intent, the article is sparse and the prosecutor was smart enough to use an ambiguous term. The laymen definition of criminal intent is something like wanting to do something evil, or wanting to commit some sort of crime. The legal definition (in Canada, but should be similar in US) of criminal intent (or mens rea) is simply that you intended to do (or should have known that your actions would lead to you doing) whatever it is that is prohibited by law. Notice that you don't need to know that you are doing something against the law, you just need to know (or should know) you are doing that thing, which as an objective fact happens to be against the law. In this case, the question shouldn't be whether or not they had some evil ends in mind when they spied on the children, but it should rather be whether or not they intended to spy on or knew that their actions would lead to spying on the children.
In your example, the question is not whether you are intending to break the law by going 55mph in a 35mph zone, the question is simply whether you intended to go 55mph (while you were in a 35mph zone, but you don't need to know that fact to have mens rea). This excuses cases like accelerator malfunctions where you're going 55mph as a result partially because of your actions (you stepped on the accelerator) but didn't know or couldn't have known that your action would result in going 55mph (since you couldn't have known about your car's malfunction).
The parents have no legal ability to do so. Only attorneys of the state and federal government district attorneys offices have the ability to press criminal charges.
A private person cannot personally press criminal charges, nor can a private person hire an attorney to press criminal charges.
This is what allows the entire concept of a plea bargain to exist.
The federal or state prosecutor's office with jurisdiction has the sole authority to decide whether charges will be pressed or not.
If private people could press charges, there wouldn't be plea bargains, since "someone else" might decide to chime in and press the charges again. Thus the "bargain" would not be a bargain at all.
Murderers or Bandits caught by police could pay people under the table to prosecute them and do a slipshod job... since due to the constitution 5th amendment, noone can be twice put under jeapordy of life and limb.
http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Murder-During-the-Commission-of-a-Felony.html
Felony Murder Rule
Most forms of murder require an intent to commit death. Felony murder only requires the intent to commit the felony. During the course of the felony, any homicide will be considered murder, whether it's intentional or accidental. This is called the felony murder rule.
Under the felony murder rule, all participants of a felony can be charged with murder if a homicide occurs. This is true even if a participant isn't directly responsible for the death. For example, the driver of a getaway car can be charged with felony murder if his partner accidently shoots someone while attempting to rob a bank. The purpose for the felony murder rule is to deter people from engaging in felonies knowing that they can be liable for the actions of their partners.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I feel my original post should be modded up Funny, even though it's not very funny, on the basis that it created many funny replies. They are infringing on the funny I never actually created but intended to create in due time. It was my idea first, and the funny is not fair-use.
Wait the federal government won't prosecute a bunch of union, jack boot gestapo perverts from the Teacher's Union? No really? In Philly? Why piss off your largest voting block? Makes perfect sense. I don't know about Philly but the first question to ask is "Is this DA elected and did he have the teacher's union endorsement?"
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
And if were to display similar astoundingly bad judgment, I'd be in jail. As has been said already, the criminal intent was the intent to spy on the kids, whether or not the administration realized it was illegal to do so.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?