Feds Won't File Charges In School Laptop-Spy Case

Ho hum by schmidt349 · 2010-08-17 12:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

land of the free, eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-17 12:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

good lesson to teach the next generation: we will spy on you - sit down and shut the fuck up.

Re:land of the free, eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-17 13:33 · Score: 3, Funny

Why do you support the terrorists? Constant monitoring is the only way we can be safe!

Just because... by eggman9713 · 2010-08-17 12:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Just because... by pclminion · 2010-08-17 13:20 · Score: 4, Informative

No -- in the USA, only a prosecutor can file criminal charges. People sometimes say here, "I'm going to press charges," but that really just means cooperating with a prosecutor or attorney general. If your father punches you in a drunken fight, and you tell the cops you don't want to file charges, you better hope they want to cooperate... They can charge, or not charge, whoever they want. You have no control over it.
Re:Just because... by Toonol · 2010-08-17 20:29 · Score: 4, Informative

From the thirteen year old girl's testimony: After polanski had fed her champagne and a quaalude, the victim testified that Polanski told her to go into a nearby bedroom and lie down.

A: I was going, 'No, I think I better go home,' because I was afraid. So I just went and I sat down on the couch.
Q: What were you afraid of?
A: Him.
(a few minutes later)
A: He sat down beside me and asked me if I was OK.
Q: What did you say, if anything?
A: I said, 'No.'
Q: What did he say?
A: He goes, 'Well, you'll be better.' And I go, 'No, I won't. I have to go home.'
Q: What happened then?
A: He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, 'No,' you know, 'Keep away.'

After Polanski kissed her, the victim alleged, he began to engage in oral sex.
A: ... I was ready to cry. I was kind of -- I was going, 'No. Come on. Stop it.' But I was afraid.
Q: And what did he say, if anything?
A: He wasn't saying anything that I can remember. He was -- sometimes he was saying stuff, but I was just blocking him out, you know.

The victim testified that Polanski began having sex with her, but sodomized her when he learned she wasn't using birth control.
A: He asked, he goes, 'Are you on the pill?' And I went, 'No.' And he goes, 'When did you last have your period?' And I said, I don't know. A week or two. I'm not sure.'
Q: And what did he say?
A: He goes, 'Come on. You have to remember.' And I told him I didn't.
Q: Did he say anything after that?
A: Yes. He goes, 'Would you want me to go through your back? And I went, 'No.'

The victim testified that after the sex, she got dressed and waited in the car for Polanski to drive her home. Before driving her home, he asked her to keep the incident a secret.
A: He said to me, he goes, 'Oh, don't tell your mother about this.' ...
Q: What did you say?
A: I wasn't saying anything. He says, 'Don't tell your mother about this and don't tell your boyfriend either.' ... He said something like, 'This is our secret.' And I went, 'Yeah.' And then later he said, 'You know, when I first met you I promised myself I wouldn't do anything like this with you.'

There's a damn good reason that we don't always let victims drop charges. It could result in people who DRUG AND ANALLY RAPE THIRTEEN YEAR OLD GIRLS getting off without being punished.

Anyway, now you know that your description of what happened is wrong, and so I hope you're intellectually honest enough to never portray Polanski in that favorable of a light again.

A Horrendous Precedent by RobertM1968 · 2010-08-17 12:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!

Re:A Horrendous Precedent by KahabutDieDrake · 2010-08-17 12:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

It really doesn't set a precedent of any kind. First off, there may still be local criminal filings, and almost certainly a civil suit. If I had kids in that school, you can fucking well bet I'd be talking to a lawyer. I'd be suing for anything and everything, and I'd also be lobbying the school board, and or local parents to replace the entire school board, and then replace the entire administration and staff that were privy to this.

Intent or not, this was a serious breach of privacy. It's also potentially a violation of any number of anti-spying laws. Is it actually legal for a school to install a video camera in my home? If it is, maybe it's time to change the law. If it isn't, why aren't these people being put before a judge? This entire thing reeks. School administrations have gotten just a little out of control lately, and it's about time we smack them back into line. Since we aren't supposed to take someone out behind the gym and beat sense into them anymore, that leaves the political, or legal avenues. The Fed declining to prosecute doesn't constitute an end to the legal front.
Re:A Horrendous Precedent by Alex+Belits · 2010-08-17 12:46 · Score: 5, Funny

could get monitory compensation
I have no words.

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Re:A Horrendous Precedent by sconeu · 2010-08-17 13:01 · Score: 4, Funny

It's a perfectly cromulent usage. He's getting compensated for being monitored!

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:A Horrendous Precedent by PPH · 2010-08-17 13:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Which is why our system of prosecutorial discretion needs to be overhauled. It undermines the concept of equal protection under the law.
While all are ensured equitable and fair treatment in court, the odds of their ever coming to trial is totally dependant on the whim of the prosecutor. And eventually the majority that elected him/her to office. Which is something that our Constitution and Bill of Rights is supposed to protect us from.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Not a Pedo Thing by Frosty+Piss · 2010-08-17 12:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

criminal intent? by flabbergast · 2010-08-17 12:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

Re:criminal intent? by cyber-dragon.net · 2010-08-17 12:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is very much illegal. It violates so many laws it isn't even funny.
If even one of those pictures caught a kid with their shirt off for example, they just created kiddy porn.

Seriously... Criminal Intent? by jpapon · 2010-08-17 12:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

The case isn't dropped completely, and for that I'm glad:

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

"Intent"? by v1 · 2010-08-17 12:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

since when was there a need to prove "criminal intent" before prosecuting someone?

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.

Re:"Intent"? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-17 12:46 · Score: 5, Informative

since when was there a need to prove "criminal intent" before prosecuting someone?
Always. Criminal guilt carries to elements:
Actus reus = the guilty act
Mens rea = the guilty mind
This is why "insanity" is a valid defense (there is no guilty mind) and why we don't put children or animals in jail (they are amoral, and cant have a guilty mind).
There are crimes that dont require mens rea (called "strict liability") but they are usually either minor offenses, or when the actor is taking one some obviously large risk that requires a very high standard of care (like when transporting hazardous waste). ... or statutory rape.
Re:"Intent"? by cappp · 2010-08-17 12:46 · Score: 5, Informative

Some crimes require mens rae which is criminal intent. Others are Strict Liability - think statuatory rape - meaning that intent doesn't matter. In both cases there exists Prosecutorial Discretion which does what it says on the box - lets prosecutors chose whether or not to go after a defendant.

So there's been no judgment as to the actual legality of the issues at question, the prosecutor has just decided not to bring suit. In some situations that seems to be the fairer idea - 18yr old having sex with her 17yr old long term partnet being the most cited example - but there's obviously room for a lot of unfairness.
Re:"Intent"? by Martin+Blank · 2010-08-17 14:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

I would question that someone 'knew' that their actions would cause harm to others.
The standard is usually "knew or should have known" -- you may not have known that the car was in gear before you tried to scare your friend by revving the engine as he walked in front of you, but you had the opportunity to check and should have done so prior to revving the engine.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:"Intent"? by CodeBuster · 2010-08-17 14:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

but there's obviously room for a lot of unfairness.
More it seems than most people are willing to say. The wealthy, the powerful, the famous and the politically well connected or their clients always seem to find themselves treated differently, some would say more deferentially, than the common man. It has been this way for as long as there has been courts and recorded history. The best that we ordinary people can do is withhold our votes for those who promise to ever tougher laws because it is invariably the ordinary man who invariably suffers most when these new rules are applied with ruthless zeal by prosecutors seeking to advance political careers regardless of the human cost. Indeed, the present situation here in the United States is enough to convert even the most optimistic citizen into an ardent student of Machiavelli.
Re:"Intent"? by EvanED · 2010-08-17 14:46 · Score: 5, Informative

While intent and motive can go a long way in helping to prove guilt, neither are by no means necessary. I can commit a crime (and get convicted) without ever intending to have commuted it.
That's true, but not nearly as true as you make it sound. There are two reasons that you'd be convicted:
1) The crime is what's called a "strict liability" crime -- this is one that doesn't require intent. However, most crimes are not strict liability -- more on that in a sec.
2) The jury didn't believe that you didn't have intent. This is much more likely.
IANAL, but I have done a bit of reading of some legal stuff (it was a side interest of mine back as an undergrad). The lawyerfolk will talk about two aspects to crimes -- the "actus reus" ("guilty act") and the "mens rea" ("guilty mind"). The actus reus is the actual thing you did -- punch someone, shoplift a CD, or wiretap. The mens rea describes your state of mind. This is where, say, a negligent homicide differs from a murder. The actus reus is the same in each case, but what matters is your intent.
Most crimes require that you have a substantial amount of intent -- you either "purposely" or "knowingly" carry out the act. Some crimes have a lower burden -- you either "recklessly" or "negligently" carry out the action. There really aren't that many crimes that have no mens rea requirement (the "strict liability" crimes, as mentioned above).
To go to the shoplifting example, let's say you have a backpack/bag/etc you're carrying around. If you accidentally knock a CD into your bag, see it's there, and think "oh, I can walk out with that", you're committing theft because you're knowingly walking out the door with it. If you accidentally knock a CD into your bag, don't notice it, and walk out the door, you're not committing theft because the mens rea isn't there. Whether a jury would buy your excuse that you didn't know it was there is another matter entierly.
(Similarly, "inchoate" crimes -- attempt and conspiracy mostly -- are somewhat the opposite of strict liability crimes. There the offense is almost all the mens rea, and you needn't have committed the actus reus yet. That is a bit of a lie, because you need to have done something concrete, even for inchoate crimes.)
Re:"Intent"? by EvanED · 2010-08-17 15:01 · Score: 4, Informative

Yes, but doesn't the law also have some concept of "sufficiently advance stupidity is indistinguishable from intent"? Like if I go around shooting out car windows and accidentally pick one with a person in it and kill them, I can be charged with murder or manslaughter, despite the fact that I did not *intend* to kill anyone, just vandalize cars.
There is this level of sanity in the legal system, right?
Yes and no. There is not any general concept of "sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from intent", however many specific acts have multiple distinct offenses with differing mens rea requirements.
To use your example of homicide, there are of course several grades. A typical one might have first degree murder, second degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter. First degree murder would be reserved if you had premeditated your killing -- going around shooting in random car windows would not count. (The "pre" part of "premeditation" doesn't have to be long at all, just for clarification. Doesn't mean you have to have slept on the decision, just that you had time to think about it a little.) Much more likely you'd find yourself charged with second degree murder. That typically has wording like you killed someone "with reckless indifference to the value of human life" -- for instance shooting a gun at cars in the streets in your town. Possibly you'd find yourself charged with manslaughter, which has an even lesser mens rea requirement, usually "plain" recklessness.
So you don't always need specific intent in order to commit a crime, and things like recklessness and negligence sometimes can count, but they don't by default. The offenses are specifically written to use those lower standards, and will have a lower grade than what is basically the same offense with a higher amount of culpability.
Re:"Intent"? by Martin+Blank · 2010-08-17 15:28 · Score: 5, Informative

Deleting child porn can be construed as knowingly destroying evidence of a crime. I can't speak for amusement parks or the legalities of what they may or may not do, but I know that deleting such images without a really strong backing is asking for trouble.
This is one of the things that's dealt with in network security, particularly incident management, and words are rarely minced when it is brought up. Work in the field long enough, and the chances are high that you'll stumble across it. (I've been fortunate not to have done so, but others I know have not been so lucky.) Upon finding it, the first thing that you do is call legal counsel. The second thing is get in touch with law enforcement (probably through your legal counsel).
In most cases, all investigation stops until they show up, because merely viewing them may be construed as a crime. You did not take, store, nor send them, but you did open the file(s), and opening other files where you've already found child porn means that you know or should know that there's a high likelihood that there are others. In the meantime, you don't show anyone else, call anyone over to verify, and you don't move, copy, or save them anywhere else, and you absolutely do not delete them. You just take notes, and wait for your attorney(s) and the guys with guns to show up.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:"Intent"? by delinear · 2010-08-17 21:07 · Score: 3, Informative

That is true, but "guilty mind" is misleading - it doesn't necessarily mean that you had to intend a crime, just that you intended the action. For instance, if you were completely unaware that murder was a crime and you purposely shoot someone with the intent to kill, even though you didn't intend a crime you are still guilty of both the act and the intent.
Furthermore, while the court has to find you guilty beyond reasonable doubt for criminal convictions, it can use the "reasonable man" (i.e. on the balance of probabilities what would the reasonable man have thought or done) in establishing mens rea - therefore even if these officials didn't intend to break the law, breaking the law was an obvious outcome of their actions and the reasonable man would have recognised that before acting. I don't see any issue with proving guilt on both parts here, I guess "think of the children" only applies when it's being used to force through unpopular security theatre, not when it's being used as a defence against it.

No Criminal Intent by Greyfox · 2010-08-17 12:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?

Re:No Criminal Intent by Ossifer · 2010-08-17 13:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

They took 56,000 pictures of minors in their bedrooms and watched them for fun out of incompetence or stupidity??!!?!

Re:So preventable by vux984 · 2010-08-17 12:40 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

Re:Before everyone gets outraged... by Charliemopps · 2010-08-17 12:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. I had a federal judge tell me that once. Guess it's just unlucky for me I don't work for the government.

Terry Childs also didn't have any criminal intent by Darth+Muffin · 2010-08-17 12:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

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"

increasingly a police state by roman_mir · 2010-08-17 12:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:Very stupid question, but... by Ziktar · 2010-08-17 13:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

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...

So lets get some things straight... by mykos · 2010-08-17 13:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:So lets get some things straight... by Attila+Dimedici · 2010-08-17 15:03 · Score: 4, Informative

First of all this article is about federal law, the wiretapping law cases you are referencing are about state laws. Additionally, you are wrong, Pennsylvania judges have consistently ruled that recording the police in the performance of their duty is not a violation of Pennsylvania's wiretapping law (which is an all parties consent law), since the police do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are on duty (one of the deciding factors in whether or not you need someone's consent to record them under PA law).
We have yet to see what decision will be made by the various state prosecutors on this case. If this case was in Maryland on the other hand there is reason to believe you would be correct.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison

Re:Since when does "Letter of the law" need intent by AhabTheArab · 2010-08-17 13:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Very stupid question, but... by ScrewMaster · 2010-08-17 13:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Maybe they could. by MokuMokuRyoushi · 2010-08-17 13:29 · Score: 5, Informative

In fact, I believe that's what they originally intended to file the lawsuit for.

The Associated Press reports that the lawsuit alleges that the cameras captured images of Harriton High School students and their families as they undressed and in other compromising situations.

Taken from this source

--
Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.

What one generation accepts... by MasaMuneCyrus · 2010-08-17 13:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

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...

Re:What one generation accepts... by Golddess · 2010-08-17 15:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Yeah, I really love all those changes that occurred once the young adults of that era grew up and took charge of this nation.

--
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-

Re:Couldn't the parents file charges? by mysidia · 2010-08-17 14:30 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

and the reverse can be true by way2trivial · 2010-08-17 15:25 · Score: 4, Informative

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

Re:and the reverse can be true by elrous0 · 2010-08-18 02:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
That always has struck me as unfair, and even downright bizarre. I'm all for deterring crime and punishing criminals. But punishing someone for a crime they didn't commit themselves (or, for that matter, that they might not even be AWARE was committed) is just outlandish. IMHO, only the trigger person(s) should be charged with actual murder. In a robbery type situation, his fellow robbers could be charged with "accessory to murder," "armed robbery," etc. But the idea of charging someone with murder who might have never laid a finger on anyone in his life, who walked into a bank thinking his partner was just going to rob it, or who might have been sitting in the getaway car outside unaware that anyone had even been killed...that's just bizarre.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Re:In Soviet Russia Secondary School by mark72005 · 2010-08-17 16:11 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

Union by kenp2002 · 2010-08-17 23:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

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? ]=-

Slashdot Mirror

Feds Won't File Charges In School Laptop-Spy Case

43 of 398 comments (clear)