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.'"
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!
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?
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.
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.
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"
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
They took 56,000 pictures of minors in their bedrooms and watched them for fun out of incompetence or stupidity??!!?!
Taken from this source
Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
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.)
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.