Slashdot Mirror
Minnesota Teen Wins Settlement After School Takes Facebook Password
schwit1 (797399) writes "A Minnesota school district has agreed to pay $70,000 to settle a lawsuit that claimed school officials violated a student's constitutional rights by viewing her Facebook and email accounts without permission. The lawsuit, filed in 2012 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, alleged that Riley Stratton, now 15, was given detention after posting disparaging comments about a teacher's aide on her Facebook page, even though she was at home and not using school computers. After a parent complained about the Facebook chat, the school called her in and demanded her password. With a sheriff deputy looking on, she complied, and they browsed her Facebook page in front of her, according to the report. 'It was believed the parent had given permission to look at her cellphone,' Minnewaska Superintendent Greg Schmidt said Tuesday. But Schmidt said the district did not have a signed consent from the parent. That is now a policy requirement, he said.'"
Asks schwit1, "How is this not a violation of the CFAA?"
It sounds like the school was violating Facebook's Terms of Service, too.
... apparently people are still using Facebook.
But what were these these "disparaging" comments exactly?
Probably something like "These administrators are total fascists."
Look at the districts reply: We searched her cell phone without permission. We won't do that again. Now we have a standard form requiring permission that all students must sign. WTF?! The problem was not a lack of parental signature. The problem was a flagrant abuse of rights, which apparently they are happy to continue.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
But what were these these "disparaging" comments exactly?
"You look like someone that would read Slashdot."
The summary said she gave them her password. That sounds like permission.
A 13 year old can't give permission.
Just like she can't give permission for the school to take her on a field trip or to go off campus for lunch, she can't give the school permission to invade her privacy. Only her parents can.
In some ways, this is really stupid. In other ways, it makes lots of sense. We shouldn't really trust most 13-15 year olds to make intelligent, informed decisions most of the time.
Actually demanding someone's password for any reason is the big picture here. It doesn't matter if she did it at home or at school.
The school should focus on what it's supposed to do, teach students. It shouldn't be policing the facebook pages of it's students.
"The summary said she gave them her password. That sounds like permission."
Authority figures pressuring a child constitutes duress, and consent given under duress isn't actually consent.
"The bigger problem here though is that the student actually thought that what she posted on facebook was somehow actually private."
No, the problems, in descending order of importance, are:
1. That this authority figure thought it was okay to do this.
2. That you don't recognize that that's the bigger problem.
And somewhere way, WAY down the list, the fact that a child did something naively.
> The summary said she gave them her password. That sounds like permission.
With a Sheriff right there looking over her shoulder? Sounds like permission in the same way Crimea gave Russia permission.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
It's not really permission if you are intimidated into doing it.
"The bigger problem here though is that the student actually thought that what she posted on facebook was somehow actually private. "
It's only viewably by her friends. Her friends may repeat it, but it's no different then telling something to a group of friends.
" Once you release something on the internet"
overly simplistic to the point of being meaningless. It really depends on many other details. My computer is ';on the internet' does that mean it doesn't have any privacy?
"particularly when you give that something to a for-profit company."
So your medical company can broadcast you medical information all over the world?
Learn to think complex thoughts, please.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The summary said she gave them her password. That sounds like permission.
No, she refused. Then they called the cops. The police officer and administrator together threatened her, and eventually (in tears) she gave in. Note the age of the child.
As she was not even a teenager at the time, that looks to me like very strong compulsion from authority figures. A normal pre-teen is not going to say "you cannot do this, it violates my rights, let me talk to my parents and a lawyer." Under this kind of pressure they'll believe the officer will throw her in jail forever, and break down.
For the measly $70K, I think I might have continued fighting it through to an actual judgement. That won't even begin to cover their costs to date, nor will it cover the costs of home-schooling for six years. In addition to suing the district, I'd be suing the school administrator personally, and be suing the officer personally for criminal acts done under color of law.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
> It sounds like the school was violating Facebook's Terms of Service, too.
Thats a felony under federal law now. Aaron Swartz was facing 15 years for something similar.
Oh, and the reason why we don't have a free democratic nation, and the reason why you don't see adults dissent, is because it is beaten out of us as children. We don't have a school system which produces free thinking citizens as adults.
We can pretend this is an isolated incident and not the trend of a large society.
This also demonstates the need to post either anonymously or pseudonymlsy. Its to prevent authority figures from fucking you
It disgusts me how school officials act like they are prison wardens and the children they care for treated as though they have no rights.
Between things like private information gathering on Facebook like this, to the webcam viewing scandal a few years ago, to the teacher forcing a student to strip, there seems to be a serious problem with the attitude being brought into schools by officials.
she can't give the school permission to invade her privacy
Especially when there are school officials and a cop hanging over her shoulder and threatening her. Not only was it not approved by parents, but it was coerced under threat.
Three reasons I'm guessing:
One: people who make rules like these are fond of the idea that they are infallible. Admitting a policy was wrong would force them to admit they CAN be wrong, at which point they assume the students will riot and burn schools to the ground.
Two: the people who made the policies aren't going to be changed, the groupthink that led them to that point hasn't changed, they still believe in the value of the policy and think that everyone else is just ignorant and misguided as to why the policy is so necessary.
Three: Probably some idiotic notion about limiting liability. "If we admit it was wrong, someone ELSE MIGHT SUE US!" No one applies this logic to actually changing the policy or is willing to admit it's the policy that caused the lawsuit of course. It seems to be a weird quirk of groupthink that it's good to be shitty people in a half-assed attempt to limit liability.
In some states, a 13 year old can give permission for themselves to have an abortion, without parental consent of any kind.
Coincidentally, Minnesota is one of them. However, the parents do have to be notified.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
... apparently people are still using Facebook.
Well, they were two years ago. From TFA:
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The Minneapolis StarTribune had this article and what troubled me was this passage:
"As part of the settlement, Minnewaska school policies now address electronic devices for the first time.
The new rules say electronic records and passwords created off-campus can only be searched if thereâ(TM)s a reasonable suspicion they will uncover violations of school rules. Enhanced teacher training was also part of the settlement."
What bothers me about this is that there seems to be this idea that there are "school rules" that can conceivable cover ANY off-campus behavior, actions or activities. The idea of "reasonable suspicion" as being the grounds for searching anything seems to just make this seem all the more egregious.
As far as I'm concerned, the power of a school administrator extends to the boundaries of the school campus and only off-campus to the extent that the students are participating in some school-organized event (ie, playing school sports off-site or being on a field trip). You can't just say that because someone is a student in a school that you can create rules that extend past the schoolhouse door and empower you to utilize coercive force (police power) to enforce them.
I'm sure much of this thinking has been driven by the motivation to cut underage drinking by making it a violation of school policies and thus eliminating eligibility for sports or activities.
It disgusts me how school officials act like they are prison wardens and the children they care for treated as though they have no rights.
It potentially teaches one very important life lesson: those with power and authority are never to be trusted. But that requires a little thought and reflection that sadly only a few are likely to perform by this time this particular meat-grinder is through with them.
Between things like private information gathering on Facebook like this, to the webcam viewing scandal a few years ago, to the teacher forcing a student to strip, there seems to be a serious problem with the attitude being brought into schools by officials.
If you think about it, you realize that this problem is too widespread and too systematic, too uniform to be the result of a few isolated bad actors. It's intentional and it's planned. The goal is, if you teach (by repeated, reinforced example) children from a young age that they have no rights and authority is absolute, they will grow into adults who expect other authorities in government to be the same way.
Oh if you want a fascinating exercise, go look up precisely why schools use bells. It's a tactic that is called psychological warfare in any other context. At the time that it was set up, Dewey and others were quite open about its purpose. Who needs a smoky back-room conspiracy when you can have selling points?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Actually the big picture here is why any mandatory state-run program thinks they have the right to silence dissent. The anti-constitutional means are only evidence of the Orwellian ends.
This entire scenario is no less frightening than if you were told by a sherrif that you must provide your Facebook password so that they could investigate the fact that you used the site to bitch about the DMV. Or posted that you disliked the voting record of your Congressmen. Or that you thought that the Presidential foreign policy was a joke.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Two: the people who made the policies aren't going to be changed, the groupthink that led them to that point hasn't changed, they still believe in the value of the policy and think that everyone else is just ignorant and misguided as to why the policy is so necessary.
You remember how we've heard for years and years that our schools need more money? Well, they got it and they continue to get it. Do you know where that money went? Not to hire teachers and buy textbooks and computers ... no. For the most part, it went to hire more administrative staff.
Much of schooling is a jobs project as illustrated by Jon Taylor Gatto. You now have lots of administrators who feel a need to justify the existence of their jobs. So, of course idiotic policies (especially "zero tolerance") will be deemed necessary. Like most problems society has, It was a predictable outcome.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
In which case he should have a warrent right?
and the parents / legal guardian should have been there.
There is a concept of "Tortious interference with contract rights". If you are aware that a contract is in place, and convince someone to break the terms of the contract you can be held liable. And the standard of proof is a lot lower than criminal law.
It's pretty unlikely that the school was completely unaware there were terms and conditions, and they really should have considered the possibility they were in breach of these terms.
The school started a relationship with Facebook the moment they knowingly logged in with somebody else's credentials.
Credentials gained under duress, in case anybody says 'but she handed them over!'
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
For the most part, it went to hire more administrative staff.
Citation needed on that.
Citation.
Citation.
Citation.
The Principal and the School District did not violate the ToS. The student did. Twice. First, by being underage, and then by allowing someone else to know her password. The second one was clearly under duress, so she could probably argue her way out of that one if the Facebook Police come after her. And the first one, they don't care about because all they care about is dollars, but they put the age requirement on there so they can have the appearance of pretending to care about the children.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.