schools as big brother in the wrong in the worst possible way...

[acroyear]

School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home Boing Boing:

According to the filings in Blake J Robbins v Lower Merion School District (PA) et al, the laptops issued to high-school students in the well-heeled Philly suburb have webcams that can be covertly activated by the schools' administrators, who have used this facility to spy on students and even their families. The issue came to light when the Robbins's child was disciplined for "improper behavior in his home" and the Vice Principal used a photo taken by the webcam as evidence. The suit is a class action, brought on behalf of all students issued with these machines.

hey, who needs that pesky 4th amendment anyways...

for good measure, I want the administrators under arrest for facilitating child porn, 'cause if a laptop can take a picture of a clothed student on demand to be examined, there's no reason it couldn't take a picture of a nude one.

Comments

[stori-lundi.livejournal.com]

This story really burned my cookies. How utterly irresponsible of those admins.

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

At some point, behind closed doors, you know someone is going to have yelled at them very loudly:

"WHAT. WERE. YOU. THINKING?"

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Behind closed doors? Or from the rooftops?

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

I'm a firm believer in proper office etiquette.

[cozit.livejournal.com]

Oh, so wishing that the whole story was put out there first, rather than the suit only, along with the kid making himself well known. Yeah, the school screwed up... but... if you look at the information that was released a day or two after the first news went out, another story shows up (though again, not everything was spelled, out.. so yeah, it could have been misused entirely).

The basics reported are that the computers were (the feature has since been disabled) equipped with the ability to grab the IP address and take one photo when a computer is opened. The school district has put out a statement that the only time that feature was ever to have been used, and it implied that the only time it *had* been used, was to assist in locating computers that had been reported as missing or stolen, including loaner computers that were not returned a the end of the school day.

What I've seen hasn't spelled out that that particular computer was definitely activated for that reason... I'll admit to curiosity about that, too. I also didn't see in *any* of the articles, or in the school district's statement that the computer had actually been activated remotely (just that it was possible)... it *could* have been activated by the kid... and then downloaded to the school when it went back to campus. In which case, the school was perfectly within its rights to have seen the pictures.

All students and parents signed papers when given the computers that included the fact that any files on the computer *would* be transferred to the main storage, and that they could be reviewed by staff - and that they were intended solely for schoolwork (yeah, yeah... I'll admit that most teachers I know put music and pictures on their computer that aren't related to work... then again, they don't download that to the school system - not enough storage space :-)

The picture taken? Apparently was interpreted by the VP as the kid passing drugs to someone else. Nope, school didn't say squat about that - the kids parents did, when they said it had been misinterpreted, and that the kid was handing over something mundane (eraser, IIRC... I read that article last week).

The articles I've seen (and a few whispers from that area) show that there are students, parents, and teachers who support the school district's side - especially as they've disabled the one feature... and have stated that they will not re-institute its use at least until a more thorough loan agreement can be created by their legal folks, that includes that possible use and the conditions under which it might be done.

Some students had already put masking tape over their webcams, having heard of the light occasionally coming on (almost always "someone else")

What happened in this case? Good or bad? Personally, given what I've read (and heard from a couple people in the area), I'm thinking it's more like grey... and that's not even taking into consideration the background and recent actions of the kid instigating the whole thing.

Of course if there was no "looking for a specific missing computer" thing happening at the time, I hope that the tech involved who triggered the camera/locator program gets charges placed.

(and... LM happens to be the Township/School District that everyone in *my* school district grew up loving to hate... longest public high school rivalry in the country... I admit to being horribly amused when they screw up in general. But I also really hate it when reporters take half a story and run with it - without getting all the facts they can, first)

*After* the courts get everything laid out, my opinion of the whole thing might change (as I said, it all depends)... but meanwhile, "guilty until proven innocent" isn't the way I've ever read it *should* be.

get back to the big picture, please

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

that rules over ALL. this document is sacrosanct, especially this sentence, or else it all might as well not exist. they had the ability, they used it, we ALL lose. it never should have been possible in the first place. NEVER.

that is why i don't care if the kid even was breaking rules or laws. they NEVER should have looked, and never should have had the ability to look.

Re: get back to the big picture, please

[cozit.livejournal.com]

OK, true. Sorry, the fact that the media hopped on before finding out the facts, just theaccusations bugs me so much.. and that several others have hopped onto the guilty until prven otherwise had me leave two bits out of that rant this time.

One, that I *still* haven't seen either side say anything about how the picture was obtained. }f the kid was the one to snap it, then someone at the school saw it on a routine look through files kept on the server (I have looked through files to find missing pieces of assignments at schools, to raise grades, myself)... *then* that would have been a proper way of finding the picture, because all students and parents were informed that all files stored to the schools' computers and servers were open to the school personal.

The other is that I also believe that the location of the computers wasn't done properly. Trigger an IP address grab, sure... but if it showed other than the school's location, the police should have been brought in, along with a search warrant. Not only to avoid the invasion of privacy issue, but also to assure that any such information gathered would be usable in court, if necessary.

Oddly enough, that last bit would still be necessary, even if they added the awareness of that feature into the forms signed at the beginning of the equipment loan. Which also makes the use of the same programming (that exists for both Apple and Microsoft) by other computer owners/companies something that should be of greater interest to the muckrakers than the way the LM suit info was laid out as a "look at the horrible thing this school did to this kid" story. Much bigger story, and of far more importance to far more people than this particular incident on its own. As of last Monday, *that* particular slant only showed up in one of the 6 articles I read on it.

Re: get back to the big picture, please

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

"Discovery" - if the evidence to support the warrant itself came from an illegal 4th amendment violation (as in, they saw it on the computer in the kids house, then told the police using that as evidence for probable cause in order to get the warrant), it is still inadmissible in court and a gross violation.

Anything that could only have been found as a result of what was discovered via an unconstitutional search or seizure is itself inadmissible.

Re: get back to the big picture, please

[cozit.livejournal.com]

Sorry, you mistake what I meant in that last bit. Using the IP address grabber to obtain general location information, I'd think they'd be permitted to do. But *before* using the camera for location information outside the school campuses (there it should be OK), they should have involved the police.... even if the families had given their OK, it might be that one time that it wasn't a missing computer, but actually stolen, and without that police *and* warrant (the general location where it shouldn't be should be of use for obtaining that) the camera shouldn't be triggered.

But as far as that particular picture goes, *if* it showed what it was originally thought to have shown, *and* it had not been triggered by the school system, but by either the student or the other person in the room/picture... but then seen and obtained by the school when the computer did its automatic back-up to the computer... *then* it would have been a legally obtained photograph, as all students/families were made aware, in advance, that the contents of their computers were visible to anyone with access to the servers.

Again, I've yet to see how that particular picture was obtained. It's been implied that it was a school district grab, but that has not been stated outright, anywhere that I've seen, yet (and it's been explicitly stated that only ... I think it was two... district techs had the capability to trigger a grab - the vice principal involved did not have that ability, according to the official school district statements... so even some of the accusations against him would fall flat - though obviously not his use of the photo, if obtained through the grab).

Re: get back to the big picture, please

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

and making people sign a waver willingly giving up their 4th amendment rights for the sake of doing their school assignments is position NOBODY should take, especially not a parent. Nevermind the fact that nobody ever really reads those contracts full of legalize (since the school systems have utterly failed to actually teach people non-fiction reading comprehension, and continue to do so as they reduce the importance of history, civics, and science at the expense of more fiction in english classes).

the *rule* of law is the constitution. If its protections can be so easily discarded, then it means nothing.

As Thomas More (fictionally) said, "And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"

The the very idea of a school administration even being technically capable of spying on kids in their own homes should be an anathema to any parent in the country and in the world. This school has done something that is indefensible.

Re: get back to the big picture, please

[cozit.livejournal.com]

Less than one page, large-ish print for my school district. And *oh yeah* people read it in a school district like LM.

But yes, I agree... that the camera should *never* be triggered off school property without that search warrant.

As far a the pictures, and other information added to that computer by the students (and staff), anything on that school property (the computer, and the district servers it is connected with) is something the school tends to become responsible for, and as such, the school personnel should have access to it. That *is* one of the things they sign off on - along with the fact that knowledge of abuse of the privilege (including improper files created however by the user, or someone the user has given access to) is enough to have the privilege of the use of a school computer taken away.

And honestly? It's *not* just that school district that people should be worried about. At least two of the articles mentioned (in passing) that a fair number of companies apparently follow the same procedure.

They *do* need to put something into the paperwork (or so I've heard) that states that they know that the webcams may be activated remotely *withing the school*, though. Not just for locating wandering computers, but also because more and more schools are using the webcams to allow for "face-to-face" and/or teacher observation during classroom instruction. A completely legitimate use of the webcams, using a *completely* different program.


BTW... thanks for making me think a bit more, and get my thoughts more straight on the subject. Yes, they had the ability to do something they really shouldn't. But again, there should be a variation that *could* have been done properly (though it wasn't)... And in this case, I'd still like to find out whether *anything* was done improperly or not. I may have to go hunt around again, or poke an old classmate who was working in that school district as of about 4 years ago, to see if he knows anything (just have to figure out which of three that was :-)

Because the suit was brought in the way it was, I haven't even seen anything specifically stating that that particular photo is evidence in the case... it may have been brought over the possibility/probability that it has happened. The suit itself didn't include the incident in its wording (and yes, I happened across that on the web as well... remember *nothing* in it, but do remember that that *wasn't* stated in the suit - I'm assuming because it would be evidence, rather than being a specific incident that they're suing the school district/township about).

Re: get back to the big picture, please

[cozit.livejournal.com]

... And I agree that the wording shouldn't be permission for it to be used outside the school. Just awareness that it exists and that it may be used by the authorities should the computer be reported as stolen and not located on school property. The warrant for its use in such cases would still be necessary.

You'd think they could figure out a way to include that it might be used on school property, though... After all, if computers get picked up by the wrong people, it's good to get them back to the right ones, and it'd be a way to do so more easily.

It'd also be "interesting" to see in what cases the other ... I think it was 40-some times the feature was used before they disabled it. Someone's judgment was really screwed up when they decided that feature was the best way to locate missing computers - I suspect going cheap, rather than installing some variation of location and disabling tool, if they felt it really necessary to have something.