Merion School District "spy-cam" case: admin update

[Hannah Bell]

Questions & Answers

Updated February 19, 2010

1. Did an assistant principal at Harriton ever have the ability to remotely monitor a student at home? Did she utilize a photo taken by a school-issued laptop to discipline a student?

•No. At no time did any high school administrator have the ability or actually access the security- tracking software. We believe that the administrator at Harriton has been unfairly portrayed and unjustly attacked in connection with her attempts to be supportive of a student and his family. The district never did and never would use such tactics as a basis for disciplinary action.


2. How were the decisions made to develop the original security plan? Were there/are there safeguards in place to ensure student privacy with regard to use of the security application?

•Concerned about the security of district-owned and issued laptops, the security plan was developed by the technology department to give the District the ability to recover lost, stolen or missing student laptops. This included tracking loaner laptops that may, against regulations, have been taken off campus.

•Only two members of the technology department could access the security feature.


3. Were students and families explicitly told about the laptop security system?

•No. There was no formal notice given to students or their families. The functionality and intended use of the security feature should have been communicated clearly to students and families.


4. How many thefts have there been? How many times was the system used? What have been the results in terms of recovery of computers?

•During the 2009-10 school year, 42 laptops were reported lost, stolen or missing and the tracking software was activated by the technology department in each instance. A total of 18 laptops were found or recovered. This number (18) is an updated number given the information we have compiled today.


5. What was the total cost of implementation of the laptop program?

•The approximate cost of each laptop is $1,000 and during the two years of the program, there were 2,620 laptops purchased.


6. How was funding obtained for the laptop program?

•Laptops were purchased using a combination of district funds and and Classrooms for the Future grants.


7. When was the district notified of the allegations contained in the lawsuit?

•The district learned of the allegations Thursday, February 18th. No complaints were received prior to this date. The district's initial response was posted on the district webpage and communicated to students and parents the same day. The district will not be commenting on the specifics of the plaintiff's complaint, however, outside the legal process.

(*Note: Which means the school district learned of the allegations *after* the conservative-libertarian blog "America's Right," which broke the story about 8-9 pm on 2/17. The owner of this blog *just happened* to be present when the suit was filed. From there, information about the suit quickly spread amazingly quickly through the conservative blogosphere: there were at least 2 pages of hits when I did a search at 1:58 am 2/18). Court-reporting websites & the MSM didn't pick up the story until the next day.)

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hannah%20Bell/113


8. In the future, will students be required to use district issued laptops?

•The district believes students received significant benefit from the one-to-one laptop program and has no intention of discontinuing the program.


9. Is remote access activity by the district logged?

•Yes. There is a log entry for every instance of the security feature activation. The logs will be reviewed as part of the special review conducted under the direction of special outside counsel.


10. Can parents return currently issued laptops to the district at this time?

•They can, but we note that the laptops are an integral component of the educational program in the district. The security feature has been deactivated and there is no reason to be concerned about the use of the laptop on campus or at home.


11. Did the district remotely access any laptops which were not lost, missing or stolen?

•No.


12. Are students allowed to cover the camera on their school issued laptops with tape?

•Yes. There is no requirement that a student use the camera's standard webcam feature.



1. Why are webcams installed on student laptops?

•The Apple computers that the District provides to students come equipped with webcams and students are free to utilize this feature for educational purposes.


2. Why was the remote tracking-security feature installed?

•Laptops are a frequent target for theft in schools and off school property. The security feature was installed to help locate a laptop in the event it was reported lost, missing or stolen so that the laptop could be returned to the student.


3. How did the security feature work?

•Upon a report of a suspected lost, stolen or missing laptop, the feature was activated by the District's security and technology departments. The tracking-security feature was limited to taking a still image of the operator and the operator's screen. This feature has only been used for the limited purpose of locating a lost, stolen or missing laptop. The District has not used the tracking feature or web cam for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever.


4. Do you anticipate reactivating the tracking-security feature?

•Not without express written notification to all students and families

http://www.lmsd.org/sections/news/default.php?m=0&t=today&p=lmsd_anno&id=1143

[47of74]

1. CYA speak

Their explanation reeks of it.

[Hannah Bell]

3. how's that?

[951-Riverside]

2. Please explain your topic. Is this a Q&A, an interview or response from the school? n/t

[Hannah Bell]

4. It's the district's latest update. I linked it at the bottom, try it.

[Raineyb]

96. And why should anyone believe such obvious ass covering spin? n/t

[NYC_SKP]

5. I'm trying to find a way to be upset about this whole deal, but am at a loss.

Students get to bring home a nice Mac to use, and the owners have tracking software that involves the webcam.

Sounds reasonable.

If one of the individual students had rights violated by a school employee who spied on the student, I see a limited lawsuit there, but not class action.

Maybe I just don't know all there is to know about this story.

[Hannah Bell]

12. A nest of degenerate teachers is "obviously" spying on children in their knickers.

The janitors, tech people & administrators are too.

I mean, it's "obvious"!

[NYC_SKP]

13. Well, this is a job for...

[Hannah Bell]

14. :>) made me laugh.

please rec if you think the school's statement should get as much attention as posters' speculations on pervert teachers.

[NYC_SKP]

15. I did. But people would rather believe the worst case scandalous scenario sometimes.

My rec didn't bring it up to even.

:thumbsup:

[TheMadMonk]

59. There was very little SPECULATION, what there was was a lot of CONCERN...

...that such activity was possible, even in potentia.

For the record: I believe the District to be lying through it's teeth that proper privacy safeguards were in place at the time of the alleged incident.

However, let us give the District the benefit of the doubt.

We still have a major problem here:

The Vice Principal is alleged to have confronted the student with an image of him indulging in an unacceptable activity. This activity is widely belived to be pot smoking, though we don't have actual confirmation. At the same time the Vice Principal revealed the existence of the anti-theft "feature" with the very clear implication that it had been used to obtain the image of the student's wrongdoing. In fact she is alleged to have responded to his asking where she obtained the image, with that revelation.

Either the Vice Principal did in fact use the anti-theft "feature" to obtain this image, (To keep the District out of it, let me speculate that she obtained her own copy of the server side of the software) or as a part of the regular review process she obtained an image taken by the student himself (or perhaps a mate playing silly buggers), and then proceded to use her knowledge about the existence of the anti-theft "feature" to intimidate him.

No matter how you cut it, it is very clear that at the very least the Vice Principal indulged in absolutely reprehensible behaviour, no matter how pure her motives might have seemed in her own mind.

Remember at this point there is only rumour about cameral activity lights occasionally being seen to flash. (Which of course could not have happened since the "feature" was only ever activated to recover stolen or missing computers.) The District did not formally confirm the existence of the anti-theft "feature" until AFTER the lawsuit was filed.

It is unlikely in the extreme that when confronted with "evidence" of his wrongdoing, the kid immediately thought of the rumours going around and guessing/hoping that these must be because of an unconfirmed anti-theft security measure, ran to his parents to get his side in first, with a concocted story about the VP telling him that she'd been spying on him. A story BTW that must have passed muster with at least one lawyer and very probably several.

It is one thing to recognise a civil rights violation when your nose is rubbed in it, but it is quite another thing entirely to (in hours or less) concoct such violation from whole cloth, and have it hold up well enough with lawyers (who I must presume are not total idiots) that they believe they can go up against a defence team that will almost certainly be aming the best that money can buy and make a successful case.

[liberalhistorian]

54. So you think the school has the right to monitor

students IN THEIR HOMES and often without them and their families knowing it, and to discipline them for things they do and that happen IN THEIR OWN HOMES and NOT on school grounds and that have nothing to do with school? Because, if you do, that's a truly frightening attitude.

Besides, as someone else said, this is nothing more than a CYA release that is full of shit.

[NYC_SKP]

61. We do NOT know what really happened here yet. And, no, I didn't say I thought it was right.

Did the school admit they'd taken pictures, has it been proven, or is it just an allegation at this point?

I maintain that the school has the right to have these laptops equipped as they did, but not the right to use the feature unless the laptop is reported lost or stolen.

Of course, if the staff used the feature under other circumstances, the consequences should be harsh against the individual (not the school, not financially because that hurts all students).

[Warpy]

6. This sounds a lot more reasonable

than that conservative blog shrieking, "OH MY GAWD, THEY'RE WATCHING MY PRECIOUS DOLLIES UNDRESS!!!!!"

This story pushed a lot of buttons and people should have known better.

Teachers are overworked. Can you imagine any of them working late into the night spying on students? If they wanted to check how the machines were being used, it's called a KEYLOGGER.

It's much more reasonable to assume tracking software was being used and the cam was only used to grab a picture of a thief using the machine.

Again, if you have a kid with a school laptop and you're paranoid, put a piece of tape over the cam.

The problem that didn't exist will be solved.

[951-Riverside]

8. Re: "Can you imagine any of them working late into the night spying on students?"

Yes.

[PCIntern]

30. Agreed...especially if you met a couple of these guys...

and I have.

[Chemisse]

43. I don't think any teachers were involved in this mess

But obviously someone was watching what they should not have been seeing:


"Harriton High School student Blake Robbins and his parents, Michael and Holly Robbins, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit Tuesday against the district, its board of directors and McGinley. They accused the school of turning on the webcam in his computer while it was inside their Penn Valley home, which they allege violated wiretap laws and his right to privacy.

"The suit, which seeks class-action status, alleges that Harriton vice principal Lindy Matsko on Nov. 11 cited a laptop photo in telling Blake that the school thought he was engaging in improper behavior. He and his family have told reporters that an official mistook a piece of candy for a pill and thought he was selling drugs."

And they don't deny this, just try to excuse it. "We believe that the administrator at Harriton has been unfairly portrayed and unjustly attacked in connection with her attempts to be supportive of a student and his family," the statement on the Lower Merion School District site said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/20/AR2010022000679.html

[tonysam]

91. One side of the "story." That is ALL you're getting.

Why is it assumed the parents are right and the district is wrong?

I hate the fact the greedy lawyers are publicizing this all over the place in order to "poison the well." It's despicable, unethical behavior.

[noamnety]

58. My concern wouldn't have been "about the teachers." It's about the IT folks.

They obviously DID have the capability to spy into students' bedrooms.

I've read some studies on remote security camera operators as part of my grad degree. The NORM is that they focus more on women than men, operate cameras to zoom in on breasts and genital areas when there is no security reason to do so. The NORM is that they use the cameras as a source of softcore porn. Not a few bad apples - the NORM.

It's really no comfort to me to know that it was IT folks instead of teachers or administrators with the ability to watch my kids (or me) undress. WTF do I care what their job function is? All I care about is that they aren't invading my privacy.

If the IT folks installed a camera in the girls' locker room at the school, we all get why there should be criminal consequences. I don't see why it's any better for them to install cameras inside the same girls' bedrooms.

[Warpy]

67. My goodness, what a tantrum

1. The cameras were pre installed on the laptops. The cameras were not "installed in girls' bedrooms." Nice inflammatory language, Sparky. The laptops weren't supposed to be taken off campus, anyway.

2. The cameras could only be switched on by IT people. If you'd read the article, you'd see they have their hands full tracing the lost or stolen laptops, as well as running the whole program for the school district. The laptops also had to be in use and the IT people were only able to switch the cameras on during the day at work.

3. Too many people on DU are having their "coulda" buttons pushed by a right wing smear blogger. You guys need to watch that.

4. The fix is too easy, a half inch square piece of tape. If you're all that paranoid about "coulda," get off your asses and tape that puppy.

[noamnety]

68. Your post is excessively rude.

It is also factually wrong. You wrote: "The laptops weren't supposed to be taken off campus, anyway."

From the school's own website: "Students will have the ability to work on projects and research both at school and at home. They will have 24/7 access to the software that they use in school. We believe that the laptop is an essential tool to assist them in thinking critically, analyzing data, solving real world problems and publishing their work."

http://www.lmsd.org/sections/about/depart/tech/default.php?m=&t=departments&p=depart_tech_1to1

[Missy Vixen]

93. I'm married to an IT person

Let's put it this way: Fifteen years ago, DH's former employer (software) was wired for everything as a result of a previous industrial espionage break-in. Video was running in that company 24 hours a day. Two of his co-workers had sex on a desk after hours at the business.

I had two questions for him.

1. Do you have the tape?

2. Did you view the tape?

His answers to both questions were "no", but he knew who had the resulting footage.

It would be hard for me to imagine this is an isolated incident. If I were a parent in the district in question, the laptop would have been out of our house as fast as I could get it back to the school.

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

7. With the release of this statement, I smell...

... a rat. A litigious one, at that.

Far from being a CYA - as previously suggested in this thread - this is a cogent, straight forward, definitive response by the School District to all of the primary elements of the matter and then some.

There now seems far more here and possibly behind the family and their lawsuit that started this matter than has been disclosed thus far.

Yep, get the popcorn, but the real show is most likely going to center around the "plaintiffs" and not the defendants. Moreover, those piling on the School District last two days - before any real facts were known or the District had an opportunity to complete a preliminary assessment and response - are going to feel more than a little silly (that is if they have even the capacity to recognize their own prejudices and biases in the issue).

[Warpy]

9. Thanks, I smelled a large rat when the story first appeared.

I said as much and offered the cheap fix and got piled on by parents whose buttons had all been pushed.

I can't imagine any school employees being motivated enough to take time away from their own families and all the work they have to do at home grading papers and preparing lessons to spy on their students. The story just didn't pass the smell test.

The school district's explanation does, however.

[Hannah Bell]

10. The fact that this story was "broken" by a blogger on a conservative-libertarian site

"America's Right" who just "happened" to be in the courthouse when the suit was filed, & was on at least 2 pages of conservative blogs by midnight that night, while court blogs & mainstream media didn't get the story until the next day -- smelled very funny to me.

[PCIntern]

31. wrong again...

the story was 'broken' HERE IN LOWER MERION ITSELF, by the parents, the school district, and the lawyers involved, as well as the whole media, who are outraged b/c many of their kids go to these schools. the fact that some moran picked it up is irrelevant...

"Broken",... you've got to be kidding...I LIVE here.

[Hannah Bell]

41. The school district says otherwise. And the blogger did indeed break the story in the media.

The dates & times demonstrate it. And I've copied them, because the blogger already wiped some of the comments that were initially on his site.

Michelle Zhang says:
February 17, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Question: How did you get your hands on this? It’s not even published on their website yet. (Though their site is horrible)

Jeff Schreiber says:
February 17, 2010 at 9:34 pm
How did I get it? Access.

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. Me too Warpy

I don't believe this for a minute.

[noamnety]

70. You think the IT department is busy grading papers

and preparing lessons?

I don't think the concern is specifically that TEACHERS can see into the teens' bedrooms at will. It's that PEOPLE can see into the teens' bedrooms at will.

[uppityperson]

77. Odd how school employees have time to post on DU then, isn't it?

They could quickly check webcams also.

[Hannah Bell]

11. If you'd like this statement to get this the same attention the speculation

about pervert school personnel did, please rec.

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

16. Done, earlier, however....

... it appears as if those that I suggested above lack even basic appreciation of their own biases and prejudices are doing their best to keep it down and off the radar.

Well known to everyone, a lie travels half way around the world before the truth even has a chance to get its pants on. In the case of the internet, truth can barely find those pants before every idiot and malcontent with a fixation complex posts their "horror" and "contempt" for whatever matter or issue rings their bell and gets their panties in a twist.

[RainDog]

17. I'm not unreccing this but you have no more confirmation than before

you have the statement of the school that is under investigation as the only source of information. and of course, people who have violated others' right to privacy in their homes would never try to cover their asses.

you are all giving congrats for your insight when the case has still not been vetted.

you all act as tho no teacher was every convicted of abuse of his/her position for, oh, I dunno, having sex with students and things like that.

in other words, your blanket acceptance of the school's words is as bogus as any claim made by links that were on this site.

I posted the initial link and it was from boingboing, a web site that deals with tech often. one of the founders of the site has been part of the work of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, whose concern has long included issues of privacy.

just because a right wing source has information is not proof that the information is bad. I mean, the nat'l enquirer broke the john edwards slime story - the slime, of course, is on Edwards part, not the enquirer's. The Enquirer had the truth.

in any case, the entire point is that no one knows exactly what happened yet in this incident. however, IN SPITE OF NOT KNOWING, the issue of overstepping boundaries is still present in this case.

the multiple reports here, from people who have children in the school district, of students and parents reporting their own experiences when cameras were on in their homes would seem to dispute the school's claim.

so we'll all just see.

in the meantime, maybe you shouldn't assume any sort of power structure is incapable of abusing their authority.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[upi402]

19. Which school staffer chose the questions they would answer?

Was it Dr. McGinley? It wasn't clear. Boy I KNOW there are questions about students being photographed where they had a right to expect privacy.

CYA and insulting.

[Hannah Bell]

20. what are these questions you think they should have answered that they didn't?

[upi402]

22. students being photographed where they had a right to expect privacy.

It was in my post.

[Hannah Bell]

23. .

[upi402]

24. Yep, I'd like to see the answer to that too.

kick

[Hannah Bell]

25. i'd like to see proof it happened first. but perhaps your motto is guilty until proven innocent.

and, ps, they *did* answer your question.

[Warpy]

26. You could try reading

•No. At no time did any high school administrator have the ability or actually access the security- tracking software. We believe that the administrator at Harriton has been unfairly portrayed and unjustly attacked in connection with her attempts to be supportive of a student and his family. The district never did and never would use such tactics as a basis for disciplinary action.


2. How were the decisions made to develop the original security plan? Were there/are there safeguards in place to ensure student privacy with regard to use of the security application?

•Concerned about the security of district-owned and issued laptops, the security plan was developed by the technology department to give the District the ability to recover lost, stolen or missing student laptops. This included tracking loaner laptops that may, against regulations, have been taken off campus.

•Only two members of the technology department could access the security
feature.
----------------

That says it all. No teacher or administrator was able to activate the webcam remotely. Only when a laptop had been reported stolen was the tracking software activated and the webcam allowed to take a still photo when the machine was in use.

It seems the lawsuit is a lot of hysterical hogwash. I'd say the school district has just about answered any questions that could come up.

[Hannah Bell]

27. The blogger who broke this story also broke part of the ACORN story:

Michelle Zhang says:
February 17, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Question: How did you get your hands on this? It’s not even published on their website yet. (Though their site is horrible)

Jeff Schreiber says:
February 17, 2010 at 9:34 pm
How did I get it? Access.



Jeff Schreiber says:
February 18, 2010 at 6:32 pm

From the court’s computer system. And if that hadn’t worked, I would have asked the copy guy, a civil war buff named Kenny, to copy it for me.

So long as the case isn’t sealed, it’s public record. That’s how I broke the story on the ACORN filmmakers being sued here in Philly as well.

http://americasright.com/?p=3159&cpage=1#comments

[PCIntern]

28. Once again,

our family has been directly involved in this case. You have no idea, Ms. "Bell" what you are talking about. I am speaking from foreknowledge and competence. Whatever the final disposition is, rest assured that you are forever tarnished here as a defender of the intrusion into one's home by the Big Brother who in this case, is a School District, next time it might be the FBI or NSA. this shall be the case no matter what justifications you might proffer to the contrary. You have exposed yourself as a very politically unappealing individual. the fact remains: THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TURN ON A REMOTE CAMERA WITHIN THE HOMES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY. they have admitted that they possessed the ability. That is sufficient.


Your post, BTW, is almost satirically funny. Nice refutation: if the district says so, it's true. What do you think they're going to say, Ms "Bell"? You just posted this in an attempt to regain lost credibility here. This is my child, my family and you will never ever be forgiven by me for your rank dismissal of the charges of wrongdoing and potential wrongdoing which any child who went to Harriton HS could tell you, were considered when these computers were dispensed.

It's beneath contempt that you would advance the appropriateness of that opportunity for criminal invasion and trespass.

My mother was a teacher for her entire lifetime, I taught at grade levels from junior high to post-doctoral and am the recipient of teaching awards granted by the University at which I instructed. I know something about education and the mechanisms put into place by Administrators and without checks and balances anything is possible. The fact that anything is possible removes all doubt as to whether it is appropriate to have the means to spy upon individuals within their homes.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

34. I'm about the only person with the balls to defend them. You've got an

army on your side, can't you bear one opponent?

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

42. Indefensible? You're full of it. Only if you believe guilty until innocent.

The case hasn't even come to trial, but *I* have an indefensible position.

[Hannah Bell]

33. what are you on about? the OP = the school's statement.

you seem to have a problem with the school's statement being posted at all.

i said nothing like: "if the district says so, it's true." nor have i "advanced the appropriateness of that opportunity for criminal invasion and trespass". i said exactly the opposite, in fact.

as you say, the school has already stated it has the capacity to activate the cameras. the issue in the case is not whether it had the capacity, or the school would be paying damages as we speak. the issue is whether it *did.*

and, so far as the rumor mill goes, the issue is whether school personnel were spying on minors in their knickers.

i don't believe they were. & i believe there's something wrong with the plantiffs' story. and my opinion has at least as much validity as the idiots in here talking about random school personnel peeping at students.

i could give a rip whether you'll hate me forever or not. it's an internet chatboard, & you're an anonymous discussant. get a grip.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

38. I don't believe I used the word "apologize". but i remember telling you to bookmark

the post, so why don't you refresh my memory.

[PCIntern]

32. ...BTW, it's LOWER MERION, not Merion.

Better get one or two facts straight...

[Hannah Bell]

35. btw, who the hell cares? everyone interested knows what i'm talking about.

[PCIntern]

37. You can't get any facts straight...

those of us who live here care what the name of the district is, as opposed to Upper Merion (where the Jay Smith cult killings took place - another great school administrator)...you're ignorant of any of the facts or the personalities surrounding the case. JUST GIVE UP whilst you have some semblance of dignity. You're acting as a fool. You have no idea what is going on here. Just fold your tent and give up now, before you're utterly decimated by the emerging facts. More of which are coming out next week.

Then again, why let facts get in your way...you're obviously not interested... intellectual laziness, I believe that it's called.

Oh yeah...and thanks for unreccing my other post. LOL..

[Hannah Bell]

39. i won't "give up". & so far as your other post goes, i have no idea what it is

or what you're talking about.

[PCIntern]

46. Well, see, you're just not reading carefully:

since you htink that the term "Merion" is sufficiently specific, I gave an example of Upper Merion, WHERE THE TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS WERE KILLERS AND ACCESSORIES TO MURDER.

SO THINGS DO HAPPEN IN SCHOOLS...despite your assertions to the contrary...

[Hannah Bell]

82. I have nowhere asserted that things don't happen in schools.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. Parsing that first question and answer carefully, this may not deny what is in the lawsuit

"1. Did an assistant principal at Harriton ever have the ability to remotely monitor a student at home? Did she utilize a photo taken by a school-issued laptop to discipline a student?

•No. At no time did any high school administrator have the ability or actually access the security- tracking software. We believe that the administrator at Harriton has been unfairly portrayed and unjustly attacked in connection with her attempts to be supportive of a student and his family. The district never did and never would use such tactics as a basis for disciplinary action."

This does not exclude the assistant principal being given the photo from the webcam by the IT pair. It's not clear which student she was being 'supportive' of; she may not have been proposing disciplinary action for the student the photo was of - she may have been proposing drug counselling, for instance, since the claim is she thought the photo showed him taking drugs.

We later learn:

"There is a log entry for every instance of the security feature activation. The logs will be reviewed as part of the special review conducted under the direction of special outside counsel."
and
"Did the district remotely access any laptops which were not lost, missing or stolen?

•No."

"...will be reviewed" and the "only laptops that were lost, missing or stolen" may mean that the district has reviewed all of the logs itself already, and are claiming that all accesses of the webcams were limited to the times when the laptops were missing, and an 'outside counsel' (not explained here) will just repeat this; or it may mean that the only laptops concerned were reported lost, missing or stolen at one time, but the times at which the webcams were activated need to be checked, because they might be after the laptop was found again.

[Chemisse]

45. It's pretty disturbing to see how many people think

Spying on teens in their homes without their knowledge is okay.

[Hannah Bell]

83. no one has claimed that. i think it's disturbing how many people make unwarranted assumptions

about what people who don't immediately jump into their witchhunt "think".

[Chemisse]

85. No one has claimed that?

Michael and Holly Robbins of Penn Valley, Pa., said they first found out about the alleged spying last November after their son Blake was accused by a Harriton High School official of "improper behavior in his home" and shown a photograph taken by his laptop.

An assistant principal at Harriton later confirmed that the district could remotely activate the Webcam in students' laptops. "Michael Robbins thereafter verified, through Ms. Matsko, that the school district in fact has the ability to remotely activate the Webcam contained in a student's personal laptop computer issued by the school district at any time it chose and to view and capture whatever images were in front of the Webcam, all without the knowledge, permission or authorization of any persons then and there using the laptop computer," the lawsuit stated.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9158818/Pennsylvania_schools_spying_on_students_using_laptop_Webcams_claims_lawsuit

But you think that is okay?

[Dinger]

47. K & Rec

[proud2BlibKansan]

49. I am a non believer

I can't imagine anyone working for a school district nowadays who would have the time to spy on kids at home.

I've been calling bullshit since this story first came out. But I am apparently in the minority. :shrug:

[MicaelS]

50. Oh really?

So somehow those government employees who just so happen to work in school districts are above reproach, right? Why do you give those people a pass, when you wouldn't do the same for the rest of government?

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. Didn't say they were above reproach

Want to start a discussion about asshole school admins, I am right there. 30 years of dealing with them. Many stories I could tell. LOL

But in this case, we have the student version and no proof that what he is claiming actually happened. It is a common element to these 'Bad School/Bad Teacher' stories. A parent goes to the media with a dramatic story and everyone is jumping on the school and accepting the kid's version of events. But in reality, based on my personal experience, the kid's version is rarely true and usually an exaggeration of what actually happened.

So my question is - why is this kid being given a pass?

Until we know what actually happened, I am assuming that yet again we are dealing with an exaggeration. And I am basing my opinion on past experience. Sadly, kids lie and parents don't want to admit it. It happens.

The other reality is that school districts are facing severe budget cuts and I would be surprised to hear of any district that has the personnel available to spend time spying on kids via laptop webcams.

Another thing that blows my mind is the naivety of DUers who don't seem to understand that tracking devices are common on computers owned by businesses and issued to employees. Why the shock that a school district would do the same thing? Do we doubt that school district laptops would be stolen? Do districts not have the obligation to take care of taxpayer funded resources? If this story was about the number of laptops in this particular district that are missing, something tells me there would be a considerable amount of poutrage.

[MicaelS]

57. Adult employee vs minor school student

Adult employee vs minor school student is a great big stretch. Yes, the courts have held the employees do not have any expectation to right of privacy when used company owned equipment. I'm sure they same would apply in school, BUT, have they held the same for minor students outside of school?

And there exists tracking software that does NOT involve activating the webcam. http://www.absolute.com/products/lojackforlaptops/technology

[Jakes Progress]

64. You mean thinking and evaluating sources

make you a member of the minority.

You are right. Much hysteria. Lots of fodder for the RW.

The common behavior here is to jump to conclusions, cry hysterically, and then follow the path left open by the RW media machine. Another victory for gomer norquist and his gang.

[Hannah Bell]

81. thanks for that.

[pipi_k]

66. It's not necessary to sit for hours in front of a computer screen...

Even five minutes a day of unwarranted watching/listening would qualify as spying.



Done enough times, there's a pretty good chance that the person doing the spying will eventually see what he's looking for.

[noamnety]

72. Clearly there are teachers with extra time in their lives.

Teachers work hard, sure ... but they still have time to post on DU, right?

[Generic Other]

76. I can't imagine teachers being sexually involved with their students either

but it happens.

This is an issue any administrator with an ounce of sense should have anticipated might create problems. Did they really think parents and students would have no problems with being monitored like this? Even the fact that they had the capability leaves them open to attack.

While I don't believe teachers were involved in the decision making process, I do think stupid decisions were made. And we shouldn't defend them.

[uppityperson]

78. Yet here you are, spending a bunch of time on DU. How long does it take to check webcams?

not long.

[comrade snarky]

79. Why would it have to happen during the work day?

If you can set up software to remotely access the webcam feed from a laptop outside of the school network, but connected to the internet, then it's quite simple to access that system remotely yourself.

The viewing of students could be done from home, at night. I've been the IT administrator at a college and I can tell you that even though I was horribly busy I still found time to grab a couple of coffee breaks in the day and when I left work I was a lot less busy. I had time to go to the store, make dinner, surf the web, wash clothes and do all the things in a normal life. If the student laptops had webcams, you bet I would have had the time to access them.`

Hell, as an IT administrator I'd have fought against a something like this because the potential for abuse is way to high. No way would it have ever been used without serious authorization including a police report of a stolen laptop. I'd make damn sure it couldn't be used by anyone who happened to have the password because it would be my ass that goes to jail. Something stinks here and while it could be just incompetence, I smell something bad.

The system and network logs will tell the story here, a good forensics person will be able to find out how often this access was used. There's no way to cover the traces. Even if the IT admin tries, the blank spaces will reveal truth.

[MicaelS]

51. The school admits they used the capability 42 times

To look for "stolen / missing" laptops.
They admit they did not notify parents or student of this capability or action.

They further admitted they only recovered 18 out of 42 stolen / missing laptops.
Since Apple Macbooks start at $999, does the dollar amount in each case of stolen property fall into the "felony theft" category under Pa law?

If it's lost, they are going to hold the parents responsible for replacing it.
Have any parents had to replace a missing laptop?

If it's stolen, they have insurance to replace it.
Where are the insurance reports?
Where are the police reports they would have to show to insurance for this stolen property?

They're not law enforcement. They are not in the business of conducting surveillance or investigative efforts beyond anything that happens within the boundaries of that school.

And do you think the FBI and Federal prosecutors would get involved if this was some petty nuisance lawsuit?

Given all that, I do not trust this school's employees one damn bit.

I'm on the side of ordinary people, not a bunch of school bureaucrats. You, and others in this thread obviously are siding with the school district. My question is why?

[PCIntern]

53. and what's more, for the 587th time...

the kid/family did not report the laptop missing.

What does it take around here...?

good post BTW, MicaelS

[MicaelS]

55. Thank you...

Since you live there, to your knowledge...

Have any families been asked to pay for missing laptops?

Has anyone been arrested, prosecuted, convicted or fined for theft of one of these laptops?

Before this, has there been ANY publicity about X number of laptops being lost or stolen?

[PCIntern]

69. No idea at all...

kid nevermentioned anything to that subject...

[MicaelS]

74. Thanks again. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. Do we know that (not reporting it missing) for sure?

Or is it possible they reported it missing in the past, it was recovered, and then the picture was taken later? I don't think it makes too much difference to the underlying question of privacy and informing the parents/children, but it may make a difference for whether malice was involved in taking the picture.

If the family has stated the laptop was never reported it missing, sorry for asking, but I hadn't seen that in the articles I've read so far.

[Robb]

62. To nit-pick, the Philly paper made a point that this was not clear.

"The lawsuit did not say if Blake Robbins' laptop had been reported missing or stolen, and gave no specific evidence that any other students had been monitored at home."

...Is there another source saying otherwise? Honest question, I'm still a bit mystified by what is "known" and what is "pretty much known" -- and having lived recently in an exceptionally small town, I know the latter is often darned good intelligence. :)

[MadHound]

56. Meanwhile multiple laptops have gone on, taken pictures of students,

All without the laptops being reported missing. Sorry, but these excuses are simply bullshit. They're trying to cover their ass and simultaneously ram Big Brother down the throats of both students and their parents.

Frankly I think that there are some parents who have good cause to bring child porn charges against the school district.

[tonysam]

63. Oh spare me.

This smells like a frivolous lawsuit, and there are plenty of attorneys who will file them because they know these things almost NEVER go to trial. Instead, the parents get a nice little insurance payout in two to five years.

[pokerfan]

73. Well, it is a class action

Wouldn't any damage award (or settlement) have to be divided?

[MicaelS]

75. Right, it's SO frivolous the Feds are involved

For possible Federal wiretap violations. You don't think the attorneys involved might have thought of it beforehand?

[tonysam]

88. Doesn't fucking matter.

The ACLU is, too, but that doesn't mean shit. They supported Jana Elhifny's lawsuit against Washoe County School District because she claimed, among other things, her "life" was threatened because she was a Muslim even though she couldn't even describe her alleged attacker. After reading her complaint, I concluded it was a crock of shit lawsuit, yet she "won" some 350 grand and her friend got 50K.

This is a fucking bogus lawsuit. Read it. It doesn't even pass the smell test.

The attorneys are filing this because they KNOW there will be a big insurance payoff. There will NEVER be a trial because no jury would buy such horseshit. But when there is a settlement, they will claim "victory" because most people are IGNORANT regarding the fact school districts have insurance companies, and the insurance companies pay out for plaintiffs AND their lawyers.

See I KNOW how lawyers lie in school district lawsuits. You don't.

[MicaelS]

89. Really? I'd trust a lawyer,

Before I'd trust someone with YOUR attitude. Employees of schools get sued for their implementation of their bad attitudes in general and Fascist Zero Tolerance bullshit in particular. When kids get suspended for a DRAWING of a gun, or pointing a finger a a teacher, that Zero Intelligence crap has gone too far. You sound like someone with a big chip on your shoulder, and a bad attitude in general. THAT is probably why you got sued, not because you were guilty of anything, but because you're a teacher with a nasty attitude. If YOU were my kids teacher, I'd keep my lawyer on speed dial just for you.

:nopity: :puke:

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. So, you personally 'know' it's 'fucking bogus', 'horseshit' and 'doesn't even pass the smell test'

You 'know' 'no jury would buy such horseshit'. And yet you think, with such certainty of winning, the school district lawyers and insurance company won't want to take it to trial?

Hmm, I guess you read the Jana Elhifny really, really badly, since you 'concluded it was a crock of shit lawsuit', but everyone else disagreed with you. And she won.

Perhaps your instinct for lawsuits is completely useless?

[LWolf]

65. K & R

[uppityperson]

71. If you weren't doing anything wrong, why would you care if they could look?

Right?

Wrong.

[Spazito]

80. LOL, this statement by the District is very telling in what it does NOT state...

"No. At no time did any high school administrator have the ability or actually access the security- tracking software. We believe that the administrator at Harriton has been unfairly portrayed and unjustly attacked in connection with her attempts to be supportive of a student and his family. The district never did and never would use such tactics as a basis for disciplinary action."

This part of the above paragraph is particularly telling in what it is missing as opposed to what is stated:


"...in connection with her attempts to be supportive of a student and his family. The district never did and never would use such tactics as a basis for disciplinary action."

Note there is NO denial that a still photo was used, that any still photo that might have been used was NOT generated by the laptop web-cam, no explanation of where the still photo came from if not the laptop web cam.

This statement from the above is also very telling, imo:

"The district never did and never would use such tactics AS A BASIS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION (caps inserted by me for emphasis).

The fact the district did not say 'The district never did and never would use such tactics.'and left it right there, but, instead, clarified they would not use said 'tactics' for disciplinary emphasis certainly infers the 'tactics' are used for other purposes such as was stated by this; "with her attempts to be supportive of a student and his family'.


There are holes left open in these statements by the District big enough to drive a semi through, imo.

Edited to change sentence structure.

[Hannah Bell]

84. what is it you didn't understand about "no"?

1. Did an assistant principal at Harriton ever have the ability to remotely monitor a student at home? Did she utilize a photo taken by a school-issued laptop to discipline a student?

•No. At no time did any high school administrator have the ability or actually access the security- tracking software. We believe that the administrator at Harriton has been unfairly portrayed and unjustly attacked in connection with her attempts to be supportive of a student and his family. The district never did and never would use such tactics as a basis for disciplinary action.


or about this:

7. ...The district will not be commenting on the specifics of the plaintiff's complaint, however, outside the legal process.


which is precisely what the plantiffs should be practicing, instead of appearing on talk shows & poisoning the well.

[noamnety]

86. Your first point isn't being debated. I think you are confused.

The general consensus is that the IT folks have the ability to remotely monitor a student at home, not the assistant principal. You are arguing that point with yourself - not with anyone else here.

On the other point - I'm all for the plaintiffs publicizing the schools capability to use the webcam to watch kids in their bedrooms. That's an important public service, since the school itself didn't see fit to publicize it in a way that they were legally required to do. The publicity, if nothing else, is letting kids know they need to cover the camera with some duct tape.

Here's an important point about publicity that you may be missing. That's what activists use as one of their tools to effect change.

[Hannah Bell]

87. i think you are. "Did she utilize a photo taken by a school-issued laptop to discipline a student?"

"no."

as to your comments on activism:

[noamnety]

90. The school official UTILIZED a photo.

Nobody here is claiming that anyone other than the IT dept. has the capaility to REMOTELY CONTROL or ACTIVATE the webcams.

There is a difference between those verbs. You are arguing against nobody on that point.

On the other point, you seemed confused as to why the student might go to the press over this issue. I gave a reason: because that's what activists often do when they want the public to pressure an official to change something. They publicize the problem drum up support.

[hayu_lol]

92. Actually, a vice-principal did have the selective ability to...

monitor individual students at home or anywhere else for that matter. This can be seen in the interview with the vp where he brought up pics in real time for the interviewer on three students...one boy and two girls. The vp chose the subjects from a roster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vza_bMuy42M&feature=related

The camera view took up about one half of the monitor in real time and showed not only the student but most of the rooms behind them. If the students were multitasking, the view showed what they were doing(all sites).

No matter the reason for the invasion of privacy, privacy was invaded at the whim of school officials. The youtube bit clearly shows just how easy it was for the vp to access the cams.

[Hannah Bell]

94. "Did she utilize a photo taken by a school-issued laptop...? " "No."

[friendly_iconoclast]

95. UPDATE: Some other LMSD info you can 'explain' for us:

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/22/school-spying-infect.html

School spying: infected laptops mandatory, jailbreaking grounds for explusion
By Cory Doctorow at 9:29 PM February 22, 2010

Here's an excellent investigative post on the surveillance technology and policy that Pennsylvania's Lower Merion School District employed against its students. Two security researchers, "Stryde" and Aaron Rhodes, read through the web-posts and other material made public by the school administrators who maintained the laptop surveillance as well as student accounts of its use and reports on the policies that surrounded it:

* Possession of a monitored Macbook was required for classes

* Possession of an unmonitored personal computer was forbidden and would be confiscated

* Disabling the camera was impossible

* Jailbreaking a school laptop in order to secure it or monitor it against intrusion was an offense which merited expulsion...

http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2010/02/spy-at-harrington-high.html

Also discussed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x520217

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

99. more pathetic excuses for child pornography

this was a heinous invasion of privacy, period. Equivocation won't change anything. Most admin supporters have already admitted they have never stepped foot in a classroom as a teacher or administrator; haven't they embarrassed themselves enough already?

[libodem]

97. Kiddie Porn

is still kiddie porn, and those lap tops were open when kids were in their rooms changing clothes. If they can prosecute, kids for receiving topless photos of other teenagers on their cell phones, for being in possession of child pornography, the school should be sued by the parents and the authorities for taking pictures of kids changing clothing. Or even just having the capability.

[pokerfan]

100. Regardless of the potential for child porn

it remains a civil rights violation.

The right to privacy inside one’s home “is sacrosanct.” The “‘right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion’ stands ‘at the very core’ of the Fourth Amendment.” Indeed, “unreasonable government intrusion into the home is “the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.” Accordingly, it is a “‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment law’ that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.”

From the ACLU's amicus brief: http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Robbinsfinal.pdf