Laptop family is no stranger to legal disputes

[Hannah Bell]

The vice chairman of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission could scarcely contain his scorn. Before the commission was yet another appeal from a Philadelphia-area family, again seeking a break on unpaid electric and gas bills that by last year were closing in on $30,000.

This family lived in a $986,000 house on the Main Line. The breadwinner, until recently, had earned well more than $100,000 per year. Yet he and his wife were in hock to creditors, ranging from Uncle Sam to their former synagogue - and had regularly been stiffing Peco Energy for five years, breaking payment plan after payment plan.

"Our procedures," the commission's Tyrone J. Christy wrote in a Dec. 17 motion, "were not meant to allow customers living in $986,000 houses, with incomes in excess of $100,000 per year, to run up arrearages approaching $30,000."

In addition to the Peco debt, the PUC noted, the Robbinses had been hit with numerous civil judgments in recent years totaling more than $365,000. To Haltzman (their lawyer) - who had taken them to court himself in 2002 - their finances and personal lives are irrelevant to the Lower Merion lawsuit.

Even so, it was the apparent failure to pay a fee - a $55 insurance payment to permit the Robbinses' son Blake to take his laptop home from Harriton High School - that might have prompted the district to activate the Web cam....

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20100225_Laptop_family_is_no_stranger_to_legal_disputes.html

[trumad]

1. I simply have to ask you Hannah...

do you work for the school district?

What relevance does this have on the case?

[Hannah Bell]

2. obviously not. i live on the west coast. but if we're going to have the dirt, let's have it all,

on every side, shall we?


i'm not a teacher, either, nor do i work for a school district. i'm a dietitian, & plenty of people here know it.

[trumad]

5. Yeah---but you're the main cheerleader for the school district...

a district that admitted activating camera's and using snap shots from the camera to discipline the kid.

[Hannah Bell]

7. you're confused. they admitted no such thing, & neither am i a "cheerleader" for the school

district.

in fact, they expressly denied using any such photo remotely activated on a district laptop to discipline a student.

trying to distinguish fact from rumor, allegation & speculation is what's now called "cheerleading".

gotta love "democrats".

[TheMadMonk]

104. Your sophistry is getting wearing. The District may not have.

However, there is almost no doubt whatsoever that the Vice Principal damned well DID.

What the District did do, is make the Vice Principal's actions possible.

They may not have disciplined the student. Not surprising since he did nothing to discipline him for. And further they have no authority to discipline him. However the school has made entries in his permanent record regarding the incident. A defacto punishment that may affect him for quite some time to come.

So far you have shown no interest in separating fact from rumour. You have blindly from the beginning defended the District. Your sole argument has been that no school district or official would commit legal suicide by doing something so stupid. Sorry to disappoint you, but there have been numerous cases of school districts and their administrators doing any number of incredibly stupid things that have come back to bite them on the arse. Enabling and covering up cases of paedophilia included.

Please note I am not in any way alleging that this is the case here simply that against that, privacy violation is barely on the radar as far as stupid bureacratic acts are concerned.

I might also point out that in a society where surveilance is becoming increasingly commonplace the District may well have not even considered that what they were doing was wrong.


Fact: The boy, his family and their lawyers were in possession of information not divulged by the District until after the filing of the lawsuit. Specifically the presence of the monitoring software.

Answer me this. How do you believe they come into possession of this information if it was not divilged to them by the Vice Principal as alleged in the lawsuit?


Oh and by the way. The dirt you are dishing up in your OP has absolutely no relevance to the lawsuit. The parents are not the wronged party. THEY will not benefit from any settlement or damages. Furthermore, they stand to lose EVERYTHING including their million dollar home if their allegations are the crock of shit you claim them to be.

[Hannah Bell]

150. "There is almost no doubt whatsoever the vice principal did". Beg to differ.

The school is now being sued by Robbins' family, and reading a prepared statement, Matsko gave an emotional response to the allegations.

"At no point in time did I have the ability to access any webcam through security-tracking software," said Matsko. "At no time I have ever monitored a student through a laptop webcam, nor have I ever authorised the monitoring of a student through a security-tracking webcam – either at school, or in the home, and I never would."

Lower-Merion-Official-Denies-Webcam-Wrongdoing-85334007

[TheMadMonk]

172. So how did the boy and his family become aware of the software...

...and its capabilities?

This question has been asked of you several times, and as far as I can tell you have avoided it every single time.

By the way you could drive Catterpillar's latest and greatest through the holes in her denial.

• She does not deny having been in possession of an image taken by a computer webcam.
  
• She does not deny having used such an image to confront the boy and express her "concern" about his off campus activities.
  
• She does not deny having authorised (or requested) that the security tracking "feature" be activated on a laptop that had been taken off campus without payment of insurance.

Now would you care to address this damning little point? (from my post #115)

NO ONE, WHO IS NOT A DULY WARRANTED AUTHORITY, (ie, law enforcment in possession of a properly issued warrant) HAS ANY RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO CONDUCT INTRUSIVE SURVEILANCE ON PROPERTY THAT IS NOT THEIR OWN.

[TheMadMonk]

177. I thought as much. Left with no leg to stand on you show your true colours. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

142. Exactly. They "denied using any such photo remotely activated on a district laptop

to discipline a student."

Know what that means? They took the picture, they did exactly what they're charged with doing in the lawsuit, but they knew that they couldn't use it as a basis for formal discipline. So they hauled the kid into the office to talk to him about his "drug problem", because they were, of course, "concerned". :eyes:

Right. There was no official school discipline tied to the picture. Which isn't the question- the question is, were they spying on students in their homes?

Answer? Patently, yes.

[Hannah Bell]

153. the vice principal:

The school is now being sued by Robbins' family, and reading a prepared statement, Matsko gave an emotional response to the allegations.

"At no point in time did I have the ability to access any webcam through security-tracking software," said Matsko. "At no time I have ever monitored a student through a laptop webcam, nor have I ever authorised the monitoring of a student through a security-tracking webcam – either at school, or in the home, and I never would."

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/phillynow/Lower-Merion-Official-Denies-Webcam-Wrongdoing-85334007.html

[Warren DeMontague]

164. And again, it's useful to see what ISN'T being said, here. Can't you see the tacit admissions?

"Ms Matsko does not deny that she saw a webcam picture and screenshot of Blake in his home; she only denies that she is the one who activated the webcam."

There was a picture taken of the kid in his house- they looked at the picture- they decided it contained "drug activity"- they decided to haul the kid into the office on the basis of the picture.

You honestly don't think that's grounds for a lawsuit???

[Caretha]

173. Sorry Warren

you probably won't get a reply to your post....as another poster said ..."This thread is surreal".

I think HB is spinning faster than the Merion Lower School District board is...and you know they gotta be pooping in their pants about now.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[alarimer]

111. It has absolutely no relevance to the spying by the school district.

Someone needs to be fired over this.

[seeinfweggos]

174. personally i'm shocked a marxist would approve of big brother tactics too. nt

[Q3JR4]

3. This doesn't really matter to me

because if the family don't have a case (and had the school not actually admitted to their fraud) they would have been thrown out of court.

If you're a school administrator who decides to spy on the children in your care and you admit to it after you're found out, you deserve whatever it is you get.

This regardless of whatever history the family in question may have.

Q3JR4
Too opinionated for his own good sometimes.

[Hannah Bell]

4. um, they haven't gotten to court yet. papers have been filed, period.

[trumad]

6. Ummm

the school district admitted doing it.. Is that correct?

[Hannah Bell]

8. what the school has admitted is 1) having the capacity to activate the cameras remotely

and 2) having done so 42 times, all in the case of theft or loss.

what the district has expressly denied is using a photo from a remotely activated webcam to discipline a student.


and the case has two aspects; one about the legality/constitutionality of capability & the other about whether the school did in fact remotely activate the cameras to spy on students in their homes, & in the case of this student.

[Canuckistanian]

9. Unrecced

Not relevant to anything.

[Hannah Bell]

11. it certainly is.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

15. ah...so now the family is lawsuit happy...

you tell people to 'wait for the facts to be revealed' when defending the actions of the school and yet are more than willing to post complete and utter conjecture about 'why' the family is doing this without knowing a damned thing. your bias could not be more clear...

sP

[Hannah Bell]

20. lol. conjecture. must be the first time *that* ever happened in this case, right?

janitors stealing passwords to look at students in their knickers on the school spycam, you mean conjecture like that?

i posted an article from a reputable paper. deal with it.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

25. i agree...not the first time...

but you are so high and mighty about the evil people here that believe the students' versions of events over the school's version and you castigate anyone who would dare make assumptions. but for you, defending the school, it is perfectly ok to suggest with your article, from a reputable paper, no less, that the family is just doing it for the money...when you have ZERO basis for that...

'deal with it...' indeed...

sP

[Hannah Bell]

28. the paper reports that the family with the million dollar house stiffed the power company for

$30K over five years & owes over a quarter million to sundry others.

i didn't suggest anything, i posted the article.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

31. riiiight...you did that just to 'expose facts'

you're getting to be quite funny...

sP

[Hannah Bell]

33. sauce for the goose, buddy.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

35. and you're motives are the only ones that are 'pure?'

i see...when the school gets their ass handed to them on a plate, will you come back here and apologize to everyone whom you have maligned in this series of discussions? i bet i can answer that...

sP

[Hannah Bell]

39. i've maligned no one.

malign: •To make defamatory statements about someone or something

•defamation - a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions


but i'd say that accusing janitors of stealing passwords to illegally use a public schools computers to look at students in their underwear = defamatory.

and "the school admitted it!" = defamation

[ProdigalJunkMail]

41. riiiight...you just keep on believing that...

nice copy and paste by the way...and where do you keep pulling this shit about janitors? i have never said a word about janitors...


sP

[Hannah Bell]

43. link? link me to the posts where i malign, i.e. make false accusations about a poster.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

47. oh...no, you just keep on being subtle

and accuse OTHERS of their motivations while claiming your own are pure...anyone who has been reading this series of threads knows exactly what i am talking about...so no, you just keep on playing subtle and coy...

sP

[Hannah Bell]

53. link me to the post where i claim my motives are pure?

i'm biased. i don't believe school admins are typically so retarded as this family has portrayed them.

"blake, i'm calling you in because we've been watching you at home on our illegal spycam, & we know you're dealing drugs! because i saw you hold up a piece of candy while i was illegally monitoring you! and now i'm going to illegally discipline you!!"

right, that rings true.

[TommyO]

69. I think pathetic is the more appropriate word.

[Dogmudgeon]

10. The Inqy has already started whiipping up resentment against the family

The usual line is that the inevitable lawsuit will raise local taxes. A dozen angry posts/letters come in within an hour.

The article tells the story of the family's moral dereliction, "stiffing" the poor, bedraggled PECO stockholders.

That's what happens when a once-great newspaper is bought by a wingnut with political aspirations.

--d!

[Hannah Bell]

12. sure, the wingnuts are so pro-teacher, pro-spying, pro-public school.

[Dogmudgeon]

21. Sounds like your pride is involved in this

Like most of the press, the Inquirer likes loves a good scandal.

--d!

[Hannah Bell]

26. sounds like you're an amateur psychic psychiatrist.

no, the folks crying for blood in this case don't like scandal, that's why they've accused the janitors, the teachers, the administrators & the it guys of looking at naked kids, misrepresented the districts' statements, & convicted before the trial.

cause they're so unbiased & all.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

36. and you have no bias whatsoever...riiiiight n/t

[Hannah Bell]

42. unlike you "civil libertarians," i never claimed i didn't.

in this case, my bias is: i don't believe the story about how the vice principal called the student in to accuse him of bad behavior at home using evidence obtained on her illegal spycam.

i didn't believe that phoney-baloney story from day one.

neither do i believe the story about how he held up a piece of candy & the crazy principal thought it was -- a pill!!!

that's my bias.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

49. yep... but everyone elses' bias is bullshit... yours is ok... n/t

[Hannah Bell]

55. yep... but everyone elses' bias is bullshit... yours is ok... n/t

i know you are but what am i nyah nyah

[Dogmudgeon]

136. Does that make you an amateur mental patient?

You're real pissed off at something. It seems like the family is the focus for your pique.

But ... knock yourself out. The Inqy is still blazing a path to hell.

--d!

[Hannah Bell]

158. i'm not pissed about anything. but you are busy speculating about my internal emotional states.

knock yourself out, kreskin.

[proud2BlibKansan]

124. The lawsuit won't raise taxes

The district's liability insurance premiums will likely go up though.

[Dogmudgeon]

137. Hush! Your rational thinking will hurt our chances for a big, noisy scandal!

Besides, the Inqy wants to raise prices from 75 cents to an even buck.

It was 35 cents as late as 2001.

They blamed the Internet for that, too.

--d!

[MadHound]

13. I don't care if it was little green men, the school IT dept had no reason to activate that camera

There is no excuse for this, absolutely none. But hey, given that this is pretty much a slam dunk case of invasion of privacy, I guess the kid and his family are going to get caught up on their bills real quick.

[CC]

14. A family's financial history

should have no bearing on a Constitutional right. If anything it makes the school which most likely knew of the financial problems that more stupid to risk a lawsuit by violating the kid's and the families privacy like they did. Maybe PECO (and the others with judgments) should hope they get their day in court and win, might be the only way they get their judgments paid.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

18. shhh...that might make sense to someone here... n/t

[Hannah Bell]

34. oh, it does.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7791456&mesg_id=7791542

[Hannah Bell]

24. you're right. it has nothing to do with their constitutional rights. it has to do with their

credibility.

[CC]

37. I never realized being broke, poor

and/or in debt made you a liar. I guess having a fat bank account, rich and low debt makes you a saint whose word should always be taken by everyone. I guess schools and ALL their personal are so honest, trustworthy and above board that no one there in any connection would ever do anything wrong or illegal.
Oh and lets add PECO's got such an angelic reputation that their word should just be taken on everything? You must not live in their billing area and definitely not around one of their nuclear power plants.


I don't know why the family is having financial problems but I do know it does not have a damn thing to do with honesty or credibility. According to the same article you posted the family was informed that there most likely wasn't going to be a big pay out for them unless there was a class action suit.

You want your and your kids private moments with in the home subject to being watched more power to you. Glad you trust the hundreds of people that might have access to your most private moments.

[Hannah Bell]

40. if they sold their house, they'd still have over half a million. poor, my ass.

[CC]

52. You try selling a house in the

area now and getting your money out of it. Not happening these days.


That is it for me, you pretty much know everything about this area, power company, school system and family you need to know even though you say you live on the other coast.

[Hannah Bell]

56. maybe they should have tried five years ago, then, when they were running up the first $10K in power

bills. they could have got a higher price then. the philadelphia main line!

[CC]

72. So glad you know the market

here so much better than we do. So when I decide to sell my house should I consult a realtor on the west coast for advice? Maybe I should run everything by my CA friends and family then by my CO friends and family. Wouldn't want to forget my FL friends and family. I'm sure they all know more than I who have been here since 1981.

Your knowledge of our area and our schools and the honesty of such is astounding. Maybe I should just look to you before I make any local decisions.


Oh BTW heard about the great pediatrician we have just around the corner in DE? Maybe you would like to take your kids to him. I'm sure it is all just a misunderstanding and those parents are greedy poor people just trying to get an extra buck. I mean if you must trust all school system employees then you must trust Doctors.

[Caretha]

83. you are a little full of yourself

Where do you get off telling people what they should or should have done. My, my....bet you never made a finacially bad decision in your life.

[proud2BlibKansan]

77. So because they are in over their head in a house they can't afford, it's okay to file a lawsuit

against the school district.

And we just ignore the fact that they are a lawsuit happy family.

Schools bad / kids good.

Gotcha.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

88. How do you get "lawsuit happy" out of the article?

Being sued doesn't make one lawsuit happy.

[proud2BlibKansan]

95. Sorry. I should have said they don't like paying their bills

and are victimized by lawsuits filed against them for not paying their bills.

[JTFrog]

16. Unrec for yet another sick twisted attempt to defend the undefendable. n/t

[TexasObserver]

48. Indeed. It's irrelevant to the encroachment by the district.

This is the kind of character assassination by proxy one expects to hear from Limbaugh and Beck (and we probably will hear it).

Assuming it's all true, it has no impact on the matter of interest - spying by a school district on students when they're at home. A GPS device in the laptop would better serve the alleged purpose of the camera. They were illegally spying on students, on minors, in situations where they might see minors in stages of undress.

[Hannah Bell]

57. the *alleged* spying, you mean. because per the district, there was no spying.

the remote was activated 42 times, per the district, for theft & loss only.

there's an issue with that, & with capability -- but that ain't spying as you describe it.

and, i remind you: i posted a news article. from a reputable source. and the plantiffs' situation has bearing on their credibility, even though you don't like that fact.

[TexasObserver]

59. It is spying, in spite of your inability to realize it.

The history of the litigious parents is not relevant to the civil liberties issue.

[Hannah Bell]

61. it would indeed be spying. just not the indiscrimate, malicious spying alleged in the suit

or on this board. i.e. spying undertaken at any time, at the will of the spy, in order to look at kids in their underwear, for example.

[TexasObserver]

74. The school district is in far more trouble than a civil lawsuit.

If there's one photo of one kid in their underwear, the civil matter will look like a day at Disney World compared to the criminal action.

Do you know that teens often sit in their rooms, on their beds, in some state of limited dress, with their lap top sitting in front of them? Surely school personnel know that.

Your inability to grasp the enormity of this wrong by the school, and instead focus on the parents of the plaintiff, is alarming.

[woo me with science]

86. Hannah, how do you justify even that type of spying? nt

[LaydeeBug]

96. by saying "it's not that type of spying" as

if any kind of spying is appropriate. :eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

143. i don't. & i've said so repeatedly. but the kneejerkers like straw.

[woo me with science]

147. So, you think they were in the wrong?

What should be the consequences of that?

[Hannah Bell]

157. i do not think a school district should have the capacity to take pictures of students in their

homes. to protect both kids & schools.

i'm not a judge who determines consequences.

[woo me with science]

166. But this district TOOK the capability when they had no right to do so, didn't they?

And they even USED it, activating cameras when they had no right to that capability in the first place.

THEREFORE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT VIOLATED THE FAMILIES' PRIVACY.

Can you admit that, too? In writing?



........................................

We are definitely making progress here, Hannah, but you are still having a little bit of trouble with your reasoning. Stressing that the capability should be denied for the SCHOOL's protection from families is like saying:

Pediatricians should not have cameras into the homes of their patients, because one of the families might unfairly accuse them of spying, and that would be unfair to the pediatrician.

You see, that's not really the right reason they shouldn't have the capability, Hannah. The REAL reason pediatricians should not have cameras in your house is because THEY HAVE NO DAMNED RIGHT TO DO SO.

Ditto for the school district.

[TheMadMonk]

115. It does not need to be indiscriminate, nor malicious to be illegal.

NO ONE, WHO IS NOT A DULY WARRANTED AUTHORITY, (ie, law enforcment in possession of a properly issued warrant) HAS ANY RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO CONDUCT INTRUSIVE SURVEILANCE ON PROPERTY THAT IS NOT THEIR OWN.

Nor on children that are not in their care at the time that surveilance took place.

Is that clear enough for you?

All speculation and unproven allegation aside. The Lower Merion County School District has admitted to conducting such surveilance. They are, in the vernacular, up shit creek in a barbed wire canoe.

[proud2BlibKansan]

97. How so?

All I've heard so far is an allegation of spying. Anyone can allege anything. That doesn't make it a fact.

[maddezmom]

109. the school has admitted to using the technology 42 times when they thought a laptop was missing

without the students knowledge or permission. I guess the court will end up deciding whether or not it's legally called spying or another term like illegal monitoring. :hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

110. But the allegation is that the school claimed it saw this kid selling drugs

and the district has not admitted that. Just the opposite in fact.

[maddezmom]

114. I'm not talking about the allegation, I'm speaking to what the school district has already admitted

to and to me it's the definition of spying, YMMV. I think the allegation is just that at this point but if they hadn't been made the ability to spy or monitor without the students knowledge or permission would still exist.

[proud2BlibKansan]

118. They should have let the families know there were webcams in those laptops

I have a feeling the kids figured out the webcams were there. But the district should have told the parents.

My district has this same tracking program built into laptops and employees are allowed to check them out. But they are told about the tracking program before they take the laptops home.

[fasttense]

17. Ah, the blame the victim card has been played.

Not that I think these victims are the salt of the earth. Just that their financial status has nothing to do with the law suit.

[Hannah Bell]

64. because we already know who the victims are, & to what degree, right?

of course we do.

[pipi_k]

82. Well you seem to know

And judging by your stance on this issue, the "real victims" are everyone but the family suing the school board.



Again, I'll ask for your reply to a question I asked in another topic on this issue...

I think it all did happen the way the family states, but I'm willing to allow that perhaps it really didn't.

Are you willing to allow that perhaps this case could have some merit even though you don't believe that family has a real case?

[depakid]

19. How does anyone run up $30,000 in arrearages on gas and electric bills?

:shrug:

[mikeytherat]

27. If you're poor, they'll cut you off if you owe $300.

Must be nice to be rich.

mikey_the_rat

[Hannah Bell]

29. by not paying their bills for five years? and not getting their power cut off, even though they

don't pay?

unlike the folks in less toney neighborhoods. who die.

[CC]

68. As to how, well

first there are the electric rates and gas rates. PECO is one of the higher rates in the area. Now that silly number they tell you to use to compare rates with other companies is about 25% of what you will actually pay it you are lucky. Then have a medical needs person in the house (mother's mother a stroke patient) and they are not allowed to turn off your power no matter how rich or poor or what your means or debt load is. Grandma goes that power will be off in no time. It said gas too so betting a lot of that went into heating. Heating season is killing us these days. Better this year but the doubling and the tripling of rates through out the Bush years really added up. For me, this year is about half of last years but still 3 times as much as in 2002 and I no longer have PECO. PECO as my electric provider would be a no deal if I were looking to buy a house, guess would be the same for gas. ($30,000 divided by 60 months comes out to $500.00. Figure in late fees, interest and court cost it is easy to see how that happened.)

No idea how big the house is when they go by price. Philly area a starter home in a decent neighborhood is going to be close to a half million. Hell you are looking at a quarter million in the boonies around here for a starter home. A 150,000 might get you an undeveloped lot.


I can see how they got so far in debt specially after 8 years of Bush. Seems to be happening to a lot of people in this area, specially with the job market.

[Obamanaut]

22. Rec, because it reads like another family familiar to 'grifter' watchers.n/t

[sendero]

23. I'm trying to understand this..

.... did they get suspicious because he didn't pay the fee, and then let him take the laptop home anyway?

[trumad]

30. That's the spin of the paper

[Hannah Bell]

32. no, the "spin" of the paper is that the student apparently took a laptop home without

paying the fee, not that the school "let" him take it without paying the fee.

iow, he apparently "borrowed" it. "apparently". possibly.

[CC]

45. No the paper said was

"Even so, it was the apparent failure to pay a fee - a $55 insurance payment to permit the Robbinses' son Blake to take his laptop home from Harriton High School - that might have prompted the district to activate the Web cam."

It never said anything about the kid "paying the fee, not that the school "let" him take it without paying the fee.

iow, he apparently "borrowed" it. "apparently". possibly."

Seems your mind is made up- student & parents bad, school good and all before it ever gets to court. And I wonder how repukes get elected.

[Hannah Bell]

50. try to keep up. that's in response to this poster's interpretation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7791456&mesg_id=7791536

[nenagh]

58. I'd be curious to know if the child could only complete homework

on the school's computer, eg is the math course on computer rather than by textbook?

If so it puts the child in the situation of having to use a laptop to complete the schoolwork.

It's a bad position to be in if your parents haven't paid the insurance... just wondering...

[woo me with science]

81. Sounds like that may have been the case:

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

[ctaylors6]

38. that's interesting

Like others have said a person's financial situation, even possible past bad actions, do not affect their constitutional rights. Yet character issues can affect a person's credibility, to the extent that matters regarding what's been reported as fact.

[FormerDittoHead]

44. OK, I'll ask. What does this have to do with the school and the laptop case?

Please connect the dots for me.

From what I see, the family does NOT have a record of filing frivolous law suits, slipping on sidewalks and suing, finding rats in fast food meals, etc...

THAT would have SOME relevancy...

So what's the point of THIS? They make money, but are over-extended in a house that's way over their means? They pay the mortgage before the electricity bill?

How many people would that describe?

I used to work for a business man who was otherwise doing very well but always waited until the last minute to pay the utilities on his business. I used to have to drive the payment over there.

[Hannah Bell]

46. that's $30K & five years worth of not paying the power bill.

i'm not exactly sure how that happens, myself.

i know, however, that i could never get away with it.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

51. good job of ignoring the question...

because you cannot connect the dots...

done...you are no longer entertaining...just sad...

sP

[Hannah Bell]

60. i've already answered the question twice on this thread. their credibility.

you're sad, sad, so sad, really sad, nyah nyah. people who got nothing make personal remarks.

[TexasObserver]

54. None of this has anything to do with the issue of spying on students.

The fact that you're more perturbed by the way the parents have gamed the utilities is bizarre.

Your implicit suggestion is that these parents just make things up to try to find a pay day. But we know this isn't made up. We know it's real and it involves many more students than this one student of these particular parents.

Even if the parents were professional grifters who were on parole for fraud, it wouldn't change the basic facts or the outrage of such facts.

[Hannah Bell]

62. no. it has to do with the credibility of the plantiffs. as i'm sure you realize.

[TexasObserver]

73. The facts acknowledged by the school district prove it was spying.

You're arguing about the school's intent (which you can't possibly know) and the extent of their spying (which you can't possibly know). The district may not have intended the same thing as the guy who installed and monitored the cameras, but their intent to spy remains the same whether their employee misused the feature or not.

If you know of a law which allows an adult to surreptitiously spy on (non custodial) teens in their bedroom, please provide it.

The school district is guilty of spying. The only questions are "how much spying?" and "how bad was it?"

[Jennicut]

79. My husband works for Yankee Gas in CT and shuts people off that don't pay.

You would be surprised WHAT people can get away with if the gas meter (or electric meter if they don't have gas) is not outside.
I think this family is a bit over the top but I do wonder what right a school has to be able to activate a camera to take a picture even if it is theft. It borders on spying.
I guess the case will have to play out in court.

[blogslut]

63. And the child was provided a loaner laptop

As per http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/85021742.html">another article in that same Philly paper:

The district contends that the Robbinses failed to pay a required $55 insurance fee, and that, therefore, Blake was barred from taking home a laptop. The school has a pool of "loaners" for students who have not paid the fee or are waiting for a new laptop.

The fee question was mentioned by U.S. District Judge Jan E. DuBois in court yesterday, as he tried to craft a compromise between dueling versions on the order, submitted by the two sides' attorneys.

Haltzman said after the hearing that he knew of no problem with fees or permissions. The lawyer said that Robbins' school laptop had broken and that he took a replacement home "every single day" for a month - with no one at school objecting or reporting it missing.

"Now we hear about all these issues," Haltzman said. "He didn't do anything wrong."

The order says Robbins will turn over the laptop to a technician who will make a mirror image of its hard drive. The teen is to get a replacement laptop - as soon as school officials receive any unpaid insurance fees...

For all attempts to make it sound as if the young man stole this laptop - he didn't. He received a loaner machine. Off-campus webcam monitoring of loaned laptops would be just as egregious as webcam monitoring of authorized/issued laptops.

As well, if one reads the complete article provided by the OP, it would be important to note this bit:

Haltzman's federal suit makes clear that the family is not necessarily expecting a large payout. "Since the damage suffered by individual class members may be relatively small," the expense of individual litigation might not be affordable without a class action, it says.

Certainly not for the Robbinses.

According to court records, their unpaid debts range from $62,692 owed to the IRS to lesser debts of a few thousand to their dentist, their former synagogue's preschool, and a Montgomery County lawyer.

The Peco bill still stood at more than $29,000 a few weeks ago. But after reaching a new agreement with the utility, the family paid off half of it last week, Wood said...

The young man's parents may have trouble with money but that is no reason to surreptitiously monitor his activities on a machine loaned to him by the school.

[Hannah Bell]

65. i detect some conflict over what happened.

"Haltzman said after the hearing that he knew of no problem with fees or permissions."

'The lawyer said that Robbins' school laptop had broken and that he took a replacement home "every single day" for a month - with no one at school objecting or reporting it missing.'

"Now we hear about all these issues," Haltzman said. "He didn't do anything wrong."



i wonder if the lawyer is also one of the robbins' creditors. he sued them in an earlier case.

[blogslut]

71. How does any of that justify spying on the young man?

?

[Hannah Bell]

144. who said it did?

[DeSwiss]

66. I think you're wrong.

Irrespective of this family's past legal history, the fact is that the school has NO legal authority to spy on people and that's the issue.

- Period.

[TommyO]

67. Oh joy, now Hannah is trashing the victims here

You'll go to any depths to trash this family, and all of the others who might have been victimized by this school district.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[Robb]

70. This does not make me sympathetic to the family, for certain.

Their right to privacy should still be protected, of course, if it has been violated.

Yes, I said "if."

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proud2BlibKansan]

76. Wow. Call me not surprised.

That kid looks way too rehearsed on TV.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joeybee12]

84. Thank God i'm still not too late to unrec this! n/t

[Moosepoop]

85. Lower Merion School District is no stranger to legal disputes

From today's news...

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/85315207.html

Posted on Thu, Feb. 25, 2010


Trial ordered in L. Merion redistricting

A federal judge in Philadelphia yesterday ruled that nine South Ardmore parents may proceed to trial in a case of alleged racial bias involving a Lower Merion school redistricting plan.

U.S. District Judge Michael M. Baylson issued a 25-page document denying the Lower Merion School District's motion for summary judgment, and set a March 29 trial date.

A summary judgment, filed by the defendant in a civil case, asserts that the plaintiff raised no material issue to be tried, in effect throwing out the case.

"This is big news," said James Herbert, spokesman for Lower Merion Voices United for Equity and Education, which has supported the South Ardmore parents but is not a party to the suit.

And from 2007...

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/case/lower-merion-students.html

Lower Merion School District

A class action lawsuit has been filed against the wealthy Pennsylvania school district alleging racial discrimination against African American students. Parents allege Lower Merion School District segregates black students into remedial or modified classes and keeps them there even if they make progress. The lawsuit also points out that while only 7.5 percent of the 6,800 students in Lower Merion schools are black, remedial classes are filled with 90 percent black students.

Nearly 13 percent of black students in Lower Merion schools score below average in the fifth grade, 24 percent in the eighth grade, and 36 percent in the 11th grade. While only 3 percent of white students scored below basic in the fifth grade, 5 percent in the eighth grade, and 8 percent in the 11th grade.

These aren't privacy cases, but they are legal issues that involve the school being sued by parents of students, so there goes the school's credibility too, right?? After all, even the home page of the school district's own website is dominated by announcements dealing with different lawsuits against it. http://www.lmsd.org/

[proud2BlibKansan]

90. Neither is any school district

Find one that has never been sued.

I'll wait.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

94. And millions of people are sued every year. It doesn't make them bad people.

[Moosepoop]

99. My point exactly!

:toast:

[Hassin Bin Sober]

102. I was sued by Discover for one of my dad's credit cards last year after he died.

I was merely an authorized signer. When the fuckers found out he died, they filed a suit against ME even though my brother informed them they would be paid when the estate settled.

[proud2BlibKansan]

101. Doesn't make them guilty either

And a lawsuit against this district is not proof they did anything wrong.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

105. Oh OK. Being sued only makes you "lawsuit happy" when you are an individual.

[Moosepoop]

106. Who said a lawsuit was proof of wrongdoing? Not me.

You and others on this thread apparently feel that the family's other legal issues negatively affect their credibility in this case. I pointed out that the school district has other legal baggage as well, and asked if their credibility was to be gone now, too. You seem to think not.

[Moosepoop]

103. So you're saying that legal issues are a credibility problem for the family

but not for the school district?

The family has debt problems, as do many other families currently. Somehow, this spells a lack of credibility to you.

The school district has had repeated lawsuit problems, as have many others, but this does not indicate a lack of credibility to you.

Please explain your reasoning.

I'll wait.

[pipi_k]

107. You only asked for one....

But I found two:


Because it was my hometown, I looked up

Springfield Mass school department/district.

No lawsuits found.



The district closest to where I am now...Gateway Regional (Mass)

No lawsuits found.

[proud2BlibKansan]

117. Good

Now find out how many threatened lawsuits have been settled out of court.

[pipi_k]

129. Sorry...

I gave the information.

If you want more "proof", then you'll have to finish the work on your own.

[proud2BlibKansan]

131. Somewhere in the US right now a parent is threatening to sue a school district

It's not at all unusual.

[pipi_k]

134. No doubt

But you asked someone else to find you even ONE school district that had never been sued.

I found two.

Apparently the two I found have never done anything suit-worthy.


Whereas the above mentioned school district has found itself in potential hot water, both civilly and criminally.



I've tried to be reasonable, asking the OP if she would consider the possibility that there might be something to this whole case.

I'm willing to consider the possibility that there's nothing to it at all, even though I believe otherwise.

Just wondering why someone on the other side of this can't/won't be open-minded enough to reciprocate. Or gracious enough to even reply.

[proud2BlibKansan]

162. It's because of the teacher/public school bashing here

It's gotten way out of hand lately.

And sure, I'll admit there's a chance this district spied on its kids. As I've said all along however, I seriously doubt it.

[pipi_k]

168. Fair enough...

You have doubts, but you're willing to entertain another possibility, and I appreciate your reply.



But there's one person (no need to name names here) who absolutely refuses to do the same. To say that she's doing so because there's a lot of school bashing sounds like a really bad excuse, IMO. The bashing, what there is of it, shouldn't even enter into the equation when someone considers other possibilities.

[proud2BlibKansan]

169. Thanks for understanding

These are tough times for teachers. It's especially hard when we take so much extra shit here on DU.

[Hannah Bell]

159. you're late on this. the unbiased sleuths here at DU posted that days ago.

strangely enough, no one took them to task for bringing up irrelevant matters designed to impugn the district's credibility.

nor did anyone speculate or impugn the poster's motives for posting such material. nor attack the poster's general character. or wish the poster ill. or predict that the poster would suffer from bad karma.

[Bluenorthwest]

87. At first you 'doubted' this story because it was in a 'well heeled'

area, and your notion was that well off people are never, ever victims of injustice. Now you are posting that the family is not 'well heeled' and castigating them for having financial problems in a recession and crash.
It is not my belief that one's rights are contingent upon having or not having money. I do not think that the poor are always out to make trouble, and I do not think that affluent people are free from all injustice. That is delusional thinking. In fact, it is not thinking at all.
What a display you have put on here. The truth of you has come raging forward. This family is bad because they are rich, now bad for being in debt. And those in power never lie. Because they are too smart.
We will have to see how this case plays out, for the many families involved. What is amazing is that you are so sure of the goodness of the school, and of the evil of the family. When you have no way of knowing anything that is not known by all of us. You have certainty where none can exist logically. And that in itself should alert you to rethink. Enjoy your certainty. But demanding that others share your presumptions and rush to judgment is beyond the pale. You have prejudices and assumptions. You have shared them loudly from the first thread on this subject. You have changed your argument from 'they are too rich to have troubles' to 'they are too poor to be trusted'. It is chilling. No matter the outcome of the case, your train of 'thought' on the issue is and will remain chilling.
I have often agreed with your posts, but this is just frightening.

[Richard Steele]

113. "The truth of you has come raging forward." Very well stated. nm

[Hannah Bell]

149. In fact, your assertion is false:

"At first you 'doubted' this story because it was in a 'well heeled'
area, and your notion was that well off people are never, ever victims of injustice."

I doubted the story about the vice principal calling the student in to discipline him for an infraction committed at home, using an illegally obtained spycam photo as evidence.


I still doubt it.

[Iggo]

89. So what?

[Spazito]

91. How pathetic....

and desperate of you to post this in order to denigrate the family. This article has NOTHING to do with the allegations against the school yet you felt the need to post it anyway. Here's an article that DIRECTLY relates to the case and it has an interesting tidbit in it that you might not like:

Federal judge orders school district to stop spying on students


"Technicians said they have activated the technology 42 times this year to take photos of suspects believed to be damaging laptops or otherwise committing wrongdoing — precisely the reason they turned it on the case of the 15-year-old Harriton High School student now pressing charges."

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/83383-federal-judge-orders-school-to-stop-spying-on-students

Seems the school technicians have changed their story quite a bit from 'activating the technology only when the laptop is suspected to have been stolen' to "activating the technology 42 times this year to take photos of suspects believed to be damaging laptops or otherwise committing wrongdoing..."

"otherwise committing wrongdoing"??? That certainly broadens their usage doesn't it.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

100. Yep. "damaging or otherwise committing wrongdoing"

They sure HAVE expanded their scope.


Why do some IT people snoop and spy on others? Because they CAN. My neighbor in my building, a nice guy I call a friend, who happens to be a network administrator brags about how he and his co-workers watch what everyone is up to at their office. He set up a wifi password for my other neighbor in the building when her internet was down and jokingly told her "of course you realize I'll be watching everything you do". The guys at my former company, between goofing off on online games, used to joke about who was looking at what sites.

Everything I type on my office network or office email I just ASSUME is being watched. It's what employers do. To think that this IT school IT guy thought it was his god given right to activate that school owned camera isn't much of a stretch AT ALL. Didn't a computer blogger find instances of the IT person in question BRAGGING about his system and its abilities to spy surreptitiously?

[Spazito]

116. Yes, the expansion seems to indicate they are aware of evidence....

that cannot be explained away by their first contention that they ONLY used the technology for stolen laptops, doesn't it. As to the IT guy bragging about the system on video, it is ironic to be sure, given some have claimed 'they' (whoever they is) wouldn't be stupid enough to do what the IT guy stupidly bragged about doing, lol.

[DainBramaged]

92. You and I are friends, why beat this to death?

:shrug:

[trumad]

123. Because she is dead wrong but refuses to admit it...

[Hannah Bell]

146. actually, if you check your earlier post, turns out it's you who was wrong --

[pipi_k]

98. Questions...

I read the article but didn't see this statement included:


Even so, it was the apparent failure to pay a fee - a $55 insurance payment to permit the Robbinses' son Blake to take his laptop home from Harriton High School - that might have prompted the district to activate the Web cam....



So I'm assuming it's your opinion...


In any case, regarding that statement...If the family didn't pay the fee, when did the school take that computer away from the kid? If it was reported as being "stolen", prompting the school to activate the secret camera to locate it, was there a report made to the local police department? Did the family ultimately pay the fee, or did they not?

[Romulox]

108. I don't see any relevance here. Unrec. nt

[PCIntern]

112. It's a Republican-style trick...

call the family into question...blame the victim.

As I've said repeatedly...I don't care about the suit...I care THAT THE FRIGGING LAPTOP WAS PLACED IN MY HOME IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[proud2BlibKansan]

119. So have you given it back?

If you don't want it in you home I'm assuming you returned it.

I'm also wondering if there was some kind of agreement you had to sign before your child was issued a laptop and if that agreement disclosed that there was a tracking device in the laptop. I read that the parents were asked to pay for insurance and wondered if that request for payment included this written disclosure.

[Robb]

120. I was wondering the same thing

...not about returning the laptop, but wondering what parents signed. Considering I recall one couldn't get a freaking soccer ball off-campus for an hour without signing away first-born children, I can only imagine what it looked like for a laptop. :D

[proud2BlibKansan]

122. Kids can't check out library books or touch school computers

unless parents sign an agreement.

Chances are this district did not disclose the webcams in the agreement the parents signed. But I'd still like to know one way or another.

[PCIntern]

125. My kid's not in school there anymore...

and she gave it back and what we signed did not state that the webcam and/or mic could be activated by school personnel.

[dgibby]

127. I hope you and your daughter are weathering this storm.

I can only imagine how she (and you) must be feeling. Breech of trust is devastating, especially to someone as young as your daughter. She must be feeling a profound sense of loss right now. Have other parents removed their children, too? Are you going to home school her or transfer her to another school?

The chaos and upheaval resulting from this egregious action by the school district is stupefying, and apparently lost on some folks not personally involved.

I hope your family and the other families involved get all the support you need to get through this mess. :hug:

[maddezmom]

126. there was an agreement but it did not contain anything about the security software

¬snip¬

The school district has admitted that parents had not been informed of the software's installation or operation ."While certain rules for laptop use were spelled out – such as prohibitive uses on and off school property – there was no explicit notification that the laptop contained the security software," said Dr. Christopher W. McGinley, superintendent of schools for the Lower Merion School District. "This notice should have been given and we regret that was not done."

more: http://www.infosecurity-us.com/view/7527/pennsylvania-school-district-hit-by-injunction-fbi-investigation-after-web-cam-incident/

[proud2BlibKansan]

128. Yes they should have given a notice

A dumb move on the district's part.

[Ignis]

133. Attacking the man rather than the argument is a favorite of some.

And such ad hominems just make the user look bad. Pity the OP can't see that.

[Hannah Bell]

145. yes, it is. pity you can't see the irony.

[Ignis]

155. There's much more tragedy than irony in this pitiful smear campaign.

I'll repeat (via paraphrase) what has been frequently stated by posters above: There is no honor in defending the indefensible.

[Barack_America]

121. Debtors have no civil rights?

Or at least no right to sue when their civil rights have been violated?

Is that the gist of this argument?

[pipi_k]

132. Hard to know what the exact gist of the argument is, really...

because it seems to have changed a few times.

But if the school district, or anyone who was a part of this, is prosecuted and found guilty...

And even if the FBI finds some Federal crime has been committed...

I suspect that the denial will still go on. For reasons upon which I don't care to speculate.


:shrug:

[friendly_iconoclast]

138. DUer HippieCowgirl posted a great way to counter this mindset

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=520217&mesg_id=520477

HippieCowgirl (189 posts) Wed Feb-24-10 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
15. "Little Brother" Download this book, Free... give the link to a young person you know.
http://www.feedbooks.com/book/2466

Lots of helpful advice on privacy, security, crypto, and getting one past the man.

Also a very entertaining novel.

[Ignis]

156. Heartily seconded.

Thanks for the link! :thumbsup:

[friendly_iconoclast]

130. The OP is a classic genetic fallacy. Truth is not the exclusive preserve of the virtuous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

Genetic fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits.

According to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, the term originates in Morris Cohen and Ernest Nagel's book Logic and Scientific Method....

The National Enquirer is, well, the National Enquirer but they were correct about John Edwards, were they not?

[JPZenger]

135. More revelations in today's paper

The Phila. Inquirer has a couple additional angles on this story, today.

1. The school district apparently felt it had the right to activate the web cam because the family had not paid the $55 insurance fee that was required before the laptop could be removed from the high school. Therefore, it was missing or stolen, in their minds.

2. The father filed the lawsuit after the Ass. Vice Principal said she was going to put her allegations that the son was selling drugs into his PERMANENT RECORD.

[pipi_k]

139. Huh...so the school apparently knew

the kid had the computer but felt it necessary to activate the "spycam" anyway?


doesn't look so good for them!!




PS...got a link?

[JPZenger]

176. www.philly.com

put laptop and lower merion into the search

[Texasgal]

140. Why are you so hell bent

on defending this school district?

Your posts on this matter are starting to scare me quite frankly.

[Warren DeMontague]

141. The smear campaign begins.

The bottom line, here? Some people think authoritarian idiocies like the "war on drugs" trump everything and anything, including any reasonable right to privacy or anything else.

Look at the statement made by the school administrations themselves- they essentially admit doing exactly what they're accused of. End of story.

[LeftyMom]

148. Digging up their financial woes to discredit this family is lower than whale shit.

[woo me with science]

151. You win the prize

for best description of the OP's argument.

[slutticus]

152. No. It's not.

I'm sure somewhere, someone, at some time, has come up with a use for whale shit (maybe plankton eat it....who knows???)

This is beyond that. Pathetic. Sad really.

[LeftyMom]

154. You're right.

My sincerest apologies to whale poo for the unflattering and undeserved comparison.

[tammywammy]

161. Thank you n/t

[rcrush]

160. I've never seen someone defend the Big Brother State so enthusiastically before.

I hope you have your webcam taped up on your laptop.

[Political Heretic]

163. This thread is surreal.

:popcorn:

[Hannah Bell]

165. i've done no such thing. indeed, i've specifically stated otherwise in this thread & elsewhere.

not that i expect it to stop you, or others, from continuing to make the false charge.

[leftstreet]

170. I've never seen a poster attacked so enthusiastically before

To my knowledge this poster never, EVER 'defends the Big Brother State'

His/her words are being twisted and strawman-ed in fascinating ways.

Interesting...

:popcorn:

[krabigirl]

167. Um, still gives no reason for the school to SPY on kids. Throw the book at them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

171. What a fun little witchhunt this is turning out to be.

You've got, assuming this OP is true, a seedy family out to take somebody else's money (in Salem it was property).

You've got rumors of wrong doing without any actual evidence.

You've got people attacking the messenger.

You've got the unspoken allegations of sex crimes directed against teenagers from nefarious individuals using, almost magical, forms of trickery.

:popcorn:

[supernova]

175. The family's troubles don't

negate the merits of the case of spying on individual students.