L. Merion won't block feds in Web-cam case

[maddezmom]

One investigation into the Lower Merion School District's laptop fiasco is done.

But as the district tries to move on, another probe churns.

Lawyers for the district, some Lower Merion parents, and the Harriton High School sophomore whose lawsuit spotlighted the school system's use of Web-camera monitoring said Wednesday that they wouldn't try to block federal agents from poring over thousands of images secretly captured from students' computers.

The development came as a federal judge prepared to permanently bar the district from using Web-cam monitoring and as Superintendent Christopher McGinley announced plans to meet with students, overhaul technology policies, and take other steps to repair the district's tattered image.

"We are committed to moving forward and restoring the community's trust," McGinley wrote in a letter to the suburban community.

more: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20100506_L__Merion_won_t_block_feds_in_Web-cam_case.html

[Egnever]

1. " judge prepared to permanently bar the district from using Web-cam monitoring "

That seems a little draconian. There are legitimate uses for web cam monitoring, this school district did it wrong to be sure in this case but to permanently ban it going forward seems a little like hitting a fly with a sledgehammer. Technology is moving way too fast to permanently ban any of it.

[TheMadMonk]

2. There are NO LEGITIMATE reasons to have the ability to remotely...

...activate a camera in an unknown location. Not even tracing kidnap victims.

[Egnever]

3. Really?

not even if the user agrees to it before hand?

[hobbit709]

4. Did the user agree to it?

Those agreements were deliberately vague about the webcam part.

[TheMadMonk]

5. No. Not even then, because the user can't give consent for others.

Furthermore, the consent such as it was, was all but coerced. Schoolwork had to be done on the school issue computers, and the only way students were permitted to take one home was for parents to pay a nominal deposit/insurance fee (which is fair enough) and consent to an agreement that had no details of what was actually being agreed to. WHICH DAMNED WELL ISN'T.

Nor is it actually possible to seek informed consent for the use of inbuilt cameras for security like this, since once people are aware of the capacity to remotely activate the camera, defeating it is trivial.

As a security measure, it's all but worthless. Particularly now that this incident has received the publicity it has.

As a measure for keeping an eye on exactly what your workers are up to it's bloody marvelous. However to market it as such would not be very politic. Marketing it as a security feature, absolves the authors of any "misuse" to which the buyer might put it.