<p>A recent report of the Lower Merion (PA) School District's use of spycam technology revealed that thousands of screen shot images were captured by the school district through the use of remote technology. It also reveals that parents and students were not informed of the fact that this technology was available and could be used. That means the laptops issued by the school district to each student could remotely view activity on the laptop camera and capture images from the camera, even at off-campus locations, like in one's private home. The school district claims the report, which it commissioned and paid for, indicates that no "spying" occurred. However, the FBI and US Attorney continues their own investigations of this matter. </p>
<p>I personally hope that heads roll and that criminal charges, if so indicated, are filed against those involved over this blatant violation of privacy. The Lower Merion School District should be ashamed of its role and/or involvement in this matter.</p>
<p>58,000 pictures taken – a lot more than they first acknowledged. I read the report, and the only one who comes out looking good is an unnamed high school student who was interning with the IT department, researched the software when he heard about it, and then sent emails to folks in IT expressing concerns that it could be used to track people off campus and take images and capture chats. He was blown off by the administrators and told, basically, “nonsense.”</p>
<p>The report was prepared by the district’s outside consultants, and draws the conclusion that there was no “spying” involved, but I’m hard pressed to call 58,000 pictures taken, chats captured, and the like as being something other than “spying”, especially when one IT person exchanges email with another chortling over how much it is like watching a soap opera. </p>
<p>It will be interesting to see what the FBI and state attorney’s office say. The school district has already spent $550,000 on legal and consulting fees in this case – a quick settlement with the complaining student’s family would probably have been much, much cheaper.</p>
<p>The consultant’s report also severely criticizes the school board and district administration for failing to exercise their responsibilities. I wonder if this will lead to some turnover at the next board election.</p>
<p>If you recall in the last thread on this topic (which was removed when the discussion allegedly got too heated), there were a few posters who had the hubris to not only defend the actions of the school district and school board, but to attack the Robbins boy and his family. </p>
<p>I, too, am looking forward to the results of the FBI and and State Attorney investigations. I am very hopeful that these investigations will conclude that criminal activity occurred. Punishing those involved will be a strong message to not mess with our most basic Constitutional rights of privacy. It makes my blood boil to think that this type of voyeuristic spying could have happened to my teenaged daughter if she had attended Harriton HS. At minimum I hope that many heads will roll.</p>
<p>^^^^^^
Thanks for posting the article. I’m more interested in the results of the ongoing investigations by the FBI and State Attorney’s office. I’m hoping they will determine that criminal activity occurred, and if so, that formal charges should be filed against those individuals and/or entities that committed criminal acts.</p>
<p>I also hope that heads roll, both school employeees and LMSD administrators. This will hopefully deter future violaltions of civil rights. How any parent can defend the actions of the LMSD is beyond my comprehension. Those who have chosen to attack the Robbins family are just idiots. Imagine your 15 year old daughter being secretly spied on in her bedroom. Yes, heads should roll and huge sums of monies should be paid to those whose rights were violated. It’s all about money on the Main Line.</p>
<p>The school district just settled for > $600K. $175K in trust for the original student who complained, $10K for the second student (who came forward much later), and $400K+ for the attorney who brought the suit.</p>
<p>So much for those who claimed that this was all, “much ado about nothing” when the allegations were first raised.</p>