<p>
</p>
<p>Could someone post a link to the statue in question?</p>
<p><a href=“http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?li={7D4ECEE8-7D54-481E-9412-6B174BA83CED}&RS=GVT1.0&VR=2.0&SP=PAC-1000”>http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?li={7D4ECEE8-7D54-481E-9412-6B174BA83CED}&RS=GVT1.0&VR=2.0&SP=PAC-1000</a></p>
<p>Hope that worked. You want Article F, ch. 57 as pinpoints within 5702, 5703 and 5705 of note.</p>
<p>Sorry, I’m not so good on computer skills, but the cut and paste will get you there.</p>
<p>cluelessdad, you’re not in anyway clueless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you for pretending to answering the question.</p>
<p>^^ Thanks Toblin. I must say, a bit unfair ^ to MOWC who was responding to your comment that this “is” a class action by noting that filing as a class action does not a class action make.</p>
<p>I would think settlement terms would be public regardless, as it would the public fisc ponying up any cash.</p>
<p>This whole story makes me glad I no longer have children in school. What an Orwellian nightmare. The worst part is how technology fuels paranoia which in turn begets more technology. </p>
<p>I am imagining the scenario(s) of how the school administration were able to track down lost/stolen laptops after using the spyware to capture screenshots. What did they do, show up at the “perp’s” door (assuming the recognized the person)?</p>
<p>I don’t really understand the link restrictions on this site, but recommend googling strydehax for a report specifically testing of the LANrev spyware in question.</p>
<p>We are about to see this explode in ways unimaginable to people who value living in a free society. How about the potential that LANrev “wipes” its superadmin spyware activations, so that there is no log of when and for what purpose the spycams were used? And the numerous student complaints that their webcams were signaling being dimissed as glitches? And that the school MANDATED exclusive use of the spyware planted computers?</p>
<p>Word of the day: panopticon. Look it up. I’m not embarrassed to say I broke into tears as the enormity of this hit me.</p>
<p>Definitely off topic but I just googled panopticon and noticed it was designed by Jeremy Bentham which was John Locke’s name in Lost. Now, I really am getting paranoid.</p>
<p>Well, from Bentham the road leads to John Stuart Mill, so we can always keep moving toward the sun :)</p>
<p>Here’s the latest missive from the school district:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[LMSD</a> | LMHS | Announcements](<a href=“http://lmsd.org/sections/schools/default.php?m=&t=lmhs&p=lmhs_today_anno&id=1145]LMSD”>http://lmsd.org/sections/schools/default.php?m=&t=lmhs&p=lmhs_today_anno&id=1145)</p>
<p>[Laptop</a> camera snapped away in one classroom | Philadelphia Inquirer | 02/22/2010](<a href=“http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20100222_Laptop_camera_snapped_away_in_one_classroom.html]Laptop”>Laptop camera snapped away in one classroom)</p>
<p>So not just one photo - up to 20. I thought the district said at one point it was just one snapshot, but that never made sense to me based on the info. Also - student reps spoke to the principal about this a long time ago, asked and were honestly told about what the tracking system does. They told him they were concerned about privacy rights and he did nothing. I think that regardless of what happens legally, heads are going to roll.</p>
<p>With panopticon, we move into Michel Foucault territory. Read Discipline and Punish. The panopticon is widely used in prisons. Technology means that our homes are no longer our castles.</p>
<p>The superintendent once again fails to be transparent and point out that the investigator is in fact from the firm being paid to defend them against the charges… instead using vague language that he’s a " a local attorney and former federal prosecutor"–local attorney alright… from the firm your paying with local parents’ money to find you did nothing wrong. Geesh!</p>
<p>If they truly cared about conducting a through investigation into the matter they would secure someone wholly unconnected to the case without a serious conflict of interests.</p>
<p>From the Ballard Spahr letter:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s rich – those would be the facts that they aren’t going to tell anyone outside of the Board, which will declare all findings protected by attorney-client privilege. </p>
<p>But that would be perhaps fair if LMSD had also withdrawn its prior communications making the blanket statement that no improper spyware use had occurred before the spyware uses were even investigated. But its somehow OK when self-serving CONCLUSIONS are made by Ballard Spahr’s client, LMSD.</p>
<p>The LMSD community should be screaming for answers NOW. </p>
<p>This case is interesting because it has the narrow litigation element, but at the same time larger public aspects: regardless of the lawsuit, the community has a general right to know:</p>
<ol>
<li> The policy parameters of how the spyware was actually authorized to be used, and how and when such policies were documented</li>
<li> The operational CAPACITY of the spyware to be used beyond any policy authorization</li>
<li> The existence and reliability of any audit logs verifying each use of the spyware, including the CAPACITY of IT staff or others to “wipe” or erase log audit trails. </li>
<li> A direct response addressing the numerous reports of student webcam lights indicating “in use” and the claimed “glitch” explanations asserted by the school.</li>
</ol>
<p>As the LMSD community learns more about how LANrev works, they are in for a rude awakening. And they clearly are not going to be awakened by Ballard Spahr or the District.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. Public entities are still entitled to enter into private settlements in many jurisdictions (don’t know about PA law on this point). Otherwise, public entities would have lesser incentive to settle if everything’s going to be made public anyway. </p>
<p>Whether the case becomes a class action is not really relevant to the private settlement issue. And it may be that the settlement is not with a “class”, but rather with each member of the class individually.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He thinks it’s funny that he can monitor a classroom of students and a teacher without their knowledge? And we’re supposed to believe and trust that no one abused this spyware? Even without this lawsuit, if I had heard about this spyware and its capabilities, I would be very reluctant to have my child use his/her assigned laptop. Maybe I’m a cynic, but I would automatically assume that someone somewhere in the district would abuse it. As I imagine it, that scenario is not pretty.</p>
<p>A worse scenario is if the system got hacked. Say the admins’ computers got infected with a keylogger or became infected with something that remote controlled their computers and someone in Eastern Europe then had access to all of the computers at the school.</p>
<p>BCEagle too funny!</p>
<p>Hey --so what happens with the evidence of the kid doing the illegal drug dealing or whatever illegal activity he was “caught” doing?
Does he get charged with the crime? </p>
<p>Have they said much about that…or is that part of the point of his parents suit–top eliminate that as “evidence”?</p>
<p>It sounds like the school AP tried to handle this herself.</p>
<p>Typical resolutions on webcams aren’t that good and the Apple Webcam is so-so. They’re decent for videoconferencing but your cheapie point and shoot takes better pictures so telling Mike and Ikes from drug capsule might be hard.</p>
<p>Fog, there is no criminal charge against the kid, so tossing criminal “evidence” is clearly not what this family is pursuing.</p>
<p>BTW, if I were that kid’s parents and I read your post #198 I’d be serving a libel suit on you. The kid in no way deserves anyone claiming – on no legitimate basis – that he was engaged in criminal activity.</p>