<p>Let us assume that illegal activity had been detected. My hunch would be that if the evidence was acquired illegally, it would not be admissible in a court of law. Any lawyer wants to chime in?</p>
<p>But, as cluelessdad posted, there is no evidence of illegal activity.</p>
<p>So happens I work with a nationally known expert on computer privacy laws. His assessment (assuming the camera only took still pictures with no audio)</p>
<p>0 chance to prevail under the Pennsylvania statute
0 chance to prevail under the Federal Wiretapping statute
Just barely possible to construct an argument that has some chance to prevail under the Antihacking statute.</p>
<p>Just reporting.</p>
<p>^^^Imagine I was a manufacturer of children’s teddy bears. I sell these bears in stores for children and inside I’ve implanted a secret hidden video camera. You, a parent, buy this bear for your kid who keeps in in their room at home. However neither you nor your child have any idea that we have a secret camera inside. </p>
<p>The secret video cameras are subsequently uncovered. I confirm that indeed we put secret video cameras in all the bears and also confirm that, at our own discretion, had the ability to turn on and monitor the secret camera in your child’s room. However, I claim that I would have only ever decided to use that ability if you filed for a warranty to replace a missing bear. </p>
<p>Would this be an acceptable and perfectly legal practice? Would I get off the hook? Somehow I think not.</p>
<p>What happened in this case is, from a legal standpoint, exactly the same as the above situation.</p>
<p>EMM1:</p>
<p>I don’t understand the significance of audio or lack thereof. Communication encompasses a wide range of media, from the spoken to the written word, pictures, graphs, etc…</p>
<p>Can you elaborate?</p>
<p>EMM, I would be interested in hearing this expert’s reasoning supporting his conclusions, specifically as to the PA statute.</p>
<p>^ Hi Marite, catching up on my Foucault reading :)</p>
<p>IF (theoretically) the school district were to have been looking for its <em>own</em> computer, ie not one that had <em>ever</em> been loaned out to a student to take home , but one that was supposed to stay at the school and had gone missing - could the school district then claim they had every expectation to find the computer on their own premises? Would that make them more justified or equally unjustified in activating some kind of tracking system in your opinion? Does anyone feel that such a scenario would make a significant difference in terms of consequences in a civil or potential criminal case?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[School</a> district agrees to preserve webcam evidence | Philadelphia Inquirer | 02/22/2010](<a href=“http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20100222_School_district_agrees_to_preserve_webcam_evidence.html]School”>School district agrees to preserve webcam evidence)</p>
<p>roske, my fundamental problem is that once you install the spyware CAPACITY, I will never be comfortable that its use will be appropriately limited (or abuses traceable) regardless of what is CLAIMED about limited use. So I reject your premise: the spyware should not be enabled period.</p>
<p>You can argue about the extent of harm; some will feel little to none. Put me on that jury and a very large message would be sent regardless of “pure heart empty head” defenses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on the way the spyware software works (there’s a demo video on YouTube) the ‘spymaster’ would know where the computer was before they decided to turn on the camera. </p>
<p>If the IP address reported was in the school district then they may (still very sketchy) have been able to turn on the camera even without telling anyone about its existence. However, if it was a non-district IP address they would have known for certain (or at least had the ability to find out for certain) that the secret camera was in fact on private property before they started recording. So the possibility that they ‘accidently’ secretly captured images inside private homes does not exist.</p>
<p>Someone should save a copy of the school’s network logs tool.</p>
<p>I wonder what LMSD did to immediately lockdown its system so access records couldn’t be wiped? </p>
<p>Or if access records could have been wiped at the time of any unauthorized webcam use?</p>
<p>“EMM, I would be interested in hearing this expert’s reasoning supporting his conclusions, specifically as to the PA statute.”</p>
<p>the statute prohibits only interception of wire, electronic or oral communication. So you have to have not only communication, but specific types of communication.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The law I read defined ‘electronic’ as including, among many other things, “images” so this issue about sound or not cited by your expert would appear an entirely moot point.</p>
<p>Specifically the PA law defines ‘electronic communication’ to be:</p>
<p>“Any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical system”</p>
<p>The images whose interception is prohibited are electronic images, not live images. Yes, there is an electronic transfer of an image, but the transfer of the image is not intercepted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This makes no sense. Yes the data stream in question was ‘initiated’ in secret by the remote party but that doesn’t then make it OK to intercept it–live or not. </p>
<p>Another way of looking at it is to define the transmission as being from the computer’s camera to the computer’s motherboard. The remote viewing of the live image constitutes a wiretapping of that electronic stream of data.</p>
<p>Furthermore, it’s not a valid defense against a wiretapping charge to say that the device which was wiretapped wasn’t initially ‘on’ but was in fact turned on remotely. It’s a circular argument… the fact that someone was able to turn it on in the first place constitutes illegal tapping of the device in question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sensible, officiating gibberish</p>
<p>It makes perfect sense me, but in any event, as I said, I was just reporting (whic,in retrospect, was a mistake). Maybe you’re right–we’ll see.</p>
<p>deleted duplicative of other posts</p>
<p>I am sure I have read on the news posts that the kid was being accused of illegal activity…and was approached about it–and thats how this came out…right?</p>
<p>too funny Clueless to say that my asking about it and whether their kid was being charged with doing something wrong is “libel” </p>
<p>lol </p>
<p>how litigeous can one be?? is there a fee there for ya?</p>
<p>The company that made the software has spoken out today and is critical of the school district’s use of their software. </p>
<p>Clearly the company is trying to cover itself now that it go out their software was the tool used to plant bugs in student’s school equipment, but their comments still don’t exactly help the school’s position. </p>
<p>To read the company’s comments search Google news for: Software maker blasts ‘vigilantism’ in Pa. school spying case</p>