<p>Just to be clear, the vigilantes that they are referring to is the school district.</p>
<p>The company’s position is reasonable and is probably similar in form to using Lo-Jack for automobiles.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, the midnight oil was burning at LANrev. Hmmmm … a whole lotta of backtracking going on for no criminal spyware exposure …</p>
<p>Philly Inquirer is reporting some of the latest developments. The judge in the case has ordered school officials to stop making public comments on the matter without first running those comments by the plaintiff’s legal team. The paper says “Such communication limits are commonplace in class-action litigation - but rare in the context of a school district at the center of what’s become a nationwide controversy.” </p>
<p>Based on today’s developments it also appears clear that the district was indeed photographing the student at home in his bedroom as the case alleges.</p>
<p>Also from the article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However this is all a secondary point anyway… separate to the fact that they secretly bugged school equipment sent home with students.</p>
<p>Fog @#155
</p>
<p>Fog @#198
</p>
<p>Yes, Fog, litigious enough that if you re-published (actually libelous statements beyond the originally published reports) such trash talk about my son that I would be suing you, guaranteed.</p>
<p>It sounds like Robbins had a laptop that was broken so he took a loaner. Where was his during this time? Was it in his possession or at the school? If it was at the school, then I can’t see why he’d need to pay the insurance fee again.</p>
<p>It seems to me that they used the rule on loaners to have a little fun with the spyware stuff. And that they have some administrative and policy holes.</p>
<p>Regardless of how this plays out in the courts, there will be a huge fallout for this school district. I’m betting heads will roll. AND, every other school district will think very hard about the privacy rights of students, if only to protect their own butts.</p>
<p>Still very big news here on the Philadelphia Main Line where we live. Just watched local television news. The US Attorney is now involved in the investigation. In my opinion the only way the school district is going to get away with what I (a non-attorney or legal expert) interpret to be illegal activity will be a legal technicality.</p>
<p>Did the kid who is suing–have a laptop at home that was
“lost” stolen or off the school grounds without permission?</p>
<p>Did the school use this tracking to locate missing computers that were
Lost"
stolen or
off campus without permission?</p>
<p>Was the tracking software only taking a still of the user and desktop in order to locate the
“lost”
stolen
or missing /without permission (explicit in the schools computer/tech rules) computers ?</p>
<p>Certainly the school can be called on the carpet for accountability for overreaching IF its determiend the school’s policy didn’t make users aware of the tracking ability
AND also the kids can be held accountable for not adhering to the rules/policy of the school district as the school had to track down computers…
anyone wonder if kids were hiding computers or lying about their wherabouts??</p>
<p>Of 2300+ computers less than 1% were “lost”/stolen…
and the taxpayers are paying for those laptops and software - they aren’t personal property of the kid…</p>
<p>So while we can ask how far was too far when it came to the school tracking them down–we have to also ask the question about accountability of the students using them.</p>
<p>2300 families aren’t going to sue </p>
<p>Frankly you have to ask then of the 18 or so laptops retreived–were those families angrey that their kid got caught with a laptop at home–or did they return the “los”/stolen machines to the school grounds without complaint?
Didn’t the kids over time hear about how “lost”/stolen machines were being found?</p>
<p>Ask too–are the machines brower history and hard drives being inspected for behavior that is incongruent to the schools tech policy (social web sites/“adult” content/s3xting etc)…</p>
<p>This is bigger than whether the school has the right to track their machines–because in the end ANY behavior from any student that does not follow the schools tech guidelines is an infraction and punishable…Does everyone think the kids ONLY used their machines for approved homework?</p>
<p>Like I said in an earlier post–our school went through something like this years ago with machines the families owned–and the school had the right to collect the machines and inspect them even though they were private property and the kids who got suspended used their private computers in private homes doing things unacceptable to the districts tech policy.</p>
<p>
Was this in the United States?</p>
<p>^ I am curious about that report. I believe Fog said these were grade school students? They would be taking laptops to school everyday? Or how wwere the computerss collected and searched --by court orders and/or parental permission? Sounds bizarre and quite Soviet to me.</p>
<p>Fog, could you direct us to any press reporting at the time for more detail? I’m sure it raised quite a stir.</p>
<p>fogfog I see the points you are trying to make but they are irrelevant to the case. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The school officials have already publicly admitted to secretly installing bugs on school equipment and that this equipment was provided to students for the specific purpose of taking it home with them. The school officials already publicly admitted that it was inappropriate for them to have bugged equipment in secret and the judge has already issued a cease and desist order against the officials to prevent them from further using these, now not so secret, spy abilities. There is nothing to “determine” on this front.</p>
<p>
Irrelevant to the case. </p>
<p>Yes if a student stole a computer they should be punished, but that’s not the question the court, DA and FBI are looking into. The school secretly bugged school equipment that it admits it gave to students to take into their private homes with full permission. The school had the ability to monitor these secret bugs fully at their own discretion. Again, see earlier comments, if I bug you child’s room it’s not a valid defense for me to say that I didn’t use it or only intended to do so in cases where I thought it would be OK. The law makes the very act of bugging illegal regardless of if you actually monitor the bug or not. Specifically the law says the act of “endeavoring” to monitor is itself illegal. </p>
<p>
Irrelevant to the case. </p>
<p>The school can monitor the physical contents of the laptops and their policy informs families of this fact. This isn’t uncommon for equipment provided to someone for use (either by a school or company). Nobody, not even the lawyers for the plaintiffs, is contending that there is anything wrong with this. This case is not about the school looking at images which the student placed on the laptop… it is about the school utilizing the camera in the laptop as a secret bug to record what’s in front of it totally at the school’s own discretion.</p>
<p>Even the company who made the software in question has come out to say that, even in the case of a clearly stolen laptop, such monitoring should only ever be done under the close supervision of law enforcement–who can obtain the necessary legal permissions to conduct the ‘search’ that occurs when you start taking pictures with a secret remote camera. </p>
<p>This case is not about monitoring the physical contents of school owned equipment. This case is about planting a secret bug, capable of recording images, into school equipment… sending that equipment home with children and then, for whatever reason, using that secret bug to record images of children in their own home. </p>
<p>Regardless of if these secret bugs were activated or not and regardless of if school officials said they only spied in cases where they thought the laptop was lost/stolen the simple act of secreting implanting cameras into the homes of children constitutes a serious offense–potentially even a federal felony. That’s why the FBI, DA and courts have taken this so seriously.</p>
<p>Legal or not, it is pretty dumb of the school district to get themselves involved in this mess. Do we really want to know what kids do in their own bedrooms? Don;t they have enough to do supervising kids while in school? At home, shall we leave it to their parents so we can rest up for another hard day at school?</p>
<p>The boy claims he was at home. If he didn’t pay the fee, he was not legally in possession of the computer (although he is not guilty of theft under Pa. criminal law). End of any common law privacy claims.</p>
<p>The issue, in my opinion, has gone beyond whether the suit is winnable. It is now focused on the school district’s policy. The FBI would not be looking into the case if it were so cut and dried.Clearly, the SD believes it needs to drop that policy, and other SDs have gotten very nervous as well. Regardless of whether the case is thrown out of court or the plaintiffs lose, the issue of privacy and the separation of school and home will get another airing, affecting not only LMSD but other SDs as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The issue of the boy and his specific laptop is only part of the case. What about all the other bugged school equipment that was sent home with children… in fact the children were instructed to take it home. </p>
<p>These families had secret cameras implanted into their their child’s bedroom without their knowledge and (as we now know) against their wishes. The DA/FBI/Court has been asked to look into not just the specific instance with the boy but the broader secret bugging actions performed by the school officials. </p>
<p>Again I bring up my teddybear example. Are you suggesting that if you found secret cameras implanted in teddy bears which you bought/leased for use in your chilld’s bedroom that this would be perfectly legal–even if I admitted to my ability to activate the camera at my own discretion, but said I would only do so under conditions I felt were appropriate? </p>
<p>Installing a secret camera in ones own home/school/office is one thing… installing a secret camera in someone else’s home is a whole different situation.</p>
<p>If his rights have not been violated, he has no standing to bring the law suit on behalf of the class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. It’s entirely possible that the district officials will get off on technicalities–someone could spin legal definitions a certain way and sometimes the court agrees with such interpretations.</p>
<p>However, beyond the legal issue the case has accomplished the goal of bringing this issue to light and setting a clear public sentiment regarding the standards of behavior and disclosure expected of our public school officials. In many way’s that can be more powerful than any legal ruling.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, but the case and the DA/FBI investigation are separate matters. They don’t need the ‘class.’ </p>
<p>If the DA or FBI finds wrongdoing then a local or federal prosecutor can bring a case and charges.</p>
<p>Since the beginning of this case, there have been two big mysteries, and at least one of them was cleared up yesterday. Did the school take a remote picture of the plaintiff? Yes, because he had taken a loaner laptop home without permission. It WAS missing.</p>
<p>Now, whether it was good policy, or legal policy, or adequately disclosed policy to use remote-webcam capabilities in these circumstances is open to debate, lots of debate. But it’s certainly relevant that this incident was not a departure from the school’s policy.</p>
<p>The other mystery is why, if the district only used the remote activation software 42 times, it seems to be common belief among students that the webcams were being activated much more frequently? To the point where many of them were covering up the lens.</p>
<p>One implication of all this is that the plaintiff may be a particularly inappropriate class representative. Thousands of people may share a common claim about surveillance equipment being smuggled into their homes without their consent, but the plaintiff is fairly unique because (a) the district admits to having taken a photo of him without consent, (b) on a laptop he had taken home when he was not supposed to. That’s not a claim shared with thousands of people; that may be a claim not shared with hardly anyone. I’ll bet the lawyers are looking for another named plaintiff, or else their gravy-train lawsuit may get taken away from them.</p>
<p>“The other mystery is why, if the district only used the remote activation software 42 times, it seems to be common belief among students that the webcams were being activated much more frequently? To the point where many of them were covering up the lens.”</p>
<p>Rumors and conspiracy theories get started and take on a life of their own.</p>