<p>This is another case of technology getting ahead of the legal system or how the use of technology is practiced. Other areas are texting while driving, the use of scanners to see under clothes on minors, using technology to see through walls, etc. It’s only going to get worse as technology continues to evolve. What would the legal status of a drone looking through your windows?</p>
<p>"However taking what is normally a court authorized action into their own hands, namely determining whether or not there was true probably cause (aka was the laptop actually missing/stolen) to conduct a covert surveillance operation really puts them on shaky ground. What if they were wrong… what if the laptop was in fact taken home with permission even if the administrative system for tracking it suggested otherwise. "</p>
<p>^^This is the “guts” of the district’s problem. The FACT is the computer WAS in the possession of a STUDENT, who was AUTHORIZED to have a district provided computer in his home, regardless of the “did he have permission to use that particular computer” question. So any quick security check done with the remote security software to determine if the computer was in the possession of a student, SHOULD have been the only acceptable use of the remote camera. Where the district crossed the line was then recording “suspected illegal” activity,[ which had NOTHING to do with the intended use of the software], and then confronting the student [ so obviously they knew the computer WAS in the possession of a student, and not being used by someone else] with photographic evidence of said suspect activity.</p>
<p>Cellar, what is your source for:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought LMSD was surprised by the suit served within the past week and was scrambling to respond?</p>
<p>Someone said earlier that he was not authorized to use this particular computer, that it was termed missing triggering webcam.</p>
<p>Whatever the case may be, I would like to know why would SD get involved with what kids do in their own room? I am sure there are illegal activities carried out on campus at school. Isn’t that enough to keep them busy?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, they have other much more effective means to determine where the computer is. The software used on these particular laptops has the ability to retrieve the remote IP address of the computer’s network when it accesses the internet or the school network. It essentially “dials home”. Since the student has been using school laptops from his home for some time, his remote IP address is ALREADY KNOWN to the school. This is why the school never made any attempt to actually retrieve the loaner laptop from the student while he had in his possession for over a month. They knew all along the laptop was not stolen and it knew exactly where it was. The school never confronted the student about a stolen laptop. </p>
<p>The school is using the excuse of seeking to retrieve a missing laptop (which was never actually missing) to start a video surveillance of that student for completely unrelated purposes.</p>
<p>This might help:</p>
<p>[Main</a> Line Media News](<a href=“http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/02/15/main_line_times/news/doc4b72133ce6cb8340154944.txt]Main”>http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/02/15/main_line_times/news/doc4b72133ce6cb8340154944.txt)</p>
<p>$500 an hour for a partner and $350 for an associate</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not to mention getting ahead of ethics or common sense. The school district has set a fine example for its students (and the rest of us) of going about it exactly the wrong way. They are in no position to call a student on drug use or anything else discovered while spying. Who thought using camera surveillance to prevent misdeeds by their students was a good idea? It is mind boggling to me that this spyware was approved, and it took two years for a lawsuit to be filed. There are so many more benign ways to track a lost/stolen laptop. I think “arrogant” is not the right word to describe this administartion.</p>
<p>Our local school district has given computers to students for several years (both middle and high schoolers). They made it a point in the documents that were sent home to the parents in the beginning of the school year that the web cams for student laptops are disabled.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This is only true if a broadband customer has a static IP address. There is a relative shortage of 32-bit IP addresses and many broadband providers give you a dynamic address by default. They use a DHCP server which parcels out IP addresses. Your router leases an address for a given period of time and may renew the lease when it is up. This allows an ISP to serve more customers than it has IP addresses assuming that not everyone is using their broadband all the time.</p>
<p>coronax2, I bet your school district administrators are heaving a huge collective sigh of relief right now.</p>
<p>cellardweller seems to have confused an earlier lawsuit over redistricting with the current flap over the computers. They are two entirely different cases. But yes, Philadelphia lawyers are expensive.</p>
<p>
LOL…mousegray…my thoughts exactly!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m wondering how it is that this school district had the wherewithal to do this? As a parent, and average computer user, I wouldn’t know that the webcams could be activated by anyone other than the laptop user. I didn’t think that the possibility of surveillance by a third party was universally known. </p>
<p>anyway, for whatever reason, they had a lot more foresight than the LMSD.</p>
<p>here is the Chief Tech at LMSD describing in a mac security blog how he uses the IP tracking for retrieval of lost laptops. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is how they were supposed to do it.<br>
- Laptop is reported stolen.
- Get computer to report back IP address.
- Report to police who gets warrant for IP address physical location.
- Police retrieves missing computer.</p>
<p>It is irrelevant whether the IP address is fixed or temporary. Every service provider has a log as to whom a particular IP address was assigned at a particular time. </p>
<p>This is all before he went “rogue” and started a vigilante video surveillance program which he also describes on his blog.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This guy, Mike Perbix, is quite a piece of work. he is all over the internet bragging about how he can remotely control the laptops, take pictures surreptitiously, disable any local logs for the web camera, (so that the use has no way of knowing he is being observed), even disable the camera except for remote use.</p>
<p>He seems most proud of the last part. Disabling the camera for the user so that nobody could even suspect they were being observed. How could they? the camera was not even working (except for him, obviously!).</p>
<p>The administration also seemed to love him. They were obviously aware of his work since they used the video pictures that he would bring to them as in this case. They can’t claim ignorance. If anything, they encouraged him.</p>
<p>Unless he gets run over by a truck, this guy will be an incredible witness for the prosecution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since reading about this PA case, I’ve wondered the same. Was it good legal council or dumb luck? I had thought the webcams were disabled so that students wouldn’t misuse them. It never crossed my mind that cameras could be turned on by remote.</p>
<p>In another forum from the fall a district IT tech again jokes around about his ability to secretly spy on users and play police:</p>
<p>Rather ironically the thread was about IT people asking how they can physically disable (ie remove) the camera to prevent unauthorized recording of images. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My point clueless</p>
<p>is if the kid was entirely innocent–why not prove it</p>
<p>what is there to fear…nothing if he is not doing something wrong</p>
<p>Isn’t the whole thing because his school approached him about doing something wrong–
thats how he found out they had a pic of him doing “something”…
the school thought there was questionable behavior…</p>
<p>it is different fromt he issue of what the schools policy was on this and what parents signed and whether the kid had a computer at home that was lost–ie stolen…</p>
<p>an innocent kid has every reason to prove innocence…and if he isn’t taking drugs /selling drugs etc he nor his folks should worry at all—Being bold and upfront with his innocence would knock down the schools claim</p>
<p>perhaps he is not so innocent…perhaps he is…</p>
<p>However he can eliminate the issue easily IF he’s innocent…</p>
<p>If the school wasn’t monitoring 2300 computers/web cams–they weren’t abusing the tracking…</p>
<p>Were the kids using the web cams “unauthorized”? The kid’s lap top browser and history would be interesting…
The computers were not private property and there were rules and procedures…the kid didn’t follow them and the tracking “caught” him…and maybe caught more than a missing computer…that is the crux of it…</p>
<p>^ sigh. We do have a 4th Amendment. Some of us believe in personal liberties. We have not yet as a people (knowingly) capitulated to a police state.</p>
<p>(Not even going to 5th Amendment since there is no criminal charge even on the table.)</p>
<p>But Fog, you are right that we only have thr rights that we insist upon as a people. I am taking moderate comfort so far that the weight of public opinion seems to be outrage at the LMSD’s spyware stupidity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody has charged the kid with selling drugs. He does not need to defend himself. The school has been charged with 4th amendment rights violations. They are the ones who need to come clean.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they were monitoring a single webcam they were abusing the tracking.</p>
<p>If all the webcam showed was me munching on M+Ms as opposed to doing something illegal or showing me in some intimate situation, I’d be incensed at this invasion of my privacy.
Invasion of privacy is what the suit is about. And what the hoopla not only in the US but apparently in many other countries is about.</p>