<br>
<br>
<p>If they ordered Macs, then they could simply open them up and snip the wires leading to the camera or maybe they could have ordered them without cameras. It isn’t clear whether they are talking about remote camera capability or not but if you have control over the laptop, remote capability is turned off by default. You have to enable it to turn it on. Of course if someone has remote control of your desktop, then they could turn it on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thats some twisted reasoning you got there …You must also believe then that since its the SD who is the accused in this case, the plaintiffs need only to state their accusations, and the SD must then disprove those accusations or be found liable. Wow</p>
<p>I have been enjoying this conversation without joining in up to now–lots of good discussion about rights, responsibilities, civil liberties, etc.</p>
<p>But I need to jump in with a big HUH? at the idea of someone needing to “prove” his innocence. We do not have to do that in America; the state needs to prove “guilt” (which has not even been suggested at this time). Hurray for our rights! Like Cluelessdad says, we won’t continue to have them if we don’t preserve and cherish them.</p>
<p>edit–crossposted with toblin.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It was relevant in the context of the previous question. The person asked if the schools had the ip addresses of students so that they’d know who was using the laptop by looking up their “known” ip address.</p>
<p>This guy Perbix really should shut up. A look at his hard drive would probably prove interesting. It sounds like he has the ability to wipe logs locally which means that what investigators see may not be as things actually happened.</p>
<p>I hear you here and all that about “invasion” because of tracking stolen property</p>
<p>–didn’t the school bring the concern of illegal behavior to the student?</p>
<p>There is more than one issue here
–not just where the school overstepped tracking stolen laptops
…it is also about stolen laptops and using the camera to identify the user in front of said stolen laptop…stolen property</p>
<p>Is theft of a laptop not a crime? </p>
<p>Wasn’t there a question about drugs here? </p>
<p>Its very convenient for the family to scream about invasion of privacy at the same time their kid was being accused a theif and dealer (per news article not opinion)</p>
<p>so until ALL of the facts are out–stop worrying–unless your kid is involved and in trouble for stealing laptops</p>
<p>Most kids of the said 2300 aren’t screaming about it…</p>
<p>In general, you can’t prove innocence. Yes, sometimes you can prove that you are innocent of something at a particular point in time but generally you can’t. Suppose someone accuses you of being a drug user. How would you prove that you aren’t without having a camera following you around all the time?</p>
<p>If a woman claimed that you raped her on a particular evening and you were at home with no witnesses, how would you prove that you are innocent? It cost the Duke Lacrosse players a million each to get a finding of actual innocence but that is rare.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That may subject him to criminal liability now that the FBI is on the case. It is also extremely hard to completely wipe a disk clean so that it cannot be recovered. I am sure than software company that provided the software is also cooperating with the FBI since they are calling the district techs vigilantes. They don’t want to have any association with wrongdoing.</p>
<p>A hair sample could prove the kid is NOT a drug user—</p>
<p>anyone can be good for a time for to give a clean urine–but the evidence remains in the hair folicles far far longer…The kid can prove he is innocent if he has to…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Get your facts straight. </p>
<p>There is no claim of theft of laptop. </p>
<p>There is no pending question of drug use.</p>
<p>Fog, on the bright side your continued libelous and uninformed statements about this kid help establish the reputational harm he is suffering as a result of LMSD’s invasion of his privacy. So keep it coming, the LMSD taxpayers may – literally – be forever in your debt.</p>
<p>But why should he have to prove he is innocent? That’s not the object of the suit, which is about the invasion of his privacy. If someone installed a camera that showed me munching on M&Ms, I’d be just as incensed and likely to sue.</p>
<p>Fogfog:
No one has to prove s/he is innocent. It is up to the accuser to prove guilt.
The more rumors of his possible drug use are bandied about, the bigger a case the student has to claim damage to his reputation.
If the school wants him to stop coming to school, it may have another lawsuit on its hand. What would be the ground? It has no “proof.”</p>
<p>The news articles reported that the school was looking for “lost” stolen laptops…
and that the kid was seen doing something illegal and some articles poit to “dealer”…</p>
<p>I assume the kid is going to be homeschooled now–</p>
<p>Will this follow the kid to college? </p>
<p>Why go to the trouble of filing a suit?</p>
<p>Its all too weird. Without the parents filing suit and all the press of their attorney’s etc…weird…</p>
<p>It doesn’t take a lawer to ask the “why”…and googling reveals plenty of news coverage…I am not gving opinion I am asking about what the papers are reporting about ALL aspects of this…why only consider the school’s part in this?</p>
<p>too many unknowns…</p>
<p>fogfog, seriously let this drug use thing go… it has absolutely nothing to do with this case.</p>
<p>This case and the FBI’s parallel investigation is solely about the district and its personnel answering to charges of egregious violations of the 4th amendment to the US constitution and associated legislation. Period.</p>
<p>well said, rocketman08</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It’s not a matter of wiping it clean but of covering your tracks. It would be interesting to see his internet logs - is he surfing student laptops all night long?</p>
<p>^ BC, you just sent a chill down my spine. I am unspeakably furious that LMSD put a spyware CAPACITY in place that could be abused in such far-reaching ways.</p>
<p>If a LMSD parent, I’m not sure if I would want the forensic techies to be able to reliably trace the extent of this spycamming, or if I would rather not know …</p>
<p>I do know LMSD has ZERO incentive to do thorough forensics work, so I hope the FBI has a good handle on that front.</p>
<p>^BC I still think that any attempts he makes at covering his tracks can be uncovered by the FBI.</p>
<p>From his numerous postings, Perbix seems like the type of guy who would actually sit in front of the computer all day watching students randomly, even at home. He apparently felt invincible and proud that he could fool the entire student body. He is probably the one that students are quoting saying the lights turning randomly on was a glitch. </p>
<p>What is most creepy about the whole story is that the administration appears to have gone along with the overall covert monitoring approach. Some facts that are emerging:</p>
<p>-Possession of a monitored Macbook was required for classes</p>
<p>-Possession of an unmonitored personal computer was forbidden and would be confiscated</p>
<p>-Disabling the camera was impossible</p>
<p>-Jailbreaking a school laptop in order to secure it or monitor it against intrusion was an offense which merited expulsion.</p>
<p>Interesting. Considering that Lower Merion is an affluent district, and thus one could assume that many if not most students already had a computer of their own, what was the reason for mandating that they use only the school issued Macbook? And why make it impossible to disable the camera or attempt to prevent intrusion?
Now, that seems odd to me.</p>
<p>I’ve taken a look at the LMSD board members. Lots of lawyers there. </p>
<p>There is no way these board members are touching this with a ten foot pole. </p>
<p>Mission 1 for Ballard Spahr: clear the board members of any knowledge of the spyware implementation (one of the board members is a former Ballard Spahr lawyer). </p>
<p>Mission 2 for Ballard Spahr: find someone (hopefullly low in the hierarchy) to hang this on as a rogue employee – ideally “shocking” findings and a criminal referral for actions outside the scope of employment – discipline, fire, craft mea culpa and work to minimize monetary damages claims.</p>
<p>The MacBook as an ankle bracelet.</p>
<p>Anyone remember the Apple ‘1984’ ad? Check it out on YouTube. It was aimed at IBM but it truly is a classic ad. Two bad the SD pulled a role reversal.</p>