<p>They have pictures of the kids and the mother, apparently inside the home, for the interview. It looks like they have a pretty impressive home library in their living room (we have a lot of books in our home and that’s something that I usually notice). The mother backs up the Mike and Ike defense from her son and shows a very large box of them for the camera.</p>
<p>Marite posted:
</p>
<p>Agree, although he has done a lot to set himself up for the role! We’ll see where the music stops trying to point fingers up the chain.</p>
<p>OK, dark humor, but it also doesn’t help him image-wise that his name sounds like a mash up of “pervert” and a word for short curly hairs.</p>
<p>Eeww. but yeah.</p>
<p>In the video where Perbix brags about his spying ability he makes a comment that would blow a massive hole in the district’s defense position. </p>
<p>Perbix says:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, that’s huge. </p>
<p>The district admits right there they’ve got it wrong before… that they deemed a laptop as being inappropriately removed only to discover that in fact that’s not what happened. </p>
<p>He admits that they started spying only to discover that in fact the laptop wasn’t stolen or otherwise improperly in possession of the person(s) they were secretly photographing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t give this AP anywhere near this benefit of the doubt, but it doesn’t matter because this is all conjecture. And if you’re right and it really didn’t dawn on her that “they” got the “evidence” illegally, then she isn’t qualified for her job.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely not. I would want a school official’s behavior to be ethical and legal enough so that he/she had a moral leg to stand on. Otherwise, stay out of my kid’s bedroom.</p>
<p>Perbix sure does sound like a likely candidate for fall guy. The others can protest ignorance, but he can’t.</p>
<p>What I found most disturbing by the Perbix video is that when he talks about instances of accidently spying on Lower Merion students who in fact didn’t steal a laptop it wasn’t along the lines of:</p>
<p>…this is really powerful software and you need to be really careful with it because if you use it inappropriately you’ll be illegally recording people with a secret camera… so you really should have proper policies and procedures in place that bring law enforcement on board and only conduct surveillance under with permission from and supervision under a court</p>
<p>but was instead under the premise of:</p>
<p>…hey guess what… you know occasionally we think one of the laptops has been removed inappropriately so I just go ahead and fire up the 'ol spy machines and start watching. It’s funny because sometimes it turns out we were wrong and nobody inappropriately removed the device and then we end up with all these funny images of students looking into the computer not knowing anyone’s watching. Yeah, did I mention how awesome I think this software is? I mean it’s fantastic.</p>
<p>Very disturbing. Very disturbing indeed.</p>
<p>Senior school administrators approved a procedure whereby activating the spycam feature did not need their incident specific approval? Pretty smart on their part. CYA at it’s finest. This guy is low down the totem pole and thereby the perfect candidate to be offered up as the sacrificial lamb. </p>
<p>Lawyer up Mr. P., and remember that the SD’s lawyer is not your friend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Disagree here, unless the admin can hold the line on denying they even knew the spyware was installed.</p>
<p>How do you NOT prosecute someone who not only approved installing the illegal spyware but left children at the mercy of an unsupervised free-for-all in access to clicking the spyware photos.</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter if the IT guy actually is a perv (and I’m not saying he is), the point would be THE ADMIN JUST CREATED OPEN SEASON FOR ANY PERVERT TO HAVE EYES ON CHILDREN’S BEDROOMS AT WILL. I don’t think 3d degree felony is a strong enough penalty if that is the fact set that shakes out.</p>
<p>Can you imagine an IT tech who happens to be a perv (or discovers his inner perviness with his new found powers) being handed this capacity – “thank you God!”</p>
<p>If LMSD cannot verify that they had airtight OPERATIONAL CONTROLS (and not just policies) limiting the use of the spyware then there is not a hot enough circle in hades for what they unleashed. That is why simply installing the spyware is a felony, regardless of whether tracing actual use can be proved.</p>
<p>It is going to be hard to make Perbix the fall guy. If anything, if I was the FBI I would offer him immunity in exchange for spilling the beans on what really went on. Clearly what happened was way over his pay grade. </p>
<p>This is such a bad case for the district because we have the perfect situation for what can go wrong.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>A loaner laptop is (supposedly) missing.</p></li>
<li><p>Instead of following standard procedure which would be to retrieve the IP address and provide it to the police so that they can recover the missing laptop (as they had done in the past), the district applies its new vigilante policy of covert monitoring of students.</p></li>
<li><p>The school clearly knows by now the laptop is not stolen and makes no attempt to retrieve it from the student. They would know that all along from the IP address. </p></li>
<li><p>Instead if immediately ceasing any monitoring, they use the data collected for completely unrelated purposes of disciplining the student. They most likely downloaded hundreds of pictures as the software was set to do according to Perbix boasting on his blog.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Perbix may have facilitated the illegal monitoring, but the real responsibility lies with the administration that used the information to confront the student. There is absolutely no defense to their actions. That responsibility cannot be shifted to the IT staff. At best the IT staff was an accessory to the privacy violation, not the instigators. The administration set up the whole covert monitoring system, hid it from the parents and students and actually went on to use it in the worst possible way. </p>
<p>The district will also have a hard time answering questions as to why students who wanted to use their own laptops were forbidden to do so or were threatened with expulsion if they tried to disable the camera.</p>
<p>Some of the key questions that the district is going to have to answer to the DA and FBI are:
-Did the school have an internal policy with IT that IT staff would bring pictures to their attention if they saw something suspicious?
-If they did not, how did these pictures end up in their hands? Did IT just volunteer them? Why did they not immediately throw them away?
-If they believe the laptop was missing why was the student never told? Why was the laptop not retrieved?
-Once they knew the laptop was not stolen, did they continue to take pictures? For how long? How many pictures?
-Who authorized the use the pictures for a purpose other than laptop retrieval?
-How many people saw the pictures? Who saw the pictures? </p>
<p>Perbix certainly has the answers to most of these questions.</p>
<p>When it rains it pours. On a related note, LMSD redistricting docs were just unsealed and it looks like in Dr. McGinley’s world the black kids get bussed and the rich white kids stay in the high school close to home:</p>
<p>From the Philly Enquirer today:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LMSD is quite an interesting animal. Makes wonder what is in the secret sauce of those USNEWS rankings, as LMSD is apprently on that list!</p>
<p>I don’t know enough about re-districting to know if LMSD ultimately is in the right or in the wrong. But I do know that, as a matter a management incompetence, to (1) seek legal advice in from a non-legal consultant and (2) allow an “its only illegal if we get caught” memo to go to file without a strong response/firing of the consultant just boggles the mind.</p>
<p>I guess the spyware was another one of those “its only illegal if we get caught” moments. How many of these are hiding under the rocks at LMSD?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>cellardweller, you are sort of making up some of the premises of your questions. As I understand things, it’s not clear at all that the school attempted to discipline the kid for anything in a photograph. And it’s certainly not clear that there was any standard practice of taking disciplinary action based on webcam pictures, or even that anything like this ever happened before.</p></li>
<li><p>Re Mr. Perbix, I note that the Stryker Hax analysis of his web presence included an overall assessment, by people who had spent hours reviewing everything he did, that he is a dedicated person who had worked extremely hard and was primarily interested in protecting kids and making the technology work. There shouldn’t be a rush to judgment on him, either, based on picking and choosing juicy bits – although I fear there will be.</p></li>
<li><p>I know almost nothing about Dr. McGinley, the district superintendent. But I know enough about Pennsylvania school districts not to assume ANY degree of technical sophistication on the part of a superintendent. While it’s possible that he understood some or all of what was going on here, it’s hardly likely.</p></li>
<li><p>Lower Merion’s other big lawsuit: LM has had a perennial problem that one of its high schools (Lower Merion) is overcrowded, and the other (Harriton) is half empty. Also that Lower Merion is racially, ethnically, and economically diverse (as much as possible in a very wealthy district), and Harriton really isn’t. It used to offer kids a choice between the two schools, and put some attractive programs into Harriton to try to entice kids there, but that was largely unsuccessful in solving the problems, and put the district in the odd position of spending more money on its more privileged students. So in connection with spending millions to upgrade both schools, it created mandatory zones where the kids would have to go to one school or the other. And in order to get some level of diversity in Harriton, it drew the lines so that some largely minority neighborhoods within walking distance of Lower Merion were assigned to Harriton. Some of the affected families sued. I don’t think there’s really any question what happened – it was all pretty transparent at the time – the question is whether it is a reasonable goal to have racial/ethnic/economic diversity at both schools.</p></li>
<li><p>There was a community meeting last night, which wound up being completely weird because the school officials couldn’t actually discuss the case because of the court’s nutty gag order. (It’s not nutty in the context of standard commercial class action practice, but it’s completely nutty in the context of a public institution that communicates with the class members all the time about issues that concern them like this.) Anyway, there has been a lot of local reporting about community response to the webcam suit as a result. If any of you think the community is generally up in arms about this, you are dead wrong. If one can believe the press – multiple outlets, including several TV stations plus the Inquirer – the general reaction is anger at the plaintiffs and belief that the school district was not intentionally doing anything improper, certainly not spying on kids, although everyone thinks the policies need to be firmed up and understood more clearly. Some people, of course, disagree with that. But there is a lot more anger and suspicion on this thread than there is among Lower Merion families.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>When I have something to tell my manager that I never want anyone else to read about, I go into his office and have a chat with him. He could tell someone else but it’s not going to get discovered in an email search.</p>
<p>One of the letters in response to this article gives rise to some questions about the family’s motives in this case. Not at all saying the school district was right to do what they did (they’ve already admitted that they made significant mistakes), but the plaintiff’s motives must come into question as far as <em>their</em> lawsuit and especially (IMO)in terms of their version of the events. Is something like this admissible in court? At the very least, it doesn’t seem to me that they should be able to form an effective class action suit when their own circumstances, facts, etc. seem particularly unique to them. </p>
<p>[Monica</a> Yant Kinney: Time to cool L. Merion’s digital drama | Philadelphia Inquirer | 02/24/2010](<a href=“http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/85173712.html?viewFirst=y&text=#comments]Monica”>http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/85173712.html?viewFirst=y&text=#comments)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>JHS:</p>
<p>You seem to have been trying to whitewash this entire action from the beginning. You have been stating every day that this case will just go away, that the suit is frivolous, attacking the motives of the plaintiffs, coming up with excuses for the district’s actions. </p>
<p>I don’t believe there is any dispute from legal scholars that have analyzed the case, that there is a likely violation of 4th amendment rights. Whether there is also a violation of Federal or State statutes will be determined by the FBI and the DA.</p>
<p>The reason for the gag order has been the constant spread of misinformation, half truths and outright misrepresentations by the District. It is typical of class action lawsuits the courts take seriously and obviously the courts are treating it this way. </p>
<p>While you claim that most parents are upset about the plaintiffs and not the district is simply ridiculous. There are plenty of reports in the press and on blogs about parents extremely angry about the school district’s tactics. The district has had a long history of arrogance and is already in deep water on a racially based restricting case. I have close friends living in the district and they paint a very different picture from yours as to the local feelings in the community. I can see how many parents are upset about having their taxes go to pay for screwups by their school district. But they are just as upset about what they are learning actually went on in their schools. </p>
<p>Let’s face it, the motives of the plaintiffs are entirely irrelevant and so are those of the defendants. The issue is simple; did the district violate the 4th amendment rights of the student when it took picture at his home without his knowledge or consent. That is all that is in question. The rest is just noise. </p>
<p>As far as the facts go, there is already plenty of incriminating evidence against the district. The AP has already admitted she used the photograph to confront the student even though they denied it was to “punish” him just to "help’ him. So that is not even at issue. </p>
<p>You must be living in a bubble to believe this case will just go away. It won’t and the eventual facts will almost certainly be much more damaging than what is already known. Virtually everything the district has put forward has been contradicted, from only turning on cameras on stolen laptops to not using the pictures for any other purpose than recovery. They have even hired their own attorneys to conduct a bogus investigation. The district at this point has zero credibility. Now evidence is surfacing of an active covert program managed by the IT staff very likely under control of the district, since they clearly supported the operation and used the illegally obtained images.</p>
<p>cellardweller, I haven’t been trying to whitewash a thing, and I have acknowledged in practically every post that there will be some real changes here, and that there may even have been violations of laws. I certainly don’t think the case is “just going away”, although I am not certain it’s going to get certified as a class action. What I am reporting is what I am hearing from my (many) friends in the district, and seeing in the (extensive) local media reports: on balance, a high degree of trust in and respect for the superintendent and the board, and a belief that the plaintiffs are somewhat scummy. Of course, that’s not universal, and everything about school in Lower Merion is controversial – people feel very passionate about their school district. But I have yet to speak with anyone who thinks heads should be rolling based on what they know so far.</p>
<p>If you read any sample of my posts, you will be able to tell that I am pretty much an Establishment guy. I tend to respect people who have good reputations and who hold positions of public trust, to presume that they are acting in good faith, and to withhold judgment when someone accuses them of something horrible and difficult to believe. If you never engage in public service, you never attract that kind of heat, and I feel protective of the people who DO engage in public service and wind up with thousands of strangers calling for their heads. If that’s what you mean by “whitewash”, fine, guilty. But to me, you are coming off like a sanctimonious witch-hunter who is furious that your interest in computer security issues is not shared by everyone in power everywhere.</p>
<p>Class action plaintiffs are usually scummy! Nothing new there.
I can see both sides of this (as a lawyer). I think that laws were violated, but I also agree that not everyone in the district is now condemning the district. I also have friends there. HOWEVER, my sister works with most of the school districts in the area, and this one really is arrogant and believes itself to be above the law and able to do whatever it wants. So- there’s tha…</p>
<p>To clarify how I feel on this - I don’t agree that this will or should amount to nothing on the bigger issues. However, I do not think that penalties will end up being draconian - when all the evidence comes out I think it will be clear that LM was well intentioned, but stupid. Punishing the school district only serves to punish the children and the families who live there. Whether or not the reality is that everyone involved gets to keep their jobs - that is another question.</p>
<p>It is amazing how quickly this has spiraled into a disaster for LMSD. Things I thought would have taken months/years of discovery (if ever proveable) are already of public record: thay LANrev was the spyware, a detailed examination revealing the horrors of LANrev by Stryde Hax, LANrev adopting the best defense of denouncing LMSD’s vigilantism; and – you can’t make this stuff up – LMSD’s tech guy BOASTING in the web about his black hat techniques.</p>
<p>And LMSD continues to atempt to cling to thin reeds defending its actions: we have the right to spy on loaners used off school premsies (REALLY?); we had a policy (maybe) to use the only in cases of lost/stolen computers (REALLY?); and uh, the “glitch” isight indicator lights … uh, don’t ask about that … </p>
<p>JMS, in a weird way I kind of like you continuing to post trashing the plaintiffs: it just adds to the reputational damages you are costing the LMSD taxpayers.</p>
<p>So keep on blaming the victim, it is a time-honored American tradition.</p>
<p>Lindy Matsko’s [the AP at Harrington] statement as reported on Philly.com:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Surprise, another LMSD self-serving spin, that does nothing to explain exactly what happened or how.</p>
<p>The Robbins attorney has stated the incident was recorded in the kid’s school record. True or false? If it was, that is a use of the spyware regardless of whether he was suspended or actively disciplined.</p>
<p>BTW, JMS, she also stated she has received numerous angry phone calls, assuming a good proportion are within the district, an indicator that there is anger in the LMSD community?</p>