<p>I don’t think that it particularly matters whether the images in question were of Mike and Ikes, Pez, or illegal drugs, and whether or not young Mr. Robbins is an all-around good guy. The case turns on intrusion by a governmental entity, and the rest is pretty immaterial. (Except that if young Mr. Robbins were in prison, then there would probably be no expectation of privacy or possible illegal search because prisoners don’t have many privacy rights.)</p>
<p>Thanks for the summaries and explanations, marite and arabrab.</p>
<p>To follow up on what BCeagle said about private companies, yes, not only do they essentially own whatever is on their computer, but they can require that emails be completely deleted/purged after a period of time. At the large company my H used to work for,t hey implemented that policy after some very old emails were involved in some litigation. So, they implemented a policy later that mandated that all of this stuff was to be purged from laptops and servers and such. Dont need any Oliver North stuff coming back to haunt people.</p>
<p>But to required the students to use the school’s laptops without notifying them that they would be accessed? And are you saying the webcams could be turned on remotely such that the kids could essentially be spied on when they were not on their computers? Am I reading that correctly? Whoa…</p>
<p>JHS, thanks for your response – I agree these are fascinating issues.</p>
<p>You had earlier asked for my thoughts on damages, and I posted some ideas. Curious for your reactions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. The case isn’t about what’s ‘ON’ the computers or what the computers are used for. All involved in the case recognize that things like browser history, attempts to install software and the like are well within the purview of the district.</p>
<p>However the district also admitted publicly (after the lawsuit was filed) that they had been running a secret system in place which gave certain district personnel the power to covertly activate the camera and record the images taken regardless of where the laptop was (including in the home). Those images could record activity in its view totally unrelated to the use of the laptop. </p>
<p>They also admit to using that system. They claim that they only wanted to have such a system to track stolen computers (that on it’s own is still on very shaky ground… especially if the person who has the computer at the time didn’t steal it). </p>
<p>Also a district IT official previously admitted (in a video recorded months before all this came out) that the system was activated only to discover after the fact that those being photographed were possession of the computer with permission and that the system was simply ‘misplaced.’ The case alleges that the district also used the secret images for other reason(s) too. </p>
<p>Lindy Matsko (the Assistant Principal) is accused of being in possession of covertly taken photographs of a district child in his bedroom. She is accused of using that photo to confront the student about his behavior at home. </p>
<p>Yesterday Ms. Matsko gave an angry and emotional press conference where she said she didn’t doing a lot of things the case doesn’t accuse her of (such as ordering that images be taken), but she did not deny being in possession of the secret images–what the case alleges. </p>
<p>Who took the images, who gave authorization, how many were taken, why, etc. etc. is still the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI and a lot could potentially fall out of that above and beyond the specific incident addressed in the case. Only time will tell there.</p>
<p>As to the case itself, the basic claims have held up and it appears quite clear that the district was inappropriately using their secret spy abilities to take the photograph in question without permission. The case says this represents an egregious violation of the 4th amendment and associated laws… and based on everything put out there thus far this certainly seems to be the case.</p>
<p>^ Rocket, does anyone know if any instant messaging was enabled (or blocked) on the laptops? Would LMSD be claiming it could capture/review students IM messages? That seems much different to me than a kid leaving docs, etc. on the school harddrive.</p>
<p>Ms. Matsko’s diatribe was exactly the wrong step, and I’m surprised she didn’t get (or didn’t take) advice to not do it. (Actually, I’m struck about how much she looks and sounds like the evil assistant principal sent over from central casting.)</p>
<p>LMSD needs to stop digging holes.</p>
<p>^ I thought Ms. Matsko’s statement was well done when I read the press report. However, when I saw her tone and arrogance (my perception) I agree it did not serve her well. She appeared to me to play eaxactly to type as the kind of petty official that believes they can do no wrong, almost like a Ferris Bueller character.</p>
<p>But she did clearly get the “who approved this” monkey off her back, and I still see great value to her in gettin gout of the line of fire on that front.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Companies can’t just delete emails anymore to avoid litigation. Witness what Intel went through lately. Basically don’t put anything in writing if you don’t want it public.</p>
<p>So would an IM be considered fair game for the school to address since there was a terms of use agreement (for the first computer - this one was allegedly taken without permission) as far as anything written or stored on the computer by the student?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure, but it would mostly depend on how the network access was setup. On school property the network access was surely filtered by the school to limit access to certain things on the web (Facebook, chat sites, etc.). It’s not clear if this was the case when the computer was connected online outside of school.</p>
<p>The school could force the connection through a VPN type connection which would then mean access was limited even at home… or it could be able to access the ‘open’ internet from home in which case it would be hard to limit IM functions (which could be run via a website even if installation of software was not allowed). However, it doesn’t really matter either way so far as the case is concerned. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Specifically as to the IM on its own it’s a bit of a gray area although still the sort of thing you wouldn’t want to mess with. I suppose it depends in part on if they were searching the hard drive for information physically on the computer of if they were monitoring data coming and going from the machine. However, regardless, it’s secondary to the case. The district sill has this pesky ‘secret photos taken of kid(s) in their bedroom’ issue to answer for.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not correct. Companies can have a retention policy which provides for the deletion of electronic data. As long as they adhere to the policy, they can delete whatever they choose UNLESS a suit is filed. At that point the relevant emails, documents etc are under what is called “Litigation Hold”. Many companies have gone to a Vault system which prevents storage of any emails on a person’s hard drive past 30 days or so. They go into the electronic vault and unless they are put in a 1, 3 or 6 year “hold”, they will completely disappear after a period of time (90 days or so).<br>
This has all come about due to the burden of electronic discovery and the production of old emails that can be taken out of context.</p>
<p>School officials from around the country are airing their “you guys did what?” look in the direction of Lower Merion:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>School officials from around the country are politely answering the telephone when a reporter from the Philadelphia Inquirer calls, and responding to the questions asked. And, I’m sure, breathing a sigh of relief and getting a little frisson of schadenfreude when they hang up.</p>
<p>It is interesting, however, that the Inquirer has done some of the research that Lower Merion never thought to do. LM could have learned something if it had made those phone calls.</p>
<p>A parent on the LMSD Facebook group claims that when her friend’s kid’s computer was in fact, lost, they were contacted and had to give permission to activate the tracking feature. Interesting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the LMSD website on Laptop Security FAQs:</p>
<p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>(All emphases added)</p>
<p>So it looks like the knife catching contest is being tossed into the IT department.</p>
<p>Not comforting that the specific question about privacy safeguards was ignored …</p>
<p>It’s possible that the people at the two high schools handled this differently. Everyone seems to have been making it up as they went along.</p>
<p>I have been wondering something else: Was young Master Robbins the only kid ever confronted with webcam evidence of off-campus malfeasance? You would think the others (if there are any) would be coming out of the walls, but so far it doesn’t seem so. (Or they don’t want to discuss what Big Brother might have seen in their bedrooms.) It’s hard to believe that there was systematic spying going on for a year and a half, and the only kid “caught” was Blake and his Mike & Ikes.</p>
<p>^ That’s a good question for LMSD: were you “supportive” of any other students (and if so how many) in the way you were “supportive” of Blake Robbins?</p>
<p>Here’s another: would any record in Mr. Robbins permanent file be a reportable item in any college applications?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting, but that clearly didn’t happen here. If it did the district would have just faxed over a copy of said form to the judge and this case would have never even made to the initial hearing. </p>
<p>
I don’t think there was ‘systematic’ spying going on nor do I think most people on these forums or in the general public believe that was happening. However it certainly is a possibility, and the district created a system that certainly would allow that. In in regards to if the district is guilty it doesn’t matter if they did it 1 time or 1000 times… if they did it once they’re guilty.</p>
<p>clueless, can’t you answer that second question yourself? Of course not. What would make it “reportable”? He wasn’t disciplined (and even if he had been, minor disciplinary action does not make it into a college application).</p>
<p>Believe me, Lower Merion is NOT in the business of torpedoing its students’ college applications. Your question is tantamount to asking whether the Pope engages in Satan-worship. No.</p>
<p>rocket, the case still hasn’t made it to an initial hearing, and won’t for months perhaps. You don’t “just fax over” evidence to get a case dismissed. I don’t think that permission form exists, either, but if it did nothing much would have changed about the past few days (in part because the school might not have found it yet).</p>
<p>And for most purposes, it matters a lot if they “did it” one time or 1,000 times. One time means no class action, no significant damages, perhaps no attorney’s fees, and almost certainly no criminal prosecution regardless of hypothetical “guilt”. (Hardly anyone believes that there is going to be any criminal prosecution here based on the facts that have come out so far.) 1,000 times would mean massive changes in leadership at every level, Lamborghinis all around for the plaintiff’s lawyers, and very likely multiple criminal prosecutions.</p>
<p>
Agreed… I shouldn’t have said ‘hearing’ since that wasn’t what was going on in the courts… but you get my point. </p>
<p>If these forms existed then the district would have come right out and said so up front even if they didn’t immediately produce one with the kid/parent’s signature. Of course if they did exist and they didn’t use them in this case and did this all in secret as alleged then yeah they’d keep quite quiet about the forms. </p>
<p>
Agreed it matters from the ‘is Chris Hanson from Dateline NBC’ going to be showing up at the school anytime soon standpoint and from the scale in terms of monetary damages…</p>
<p>…I was more referencing the stance of the AP and district’s continued public stance that they’ve done nothing wrong in regards to the fundamental issue raised by the case… in that sense 1 or 1000 times makes no difference</p>