<p>No JHS, I can’t. Fortunately, never had to focus on how this would work for either of my kids.</p>
<p>Criminal prosecutions? I wouldn’t lean either way until the facts (or stonewalling) are known. Interesting casual view of that risk when your stance until now has been for all concerned to take the 5th.</p>
<p>I take prosecutors really seriously. I think this will work out, unless there are some really terrible shoes left to drop, but part of working it out would be to tightly, tightly control any public statements by likely targets.</p>
<p>It seems very likely that school officials engaged in illegal activity but whether or not the AP/IT Guy/Someone else gets hauled out of the school in handcuffs is ultimately up to a DA/US Attorney. If everything in the case was done by one person then it would be quite open and shut in terms of filing charges. </p>
<p>However, as appears to be the case, if it’s more of a ‘group stupidity and guilt’ situation then it’s a lot trickier. In theory they could still stick it to one person (or all involved), but if the scope of the spying was limited and the actions spread across many I think we’ll see a strongly worded and condemning statement issued about the administration but no school officials in handcuffs. </p>
<p>Whether or not those responsible all keep their jobs is a whole different matter.</p>
<p>Well one shoe is whether there was any supervisory controls lockdown on activating the spyware or any way to ever know on a forensics/audit basis how and when it was accessed … the “glitchy” webcam light reports haunt me …</p>
<p>Count me in the scalp-hunting mob if those facts come in bad.</p>
<p>“I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I’m afraid that’s something I cannot allow to happen.”</p>
<p>clueless, you are sooo in the scalp-hunting mob already. If “those facts come in bad”, there won’t be anyone OUTSIDE the scalp-hunting mob. The “glitchy” lights are a huge concern.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I asked around about this and from what I learned the LED light being referenced is actually hardwired to the camera’s chip… this is a security feature by Apple. If that light is on the camera is on–whether or not it’s sending the images anywhere is a different matter but if someone see’s the light come on then the camera is ‘on.’</p>
<p>A lot of online techies have taken notice of this case and at least one was experimenting with the software to see what it could and couldn’t do (I think this was referenced earlier). Anyway, they set-up a computer as target for covert spying and noted that when the computer took and sent the secret image the iSight light did indeed flicker on just as students have reported seeing. Again, those are anecdotal reports by students and the light may have been coming on for other reasons, but it’s a bit scary to know that what they describe has been confirmed as what happens when someone is spying on you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>JHS, I apologized in an earlier post for characterizing your views, please don’t label me.</p>
<p>The LMSD’s arrogant and above-the-law handling of this matter has been driving me to a harder line, but I have consistently avoided rush to judgment comments, nor have I taken cheap shots at any of the parties involved. (Can you say the same about your innuendos as to a 15 year-old child, Blake Robbins and drug use?)</p>
<p>^^^ Welcome aboard Hal</p>
<p>The Harriton website indicates that iChat is enabled, but only available from home and is not required to be accessed through the LMSD network.</p>
<p>I take it that means students access iChat and IM through their home networks.</p>
<p>BC or anyone else tech-minded here, would LMSD be able to capture/record such IM communications?</p>
<p>(I don’t think it is relevant to the webcam case, but it is another example of Big Brother to me if the case.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The paper has now issued a correction to the original statement now saying:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Possibly. The spy software they were using has the ability to monitor what’s on the screen so it wouldn’t record the data directly but one could monitor and read chats by reading from the screenshots. </p>
<p>There could also be data from chats on the hard disk that could potentially be recovered with a forensic analysis.</p>
<p>OK, spyware screenshots and forensic analysis, but should students expect that their iChats would be anything other than vapor with respect to LMSD policing acceptable use of the laptops?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think they should ‘expect’ that but whether that’s really the case is hard to say. Furthermore, it’s not just about iChat but LMSD said students could use their own iPods and digitial cameras with the computer and load photos/music to the computers. Are those files within school officials’ remit… it’s not clear. </p>
<p>It’s a bit of one of those pesky grey zones. Legally it could get messy if the school got caught trying to monitor certain activities taking place off school premises… even if they owned the device. </p>
<p>Those acceptable use policies are usually worded so incredibly broadly that it’s never actually clear what the students really can and can’t do. </p>
<p>For example LMSD’s website says:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Honestly what does that mean? What is ‘inappropriate use’… this ‘policy’ basically just says ‘If you do something we decide is inappropriate then it’s inappropriate.’ </p>
<p>Some people have questioned the value of this current webcamgate case blowing up in the district’s face, but the sorts of questions you raised about these computer issues are exactly the discussion that needs to occur now in districts across the country–especially as districts provide students with the full-time use of laptops and other devices. Those devices become part of the students’ life both in school and out of school and clear guidelines and boundaries need to be set for what the school can and can’t do. </p>
<p>However, covert webcam monitoring activities (regardless of reason) and taking secret pictures of kids in their bedroom at home were clearly wrong and illegal long before this case broke… the district officials still have a lot to answer for there.</p>
<p>Rocket, I agree. I don’t think any of this takes away from the horror of the spycamming.</p>
<p>IM captures (the spy screenshots) off the LMSD network interest me. There had been comments much earlier upthread that federal wiretap laws may not extend to images, but required text/audio communication (that struck me as a bizarre distinction, but I don’t know the limits of federal law in this area). And the plaintiff’s attorney made a point of saying the AP confronted the kid with both spyware images and text, so …</p>
<p>I’ll tell you this: from everything I have learned here any school telling me it is MANDATORY for my kid to use their Orwellian thought machines would be in for a whuppin. Which is a real shame because the idea behind computer access of kids is laudable – just not defensible at the price of becoming a tool of the thought police.</p>
<p>In the workplace, I understand not to put anything personal on any work-provided device (laptop, bberry, etc).</p>
<p>But do I expect chatty, still emotionally … shall we say maturing 
… teenagers to “get” that same discipline? To put these bright shiny toys in the hands of chatty children and then tap into whatever iChat etc. results strikes me as evil. Thought police evil.</p>
<p>I’m blessed by great kids and still wouldn’t want to roll those dice. How many parents here want to put Johnny or Janie at such thought police risk? Now add LMSD capturing the chat stream of whatever you as a parent have said to your darling son/daughter. How … pleasant …</p>
<p>Yeah, it’s tricky. I could see someone posting on here “well this was given to them as an educational device and the school can monitor whatever they want and if the student dares to use the device for anything other than schoolwork then they should be throughly punished and locked up in the school dungeon” </p>
<p>However, the school in this case clearly understood that students would not only be using these computers for schoolwork but outside of school they would likely be using the computer as one of if not the primary personal computing device too. They said hey go ahead and use your iPod with it… put your photos on it… use the (unfiltered) internet with it while at home or in the coffee shop… and students did. Policies need to take that all into consideration to avoid violating the student’s rights. </p>
<p>
Wiretapping laws (at least the PA ones… I think federal too) do extend to images, but some were trying to argue that this isn’t wiretapping because the data streaming covertly monitored was not pre-existing (eg the school district secretly turned on the camera… and then monitored that data stream). That’s a very tenuous defense at best. </p>
<p>However, at it’s core this is fundamentally a 4th amendment case. This was a government entity whose officials (IT guy, the angry AP) demonstrated a horrendously incompetent understanding of the rights provided to citizens under the 4th Amendment. Their policy regarding the secret spy system was one of </p>
<p>“If we think something questionable happened we’ll conduct covert video surveillance operations and then use the results of that covert surveillance to decide if further action is necessary.” </p>
<p>Yeah… it doesn’t work like that… and Perbix even admitted in one of his videos that sometimes the secret videos show that in fact the device was not stolen. </p>
<p>The 4th Amendment says that to perform those actions these officials (who are part of a government entity) would have to first demonstrate probable cause that a crime had occurred AND that to investigate the crime there were no other less obtrusive means to come to the same result (eg first try to track the IP location to an address and if that’s not enough then, and only then, maybe try the camera). The 4th Amendment clearly says that those calls and permission to proceed can ONLY be made and given by a court. </p>
<p>The boy’s lawyers have clearly been watching and reading Perbix’s online postings and videos and in their latest official statement highlight that Perbix himself said that the system could be used to obtain information (IP address) for a warrant to proceed with more intrusive investigations under law enforcement supervision. </p>
<p>The school didn’t do that here and that makes this essentially an open and shut case on the 4th amendment grounds. Even if they thought the device was stolen, as a government entity they still violated the 4th amendment by secretly recording images off their premises (they would know instantly that the computer wasn’t in the school via IP information… they wouldn’t know where that IP was but they do know where their own IPs are). </p>
<p>Unless the school can produce a warrant that authorized them to conduct covert video surveillance operations on private property then, as a government entity, they basically have no defense regardless of their reasons for wanting to activate their spy system.</p>
<p>I don’t think there was ever any serious debate about a 4th amendment violation, which is a civil matter.</p>
<p>Nor any real debate about the PA criminal statute, which expressly picks up images as well as text, goes to simple possession regardless of use, and criminalizes intent in fact, with no “pure heart empty head” culpable knowledge defense.</p>
<p>But there was credible debate about the reach of federal criminal computer/wiretapping statutes to images.</p>
<p>(EMM took stonger, if hard to decipher, positions rejecting all of the above …)</p>
<p>^^^Agreed. </p>
<p>My 4th amendment comments were more in response to the school officials’ and some members of the public’s flawed logic that somehow the school’s decisions to conduct covert surveillance operations without a warrant were somehow OK so long as they only did so when they thought a device might have been stolen.</p>
<p>^ Yeah, and LMSD can keep digging that hole until it turns into a grave if they so wish …</p>
<p>Well, interesting (but only very tangentially related) news this afternoon. Stryde Hax, the pseudonym for the blogger who wrote the extremely thorough technical analysis of the LMSD software and figured out about the postings their software guy had been making (The Spy at Harriton High) is also the guy who tracked down the data supporting the contention that some of the Chinese Olympic gymnasts weren’t the age they claimed to be. The FIG (International Federation for Gymnastics) has just finished their investigation, and determined that at least one of the athletes at the 2000 games was in fact underage, and the team’s records for that competition year are being wiped. The recommendation now goes to the IOC for action on the team bronze medal. They were unable to make a determination in the case of the second gymnast. If the medals are pulled, the US team will be in line to get them, having finished 4th at those games. </p>
<p>Tangential, but an indication that Stryde Hax is quite the good investigator and has an amazing ability to follow tracks. I’d be a little worried if I were LMSD. He’s got a further update on the LMSD situation up on his website, but I understand I can’t link to it here.</p>
<p>Just when you thought it was safe to get back in the water:</p>
<p>[High</a> school confidential: Spies, lies, and alibis | Adventures in IT - InfoWorld](<a href=“High school confidential: Spies, lies, and alibis | InfoWorld”>High school confidential: Spies, lies, and alibis | InfoWorld)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And some more on LANrev:</p>
<p>From the Absolute LANrev acquisition press release:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another dark humor moment: LANrev was originally developed by a software company named “Pole Position”. You can’t make this stuff up.</p>