Suit: Pa. school spied on students via laptops (MERGED THREAD)

Parents Forum
501

<p>

</p>

<p>True, but I would expect that any attorney regardless of specialty is quite familiar with the 4th amendment. I mean they are still teaching the constitution in law school right? </p>

<p>JHS I really don’t understand your logic that the family should have used “normal processes” to deal with the district’s covert surveillance program. What does that even mean? </p>

<p>If a government official neighbor of mine plants a secret camera in my kid’s bedroom and starts taking pictures without my permission or a warrant should I first confront them and try to work it out between us, call a neighborhood pow-wow to talk it out, or should I just press charges and get the authorities involved? You can have your pow-wow, but I’m pressing charges. </p>

<p>The school was operating a warrantless covert surveillance program… this isn’t small beans stuff meant for the PTA meeting.</p>

502

<p>“I have no connection to anyone in this case. Zilch. I have lots of friends and partners who live in or near Lower Merion, but I don’t. I know a fair number of parents and kids at Lower Merion high school, but as far as I know no one currently at Harriton. (In fact, I’ve never been entirely sure where Harriton is. I do know people who graduated from Harriton in the past, though.) I’m not a member of the synagogue that Robbins stiffed.”</p>

<p>Bingo. Note JHS’s new disclosure (#497) about a connection to members of the school board now. This is why one can’t rely on informal, “normal” processes for accurate disclosure and transparency. Being required to “remember” and to disclose under oath or in an official criminal investigation can be quite different than in a group kumbaya session.</p>

503

<p>

</p>

<p>No lawyer should keep their license if they can’t spot this issue. I’ll go further: what have we become as Americans if each and every one of us as citizens doesn’t see this issue?</p>

<p>That said, to date there is no allegation that the LMSD board members were even aware of this spyware; they depend on the admin to “be their eyes” and report to them what is going on. It also remains unclear what the LMSD admin knew: “who knew what and when”</p>

<p>It is only when those facts are in the door that we can fully judge responsibility here.</p>

504

<p>JHS:</p>

<p>I take your point about the family and why it is not getting more support from the LM community.
But, in a way, I am glad that it decided to sue because the case got other districts to sit up and take notice in a way that they would not have done had the case been resolved locally and immediately; it has also made people more aware of the possibilities for technology to be misused and abused (whether out of good intention or not).</p>

505

<p>JHS: "The LMSD school board has attorneys, but I believe that no one surfaced any privacy issues here. THAT’s the argument for filing the suit: the software got disabled (supposedly) within 48 hours, because the actual decisionmakers seem to have been pretty horrified with what they had supposedly decided to do. (Disclosure: I do know a couple of board members, and many partners of a third. I have not discussed this with any of them, or with anyone who has discussed it with any of them.) I note that the board president specializes in real estate development and financing, as does at least one of the other attorneys on the board. Just being an attorney does not mean that you encounter privacy issues all the time.</p>

<p>The leadership is all new here, by the way. Which is another reason why informal means had a good chance of succeeding. The board president was first elected in December, in a contested vote that essentially amounted to demoting the previous chair, and the superintendent started this past fall. Neither was personally involved in the critical decisions at issue in this case." *********************************************************
Let’s see: the entire situation came to light when an AP (who presumably holds a principal’s license in Pennsylvania) sat down with a student to “help” him see the error of his ways, reportedly with an image that had been secretly captured of him off school premises by the computer the school district had issued to him and required him to use, using software with capabilities not disclosed to students or families. Right? They’ve already admitted to at least 42 sanctioned uses of this capability, so it extends far beyond one child in one family.</p>

<p>Then, the AP did not immediately recognize that any such image capture was an egregious violation of privacy, indicating that the AP is poorly educated in a multitude of ways. </p>

<p>Further, the school went on to (according to the lawyer) make a notation on the student’s permanent record based on this, and nobody at the school apparently questioned this.</p>

<p>Finally, the district’s technology guy posts gleefully about the secret observation on boards and in promotional material, AND has configured the system so poorly that it would have been possible for someone trying to do bad things to get in and invade the privacy of any or all of LMSDs high school students – a level of technological incompetence that is hard to fathom in this day and age.</p>

<p>So your claim is that the boardmembers were “pretty horrified” at what they had “supposedly decided to do.” I’d posit that they were pretty horrified at how their dirty laundry was being washed in public, and that their comments even before the gag order was issued were far from an open and frank acknowledgement of their wrongdoing, and were instead a CYA. The board members may be the nicest guys in town (after all, you know some of them) – but in the end, they are responsible. </p>

<p>Informal means are great, but complaints to the AP went no place. A lawsuit was the only reasonable means to preserve evidence and (perhaps) get a judicial ruling that a public school does not have the right to look into our children’s bedrooms. Frankly, if I were a parent in LMSD, I’d be a lot more confident that the shenanigans were stopped with a judge’s order in place. </p>

<p>I’m also offended that you keep bringing up the child’s family. I don’t particularly care who the kid’s family is – what child deserves to be spied upon at home? Is it okay for “those” kinds of kids – but not yours? If LMSD held a sign-up and asked families to sign on here if they wanted their children observed secretly outside of school do you really think that all those lovely lawyers on the LMSD school board would run to sign their kids up? Please. They may be real estate lawyers, but presumably they’re not stupid.</p>

506

<p>JHS 407:</p>

<p>“I have no connection to anyone in this case. Zilch. I have lots of friends and partners who live in or near Lower Merion, but I don’t. I know a fair number of parents and kids at Lower Merion high school, but as far as I know no one currently at Harriton. (In fact, I’ve never been entirely sure where Harriton is. I do know people who graduated from Harriton in the past, though.) I’m not a member of the synagogue that Robbins stiffed.”</p>

<p>JHS 497:
(Disclosure: I do know a couple of board members, and many partners of a third. I have not discussed this with any of them, or with anyone who has discussed it with any of them.)</p>

<p>WOW!!! JHS shoud be too ashamed to post anything on CC again.</p>

<p>I don’t think that I have ever seen anything like this on CC before.</p>

<p>Unbelievable, just simply unbelievable.</p>

507

<p>Oh, please. JHS is merely stating that he is not related to anyone involved in this case, not that he does not know anyone in LM. He has indeed repeatedly said he is very familiar with LM.
Let’s not start issuing fatwas, hm?</p>

508

<p>"Oh, please. JHS is merely stating that he is not related to anyone involved in this case, not that he does not know anyone in LM. He has indeed repeatedly said he is very familiar with LM.
Let’s not start issuing fatwas, hm? "</p>

<p>Sorry, Marite, but you are way off here. JHS initially stated that he had no connections to anyone involved in the case (as you paraphrase above). He then admits that he knows several board members or partners of same. The LMSD board members are very much involved in this case and are named as defendents in the suit. I think JHS has been disingenuous at best and that he does have a dog in this hunt which has colored his judgment and his objectivity. Suddenly remembering that you have relationships with principal members of this case does create a bit of skepticism about degree of honesty and forthrightness here.</p>

<p>JHS’s defense of the LMSD and his trashing of the involved boy and his family have been incredibly mystifying to me, at least until now. We can now better understand the blatant biases behind this. Do all senior members of CC reflexively jump to the defense of each other? JHS’s postings are, in my opinion, indefensible.</p>

509

<p>Very well said, ClarkAlum.</p>

510

<p>I think you are all being too hard on JHS, who has conveyed some info we wouldn’t know otherwise, and whose impressions have been confirmed by others. Personally, I always prefer arguing on the merits, anyway.</p>

511

<p>I had to look up who was on the board to see if I knew any of them. These are not close friends. They are apparently in opposing factions on the board, but I don’t know what the differences between the factions are. The only relevance to my knowing them is knowing that they are intelligent, caring people who are really interested in education in their community – just like all of us on this board – and are willing to devote an incredible amount of time and effort to try to maintain a high-quality institution in an often contentious atmosphere. </p>

<p>My information about this case, such as it is, is coming from (a) the press, and (b) several families with children at Lower Merion high school (not Harriton), who ARE close friends, or friends of close friends. </p>

<p>My current understanding of the technology – based mainly on reporting in the Philadelphia Inquirer – is that if your computer has a webcam and the software installed to be sighted remotely, as by a Help Desk, then this capability exists. It’s not clear that it can be disabled entirely, although LM seems to have purchased additional software that went beyond the basics.</p>

<p>As for the criminal investigations, their existence proves that this is newsworthy, not that anyone has determined that there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, or that anyone is likely to be charged with a crime. Getting a criminal or administrative investigation underway is a favorite technique of plaintiff’s lawyers everywhere – it complicates the defense by forcing everyone to protect themselves and not coordinate with one another, and if there ARE charges brought it’s like a gift for the civil attorneys. If you have a slip and fall case, you want L&I to investigate code violations; if you have a traffic accident, you want the police to cite the defendant for reckless driving. This is a larger version of the same. </p>

<p>The criminal investigations will be a big deal if the tech is found to have spied indiscriminately. Then he WILL be charged, and the plaintiffs in the civil case will have a heyday. It will also be plenty fine for them if the DA or U.S. Attorney decides to charge the more senior officials for negligently letting this go forward, but I wouldn’t hold my breath for that.</p>

<p>“Normal processes” would have meant complaining to the principal, and getting the issue onto the agenda for a school board meeting.</p>

<p>Cluelessdad, I maybe know a couple of attorneys who sometimes read Slashdot. Maybe. This is nothing I have ever heard anyone discuss. I’m sure it’s a big topic among attorneys for Apple or Microsoft or SAP, but I haven’t ever discussed it with them.</p>

<p>I am stunned by the depth of the blood-lust many of you seem to feel. I don’t know what’s behind it. Care to disclose your own interests?</p>

512

<p>“I think you are all being too hard on JHS,”</p>

<p>Another CC senior member jumping to the defense of another. </p>

<p>JHS is not the only person here on CC who lives on or near the Main Line and has access to information. The point is that the information provided by JHS is significantly biased and characterized largely by second and third hand inference and inuendo. I’m sick of hearing about what bad people the Robbins are, as if this is the crux of the issue being discussed on this thread. JHS was not truthful in his initial posts about his relationship with defendents or those close to defendents in this case. That makes all of the information in his posts suspect at best. Not many others have vehemently defended the school district or trashed the family in the very personal way that JHS has. That to me, in the absence of full disclosure, is indefensible.</p>

513

<p>Hunt:" I think you are all being too hard on JHS, who has conveyed some info we wouldn’t know otherwise, and whose impressions have been confirmed by others. Personally, I always prefer arguing on the merits, anyway."</p>

<p>Well, I prefer arguing on the merits, too. But doesn’t that preclude JHS’ bashing of the family? JHS’ comments have repeatedly denigrated the family and suggested that they aren’t nice people, and that thus, logically, we should not place any credence in anything they’ve said, because nice people don’t sue their school district. </p>

<p>Rocketman may have said it best, “The school was operating a warrantless covert surveillance program… this isn’t small beans stuff meant for the PTA meeting.”</p>

<p>I’m certainly not willing to trust the same people who felt free to invade the privacy of people’s homes with the investigation and report of what happened. “Nothing to see here, you can all go home now…”</p>

514

<p>

Well, sure. When you’ve seen a person post sensibly in lots of other threads, you tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. Those of you who haven’t been around as long will have to work a bit harder to develop credibility.</p>

515

<p>

</p>

<p>Except that this was not the result of a single setback, but a pattern of behavior that went back DECADES. As such it goes to their credibility. For example, they made bad faith representations to PECO for five years, each time lying about their intent to live up to their promises. There is even speculation that the plaintiffs may very well have known about the webcam capacity (as many in the district did) all along and some who say they “lost” at least one other computer. You do that math. </p>

<p>IMO the law as it exists right now is not nearly as clear cut as some of you are making it (though I feel it should be). Just because one has the means to commit a crime, it doesn’t always become a crime unless you do. And many of the facts that some of you here are assuming as gospel truth are based ONLY on the say so of the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs are the most egregiously affected, as seems to be the case (so far), their credibilty very much becomes an issue. </p>

<p>IMO JHS has been on target with the legal issues and the possible consequences to the district as anything I’ve read, here or elsewhere. IMO he’s also completely on target with respect to the plaintiffs, their motives and the timing and means in which they acted - without consideration to any other family in the school district and what it would mean to the community. Many in the community itself are saying the same exact thing (the LMSD Facebook group that was mentioned earlier). In fact, there is huge amount of support right now for dividing the interests of the Robbinses family from everyone else’s for just these reasons. Isn’t it amazing that not a single other family has jumped on the Robbinses’ cause? What most DO seem to want at this point is an impartial investigation of the facts by legal authorities, NOT a slick marketing campaign in support of a civil “class action” suit designed for maximum media coverage and ultimate financial gain for the plaintiffs, not to mention huge costs for the district. If the Robbinses really thought they were acting on everyone’s behalf and in the best interests of the community, they never would have gone about this the way they did. No question in my mind.</p>

516

<p>JHS: Friends with someone, and don’t know if they are on the LMSD school board? Not buying that one, and it is belied by your long history of posts on this thread spinning blame in every direction EXCEPT the powers (and friends) that be. </p>

<p>Trash talking about a child and implying that he is a drug dealer? SHAME.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The Robbins’ attorneys did not refer this to criminal authorities; criminal authorities picked it up in the press.</p></li>
<li><p>I have never heard of Slashdot; there is nothing arcane or hard to decipher about the fundamental WRONGNESS of this spyware, whether lawyer, school admin, or private citizen.</p></li>
<li><p>I have already honestly disclosed my interests, at the same time I accepted your false disclosure at face value. I think the “bloodlust” is being fed by those who think they are better than the “lowlifes” attempting to sweep this debacle under the rug.</p></li>
</ol>

517

<p>ClarkAlum: “Another CC senior member jumping to the defense of another.”
Hunt: “Well, sure. When you’ve seen a person post sensibly in lots of other threads, you tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. Those of you who haven’t been around as long will have to work a bit harder to develop credibility.”</p>

<p>This is a thread with 516 posts, and I’m curious about whether or not Hunt has actually read all the posts. I have, and I’ve been participating in the thread pretty much since it started. Just how much harder do I need to work in order to develop credibility in your eyes? JHS lives in the area. That’s great. I’ve been following privacy and security laws, court rulings, policy discussions and incidents (computer and otherwise) since the late 1970s. I guess that makes me chopped liver.</p>

518

<p>roshke - excellent post. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, he isn’t. I live on the Main Line, and all my information is similar to JHS’s and culled from the same kind of sources (i.e. the Inquirer, various blogs, and talking to other LM parents and their children). If you have more information to add, I would welcome it. Oh, and I only became a senior member a couple of days ago, so I hope you won’t hold that against me. ;)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well you’ll have to not buy it from me as well. Until this all started, I had no idea that the husband of a friend of mine was on the school board.</p>

519

<p>

I’ve read the whole thread, too. For what it’s worth, I’ve disagreed with JHS’s take on a lot of the points in this discussion. But when you make the discussion personal and impugn a longtime poster’s integrity, I, for one, don’t care for it. Whether you’re chopped liver or not, I don’t know. I’ll let you know when I’ve read a few thousand of your posts on multiple threads.</p>

520

<p>I’m not going to jump on the anti-JHS bandwagon but I am annoyed to see continued bashing of the family, the child, etc.–on issues wholly unrelated to the case.</p>

<p>The comments made by those looking poorly upon the school officials are, largely, being made on the basis of verifiable facts. Facts the school has admitted to (putting the program in place, conducting warrant-less covert surveillance operations), facts that technology experts have published (information about the technology, how it works, what it can and can’t do), facts put out there by Mr. Perbix a district IT profession on his blog and videos. </p>

<p>Comments against the family largely amount to nothing more than petty mudslinging… “oohh I read a rumor that they’re nasty folks” “oohhh they’ve got some financial issues so clearly they’re just in it for the money” </p>

<p>We know the school conducted warrant-less covert surveillance operations off school property. That, and that only, is the fundamental issue in the case. </p>

<p>There are lots of unknowns still out there such as deciphering the course of events that resulted in such a system ever being installed in the first place… let alone used on a quite consistent basis. Thankfully that’s why the FBI, DA and others are conducting their own investigations. What the district as a whole did is very much illegal. Whether any individual(s) within the district can be found to contributed enough to that collective guilt to warrant criminal prosecution remains to be seen. </p>

<p>When students previously complained to the school about their webcams randomly coming on they were given the “there’s nothing here to see now move along please” treatment… With the lawsuit and separate criminal investigations underway we can at least rest knowing that efforts will be put in place to preserve evidence and force a truly independent investigation into who knew what when. </p>

<p>That’s far better than the district’s petty attempt at an independent investigation (ie hiring someone from the firm you’re paying to find you did nothing wrong, aka your defense council, to look into the situation and tell the public if you did anything wrong).</p>

<p>So by all means let’s continue to debate the issues, but lets debate the issues of the case and not sink to the level of engaging character attacks against one side or the other.</p>