<p>The providing of a device that is capable of surreptitiously recording images and audio and knowing that it will be used in a private home can only be done by law enforcement and then only with a court order. Even if the recording capability was never activated it is sill a serious criminal offense. And a pedophiles dream.</p>
<p>I think that is an extremely lame excuse for installing a camera. Activating only if stolen? Why not install a GPS or a lojack type device? A camera might not work. Activate the camera and view the inside of a briefcase? Sorry, I am not going for that one. Let’s install security cameras in the restrooms… you know, just in case.</p>
<p>^ Toblin</p>
<p>But at the risk of highjacking the thread, we should not be under any illusion that we are not living in a police state. The first rule of high level negotiations is cell phones deposited or batteries removed. Welcome to 1984, delivered 10-20 years behindschedule (poetic justice in that).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Laptops are a luxury- those should be funded by parents or students. Desktops are permanently kept at school, I can see that being a necessary part of a school education. What else should we, the taxpayer, provide to schools- Ipods? Camcorders, Xboxes?</p>
<p>My understanding is that there was nothing surreptitious about this, and that the students and their parents knew about the capacity when they were provided with the machine. But, of course, I might be wrong.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The district provided Apple Laptops. All Apple Laptops ship with cameras. I don’t know when the district started this program so that it might have been an option when the program started. At any rate, it is reasonable to provide a camera for a school device so that the student could communicate with a teacher or online tutor for help with homework.</p>
<p>Cameras come with the cheapest of mobile devices today. It might even take some effort to find a laptop without a camera.</p>
<p>The fact that the students and their parents knew that the units came equipped with cameras and microphones is normal and not disputed. What is not normal is the secretive inclusion of software allowing an outside party to activate these things without the knowledge or permission of those who activities are being recorded, (read: spied upon).</p>
<p>here is the latest- the district is disabling the security tracking program. </p>
<p>“Recent publicity regarding the District’s one-to-one high school laptop initiative, and questions about the security of student laptops prompted our administration to revisit security procedures.”</p>
<p>"As a result of our preliminary review of security procedures today, I directed the following actions:</p>
<pre><code>* Immediate disabling of the security-tracking program.
- A thorough review of the existing policies for student laptop use.
- A review of security procedures to help safeguard the protection of privacy, including a review of the instances in which the security software was activated. We want to ensure that any affected students and families are made aware of the outcome of laptop recovery investigations.
- A review of any other technology areas in which the intersection of privacy and security may come into play.
</code></pre>
<p>We are proud of the fact that we are a leader in providing laptops to every high school student as part of our instructional program. But we need to be equally as proud of the safeguards we have in place to protect the privacy of the users, as well as to safeguard district-owned property while being used by students."</p>
<p>[LMSD</a> | Lower Merion School District Announcements](<a href=“http://www.lmsd.org/sections/news/default.php?m=0&t=today&p=lmsd_anno&id=1138]LMSD”>http://www.lmsd.org/sections/news/default.php?m=0&t=today&p=lmsd_anno&id=1138)</p>
<p>toblin, it is clear from a lot of the commentary and press stories that it was widely known that the school district had that capacity – it wasn’t “secretive” at all. Some people seem to have assumed the district was spying on them. Others believed what the official policy seems to have been: that the district would activate the software in the event the laptop was lost or stolen to help recover it. In fact, it seems to have been used successfully for that purpose on at least a few occasions.</p>
<p>Also, there was a whole Frontline documentary earlier this year on another school district’s use of the same software.</p>
<p>The fact that someone puts hyped-up allegations in a complaint doesn’t make them true. There are interesting issues in this case, including what level of disclosure and consent was appropriate, but “secretive” isn’t even in the ballpark. At worst, the district’s efforts to inform parents were inconsistent, but most people seem to have known about this.</p>
<p>(I know several kids who have these. I am certain they told me that the school could check to make certain they weren’t downloading porn, but I can’t remember whether one of them mentioned the webcam capacity, too.)</p>
<p>From the Inquirer story:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@ #49:</p>
<p>Superintendents updated statement:
</li>
</ul>
<p>So backtracking from the blanket prior statement of only stolen/tracking use. I was wondering how the superintendent could have made a blanket “no intrusion” statement prior to an audit/investigation …</p>
<p>It does seem the school will let the facts lead where they may, and I credit them for doing so if that in fact plays out without a cover-up.</p>
<p>Now, if I’m a family that has been affected, do I even want to know? Not so sure …</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/19/crimesider/entry6223385.shtml]Link[/url”>http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/19/crimesider/entry6223385.shtml]Link[/url</a>]</p>
<p>JHS, reading the latest announcement from the school district, the board and administrators know theyre in deep &*#$. Well find out if some or all of the parents were adequately notified. I know if I were notified about this spying device I would not allow it in my house. Which brings up another issue. These things were mandatory. So, if you wanted your children educated you had to agree that your privacy rights were at the discretion of some school administrators. Nice. </p>
<p>Checking for porn or any other authorized use is not grounds for breaking the law.</p>
<p>JHS @ #50:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Big Brother switching “on” inside your home is OK if users are deemed to be reasonably suspicious that it may happen? Really?</p>
<p>Reasonable expectations of privacy should not be reduced to whatever outrages become technically available. Let’s be Americans, not sheep, and get beck to demanding the personal liberties that have made the USA the greatest democracy on earth.</p>
<p>It seems like a lot of people on this list are willing to bury the school district based on allegations in a complaint. At this point, that’s all they are–allegations in a complaint.</p>
<p>At the same time, there seems to be no concern about the damage that litigious parents do in school districts where LD is short for “little darling” rather than “learning disabled.”</p>
<p>toblin: You are assuming (as the plaintiffs’ attorneys press releases want you to assume) that the school obtained the photo by activating the webcam remotely and taking a picture of what the student was doing at home, as opposed to the student taking a picture of what he was doing at home, and the school discovering it later as part of a review of files stored on ITS computer – a practice everyone acknowledges was fully disclosed. (By the way, the complaint takes care to claim THAT is a violation, too, although it doesn’t make a big deal about it.)</p>
<p>The complaint continuously refers to the district’s “capacity and practice” of activating the webcams, but does not recite any particular instance where the school in fact activated the webcam.</p>
<p>The district has an enormous PR problem on its hands – witness your and others’ responses here, and press stories all around the country – and its hands are tied because it cannot say anything about the particular disciplinary incident that kicked it all off. Plus, I am certain the superintendent has figured out that if there HAS been any unauthorized webcam activation, he had better know about it and get out in front of it before it comes out, and he certainly shouldn’t be making categorical statements that he’s only 90% sure about. So right now they’re just a punching bag.</p>
<p>clueless: So far, there is NO evidence that Big Brother switched anything on inside your home, unless perhaps you had falsely reported that Big Brother’s laptop had been stolen from you. Some people seem to have believed that Big Brother was doing that, but it’s not clear that was anything but paranoia. A prior poster had referred to “secretive” installation of the remote activation software; I cited this folk belief, along with other, more rational things, to demonstrate that if there was a secret it was pretty poorly kept, not to suggest that in-home random surveillance was OK if people knew it might happen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. Based on the press coverage, I think many people have gotten an image of school personnel spying on kids in real time through the webcam. So far, anyway, there is no evidence that this is what actually happened.</p>
<p>"JHS, reading the latest announcement from the school district, the board and administrators know they’re in deep &*#$. We’ll find out if some or all of the parents were adequately notified. I know if I were notified about this spying device I would not allow it in my house. Which brings up another issue. These things were mandatory. So, if you wanted your children educated you had to agree that your privacy rights were at the discretion of some school administrators. Nice.</p>
<p>Checking for porn or any other authorized use is not grounds for breaking the law. "</p>
<p>I agree with all of this. There may be a difference if the AP (or someone in the district) triggered the camera remotely vs. the student having chosen to use the camera and the resultant images being captured on disk and later found in a search by the school district. The first would be unacceptable under virtually any circumstances, the second is a lot more dependent on agreements the student and parent signed at the time the laptop was distributed. I’m not sure what laws apply in that second case.</p>
<p>I do think that if the district flat out hadn’t engaged in some inappropriate behavior that they would have issued a much stronger and clearer denial. Maybe they’re not sure what their staff really did.</p>
<p>“It might even take some effort to find a laptop without a camera.”</p>
<p>BC, my company and my H’s employer order Dell laptops without cameras (for additional security). It is not that hard to find a PC laptop without a webcam, but I agree that with Macs it is almost impossible to find them.</p>
<p>I have been very clear in my posts, as have others, that the facts are not fully known.</p>
<p>However, the school does not dispute that it installed the snooping software, and that itself is indefensible. So now the question is how bad does it get for the school district…</p>
<p>The more inportant question here is not about “little darlings”; it is about the larger abuse of power.</p>
<p>I’ve never liked the development of reduced privacy rights for students on school campuses. In my view it conditions students against believing in strong personal liberties and the development of sheep rather than individuals.</p>
<p>I also think that the concept of remote activated webcams is creepy and should require substantial and direct “black box” type notification if it ever can be used. If your child’s school issued computer came with an agreement you had to sign that said,right up on top of the first page: “Warning, this computer has camera, audio and video recording equipment that the school district may engage remotely at any time. Users should ensure that they are never inappropriately dressed or engaged in inappropriate or private behavior in view of the camera. You should know that the recordings may capture images or sounds made by others in the vicinity at the time that the camera is activated. Also, the school district retains the right to inspect the storage on the computer to determine if there are illegal downloads, pornography, records, pictures or videos of behavior prohibited in our student code of conduct, and disciplinary action up to and including expulsion and reports to the police may follow if any such items are found.”</p>
<p>I suspect that a lot of families would return the computer with a thanks, but no thanks note.</p>