<p>I’m gon’na save my 30th post for a really good one.</p>
<p>Trying to get back to the topic… can’t remember if this was mentioned before or not, but for what it’s worth this is part of what the ACLU said in their amicus curiae regarding this matter filed with the court:</p>
<p>From the court records:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The original document includes all the references to the cases, briefs and other documents supporting the quotes.</p>
<p>So if JHS posts, he’s declared a liar, and if he doesn’t he is continued fodder for undefended pot shots and baiting? Wow, looks like you win either way, Clark Alum. But as for winning, Cluelessdad, you earned the gold medal fair and square. I’d file a protest if I were you.</p>
<p>“So if JHS posts, he’s declared a liar, and if he doesn’t he is continued fodder for undefended pot shots and baiting? Wow, looks like you win either way, Clark Alum.”</p>
<p>JHS is a big boy, jym. He really doesn’t need you to defend him. Go back and read his posts if you want to see examples of gratuitous pot shots. Are you a lawyer, too?</p>
<p>Nope not an attorney. More like a rodeo clown.</p>
<p>Jym, I actually would like to forfeit the gold – I hadn’t realized I had become such a stage hog.</p>
<p>Yes, JHS does keep taking shots and like Clark I have been annoyed by his continued painting of my views, etc. But his biases are clearly stated (he didn’t have to fess up to any so why question his integrity?) and readers can assess his posts in that light. I do hope that JHS returns to the thread: cutting through the bias, he adds a lot of intelligent commentary on the topic.</p>
<p>Toblin, seminal 30th post!!!</p>
<p>Philly Inquirer reports this morning that the case may be moving towards settlement. The case is being suspending for 30 days to give the forensic investigation more time and allow the school to make more public statements about their previous activities. </p>
<p>Contrary to the rumor abound of the plaintiff’s desire for money, the boy’s attorney comments that they simply want the truth of what was going on to come out and make sure that it can never happen again. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although some will continue to criticize the family for fiercely defending their constitutional rights those critics can’t argue with the fact that this placed full public disclosure of school officials’ activities on the table, forced the officials to immediately stop their surveillance activities, and will hopeful lead to a rapid resolution that prevents this from ever happening again–all things those officials showed little interest in doing before their behavior became the subject of international scorn. </p>
<p>All this is separate from the ongoing criminal investigation into the school officials. However, personally I doubt we’ll see any arrests made unless:</p>
<ul>
<li>The eDiscovery process reveals, as it did with the redistricting case, that school officials knew what they were doing was illegal, but continued to do it anyway</li>
</ul>
<p>or</p>
<ul>
<li>The scope and use of the surveillance material extends beyond that previously admitted to.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>Even if there are no arrests we’ll almost certainly see some strongly worded censure reminding these officials of 9th grade civics level material about the laws of this country… the local police department also appears to need a refresher course on the constitution in regards to their evidence gathering methods.</p>
<p>
haha. that’s what they want you to think ;)</p>
<p>cynicism aside - with this I agree. fully.
</p>
<p>Justamom,
Your cynicism is understood. When a physician has made a treatment error, many studies say that the patient simply wants an apology, and are less likely to sue if the Dr. apologizes. Attorneys, however, often say that an apology is an admission of guilt, and that by apologizing to the patient, the Dr. is admitting the wrongdoing and opening themselves up to a bigger, and less defensable suit.</p>
<p>All that said, I agree that if the outcome of this is that the privacy of the students is protected and any misuse of the technology, if it occurred, is exposed and the individual (s) responsible are identified, then this is a good thing. I do, however, think that it is not unreasonable to have tracking systems in electronics (GPS or what have you) to assist in finding stolen equipment. They can skip the use of the camera, but still use GPS, laptop tracking software and/or IP address info to find stolen equipment, if it is in fact stolen. The owner of equipment has the right to retrieve their stolen items, and unfortunately laptops are an easy target. In my city there have been several recent break-ins in schools resulting in the theft of computers, video equipment, etc. If the county wants to save their constituents tax dollars and they are able to assist the police in the retrieval of the stolen equipment, then the tracking devices are, IMO, not unreasonable. Its the camera/audio use that is disturbing to most of us, I believe. And I also agree, full disclosure should always occur up front.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I don’t think that anyone has a problem with this. The key is going to law enforcement to report the theft and handle the recovery and arrests if any. The company that made the camera software said that this is the way recoveries should be handled - not by the school district itself.</p>
<p>That makes sense, BCEagle. But I do wonder, is there any chance that if a school thought that students (or possibly staff), rather than individuals from the outside were possibly responsible for theft, would they perhaps want to try to handle things internally first rather than to immediately involve the police? While obviously the failed miserably if they were trying to avoid a scandal in this case, but I just wonder if sometimes they (generically speaking) might attempt to handle internal issues privately before involving the police and raising criminal charges, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. Even LMSD’s fiercest critics agree that the school officials have a right, a duty even, to take responsible measures to safeguard the district’s assets… and laptops are certainly a frequent target of theft. </p>
<p>But, of course, the law must be followed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can see that this line of reasoning may have gone through the heads of some school officials, but as numerous legal scholars have pointed out this type of thinking is dead wrong when it comes to the jurisdiction of a school’s powers. </p>
<p>For incidents that occur on campus, school officials have some leeway in handling situations , but those powers explicitly stop the second one arrives home after school. (According to a friend of mine who is a teacher in PA, nowhere near LMSD for the record, these regulations are grilled into school officials’ heads.) </p>
<p>In this case, the secret software would have told school officials that the laptops were off school property before they decided to conduct their own surveillance operations. Therefore, the above explanation/defense would only get so far as highlighting that the officials in question exhibited inadequate knowledge of and/or judgement towards their responsibilities, and limits on their authority, as clearly stated by the law.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think that this is a reasonable issue and one that’s debated here on how colleges enforce laws and rules. How colleges handle these issues is all over the place. Some colleges have get tough policies and every incident gets reported to the local police or is handled by the college police who can make arrests, etc. Other campuses may handle it internally so that it never gets to the public record.</p>
<p>Many high-schools have “Resource Officers” or police officers on campus. A police officer could certainly exercise discretion along with the school. They could say that a device is missing and request police help to retrieve it. If it’s just a misunderstanding, then the school doesn’t have to file a complaint. The police do plenty of work that doesn’t result in arrests or charges.</p>
<p>On the other hand, you have the case of police leniency that backfires. The Amy Bishop case is an extreme example of this.</p>
<p>Understood, but there have also been cases of police brutality/excessive force. Case in point elementary school students who were unnecessarily handcuffed (full disclosure: I have a friend who was an elementary school principal- just happened to recount this exact story the other night of this happening to one of her students when she called in the security to help manage an agitated student. Not good press, needless to say. They could have restrained this youngster without handcuffs.)</p>
<p>Or that girl who was handcuffed after writing on her desk.</p>
<p>The simplest thing would have been for them to place some sort of tracking device/IP tracker and have a set, standard routine, such as always having the police officer assigned to their school deal with missing laptops. AND, be very transparent about it— make sure all the kids (and their parents) know that this is the policy and there will be no exceptions. How hard is that?</p>
<p>^^ it won’t be hard in the future, lol! Lots of school districts are learning important lessons from this debacle!</p>
<p>Do we know that they didn’t have a policy in place? Sounds like that if they did, they apparently veered from that policy, but wouldn’t it be expected that there was some policy and procedure in place?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They claim to have had a ‘policy’ in place but it hardly appeared robust or strictly followed (never mind that the policy permitted the use of illegal surveillance activities). </p>
<p>The lawyer for Michael Perbix, a member of the IT staff, stated that essentially someone from the school would call and ask to have surveillance performed and the IT person would do so at their request. At least in regards to that statement the lawyer was positioning his client in the “I only did what my boss told me to do” defense. </p>
<p>There also remains the as of yet unexplained issue of how covert surveillance intended for ‘theft recovery’ (which in itself was still illegal) allegedly ended up in the hands of Lindy Masko, the Vice Principal, for the charged use in confronting the student about his ‘inappropriate behavior’ at home. For her part she fiercely denied a lot of things, such as ordering the surveillance, but never denied having been in possession the images the suit accuses her of using. </p>
<p>She also fiercely denied “disciplining” a student using such images (something the suit never charged her with), but didn’t address the actual charge that she confronted a student about activity the school’s surveillance had uncovered–either by accident or intentionally.</p>
<p>Understood. Don’t think too many are defending the creepy snooping. Just positing that there was probably a policy/procedure in place but that it was not followed as written. Those who failed to follow protocol will have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.</p>