<p>The plaintiffs’ attorneys have been working on this since November. The superintendent may not have heard about it until yesterday morning. If you were he, wouldn’t you want to find out what had been going on before you issued a strong and clear denial? As many people have pointed out, it IS possible – perhaps more than just possible – that people with access to this system abused it, at least on occasion. The superintendent may not even know what records the system generates. The person who bought the system is retired. I think he’s done the right thing in (a) ordering the system de-activated for the time being, (b) reaffirming what the official policy was, and (c) doing an internal investigation before he spouts off.</p>
<p>arabrab: Your last sentence, at least, is absolutely understood to be the case by 100% of the kids and adults I know with these things. That IS part of the deal. The rest, of course, no.</p>
<p>^ Except that the Superintendent’s first statement did exactly that:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do applaud the school for taking a step back and gathering the facts now. And I do sincerely hope the technology was not abused.</p>
<p>But some seem to think it is all OK if there is enought disclosure that it could happen. How about saying NO – you have no right to intrude in our private lives, period?</p>
<p>clueless, do you think it would be OK to use the feature for the purpose of locating lost, stolen, or missing laptops? Especially understanding that such potential would serve as a pretty good deterrent to casual theft of these eminently-stealable items? With disclosure?</p>
<p>That’s why “some seem to think it is all OK if there is enough disclosure that it could happen”.</p>
<p>Apple sells a product called Back to My Mac which allows you to remotely use your Mac. This was used in the case of a stolen MacBook last year in New York I think. The owner had another Mac and noticed that hers was online so she connected to it and took a picture of the person that stole it. She went to the police and they recovered the laptop.</p>
<p>Remote control software is routinely used in many businesses. In some places, it’s part of the working environment and this sort of thing has been around for a long time. The use of it connected to the home, though does raise privacy concerns.</p>
<p>There are very large numbers of computers infected with malware that have can do the same thing. And you can add keyloggers to the list of malware types. One of my laptops has a fingerprint scanner and that’s a bit of information that I’d prefer to keep private. So there are privacy issues all over the place but schools shouldn’t go out looking for them.</p>
<p>I think that you’d want someone from law enforcement around if you were going to do this along with complete access audit trails that are regularly reviewed. There have been numerous cases of employees misusing databases at the Internal Revenue Service and they don’t seem to have trouble catching employees that do this.</p>
<p>JHS, with respect, no I really don’t think so. There must be less intrusive technology to serve that purpose. One can always come up with a “good purpose” rationale to support intrusive behaviors.</p>
<p>At the heart of this is whether authorities should be entrusted not to abuse power. I come in with a resounding NO on that front.</p>
<p>To be clear, if the facts turn out to be inappropriate materials were left on the computer BY THE STUDENT, then that’s a tough and important lesson for the student to learn. Nobody should use work/school provided equipment for any unauthorized purpose.</p>
<p>^ BC, what does adding a law enforcement presence add? Lots of cops would just LOVE such an easy end-around on 4th Amendment search and seizure limits.</p>
<p>Adding LE would mean that the school would have to call them after a theft report and so that an employee couldn’t active the security camera without a good reason to do so.</p>
<p>“The more inportant question here is not about “little darlings”; it is about the larger abuse of power.”</p>
<p>So you have no concern about litigious parents constantly threatening school officials with lawsuits in order to protect their children from legitimate disciplinary actions? I can tell you that in my school district it has had a profoundly negative effect on the school system.</p>
<p>^^ BC, I understand your point of LE being a screening element, but that assumes confidence in LE to act within bounds. The problem here is the potential abuse of the technology.</p>
<p>^ EMM, no I don’t have much concern about litigious parents. Maybe in special needs programs, but Congress invited those fights. Threatened suits for bad grades or discipline? Nope, not an issue in my world.</p>
<p>clueless, I don’t think the proposition is noncontroversial, and I wouldn’t expect everyone to agree with it. On the other hand, I think it IS at least controversial, i.e., lots of reasonable people WOULD agree that it’s OK to use remote activation to recover stolen computers and to discourage theft. Whereas hardly anyone would agree it’s OK to have the Assistant Principal take a peek at your kid’s bedroom whenever she feels like it, disclosure or no. And the technology for both applications is the same. There may be less intrusive technology, but I bet it’s more expensive less intrusive technology (like Lojack).</p>
<p>As for students leaving inappropriate materials on the computer, I truly believe that everyone in the district understands that the school will monitor the computer randomly and remotely and will discipline students with inappropriate materials.</p>
<p>Well, I guess we just live in different worlds. In my school district, I’ve had numerous teachers tell me or my wife that they are scared to death of the parents and as a result just let a lot of stuff go that they shouldn’t.</p>
<p>The percentage of people that would abuse this is hopefully very small. Requiring two to agree would make the likelyhood of getting two to agree even smaller.</p>
<p>I’m afraid I agree with you more than I would like to: that many are comfortable with accepting the potential for invasion of privacy inherent in the technology.</p>
<p>This is not an issue in a vacuum for me: if we believe permitting the Big Brother technology is OK to recover stolen laptops, why limit Big Brother for any purpose?</p>
<p>Your proposition assumes invasive technology would not be abused, that we can trust government. This is exactly where I feared this debate might lead. I don’t dispute you’re right to that point of view (if in fact it is your view), it just leaves me very very sad as one devoted to individual liberties.</p>
<p>My last soapbox comment: was no one else dejected that Iran could find and slaughter its citizens based on triangulating their cell/web/twitter postings?</p>
<p>Hmmm … the student conduct dean and the school beat cop who share lunch fairly often … not sure I agree with you there on limited abuses. You could just as well say the family must first report lost/stolen to authorize, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be abused. We have boatloads of caselaw demonstrating how entitled LE and authorities of all types feel they may go to seek justice …</p>
<p>EMM, perhaps we do. I suppose I don’t know how many A’s we could have garnered because with one limited exception we never engaged. But I would encourage all teachers to consult with their union reps (or school admins if no union) on how real those concerns are. Outside of special needs – and an expensive plaintiff’s proposition even in that category – hot air generally blows downwind when the lawyer asks the parents for their retainer and gives a cost of suit budget :)</p>