<p>
</p>
<p>ZING !</p>
<p>This lawsuit will be settled out of court in the defendants favor. And the local U.S. Attorney is in a pickle.</p>
<p>“* No. At no time did any high school administrator have the ability or actually access the security- tracking software. We believe that the administrator at Harriton has been unfairly portrayed and unjustly attacked in connection with her attempts to be supportive of a student and his family. The district never did and never would use such tactics as a basis for disciplinary action.”</p>
<p>This is odd.</p>
<p>First of all they can’t be technically sure that the Administrator or someone else didn’t access the computer. You can have levels of confidence based on the skills required but it is very difficult to be absolutely sure.</p>
<p>Secondly they don’t deny that the teacher said this to the student. It is possible that the teacher said this to the student without actually having the picture.</p>
<p>Note to Lower Merion School District: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Turning it “off” is not good enough. Immediately put a link on all your schools websites that will allow users to download a patch that will delete this malicious spyware permanently. And inform students and parents that this link is available. </p></li>
<li><p>Fire the Supernatant for cause.</p></li>
<li><p>Fire for cause the administrator who told the plaintiff that she has pictures of him performing a misdeed. (Whether or not she actually has them.)</p></li>
<li><p>If the pictures do exist, fire for cause anyone that helped her get them.</p></li>
<li><p>Schedule emergency school board elections because the current board has just caused the loss of a huge amount of taxpayer money not to mention bad press and should resign. </p></li>
<li><p>Negotiate a “bulk time” purchase arrangement with a good law firm. Their first order of business should be attempting to consolidate all the anticipated lawsuits into as few as possible.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>This 1:1 initiative is happening in many districts. Here’s a link from the Boston Globe:
[Despite</a> economy, schools aim for computer programs to include every student - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2010/02/11/despite_economy_schools_aim_for_computer_programs_to_include_every_student/]Despite”>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2010/02/11/despite_economy_schools_aim_for_computer_programs_to_include_every_student/)</p>
<p>I’m curious what the PA district did/did not do to create so many problems for themselves. Apple is working very hard on this as it is a huge cash cow for them. Can’t say that I see the need for a computer for every kid, but it IS happening and everybody (kids, parents, taxpayers, school admin/boards) had better be ready. Suppose the legal community will have lots to say, as well! Believe the state of Maine has had this in schools statewide…Can anybody from Maine confirm?</p>
<p>From the Washington Post - "The district says in a statement Saturday that the official was trying “to be supportive” and denies that the photo was being used to discipline the student. "</p>
<p>It seems clear to me that the district is trying to whitewash what the offical did. </p>
<p>So often, we hold students accountable. Here the district says that the adminsistration is above the law. They must be shown they are not.</p>
<p>Why have arrests not been made?</p>
<p>"The lawsuit, filed Tuesday on behalf of Harriton High School student Blake Robbins, claims that an assistant principal reprimanded the 15-year-old for “improper behavior in his home” that was captured by the embedded camera on Robbins’ school-issued Apple MacBook.</p>
<p>Robbins told reporters outside his house last night that the improper behavior he was cited for was eating Mike & Ike candies, which he said the school mistook for illegal pills."</p>
<p>Haltzman [Robbins attorney] also questioned why officials would place the incident on Robbins’ school record if the webcams were activated only to recover missing laptops.</p>
<p>David Kairys, a Temple University law professor who specializes in civil rights and constitutional law, described the policy as Orwellian. He said it appears to be a “very clear civil-rights violation.”</p>
<p>[Spying</a> on L. Merion students sparks probes by FBI, Montco detectives | Philadelphia Daily News | 02/20/2010](<a href=“http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20100220_Spying_on_L__Merion_students_sparks_probes_by_FBI__Montco_detectives.html]Spying”>Spying on L. Merion students sparks probes by FBI, Montco detectives)</p>
<p>that is the crux of the matter. If the laptop was not reported missing, then why was the security software activated? The more the district doesn’t say as to WHY this student’s “behavior” was recorded and brought to his parents attention, the deeper the PR and legal hole they dig themselves into with parents, students and civil rights advocates. They need to come clean, the sooner the better.</p>
<p>Well, definitely more to see. I agree with the poster who said in essence that just because a policy says certain things will only happen under certain conditions doesn’t mean that it actually has always worked that way.</p>
<p>Perhaps the A.P. was lying when she allegedly said that they had evidence collected from this system? But the reports in the Philadelphia Daily News that this purported infraction was placed on the student’s permanent record would seem to indicate that there must be some substantive support for the infraction. </p>
<p>Either way, I thank the family for bringing this to our attention, no matter what their child was or was not alleged to have done. Who knows how many school districts (or employers, for that matter) are using this same software and have now been given an important wakeup call about privacy.</p>
<p>And I still don’t understand why a system that is supposed to track lost/stolen computers ever needed to do more than have a gps locator that can be accessed remotely. I can’t imagine that LoJack takes a picture of the car’s trunk in order to provide a visual for the police.</p>
<p>Merion has always held itself up as an example of an example of an excellent school district. They have great resources and involved parents. That they choose to ignore a violation of civil rights is appalling. What other rules do they ignore? They do not deserve their reputation.</p>
<p>Could somebody please explain how taking pictures of a student when the student is in his bedroom, perhaps changing for bed, perhaps doing god knows what, is different – from a strictly criminal law perspective – from putting a camera in a locker room or bathroom? And if the AP was involved in taking pictures from hidden cameras she knew would be in the private spaces of minors, why she isn’t being charged?</p>
<p>Two totally separate issues here:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Criminal. Were laws broken? To what degree? Was the system used to track lost or stolen computers (clearly not a legal thing as done here, IMO) or was there one or more instances where the webcam was used to “spy on students” ( I do not happen to believe this). </p></li>
<li><p>Civil. The Robbins civil case is about money and damages. What they are saying, that there was never any lost or stolen laptop (hmm, I notice they don’t mention “misplaced”) - is in direct contradiction to the school district’s assertions. If what happened to their son was that they took a screenshot of him in his room, while trying to locate a misplaced computer, and nothing happened to him based on that, their damages are not as great as if he suffered consequences. It helps their case immensely if they can prove their son suffered consequences directly related to the webcam(this is denied by the school). On the other hand, if through a series of events involving some OTHER misuse of the computer or some inability to locate it, he’s just the kid who happened to reveal this was going on and any consequences or warnings he got were entirely unrelated to the remote webcam screenshot, his damages are not as great. In other words, it’s to the family’s benefit to claim what they are claiming( whether its true or not is something they will have to prove).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Roshke</p>
<ol>
<li><p>As to your point 1, the Washington Post reports as follows "The district says in a statement Saturday that the official was trying “to be supportive” and denies that the photo was being used to discipline the student. " How can you say the law was not broken? Has the school demanded a retraction from the WP? I think it is clear a photo was taken, it was illegal, the AP, the school internet guy (if he knowingly faciliated the AP spying) and any school personal who have knowingly issued false statements (obstruction) should be doing the perp walk. </p></li>
<li><p>See point 1. The Constitution guarantees us the right to be secure in your homes.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>“And if the AP was involved in taking pictures from hidden cameras she knew would be in the private spaces of minors, why she isn’t being charged?”</p>
<p>From the LMSD website:
</p>
<p>kayf, That was a rhetorical question. In no way was I saying a law was not broken by the use of such software. I think it was a clear violation of the law. But right now we have conflicting evidence and as far as my response to Nester, no knowledge of how Matsko’s actions vis a vis this student were related to the claims in this case.</p>
<p>Roshke, read the quote carefully. They are not denying they took the picture, just that it was used for disclipinaary action. The Washington Post says there was a picture. No retraction.</p>
<p>The papers says there is an investigation. I hope they throw the book at everyone involved.</p>
<p>Roshke, at 2:00 you said “1. Criminal. Were laws broken? To what degree? Was the system used to track lost or stolen computers (clearly not a legal thing as done here, IMO) or was there one or more instances where the webcam was used to “spy on students” ( I do not happen to believe this).”</p>
<p>I am disagreeing with you – I think this DID happen, and the school is dancing around it. As to the amount of the kid’s damages, I have no idea. All I have said is everyone at the school who knowingly spyed on kids, facillitated it, lied about it, etc should be facing criminal charges and should lose their licenses.</p>
<p>Nothing to be gained by trying to devine the facts from press reports or limited staements with an eye to litigation defense; we’ll have to wait for the facts to come out in the wash (hopefully not whitewash, but the criminal inquiries make spoliation of evidence a much less likely development).</p>
<p>Let’s take a poll: in any event where a poster knew the facts of a reported event, did the press get it even 75% right? For me, that answer has been NO each and every time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The surreptitious placing of or causing the placement of a recording device into a private home without the owners permission or knowledge is a serious felony in itself. The fact that the devices may have never been turn on is immaterial. And good intentions or an absence of malice is no defense. </p>
<p>Maintaining that this capability was an anti-theft measure is just plain laughable and nothing more than a fig leaf to disguise more sinister intentions. They wanted the ability to monitor student activities outside of school, even in their homes. Remember, this program was mandatory. Everyone had to have the school issued laptop. So why did they keep these spying capabilities a secret? Because they knew that many parents if informed of the laptops spy capabilities would never allow one in their homes. The failure to notify students and parents was vital to achieving the schools intentions and in no way an accident or oversight. </p>
<p>Zero tolerance induces an arrogance and a disregard for the rights of others in the people and institutions that practice it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Think of it like a case of those hidden camera’s used to monitor babysitters. I can put a hidden camera in my house and record you in my house if I choose to do so (local laws can vary but in general this is OK). However I can’t put a secret camera in YOUR house and record you in your house without your permission… regardless of my reasons for doing so. </p>
<p>You can’t put a ‘bug’ (ie a video or audio recording device) in someone’s private home without their explicit permission unless you are a law enforcement official with permission to do so from a court (i.e. a warrant)… and even then you’ll only get such permission if you’ve demonstrated probable cause to believe that illegal activity is taking place. </p>
<p>The school district’s claim that this was only a ‘security feature’ to find stolen or lost laptops is moot… it doesn’t matter why they bugged these computers it’s the fact that they did without telling anyone that’s the potential criminal matter here. The fact that they proceeded to use this feature many times, including potentially recording of minors in their bedroom, just makes the whole thing even worse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is absolutely true. When you know what actually happened in a situation/event and then see how it’s reported it’s shocking how bad most reporters are about getting the story correct.</p>
<p>From reading the news articles </p>
<p>We were under the impression that the computers were stolen (property of the school) and that through turning on the web-cameras
23 of those STOLEN laptops were recovered.</p>
<p>Yes? </p>
<p>Is this any different then the guy who just got his phone back by using his computer and turning on his Iphone–the IPhone picked up the pics of the perp. and the house etc. Within hours of presenting the data–the perp. was caught and more than 5 stolen phones were recovered.</p>
<p>Which news article said the computer in the kids house was stolen? I thought it was clear he was legitimately using it, it was NOT reported lost or stolen, but the assistant principal decided to watch him.</p>
<p>It may be that remote monitoring is possible without the security software. You can have remote control software (Remote Desktop, VNC, Tarantella and many other products on Windows) in addition to specific security software designed to report IP and take a picture.</p>