<p>Just because you CAN do these things doesnt make them right. My employer reserves the right to monitor computer useage. They’ld know better than to look at employees typing in their bedroom. And my employer’s HR people dont even have Masters in Education.</p>
<p>"The Lower Merion School District, in response to a suit filed by a student, has acknowledged that webcams were remotely activated 42 times in the past 14 months, but only to find missing, lost or stolen laptops – which the district noted would include “a loaner computer that, against regulations, might be taken off campus.”</p>
<p>also</p>
<p>"Lower Merion, an affluent district in Philadelphia’s suburbs, issues Apple laptops to all 2,300 students at its two high schools. Only two employees in the technology department were authorized to activate the cameras — and only to locate missing laptops, Young said. The remote activations captured images but never recorded sound, he said.</p>
<p>No one had complained before Harriton High School student Blake Robbins and his parents, Michael and Holly Robbins, filed their lawsuit Tuesday, he said.</p>
<p>According to the suit, Harriton vice principal Lindy Matsko told Blake on Nov. 11 that the school thought he was “engaged in improper behavior in his home.” She allegedly cited as evidence a photograph “embedded” in his school-issued laptop.</p>
<p>The suit does not say if the boy’s laptop had been reported stolen, and Young said the litigation prevents him from disclosing that fact. He said the district never violated its policy of only using the remote-activation software to find missing laptops. “Infer what you want,” Young said. "</p>
<p>I use my own equipment at work but I’m on their network, both in the office and at work. If I don’t want them to see what I am doing, then I would just need to use a system that isn’t on their network.</p>
<p>My guess is there is something in the computer policy with the schools program–and if not–one will be written now.</p>
<p>If the computers are property of the school–the school can also at any time search the hard drive and browser history…and it is NOT a violation of the students privacey.</p>
<p>Our district faced this when computers the PARENTS purchased for their students were taken from them and every student’s computer was searched. A 3rd grader and a 5th grader were suspended for having downloaded adult material. Our child at the time was in the 3rd grade and I had to go to the principal’s office while they searched the hard drive. Our student wasn’t involved and knew nothing of what was going on-- it was a terrible ordeal for all of the students and their families…very upsetting.</p>
<p>^^^ I know that students and parents had to sign a detailed terms of use agreement which says that they know the computer is the property of the school and can be searched. I’m guessing that the school found something on the computer ( the “embedded” language) and that’s how this all started.</p>
<p>I also think that nobody is being specific as to where the photo came from. Webcam by remote or the kid took it himself? We don’t really know, do we?</p>
<p>There are a lot of details we don’t know, and probably won’t for some time, but the school has confirmed that they had the ability to remotely record images via the webcam and yet never informed parents or students that this could be done. </p>
<p>Furthermore, they confirmed that not only did they have the ability to do it but that actually DID record images and still didn’t inform those with the laptops. </p>
<p>The fact that the school says they wanted this ability to use only in case the laptop was lost/stolen is moot. The fact that the school says they only used this spying ability in cases where they thought the laptop might have been lost/stolen is also moot. </p>
<p>If I come by your house and intentionally put a bug in your bedroom then I’m guilty. It doesn’t matter if I never actually attempted to use the bug to watch you or only did so for reasons other than wanting to be a Peeping Tom. </p>
<p>The only fact that really matters here is that school officials secretly gave devices to students intended for a specific purpose, but which also had the secret ability to record images of them in private in their private homes. Whether this is a laptop, textbook or piece of sports equipment is moot. </p>
<p>Such an action would generally be considered illegal and hence why the DA and FBI are looking into the schools actions in light of wiretapping laws.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True and I don’t think even the lawyers in this case would question that. What the computer is used for and what’s on the computer are the business of the school since it’s their property. </p>
<p>However, what goes on in front of the computer or otherwise in view of its secret remote controlled cameras whilst the bugged device is in a private home are absolutely NOT the property of the school. </p>
<p>Whether it’s simply a photo of the inside of someone’s house or a photo of some illegal activity, it’s illegal for the school to secretly record such activity without explicit permission to do so. That’s the basis for the lawsuit and FBI investigation.</p>
<p>Rocketman, I agree with you. And the arrogance of the school, especially their PR guy Young is not helping them any. It can take years to establish a good reputation, and one incident to destroy it.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I don’t know that they can come into your home and search the system.</p>
<p>The legal system is chronically behind the technology.</p>
<p>And if the school only turned on the computers which were missing in order to find them…</p>
<p>Did anyone read that story about the guy and how he turned on his phone camera to find it via his computer…you don’t hear about that criminal suing for privacey…</p>
<p>I smell a rich family with a brat whoc got caught …running to an attourney when their kid was confronted with evidence of his being involved with illegal activity…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re totally missing the point of the lawsuit and the reason the FBI quickly took notice. </p>
<p>This whole issue around using the features of the bugged devices for finding lost/stolen items does not matter. Period. </p>
<p>The issue at play is not why the school bugged the devices, but the fact that they did so in the first place. Regardless of why, one simply can’t do that. The school equipment was provided to families and families accepted the equipment in good faith without any knowledge that the school had the ability to discreetly record images inside families’ private homes. That is the legal issue raised by the lawsuit and the reason for the FBI investigation. </p>
<p>In regards to this red herring cell phone issue that keeps getting brought up it’s wholly irrelevant to the school case in question. In that instance the device was in possession of someone who had stolen it. They didn’t have permission to have the device in the first place so the fact that it had the ability to take discrete images is irrelevant. </p>
<p>However, the students in this case were given the school equipment specifically to use at home–they had permission to have the equipment, which the school chose to bug without informing them.</p>
<p>It can’t be said enough: you can’t secretly give someone a bugged device to take home with them–that’s illegal wiretapping. Whether you access the bug or not doesn’t matter. Whether you access the bug only in cases where you think the device may have been stolen doesn’t matter. </p>
<p>It’s the act of secretly bugging the equipment that’s the subject of the investigation… the other details just provide ammo for PR folks to try and misdirect attention away from the actual subject of the investigation.</p>
<p>Fog: and I smell a lot of speculation that is really pointless until all the facts are in.</p>
<p>There are reputations on all sides of this debacle that should not be needlessly trashed on mere speculation.</p>
<p>The school clearly overstepped in enabling the technology (or let’s debate that if anyone cares to), but as to motivations or abuses (or not) by any individuals we will just have to wait ans see …</p>
<p>When you buy a Dell consumer computer, they provide remote control and monitoring software on the system but you have to activate it to enable it on your computer and Dell customer representatives will ask you for your permission before doing a remote control session.</p>
<p>Looks like Dell’s Lawyers > School Distrct Lawyers.</p>
<p>^ BC, pretty safe bet the school district’s lawyers weren’t consulted.</p>
<p>I do think it is interesting that the school’s FAQ response statement dodged the question of how high up the authorization went approving/knowledge of the spyware installation …</p>
<p>Clueless, I suspect the school district is not going to go on the hook for the famous who knew what and went, and is waiting to see results of either FBI interviews or internal investigation. i have respect for people who say, I don’t know, but we are working on answers.</p>
<p>^ Agreed, that is just a question I am interested in learning the answer to as this all shakes out.</p>
<p>How many more?</p>
<p>This school board/admins didn’t come up with this disastrous plan all by themselves. They surely got the idea from outside. Maybe in conversations with other school admins, at convention presentations, or trade publications, etc… I wonder how many hurried meeting are being conducted this weekend by school boards and businesses to discuss the issue. I’m sure the FBI has already requested a customer list from the company that supplied the spy-ware software. (Which as I understand was not Apple.)</p>
<p>^^^I was thinking the same thing… surely this isn’t the only school/entity that has done such a thing. I’m guessing there are a lot of e-mails from superintendents to IT staff this weekend saying “Please tell me there isn’t something like this on our computers.”</p>
<p>It’s kinda cool to see my school district in national news. I’m glad I’m out of there, though.</p>