<p>I dont think there are many other districts that supply kids with laptops to take home. Maybe I’m wrong.</p>
<p>I think a lot of schools have laptops that students can take home, but I think this program is unique in that they’re giving each student their own laptop that they keep at all times (rather than just checking one out on an as-needed basis).</p>
<p>I also think that the school district’s statement has been very carefully crafted. It says that at no time did the assistant principal take any pictures. It never says that no school district staff members ever activated the remote camera capability from this student’s computer. So, it is possible that a tech or security staffer did so, found what he or she thought was evidence, and then brought it to the AP who then took action. The school district hasn’t lied, but they haven’t really declared that this student’s still/audio/video remote recording was never initiated by anyone on their staff or under their direction.</p>
<p>If someone took a picture of him doing something that they thought that he shouldn’t (eating Mike and Ikes - haven’t had them in a long time but I recall that I liked them), then they must have been scanning multiple computers at multiple times in order to find behavior that they deem unacceptable at a particular point in time.</p>
<p>Most of the time that people spend at computers is boring from the perspective of the screen.</p>
<p>Much discussion on this thread revolves around the privacy of the student, and rightfully so. But if there’s one thing that’s clear to me in this case, its that nothing is clear about this case. And, in this age of 24-7 news, blogs, and yes message boards, speculation runs rampant and people jump to conclusions very quickly. </p>
<p>If the AP ends up being exonerated in this case, I really feel for her since her privacy in this matter is non-existent. Her name and reputation have been sullied to say the least based on a non-proven allegation from a student and his parents.</p>
<p>In addition to the issue of non-disclosure of the capability of remote webcam access and the circumstances under which the school would activate it, keep in mind that according to the news reports not just the student but the father met with the vp and the father was advised of the existence of the photograph. In addition, according to the news reports in Philadelphia’s major newspapers, multiple students have reported that the webcam light on their computers would come on at random times when the student was at home.</p>
<p>Arabrab,</p>
<p>You call the school board’s statement carefully crafted. I call it disengenuous. The school board should remember their mission. And think of the example they are setting. Right now, I would give them all F’s. The say the employee was being “supportive”? I’ld like to see how they would feel if someone were that supportive of them.</p>
<p>[Irate</a> parents in Pa. say schools use ‘peeping tom technology’](<a href=“http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9159778/Irate_parents_in_Pa._say_schools_use_peeping_tom_technology_?taxonomyId=84&pageNumber=2]Irate”>http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9159778/Irate_parents_in_Pa._say_schools_use_peeping_tom_technology_?taxonomyId=84&pageNumber=2)</p>
<p>Federal officials have also stepped up their investigation of Lower Merion School District of Ardmore, Pa., according to reports published Saturday. The Associated Press said that the FBI was exploring whether district officials broke federal wiretapping and electronic surveillance laws, while the Philadelphia Inquirer cited sources who said federal prosecutors have subpoenaed documents from school officials.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. The district has already admitted in the press that they illegally wiretapped these devices (they admit to having secretly installed the bugs on the school equipment sent home with students–which constitutes illegal wiretapping). </p>
<p>What district officials did was clearly incredibly stupid, but it remains to be seen if their stupidity is a legit defense against the federal wiretapping charges.</p>
<p>^ So the “independent” former prosecutor brought in to investigate is from the same law firm defending the school district in the lawsuit? So much for transparency. Glad the FBI and local DA are conducting their own investigations.</p>
<p>^^^I think what the district meant to say was “we decided it was necessary to use your property tax money to hire ourselves a hot shot lawyer to try and get us off the hook for our own mistakes.” But then it got spun into an ‘independent investigation.’ </p>
<p>As you point out… how independent can it really be when the ‘investigator’ is from the firm trying to get you off the hook.</p>
<p>Excerrpts from #100, quoting McGinley’s update release:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this was the superintendent’s original spin …</p>
<p>“Our goal is to be as open as possible…”</p>
<p>…except I’m not going to tell you in my letter to you that the ‘independent investigator’ that will look into these allegations is from a firm that’s on our payroll for the purposes of finding that we did nothing wrong–I’ll leave that one up to the press to figure out by combing through court documents.</p>
<p>^ Yeah, press release really had to work the spin to suggest he was on his own, a la Ken Starr, and NOT name his law firm as the defense firm actually retained to do the work …</p>
<p>Is only the kid who got caught doing something wrong suing–or are all of the families of kids who had to return the “lost or stolen laptops” suing?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/02/16/20100216gps-used-to-find-stolen-iphone.html[/url]”>http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/02/16/20100216gps-used-to-find-stolen-iphone.html</a></p>
<p>So far, it’s only the one family.</p>
<p>^^^Actually the court filing lists the Plaintiffs to include “all Similarly Situated Persons” and it was classified as a “Class Action Complaint” so it appears the case includes all students–whether or not they explicitly were involved in filing the case.</p>
<p><a href=“http://safekids.com/robbins17.pdf[/url]”>http://safekids.com/robbins17.pdf</a></p>
<p>A minute late I was</p>
<p>Yes, but as H remarked when this all started: “until someone else can show injury, it’s a class of one”.</p>
<p>An interesting article in today’s Inquirer that addresses some of the legal questions:</p>
<p>[L</a>. Merion webcam issue is new legal territory | Philadelphia Inquirer | 02/21/2010](<a href=“http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20100221_L__Merion_webcam_issue_is_new_legal_territory.html]L”>L. Merion webcam issue is new legal territory)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If all this is true, then maybe some laws need to be strengthened to protect privacy. After all, this is the first case of its kind. But as it says in the article, if the school can show no <em>intent</em> to invade privacy, perhaps they will be off the hook as far as any potential federal case. On the other hand, I’m sure the other side will argue that intent did exist.</p>
<p>It does seem a big leap in logic to make use of a webcam still shot to accuse someone of selling drugs and taking drugs ( IF it really happened that way). Some of the talk I’ve read coming from the district about unauthorized loaners being taken home makes me wonder if that was the case here.</p>