<p>I still think any school personnel who used the equipment to invade privacy should be fired and should lose their state license if any.</p>
<p>They need to think about what they are teaching the kids. That invasion of privacy is OK.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That depends on the definition of ‘injury.’ It’s easy to argue that the act of bugging the equipment constitutes injury regardless of if the student/family was actually spied on. If you bug my house I would feel my rights were violated regardless of if you actually used those bugs or not. </p>
<p>There are plenty of different angles this case could take depending on what the investigation reveals, but based on what the district has publicly admitted thus far it’s not looking good for them.</p>
<p>“We admit to secretly bugging devices that we knew would be in student’s homes, but had only good intentions” is a really hard defense to make.</p>
<p>Let’s review the bidding here:</p>
<p>We now know that the school district had a policy which created a firewall between administrators and the people who were to activate the camera, and also providing that the cameras were only to be activated if the computer was lost or stolen. The student denies reporting the computer lost or stolen. I believe that we also know that the accompanying documentation stated that the computer would be monitored (a point obscured by the district’s singularly inept PR effort).</p>
<p>Given this policy, the student would ask us to believe that the assistant principal knowing endangered her career by essentially flaunting the alleged pictures in front of his face. Unless she’s a complete idiot, that strikes me as completely implausible. It seems more likely that the student was in trouble for something else, through this up as a smokescreen in front of his parents, and they bought it hook, line and sinker. (Can you spell Balloon Boy?) Now of course I may be wrong about this, and in any event I propose the following:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>If the responsible person in the technology department was conducting unauthorized snooping, he should be fired and prosecuted.</p></li>
<li><p>If the assistant prinicipal participated in any way, she should be fired.</p></li>
<li><p>I don’t know if the boy and his parents realize how exposed they are if he has distorted the truth. If I were the school district, I would go at them HARD. See how much they enjoy being deposed for hours by tough litigators, among other things. Moreover, if the boy is not telling the truth, a deposition would put him in a particularly difficult situation. If he recants, I think the school district should expel him immediately–no ifs, ands or buts. If he sticks to his story under oath and it proves false, he should be prosecuted for perjury–again, no ifs, ands or buts.</p>
<p>I also believe the parents were badly advised to talk to the media directly. While I haven’t researched the issue, I suspect that the allegations in the complaint itself are probably privileged. However, allegations made to Katie Couric et. al. are most assuredly not privileged, and the assistant principal is not a public figure. Hello, slander suit.</p>
<ol>
<li> Finally, if I were a teacher or administrator no way would I risk righting a college recommendation for a kid with such litigious parents.</li>
</ol></li>
</ol>
<p>I overstated one point. I’ve looked through the letter to parents, and it does not appear to state generally that the computer will be monitored. It does, however, state that
“Security software will be used on all of the laptops to prevent the use of unlicensed non-District software.”</p>
<p>[LMSD</a> | 21st Century Learning FAQ](<a href=“http://www.lmsd.org/sections/about/depart/tech/default.php?t=departments&p=depart_tech_1to1_faq&menu=depart_tech_1to1]LMSD”>http://www.lmsd.org/sections/about/depart/tech/default.php?t=departments&p=depart_tech_1to1_faq&menu=depart_tech_1to1)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The documentation said the COMPUTER would be monitored… not what was in front of the computer or otherwise in view of its secret spy camera. If the student was browsing inappropriate sites in violation of school policy and this was discovered by the school monitoring browser history then that’s totally within their stated terms. Secretly bugging the devices so they can record images from the computer’s camera is a totally different situation. </p>
<p>We don’t know all the details of what happened with this particular student, but in many way’s it’s irrelevant to the case. The incident with the student essentially appears to be nothing more than a means for uncovering the school’s shady activities with bugged devices. </p>
<p>The district publicly admitted it bugged the equipment in secret and that they knew the bugged equipment could be legitimately taken into family homes. In a sense that’s all that really matters. </p>
<p>Everything else that’s happened since–such as issuing an ‘openness’ letter to parents that clearly dodges the fact that the school’s independent investigation will be conducted by a lawyer from its high paid defense law firm–only raises further clouds of suspicion around the school’s actions. Are they most concerned with getting to the bottom of the issue or are they most concerned with getting off the hook? </p>
<p>Thankfully with the DA and FBI involved at least we have some assurance that the matter will see an actual independent investigation.</p>
<p>Usually when a company hires an independent investigator, it is someone NOT from the firm that will defend the lawsuit. I did this recently in my legal practice (hired an independent investigator). This is because the investigator will likely be a witness in the suit, and you don’t want him being from your defense firm. Really what “independent” means is that it isn’t someone from your own company, school district etc.</p>
<p>A question for you lawyers out there. Because this is a class action lawsuit does that mean that the terms of any settlement will have to be made public?</p>
<p>The class has to be certified. It won’t be a class action suit unless the judge certifies the class (similar harm, etc).</p>
<p>@ #160:</p>
<p>I would guess Mr. Lindy was not fully quoted by the press as his quote goes only to a federal crime (although not sure I even agree there, other than prosecutorial discretion not to charge).</p>
<p>From the school district’s own admissions to date, there clearly is criminal exposure under PA state law. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5703. And the “pure heart empty head” defense doesn’t cut it as the intentional trigger goes to mistake of fact, not mistake of law – i.e., we intended to enable the spyware technology, but we did not intend to break any laws is not a get out of jail free card.</p>
<p>Here’s an interesting twist: PA also criminalizes marketing the snooping technology. I imagine the midnight oil is burning at whatever vendor sold the spyware for use within the state of PA.</p>
<p>Not at all clear (unless there is some case law that I don’t know about)–particularly given the principle that criminal statutes are to be construed narrowly. The district says that they couldn’t hear anything. What “communication” did they intercept?</p>
<p>Does anybody know the name of the company that provided the spyware. I think I remember someone saying it was not Apple. Id like to know and see their spyware capabilities because all the products Ive seen are capable of doing MUCH more than screen shots and still pics And all their features all seem pretty standard. </p>
<p>This is typical: [url=<a href=“http://www.win-spy.com/]Link[/url”>http://www.win-spy.com/]Link[/url</a>]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The description of the software raises some interesting legal points that I’m sure will be explored by the FBI and others. In short, the software would tell the school right away where the computer is (ie in the school or not) before they decide to activate the spy camera. In fact from a recovery standpoint taking that IP address to the police, who could get court permission for a subpoena with the ISP to reveal the physical location, would be plenty to recover lost/stolen laptops without spy cameras. </p>
<p>Setting aside for the moment the fact that they bugged the school equipment in secret (which is a huge issue in itself) the fact that they would know computers weren’t in the school when they activated their spy cameras raises some other serious questions. </p>
<p>Specifically, it’s not as if they turned on the secretly planted bugs and ‘accidently’ recorded images inside someone’s private home… instead they would have known without doubt that the secret spy cameras were in fact inside someone’s home before they decided to take a look.</p>
<p>^^ EMM, PA law criminalizes as a FELONY the mere possession or “planting” of the spyware – which the school district has admitted it has done, but is trying to justify as a a legitimate activity – regardless of whether the spyware was activated in any specific case. Further, the district admits it activiated the spyware at least 40+ times within the last year (I wonder about since inception of the program?). These are felony offenses, not small beer on the seriousness of the issue in play.</p>
<p>Separately, every flight I have been on has gadget magazines touting spy pen recorders and such. I’ve always wondered why those were legal items to be advertised/sold.</p>
<p>The “communication” would be the ability to effect a data transfer communicating an image fromwithin a private residence (or anywhere the computer was) that the school could not “see” without remotelyactivating the webcam.</p>
<p>BTW, not purporting to know the facts, but if the spyware could remotely engage the webcam, just as easy to remotely engage the mic to pick up sound as well. :(</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The person using them would always inform the other party that they were recording the conversation.</p>
<p>In NJ only one party needs to know. But they do have to be a part of the conversation and their presence needs to known to all other participants. No non-participant spying is allowed.</p>
<p>And it looks like you can add the Bensalem PA school district into the party given a LANrev’s published pitchsheet: </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.lanrev.com/fileadmin/documents/Bensalem_Peace_River_North.pdf[/url]”>http://www.lanrev.com/fileadmin/documents/Bensalem_Peace_River_North.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So apparnetly LMSD customized the software to permit only a single screenshot/webcam shot …</p>
<p>My understanding (subject to correction) is that the only thing that the program allowed the district to see was the image of what was in front of the computer. My understanding is that it did not allow the district to hear anything. So (if my understanding is correct) the issue whether the image per se constitutes a “wire, electronic or oral communication.” This is in principle no different than any picture taken by any movie camera.</p>
<p>Now, I might be wrong. The district may have been able to engage the microphone remotely, which would present a different case. But as I said,that is not my current understanding.</p>
<p>
Well the district only said how many times they ‘activated’ the spy system, but didn’t say how many images they captured… they could have hundreds or thousands of images. </p>
<p>
Just because there was no audio (if that’s the case) doesn’t make it OK! </p>
<p>There are many laws that govern the sort of activity in question here. In regards to video only it comes down the the location of the recording activity. The law says that one has a right to privacy in their own home, but not in someone else’s home or business (unless you’re in an area where privacy is expected such as a bathroom stall).</p>
<p>In short, the school could have hidden camera ability within it’s own premises (except prohibited areas) and make recordings in secret–a hidden camera in the chalkboard or the school-bus cam for example. That may not be best practice from a teaching trust standpoint, but it’s generally not illegal. </p>
<p>However where this school really gets into shady territory is when they knowingly gave bugged devices to families to take home with them. If I give your kid a teddy bear (bugged with a secret remote controlled spycam) for them to take home and they do, positioning that secret bug in their bedroom, then I’m in huge trouble. </p>
<p>If you found out and I said to you “well I was only going to use the spycam if I thought the bear was lost or stolen” how many parents do you think would turn around and say “oh, ok then, no problem”??</p>
<p>You can bug your own home… you can’t bug someone else’s home without their explicit permission.</p>
<p>The school district’s current line of reasoning would be a potential legitimate defense if the devices they bugged were only meant to be kept within the walls of the school. If a student inappropriately removed one of these devices from the school and took it home, thus putting the bug in their home, then the district might have some solid ground to stand on. However that’s not what happened. They gave bugged school equipment to students for the specific purpose of taking it home. </p>
<p>In the end they may just try a stupidity defense.</p>
<p>“Just because there was no audio (if that’s the case) doesn’t make it OK!”</p>
<p>I was not addressing the question of whether it was “Ok” but rather the contention that it violated the terms of the statute.</p>
<p>EMM, the digital data transmitted carrying image data is no different than digital data carrying text or audio under the PA statute. It is a computer data communication regardless. </p>
<p>From: 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5702 (Definitions)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But if you still disagree, nothing to be gained from us continuing to argue about the meaning of the PA statutory language, everyone can read it for themselves. Peace.</p>