Computerworld.com wrote:
Computerworld - A suburban Philadelphia school district remotely activates the cameras in school-provided laptops to spy on students in their homes, a lawsuit filed in federal court Tuesday alleged.
According to the lawsuit filed by a high school student and his parents, the Lower Merion School District of Ardmore, Pa. has spied on students and families by "indiscriminate use of and ability to remotely activate the Webcams incorporated into each laptop issued to students by the School District."
Approximately 1,800 students at the district's two high schools have been given laptops as part of a state- and federally-funded "one-to-one" student-to-laptop initiative.
Michael and Holly Robbins of Penn Valley, Pa., said they first found out about the alleged spying last November after their son Blake was accused by a Harriton High School official of "improper behavior in his home" and shown a photograph taken by his laptop.
An assistant principal at Harriton later confirmed that the district could remotely activate the Webcam in students' laptops. "Michael Robbins thereafter verified, through [Assistant Principal] Ms. Matsko, that the school district in fact has the ability to remotely activate the Webcam contained in a student's personal laptop computer issued by the school district at any time it chose and to view and capture whatever images were in front of the Webcam, all without the knowledge, permission or authorization of any persons then and there using the laptop computer," the lawsuit stated.
The Robbins claimed that the district did not tell them beforehand that their son's laptop Webcam could be activated remotely, and added that there was no mention of the functionality in any of the documentation they received or on the district's Web site.
And the privacy of non-students has been violated, the Robbins said. "By virtue of the fact that the Webcam can be remotely activated at any time by the School District, the Webcam will capture anything happening in the room in which the laptop computer is located, regardless of whether the student is sitting at the computer and using it," the lawsuit charged.
The suit accuses the school district of violating the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and other federal and state statues, including the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
Mark Haltzman of the law firm Lamm Rubenstone, and the Robbins' attorney, did not return a call for comment. A spokesman for the Lower Merion School District said early Thursday that the district had only found out about the suit hours before, and so was not able to immediately comment on the case.
If the lawsuit is granted class-action status, other students in the district and their families would be able to join the action.
The Robbins family has asked for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and demanded that the court issue an injunction barring the district from activating students' laptop cameras.
Great. Now I have another reason to put a piece of electrical tape over my laptop's webcam. Not only might the computer become sentient and fall in unreciprocated love with me, but I've got this to worry about too.
What I find funny is how the school official willingly revealed that the laptop was taking pictures completely oblivious of the gak storm it would stir up.
So wait, did they like catch the kid beating his meat or something?
If so...it kinda makes sense that the school would say something about it. They loan out the laptops so that students(who otherwise might not have access to a computer at home to do specific assignments) can do work.
It's the the middle school loaning out the laptops.
And you'll also notice in the link he provided, that they shut down the feature after this incident happened--even if the original reason for it(to track down lost/stolen laptops) was a really good one.
Holy fething gak. There had better be a lot of people going to jail for this.
Not only is this completely in violation of the right to privacy, not even telling the end-user about the capabillity is just grade A douchebaggery.
Further more, if the school did observe a student beating his meat or whatever, that's child porn right there, which makes them child rapists, which are right up there on top of the list of people that need to get karate-chopped in the 'nads.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Great. Now I have another reason to put a piece of electrical tape over my laptop's webcam. Not only might the computer become sentient and fall in unreciprocated love with me, but I've got this to worry about too.
Dont forget to put blue tape on the usb port incase the ghosts might come out.
But seriously mon. Why in the world world they care what students do on there comopurters. they should know if they give a teenage boy a laptop 50ut of 100 there will be porn on it.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Great. Now I have another reason to put a piece of electrical tape over my laptop's webcam. Not only might the computer become sentient and fall in unreciprocated love with me, but I've got this to worry about too.
Dont forget to put blue tape on the usb port incase the ghosts might come out.
But seriously mon. Why in the world world they care what students do on there comopurters. they should know if they give a teenage boy a laptop 50ut of 100 there will be porn on it.
Because the explicit use of the laptops is for educational purposes only.
Masturbating to brunette on brunette action isn't educational.
Anyways--
Yeah. If the school gets child pornography charges pressed against them--expect this whole "One to One" program that they've been trying to do nationwide to collapse.
Not to mention, ignoring the invasion of privacy thing; those laptops belong to the school. There is nothing illegal about tracing/tracking what you do with it. Wouldn't surprise me if MOST laptops for students have keyloggers installed. Average user won't know what to look for and most run hidden in the background so unless you look for one specifically you will never know it's there.
It's in bad form to use built in webcam to spy but I can MAYBE see the schools need to do so.
Then If they want that they could just provide a computer lab like my school does. my guess would be one of those labtop could buy 2 desktops. Then they could moniter them legally. You can get the same result.
Orkeosaurus wrote:I would laugh so hard if they got child porn charges.
So would I, because it would be so completely idiotic for those charges to stick.
If a State (can´t remember where right now) managed to charge 3 minors with child pornography charges for sending naked photos of themselves to their boyfriends, why a school taking those same types of photos would be exempt?
But this is also a HUGE invasion of privacy. It could be considred spying. You are looking at what people are doing. not to mention what were they expecting to look for. Unless the webcam faces the screen they wont really be catching anything other the people typing or staring at the screen. Which as what i think thay were looking for vulger acts.
Dear lord garret, your grammar and spelling are freaking atrocious. (Thay.... seriously garret... they, not thay)
While you are typing, PLEASE make use of the spellchecker. Nearly every single one of your posts has serious errors in it.
That aside though... I really can't say what reason they could have besides tracking stolen laptops with this technology. I also agree that expecting every single kid that uses one of these laptops, to use it for nothing but educational purposes is a bit silly. If that were the sole purpose, the alternative of a computer lab, with afterschool programs, sounds like an infinitely better application of funds.
Orkeosaurus wrote:I would laugh so hard if they got child porn charges.
So would I, because it would be so completely idiotic for those charges to stick.
If a State (can´t remember where right now) managed to charge 3 minors with child pornography charges for sending naked photos of themselves to their boyfriends, why a school taking those same types of photos would be exempt?
M.
Pretty sure it was Pennsylvania, and that there was some issue with the presiding judge.
But that's a totally different set of circumstances.
One(the case you mentioned) was 3 minors sending out nude photographs of themselves had a proven intent to distribute naked photographs of minors(even if it IS themselves).
The other is the potential to, in the course of using a webcam to check up on a computer's location(which if they can in fact prove that whoever was in charge of the webcam monitoring was attempting to catch a minor in the act of masturbation or unclothed for sexual gratification purposes they MIGHT have a chance to make the CP charges stick) catch a student unclothed or in the act of masturbation.
It's all about context.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
garret wrote:But this is also a HUGE invasion of privacy. It could be considered spying. You are looking at what people are doing. Not to mention what were they expecting to look for. Unless the webcam faces the screen they wont really be catching anything other the people typing or staring at the screen. Which as what I think that they were looking for vulgar acts.
Hahaha.
There is so much wrong in this statement it's not even funny.
Spying is PURPOSEFULLY doing this to catch you kids(who, legally, can't even ACCESS pornography of any shape or form) in the act of masturbation, not just having the potential to do it.
And how often are you whacking it that you're worried about them doing random cam checks?
But either way, considering the stated purpose of the remote activation of laptop webcams was to recover lost or stolen laptops, it's a moot point.
The potential for abuse is there, but I'm sure they've got backstops in place to prevent misuse of the program.
where in the world did it say the purpose of the cams were to activate them if they got stolen. I still stand by my statement. Edit: for not flaming. sorry kanluwen
Ok it did say that. But Did the student report it lost?
And if not why did they decide to activate it? And why did they punish the student for it if the intent is anti-theft.. This just seems fishy to me.
Whether or not its illegal what the school did, the court of public opinion is gonna crucify whoever is responsible in the school system. The rights of the school system to monitor their students stop at the school property line, or after the student gets off the bus. The fact that they put remote cameras in the home of every student and didn't tell anyone should make some litigiously inclined parents very wealthy indeed, and rightly so.
I think I may start looking for a countryland less inclined to big brother me...
garret wrote:Ok it did say that. But Did the student report it lost?
And if not why did they decide to activate it? And why did they punish the student for it if the intent is anti-theft.. This just seems fishy to me.
If you found out, say by losing your laptop at some point, that the school would activate the webcam to find it...would you not get a great idea for a prank on a friend?
1) IM friend link to good adult erotica site.
2) Report laptop stolen.
3) Profit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Krak_kirby wrote:Whether or not its illegal what the school did, the court of public opinion is gonna crucify whoever is responsible in the school system. The rights of the school system to monitor their students stop at the school property line, or after the student gets off the bus. The fact that they put remote cameras in the home of every student and didn't tell anyone should make some litigiously inclined parents very wealthy indeed, and rightly so.
I think I may start looking for a countryland less inclined to big brother me...
Not so. The schools are responsible for the well-being of the students and the process of their education, period.
Sure, should they have warned the parents? Yeah.
However, it defeats the purpose of a remote security system if you announce it in the school newsletter.
Like the link said, laptops would be a huge target for any kids on campus of the five-fingered discount persuasion.
Even if they are playing games or surfing porn, the school system is not the morality police. If the price tag for a free laptop is this, I'll purchase my own thank you, and the school system can go to hell.
Krak_kirby wrote:Even if they are playing games or surfing porn, the school system is not the morality police. If the price tag for a free laptop is this, I'll purchase my own thank you, and the school system can go to hell.
The school system is the morality police when THEY provide you their property.
They can dictate the usage of that property, just like most apartment rentals stipulate that you can't do anything to alter the property without express consent.
And either way, if you're under 18 and looking at porn and get caught by the school system?
They'd actually be well within rights to have the state prosecute for misrepresenting yourself(you're not 18 and click the "I'm 18+ and accept the terms & conditions" button? That's misrepresentation) and even go after your parents/caretakers for negligent care.
Your digressing. The point is what they did was wrong. to install cams to look who stole the laptop is understandable kinda. But they looked when it wasnt stolen. And the point i would bet is that parent might not be all that mad if they gave a reason for the cams but thay didnt they hid it from them. Again it sounds fishy.
Not so. The schools are responsible for the well-being of the students and the process of their education, period.
Sure, should they have warned the parents? Yeah.
However, it defeats the purpose of a remote security system if you announce it in the school newsletter.
Like the link said, laptops would be a huge target for any kids on campus of the five-fingered discount persuasion.
The school system is legally responsible for the well being and education of a student while they are at school, at a school run event, or while they are being transported to or from school or an event by school district transportation. At any other time the school system has no responsibility, legal purview, control or rights over anyone.
When you're using school equipment, yep. They've got a responsibility and control over what you can/can't do.
Or do you think public libraries should let you use the computers there for porn too?
And Garret...they don't HAVE to tell the parents a dang thing about the laptops they're loaning out. It's not the parents' OR the students' property.
It's the school's.
I'm starting to wonder if you just want to stir the pot, Kanluwen...
The library can certainly dictate acceptable behavior inside the library. The library cannot legally prosecute you if you check out a book or movie, take it home and masturbate, or dance around the living room with your underwear on your head, or whatever you do in the privacy of your own home. Neither can the school system, or the police, or anybody else.
You are correct that they could potentially nab a person under the age of 18 surfing porn, and take a snapshot of them in flagrante delicto. That would of course require them to admit that they had been illegally monitoring via camera and microphone the inside of someone's home. Which is the worse offense? They are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
The laptops are NOT your property. You return them at the end of every semester(IF the program they're doing is the same as the one that my school did at that level).
Still not seeing any problem in dictating how you use it.
And again I say, if that's the price for a free laptop, no thank you. And I'm guessing this particular student did not get in trouble for stealing a computer, but something "MORALITY" related, which is outside the purview of the school systems belatedly revealed, hidden agenda.
I so wish it had happened to me. I could use several tens of thousands of dollars...
There are tons of other ways this system could result in inappropriate pictures of minors.
As a rather TMI example, I had my own bathroom in my room growing up, and I left my computer on a desk in my room. Had it been one of these laptops, that's potentially spying every time I stripped down to take a shower. I'm sure I'm not the only kid that had that.
I could go on. Laptop in the same room where the kids beats it to naked pygmies in National Geographic, which we all did. Don;t lie. Laptop in room where two 16 year olds get freaky, which is completely legal in some states.
Anyway you look at it, situations do exist where a minor would be legally and justifiably nude in the presence of one of these laptops.
And who knows what the use is? Sure, officially the point is so the school can stick its nose in everyone's business, (ignoring the fact that it has no right to do so,) but you don't know that the person doing the monitoring isn't actually some sicko getting some trouser tension from 'accidentally' flipping on Little Suzie's webcam when she changes into her jammies.
Wikipedia wrote:Intrusion of solitude and seclusion
Intrusion of solitude occurs where one person exposes another to unwarranted publicity. In a famous case from 1944, author Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings was sued by Zelma Cason, who was portrayed as a character in Rawlings' acclaimed memoir, Cross Creek.[4] The Florida Supreme Court held that a cause of action for invasion of privacy was supported by the facts of the case, but in a later proceeding found that there were no actual damages.
Intrusion upon seclusion occurs when a perpetrator intentionally intrudes, physically, electronically, or otherwise, upon the private space, solitude, or seclusion of a person, or the private affairs or concerns of a person, by use of the perpetrator's physical senses or by electronic device or devices to oversee or overhear the person's private affairs, or by some other form of investigation, examination, or observation intrude upon a person's private matters if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Hacking a computer is an example of intrusion upon privacy.[5] In determining whether intrusion has occurred, one of three main considerations may be involved: expectation of privacy; whether there was an intrusion, invitation, or exceedance of invitation; or deception, misrepresentation, or fraud to gain admission. Intrusion is “an information-gathering, not a publication, tort…legal wrong occurs at the time of the intrusion. No publication is necessary.”[6]
That the computers are owned by the school is irrelevant. The only thing that matters was whether the court finds the students to have had a reasonable expectation of privacy when alone in their rooms on the computer and whether activating the webcams was an intrusion upon that.
I can't rent an apartment out to a woman, put a hidden camera in her shower, and be immune to prosecution on account of owning the shower. It's still an intrusion of privacy because there is no reasonable expectation of there being active cameras placed there. The same concept applies here. The school can absolutely be held liable, and I predict they'll either win or settle for a decent amount.
Pornography has nothing to do with it either. Masturbating in front of a computer doesn't prove you're looking at pornography, nor would it matter if it did, as the intrusion is being carried beyond use of the computer in any case. If they want to trace websites viewed, that's unrelated to what is being brought to court.
Right. Besides, in comparison, whats the max sentence a minor can get for looking at pornography? It's going to be nothing compared to what the actual criminals here will get.
Wikipedia wrote:Intrusion of solitude and seclusion
Intrusion of solitude occurs where one person exposes another to unwarranted publicity. In a famous case from 1944, author Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings was sued by Zelma Cason, who was portrayed as a character in Rawlings' acclaimed memoir, Cross Creek.[4] The Florida Supreme Court held that a cause of action for invasion of privacy was supported by the facts of the case, but in a later proceeding found that there were no actual damages.
Intrusion upon seclusion occurs when a perpetrator intentionally intrudes, physically, electronically, or otherwise, upon the private space, solitude, or seclusion of a person, or the private affairs or concerns of a person, by use of the perpetrator's physical senses or by electronic device or devices to oversee or overhear the person's private affairs, or by some other form of investigation, examination, or observation intrude upon a person's private matters if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Hacking a computer is an example of intrusion upon privacy.[5] In determining whether intrusion has occurred, one of three main considerations may be involved: expectation of privacy; whether there was an intrusion, invitation, or exceedance of invitation; or deception, misrepresentation, or fraud to gain admission. Intrusion is “an information-gathering, not a publication, tort…legal wrong occurs at the time of the intrusion. No publication is necessary.”[6]
That the computers are owned by the school is irrelevant. The only thing that matters was whether the court finds the students to have had a reasonable expectation of privacy when alone in their rooms on the computer and whether activating the webcams was an intrusion upon that.
I can't rent an apartment out to a woman, put a hidden camera in her shower, and be immune to prosecution on account of owning the shower. It's still an intrusion of privacy because there is no reasonable expectation of there being active cameras placed there. The same concept applies here. The school can absolutely be held liable, and I predict they'll either win or settle for a decent amount.
Pornography has nothing to do with it either. Masturbating in front of a computer doesn't prove you're looking at pornography, nor would it matter if it did, as the intrusion is being carried beyond use of the computer in any case. If they want to trace websites viewed, that's unrelated to what is being brought to court.
But then there's another issue from EXACTLY what you quoted:
You need to prove that whoever flipped the switch to turn the camera on did it for the purpose of actually intruding upon the minor's privacy and wasn't doing it because of being told to turn on the wrong camera, or a student misplaced their laptop at a friend's house and it caught something it shouldn't have, or any number of things.
The only real way I'd support any kind of legislation against this particular circumstance is this:
1) There can be a proven case of intent to intrude upon the minor's privacy
2) If this case gets dragged into a child pornography case, then there has to be a proven intent to distribute or document the minor in potentially erotic situations for self-gratification or the intent for sexual arousal of others.
3) There's no kind of monitoring system in place 'watching' whoever it is in charge of the webcam feeds.
#3 being the absolutely most important one. IF the school system failed to have something in place to catch the operators of the webcam security feeds potentially intruding on the minors themselves, that's a pretty big feth up on their part.
At the very least, there needs to be some form of automated log recording when the webcam is accessed on both the laptop AND whatever computers are used by the school to monitor the laptops.
I agree with Kanluwen to the extent that I believe that the school had every right to install the spy system in the laptops. It mkaes sense after all, they don't want kids whacking off to whatever (be it Brunettes or Naked Pygmies...) and it would definitely come in handy in the case of stolen or lost laptops.
However, I do think that they should have at least told the people who they were giving it to about the system. The knowledge alone that one might be being watched should be enough to act as a detterent to any unsavoury behaviour.
Also, with this webcam pic, would the school have any idea whether he was actually looking at something inaproppriate? Do they have the info of what site he's visiting on thier screen? I mean, this kid could have been jacking off to pictures of Gremlins or Sean Connery.
Ahtman wrote:Do students have an expectation of privacy while on school grounds and using school equipment?
No. But when I was in school a couple of years ago, I expected it it in my own fething house. I borrowed a TI-83 once to do some homework. You can bet I'd have raised hell if they monitored me in my home through that.
Computerworld.com wrote:
Computerworld - A suburban Philadelphia school district remotely activates the cameras in school-provided laptops to spy on students in their homes, a lawsuit filed in federal court Tuesday alleged.
According to the lawsuit filed by a high school student and his parents, the Lower Merion School District of Ardmore, Pa. has spied on students and families by "indiscriminate use of and ability to remotely activate the Webcams incorporated into each laptop issued to students by the School District."
Approximately 1,800 students at the district's two high schools have been given laptops as part of a state- and federally-funded "one-to-one" student-to-laptop initiative.
Michael and Holly Robbins of Penn Valley, Pa., said they first found out about the alleged spying last November after their son Blake was accused by a Harriton High School official of "improper behavior in his home" and shown a photograph taken by his laptop.
An assistant principal at Harriton later confirmed that the district could remotely activate the Webcam in students' laptops. "Michael Robbins thereafter verified, through [Assistant Principal] Ms. Matsko, that the school district in fact has the ability to remotely activate the Webcam contained in a student's personal laptop computer issued by the school district at any time it chose and to view and capture whatever images were in front of the Webcam, all without the knowledge, permission or authorization of any persons then and there using the laptop computer," the lawsuit stated.
The Robbins claimed that the district did not tell them beforehand that their son's laptop Webcam could be activated remotely, and added that there was no mention of the functionality in any of the documentation they received or on the district's Web site.
And the privacy of non-students has been violated, the Robbins said. "By virtue of the fact that the Webcam can be remotely activated at any time by the School District, the Webcam will capture anything happening in the room in which the laptop computer is located, regardless of whether the student is sitting at the computer and using it," the lawsuit charged.
The suit accuses the school district of violating the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and other federal and state statues, including the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.
Mark Haltzman of the law firm Lamm Rubenstone, and the Robbins' attorney, did not return a call for comment. A spokesman for the Lower Merion School District said early Thursday that the district had only found out about the suit hours before, and so was not able to immediately comment on the case.
If the lawsuit is granted class-action status, other students in the district and their families would be able to join the action.
The Robbins family has asked for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and demanded that the court issue an injunction barring the district from activating students' laptop cameras.
Where's the ACLU when you need them?
People need to go to jail for this. Prosecute them under RICO. Just remotely triggering it over "wires" hits it.
School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home
By Cory Doctorow at 11:49 PM February 17, 2010
According to the filings in Blake J Robbins v Lower Merion School District (PA) et al, the laptops issued to high-school students in the well-heeled Philly suburb have webcams that can be covertly activated by the schools' administrators, who have used this facility to spy on students and even their families. The issue came to light when the Robbins's child was disciplined for "improper behavior in his home" and the Vice Principal used a photo taken by the webcam as evidence. The suit is a class action, brought on behalf of all students issued with these machines.
If true, these allegations are about as creepy as they come. I don't know about you, but I often have the laptop in the room while I'm getting dressed, having private discussions with my family, and so on. The idea that a school district would not only spy on its students' clickstreams and emails (bad enough), but also use these machines as AV bugs is purely horrifying.
Schools are in an absolute panic about kids divulging too much online, worried about pedos and marketers and embarrassing photos that will haunt you when you run for office or apply for a job in 10 years. They tell kids to treat their personal details as though they were precious.
But when schools take that personal information, indiscriminately invading privacy (and, of course, punishing students who use proxies and other privacy tools to avoid official surveillance), they send a much more powerful message: your privacy is worthless and you shouldn't try to protect it.
You don't secretly turn on a fething camera in a minor's laptop, that they're using at home, and spy on them. IF the laptop had been reported stolen, I could absolutely see using the camera to help recover it.
Someone should be going to jail for this, or at least multiple someones should be losing their jobs and ability to work in a school system.
Are you KIDDING ME? If the camera's not on, and the laptop hasn't been reported stolen, what possible defensible motive could you have for switching on a camera in a kid's home? Which is more than likely kept in their bedroom?
Have we seen ANYWHERE that the laptop wasn't reported stolen by another student as a way to get this kid into an embarrassing situation?
Yes, if the person in charge of monitoring it was using the system to get their rocks off watching the kids--there's an issue.
But this whole situation stinks, period. There's a bit not being said by either party, and until it's said this whole incident is one vague clusterfeth of privacy issues.
Kanluwen wrote:Problem is we still don't know *what* led to the school activating the webcam.
The Robbins haven't said it and the school haven't said it either.
Ooh raggie posted already
What is helpful only in seeing what additional charges can be added.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Have we seen ANYWHERE that the laptop wasn't reported stolen by another student as a way to get this kid into an embarrassing situation?
Yes, if the person in charge of monitoring it was using the system to get their rocks off watching the kids--there's an issue.
But this whole situation stinks, period. There's a bit not being said by either party, and until it's said this whole incident is one vague clusterfeth of privacy issues.
Respectfully, its not vague. In addition to other charges its been noted there are violations of fed or state electronic spying laws potentially. Not to mention the usual peeping tom stuff and potentially child porn type thingies (they are underage here). now that I think about you can make some serious charges stick here.
make it so and put 'em UNDER the jail as a warning to all.
You can't make jack stick in this case(in terms of child pornography) without some serious hooplah and throwing as many ridiculous statements into the air as possible.
Which they seem to already be doing quite well, all things considered.
The most I can potentially see actually sticking is whoever was remotely activating the cameras(if they weren't told by someone else that the laptop was stolen, and to do it) getting charged with some form of violation of privacy ala that landlord in New Jersey who made videotapes of his female tenants.
But either way. This will be interesting to see how it turns out, given that the laws do seem to always be reactionary to technology issues rather than proactive.
Kanluwen wrote:You can't make jack stick in this case(in terms of child pornography) without some serious hooplah and throwing as many ridiculous statements into the air as possible.
disciplined for "improper behavior in his home" and the Vice Principal used a photo taken by the webcam as evidence.
Wait, so Schools can punish people for something that occured outside school and in the pupil's own home?!
Mannahnin wrote:what possible defensible motive could you have for switching on a camera in a kid's home? Which is more than likely kept in their bedroom?
True dat. What he said.
Kanluwen wrote:Have we seen ANYWHERE that the laptop wasn't reported stolen by another student as a way to get this kid into an embarrassing situation?
Well the school could have phoned the student and asked him if the laptop was stolen or not. It would backfire on the student who played the prank pretty quickly, I doubt anyone would risk playing a prank like that.
I would have thought that any image of a minor could be considered child pornography, especially once that showed the child doing something sexual or in a state of undress, no matter what the reason the picture was taken. Especially if it was taken without their knowledge or consent (or the consent of their parents).
The defence that the pictures were taken not to distribute or for sexual gratification etc is just silly. If they truely activated the camera to ensure it was not stollen, they had no need to take pictures etc. It is like me going to check my car is parked safely outside my house, only to see that the kids over the road is getting changed by an open window, only to then take pictures of it and then going to confront them with the pictures.
The school should have every right to moniter the use of their property, though not through the use of key loggers etc, but simply by monitoring traffic, sites visited and so on. That way they can ensure that their property is not being used improperly but do not obtain personal details like passwords, personal communications, etc.
And I would have thought that a GPS chip would have been far better for tracking lost/stolen laptops than the camera, given how easy the camera is to bypass, and how obvious it is.
SilverMK2 wrote:I would have thought that any image of a minor could be considered child pornography, especially once that showed the child doing something sexual or in a state of undress, no matter what the reason the picture was taken. Especially if it was taken without their knowledge or consent (or the consent of their parents).
The defence that the pictures were taken not to distribute or for sexual gratification etc is just silly. If they truely activated the camera to ensure it was not stollen, they had no need to take pictures etc. It is like me going to check my car is parked safely outside my house, only to see that the kids over the road is getting changed by an open window, only to then take pictures of it and then going to confront them with the pictures.
The school should have every right to moniter the use of their property, though not through the use of key loggers etc, but simply by monitoring traffic, sites visited and so on. That way they can ensure that their property is not being used improperly but do not obtain personal details like passwords, personal communications, etc.
And I would have thought that a GPS chip would have been far better for tracking lost/stolen laptops than the camera, given how easy the camera is to bypass, and how obvious it is.
SilverMK2 wrote:I would have thought that any image of a minor could be considered child pornography
Seriously? That’s a rather strange statement don't you think.
A gross invasion of privacy certainly, but unless the kid engaged in some sort of sexual act I don't see how it could be considered CP. Even if they are just naked it's a grey area as nudity is not necessarily inherently sexual. Otherwise those pics of you as a toddler in the bath or naked on the beach that your parents have could be considered CP.
Anyway I digress, this is still fecking disgraceful. Monitoring the sites/applications accessed after the laptop is returned is one thing, but covertly placing surveillance equipment on private property is clearly morally abhorrent and if not illegal it certainly should be. Heads need to roll for this.
LuciusAR wrote:Seriously? Thats a rather strange statement don't you think.
I am referring more to images held by a corporation or private individual of a child to which they are not the parent of. If I went out and took pictures of loads of kids playing at the park, they could be considered to be pornography.
However, those same pictures taken with the parents permission and knowledge, perhaps of a childs party by a professional picture company, or by a family member would not, generally, be considered pornography, since the intent is different.
The problem comes in this case that the images were taken without knowledge or permission, with the child/children unaware they were being monitored, and possibly in a revealing position, which puts them far closer to child pornography than "unwittingly capturing a minor on film in a revealing position". Such as if you took a CCTV camera in the town centre and some kid decided to take a wee against the housing of said camera without realising it was there.
I am referring more to images held by a corporation or private individual of a child to which they are not the parent of. If I went out and took pictures of loads of kids playing at the park, they could be considered to be pornography.
AARRRRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!!
No they could not, that is a ludicrous and paranoid suggestion. That mentality is why people are afraid to even look at child lest they be accused of being a nonce.
None of here have even a modicum of the facts, myself included, or applicable fed or state law. Suffice it to say, however, that a prudent prosecutor would have multiple claims to look at before deciding there's nothing actionable here.
The whole thing screams bad actor(s). frankly I am tired of this Big Brother BS.
I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just that it can be seen as such. I am sure there are more impressive leagal examples that could be given and it could probably be phrased better, but it is just how I could try and explain it off the top of my head.
Sad to say this happened in my area. glad I have no kids
On the news this morning they said they caught a picture of the kid smoking a joint. They were saying most of the kids put tape over the little webcam thingy now so no one can spy on em.
What I find funny is how the school official willingly revealed that the laptop was taking pictures completely oblivious of the gak storm it would stir up.
My uncle was an assistant principal for the philly school district and he would tell all kinds of stories about how completely and utterly stupid the people running our public schools really are. If I ever do have kids, it won't be till I'm rich enough to send them to a private / charter school instead.
Mannahnin wrote:Have you ever used a webcam? Or seen pictures?
MAYBE it only takes a still picture. But it's still a picture of whatever's in front of it. Which is probably a kid's bedroom, as seen from his desk.
Please TRY to come up with any justification for this. Come up with a single scenario which justifies it.
...The one that they've given?
The webcam access for the school is INTENDED to be used for the express purpose of locating and retrieving stolen/lost laptops.
The school itself isn't responsible for the mishandling of the access by whoever monitors the webcams--however, they ARE responsible to punish that operator if they start disseminating or filming the children for sexual purposes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Necros wrote:Sad to say this happened in my area. glad I have no kids
On the news this morning they said they caught a picture of the kid smoking a joint. They were saying most of the kids put tape over the little webcam thingy now so no one can spy on em.
What I find funny is how the school official willingly revealed that the laptop was taking pictures completely oblivious of the gak storm it would stir up.
My uncle was an assistant principal for the philly school district and he would tell all kinds of stories about how completely and utterly stupid the people running our public schools really are. If I ever do have kids, it won't be till I'm rich enough to send them to a private / charter school instead.
It still makes me wonder if another student sold out the kid smoking the joint.
But I can understand why the school punished either way. Preemptive measure in case the kid gets any ideas about selling.
I'm pretty sure there are other ways of finding and locating the laptops if they were stolen than using the web cam. For starters, it would have to connect to the internet first. If they strip it for parts and sell those. Oh noez, da camra plan dun workz.
Generally the laptops should be low performance, low cost to begin with. Probably netbooks with solid state storge (really low performance, designed only to be used as a book really (Also yes for some crazy reason they put web cams on some of them)). A fancy system like this doesn't seem to work out... Ulterior motives much?
It being for anti-theft is just them covering their asses by the sounds of it. I wouldn't be surprised if they came up with it after they got found out.
Mannahnin wrote:Have you ever used a webcam? Or seen pictures?
MAYBE it only takes a still picture. But it's still a picture of whatever's in front of it. Which is probably a kid's bedroom, as seen from his desk.
Please TRY to come up with any justification for this. Come up with a single scenario which justifies it.
...The one that they've given?
The webcam access for the school is INTENDED to be used for the express purpose of locating and retrieving stolen/lost laptops.
The school itself isn't responsible for the mishandling of the access by whoever monitors the webcams--however, they ARE responsible to punish that operator if they start disseminating or filming the children for sexual purposes.
No, I meant one that’s not a crock of transparent BS that they’ve desperately thrown together to not look as guilty as they manifestly are.
They’ve put a secret (neither the kids nor parents had any reason to suspect it could be used remotely) camera in the homes of children. Dumb, but defensible if used only for the alleged purpose; to aid in recovery if AND ONLY IF the laptop is stolen.
They’ve SWITCHED ON this secret camera, taking pictures of an unaware minor in the privacy of their home, potentially in a state of undress. Before you even switch the darn thing on, you should be well aware that this is a possibility, and that you have no legal or moral leg to stand on for doing this.
They’ve taken pictures of a child in his own home, and attempted to punish him for behaviors engaged in which are not on school grounds.
Three strikes, you’re OUT.
And they most certainly ARE responsible for the mishandling of access by whomever activated the webcams. They implemented the policy, they hired and supervise the people who did it, and they were so unbelievably stupid as to own up to the act and make clear that they consented to it by a) trying to punish the student, and b) not immediately firing and turning over to the police whoever switched on the camera.
Really, based on the facts we have at this point, it’s black and white.
You're giving them WAY too much credit for being actually competent, Mannahnin.
But onto the meat of it:
Webcams can be used remotely, and I'd say it's a fair bet that this isn't the first time something like this has been done.
I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying in regards to the level of responsibility of the school in regards to the operators. Yes, if the operators do something illegal--the school system should turn them over. No contest there, I thought it was obvious but I've been known to phrase things badly.
Now, bear in mind:
I'm not arguing that what they did was RIGHT. I'm arguing that I can completely see why they did it the way they did--even if they should have just reported the fact that the kid was smoking a joint to the parents.
Kanluwen wrote:The school itself isn't responsible for the mishandling of the access by whoever monitors the webcams--however, they ARE responsible to punish that operator if they start disseminating or filming the children for sexual purposes..
You're painfully wrong here, as the lawyer who is now buying a 9series (yes I'll take the black one for me and the white one for the wife) in anticipation of his MASSIVE fees is about to show them.
Not at all. I’m explaining how mornic and incompetent they are. This entire concept was ill-conceived from the beginning; anyone with any sense should have seen the potential for abuse from the start.
The school administrators are manifestly responsible because of the way they have chosen to act on the illegally-obtained pictures, making it apparent that it’s not just one rogue person snapping illicit pictures, but a group of administrators who consented to and condoned stupid, immoral, and illegal actions.
Kanluwen wrote:You're giving them WAY too much credit for being actually competent, Mannahnin.
But onto the meat of it:
Webcams can be used remotely, and I'd say it's a fair bet that this isn't the first time something like this has been done.
I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying in regards to the level of responsibility of the school in regards to the operators. Yes, if the operators do something illegal--the school system should turn them over. No contest there, I thought it was obvious but I've been known to phrase things badly.
Now, bear in mind:
I'm not arguing that what they did was RIGHT. I'm arguing that I can completely see why they did it the way they did--even if they should have just reported the fact that the kid was smoking a joint to the parents.
Competence is not relevant, liability is.
As we speak the school district is negoatiating like a hurricane to avoid the Niagara flow of dollars out the door they are about to pay.
Criminal liability is just a nice and proper bonus.
They're probably negotiating because of the fact that you've got some people arguing that this is tantamount to child pornography and then the Tinfoil Hat Brigade saying that this is another step towards the New World Order.
Could this have been better handled from the get-go?
Probably.
Does it mean that the school district should be bankrupted by idiot parents who don't realize that "green means recording"?
Hell no. The public school systems are bad enough as is, making them bleed money is irresponsible.
I agree that some of the comments have been a little off, but if they secretly took pictures of kids in a state of undress, never mind masturbating or something, that darn well would count as child porn. Two second of thought before switching on the cameras should have led to the inevitable conclusion that kids are probably going to have them in their bedrooms, and that spying on a kid in their bedroom has a high probability of seeing something that's none of their business, even if they WEREN'T taking pictures.
While not a massive government conspiracy, the school administration clearly violated kids' privacy in a systematic way. It wasn't just one or two people violating a defensible policy.
I agree that I wouldn't want to see the school district bankrupted. Criminal prosecution/loss of ability to work as an educator is more important.
Kanluwen wrote:They're probably negotiating because of the fact that you've got some people arguing that this is tantamount to child pornography and then the Tinfoil Hat Brigade saying that this is another step towards the New World Order.
Could this have been better handled from the get-go?
Probably.
Does it mean that the school district should be bankrupted by idiot parents who don't realize that "green means recording"?
Hell no. The public school systems are bad enough as is, making them bleed money is irresponsible.
No they are negotiating because its a class action and the parents are in the right.
Its not tinfoil hat. If this had occurred to Genghis Connie I'd have gone to town with a baseball bat.
Mannahnin wrote:I agree that some of the comments have been a little off, but if they secretly took pictures of kids in a state of undress, never mind masturbating or something, that darn well would count as child porn.
While not a massive government conspiracy, the school administration clearly violated kids' privacy in a systematic way. It wasn't just one or two people violating a defensible policy.
I agree that I wouldn't want to see the school district bankrupted. Criminal prosecution/loss of ability to work as an educator is more important.
It would only count as child porn if the intent to catch a student in a state of undress/sexual gratification could be proven.
I'd agree that I would be far far more suspicious if we were seeing large amounts of these cases cropping up in regards to students being punished for things they did at home.
As it is, it seems like an isolated incident and that they are, in fact, only using the system for what they say.
The fact that there's a class action suit is what worries me. I can completely understand JUST that specific student filing for compensatory damages...with the caveat added in that the school turn over the ability to access the webcams to the police department, rather than the school. Add in a court order for the school to turn over any previously recorded material to the police for review...and voila.
Everything settled without having to bankrupt an entire school system.
Kanluwen wrote:
It would only count as child porn if the intent to catch a student in a state of undress/sexual gratification could be proven.
Intent only matters when determining the classification of the offense; eg. receiving, distributing, producing. Whether or not any nude images of an actual child would be classified as child porn depends on whether or not they are sexually explicit. That case could be successfully argued, if only given the surrounding circumstances and the judicious application of child pornography laws. Personally, I think its a stretch absent additional evidence, but parents tend to err on the side of protecting their kids.
Kanluwen wrote:
with the caveat added in that the school turn over the ability to access the webcams to the police department, rather than the school.
That's unlawful surveillance, unless you want to argue that these children are a threat to national security.
Exactly. Moreover, even turning control over to the police would require, at the bare minimum, a court order to justify switching the cameras on. Even at that, I suspect that there are prohibitions on the maintenance of surveillance devices in the homes of people not suspected to be criminals.
Yeah, we'll go with that situation neutralizing the whole thing.
Either way, I have no clue as to what originally happened--other than it was a year ago and they removed the capability, with the caveat that if they reactivate it it will require written consent from the parents.
This isn't one computer. The school was doing it with many computers; maybe every computer they had loaned out. Some kids were putting pieces of tape over their webcams because they saw the light in the corner go on and suspected that they were being watched.
That's the reason for the suit being class-action. This isn't a one off incident, and it wasn't done in response to false reports of laptops being stolen (unless you're suggesting some sort of pandemic of "pranks" where a dozen students report each other's laptops as stolen).
I'd rather see whoever gave this the green light sued personally, rather than see the school punished; however, I'd rather see the school punished than no one.
Student claims school spied on him via computer webcam
By Dan Hardy and Bonnie L. Cook
Inquirer Staff Writers
A Lower Merion family has set off a furor among students, parents, and civil liberties groups by alleging that Harriton High School officials used a webcam on a school-issued laptop to spy on their 15-year-old son at home.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court, the family said the school's assistant principal had confronted their son, told him he had "engaged in improper behavior in [his] home, and cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam embedded in [his] personal laptop issued by the school district."
The suit contends the Lower Merion School District, one of the most prosperous and highest-achieving in the state, had the ability to turn on students' webcams and illegally invade their privacy.
While declining to comment on the specifics of the suit, spokesman Douglas Young said the district was investigating. "We're taking it very seriously," he said last night.
The district's Apple MacBook laptops have a built-in webcam with a "security feature" that can snap a picture of the operator and the screen if the computer is reported lost or stolen, Young said.
But he said "the district would never utilize that security feature for any other reason." The district said that the security system was "deactivated" yesterday, and that it would review when the system had been used.
Widener University law professor Stephen Henderson said using a laptop camera for home surveillance would violate wiretap laws, even if done to catch a thief.
A statement on the district Web site said the lawsuit's allegations "are counter to everything that we stand for as a school and a community."
The suit says that in November, assistant principal Lynn Matsko called in sophomore Blake Robbins and told him that he had "engaged in improper behavior in his home," and cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam in his school-issued laptop.
Matsko later told Robbins' father, Michael, that the district "could remotely activate the webcam contained in a student's personal laptop . . . at any time it chose and to view and capture whatever images were in front of the webcam" without the knowledge or approval of the laptop's users, the suit says.
It does not say what improper activity Robbins was accused of or what, if any, discipline resulted. Reached at home yesterday, his mother, Holly, said she could not comment on advice of the family's lawyers.
Blake Robbins, answering the door at his home, said he, too, could not comment. With a mop of brown hair and clad in a black T-shirt and jeans, he smiled when told the suit had earned him a Wikipedia page and other Internet notoriety.
Mark Haltzman, a lawyer with the Trevose firm of Lamm Rubenstone, which represents the Robbins family, did not return calls seeking comment. Matsko's husband said the assistant principal could not comment.
Fueled with state grants, the Lower Merion district issued laptops to all 2,300 high school students, starting last school year at Harriton and later at Lower Merion High, to promote more "engaged and active learning and enhanced student achievement," Superintendent Christopher W. McGinley said in a statement.
McGinley and Lower Merion School Board President David Ebby did not respond to requests for comment.
Families in the 6,900-student district reacted with shock. Parent Candace Chacona said she was "flabbergasted" by the allegations.
"My first thought was that my daughter has her computer open almost around the clock in her bedroom. Has she been spied on?"
Victoria Zuzelo, a senior at Harriton, said she and other students had been told about the security feature, and knew the district had the right to search computer hard drives at school.
Some students had taken to covering webcams in school with paper because they thought they might be watched, she said. "But . . . they would never think the school would be watching them at home. I'm not sure who to believe, but I'm hoping it is not true because if it was, it would really be outrageous."
Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy watchdog group in Washington, said she had not heard of any other case in which school officials were accused of monitoring student behavior at home via a computer. If the allegations are true, she said, "this is an outrageous invasion of individual privacy."
Witold J. Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, told the Associated Press: "School officials cannot, any more than police, enter into the home either electronically or physically without an invitation or a warrant."
Virginia DiMedio, who as the Lower Merion district's technology director until she retired last summer helped launch the laptop initiative, said yesterday: "If there was a report that a computer was stolen, the next time a person opened it up, it would take their picture and give us their IP [Internet protocol] address - the location of where it was coming from."
She said that the feature had been used several times to trace stolen laptops, but that there had been no discussion of using it to monitor students' behavior. "I can't imagine anyone in the district did anything other than track stolen computers," she said.
DiMedio said the district did not widely publicize the feature "for obvious reasons. It involved computer security, and that is all it was being used for."
She added: "People ask you all the time, 'Can you do this? Can you do this?' . . . But you have to be conscious of students' rights. I would not have walked into that swamp. . . . You want kids to use the technology. You want them to feel safe, to feel trusted."
The laptop initiative, she said, is "a wonderful program. There were kids in some of the poorer areas that had none of the resources that the other students had. That was what the initiative was for - to give kids a chance."
In a published policy statement, the district warns that laptop users "should not expect that files stored on district resources will be private," and says the network administrator "may review files and communication to . . . ensure that students are using the system responsibly."
Where did it say it was being done with many computers? This was the ONLY report I have seen on this situation.
And they flatout admitted that EVERY computer had the capability to be remote accessed. And if the kids were putting tape over their webcams, then why the hell weren't they saying anything about it?
And again--if the kids knew, what better way to prank someone you don't like than getting them potentially caught in a compromising situation?
There are about a million better ways to "prank" someone. For one thing, they're not going to allow "anonymous" tips as to laptops having been stolen. They're probably going to need someone to be there in person, in which case the "pranker" is going to be in serious trouble. For another thing, there's very little chance that someone will be caught in a "compromising situation" without many pictures having been taken. Once the student in question is shown there's no reason to continue taking pictures from that laptop. Third, it's just not funny. The "pranker" won't get to see the pictures, they'll have no way of knowing if it worked. The person being "pranked" won't know about it. And last, but not least, THE STUDENTS WERE NOT TOLD THAT THE LAPTOPS HAD THIS FUNCTION. It isn't "pranking".
The students probably didn't know why the green light was going on and off, and put tape over the webcam to err on the side of caution. Who are they going to tell? The school will probably just deny that they're doing anything; this is not only a function that the students and their families weren't told about, it's a function that most wouldn't think to even exist.
Regarding it having been through multiple computers:
Some students became suspicious after noticing the camera's green light come on, with out their doing, inside their homes.
Also, this isn't a reactionary response to new technology, the magazines and blogs at the forefront of modern computing are the most strongly critical of it.
Ork--your previous statement said that the students were putting electrical tape over their webcams under "suspicions they were being watched". For purposes of a prank, it really doesn't matter that you see the photographs or not. The fact that you managed to do it alone is reward enough for most idiots who'd pull a "prank" like that.
And hrm, Mannahnin. I know one of the articles I read from it said something about "a year ago".
The reference to tape is here. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/19/crimesider/entry6223385.shtml Upon further review, it doesn't specify whether the tape was in response to suspicion prior to the case breaking or as the case broke, so my mistake there. ABC Local's account places it before the case broke, but only mentions suspicion and the activation of the green webcam light, not taping over the lens.
In either case, the reaction is a response to the activation of the webcam, and the green light near it turning on. It's not possible for this light to have been turned on because of "pranking", as no one knew about it until the light had been flicked on in the first place. And it's a really gakky prank. Neither the person pulling it nor the victim can see the outcome of it.
Every article I've read on the subject has referred to students in the plural. There's massive backlash from students and families besides the one who was talked to about "inappropriate behavior", and the school district has made no claims as to having only activated the webcam of one computer (instead falling back of the insistence that they only activated them in response to reports of loss or theft). It's being brought as a class-action. That only one computer was being affected seems very unlikely.
I don't see how families who have never had their laptop's webcam activated can get money from the suit. Simply having the function on the laptop isn't going to count as an invasion of privacy, so there's no basis for awarding damages. It might be a violation of certain federal and state laws against wire-tapping (I think this is currently in debate; some experts are saying that even if a laptop was stolen activating the webcam would be in violation of the law, if the laptop was in a residence), but they're not going to get any money from that (as that would be handled by criminal proceedings).
Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't see how families who have never had their laptop's webcam activated can get money from the suit. Simply having the function on the laptop isn't going to count as an invasion of privacy, so there's no basis for awarding damages. It might be a violation of certain federal and state laws against wire-tapping (I think this is currently in debate; some experts are saying that even if a laptop was stolen activating the webcam would be in violation of the law, if the laptop was in a residence), but they're not going to get any money from that (as that would be handled by criminal proceedings).
Thats likely correct. However the usage of this device:1. may never have been recorded (bad as everyone can now claim) or 2. discovery may show a pattern of wide use.
I really don't see why this is being handled in a Civil Court at all. Surely, if privacy laws have been broken, it should be handled in a criminal court?
And, like Orkeo said, there really isn't much they can get in the way of damages.
God, I really didn't think I could get more pissed off with school systems(and their failure), and then this happens. Great job people.
You made me hate you even more.
Kanluwen wrote:Spoken like someone who wears a tinfoil hat.
IT Networking student currently working on a diploma at the moment actually But, yeah it's really paranoid both ways. Both with this ineffective and rather stupid security system and trying to figure out what could have possibly convinced them it was a good idea.
If they were really so paranoid they could track it anyway without the camera and stop stuff like this happening (IE. Them being found out).
But this thread is really going in circles, isn't it?
This thread was going downhill from the start when people leapt to the assumption that it was related to child pornography
And just because you're in a rational career doesn't mean you don't wear a tinfoil hat! Plenty of (potentially) respectable scientists could easily fall into the tinfoil hat camp.
Whoa this is weird, it reminds me of this news story where some guy was whacking off in a Library. They made a huge deal about it, even though no one would have even noticed if they hadn't got it on tape.
Also, why is child pornography coming up? This doesn't seem to have much to do with it, unless thats what he was looking at. , which I doubt.
Golden Eyed Scout wrote:God, I really didn't think I could get more pissed off with school systems(and their failure), and then this happens. Great job people.
You made me hate you even more.
So many things make you hate people even more, you need to feel the love...
Snikkyd wrote:Whoa this is weird, it reminds me of this news story where some guy was whacking off in a Library. They made a huge deal about it, even though no one would have even noticed if they hadn't got it on tape.
Also, why is child pornography coming up? This doesn't seem to have much to do with it, unless thats what he was looking at. , which I doubt.
Child pornography came up because the article was really non-specific other than the student was caught in a compromising position.
Given that it's an underage male student--the assumption came as he was caught masturbating.
kanwulen wrote:Given that it's an underage male student--the assumption came as he was caught masturbating.
Pun intended, I assume.
I will try to keep track of this story. Hopefully people who made the critical mistakes, will be the ones held accountable. It would be sad to hear that the district was drained of it's resources, as you mentioned before, that could spell the end of these types of programs universally.
) and it would definitely come in handy in the case of stolen or lost laptops.
