Attention High School students: Big Brother is watching you.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Emperors Faithful**

No, but I am pretty sure that is covered. (At least it is in MY school diary).

I believe there really wasn't any good reason for not giving a warning about the spyware, and several very good ones that they should have.

**Commander Endova**

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.

**Ahtman**

They let students take home laptops?

**Emperors Faithful**

I thought this whole thread was about a school giving out laptops?

Anyway, Endova, 'homework' right.

Coming from the guy who has a fetish for pygmies.

**Frazzled**

Lordhat wrote:From this site: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9158818/Pennsylvania_schools_spying_on_students_using_laptop_Webcams_claims_lawsuit?taxonomyId=146

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.

**Fallen668**

Here is yet another version of the story. A PDF of the class action complaint is also linked to at the end.
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/17/school-used-student.html

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.

Robbins v. Lower Merion School District (PDF) (Thanks, Roland!)

**Frazzled**

Class action is just money grubbing. We need criminal prosecutions.

**Mannahnin**

Agreed.

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.

**Kanluwen**

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.

**Mannahnin**

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?

**Kanluwen**

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.

**Frazzled**

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.

**Kanluwen**

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.

**Frazzled**

I'd take that case.

Remote video of an underage population is prima facae evidence.

**garret**

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.

Which is all american justice system is based on.

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:I'd take that case.

Remote video of an underage population is prima facae evidence.

Except that the system(from the way it was explained) takes a single photograph of the user and a screenshot of his desktop.

**Mannahnin**

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.

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I'd take that case.

Remote video of an underage population is prima facae evidence.

Except that the system(from the way it was explained) takes a single photograph of the user and a screenshot of his desktop.

Thats all you need S Mart boy!

Enraged at poster on another thread. Taking a break. In the interim Shop Smart Shop S Mart!

**Lord-Loss**

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.

**SilverMK2**

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.

**Frazzled**

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.

**LuciusAR**

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.

**SilverMK2**

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.

**LuciusAR**

SilverMK2 wrote:

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.

**Frazzled**

We're talking US Lucius.

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.

**SilverMK2**

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.

**Necros**

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.

**Kanluwen**

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.

**SagesStone**

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.

**Kanluwen**

Spoken like someone who wears a tinfoil hat.