I'm an education graduate student in Philly, and my tuesday night class is taught by the Principle of the Lower Merion School District.
I look forward to the current events portion of class this week.
i cant wait to hear what he has to say, though it will probably boil down to "Due to an ongoing legal dispute i will not be commenting on the matter at this time"
would be nice to get some direct commentary though
Attorney Mark Haltzman: "They’re trying to allege that when Blake was holding two Mike & Ikes in his hand, which he apparently loves and eats religiously, that those were pills, and somehow he’s involved in selling drugs."
Which is ludicrous, but it's the sort of ludicrousness we're regrettably used to from schools, and still fits into the scenario where the security software was not used for nefarious purposes.
Looking at anything a kid is doing outside of school by stealth-activating his webcam is absolutely nefarious, unacceptable, and will hopefully but not likely result in criminal prosecutions.
According to the FBI link, the suit claims they turned on the Laptop while the kid was at home.
Another article siad the cameras were turned on once to find missing laptops, only to find out they were mistakingly placed in the wrong room. They did get pics of students and teachers without them knowing about it while doing so.
I read -- well, looked over -- the suit, and I saw no such allegation. It is alleged that the district had the capability to activate the cameras while the students were at home, which is probably a valid cause of action in itself, but I don't see that it's claimed they have done so.
Edit: Which is presumably why it's a class action suit asking damages for all of the time that the software was installed, rather than a specific invasion of privacy suit on behalf of the particular student, right?
According to the FBI link, the suit claims they turned on the Laptop while the kid was at home.
Another article siad the cameras were turned on once to find missing laptops, only to find out they were mistakingly placed in the wrong room. They did get pics of students and teachers without them knowing about it while doing so.
I read -- well, looked over -- the suit, and I saw no such allegation. It is alleged that the district had the capability to activate the cameras while the students were at home, which is probably a valid cause of action in itself, but I don't see that it's claimed they have done so.
Edit: Which is presumably why it's a class action suit asking damages for all of the time that the software was installed, rather than a specific invasion of privacy suit on behalf of the particular student, right?
From the FBI link
Neither the family nor their lawyer, Mark Haltzman, returned calls for comments this week. The suit accuses the school of turning on Blake's webcam while the computer was inside his Penn Valley home, allegedly violating wiretap laws and his right to privacy.
I haven't read the suite yet. But thats from the article.
Hot Tamales are what all the cool kids are downing these days.
Perhaps in support of their fellow student, the kids should all show up at school or the next PR conference with a box of them. Neatly transferred into a pill bottle or baggie, of course.
PeregrineFalcon on
Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
According to the FBI link, the suit claims they turned on the Laptop while the kid was at home.
Another article siad the cameras were turned on once to find missing laptops, only to find out they were mistakingly placed in the wrong room. They did get pics of students and teachers without them knowing about it while doing so.
I read -- well, looked over -- the suit, and I saw no such allegation. It is alleged that the district had the capability to activate the cameras while the students were at home, which is probably a valid cause of action in itself, but I don't see that it's claimed they have done so.
Edit: Which is presumably why it's a class action suit asking damages for all of the time that the software was installed, rather than a specific invasion of privacy suit on behalf of the particular student, right?
From the FBI link
Neither the family nor their lawyer, Mark Haltzman, returned calls for comments this week. The suit accuses the school of turning on Blake's webcam while the computer was inside his Penn Valley home, allegedly violating wiretap laws and his right to privacy.
I haven't read the suite yet. But thats from the article.
I read that article. I also, as I said, read the suit. The article is mistaken. That allegation does not exist in the document that I read.
The suit accuses the district of
continuing surveillance of Plaintiffs' and the Class members' home use of the laptop issued by the School District, including the indiscriminant [sic] remote activation of the webcams incorporated into each laptop [...] without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiffs or the members of the Class.
It separately notes, as I've already quoted, that the school
informed minor Plaintiff that the School District was of the belief that minor Plaintiff was engaged in improper behavior in his home, and cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam embedded in minor Plaintiff's personal laptop issued by the School District.
Take a good look at that -- "a photograph from the webcam". Not "taken by the software without his knowledge", which is the claim everyone is reading into it.
In a similar vein, reading through the suit again, I'm not too hopeful for the plaintiffs. All of the statutes they're citing punish the use of electronic surveillance. If they have (or manage to come up with during discovery, which I assume is their hope) evidence that this and/or other photographs were taken "indiscriminantly" by the district, they'll have a case; if not, the presence of security software which could theoretically be used for that purpose, which is their main substantive claim, even without their knowledge, is probably not actionable. Maybe there's liability there for some kind of negligence, but not invasion of privacy.
And even if they do return such evidence, which I'll grant is totally possible, I'd hope that any sane judge would only let them assess damages for those cases of invasion of privacy which can actually be reasonably demonstrated to have occurred -- that is, those photographs, if any, which actually exist -- rather than assuming the existence of "indiscriminant" invasion of privacy which applies to every member of the Class.
But, you know... I'm not a lawyer or anything.
Adrien on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Hot Tamales are what all the cool kids are downing these days.
What are those little fruit-shaped candies that come out of the vending machines in front of grocery stores?
I guess we should pass legislation to make sure all candy eaten by children is shaped like food, so as to be easily distinguishable from pills to any school administrators who might be watching.
Logical conjunction is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of true if and only if both of its operands are true.
Logical conjunction is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of true if and only if both of its operands are true.
From the link^
bolded for emphasis
Assuming that modermott is using "=" for implication, then he means:
A ^ B -> C
Is equivalent to
~(A ^ v C
is equivalent to
A' v B' v C
Meaning C is true or A or B are false.
I have no clue what he is using this in his argument for, but there you go.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
No kidding. What sort of illicit drug to Mike and Ike's resemble? What sort of pill-shaped drug do you chew or eat multiples of at once? The only drug I can even imagine being compared is like... Dayquil gel-caps.
I'm an education graduate student in Philly, and my tuesday night class is taught by the Principle of the Lower Merion School District.
I look forward to the current events portion of class this week.
i cant wait to hear what he has to say, though it will probably boil down to "Due to an ongoing legal dispute i will not be commenting on the matter at this time"
would be nice to get some direct commentary though
Attorney Mark Haltzman: "They’re trying to allege that when Blake was holding two Mike & Ikes in his hand, which he apparently loves and eats religiously, that those were pills, and somehow he’s involved in selling drugs."
Which is ludicrous, but it's the sort of ludicrousness we're regrettably used to from schools, and still fits into the scenario where the security software was not used for nefarious purposes.
At the same time though, why the fuck would the kid take a picture of himself eating candy?
Bionic Monkey on
0
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
Hot Tamales are what all the cool kids are downing these days.
What are those little fruit-shaped candies that come out of the vending machines in front of grocery stores?
I guess we should pass legislation to make sure all candy eaten by children is shaped like food, so as to be easily distinguishable from pills to any school administrators who might be watching.
No kidding. What sort of illicit drug to Mike and Ike's resemble? What sort of pill-shaped drug do you chew or eat multiples of at once? The only drug I can even imagine being compared is like... Dayquil gel-caps.
The whole thing makes me think of the scene at the cop convention in Fear and Loathing and how far we haven't come
Logical conjunction is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of true if and only if both of its operands are true.
From the link^
bolded for emphasis
Assuming that modermott is using "=" for implication, then he means:
A ^ B -> C
Is equivalent to
~(A ^ v C
is equivalent to
A' v B' v C
Meaning C is true or A or B are false.
I have no clue what he is using this in his argument for, but there you go.
Days after a student filed suit over the practice, Lower Merion officials acknowledged Friday that they remotely activated webcams 42 times in the past 14 months, but only to find missing student laptops. They insist they never did so to spy on students, as the student's family claimed in the federal lawsuit.
So since its Not A and B, then its either Not A or Not B? Is that right? I never knew these laws in logic existed, I've just been using what I've learned in English.
Logical conjunction is an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, that produces a value of true if and only if both of its operands are true.
From the link^
bolded for emphasis
A logical "not" reverses an "and" into an "or", since only one of the conditions need be false in order to invalidate an "and".
Days after a student filed suit over the practice, Lower Merion officials acknowledged Friday that they remotely activated webcams 42 times in the past 14 months, but only to find missing student laptops. They insist they never did so to spy on students, as the student's family claimed in the federal lawsuit.
....
Out of two schools adding up to over 2500 students over 14 months? Is that a lot?
Anyone seen this yet? Apparently Mike Perbix, the head IT guy for the school, used to have a podcast where he promoted LANRev, the monitoring software he used for the school. This site analyzed the software and school policies and Perbix's pre-scandal internet comments and such.
No application other than the "anti-theft" administrative app had access to the camera; students couldn't take pictures on their own
Students were required to use the laptop in some classes: unofficial laptops were prohibited, and "jailbreaking" the system software (including the "anti-theft" remote camera app) was an expulsion-worthy offense.
The pictures are only stored briefly on the laptop, then deleted after being sent to the server. While it's possible some detailed forensics could find something, it's not that likely, and I wouldn't be surprised if Mike Perbix just happened to wipe the server's drives for "routine maintenance" right after the first lawsuit hit. Hell, it's what I'd do.
The pictures are only stored briefly on the laptop, then deleted after being sent to the server. While it's possible some detailed forensics could find something, it's not that likely, and I wouldn't be surprised if Mike Perbix just happened to wipe the server's drives for "routine maintenance" right after the first lawsuit hit. Hell, it's what I'd do.
That would be a shit bad idea.
Adrien on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
The pictures are only stored briefly on the laptop, then deleted after being sent to the server. While it's possible some detailed forensics could find something, it's not that likely, and I wouldn't be surprised if Mike Perbix just happened to wipe the server's drives for "routine maintenance" right after the first lawsuit hit. Hell, it's what I'd do.
That would be a shit bad idea.
Yeah I'm pretty sure tampering with potential discovery will get you in a pretty deep well of shit.
So since its Not (A and , then its either (Not A) or (Not ? Is that right? I never knew these laws in logic existed, I've just been using what I've learned in English.
Parentheses added for emphasis, but yes.
And I was using it to state that the article originally quoted had said something to the effect of "originally many had suggested (the camera could only be activated by the student) and (the pictures had been taken by the student and found in a search of the hard drive). We now know that (this is not the case)." Paraphrased because I'm too lazy to go back and look at it.
Because the third statement (statements being the bits in parenthesis) is stating only that the conjunction of the first and second (noting the "and") is not true, the third statement could be implying that either the first or the second are untrue...or, obviously, both.
Out of two schools adding up to over 2500 students over 14 months? Is that a lot?
Well, it implies that in just about a year's time out of 2500 students that 42 laptops were lost (at least long enough to go through the process of utilizing the tracking feature) or stolen. Seems high to me, but then neither I nor anybody I know has had a laptop stolen.
This still leaves the bigger question of how, exactly, they know that this only happened 42 times...did the software have built-in accountability to prevent unauthorized use (by a school/district employee)? For instance, were passwords from multiple administration officials required to authorize an activation of the camera, or was a log of all such activations kept (and unable to be altered by any personnel authorized to activate the cameras)?
Yeah, the concept of this security system itself being used doesn't bug me so long as the people using it are held accountable.
That doesn't seem to be what happened in this particular case though. That, or people generally are held accountable, and this particular administrator thought it wouldn't matter if they ignored the rules.
Well the new facts seem to kibosh the theory that the kid took the picture himself either deliberatly or accidentaly. Since the laptop wasn't reported stolen, that means somebody was violating procedure.
I also think 42 out of 2500 is pretty low considering these are laptops given to kids/teenagers. Less than 2% missplaced/stolen?
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
This still leaves the bigger question of how, exactly, they know that this only happened 42 times...did the software have built-in accountability to prevent unauthorized use (by a school/district employee)? For instance, were passwords from multiple administration officials required to authorize an activation of the camera, or was a log of all such activations kept (and unable to be altered by any personnel authorized to activate the cameras)?
What, you've never worked in IT, particularly where it's just one or two IT guys for the whole organization? There's no such thing as "unable to be altered." Let me break it down like this: The sysadmin can use the software whenever he wants. The sysadmin can alter the records of him using the software whenever he wants. Nobody else has there will have the slightest clue of what is going on apart from what the sysadmin tells them except probably a couple of smart students.
Daedalus on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
Have any students collaborated the story the administration is giving about the reported thefts? As in, 42 students or reports of missing were filed and they can all step up to it?
If this camera picture was taken of a student, and they only use the camera to identify thieves, why was the reason for punishment in a school context an ambiguous "misbehaving" rather than "he fucking stole our laptop"?
Well the new facts seem to kibosh the theory that the kid took the picture himself either deliberatly or accidentaly. Since the laptop wasn't reported stolen, that means somebody was violating procedure.
I also think 42 out of 2500 is pretty low considering these are laptops given to kids/teenagers. Less than 2% missplaced/stolen?
"webcam pictures are not useful in tracking down the culprit," said Stephen Midgely, vice president of global marketing for Absolute Software, which recently bought the LANrev software. The user in the picture is often not the person who stole the computer, and the photos are usually inadmissible in court, he said.
"There are less intrusive ways to track stolen laptops, no question about it," said Marc Rotenberg, a Georgetown University law professor who serves as president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington.
Couscous on
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
This just keeps getting better and better.
Shadowen on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
Man if it was 14 days this thread would be incredibly easier for us.
This still leaves the bigger question of how, exactly, they know that this only happened 42 times...did the software have built-in accountability to prevent unauthorized use (by a school/district employee)? For instance, were passwords from multiple administration officials required to authorize an activation of the camera, or was a log of all such activations kept (and unable to be altered by any personnel authorized to activate the cameras)?
What, you've never worked in IT, particularly where it's just one or two IT guys for the whole organization? There's no such thing as "unable to be altered." Let me break it down like this: The sysadmin can use the software whenever he wants. The sysadmin can alter the records of him using the software whenever he wants. Nobody else has there will have the slightest clue of what is going on apart from what the sysadmin tells them except probably a couple of smart students.
Oh, I'm well aware of this. It was more of a rhetorical question.
Well the new facts seem to kibosh the theory that the kid took the picture himself either deliberatly or accidentaly. Since the laptop wasn't reported stolen, that means somebody was violating procedure.
I also think 42 out of 2500 is pretty low considering these are laptops given to kids/teenagers. Less than 2% missplaced/stolen?
Well, less than 2% missplaced/stolen for long enough that they filed the paperwork necessary to initiate the tracking process? Seems high.
However, I'm sure that 42 number didn't come out of nowhere, and I'm reasonably sure that the school can produce 42 "misplaced laptop reports" signed by students/parents initiating the process.
That still doesn't mean the feature was activated only 42 times. It means the District activated it 42 times. Some IT dude with Cheeto stains on his dick may have activated it 442 times, for all we know.
That still doesn't mean the feature was activated only 42 times. It means the District activated it 42 times. Some IT dude with Cheeto stains on his dick may have activated it 442 times, for all we know.
According to the blog, it can be set up to automatically take pictures under certain circumstances, for instance whenever the laptop is waking from sleep mode, or whenever the computer is at a non-school IP address.
So apparently the "suspicious behavior" was eating Mike and Ike's? You can't make this shit up. Even if the Admin thought the kid was taking drugs, what the hell could they have been thinking?
"I'm sure when I show him the illegally obtained secret photo of him in his room, he'll change his ways."
Jademonkey79 on
"We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."
Fuck, I don't care if it was fucking heroin, that doesn't make what the school did right.
Daedalus on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
What kind of a fucked up world are we living in where a kid is getting busted for eating Mike & Ikes?
Henroid on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
It totally just hit me, the school probably didn't flinch at the idea that they were presenting illegal evidence because they were ZOMG CATCHING A KID TAKING DRUGS and saving America and its society or whatever. Can you imagine the look on the guy's face who first presented the picture when he found out it was candy?
Posts
Looking at anything a kid is doing outside of school by stealth-activating his webcam is absolutely nefarious, unacceptable, and will hopefully but not likely result in criminal prosecutions.
I read -- well, looked over -- the suit, and I saw no such allegation. It is alleged that the district had the capability to activate the cameras while the students were at home, which is probably a valid cause of action in itself, but I don't see that it's claimed they have done so.
Edit: Which is presumably why it's a class action suit asking damages for all of the time that the software was installed, rather than a specific invasion of privacy suit on behalf of the particular student, right?
From the FBI link
I haven't read the suite yet. But thats from the article.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
How incredibly stupid
I know right?
Hot Tamales are what all the cool kids are downing these days.
Perhaps in support of their fellow student, the kids should all show up at school or the next PR conference with a box of them. Neatly transferred into a pill bottle or baggie, of course.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
I read that article. I also, as I said, read the suit. The article is mistaken. That allegation does not exist in the document that I read.
The suit accuses the district of
It separately notes, as I've already quoted, that the school
Take a good look at that -- "a photograph from the webcam". Not "taken by the software without his knowledge", which is the claim everyone is reading into it.
In a similar vein, reading through the suit again, I'm not too hopeful for the plaintiffs. All of the statutes they're citing punish the use of electronic surveillance. If they have (or manage to come up with during discovery, which I assume is their hope) evidence that this and/or other photographs were taken "indiscriminantly" by the district, they'll have a case; if not, the presence of security software which could theoretically be used for that purpose, which is their main substantive claim, even without their knowledge, is probably not actionable. Maybe there's liability there for some kind of negligence, but not invasion of privacy.
And even if they do return such evidence, which I'll grant is totally possible, I'd hope that any sane judge would only let them assess damages for those cases of invasion of privacy which can actually be reasonably demonstrated to have occurred -- that is, those photographs, if any, which actually exist -- rather than assuming the existence of "indiscriminant" invasion of privacy which applies to every member of the Class.
But, you know... I'm not a lawyer or anything.
What are those little fruit-shaped candies that come out of the vending machines in front of grocery stores?
I guess we should pass legislation to make sure all candy eaten by children is shaped like food, so as to be easily distinguishable from pills to any school administrators who might be watching.
From the link^
bolded for emphasis
PSN: rlinkmanl
Assuming that modermott is using "=" for implication, then he means:
A ^ B -> C
Is equivalent to
~(A ^
is equivalent to
A' v B' v C
Meaning C is true or A or B are false.
I have no clue what he is using this in his argument for, but there you go.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
No kidding. What sort of illicit drug to Mike and Ike's resemble? What sort of pill-shaped drug do you chew or eat multiples of at once? The only drug I can even imagine being compared is like... Dayquil gel-caps.
At the same time though, why the fuck would the kid take a picture of himself eating candy?
Runts - from the makers of Nerds!
The whole thing makes me think of the scene at the cop convention in Fear and Loathing and how far we haven't come
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
....
So since its Not A and B, then its either Not A or Not B? Is that right? I never knew these laws in logic existed, I've just been using what I've learned in English.
PSN: rlinkmanl
A logical "not" reverses an "and" into an "or", since only one of the conditions need be false in order to invalidate an "and".
Edit: Pants beat me to it.
Out of two schools adding up to over 2500 students over 14 months? Is that a lot?
http://strydehax.blogspot.com/
Some highlights:
No application other than the "anti-theft" administrative app had access to the camera; students couldn't take pictures on their own
Students were required to use the laptop in some classes: unofficial laptops were prohibited, and "jailbreaking" the system software (including the "anti-theft" remote camera app) was an expulsion-worthy offense.
The pictures are only stored briefly on the laptop, then deleted after being sent to the server. While it's possible some detailed forensics could find something, it's not that likely, and I wouldn't be surprised if Mike Perbix just happened to wipe the server's drives for "routine maintenance" right after the first lawsuit hit. Hell, it's what I'd do.
That would be a shit bad idea.
Yeah I'm pretty sure tampering with potential discovery will get you in a pretty deep well of shit.
To make sure you don't find out what sort of pictures of you Assistant Principal Ceilingcat was taking.
Parentheses added for emphasis, but yes.
And I was using it to state that the article originally quoted had said something to the effect of "originally many had suggested (the camera could only be activated by the student) and (the pictures had been taken by the student and found in a search of the hard drive). We now know that (this is not the case)." Paraphrased because I'm too lazy to go back and look at it.
Because the third statement (statements being the bits in parenthesis) is stating only that the conjunction of the first and second (noting the "and") is not true, the third statement could be implying that either the first or the second are untrue...or, obviously, both.
Well, it implies that in just about a year's time out of 2500 students that 42 laptops were lost (at least long enough to go through the process of utilizing the tracking feature) or stolen. Seems high to me, but then neither I nor anybody I know has had a laptop stolen.
This still leaves the bigger question of how, exactly, they know that this only happened 42 times...did the software have built-in accountability to prevent unauthorized use (by a school/district employee)? For instance, were passwords from multiple administration officials required to authorize an activation of the camera, or was a log of all such activations kept (and unable to be altered by any personnel authorized to activate the cameras)?
That doesn't seem to be what happened in this particular case though. That, or people generally are held accountable, and this particular administrator thought it wouldn't matter if they ignored the rules.
I also think 42 out of 2500 is pretty low considering these are laptops given to kids/teenagers. Less than 2% missplaced/stolen?
What, you've never worked in IT, particularly where it's just one or two IT guys for the whole organization? There's no such thing as "unable to be altered." Let me break it down like this: The sysadmin can use the software whenever he wants. The sysadmin can alter the records of him using the software whenever he wants. Nobody else has there will have the slightest clue of what is going on apart from what the sysadmin tells them except probably a couple of smart students.
If this camera picture was taken of a student, and they only use the camera to identify thieves, why was the reason for punishment in a school context an ambiguous "misbehaving" rather than "he fucking stole our laptop"?
Over fourteen days?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-02-22-missing-laptops_N.htm
Oh, I'm well aware of this. It was more of a rhetorical question.
Well, less than 2% missplaced/stolen for long enough that they filed the paperwork necessary to initiate the tracking process? Seems high.
However, I'm sure that 42 number didn't come out of nowhere, and I'm reasonably sure that the school can produce 42 "misplaced laptop reports" signed by students/parents initiating the process.
That still doesn't mean the feature was activated only 42 times. It means the District activated it 42 times. Some IT dude with Cheeto stains on his dick may have activated it 442 times, for all we know.
According to the blog, it can be set up to automatically take pictures under certain circumstances, for instance whenever the laptop is waking from sleep mode, or whenever the computer is at a non-school IP address.
So apparently the "suspicious behavior" was eating Mike and Ike's? You can't make this shit up. Even if the Admin thought the kid was taking drugs, what the hell could they have been thinking?
"I'm sure when I show him the illegally obtained secret photo of him in his room, he'll change his ways."