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)
Posts
This is basically making me realize that I don't know much about actual privacy laws.
On the black screen
edit: I'm sure the parents had to sign something allowing software to run on the laptops. I guess we'll see if the document was legal.
There is for damn sure no waiver you can sign without realizing it that would let someone take pictures inside your home.
Yep. So much as clicking "grab picture remotely" at the wrong moment could instantly make any school official who did it a sex offender. Which is why it's a terrible idea.
Also, while I'm not sure about the precise nature of any waivers signed (and whether they're even legal), but the story I read today cited about a half-dozen different laws that may have been broken by this.
The vindictive part of me hopes one of these cameras caught even non-sexual nudity of an underage student and such can be proven in court. Criminal court mind you. Just because the actual punishment for this action is going to be nowhere near appropriate.
SHENANIGANS
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
Steam
So that kind of changes it. Apparently the "improper behavior" charge was, you know, stealing a laptop?
Also, Lower Marion School District? That's where my girlfriend went to school. (Except she was in private school, but still.)
Hell, they're criminally liable not only if they got a naked picture or something, but because they are legally accessing a computer without legal authority (more commonly known as hacking) which is a federal felony that carries substantial jail time
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
We've known about this for decades.
Interesting, but it doesn't explain this tidbit, from another story:
Now, it's possible that the picture was acquired another way (taken knowingly by the student, accessed against his knowledge on the hard drive by the school). The administrator may have been bluffing, or just lying. Or the student/parents could be lying. That'd a different story. But the school doesn't seem to have addressed this particular point, which makes me think there may be more to this than hey're letting on in their official "CYA" statement.
Of course, it's possible that you're right and that the "inappropriate behavior" was the theft of a laptop. But neither this statement nor any other story I've read presenting their side seems to suggest this.
So I'm still confused. And this was still a terrible idea.
It's not really hacking if the computer belongs to the school district.
The only thing outrageous about this is if the administration routinely turns on the camera to see what's going on. If they don't, and they haven't, then there's little to be outraged about other than wanting that feature turned off.
If you're going to install a security feature to track stolen laptops, why not use one of the many off the shelf security tracking applications such as LoJack that don't involve pictures of 14 year olds jacking off?
Edit: I don't really even get how taking a picture of the operator and operator's screen would even be helpful in the case of a stolen laptop. I'd assume anyone who would steal a laptop for sale or personal use would be smart enough to wipe the HD. Maybe if there's concern over data security but I doubt Joe 15 year old is going to have HIPAA sensitive information or critical financial data.
My only concern about that is it may get somebody that was just doing his job under orders from someone else.
If "just doing your job" involves using webcams to surreptitiously monitor teenagers in their own homes, it's probably a good sign that you need to take advantage of whistle-blower protection laws.
Perhaps. And while I don't want to drag this thread too off topic, the job market out there isn't quite good enough that a lot of people are going to take moral stands against their employers.
We don't know how exactly it happened since we don't have both sides of the story. I'm personally leaning more toward "silly goose administrator does a silly thing," but the other way is a (remote) possibility.
Unfortunately, those tend to be pretty toothless.
Exactly,
but even worse anyway are microphones.
A webcam can only uncover so many secrets, but a microphone can eavesdrop any conversation and pick up specific details that may put your corporation or military you work for at risk.
The case was ruled in favor of the student. The only one who dissented was Thomas (surprise surprise).
But thanks for bringing that up. This is not an isolated incident. Take this incident for example.
Or this one, which I believe was also discussed on these forums.
Alot of people believe that stuff like this are holdovers from the reactionary policies instated in the wake of Columbine, but I think it goes deeper than that. This is simply the logical conclusion of a culture that believe that children should "be seen and not heard", and assumes that children are innately stupid and should have their intelligence insulted. We really need to reevaluate how children are seen in this country.
Steam: pazython
Of course, that means the kid has to be charged with child pornography.
Oh, you haven't heard? That's the new thing. The school can punish you for anything you do, 24/7.
It's becoming a big deal now because of things like Facebook. But it's always been an issue...IIRC my old high school claimed the privilege of punishing students for off-campus behavior if said behavior had significant on-campus disciplinary effects (an example would be getting into a fight off-campus with another student from the same school).
That bridge was crossed long ago.
Your employer/school/college/book club can discipline you for non work or school related activities, and there are very little restrictions on how they can obtain the information they use to do so, from facebook stalking to looking at data on your work computer to forcing you to surrender your blackbury to avoid termination/suspension to outright hiring a PI to conduct surveillance of you directly.
This is well established by decades of case law.
Not as well established as you might think. A recent case seems like it might have a shot at successfully challenging this.
Employers may still be able to do things like this, but schools occupy a unique position in that they are also an arm of the government and the students aren't there entirely of their own free will.
I mean the statistics are against that, as a whole we're still immensely better off, but its so crushing to read how wrong they're doing it
I remember there was an incident involving a group of students at a restaurant nearby my high school. Short story is, the restaurant took an inordinate amount of time to serve the group (probably consisting of a party of 10 or 15 students), on the order of an hour and a half, so the group left 20 bucks on the table to pay for drinks and left. It was a Friday night, the place was busy and understaffed and couldn't handle a large party at that particular moment, yada yada.
Well the manager got pissed because he had about 100 bucks worth of pizza in the oven, so knowing who the students were he called the principal and complained that the students had walked out on their check. The principal basically asked the guy if he looked like a fucking policeman and told him it wasn't his problem. It would be nice if more school administrators would follow his example.
I'm pretty sure dine and dashing is illegal, he could've gotten the actual police.
Steam: pazython
If the food hasn't been served yet it's not quite that cut and dry. It's possible for the owner to press charges for Theft of Services, but the fact that he hadn't delivered the food yet would make it possible for the students to defend against the charges.
After all, they paid for the items they had received...how long can the pizza shop owner keep them there waiting for their food before they're entitled to leave without paying for undelivered services?
I'd love to see someone actually call the police over that, just to see the reaction of the policeman.
Edit: Also if no food has actually been delivered it's not a dine and dash. It's simply a breach of an implied contract, which is a civil manner, unless malicious intent can be proven.
The same school district as the one in this story is also in federal court because it's suspected that some redistricting they did last year was based in part on racial discrimination.
Sounds like a wonderful place.