My senior year, one of my friends was suspended because a teacher saw him smoking outside of a movie theater. Told him that it was improper for him ( 18 years old ) to be smoking. Yeah, my highschool used to punish kids for doing things off of campus or even just by hearsay of them doing things off of campus that the school didn't like.
Even over here in the UK the schools try and reach out. When I was 14 I was caught smoking on the way to school by a teacher. I got dragged up in front of the teacher who'd caught me and reprimanded.
In my opinion anything that happens outside of school is nothing to do with the school.
especially when it happens in the 'privacy' of the child's own home.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
If a teacher catches a student smoking or whatever, I don't see a problem in them telling the student it's a bad idea (even if the student is 18; smoking is a bad idea for everyone). As long as it's not a teacher-to-student thing. I'm not sure what I think of the idea of the teacher informing the parents.
When it become school punishment however, the line is crossed.
The teacher and the administrations stance on smoking is irrelevant. He wasn't doing anything illegal. He bought them legally, and was smoking them in a place where he legally could. The only mention of smoking in our student handbook was that smoking was not allowed on campus so he wasn't breaking any school regulations for the matter either.
In the end the only defense they had was "he wasn't being a good representative of the school".
The computers are loaned out to students. When it's time to give em back, some smart kid tells the school his computer has been stolen. School turns on webcam and sees that smart kid still has the computer.
Thats seems like a plausible chain of events, instead of draconian pedophile big-brother school departments. Of course I live in a sane(ish) country, so I could be wrong...
Yes, that would make sense. But that's not what the school administrators themselves said happened.
Exactly. If this was the case, it would be very easy for the school to release a statement to this effect.
Instead, they've released a statement making a lot of implications but explicitly saying a whole lot of not much. All the school has said is:
Laptops are a frequent target for theft in schools and off school property. The security feature was installed to help locate a laptop in the event it was reported lost, missing or stolen so that the laptop could be returned to the student.
And...
Upon a report of a suspected lost, stolen or missing laptop, the feature was activated by the District's security and technology departments. The tracking-security feature was limited to taking a still image of the operator and the operator's screen. This feature has only been used for the limited purpose of locating a lost, stolen or missing laptop. The District has not used the tracking feature or web cam for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever.
Now, the logical conclusion is that either A) the student's camera was never activated or the student had stolen the laptop. But notice that the school said neither of these things explicitly. It's entirely possible there's a reason for that.
The only explanation that fits both sides description of the situation is that the principal (or administrator) was lying when he said he had pictures, just trying to spook the kid. And that possibly the principal didn't even know about the remote activation feature. Either way, profoundly stupid given the result.
The only other explanation that fits both sides is that the principal (or other official) did use the cameras to take pictures, but that there's no actual record of this thus the school is sticking with plausible deniability.
Which brings up an interesting point...what recordkeeping functions are in the software to keep a random school IT employee from activating these cameras whenever he feels like it? Can the employee delete these records? Basically, what safeguards are there (or rather were there) to keep the employee from using these to collect pedo pictures? How does the school know that the cameras weren't used in any other fashion?
Oh, wait, they don't. Let's read again...
The District has not used the tracking feature or web cam for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever.
Gotcha. They have no fucking idea what other uses this tracking feature may have seen outside of official channels. Sweet.
mcdermott on
0
Options
PasserbyeI am much older than you.in Beach CityRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
The vice principal showed the photo to the kid's parents which is why the whole law suit was started up in the first place.
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.
Why do they need to track the laptops again? This community is "well-heeled", yes? If I lost a $100 textbook in highschool, I just, you know, had to pay for it. When the laptop permission form is signed, include a pamphlet on how to not lose your fucking laptop, and the consequences for doing so.
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.
Ah, but again we have to read what was written, and not make assumptions.
This says that a photo taken by the webcam was used as evidence...not that a photo taken remotely by the webcam was used. It could have been a pic the student took intentionally, and was discovered through other monitoring methods. The statement by the administrator that pictures could be taken remotely may have been entirely separate.
Not saying this is the case, just saying that that quote (and every other story I've read) doesn't explicitly state that a picture taken remotely was used for disciplinary purposes.
mcdermott on
0
Options
PasserbyeI am much older than you.in Beach CityRegistered Userregular
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.
Ah, but again we have to read what was written, and not make assumptions.
This says that a photo taken by the webcam was used as evidence...not that a photo taken remotely by the webcam was used. It could have been a pic the student took intentionally, and was discovered through other monitoring methods. The statement by the administrator that pictures could be taken remotely may have been entirely separate.
Not saying this is the case, just saying that that quote (and every other story I've read) doesn't explicitly state that a picture taken remotely was used for disciplinary purposes.
Either way it came from monitoring the laptop in a way that the student was clearly unaware of and probably gave no consent for. Even if we're treating the laptop the same way as a school locker (which isn't unreasonable, given that the laptop is school property) don't they need permission to search it?
Either way it came from monitoring the laptop in a way that the student was clearly unaware of and probably gave no consent for. Even if we're treating the laptop the same way as a school locker (which isn't unreasonable, given that the laptop is school property) don't they need permission to search it?
If the student himself took the picture, he was aware and gave consent. And schools can search lockers without permission or warrants. "No expectation of privacy."
Either way it came from monitoring the laptop in a way that the student was clearly unaware of and probably gave no consent for. Even if we're treating the laptop the same way as a school locker (which isn't unreasonable, given that the laptop is school property) don't they need permission to search it?
Actually, they probably did give all manner of consent for monitoring as part of the laptop agreement. Possibly including the remote-tracking software that activates the camera, though probably without fully understanding what that meant (and without the school fully understanding the implications and liabilities).
And I don't know how things are nowadays, but I'm pretty sure the school doesn't need permission from the student to search lockers, or even to have the student present. I don't see why a laptop would be different. Any laptop agreement I wrote for such a program would include a "this laptop is for educational use, and thus we retain the right to at any time search any and all files, logs, etc. contained thereon either by direct access or network-based search" clause. You want privacy? Buy your own laptop, kid.
Either way it came from monitoring the laptop in a way that the student was clearly unaware of and probably gave no consent for. Even if we're treating the laptop the same way as a school locker (which isn't unreasonable, given that the laptop is school property) don't they need permission to search it?
Actually, they probably did give all manner of consent for monitoring as part of the laptop agreement. Possibly including the remote-tracking software that activates the camera, though probably without fully understanding what that meant (and without the school fully understanding the implications and liabilities).
And I don't know how things are nowadays, but I'm pretty sure the school doesn't need permission from the student to search lockers, or even to have the student present. I don't see why a laptop would be different. Any laptop agreement I wrote for such a program would include a "this laptop is for educational use, and thus we retain the right to at any time search any and all files, logs, etc. contained thereon either by direct access or network-based search" clause. You want privacy? Buy your own laptop, kid.
Except they've admitted there was no such notification.
And you do have at least a limited expectation of privacy on computers leased to you barring very explicit language. A computer given to you by an employer, even with the expectation of returning it, has a greater expectation of privacy than a work computer as well.
And even if they did, if this process in any way related to how they obtained the picture, its illegal on wiretapping (because they're the government) and unauthorized interception of transmission or stored data grounds (because they clearly didn't have authorization to access that data).
Either way it came from monitoring the laptop in a way that the student was clearly unaware of and probably gave no consent for. Even if we're treating the laptop the same way as a school locker (which isn't unreasonable, given that the laptop is school property) don't they need permission to search it?
Actually, they probably did give all manner of consent for monitoring as part of the laptop agreement. Possibly including the remote-tracking software that activates the camera, though probably without fully understanding what that meant (and without the school fully understanding the implications and liabilities).
And I don't know how things are nowadays, but I'm pretty sure the school doesn't need permission from the student to search lockers, or even to have the student present. I don't see why a laptop would be different. Any laptop agreement I wrote for such a program would include a "this laptop is for educational use, and thus we retain the right to at any time search any and all files, logs, etc. contained thereon either by direct access or network-based search" clause. You want privacy? Buy your own laptop, kid.
Except they've admitted there was no such notification.
And you do have at least a limited expectation of privacy on computers leased to you barring very explicit language. A computer given to you by an employer, even with the expectation of returning it, has a greater expectation of privacy than a work computer as well.
They fucked up bad.
No such notification for the cameras being remotely activated. Presumably, not for the laptop being searched randomly.
What I don't understand is how they didn't see this reaction coming. Did they honestly think "yeah, we can totally infract kids for things we saw them doing while we were creepily spying on them. No parent in their right mind would care!"
I don't know how to impress this upon you enough Henroid, but it is something I feel very strongly about after some trivial involvement with the juvenile justice system over the past two years.
The police should never, ever be called on children unless serious physical violence is involved. Ever.
The police are not a starting off point following which positive and constructive problem solving begins with juveniles.
It's a bit like asking pissed off 19 year old marines to be police in an occupied city.
Their skills sets and outlook are entirely counterproductive.
You're correct. There are many situations that don't warrant police involvement and when involved they just f**k everything up. Then lawyers get involved, formulate some conspiracy and try to convince the accused that they are better off just admitting their guilt.
Either way it came from monitoring the laptop in a way that the student was clearly unaware of and probably gave no consent for. Even if we're treating the laptop the same way as a school locker (which isn't unreasonable, given that the laptop is school property) don't they need permission to search it?
Actually, they probably did give all manner of consent for monitoring as part of the laptop agreement. Possibly including the remote-tracking software that activates the camera, though probably without fully understanding what that meant (and without the school fully understanding the implications and liabilities).
And I don't know how things are nowadays, but I'm pretty sure the school doesn't need permission from the student to search lockers, or even to have the student present. I don't see why a laptop would be different. Any laptop agreement I wrote for such a program would include a "this laptop is for educational use, and thus we retain the right to at any time search any and all files, logs, etc. contained thereon either by direct access or network-based search" clause. You want privacy? Buy your own laptop, kid.
Except they've admitted there was no such notification.
And you do have at least a limited expectation of privacy on computers leased to you barring very explicit language. A computer given to you by an employer, even with the expectation of returning it, has a greater expectation of privacy than a work computer as well.
And even if they did, if this process in any way related to how they obtained the picture, its illegal on wiretapping (because they're the government) and unauthorized interception of transmission or stored data grounds (because they clearly didn't have authorization to access that data).
They fucked up bad.
Ignoring the remote camera activation for a moment (because I'm sure we can all agree that's absurd), I still don't see how the school can't simply monitor data on the hard drive. It's absolutely analogous to a locker (in the "no expectation of privacy" sense), and students have less protection on that front than other workers...right?
Given explicit language allowing for monitoring of data in the laptop use agreement, I can't see how this wouldn't be okay. And I can't see the school handing out laptops without such an agreement (again, ignoring the remote-activate camera issue). Hell, I don't see why they wouldn't just go with a big "no expectation of privacy" notice on every login, just like all the DoD computers I've ever used have.
mcdermott on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I don't know how to impress this upon you enough Henroid, but it is something I feel very strongly about after some trivial involvement with the juvenile justice system over the past two years.
The police should never, ever be called on children unless serious physical violence is involved. Ever.
The police are not a starting off point following which positive and constructive problem solving begins with juveniles.
It's a bit like asking pissed off 19 year old marines to be police in an occupied city.
Their skills sets and outlook are entirely counterproductive.
You're correct. There are many situations that don't warrant police involvement and when involved they just f**k everything up. Then lawyers get involved, formulate some conspiracy and try to convince the accused that they are better off just admitting their guilt.
If defense counsel says they are better off pleading, then they probably are. That's an issue with a fucked up system that is beyond the control of an individual attorney.
What kills me is that the police will charge a nine year old, then he'll be assigned counsel, counsel will immediately send him to childrens psychologist to prove he isn't competent to be tried (no nine year old is) and then the charges will be dropped. It costs like $5,000 all the way around but the police don't care. They must think it is just a good thing to do to put a scare into kids or something.
Worse are the kids who are old enough to be convicted. Nothing that follows is legitimately helpful to a child.
First, it is a probable given that this software is on the computers because a salesman who made a mint off of this whole deal, toward the end of the sales agreement, added in, "how 'bout we put LapTracker on these puppies, too? Laptops get stolen all the time and LapTracker is basically Lojack for laptops. Saves more than it costs." And the administrator said, "yeah, sure." The administrator was probably not wringing his hands and cackling muhahaha about all the preteen boobage he was about to get to see, he probably didn't even know it was remote monitoring of that sort.
Now, there are two likely scenarios here that have been suggested and that fit all of the statements given thus far:
1) Clever student reports laptop stolen so he can keep it. School's IT department activates the software and snaps a picture of him using the computer that afternoon. Lets the parents know what their kid tried to do, and parents see a picture of their own home and smell the riches of a lawsuit.
2) Clever student uses the webcam himself to snap a shot of him taking a bong hit, or boning his babe, or whatever. Next day at school he is showing the picture on his laptop to friends and a teacher walks up and confiscates the laptop. School reports it to parents, press get wind of it somehow and sensationalize it with info about the remote tracking software they heard about.
Netiher of these are necessarily what happened, but they make sense and fit the facts and statements thus far and are less sensational than the evil scheming school district snapping photos randomly. The latter is still also possible, of course.
Yar on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
One of the students involved in the class-action lawsuit against the administrators who used school-provided laptops to spy on them, contacted Gizmodo with details about what was happening.
Frequently, the green lights next to our [Early 2008 MacBook] iSight webcams will turn on. The school district claims that this is just a glitch. We are all doubting this now.
Another student has confirmed this:
I questioned the IT guy about why it was happening he said that it was because people logged out when an application using the camera was on, he also stated that they could in fact go and look through your webcam it would just violate the fifth ammendment and that's why they didn't.
Today, their principal went on loudspeaker and said that all this was "not true."
Not sure what the bit about the 5th amendment was about, but apparently the cameras flicking on "randomly" has been something the students have been wondering about for a while.
edit: I'm guessing either the IT guy or the student misremembered and was thinking of the 4th amendment, i.e. no unreasonable search/seizure.
One of the students involved in the class-action lawsuit against the administrators who used school-provided laptops to spy on them, contacted Gizmodo with details about what was happening.
Frequently, the green lights next to our [Early 2008 MacBook] iSight webcams will turn on. The school district claims that this is just a glitch. We are all doubting this now.
Another student has confirmed this:
I questioned the IT guy about why it was happening he said that it was because people logged out when an application using the camera was on, he also stated that they could in fact go and look through your webcam it would just violate the fifth ammendment and that's why they didn't.
Today, their principal went on loudspeaker and said that all this was "not true."
Not sure what the bit about the 5th amendment was about, but apparently the cameras flicking on "randomly" has been something the students have been wondering about for a while.
edit: I'm guessing either the IT guy or the student misremembered and was thinking of the 4th amendment, i.e. no unreasonable search/seizure.
As far as I'm aware that's something relatively common to MacBooks— since the light indicates that the camera is being used for any reason, applications or the OS polling the camera can cause it to flick on momentarily.
First, it is a probable given that this software is on the computers because a salesman who made a mint off of this whole deal, toward the end of the sales agreement, added in, "how 'bout we put LapTracker on these puppies, too? Laptops get stolen all the time and LapTracker is basically Lojack for laptops. Saves more than it costs." And the administrator said, "yeah, sure." The administrator was probably not wringing his hands and cackling muhahaha about all the preteen boobage he was about to get to see, he probably didn't even know it was remote monitoring of that sort.
Now, there are two likely scenarios here that have been suggested and that fit all of the statements given thus far:
1) Clever student reports laptop stolen so he can keep it. School's IT department activates the software and snaps a picture of him using the computer that afternoon. Lets the parents know what their kid tried to do, and parents see a picture of their own home and smell the riches of a lawsuit.
2) Clever student uses the webcam himself to snap a shot of him taking a bong hit, or boning his babe, or whatever. Next day at school he is showing the picture on his laptop to friends and a teacher walks up and confiscates the laptop. School reports it to parents, press get wind of it somehow and sensationalize it with info about the remote tracking software they heard about.
Netiher of these are necessarily what happened, but they make sense and fit the facts and statements thus far and are less sensational than the evil scheming school district snapping photos randomly. The latter is still also possible, of course.
Neither of those situations justifies installing the monitoring cameras with the potential to watch children in their private space, and monitor their private conversations. A GPS chip inside the computer would be just as effective for finding it.
First, it is a probable given that this software is on the computers because a salesman who made a mint off of this whole deal, toward the end of the sales agreement, added in, "how 'bout we put LapTracker on these puppies, too? Laptops get stolen all the time and LapTracker is basically Lojack for laptops. Saves more than it costs." And the administrator said, "yeah, sure." The administrator was probably not wringing his hands and cackling muhahaha about all the preteen boobage he was about to get to see, he probably didn't even know it was remote monitoring of that sort.
Now, there are two likely scenarios here that have been suggested and that fit all of the statements given thus far:
1) Clever student reports laptop stolen so he can keep it. School's IT department activates the software and snaps a picture of him using the computer that afternoon. Lets the parents know what their kid tried to do, and parents see a picture of their own home and smell the riches of a lawsuit.
2) Clever student uses the webcam himself to snap a shot of him taking a bong hit, or boning his babe, or whatever. Next day at school he is showing the picture on his laptop to friends and a teacher walks up and confiscates the laptop. School reports it to parents, press get wind of it somehow and sensationalize it with info about the remote tracking software they heard about.
Netiher of these are necessarily what happened, but they make sense and fit the facts and statements thus far and are less sensational than the evil scheming school district snapping photos randomly. The latter is still also possible, of course.
Neither of those situations justifies installing the monitoring cameras with the potential to watch children in their private space, and monitor their private conversations. A GPS chip inside the computer would be just as effective for finding it.
Practicality > your imagination of possibilities. These laptops had webcams, and likely did not have GPS. You can't just "add GPS chips" like you can add software.
Yar: I would like to hear how the whole "cameras have been turning on randomly" thing fits into the It's The Kid's Fault theory.
Sometimes iSights are momentarily activated for reasons that aren't obvious to the user. In a high school where everyone has one, a 1 or 2% occurrence can easily become "frequent".
Yar: I would like to hear how the whole "cameras have been turning on randomly" thing fits into the It's The Kid's Fault theory.
Sometimes iSights are momentarily activated for reasons that aren't obvious to the user. In a high school where everyone has one, a 1 or 2% occurrence can easily become "frequent".
You've said this twice now, but in more than a year of owning a (late 2008) Macbook Pro, I've not once seen that LED come on except when using software intended to access the webcam. I also can't come up with any hits on google supporting your claim, though I admit I only looked for a minute or two.
Clipse on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
Even if the camera light goes on as a known glitch with that laptop model, the goddamn school used it to take a photo of the student.
Yar: I would like to hear how the whole "cameras have been turning on randomly" thing fits into the It's The Kid's Fault theory.
Sometimes iSights are momentarily activated for reasons that aren't obvious to the user. In a high school where everyone has one, a 1 or 2% occurrence can easily become "frequent".
You've said this twice now, but in more than a year of owning a (late 2008) Macbook Pro, I've not once seen that LED come on except when using software intended to access the webcam. I also can't come up with any hits on google supporting your claim, though I admit I only looked for a minute or two.
Now admittedly, no one has demonstrated that those reports were just glitches, but that's a number of people without any reason to suspect that their school is secretly spying on them. If they did, confirmation bias would presumably push the number of reports higher.
And this isn't supposed to be evidence that the school isn't secretly spying on them, it's just to refute the idea that the fact that some (how many?) kids have reported that light blinking on sometimes isn't evidence that they are.
Yar: I would like to hear how the whole "cameras have been turning on randomly" thing fits into the It's The Kid's Fault theory.
Like I said above, my take on it is that it's interesting, and I hope it's true that they were randomly snapping photos because that would make this whole thing fascinating.
Yar on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited February 2010
Seems like a lot of school idiocy (out of control zero-tolerance policies, censorship and the like) is done out of a terror of being sued. Whoever came up with this idea sounds like they were trying to get sued. Very odd.
I don't really understand what exactly glitchy cameras have to do with this.
I mean... there's absolutely no connection between "sometimes the light flicks on" and "the school decided to discipline a child because the camera they had access to that was set up in the child's home took an image/video of something they didn't like".
Hell, if it was "random flickering -> took picture -> searched computer -> punished" it would still be creepy as hell. And I have no idea how random activation would lead to random picture-taking-and-saving.
I don't really understand what exactly glitchy cameras have to do with this.
I mean... there's absolutely no connection between "sometimes the light flicks on" and "the school decided to discipline a child because the camera they had access to that was set up in the child's home took an image/video of something they didn't like".
Hell, if it was "random flickering -> took picture -> searched computer -> punished" it would still be creepy as hell. And I have no idea how random activation would lead to random picture-taking-and-saving.
The flickering was an unrelated issue used to support the otherwise unsubstantiated idea that the district was using this software to spy on their students rather than for its intended purpose.
Why is the idea unsubstantiated? Did the school not substantiate it themselves?
They said "for activities blahblah" not "because it was stolen". And never "we told people this was a system in place" or "we consulted anyone in any manner about allowing this".
Posts
My senior year, one of my friends was suspended because a teacher saw him smoking outside of a movie theater. Told him that it was improper for him ( 18 years old ) to be smoking. Yeah, my highschool used to punish kids for doing things off of campus or even just by hearsay of them doing things off of campus that the school didn't like.
In my opinion anything that happens outside of school is nothing to do with the school.
especially when it happens in the 'privacy' of the child's own home.
Where Madness and the Fantasical Come to Play
When it become school punishment however, the line is crossed.
In the end the only defense they had was "he wasn't being a good representative of the school".
The computers are loaned out to students. When it's time to give em back, some smart kid tells the school his computer has been stolen. School turns on webcam and sees that smart kid still has the computer.
Thats seems like a plausible chain of events, instead of draconian pedophile big-brother school departments. Of course I live in a sane(ish) country, so I could be wrong...
Exactly. If this was the case, it would be very easy for the school to release a statement to this effect.
Instead, they've released a statement making a lot of implications but explicitly saying a whole lot of not much. All the school has said is:
And...
Now, the logical conclusion is that either A) the student's camera was never activated or
The only explanation that fits both sides description of the situation is that the principal (or administrator) was lying when he said he had pictures, just trying to spook the kid. And that possibly the principal didn't even know about the remote activation feature. Either way, profoundly stupid given the result.
The only other explanation that fits both sides is that the principal (or other official) did use the cameras to take pictures, but that there's no actual record of this thus the school is sticking with plausible deniability.
Which brings up an interesting point...what recordkeeping functions are in the software to keep a random school IT employee from activating these cameras whenever he feels like it? Can the employee delete these records? Basically, what safeguards are there (or rather were there) to keep the employee from using these to collect pedo pictures? How does the school know that the cameras weren't used in any other fashion?
Oh, wait, they don't. Let's read again...
Gotcha. They have no fucking idea what other uses this tracking feature may have seen outside of official channels. Sweet.
Edit:
Face Twit Rav Gram
Ah, but again we have to read what was written, and not make assumptions.
This says that a photo taken by the webcam was used as evidence...not that a photo taken remotely by the webcam was used. It could have been a pic the student took intentionally, and was discovered through other monitoring methods. The statement by the administrator that pictures could be taken remotely may have been entirely separate.
Not saying this is the case, just saying that that quote (and every other story I've read) doesn't explicitly state that a picture taken remotely was used for disciplinary purposes.
Either way it came from monitoring the laptop in a way that the student was clearly unaware of and probably gave no consent for. Even if we're treating the laptop the same way as a school locker (which isn't unreasonable, given that the laptop is school property) don't they need permission to search it?
Face Twit Rav Gram
If the student himself took the picture, he was aware and gave consent. And schools can search lockers without permission or warrants. "No expectation of privacy."
Actually, they probably did give all manner of consent for monitoring as part of the laptop agreement. Possibly including the remote-tracking software that activates the camera, though probably without fully understanding what that meant (and without the school fully understanding the implications and liabilities).
And I don't know how things are nowadays, but I'm pretty sure the school doesn't need permission from the student to search lockers, or even to have the student present. I don't see why a laptop would be different. Any laptop agreement I wrote for such a program would include a "this laptop is for educational use, and thus we retain the right to at any time search any and all files, logs, etc. contained thereon either by direct access or network-based search" clause. You want privacy? Buy your own laptop, kid.
Except they've admitted there was no such notification.
And you do have at least a limited expectation of privacy on computers leased to you barring very explicit language. A computer given to you by an employer, even with the expectation of returning it, has a greater expectation of privacy than a work computer as well.
And even if they did, if this process in any way related to how they obtained the picture, its illegal on wiretapping (because they're the government) and unauthorized interception of transmission or stored data grounds (because they clearly didn't have authorization to access that data).
They fucked up bad.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
No such notification for the cameras being remotely activated. Presumably, not for the laptop being searched randomly.
It all depends on how the photo was taken.
Face Twit Rav Gram
You're correct. There are many situations that don't warrant police involvement and when involved they just f**k everything up. Then lawyers get involved, formulate some conspiracy and try to convince the accused that they are better off just admitting their guilt.
Ignoring the remote camera activation for a moment (because I'm sure we can all agree that's absurd), I still don't see how the school can't simply monitor data on the hard drive. It's absolutely analogous to a locker (in the "no expectation of privacy" sense), and students have less protection on that front than other workers...right?
Given explicit language allowing for monitoring of data in the laptop use agreement, I can't see how this wouldn't be okay. And I can't see the school handing out laptops without such an agreement (again, ignoring the remote-activate camera issue). Hell, I don't see why they wouldn't just go with a big "no expectation of privacy" notice on every login, just like all the DoD computers I've ever used have.
Yeah, but nobody likes being realistic about their own irrelevance.
If defense counsel says they are better off pleading, then they probably are. That's an issue with a fucked up system that is beyond the control of an individual attorney.
What kills me is that the police will charge a nine year old, then he'll be assigned counsel, counsel will immediately send him to childrens psychologist to prove he isn't competent to be tried (no nine year old is) and then the charges will be dropped. It costs like $5,000 all the way around but the police don't care. They must think it is just a good thing to do to put a scare into kids or something.
Worse are the kids who are old enough to be convicted. Nothing that follows is legitimately helpful to a child.
Now, there are two likely scenarios here that have been suggested and that fit all of the statements given thus far:
1) Clever student reports laptop stolen so he can keep it. School's IT department activates the software and snaps a picture of him using the computer that afternoon. Lets the parents know what their kid tried to do, and parents see a picture of their own home and smell the riches of a lawsuit.
2) Clever student uses the webcam himself to snap a shot of him taking a bong hit, or boning his babe, or whatever. Next day at school he is showing the picture on his laptop to friends and a teacher walks up and confiscates the laptop. School reports it to parents, press get wind of it somehow and sensationalize it with info about the remote tracking software they heard about.
Netiher of these are necessarily what happened, but they make sense and fit the facts and statements thus far and are less sensational than the evil scheming school district snapping photos randomly. The latter is still also possible, of course.
Update: Students Knew "MacBook Cameras Turned On Randomly" as School Administrators Gave Technical Excuses
Not sure what the bit about the 5th amendment was about, but apparently the cameras flicking on "randomly" has been something the students have been wondering about for a while.
edit: I'm guessing either the IT guy or the student misremembered and was thinking of the 4th amendment, i.e. no unreasonable search/seizure.
As far as I'm aware that's something relatively common to MacBooks— since the light indicates that the camera is being used for any reason, applications or the OS polling the camera can cause it to flick on momentarily.
Neither of those situations justifies installing the monitoring cameras with the potential to watch children in their private space, and monitor their private conversations. A GPS chip inside the computer would be just as effective for finding it.
Practicality > your imagination of possibilities. These laptops had webcams, and likely did not have GPS. You can't just "add GPS chips" like you can add software.
Sometimes iSights are momentarily activated for reasons that aren't obvious to the user. In a high school where everyone has one, a 1 or 2% occurrence can easily become "frequent".
You've said this twice now, but in more than a year of owning a (late 2008) Macbook Pro, I've not once seen that LED come on except when using software intended to access the webcam. I also can't come up with any hits on google supporting your claim, though I admit I only looked for a minute or two.
Here's one. Here's another one with a couple "me toos". There's some more here.
Now admittedly, no one has demonstrated that those reports were just glitches, but that's a number of people without any reason to suspect that their school is secretly spying on them. If they did, confirmation bias would presumably push the number of reports higher.
And this isn't supposed to be evidence that the school isn't secretly spying on them, it's just to refute the idea that the fact that some (how many?) kids have reported that light blinking on sometimes isn't evidence that they are.
I mean... there's absolutely no connection between "sometimes the light flicks on" and "the school decided to discipline a child because the camera they had access to that was set up in the child's home took an image/video of something they didn't like".
Hell, if it was "random flickering -> took picture -> searched computer -> punished" it would still be creepy as hell. And I have no idea how random activation would lead to random picture-taking-and-saving.
The flickering was an unrelated issue used to support the otherwise unsubstantiated idea that the district was using this software to spy on their students rather than for its intended purpose.
They said "for activities blahblah" not "because it was stolen". And never "we told people this was a system in place" or "we consulted anyone in any manner about allowing this".