Author Topic: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!  (Read 32885 times)

KD5NRH

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,926
  • I'm too sexy for you people.
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #75 on: February 20, 2010, 01:20:32 PM »
These folks are guilty as sin, but at least have the good grace to admit so.  I'll see if I can get the AG interested in a couple of felony counts served on a silver platter.  Doubt it, but you never know.

Did you?

http://americasright.com/?p=3227

Quote
FBI Gets Involved in School Spying Case

According to the Associated Press, by way of the local Philadelphia ABC affiliate, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has tossed its hat into the ring with regard to Lower Merion School District’s alleged surveillance of students in their own homes by way of remote access to webcam-equipped laptop computers issued by the district’s two high schools to all 1,800 high school students.

The story was first broken here at America’s Right–hey, breaking a national news story happens so rarely to this part-time blogger, so I’m going to milk it for a little while, okay?–back on Wednesday evening, one day after a class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Philadelphia. It has since taken on a life of its own; the news that the FBI is becoming involved is a new, but not wholly unexpected, twist.  The AP account:

A law-enforcement official with knowledge of the case says the FBI has opened a criminal investigation into a Pennsylvania school district accused of activating webcams inside students’ homes without their knowledge.

The official, speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity, says the FBI will explore whether Lower Merion School District officials broke any federal wiretap or computer-intrusion laws.

I’m no expert on FBI procedure, but I would imagine that the constitutional issues combined with the wiretap-related allegations puts this case right in their wheelhouse.  The AP piece also notes that the Montgomery County district attorney’s office is looking into a possible investigation.  If I were a betting man, I’d say that national scrutiny alone will be enough to force their hand.

By far, though, the most interesting part of the AP story which noted that school district officials admitted to remotely activating the laptop webcams 42 times to find missing student laptops over a period of the past 14 months, but that at no time did anyone use the capability to spy on students.

Such a statement doesn’t jive, however, with the account by Blake Robbins–the Harriton High School student who filed the complaint–about how he and his family first discovered the remote access capability.  From the complaint (emphasis mine):

On November 11, 2009, Plaintiffs were for the first time informed of the above-mentioned capability and practice by the School District when Lindy Matsko, an Assistant Principal at Harriton High 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.

The statements made by the school district so far are all well and good, as is the laptop computing initiative itself (though, as I said before, I’d rather the state and federal funding not have been used), but again it’s a matter of how the initiative was carried out by administrators.  The laptops did indeed have the remote access capability, neither parents nor students were apprised of the capability, and the remote access was admittedly used without student or parental notice or consent.  And, at the end of the day and any way you look at it, what we saw here was an administration overreaching its very limited authority, infringing students’ and families’ Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure in the process.

I look forward to seeing how things progress, and whether Lower Merion School District’s story changes as federal and county authorities close in on technology department records.  I look forward in particular to seeing the pleadings as they are filed by all parties.  The district’s response to the plaintiff’s requests for admissions alone will be very interesting.  Even at the level the district is admitting to, remotely accessing web cameras on 42 separate occasions, there should be some severe consequences for all parties involved.

Parents should be outraged.  Students have every right to feel violated.  And every American who may have been concerned about “big brother” but considered issues like the remote activation of webcams a little too close to the tin-foil-hat crowd should stand up and take notice.  Lower Merion School District, looking down from a position of relative authority, did not trust students and parents enough to take care of school laptops on their own enough to even apprise them of the remote access capability and provide them with an option to turn it off — at a time when the federal government is looking to get intimately involved in all aspects of daily life, from health care to energy to the college football postseason, this story is even more relevant than it seems.

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #76 on: February 20, 2010, 01:28:12 PM »

Quote from: RevDisk
These folks are guilty as sin, but at least have the good grace to admit so.  I'll see if I can get the AG interested in a couple of felony counts served on a silver platter.  Doubt it, but you never know.

Did you?


Lil ol' me?   Naw, what would ever make you think such things?    [popcorn]


Huh.  Now that I thought about it for a second...  The FBI opening an investigation would raise the visibility of separate state investigations that will be launched in the near future to confirm other wrongdoing and make sure no other govt employees get the same idea in the future.  I mean, if such state investigations occur.  Silly me.  But gee golly, wouldn't that be helpful in maintaining civil rights in PA.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2010, 01:36:30 PM by RevDisk »
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

zxcvbob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,251
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #77 on: February 20, 2010, 02:52:21 PM »
Some folks are talking about the bandwidth necessary to store video.  It doesn't have to be video; the camera can also capture stills.

Latest report that I've seen, the kid says the picture the vice-principal confronted him with had "Mike & Ike" candy in it and the dumbass thought they were drugs.

The FBI and the state police have started a criminal investigation.  The school is about to find out what "zero tolerance" is really about.  [popcorn]  IMHO they should seize the VP's computer and search for any images that could even remotely (no pun intended) be considered kiddie porn.
"It's good, though..."

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,781
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #78 on: February 20, 2010, 04:40:04 PM »
interesting.  i suspect something like that might not be illegal under va state law.
It is much more powerful to seek Truth for one's self.  Seeing and hearing that others seem to have found it can be a motivation.  With me, I was drawn because of much error and bad judgment on my part. Confronting one's own errors and bad judgment is a very life altering situation.  Confronting the errors and bad judgment of others is usually hypocrisy.


by someone older and wiser than I

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #79 on: February 20, 2010, 05:05:37 PM »
Question:

If state law like Pennsylvania's defines illegal wiretapping and federal agents act IAW federal wiretapping law, but violate state wiretapping law, can those federal agents be charged with violating the state illegal wiretapping law?

I ask, because ifi the answer is "no," how can the myriad of other state laws against rape, murder, theft, etc. be enforced on a federal agent if the state law differs with the federal law?



I just don't see how anyone can think it's perfectly alright for a school (regardless of who's laptop it is) to spy on children or their families without their knowledge (it's not really spying if you tell them in advance).

I'm just amazed that there's even a need to debate the issue.

I honestly can't believe anyone here is really defending the school district. 

I am not the least bit amazed. 

Whose nuts are in the vise?
We have folks on this board who implement IT policy.  They are the ones whose nuts would be in a vise if they implemented a similar policy under similar circumstances.  I can well understand their concern and prediliction to reason on the side of the gov't agency.

What is hilarious in the extreme is an argument from libertarian grounds by folk who are usually not the least bit sympathetic to such grounds.  What I mean is the "Well, if they willingly agreed to have images of their barely post-pubescent child captured and sent over the wires to be ogled by greasy school admins of both the IT & school type, the school district is golden."

What it boils down to is using extreme libertarian grounds relating to consent in support of authoritarian means as well as excusing serious & felonious crimes (illegal wiretapping, kiddie porn, etc.).

Kind of breath-taking in its audacity.

Who?  Whom?

Lenin's old question:
Who is doing what to whom?

As long as the gov't and their IT proxies (get it?  :-* ) are who and ignorant lusers are whom, well, it is understandable.  :facepalm:

Conflicting responsibilities/powers.

What responsibility does an IT admin have to push back when their superiors tell them to do something that conflicts with civil liberties?

Is the Nuremberg defense valid, or are they required to reach down toward their nethers, grab a hold, and man up?



interesting.  i suspect something like that might not be illegal under va state law.

If any one of those captured images showed so much a nipple or a single pube, those responsible for sending the image over the wires would likely be toast six ways to Sunday.

Even if VA would allow such a regimen, the chance of getting inadvertent kiddie porn sent over the wires would be enough to send a risk-assessment consultant into a fit.



Another interesting bit.  the kids and parents complained to the school district that the light next to the webcams "came on randomly"  The district called it a "software glitch"

I smell a rat.

Oh, for the love of Pete, the district is so humped. 

I can imagine how the roaches are scurrying. 

If we are lucky, the FBI and PA authorities will be able to toss in destruction of evidence & such, so that even if some successfully play the Nuremberg WRT implementation, the post-exposure CYA will fry their azzes

 [popcorn]
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #80 on: February 20, 2010, 05:13:53 PM »
interesting.  i suspect something like that might not be illegal under va state law.

If I understand correctly, the fact that the FBI is involved means that what they are charged with is illegal throughout the fifty states.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #81 on: February 20, 2010, 05:58:34 PM »
I just merged the two topics we had going at once.

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,781
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #82 on: February 20, 2010, 06:39:38 PM »
If I understand correctly, the fact that the FBI is involved means that what they are charged with is illegal throughout the fifty states.

they aren't charged yet.  many a slip twixt investigation and charges.
not a pa law studier but in va a key point would be who owns/pays for the computer.   and i am interested in hearing how the comp got reported lost or stolen, hence the earlier "forgot to tell mom and dad" comment
It is much more powerful to seek Truth for one's self.  Seeing and hearing that others seem to have found it can be a motivation.  With me, I was drawn because of much error and bad judgment on my part. Confronting one's own errors and bad judgment is a very life altering situation.  Confronting the errors and bad judgment of others is usually hypocrisy.


by someone older and wiser than I

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #83 on: February 20, 2010, 09:09:24 PM »
Question:

If state law like Pennsylvania's defines illegal wiretapping and federal agents act IAW federal wiretapping law, but violate state wiretapping law, can those federal agents be charged with violating the state illegal wiretapping law?

I ask, because ifi the answer is "no," how can the myriad of other state laws against rape, murder, theft, etc. be enforced on a federal agent if the state law differs with the federal law?

Yes, if it was not work related.  Probably no if it was an investigation relating to a federal case.  OTOH, the FBI operates on SOP's.  The agent would not be at fault, most like, if he or she was following their lawyer vetted SOP.  Lawyers and agency would be at fault.



I am not the least bit amazed. 

Whose nuts are in the vise?
We have folks on this board who implement IT policy.  They are the ones whose nuts would be in a vise if they implemented a similar policy under similar circumstances.  I can well understand their concern and prediliction to reason on the side of the gov't agency.

What is hilarious in the extreme is an argument from libertarian grounds by folk who are usually not the least bit sympathetic to such grounds.  What I mean is the "Well, if they willingly agreed to have images of their barely post-pubescent child captured and sent over the wires to be ogled by greasy school admins of both the IT & school type, the school district is golden."

What it boils down to is using extreme libertarian grounds relating to consent in support of authoritarian means as well as excusing serious & felonious crimes (illegal wiretapping, kiddie porn, etc.).

Kind of breath-taking in its audacity.

Being in IT, I have regularly had to tell management, "No, because that is illegal."   It's not pleasant (well, sometimes), but it is part of the job.  Heck, my current job is in legal compliance.  I basically say that twice a week.  If I don't know, I defer to a lawyer.  If they refuse to consult a lawyer, then I don't do it.  Very simple.  Yes, it sucks when you have to deal with legal issues instead of just technical ones, but I see it as being just like shooting.  You are responsible for every projectile in flight, and you are responsible for every click of the mouse.

And I find absolutely NO libertarian argument to be supportive of the school district.  Informed consent is informed consent.  Wiretapping is causing harm when consent is not involved.  I have no sympathy for government employees using my tax dollars to violate the civil rights of the citizenry.  I have outright hatred for government employees using tax dollars to violate civil rights of minors and potentially use their position to photograph children in a compromising or pornographic manner.




Conflicting responsibilities/powers.

What responsibility does an IT admin have to push back when their superiors tell them to do something that conflicts with civil liberties?

Is the Nuremberg defense valid, or are they required to reach down toward their nethers, grab a hold, and man up?

The Nuremberg Defense is not valid unless it is reasonable that they believe they are following the law.  As in, a lawyer, judge or relevant government agency signed off on the matter.  I'd argue that they should double check regardless, but it would be reasonable to take a lawyer's opinion on the matter.

No lawyer signed off?  They are absolutely and directly accountable for any and all actions they perform, even if it is at the orders of management.  If they don't wish to do their legal homework, they should not be surprised when they get bitten for their carelessness.  Stupidity should hurt.  Felony wiretap of a minor is pretty stupid.

Again, I have been there more times than I could count. 


If we are lucky, the FBI and PA authorities will be able to toss in destruction of evidence & such, so that even if some successfully play the Nuremberg WRT implementation, the post-exposure CYA will fry their azzes

 [popcorn]

Oh, I have faith that the investigation will be conducted very carefully and the tech will hopefully not be the sole sacrificial lamb.  Hopefully, he will rat out the administration and get off with a reduced sentence.

"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,799
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #84 on: February 21, 2010, 01:37:22 AM »
Question from some of the "consent" discussions earlier:  If a device can be remotely activated to take pictures of a minor child's bedroom, how can any form of consent make that okay?  

If the purpose is to find stolen laptops, couldn't recording IP addresses and such do the same thing?
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Strings

  • APS Pimp
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,195
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #85 on: February 21, 2010, 03:08:21 AM »
If the purpose is tracking a lost or stolen laptop, wouldn't a remote activated GPS serve better?
No Child Should Live In Fear

What was that about a pearl handled revolver and someone from New Orleans again?

Screw it: just autoclave the planet (thanks Birdman)

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #86 on: February 21, 2010, 03:50:28 AM »
Remember - under the current rules, you can be charged with manufacturing child pornography even if the children were never naked and you had full parental consent.

Quote
In 2006, Alabama photographer Jeff Pierson was indicted on federal child porn charges for a website he ran featuring aspiring teen models. None of the models were nude, nor were any depicted engaged in any sexual activity. All of the models' parents signed off on the photos.

Precedent ahoy.

Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,306
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #87 on: February 21, 2010, 08:47:26 AM »
Remember - under the current rules, you can be charged with manufacturing child pornography even if the children were never naked and you had full parental consent.

Precedent ahoy.



Scary stuff.

Any update? That's a fairly old article. Has he been tried yet?
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,781
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #88 on: February 21, 2010, 09:58:27 AM »
Remember - under the current rules, you can be charged with manufacturing child pornography even if the children were never naked and you had full parental consent.

Precedent ahoy.



theres some more on the case here
http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/Libman_Jeffrey.html

WASHINGTON – A federal grand jury in Birmingham, Ala., has indicted two Florida men and a Web site corporation on charges of conspiring to use minors to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions and with knowingly transporting in interstate commerce visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Alice H. Martin for the Northern District of Alabama announced today.

The 80-count indictment unsealed today charges Marc Evan Greenberg, 42, Jeffrey Robert Libman, 39, and Webe Web Corporation, all of the Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. area.

A two-count criminal information charging Jeff Pierson, 43, of Brookwood, Ala. was also unsealed today. Pierson was charged with conspiring to transport child pornography in interstate commerce using a computer from January 2003 through 2004, and with having transported child pornography in interstate commerce using a computer during that time.

"The indictment alleges that these defendants conspired to produce pornographic images of under-aged girls posing in lascivious positions for profit, under the pretense of offering professional modeling services," said Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division. "The Department of Justice is committed to the protection of our children from those who violate the law and sexually exploit minors for commercial gain."

"The images charged are not legitimate child modeling, but rather lascivious poses one would expect to see in an adult magazine. Here lewd has met lucrative, and exploitation of a child's innocence equals profits," said U.S. Attorney Alice H. Martin.

The Indictment alleges that from December 2002 through April 2005, Greenberg, Libman, and Webe Web, conspired with Pierson to use minors to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of that conduct. Specifically, it is charged that Greenberg and Libman established a purported "child modeling" Web site business under the name Webe Web Corporation. The business operated using three primary Internet Web sites: a central Web site, an advertising Web site, and Web sites for each individual child "model."

Webe Web's central Web site represented to be "a Web site to promote models ages 7 thru 16 and their photographers." On the central Web site, a "gallery" or "previews" of 15-21 photographs of various underage female children could be viewed for free. If the viewer wanted to see additional photographs, he would click "Join" and subscribe to the "models" individual Web site where he could view approximately 100 photographs of the child. The typical cost to view each individual child's website was $25 per month to subscribe and $20 per month thereafter.

Webe Web promoted subscriptions to these individual sites through its free advertising Web site. Babble Club allowed members to receive a "free sample" of images of the children. It encouraged the purchase of subscriptions to individual child Web sites, and hosted discussion boards/groups which were devoted to each individual child's Web site. Babble Club members made postings to the discussion boards, which included comments on specific images they liked, the type of clothing and poses they liked, and poetry written to the photographed child. Certain members posted expressions of fondness and devotion for a photographed child. Most of the Babble Club members were adult men who were not affiliated with the modeling industry.

After a viewer "subscribed" he could view numerous photographs of the individual child which were not accessible on Webe Web's central or advertising Web sites. These individual sites were similar in domain name style with the child's name followed by model. In order to encourage continued monthly subscriptions, Webe Web would regularly update the photographs posted and delete older photographs. Webe Web had groups of photographers under contract that supplied images and in return received a percentage of the gross subscription fees generated at the various sites.

The Indictment stated that Pierson was a photographer who produced visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct in Alabama and transmitted those images to Greenberg, Libman, and Webe Web in Florida. They then posted the images to the individual Web sites, and advertised and promoted photographs through Babble Club.

Specifically, the indictment alleges that in 2002, Libman and Pierson began communicating about this business venture. During 2003, Pierson sent children's photographs to Florida from Alabama which depicted sexually explicit conduct. These images were subsequently used to create different individual child websites for Webe Web in 2003. In December of 2003, Pierson received a "profitability detail statement" from Webe Web outlining his 2003 profits generated by the individual childs' websites.

In 2004, Pierson again sent children's photographs from Alabama to Florida which depicted sexually explicit conduct. These images were subsequently used to create additional individual child Web sites. During 2004, Pierson received monthly statements which detailed the number of subscriptions to each of the individual child Web sites, the gross income of each site, and his cut of the proceeds. He also had numerous conversations with the defendants regarding the updating of images, drop in subscriptions, issues with postings or banners, and suggestions on how to conceal dates of his pictures when discussions on Babble Club regarding a date were posted that could hurt sales on the site. Pierson's photography accounted for a substantial portion of the images of children posted by Webe Web.

If convicted of this conspiracy Greenberg and Libman face a penalty of imprisonment of not less than 15 years nor more than 30 years, and a fine of $250,000. The corporation faces a fine of $500,000.

If convicted on the charges in the Information, Pierson faces a penalty of imprisonment of not less than five years nor more than 20 years on each count and a fine of $250,000 on each count.

"The Webe Web investigation is the culmination of countless hours of dedicated law enforcement officers and prosecutors in an aggressive law enforcement action that will bring justice to those who exploit our children across the United States," stated Carmen Adams, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Birmingham Field Division.

"The U. S. Postal Inspection Service is very pleased to join in the efforts to investigate anyone suspected of trafficking child pornography. Postal Inspectors are committed to aggressively pursing anyone suspected of using the United States Mail to sexually exploit children and seeking their prosecution to the fullest extent of the law," said Martin D. Phanco, Inspector in Charge, Atlanta Division.

Counts 2 through 79 in the indictment charge Greenberg, Libman, and Webe Web with knowingly transporting in interstate commerce visual depictions of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. These allegations involve images of children which were published between 2004 and 2005. If convicted, the defendants face a possible penalty of not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years in federal prison, and a fine of $250,000 per count.

Count 80 in the indictment seeks forfeiture of proceeds traceable to these offenses but not less than $600,000 in addition to real property located at 1881 Middle River Drive, Condominium #201, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. 33305, and Internet domain names and Web site content associated with the business.

The joint investigation is being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Phillips is prosecuting this case in cooperation with Department of Justice Trial Attorney Jennifer Toritto Leonardo of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section in the Criminal Division.

Members of the public are reminded that the indictment and information contain only charges. A defendant is presumed innocent of the charges and it will be the government's burden to prove a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2010, 10:01:41 AM by cassandra and sara's daddy »
It is much more powerful to seek Truth for one's self.  Seeing and hearing that others seem to have found it can be a motivation.  With me, I was drawn because of much error and bad judgment on my part. Confronting one's own errors and bad judgment is a very life altering situation.  Confronting the errors and bad judgment of others is usually hypocrisy.


by someone older and wiser than I

Boomhauer

  • Former Moderator, fired for embezzlement and abuse of power
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,338
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #89 on: February 21, 2010, 11:19:43 AM »
If the purpose is tracking a lost or stolen laptop, wouldn't a remote activated GPS serve better?

Of course, and I believe that's what the various "laptop lojack" services offer, a remote activated locator service, and you pay for a subscription. But, then paid bullies can't spy on "problem kids", or worse, get their jollies on by looking for personal pleasure...





Quote from: Ben
Holy hell. It's like giving a loaded gun to a chimpanzee...

Quote from: bluestarlizzard
the last thing you need is rabies. You're already angry enough as it is.

OTOH, there wouldn't be a tweeker left in Georgia...

Quote from: Balog
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE! AND THROW SOME STEAK ON THE GRILL!

Nitrogen

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,755
  • Who could it be?
    • @c0t0d0s2 / Twitter.
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #90 on: February 22, 2010, 04:23:54 PM »
Another wrinkle in the case.

Supposedly, the student was disciplined for popping pills in front of the webcam.

Only he wasn't.  He was eating Mike and Ike's candy.

Quote
The boy was charged with an undisclosed infraction based on an image the school picked up from his webcam. District superintendent Christopher W. McGinley, in an orotund statement, defends the program while canceling it. And just to make clear that we're still in high school, Master Robbins appears to have gotten in trouble when he was photographed eating Mike and Ikes.

Read more here:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/20/lower-pervian-school-district

EDIT:  As far as laptop lowjack, if I had remote access to a laptop, there's a very good chance I could locate where it is without turning on the webcam, especially if its using a Wireless connection.
יזכר לא עד פעם
Remember. Never Again.
What does it mean to be an American?  Have you forgotten? | http://youtu.be/0w03tJ3IkrM

BryanP

  • friendly hermit
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,808
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #91 on: February 23, 2010, 08:58:56 AM »
Since several people have asked about "The IT Guy" at the high school, I thought I'd share this item I found.  (If someone else already linked this I missed it)

http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2010/02/spy-at-harrington-high.html
"Inaccurately attributed quotes are the bane of the internet" - Abraham Lincoln

S. Williamson

  • formerly Dionysusigma
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,034
  • It's not the years, it's the mileage.
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #92 on: February 23, 2010, 09:11:03 AM »
Since several people have asked about "The IT Guy" at the high school, I thought I'd share this item I found.  (If someone else already linked this I missed it)

http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2010/02/spy-at-harrington-high.html

Even for someone who isn't known for their computer knowledge, that is... f*****g nefarious.  :mad:

Not to use the whole "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" cliche, but... if this is what the program really is, then there is absolutely no way that this is a simple "oversight."  What I'm seeing is that this is a custom piece of software that was purpose-built, long before the school even requisitioned it, and that the coder knew precisely that their program conducts explicitly illegal actions.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2010, 09:16:18 AM by Dionysusigma »
Quote
"The chances of finding out what's really going on are so remote, the only thing to do is hang the sense of it and keep yourself occupied. I'd far rather be happy than right any day."
"And are you?"
"No, that's where it all falls apart I'm afraid. Pity, it sounds like quite a nice lifestyle otherwise."
-Douglas Adams

AmbulanceDriver

  • Junior Rocketeer
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,933
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #93 on: February 23, 2010, 11:27:58 AM »
Since several people have asked about "The IT Guy" at the high school, I thought I'd share this item I found.  (If someone else already linked this I missed it)

http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2010/02/spy-at-harrington-high.html

Wow...  Just........  Wow...

I mean, holy hell.  I'm fairly computer savvy.  Just enough to be dangerous...  :)  But this?  If I'm reading this right, the folks who wrote this program did so in such a way as to make PROVING what images were captured by the webcam on the infected machine extremely difficult.  Even to the point of compressing (that makes sense) and then ENCRYPTING the image as it is being sent to the server.  And as soon as the images (yes, images, it takes both screen captures and webcam images) are sent to the server, they're deleted from the infected machine.  All very neat and tidy.  And if I properly understand what I'm reading, because the webcam is only on long enough for a still shot (not running video) the tattle-tale light that tells the user the webcam is active only flickers briefly, and then this was explained to the students who complained that it was a "glitch". 

I have a feeling that this thing is gonna snowball big time.  The school district is gonna find itself at the bottom of a pile of lawsuits, as well as hopefully criminal charges.  I actually almost feel bad for the IT guy at the school.  I have a feeling he was told to, "make sure we can track these laptops if they disappear, and make sure the kids can't do anything bad with them".  And this was the tool he found.  Too bad nobody bothered to find out if it was legal or not.   
Are you a cook, or a RIFLEMAN?  Find out at Appleseed!

http://www.appleseedinfo.org

"For some many people, attempting to process a logical line of thought brings up the blue screen of death." -Blakenzy

Seenterman

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 443
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #94 on: February 23, 2010, 12:15:48 PM »
Not surprising no one coming to defend them now it looks like they knew what they were doing was wrong and at every turn lied and tried to cover up their crimes.  The didn't spell out what the monitoring was, most parents assumed monitoring what sites your kids where viewing, and what they were doing on the laptop. Getting consent to monitor the laptop does equal consent to view / record the insides of my house with out my permission. Right there its evident that they broke PA's wiretapping law, and that IT admin and who ever else authorized this spy network need to be arrested. The most obvious sign of the schools guilt is the Mike and Ikes picture, if this kids laptop was reported as stolen or he took a loaner laptop out of its designated zone which resulted in the IT admin being given permission to turn the webcam on (as they said it was only for theft purposes not spying  ;/) why wouldn't the district just say that?

Then they told the kids that the green light on the webcam was a "glitch" instead of the truth, that they were being watched. That doesn't sound like informed consent too me, lying to the parents.

Quote
LMSD Father wrote on Feb 18, 2010 6:01 PM:
" I am the father of a 17 y/o Harrington High student. She has had one of these laptops for 2 years. She has noticed the "green light" coming on but was not computer literate enough to know what initiated it.

Would you want some random IT admin to have uncontrolled access of a webcam in your 17 year old daughters bedroom?  What would you say if you were this father and just found out that someone may have been watching your daughter for two years now? I wonder what we would find if we were to run some data recovery software on that admins personal machine, think any pictures of that 17 year old will show up on his personal computer? I think search warrants and hard driving imaging should be the next step in this investigation. Better hurry up as we speak this guys probably taking an industrial grade magnet to his hard drives right before he goes on a "boat trip".

For those who didn't read the blog linked above, It's probably the best piece on this whole incident yet and makes a few point I hadn't read anywhere else.

 
Quote
   
* Possession of a monitored Macbook was required for classes
* Possession of an unmonitored personal computer was forbidden and would be confiscated
* Disabling the camera was impossible
 Jailbreaking a school laptop in order to secure it or monitor it against intrusion was an offense which merited expulsion

So they forced the kids to take home a bug or else the couldn't do their school work. Insidious bastards. The administrators knew what they were doing, but in court they'll play the hapless victim.  This crap needs to be slapped down hard and fast or every school in this country is going to get big ideas.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #95 on: February 23, 2010, 12:25:46 PM »
There is no way the school administrators did not know what was going on.  The list of rules that forbade personal PCs and mandated school-issue PCs was policy outside the authority of a mere IT guy.

Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,659
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #96 on: February 23, 2010, 12:27:21 PM »
Quote
* Possession of an unmonitored personal computer was forbidden and would be confiscated
By the time I was in high school, any attempt to seize something of mine that cost as much as a laptop would have ended badly for the would-be thief. (We didn't have PCs back then, let alone laptops . . . but there were some things school officials just didn't do back then.)

Quote
* Disabling the camera was impossible
What, they've forgotten about tape?
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

Regolith

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,171
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #97 on: February 23, 2010, 11:12:35 PM »
Since several people have asked about "The IT Guy" at the high school, I thought I'd share this item I found.  (If someone else already linked this I missed it)

http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2010/02/spy-at-harrington-high.html

I think the school district is going to end up paying a lot of money after this is said and done, though I doubt arrests will be made (professional courtesy and all of that).  I've yet to see anything from the school district that absolves them of what happened.

I take that back.  If the information in that post is true, people are going to jail. 

There is absolutely no way what happened was excusable.   Also, informed consent is impossible if the laptops were required for classes and the students were not allowed to substitute their own.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. - Thomas Jefferson

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt the Younger

Perfectly symmetrical violence never solved anything. - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth

Doggy Daddy

  • Poobah
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,334
  • From the saner side of Las Vegas
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #98 on: March 03, 2010, 09:29:47 AM »
So, anybody heard any updates to this story lately?   ???

DD
Would you exchange
a walk-on part in a war
for a lead role in a cage?
-P.F.

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!
« Reply #99 on: August 01, 2010, 05:03:22 PM »
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner