Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Grandpa Shooter on February 19, 2010, 11:29:01 AM
-
I made the emphasis in the body of the article. First we have employers spying on their employees through computers, Nextel phones, and GPS transmitters, now we have schools spying on students, while they are at home! This is one of the best reasons for home schooling I have seen.
-
"Many of the images captured and intercepted may consist of images of minors and their parents or friends in compromising or embarrassing positions, including, but not limited to, in various stages of dress or undress," the lawsuit charges.
Forget the civil case - this includes kiddie porn, and people need to go to jail for this, the same way they would if they put a minicam in, for example, a public restroom stall, children's dressing room in a department store, or anywhere else.
-
Wow.
What software package would you use to deliberately enable a remote camera to turn on, as a network admin, and then be able to harvest data from it?
The computer is not publicly visible from a home network: It is behind a home router firewall and NAT. So that means a piece of client software is running, obtaining policies and scripts, in the background. That client software has to build a VPN tunnel from the home to the school network (since it would be bad policy to have that policy/script server available on the public internet directly).
Can Altiris/ZenWorks do this? Actually enable transmission from a remote laptop webcam to a private network server across a VPN?
Or... is this more a function of:
1. Enable remote management or remote control suite
2. Get the webcam app launched locally on the machine
3. View the remote desktop's screen via the remote management suite, which is displaying the webcam.
The family first learned of the embedded webcams on Nov. 11, when Harriton High's Assistant Principal Lindy Matsko reprimanded Blake Robbins for "improper behavior in his home," according to the lawsuit. Matsko cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam on the boy's school-issued laptop.
Strangely, I'm going to side with the district on this one until I know more.
I fought very hard against giving students laptops that I was supposed to support, when I was a school net admin. I don't want to deal with the political fallout of finding porn of various student classmates on a computer that the kid screwed up. I don't want to deal with the additional web browser plugins that will show up, giving me evidence the kid was doing bad things with the computer, and the parental declarations of innocence of their little angel. I don't want to deal with the pissing and moaning that little Johnny/Jane cannot work because their computer is messed up, and can you please send out one of the district techs to our home to fix the computer?
It's a never-ending quicksand for any support staff. High school kids are murderous to computers, even just desktops in classroom environments. They'd cannibalize laptops, or re-load the OS, or a hundred other things. As well as run all sorts of crap on them that isn't authorized, then their parents will sue the school for either not providing a functional resource, or for "spying" when they have to support the DISTRICT OWNED hardware.
For all we know... the inappropriate picture cited above was streamed over the laptop's auto-established VPN, to the school's internal network, flagged for inspection by the proxy server since it was going to a non-school related site (facebook, myspace, etc) and a netadmin simply examined some logs and the upload proxy cache for a copy of the picture.
The picture was taken by the webcam... and the dumbass student just sent it over the district resources as described above.
This is exactly why students should use their own damned laptops/computers.
-
Can you repeat that in English this time? ;/
-
I'm not sure they would have to get through the home firewall.
If the ap is running on the computer at home and saving images, keylogging ect. It may just dump the file into the school every day the student logs on in the morning.
jim
-
If even one kid says he had the laptop running when he was undressing, I can't imagine how many people should be jailed.
This is going to cost the school district millions.
-
Can you repeat that in English this time? ;/
"It's bad, mmmkay?" =D
-
Can you repeat that in English this time? ;/
OK.
High School = about 1500 students. Some more, some less. But 1500 is a nice round number.
That means there are 1500 laptops.
1500 laptops each taking video 100% of the time while running, will generate terabytes of data every day. A low-resolution (640x480) video that is 10 minutes long is about 25 megabytes, I think. If the laptop runs for 2 hours a day, that is 300MB of data.
1500 laptops, used for 2 hours each, all capturing video, will generate 4,500,000 MB, or 4.5 Terabytes of data.
I doubt that high school even has 4.5TB of disk storage TOTAL in their server farm, let alone devoted to capture a single day's worth of webcam data from all the laptops. And remember, that's 1 day.
Also the district would barely have the INTERNAL network bandwidth to store that much data within a 24 hour window. Trying to get it from all the individual student homes? Never gonna happen. The district probably has about 25-50mb total network bandwidth for all external network functions (upload/download to state education resources, web traffic, email, etc). 4.5TB of daily transfer cannot be accomplished in that small of a pipe. Impossible.
So: This isn't the district actively monitoring the laptop webcams 100% of the time. No sinister IT monkey with a computer with a 100 displays, watching all the laptops simultaneously.
It's more likely that the computers are hard-configured to use district web filtering resources. A proxy-server and cache, that also logs inappropriate computer use. Since it is DISTRICT PROPERTY and doesn't belong to Johnny/Jane, that's OK. We used to do this with district owned laptops issued to employees. All traffic on those laptops was logged, even if you went home or on a road trip.
Don't like it? Use your own computer.
But don't sit there on MSN or Facebook or some web chat while using a DISTRICT OWNED laptop and think you're cruising the net anonymously. You're not. All that traffic is copied and saved on a proxy/cache server the district owns and can datamine for disciplinary use.
-
Lawsuit: District used laptop webcams to spy on students
So, how do we know that webcams and built in microphones aren't in use at any given time? I'm seriously tempted to tape over mine.
-
If even one kid says he had the laptop running when he was undressing, I can't imagine how many people should be jailed.
This is going to cost the school district millions.
I fail to see how that's the district's fault.
About as valid as blaming the district for a kid choosing to undress in his car, in the high school parking lot.
I simply fail to see how a district would EVER have a goal of 100% video capture, or surreptitious surveillance of students by clandestine activation of web cams. The bandwidth and disk costs would be staggering. With no tangible benefit.
Surely, some legal eagle with the district would immediately foresee this type of problem (activate camera while Johnny/Jane is undressing = lawsuit) and say "Heck no! we ain't doing that program!" The degree of FAIL evident in such a plan is staggering so that even a government employee would see it quickly.
This has to be more benign, like a proxy/cache issue.
Or possibly malign, like a rogue IT employee putting cloak and dagger software on select laptops. Very unlikely... but remotely possible.
But there's no fiscal/logical way a district would implement a deliberate webcam surveillance project. The level of STUPIDFAIL is just too high.
-
I fail to see how that's the district's fault.
About as valid as blaming the district for a kid choosing to undress in his car, in the high school parking lot.
I simply fail to see how a district would EVER have a goal of 100% video capture, or surreptitious surveillance of students by clandestine activation of web cams. The bandwidth and disk costs would be staggering. With no tangible benefit.
Surely, some legal eagle with the district would immediately foresee this type of problem (activate camera while Johnny/Jane is undressing = lawsuit) and say "Heck no! we ain't doing that program!" The degree of FAIL evident in such a plan is staggering so that even a government employee would see it quickly.
This has to be more benign, like a proxy/cache issue.
Or possibly malign, like a rogue IT employee putting cloak and dagger software on select laptops. Very unlikely... but remotely possible.
But there's no fiscal/logical way a district would implement a deliberate webcam surveillance project. The level of STUPIDFAIL is just too high.
Your logic is impeccable until the last sentence. I have yet to find a level of "STUPIDFAIL" I find unbelieveable for school districts.
May I refer you to the threads about suspending a boy for a 2cm lego gun?
-
AZRed has a point though. This is just so logistically and morally crazy that it seems unlikely to be a deliberate institutional effort. I think he's right to suspect either rogue personnel or accident/incompetence.
-
He's right that they would be unable to watch ALL students at all times.
It looks like he's wrong about remote activation, though:
A Pennsylvania school district that allegedly spied on students at home via school-issued computers says it only activated the webcams to find missing laptops.
Lower Merion School District Superintendent Christopher McGinley says the schools' technology and security departments would activate the webcam when student laptops were lost or stolen. McGinley says the cameras were never activated for other purposes.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586882,00.html
May I refer you to my statement about no level of STUPIDFAIL being unbelievable for school districts?
(Aside, from the article, there are 2300 laptops.)
-
I fail to see how that's the district's fault.
About as valid as blaming the district for a kid choosing to undress in his car, in the high school parking lot.
The difference is that if you are undressing in a car in a high school parking lot, you have no expectation of privacy. Undressing in your own home, in front of a computer that has a webcam that you have not turned on is a different story.
And while your math adds up, it's also beside the point; if these things punch a VPN through the home firewall, and the school can reach through and selectively turn on a webcam, then there's a problem of enormous proportion.
Because then, all a skeevy administrator needs to know that 15-year-old Susie McHotrack has Laptop #1162, and can guess that she probably goes to bed around the same time every night. It really wouldn't take too many tries to get some felonious pics, if Susie left the machine on while she was undressing.
The school doesn't have to be trying to duplicate Echelon ([tinfoil]) for this to still have massive criminal implications.
-BP
-
Your logic is impeccable until the last sentence. I have yet to find a level of "STUPIDFAIL" I find unbelieveable for school districts.
May I refer you to the threads about suspending a boy for a 2cm lego gun?
A SAN for 1 day's worth of data would cost you about $25,000. For a week's worth? Perhaps $100k. I don't know, I've never even considered pricing a 30-40 terabyte drive array.
Schools don't have that type of money.
And... what are you going to do with 3000+ hours of webcam footage generated every day? You only have 24 hours to view it or filter it, until you get another 3000+ hours of fresh footage. The only "good" of having it would be for disciplinary purposes, to have proof of malicious computer use, so you'd have to keep it far longer than 1 day. Probably a month. You're starting to get into Petabyte disk storage systems and millions of dollars.
Just to hopefully stop kids from inappropriate web traffic or computer misuse.
It doesn't amount to a net gain for the district.
This STUPIDFAIL is too epic even if Beverly Hills school district had Fistful for an IT director. ;)
-
A SAN for 1 day's worth of data would cost you about $25,000. For a week's worth? Perhaps $100k. I don't know, I've never even considered pricing a 30-40 terabyte drive array.
Schools don't have that type of money.
And... what are you going to do with 3000+ hours of webcam footage generated every day? You only have 24 hours to view it or filter it, until you get another 3000+ hours of fresh footage. The only "good" of having it would be for disciplinary purposes, to have proof of malicious computer use, so you'd have to keep it far longer than 1 day. Probably a month. You're starting to get into Petabyte disk storage systems and millions of dollars.
Just to hopefully stop kids from inappropriate web traffic or computer misuse.
It doesn't amount to a net gain for the district.
This STUPIDFAIL is too epic even if Beverly Hills school district had Fistful for an IT director. ;)
Please see post two places above yours...
-
OK, you just turn on the camera on the laptop of the hottest girl in school. ;)
-
maybe the kid was video chatting with a teacher, something i would still find reprehensive(with whats been in the news lately =|). but giving a teacher the bird or some such, well trouble it will be. [popcorn]
-
He's right that they would be unable to watch ALL students at all times.
It looks like he's wrong about remote activation, though:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586882,00.html
May I refer you to my statement about no level of STUPIDFAIL being unbelievable for school districts?
(Aside, from the article, there are 2300 laptops.)
I'd STILL contend that the laptop is DISTRICT PROPERTY. Don't use it if you're not doing schoolwork. Don't leave it on when undressing or enjoying the vices of RedTube or having a naughty chat with your quarterback boyfriend or cheerleader girlfriend.
Now... that's common sense. Which we know is in short supply both on school administration sides, as well as high school kid sides.
However: as DISTRICT PROPERTY, they probably signed an ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY statement that acknowledged such things as remote administration software, traffic monitoring and special software to locate the computer in the event of theft.
If the webcam was activated for any other reason than theft...well, there's a problem. IT monkey needs discipline/suing/firing/prison/etc.
-
I'd STILL contend that the laptop is DISTRICT PROPERTY. Don't use it if you're not doing schoolwork. Don't leave it on when undressing or enjoying the vices of RedTube or having a naughty chat with your quarterback boyfriend or cheerleader girlfriend.
Now... that's common sense. Which we know is in short supply both on school administration sides, as well as high school kid sides.
However: as DISTRICT PROPERTY, they probably signed an ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY statement that acknowledged such things as remote administration software, traffic monitoring and special software to locate the computer in the event of theft.
If the webcam was activated for any other reason than theft...well, there's a problem. IT monkey needs discipline/suing/firing/prison/etc.
I will agree it is their property. HOWEVER, as the school district most obviously did not disclose their ability to remotely activate the webcam at any time, there was no reason for students to avoid exposing themselves while the computer is on.
Had the school done that, it would go better for them. I very much doubt the parents would have accepted such a situation, though. (No, REALLY, we'll only use it if it gets stolen! We swear!)
-
Well, we have this attempt at damage control:
Lower Merion School District Superintendent Christopher McGinley says the schools' technology and security departments would activate the webcam when student laptops were lost or stolen. McGinley says the cameras were never activated for other purposes.
On the other hand, we have this:
. . . Harriton High's Assistant Principal Lindy Matsko reprimanded Blake Robbins for "improper behavior in his home," according to the lawsuit. Matsko cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam on the boy's school-issued laptop.
Since Blake Robbins' computer was not lost or stolen . . . either McGinley is lying through his teeth, or Matsko is violating school policy as well as various and sundry laws. Whichever is the case, I'll repeat - someone needs to go to jail.
(And as an aside . . . Blake Robbins should have told Matsko where to stick the reprimand, since Matsko has ZERO authority to reprimand anyone for what they do at home! And if the improper behavior involved some state of undress . . . kiddie porn charges are appropriate.)
-
(And as an aside . . . Blake Robbins should have told Matsko where to stick the reprimand, since Matsko has ZERO authority to reprimand anyone for what they do at home!)
Unless running a chinese child porn website on a district provided laptop, of course.
Which the principal would not have simply "reprimanded" the student over. But, attempts to hack the district network using the school's own laptop against it might result in reprimands rather than police intervention.
There were several situations where I had to datamine a computer to find evidence of malicious use, when I worked in that environment. It would have been GREAT to have a timestamp generated picture of the computer user to prove who was running the keyboard at that particular time.
Perhaps the web-cam logs locally most of the time, and that particular student had to turn in his laptop after screwing it up, and the IT folks did some forensics against it to find out how he messed it up. Found inappropriate web cam pics in a cache.
We don't know that the pics in the discipline situation were streamed live to an IT staffer. We just know that IT/admin got the pics somehow.
Heck, I've gotten district admin staff in huge hot water for inappropriate use of district computers. They dick up their computer doing bad stuff with it, then I have to fix it. If it looks like you're trolling for free pr0n, I'm gonna come down on you like a 2-ton sack of bricks. Don't waste my time dicking up my computers.
Now the little "angel" got in trouble because there may have been a web cam cache of him yerking it while chatting online or something. And mom and dad are looking for some sort of leverage because they feel guilty but haven't fully processed their responsibility and so are seeking to lash out.
Happens all the time.
-
Strangely, I'm going to side with the district on this one until I know more.
I am not. Unless they had a) permission from the parents and b) informed consent, the school district has committed felony wiretap. I won't even touch on the possibility of creating child porn. It doesn't matter if the school provided the hardware or not. Recording voice or video inside a person's house without their consent is a no-go. If the school promised to turn the cameras on strictly for theft purposes and a single image is created by the request of the school employees (outside of the school and possibly also the exemption of being in public), they're screwed and quite deserving so.
This is Pennsylvania. Not the Soviet Union, not China, not New Jersey, not Cuba. We have the strictest wiretap laws in the country. Even our LE are very, very limited in what they are allowed to record without notification.
And I quote Pa.C.S.A. § 5703 "Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communications" (Part of the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act)
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he:
(1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication;
(2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or
(3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.
Now a person might say, well, does "electronic communications" include webcams? Why, I'm glad you asked.
"Electronic communication." Any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical system, except:
A webcam is a photo-optical system that transfers images. Ergo, the school has committed a felony of the third degree if a single photo was taken inside the person's residence without their consent. For any purpose, unless a court order has been issued. Folks don't need to be sued. They need to go to jail. For a very long time. If a government employee conducts illegal wiretapping of citizens of MY state, they are felons and need to be treated as the criminals they are.
-
I'm also on board with it being very naughty unless prior consent was sought out and given.
-
RevDisk, that makes every proxy/cache server located in Pennsylvania illegal. As well as every corporate email server.
And the district more than likely has informed consent and permission from the parents in the form of an ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY. My district had students sign them just to get a log-in. I can't imagine handing out a laptop without an even more encompassing document to include all software features including loss of privacy while using the device.
-
RevDisk, that makes every proxy/cache server located in Pennsylvania illegal. As well as every corporate email server.
And the district more than likely has informed consent and permission from the parents in the form of an ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY. My district had students sign them just to get a log-in. I can't imagine handing out a laptop without an even more encompassing document to include all software features including loss of privacy while using the device.
I am not familiar with the laws of your state. In my state, your school would be breaking the law if they tried wiretapping students without parental permission. An employer or school had best have a well written signed policy signed by the person (or if they are a minor, their legal guardian) if you intend on recording or intercepting any forms of communication to which you are not the intended party. If the party legally consents, everything that is specifically consented to is obviously legal.
And common place service related "interception" is usually legal.
8 Pa.C.S.A. § 5704 "Exceptions to prohibition of interception and disclosure of communications"
It shall not be unlawful and no prior court approval shall be required under this chapter for:
(1) An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent or employee of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of wire or electronic communication service. However, no provider of wire or electronic communication service shall utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.
...
(4) A person, to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where all parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.
...
(9) A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public to divulge the contents of any such communication:
(i) as otherwise authorized in this section or section 5717 (relating to investigative disclosure or use of contents of wire, electronic or oral communications or derivative evidence);
(ii) with the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of the communication;
(iii) to a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward the communication to its destination; or
(iv) which were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if such divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.
-
OK.
High School = about 1500 students. Some more, some less. But 1500 is a nice round number.
That means there are 1500 laptops.
1500 laptops each taking video 100% of the time while running, will generate terabytes of data every day. A low-resolution (640x480) video that is 10 minutes long is about 25 megabytes, I think. If the laptop runs for 2 hours a day, that is 300MB of data.
1500 laptops, used for 2 hours each, all capturing video, will generate 4,500,000 MB, or 4.5 Terabytes of data.
I doubt that high school even has 4.5TB of disk storage TOTAL in their server farm, let alone devoted to capture a single day's worth of webcam data from all the laptops. And remember, that's 1 day.
Also the district would barely have the INTERNAL network bandwidth to store that much data within a 24 hour window. Trying to get it from all the individual student homes? Never gonna happen. The district probably has about 25-50mb total network bandwidth for all external network functions (upload/download to state education resources, web traffic, email, etc). 4.5TB of daily transfer cannot be accomplished in that small of a pipe. Impossible.
So: This isn't the district actively monitoring the laptop webcams 100% of the time. No sinister IT monkey with a computer with a 100 displays, watching all the laptops simultaneously.
It's more likely that the computers are hard-configured to use district web filtering resources. A proxy-server and cache, that also logs inappropriate computer use. Since it is DISTRICT PROPERTY and doesn't belong to Johnny/Jane, that's OK. We used to do this with district owned laptops issued to employees. All traffic on those laptops was logged, even if you went home or on a road trip.
Don't like it? Use your own computer.
But don't sit there on MSN or Facebook or some web chat while using a DISTRICT OWNED laptop and think you're cruising the net anonymously. You're not. All that traffic is copied and saved on a proxy/cache server the district owns and can datamine for disciplinary use.
i have installed security systems that only have 250 gb of storage that are able to record 8 video channel inputs for 30 days on a loop type recording. if each laptop stored its own data, and the school were able access each as needed there is plenty of storage to go around.
i wonder if their "survielance" only occured with "problem" kids. still is a direct violation of privacy, but there are a few kids in my daughters school that i have wondered what the heck goes on in their private life that they behave that way.
-
Probably everything that the school laptops do goes through the school VPN, just using the home ethernet/wireless network as a pass through.
That's the way my company laptop works.
(unless I manually divert it from the VPN to normal internet :angel: )
-
Probably everything that the school laptops do goes through the school VPN, just using the home ethernet/wireless network as a pass through.
That's the way my company laptop works.
(unless I manually divert it from the VPN to normal internet :angel: )
Which you would Never Do, because it's a Violation Of Company Policy.
-
I still don't like the idea of them having the ability to take photos at will in a child's room at home (which they did do according to the article). You might as well tell them they can put hidden "security" cameras in the showers at the gym. The original purpose might be good, but it is only a matter of time before it is misused.
-
Anyone know yet if the picture in question is a screen shot of the laptops activity, or if its a actual picture taken from the web cam of the user? I could see allowing screen shots of what the user is doing on the computer regardless of where the user is physically located, but if these school officials took a picture of the user without informing parents ahead of time that they could and would, a whole bunch of people need to go directly over jail on this one.
Don't leave it on when undressing or enjoying the vices of RedTube or having a naughty chat with your quarterback boyfriend or cheerleader girlfriend.
I agree with 95% of that statement, no watching porn on school supplied laptops, do that crap on daddy's computer and no naughty internet video chats, but don't leave it on when undressing?
Ummm . . . who here suspects there computer of spying on them? I don't the damn thing sits in the middle of my room with a good view of just about everything. It is NOT reasonable to suspect, oh my district network admin might be looking at me, better turn off the computer. That's just ridiculous. If the student is doing nothing that violates the schools user agreement, there should be no need to turn on that webcam, unless the laptop is reported as stolen, or if the user agreement plainly states that the surveillance software can be turned on at anytime even in your own home, just because the principal is a nosey bastard.
But I'm pretty sure the user agreement didn't state that or else this would have probably made the news months ago and some parents surly would have turned down these Orwellian snooping machines.
This would be akin to an employer turning on the mic in work issued cell phones to listen to employees in there homes while off the clock. Nope illegal! Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
-
i wonder if their "survielance" only occured with "problem" kids. still is a direct violation of privacy, but there are a few kids in my daughters school that i have wondered what the heck goes on in their private life that they behave that way.
At my school district, "problem" kids were ones that spoke against the administration's policies. Local tyrants don't like their power being questioned or illuminated as being completely f***ing retarded.
The same went if a parent questioned the school district's policies. Then their kid became a "problem child" and was given special treatment.
-
Ok, forget it's a laptop. Let's say it's a telephone, and the school district planted a bug in the phone.
Is everyone alright with that?
What's the difference?
-
Note to self: put tape over laptop webcam.
-
Ok, forget it's a laptop. Let's say it's a telephone, and the school district planted a bug in the phone.
Is everyone alright with that?
What's the difference?
Is it a school issued, school paid for cell phone?
-
Is it a school issued, school paid for cell phone?
And did we all sign agreements on acceptable use of the device?
-
I simply fail to see how a district would EVER have a goal of 100% video capture, or surreptitious surveillance of students by clandestine activation of web cams.
I fail to see how moose could build nuclear weapons. I also fail to see the relevance.
It doesn't take 100% high-res high-frame-rate video capture to invade a person's privacy. One 320x200 frame of one student at a time when that student has a reasonable expectation of privacy is enough.
Assuming a more normal long-term surveillance setup of 640x480, one frame every 1-5 seconds while the computer is on, with rudimentary motion and light level sensing to reduce waste cuts your numbers down to something most small businesses could handle, while still guaranteeing a pretty complete record of what goes on in front of the camera.
If the webcam was activated for any other reason than theft...well, there's a problem. IT monkey needs discipline/suing/firing/prison/etc.
Even using it in case of theft is questionable; the school district is not a law enforcement agency, and as such does not have the power to search someone's off-campus property even with probable cause.
-
And did we all sign agreements on acceptable use of the device?
Did those agreements include explicit consent to such an invasion of privacy?
-
Even using it in case of theft is questionable; the school district is not a law enforcement agency, and as such does not have the power to search someone's off-campus property even with probable cause.
It seems to me that in these circumstances they're searching their own property.
-
Did those agreements include explicit consent to such an invasion of privacy?
Probably. Remote access is a pretty common part of such agreements.
-
Is it a school issued, school paid for cell phone?
Let's say it is, so we can compare apples to apples.
Let's take it a step further, though. What about a telephone in the school? Would it be alright to record the conversation of someone using a school phone without his/her knowledge?
It would be illegal, and I fail to see the difference with the laptops. Recording a phone conversation without both parties knowing the conversation is being recorded is illegal. I can't imagine that recording video of someone in his own home without his knowledge or consent could be legal, either.
-
A better analogy would be an employer-provided computer. Even if you take it home and use it for personal stuff, they still have a right to view it.
-
A better analogy would be an employer-provided computer. Even if you take it home and use it for personal stuff, they still have a right to view it.
Sure. But I'm presuming that the camera recorded something other than the student using the computer, in which case the laptop is recording something private and unrelated to school, and doing so without the knowledge or consent of the student or parents. If the school was simply recording the use of the laptop (files, websites visited, etc), that would be completely different.
-
A better analogy would be an employer-provided computer. Even if you take it home and use it for personal stuff, they still have a right to view it.
The computer, yes, I'd go with that. If they're just taking screenshots remotely that's pretty non-invasive. They don't, however, have a right to view anything in your house that happens to be in front of the laptop.
-
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.
-
It seems to me that in these circumstances they're searching their own property.
Umm, no. The fact that the web cam recorded what was going on in someone else's property makes it a search of someone else's property, not theirs.
It would be like the police putting a camera inside your house to record what was going on without a warrant, and then claiming that anything that the camera recorded was ok for them to use against you, because they were simply searching their own property (the camera) for what it recorded. That's illogical; the search was of what happened on your property, regardless of whether or not the means used to record it belonged to someone else.
-
Umm, no. The fact that the web cam recorded what was going on in someone else's property makes it a search of someone else's property, not theirs.
It would be like the police putting a camera inside your house to record what was going on without a warrant, and then claiming that anything that the camera recorded was ok for them to use against you, because they were simply searching their own property (the camera) for what it recorded. That's illogical; the search was of what happened on your property, regardless of whether or not the means used to record it belonged to someone else.
This. +1
I can't believe this is even being debated. The files on the laptop? Sure. Emails? Sure. Taking images inside someone's home? ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?
-
Kidding? Not at all. If you don't want their machine to have certain input (whether keystrokes, mouse clicks, cam input, whatever) then don't provide the input.
So long as the skul district is correct in saying that the remote camera access was used for prescribed purposes such as tracking stolen property, then there ain't nothing wrong with it. If you don't like what they can do with their computers, then you're free to refuse them and acquire a computer of your own for which you maintain full control.
I think it's reasonable to assume that there were usage agreements in place which almost certainly outlined remote access as a possibility for the providers/administrators. If you agree to those terms (even if you didn't bother to read them) then that's your own fault.
There's an awful lot that we don't know about this situation. At best we have a he said/she said situation over just what was captured by the cameras and why. Until we know some more facts, beyond what the litigants claim, then we don't really have anything solid to go on.
-
It would be like the police putting a camera inside your house to record what was going on without a warrant, and then claiming that anything that the camera recorded was ok for them to use against you, because they were simply searching their own property (the camera) for what it recorded. That's illogical; the search was of what happened on your property, regardless of whether or not the means used to record it belonged to someone else.
No, it wouldn't be like that at all. I'd be like the police offering to give me a camera, and then me being surprised and shocked that the camera did what cameras do, take pictures. That'd be my own dumb fault.
The school didn't exactly force their way into anyone's homes here, ya know. They offered a tool to willing participants, and the tool worked as advertised.
-
Kidding? Not at all. If you don't want their machine to have certain input (whether keystrokes, mouse clicks, cam input, whatever) then don't provide the input.
So long as the skul district is correct in saying that the remote camera access was used for prescribed purposes such as tracking stolen property, then there ain't nothing wrong with it. If you don't like what they can do with their computers, then you're free to refuse them and acquire a computer of your own for which you maintain full control.
Two problems: there is no informed consent, for one. It appears the district never let them know that they could activate the camera remotely, until after it had already been used. Second: the school district is not a police agency. They cannot conduct searches, of any kind, outside of their property. They can search the laptops themselves, for instance the content of the hard drives, but they cannot use the laptop to record what goes on outside of the laptop without consent. This goes back to the wiretapping discussed earlier.
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.
-
No, it wouldn't be like that at all. I'd be like the police offering to give me a camera, and then me being surprised and shocked that the camera did what cameras do, take pictures. That'd be my own dumb fault.
The school didn't exactly force their way into anyone's homes here, ya know. They offered a tool to willing participants, and the tool worked as advertised.
Um, no. If the police GIVE you a camera without telling you they will activate it and record what you're doing, and then use it to record what you are doing privately in your own home, that STILL constitutes an illegal search.
The problem is that lack of consent. There HAS to be direct consent on the part of the person whose property is being monitored. Otherwise, they require a warrant. If there was absolutely no understanding that the camera can be accessed remotely and turned on without the user knowing about or having control over it, there is no consent.
-
As I've said, I strongly suspect there was an agreement for using the laptops that granted the administrators permission to use remote access capability under certain circumstances, meaning that there was consent. We don't have any evidence that there was no consent, and every reason to assume that there was. That's just the way these things are done. Remote administration, asset tracking, etc are de rigeur when managing large systems or collections of computers.
I also note that there's a an assumption among folks here (everyone but AZRed who has some experience in these matters) that the school switched on the cameras, arbitrarily or for the purpose of spying on the students. None of the news articles I've seen back that up. One article says the school used the remote access in the case of lost or stolen property (a reasonable and probably pre-agreed use), and the rest is non-specific.
I'm betting that the students themselves switched on the webcams to do the things kids normally do with computers and webcams these days. Files on the computer were found by administrators and high-larity ensued.
-
i can see it now, PDs start diveing away flash drives with wifi then wardrive and check out the contents. [popcorn] =D hey that might work, but would it be legal? ??? couldn't be to hard. (http://www.amazon.com/Eye-Fi-Class-Wireless-Memory-EYE-FI-8PC/dp/B002UT42UI)
-
Here is the latest update I could find on the story. Sure sounds like somebody is going to get handed their head, and justifiably so.
Pennsylvania's Lower Merion School District, which faces a federal lawsuit, is proud of its laptop program, a rep says.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Pennsylvania parents sue school district, school chief, board over son's laptop
* Lawsuit alleges district unlawfully used its ability to access a webcam remotely
* Suit: Son accused of engaging in "improper behavior" at home that school-issued webcam captured
* District spokesman: School only remotely accesses webcam if laptop reported stolen, lost
RELATED TOPICS
* Pennsylvania
* Computer Technology
* Education
(CNN) -- Pennsylvania parents are suing their son's school, alleging it watched him through his laptop's webcam while he was at home and unaware he was being observed.
Michael and Holly Robbins of Penn Valley are suing the Lower Merion School District, its board of directors and the superintendent. The parents allege the district unlawfully used its ability to access a webcam remotely on their son's district-issued laptop computer.
The lawsuit seeking class-action status was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The suit said that on November 11, an assistant principal at Harriton High School told the plaintiffs' son that he was caught engaging in "improper behavior" in his home and it was captured in an image via the webcam.
According to the Robbinses' complaint, neither they nor their son, Blake, were informed of the school's ability to access the webcam remotely at any time. It is unclear what the boy was doing in his room when the webcam was activated or if any punishment was given out.
Doug Young, a spokesman for the Lower Merion School District, said the district would only remotely access a laptop if it were reported to be lost, stolen or missing.
Young said if there were such a report, the district first would have to request access from its technology and security department and receive authorization. Then it would use the built-in security feature to take over the laptop and see whatever was in the webcam's field of vision, potentially allowing it to track down the missing computer.
Young said parents and students were not explicitly told about this built-in security feature.
To receive the laptop, the family had to sign an "acceptable-use" agreement. To take the laptop home, the family also would have to buy insurance for the computer.
In an "acceptable-use" agreement, the families are made aware of the school's ability to "monitor" the hardware, he said, but it stops short of explicitly explaining the security feature. He termed that a mistake.
Young added that mistakes might be made when combining technology and education in a cutting-edge way.
All 2,300 students at the district's two high schools were offered laptops to "enhance opportunities for ongoing collaboration and ensure that all students have 24/7 access to school-based resources," according to a message on the superintendent's Web site, which the suit quoted.
Young said the district is proud of the laptop program and the ability to close the technology gap between students who have computers at home and those who don't. But he acknowledged schools will have to take a step back to re-evaluate the policies and procedures surrounding the program.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania isn't involved in the litigation, but its director, Vic Walczak, criticized the school district's action.
"Neither police nor school officials can enter a private home, physically or electronically, without an invitation or a warrant. The school district's clandestine electronic eavesdropping violates constitutional privacy rights, intrudes on parents' right to raise their children and may even be criminal under state and federal wiretapping laws," Walczak said "... George Orwell's '1984' is an overused metaphor, but it applies here in spades. Part of the school officials' punishment should be to retake ninth-grade civics class."
Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation who specializes in electronic privacy, also said the school may have broken federal wire-tapping laws. He called the school district's action "foolish and dangerous," saying the matter could prove to be a warning to other districts.
Multiple requests for further comment from the Robbinses' attorney, Mark Haltzman of Lamm Rubenstone LLC, went unanswered.
-
I'm betting that the students themselves switched on the webcams to do the things kids normally do with computers and webcams these days. Files on the computer were found by administrators and high-larity ensued.
If that's true, then it wouldn't be a problem. In that case, the kid voluntarily took images of his home and and activities and then put them on school property. But that's not what I'm getting out of this.
This:
Young said parents and students were not explicitly told about this built-in security feature.
To receive the laptop, the family had to sign an "acceptable-use" agreement. To take the laptop home, the family also would have to buy insurance for the computer.
In an "acceptable-use" agreement, the families are made aware of the school's ability to "monitor" the hardware, he said, but it stops short of explicitly explaining the security feature. He termed that a mistake.
Young added that mistakes might be made when combining technology and education in a cutting-edge way.
points strongly to the fact that there was no consent involved. Also, if it had just been the case of the kid recording something stupid with the webcam, of his own volition, then the school district would be pointing that out, instead of making dodgy statements.
The fact that the school district hasn't said anything on that makes me think that it was a case of the camera being activated remotely, rather than by the student.
-
You should have kept reading.
To receive the laptop, the family had to sign an "acceptable-use" agreement. To take the laptop home, the family also would have to buy insurance for the computer.
In an "acceptable-use" agreement, the families are made aware of the school's ability to "monitor" the hardware, he said, but it stops short of explicitly explaining the security feature. He termed that a mistake.
So it turns out that the school did have a use-policy indicating the school's ability to monitor the computers, and the families not only agreed to it but actually signed their names to it.
So the problem seems to be that the students/parents were too dumb to understand what they were agreeing to, and that the school didn't anticipate the need to dumb-down their agreement enough to head off this sort of mess.
-
You should have kept reading.
So it turns out that the school did have a use-policy indicating the school's ability to monitor the computers, and the families not only agreed to it but actually signed their names to it.
So the problem seems to be that the students/parents were too dumb to understand what they were agreeing to, and that the school didn't anticipate the need to dumb-down their agreement enough to head off this sort of mess.
Actually, you were the one who needs to keep reading. ;/
Young said parents and students were not explicitly told about this built-in security feature.
To receive the laptop, the family had to sign an "acceptable-use" agreement. To take the laptop home, the family also would have to buy insurance for the computer.
In an "acceptable-use" agreement, the families are made aware of the school's ability to "monitor" the hardware, he said, but it stops short of explicitly explaining the security feature. He termed that a mistake.
Young added that mistakes might be made when combining technology and education in a cutting-edge way.
They were informed that the district may monitor how the laptop was used, but they weren't informed that the camera could be remotely activated. Therefor, there was no consent, at least for that specific feature.
-
I read that as meaning the school told families remote access was a possibility, and that the families agreed to it, but it was left up to parents to understand all that that entailed. And clearly some of them didn't understand.
If the parents were told about the remote access (and it certainly appears that they were), then the school is in the clear as far as I'm concerned. It's up to the parents to be savvy enough to understand what they're agreeing to, and if they don't understand, to stop and ask for clarification.
It certainly was a mistake by the school. Assuming intelligence on the part of the general public is bound to lead to trouble.
-
HTG, you and I agree on a lot of things, but not on this. Or at least not until there's more information. In an earlier post you were engaging in suppositions, not the admittedly slim facts at hand.
Here's what bugs me about this:
"...but it stops short of explicitly explaining the security feature. He termed that a mistake."
The school spokesman said the agreement didn't fully explain the "security feature," and admits that's a mistake.
I don't think this story is finished, so I'm sure we'll have lots more to argue about.
-
Sorry, but an agreement stating that the school can "monitor" the hardware, wouldn't suggest to me that they could remotely access the webcam. There's no reason to believe that the school would have that ability, and every reason to believe that they wouldn't (the concept of inadvertant kiddie porn leaps to mind)...
Until we find out what the "improper behavior" was, there'll be a bunch of questions. But it certainly sounds to me like the school is going to be in trouble...
-
You should have kept reading.
So it turns out that the school did have a use-policy indicating the school's ability to monitor the computers, and the families not only agreed to it but actually signed their names to it.
So the problem seems to be that the students/parents were too dumb to understand what they were agreeing to, and that the school didn't anticipate the need to dumb-down their agreement enough to head off this sort of mess.
To me, "monitoring the hardware" means being able to see if it is turned on, maybe being able to see when it's logged onto the school's network, and perhaps being able to do remote diagnostics (a la PC Anywhere) in the event of a problem. Using the built-in webcam to take pictures of the student and/or other family members is not "monitoring the hardware," that's monitoring the people. And that's illegal without a warrant.
-
I honestly can't believe anyone here is really defending the school district. Monitoring the hardware is one thing, activatig the camera is a completely different animal. I'm wondering how many times this ability was abused, I'm sure the IT guys could easily cover their tracks if they were using this feature for illegitimate reasons. If this was my son I would be sueing too, at the least. I'm really wonderig what this kid did that the school was frowning upon.
This isn't something you would expect as a parent when signing the user agreement. Would you sign it knowing that any pervo IT guy could flipon you childs cam at any time?
-
How would all of y'all supporting the school district for this feel if your employer was doing this with your work laptop?
I don't take a chance, my camera inputs are covered with tape.
Remind me to tell you a story of exactly why. It involves a coworker on a video conference who thought it was just an audio conference...
-
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.
-
And no one has asked the main question that LEAPS out at me.
Was the kids laptop reported as stolen or missing?
If it wasn't, WHY was the remote webcam activated?
There is not one shred of anything that even indicates a hint that the school district even may have suspected that it was stolen or missing, and there doesn't appear to be any report submitted to the IT man asking him to turn on the camera.
Sounds to me like those are going to be some rich people in that school district, and the shool administrators should end up in prison.
-
So the problem seems to be that the students/parents were too dumb to understand what they were agreeing to, and that the school didn't anticipate the need to dumb-down their agreement enough to head off this sort of mess.
So it'll be your fault if OnStar decides to turn off your brakes?
-
i wonder if junior "failed to fully inform " his parents of some aspect or activity he was involved in that triggered the decision to go candid camera. and specifically what behavior was observed
-
i wonder if junior "failed to fully inform " his parents of some aspect or activity he was involved in that triggered the decision to go candid camera. and specifically what behavior was observed
I'm waiting to know why this matters.
-
PS: I had no idea, until this thread, that you could remotely activate a webcam. I assumed that was hollywood BS after seeing it on NCIS.
If I had an employer, and they gave me a laptop, it wouldn't even occur to me that they would activate the webcam to see what I was doing at home.
-
PS: I had no idea, until this thread, that you could remotely activate a webcam. I assumed that was hollywood BS after seeing it on NCIS.
Therein lies the key: a normal, reasonable person (mark your calendars, folks, this is the one time that JJ actually resembles a normal, reasonable person) would not know that they had that capability, and would certainly not expect a school administrator to use it as a video bug in a student's home.
-
Young said parents and students were not explicitly told about this built-in security feature.
To receive the laptop, the family had to sign an "acceptable-use" agreement. To take the laptop home, the family also would have to buy insurance for the computer.
In an "acceptable-use" agreement, the families are made aware of the school's ability to "monitor" the hardware, he said, but it stops short of explicitly explaining the security feature. He termed that a mistake.
Thank you for admitting felony wiretap.
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.
To the folks arguing over the schools "rights" or whatnot to wiretap: The only the law matters in this case. It's a well written, moral law. It was written to protect folks' rights under the state and federal Constitutions. And under it, the school has admitted to multiple felonies.
-
In defense of Jamis, I had no idea anyone could legitimately access my computer remotely. I know that SOB's plant bugs and viruses, but to LEGALLY be able to do it? ???
Official: FBI probing Pa. school webcam spy case
PHILADELPHIA -- A Pennsylvania school district accused of secretly switching on laptop computer webcams inside students' homes is under investigation by federal authorities, a law enforcement official with knowledge of the case told The Associated Press.
The FBI will look into whether any federal wiretap or computer-intrusion laws were violated by Lower Merion School District officials, the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the investigation, told the AP on Friday.
Days after a student filed suit over the practice, Lower Merion officials acknowledged Friday that they remotely activated webcams 42 times in the past 14 months, but only to find missing student laptops. They insist they never did so to spy on students, as the student's family claimed in the federal lawsuit.
Families were not informed of the possibility the webcams might be activated in their homes without their permission in the paperwork students sign when they get the computers, district spokesman Doug Young said.
"It's clear what was in place was insufficient, and that's unacceptable," Young said.
The district has suspended the practice amid the lawsuit and the accompanying uproar from students, the community and privacy advocates. District officials hired outside counsel to review the past webcam activations and advise the district on related issues, Young said.
ad_icon
Remote-activation software can be used to capture keystrokes, send commands over the Internet or turn computers into listening devices by turning on built-in microphones. People often use it for legitimate purposes - to access computers from remote locations, for example. But hackers can use it to steal passwords and spouses to track the whereabouts of partners or lovers.
The Pennsylvania case shows how even well-intentioned plans can go awry if officials fail to understand the technology and its potential consequences, privacy experts said. Compromising images from inside a student's bedroom could fall into the hands of rogue school staff or otherwise be spread across the Internet, they said.
"What about the (potential) abuse of power from higher ups, trying to find out more information about the head of the PTA?" wondered Ari Schwartz, vice president at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "If you don't think about the privacy and security consequences of using this kind of technology, you run into problems."
The FBI opened its investigation after news of the suit broke on Thursday, the law-enforcement official said. Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman may also investigate, she said Friday.
Lower Merion, an affluent district in Philadelphia's suburbs, issues Apple laptops to all 2,300 students at its two high schools. Only two employees in the technology department were authorized to activate the cameras - and only to locate missing laptops, Young said. The remote activations captured images but never recorded sound, he said.
No one had complained before Harriton High School student Blake Robbins and his parents, Michael and Holly Robbins, filed their lawsuit Tuesday, he said.
According to the suit, Harriton vice principal Lindy Matsko told Blake on Nov. 11 that the school thought he was "engaged in improper behavior in his home." She allegedly cited as evidence a photograph "embedded" in his school-issued laptop.
The suit does not say if the boy's laptop had been reported stolen, and Young said the litigation prevents him from disclosing that fact. He said the district never violated its policy of only using the remote-activation software to find missing laptops. "Infer what you want," Young said.
The suit accuses the school of turning on Blake's webcam while the computer was inside his Penn Valley home, allegedly violating wiretap laws and his right to privacy.
Blake Robbins told KYW-TV on Friday that a school official described him in his room and mistook a piece of candy for a pill.
"She described what I was doing," he said. "She said she thought I had pills and said she thought that I was selling drugs."
Robbins said he was holding a Mike and Ike candy, not pills.
Holly Robbins said a school official told her that she had a picture of Blake holding up what she thought were pills.
"It was an invasion of privacy; it was like we had a Peeping Tom in our house," Holly Robbins told WPVI-TV. "I send my son to school to learn, not to be spied on."
Neither the family nor their lawyer, Mark Haltzman, returned calls from The Associated Press for comments this week.
The remote activations helped the district locate 28 of the 42 missing computers, Young said. He could not immediately say whether the technology staff was authorized to share the images with Matsko or other officials.
Either way, the potential for abuse is nearly limitless, especially because many teens keep their computers in their bedrooms, experts said.
"This is an age where kids explore their sexuality, so there's a lot of that going on in the room," said Witold Walczak, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which is not involved in the Robbins case. "This is fodder for child porn.
-
In defense of Jamis, I had no idea anyone could legitimately access my computer remotely. I know that SOB's plant bugs and viruses, but to LEGALLY be able to do it? ???
No, it is not legal unless informed consent is given. I'm banging on very door I possibly can to get the school officials charged with felony wiretap. Considering the school has admitted its guilt, it should be an open and shut case.
This is PA. We do not stand for such activity and hell will freeze over before we let our government officials get away with it.
-
While I wish for the outcome that Revdisk and others do, I have that nagging feeling that some low level IT guy is going to be the one to get thrown under the bus and the school administrators will get off scot free...
Lower Merion officials acknowledged Friday that they remotely activated webcams 42 times in the past 14 months, but only to find missing student laptops.
Sure I believe that... ;/
-
While I wish for the outcome that Revdisk and others do, I have that nagging feeling that some low level IT guy is going to be the one to get thrown under the bus and the school administrators will get off scot free...
Thing we're going to let it go with a sacrificial victim?
Screw that. Those that are guilty must be held accountable. Unfortunately, that probably includes a low level IT guy who will try to cop a Nuremberg Defense. If the low level IT guy pushed the button, he's just as guilty as those that ordered it. If he committed felony wiretap, he still violated the civil rights of a fellow Pennsylvanian and must be held accountable for his crimes. Otherwise, we are no better than any other totalitarian state like Massachusetts or the PRC.
-
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
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
interesting. i suspect something like that might not be illegal under va state law.
-
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]
-
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.
-
I just merged the two topics we had going at once.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
If the purpose is tracking a lost or stolen laptop, wouldn't a remote activated GPS serve better?
-
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.
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. (http://news.cnet.com/Federal-case-may-redefine-child-porn/2100-1030_3-6139524.html?tag=mncol;txt)
-
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. (http://news.cnet.com/Federal-case-may-redefine-child-porn/2100-1030_3-6139524.html?tag=mncol;txt)
Scary stuff.
Any update? That's a fairly old article. Has he been tried yet?
-
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. (http://news.cnet.com/Federal-case-may-redefine-child-porn/2100-1030_3-6139524.html?tag=mncol;txt)
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.
-
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...
-
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.
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
* 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.
-
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.
-
* 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.)
* Disabling the camera was impossible
What, they've forgotten about tape?
-
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.
-
So, anybody heard any updates to this story lately? ???
DD
-
This may count as an update:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/webcam-spy-scandal-broadens/
-
Yep. That counts.
DD
-
any new news? any charges?
-
No criminal charges, of course (because the inherent conflict of interest when government agents are the perps.) School settled class action suit for $600K, which I assume all went to the lawyers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_v._Lower_Merion_School_District
-
did they ever come up with why they went after the kid who got the 175 k?
-
did they ever come up with why they went after the kid who got the 175 k?
60k ish pictures were recovered after the school district tried deleting the evidence.
No motive was specified. Could have just been trolling randomly, could have been targeted. The school administration had a number of stories, often conflicting as folks tried throwing others under the bus. No way to know, as government declined to prosecute, citing lacking "criminal intent" while admittedly violating state and federal law. Victims signed NDAs for a check. School officials have no interest in admitting to more criminal activities.
-
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.
60k ish pictures were recovered after the school district tried deleting the evidence.
No motive was specified. Could have just been trolling randomly, could have been targeted. The school administration had a number of stories, often conflicting as folks tried throwing others under the bus. No way to know, as government declined to prosecute, citing lacking "criminal intent" while admittedly violating state and federal law. Victims signed NDAs for a check. School officials have no interest in admitting to more criminal activities.
Seems I spoke too soon. :facepalm:
-
Seems I spoke too soon. :facepalm:
You forgot that our AG is a gun-runner for the Mexican Mafia, and winks at the New Black Panthers intimidating voters at the polls.
Laws are for little people.
-
The FBI said that there was no proof anyone had criminal intent? YOu don't have to have "breaking the law" as your intent to have criminal intent. You only need to have intent to take some action that is against the law. There's a difference. These are child pornographers and need to be jailed. Instead, the FBI probably hired whoever wrote the software.
-
The FBI said that there was no proof anyone had criminal intent? YOu don't have to have "breaking the law" as your intent to have criminal intent. You only need to have intent to take some action that is against the law. There's a difference. These are child pornographers and need to be jailed. Instead, the FBI probably hired whoever wrote the software.
“For the government to prosecute a criminal case, it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charged acted with criminal intent. We have not found evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone involved had criminal intent. I understand that the civil litigation continues. I chose to make this announcement before the beginning of the school year to close at least one part of this matter.”
http://www.fbi.gov/philadelphia/press-releases/2010/ph081710.htm
Na, the software got bought out by another company and they changed the name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_Manage
-
I read what the FBI said about criminal intent in the original article. Just because they say it doesn't make it so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
-
“For the government to prosecute a criminal case, it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charged acted with criminal intent. We have not found evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone involved had criminal intent. I understand that the civil litigation continues. I chose to make this announcement before the beginning of the school year to close at least one part of this matter.”
http://www.fbi.gov/philadelphia/press-releases/2010/ph081710.htm
Na, the software got bought out by another company and they changed the name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_Manage
Professional courtesy among pedophiles?
-
60k ish pictures were recovered after the school district tried deleting the evidence.
... and no charges were filed.
And I'm sure anyone NOT in the government's employ would get the same treatment after trying to destroy evidence, right?