Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!

[Grandpa Shooter]

 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.

[HankB]

"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.

[AZRedhawk44]

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.

[Grandpa Shooter]

Can you repeat that in English this time?

[Jim147]

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

[Monkeyleg]

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.

[BrokenPaw]

Can you repeat that in English this time?

"It's bad, mmmkay?"   

[AZRedhawk44]

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.

[lee n. field]

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.

[AZRedhawk44]

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.

[makattak]

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?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[makattak]

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.)

[BrokenPaw]

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 () for this to still have massive criminal implications.

-BP

[AZRedhawk44]

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.

[makattak]

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...

[Monkeyleg]

OK, you just turn on the camera on the laptop of the hottest girl in school.

[sanglant]

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.

[AZRedhawk44]

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.

[makattak]

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!)

[HankB]

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.)

[AZRedhawk44]

(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.

[RevDisk]

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.

[Cromlech]

I'm also on board with it being very naughty unless prior consent was sought out and given.

[AZRedhawk44]

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.