Big Brother spying? Who'da thunk it!

[RevDisk]

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.

[geronimotwo]

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.

[Tallpine]

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   )

[BrokenPaw]

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   )

Which you would Never Do, because it's a Violation Of Company Policy. 

[MechAg94]

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. 

[Seenterman]

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.

[Boomhauer]

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.

[Monkeyleg]

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?

[bedlamite]

Note to self: put tape over laptop webcam.

[Nick1911]

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?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Is it a school issued, school paid for cell phone?

And did we all sign agreements on acceptable use of the device?

[KD5NRH]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

And did we all sign agreements on acceptable use of the device?

Did those agreements include explicit consent to such an invasion of privacy?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Did those agreements include explicit consent to such an invasion of privacy?

Probably.  Remote access is a pretty common part of such agreements.

[Monkeyleg]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[Monkeyleg]

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.

[dogmush]

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.

[Sergeant Bob]

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.

[Regolith]

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. 

[Jamisjockey]

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?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[Regolith]

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.