I’ve tested keylogger-activity-logger spying software that isn’t findable on a system. It does not show up under the startup files, processes, services or applications. It can log keys pressed, programs accessed, websites visited, take screenshots every 10 seconds, take webcam pix, and will email the files to you at pre-designated times. And this one is meant for home PC use. Business spy software is much more elaborate.
You know what, I started out pissed off about how you guys responded to me, but I don’t think I was reading for comprehension. Or to be more specific, I didn’t realize you guys completely did not understand what I was saying. And a lot of that was my fault.
Those of you whining about me being in authority need to remember the part where I say the school still should get in trouble. Yeah, I minimized that part, but it’s there. I don’t think the law should generally be broken to capture people, but I think it’s stupid that any evidence gathered that way has to be completely thrown out. Don’t reward someone who does something illegal in order to punish the other person. Punish both.
What else in my post do I need to cover? Um, let’s see:MsRobyn probably has the best point, as she pointed out that the evidence should have been taken to the police, instead of the school trying to enforce anything.
I tried to explain why privacy wasn’t my main concern: It’s just not something I get worked up about. Most of the time, when I see people worked up about it, it’s because something else happened that was wrong. Rarely have I seen people get upset about true privacy issues: someone knowing something that they shouldn’t. It’s either code word for saying “I shouldn’t have been caught”, or someone doing something with the information that they shouldn’t. Oh, and I guess there are illegal searches–but those would be trespassing or worse.
The issue is not really privacy: it’s the harm people do to each other.
Then I finally got into my opinion on drugs: I don’t think someone who is unqualified should ever be handing them out. There may be good reason for someone to need drugs, but you as a dealer have no way of knowing that, and should err on the side of caution.
There. That’s the best I can explain everything I said. It was poorly written, I admit. I hope this makes more sense. I mean, it still makes sense to me, but I do think I could understand why it wouldn’t to others. I apologize for the hijack, but I feel I needed to explain myself.
BTW, MsRobyn probably has the best point, as she pointed out that the evidence should have been taken to the police, instead of the school trying to enforce anything. But I didn’t get the Kravits thing. The only Kravitz I can find is Lenny, and I saw nothing to indicate how he might be relevant to what we were talking about.
Let’s stop with the word games. I don’c care if we call it a repimnd, a scolding, "gettiing puked on, calle on the carpet, or playing the dozens. The school grossly over stepped their authority, spied on people (I think it was) 42 times, and falsely accused someone of being a pill popper. It doesn’t matter if it was very foram, spoken in Old English while wearing a tuxedo, or “You’re a lousy stoner and we gotcha now”. An accusation is an accusation. Even if the student was high as a kite, there are still laws about probable cause, reasonable search, search warrants, and laws about electronic surveillance/wiretap etc. Just because you work in the school system, doesn’t mean you are are above the law. I wonder how this will play in Civics class, when they talk about our “wonderful country where we all have rights and all are considered innocent until proven guilty and dignity of man amd rule of law blah blah blah”,
Screw the word games, they messed up. If the FBI is now involved it means they didn’t just mess up, they fucked up. So no let’s discuss the differences between mess up a and fuck up.
In short, they fucked up and whether we call it reprimand, dressing down, or puking on makes no difference.
Apparently some people think they can do anything they please. No they can’t.
So they turned on the cameras about 42 times. Only to look for stolen laptops. 42 times. The sheer numbr of times calls bullshit to their motives. They were simply spying for the sake of spying.
42 times.
They fucked up.
And that software would be [link]?
Assuming it’s not illegal, there should be no problem providing it. I’m curious as to how it is advertised.
Mrs. Kravitz was the Stevens’ neighbor on “Bewitched”. She was extremely nosy.
I didn’t say “permanent record.” Here’s the quote that refers to his student record (bolding mine). Either the matter was actually placed in his student record, or the attorney brought up a hypothetical issue that doesn’t reflect well on his client, and is misleading and inflammatory regarding the school’s actions.
Yes, I noticed exactly what the family said and did not say. That’s why I linked and quoted the article, and used the word “suggested.” I would say that if the parents know that the school did NOT take the picture, then their statements are pretty misleading. (They said that they had not reported the laptop stolen, that they did not send their kid to school to be spied on, and they wondered if their daughter had also been spied on.) They are clearly allowing people to draw the inference that the picture of the boy was taken by the school through the remote access software. Their statements sound carefully scripted to me, and I think the article captures that quite well.
The reason I think that this matters is just what you mentioned - actually using the remote access software to take photographs of students is a much more serious issue (and possibly a crime) as opposed to merely having the capability to do so. The lawsuit claims the latter, but the family’s statements to the media suggest the former.
Seems like someone leaking the picture would make this nice and easy. Is it some pinhead snapping pictures of himself chowing down on Red Bennies for his friends to see (you think it’d be on Facebook, then), or is it some kid jerking it to TittyTube unknowingly in front of a camera?
-Joe
Still a huge problem. If you allow it, it will get abused.
Yep, “hey police, we snapped a picture of a kid eating Mike and Ikes, in his bedroom”.
No, that’s irrelevant, they shouldn’t have been monitoring the kid in the first place.
This is why people don’t want a person like you in a position of authority.
The issue is privacy, period.
Which is all completely irrelevant.
They have no business monitoring the kids (or anyone) when there is an expectation of privacy.
It’s not their job and we have laws against it, for good reason.
From the update:Link.
All the articles so far have a timeline that have the student arriving at school and being confronted with the photograph at that time. No mention that the laptop was turned in for maintenance and the photo was found at that point.
Nope, i remembered that part fine. You’re still a scary asshole who, we can only hope, is never trusted with any form of authority.
It appears that in each and every time, the laptop had been reported stolen, and in fact in 18 or so of those, the stolen laptop was recovered.
"*Doug Young, spokesman for the Lower Merion School District, told CNN that the district would only remotely access a laptop if it was reported lost, stolen or missing.
If that happened, the district would first have to request access from its technology and security department and receive authorization, he said. 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 them to track down the missing computer.
During the 2009-2010 school year, 42 laptops were reported lost, stolen or missing, and the tracking software was activated by the technology department in each instance, according to McGinley’s statement. A total of 18 laptops were found or recovered.*
And,I’ll bet it comes out that the kid reported hi laptop stolen or lost, and that the issue is that the captured image simply proved he was lying when he made the report.
Nothing about drugs, candy or anything. Pure and simple- student reported his laptop stolen or lost, they activated security system, which showed kid still had computer.
Nothing at all wrong with having a laptop take a pic after it has been reported stolen.
Yeah, it’s so airtight you think the district’s first statement would have been, “It was reported stolen, and as part of our recovery process the webcam was activated and it was found that the student had fraudulently reported the laptop stolen.”
Wait, no, instead they busted him for “inappropriate activity”.
-Joe
One a lawsuit has been filed, they cannot properly comment upon the specifics of that case outside of the courtroom. All they can do is give general comments about regulations, processes ect.
I don’t agree with it, but it seems like a reasonable position for someone to hold that evidence gathered illegally can be admissible, and that those responsible for illegally gathering evidence must also be subject to criminal prosecution. Perhaps there would be some requirement that the *authority *in question confess to committing a crime subject to mandatory prosecution and minimum sentencing before the evidence is admitted to the court.
I don’t agree with that position, personally. But it’s not something I would pit BigT or anyone for holding.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587073,00.html
It just gets better and better:
…“While certain rules for laptop use were spelled out … there was no explicit notification that the laptop contained the security software,” McGinley said. “This notice should have been given, and we regret that was not done.”
The district’s Web site said 42 activations of the system resulted in the recovery of 18 computers, not 28 as district spokesman Doug Young had said earlier. They reiterated that it was done only to locate lost, stolen or missing laptops.
“The district has not used the tracking feature or webcam for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever,” the Web site said. The site also noted that there was nothing to prevent students from covering the webcam with tape."
there was nothing to prevent students from covering the webcam with tape?
Except that it’s a felony if it’s in his home.
So, other than the fact that it’s a felony, you are correct, there is nothing wrong with it.
But there still is the minor point that it’s a felony.
Really? It seems to me more and more details are leaking out.
-Joe
I’m not defending the school district in any way here. But an article in this morning’s Philadelphia Inquirer mentioned that federal wiretapping laws currently specifically cover taking sound recordings but not pictures. (Apparently we have another case of technology advancing faster than the legal process.)
That same article did say, though, that the FBI and police departments routinely ask for court authorization before installing equipment with picture-taking capability just to ensure that any case they may subsequently build with the aid of those pictures will be air-tight.
Possibly, but this is not consistent with what the boy and his family told CBS News, which is that he didn’t report the computer missing, and that he was eating candy in the photo.
Since we are speculating without evidence, my guess is that they suspected the kid of doing and/or dealing drugs and thought, “Hmm, let’s just have a peek, what can it hurt.” Saw hime eating candy, but with their previous suspicions thought it was drugs and boom, lawsuit.