Hol-eeee Crap!! School Suspends Student...After Spying on Him

[RaftPeople]

@sevenwood

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.

You are correct, the wiretapping laws (just read it) are very explicit in what they can go after (in an apparent attempt to protect privacy).

There are state laws in PA for video voyeur but not felony.

[slime]

Did the school district file police reports on the other missing/lost/stolen computers? if not why not?

[Pray_for_peace]

This site purports to have a quote from the motion filed by Robbins on Friday seeking a restraining order against the school district:

In their motion Friday, Michael and Holly Robbins of Penn Valley, Pa., asked U.S. District Court Judge Jan DuBois to issue a restraining order preventing the district from remotely activating the webcams on student notebooks. They also requested that the judge block the district from recalling the laptops from students, saying that they believe school officials will then wipe the MacBooks’ hard drives to delete evidence of any camera activation.
…

“There can be no assurances that the School District will disable the use of the remote webcam or, once deactivated, make an internal decision to reactive the webcam,” the motion argued.

Elsewhere in the motion, the Robbins labeled the camera functionality “peeping tom technology,” and disputed the district’s account that cameras had been activated only when a notebook was reported lost or stolen. “[Blake Robbins] was at home using a school issued laptop that was neither reported lost nor stolen when his image was captured by Defendants without his or his parents’ permission and while he was at home,” the motion said.

[Voyager]

@DrDeth

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.

Which it wasn’t, so you are wrong. And if someone turned it on by mistake, they should turn it off and not inflate eating candy into a federal crime.

The AP story said that only two people were supposed to be able to turn on the cameras. I suspect the Asst. Principal was not one of them.

So, the school district lied about how the policy was implemented. It also beggars the imagination that the one time the webcam was turned on by mistake it showed the kid supposedly doing something wrong. It seems more likely there was more general spying going on. I also wonder how webcam activations were measured. I’m sure they counted legitimate ones, but illegitimate ones?

[Voyager]

@runner pat

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.

I don’t get why anyone would think the photo was on the laptop. If a laptop is stolen, turning on the webcam to see who has it (likely a student) makes a lot of sense. You can probably get some evidence to help track it down. Searching the disk makes no sense. The thief’s stuff would be a tiny fraction of the files there, and things like letters or IM logs, not photos, would give a lot more evidence.

In any case, the Asst. Asshat said that they had webcam capability, not disk searching capability.

[running_coach]

@Voyager

I don’t get why anyone would think the photo was on the laptop. If a laptop is stolen, turning on the webcam to see who has it (likely a student) makes a lot of sense. You can probably get some evidence to help track it down. Searching the disk makes no sense. The thief’s stuff would be a tiny fraction of the files there, and things like letters or IM logs, not photos, would give a lot more evidence.

In any case, the Asst. Asshat said that they had webcam capability, not disk searching capability.

Upthread and in the comments section of the online article there has been some speculation that the kid took the picture himself and the school got it from the hard drive or another student the picture was emailed to. This was before the “misbehavior” was known.

[Palooka]

This is one of those cases where I just wish it’d be six months from now already so we can learn who is full of shit.

I bet it’s the kid and his family just 'cause I don’t believe a school board, as a system, could be this ridiculous. The assistant principal probably did something stupid too. I dunno though.

[Skywatcher]

@Palooka

I don’t believe a school board, as a system, could be this ridiculous.

Sometimes they act first and think later.

[running_coach]

@Palooka

This is one of those cases where I just wish it’d be six months from now already so we can learn who is full of shit.

I bet it’s the kid and his family just 'cause I don’t believe a school board, as a system, could be this ridiculous. The assistant principal probably did something stupid too. I dunno though.

The District Admins made the decision to not tell the parents about the monitoring capacity. I’d believe anything.

[Musicat]

@DrDeth

Nothing at all wrong with having a laptop take a pic after it has been reported stolen.

Let’s see if I understand your logic. It’s not OK for the school to look in the laptop owner’s bedroom, but it’s OK to look in someone else’s bedroom without a warrant?

[DrDeth]

@RaftPeople

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.

Cite?:dubious:

Merijeek; more “details” are being leaked from the Plaintiff, the family, not the Defendants.

Dewey Finn Hmm, either the kid is lying about reporting his computer missing, :eek:or the school district is lying.:dubious: Who to believe, who to believe…

[DrDeth]

@Voyager

Which it wasn’t, so you are wrong. And if someone turned it on by mistake, they should turn it off and not inflate eating candy into a federal crime.

Sez who? The plaintiff in a huge lawsuit? :dubious: And no one said it was turned n by mistake, and the story about the candy is coming from just one side. The PLAINTIFF in a LAWSUIT.

You dudes are believing every scrap the plaintiff’s are feeding you, and ignoring what the defendants are saying. The defendants made a 100% believable statement, that the computer camera is only turn on when the computer is reported lost or stolen. The fact that they have refused to comment upon the specifics of the case make them more believable, not less.

[bengangmo]

@DrDeth

Cite?:dubious:

Merijeek; more “details” are being leaked from the Plaintiff, the family, not the Defendants.

Dewey Finn Hmm, either the kid is lying about reporting his computer missing, :eek:or the school district is lying.:dubious: Who to believe, who to believe…

Well, besides the fact that “laptop reported stolen” is a very convenient defense that “excuses” the wrong doing…

But one would presume that “laptop missing” is serious enough that there would be a proper paper trail to record what happened when?

Not least of which one would think that a stolen computer would warrant a police report of some sort.

So although the details are not out yet - I would think that the proof, one way or the other is going to be pretty clear and unequivocal.

Of course, if he school doesn’t have a proper paper trail, it doesn’t mean they aren’t telling the truth, but it does beg the question about proper oversight of turning on a webcam and when and how it should be used.

[DrDeth]

@Musicat

Let’s see if I understand your logic. It’s not OK for the school to look in the laptop owner’s bedroom, but it’s OK to look in someone else’s bedroom without a warrant?

It’s perfectly OK to turn on a security locator, including a camera, to locate your own stolen goods.

Cops catch perps all the time from camera photos in SF, from stolen laptops The “my privacy was violated by the laptop I stole” defense hasn’t seemed to work there. You can also report your car stolen with OnStar, and they’ll locate the vehicle and even slow it down so that the police can apprehend/recover it. It’s even a fucking TV ad. It’s perfectly legal, and it’s not a violation of privacy.

[DrDeth]

@bengangmo

Well, besides the fact that “laptop reported stolen” is a very convenient defense that “excuses” the wrong doing…

But one would presume that “laptop missing” is serious enough that there would be a proper paper trail to record what happened when?

So although the details are not out yet - I would think that the proof, one way or the other is going to be pretty clear and unequivocal. .

Sure, which the School District will that reveal during discovery, not to the public. They should not reveal any specifics about the lawsuit to the press during this period. It’s unethical. The fact that the Plaintiffs are not revealing details means that they are doing the right thing, which IMHO, shows who is lying here.

[DrDeth]

@Voyager

The AP story said that only two people were supposed to be able to turn on the cameras. I suspect the Asst. Principal was not one of them.

So, the school district lied about how the policy was implemented. It also beggars the imagination that the one time the webcam was turned on by mistake it showed the kid supposedly doing something wrong.

You *suspect? *:dubious: Thus = "*the school district lied… * :rolleyes:

Nor has the school district said anything about the camera being turned on by mistake.

You’re just making shit up.

Nor did the school district say what the kid was doing wrong, and since the easiest thing to show the kid doing something wrong was a pic, any pic, any time the kid was using a computer after he had reported it stolen/missing, it’s not hard to believe that coincidence.

[bengangmo]

@DrDeth

Sure, which the School District will that reveal during discovery, not to the public. They should not reveal any specifics about the lawsuit to the press during this period. It’s unethical. The fact that the Plaintiffs are not revealing details means that they are doing the right thing, which IMHO, shows who is lying here.

Huh? Talking to the press is now construed as lying? Well good golly me, I find that a bit screwed up. I hope not too many people have an attitude like that or here comes the death of investigative journalism, and instead of Journalists, everyone will just become reporters.

But I do agree with you on the evidence coming out at trial, so we should wait till all EVIDENCE is in before an opinion is formed, and no just pull assumptions of guilt or innocence based on any other grounds right?

[Musicat]

@DrDeth

It’s perfectly OK to turn on a security locator, including a camera, to locate your own stolen goods.

Cops catch perps all the time from camera photos in SF, from stolen laptops The “my privacy was violated by the laptop I stole” defense hasn’t seemed to work there.

Can you cite any court cases that support your statement?

Which means nothing here anyway, since the laptop wasn’t reported stolen, and students say the camera light went on at random times when theirs wasn’t reported stolen, either. The picture taken wasn’t used to recover a stolen computer and had no relevance to any computer activity at all.

So even if you can point to a court case that permits surveillance on nothing more than suspicion, I’d really like to see a court case that says I can legally take a picture of someone in a state of undress, without their knowledge, in the privacy of their own bedroom.

[DanBlather]

@DrDeth

Sure, which the School District will that reveal during discovery, not to the public. They should not reveal any specifics about the lawsuit to the press during this period. It’s unethical. The fact that the Plaintiffs are not revealing details means that they are doing the right thing, which IMHO, shows who is lying here.

One, it is not unethical. Two, they have released details, that’s how we know what the alleged school policy is and they have stated that the vice principle was not the one who took the picture.

[DanBlather]

Anyone notice that the school said security software was also able to take a picture of the screen? Don’t know how that is physically possible. They probably mean a screen grab.