Sez who- the plaintiff?:dubious: Again, you have simply swallowed the plaintiffs story hook, line & sinker. Why not wait for the whole story, instead of making up your mind based upon just one side of the story? http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/client/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207602622
"*She logged on to her computer remotely using the Back to My Mac program. She discovered that someone was shopping online with her computer, police said. She activated the Webcam and waited for the suspects to appear in front of the monitor. The victim snapped photos of the suspects and turned them over to the White Plains Police Department.
Police arrested to two men, Edmon Shahikian of Katonah and Ian Frias of the Bronx. Police said they retrieved about $5,000 worth of electronics, including two laptops, two flat-screen televisions, two iPods, gaming equipment, and DVDs taken from the victim’s home.
The suspects face felony charges of second-degree burglary and fourth-degree criminal possession of stolen property, according to The Journal News. "*
** Results 1 - 10 of about 17,500 for laptop thief remote access. **
Hyperbole on both sides doesn’t serve the arguement very well. We don’t know that naked photos were taken. Students say the light would come on, but was the webcam activated or not? I would like to see some stronger evidence of this than what has been reported so far.
As a side note, on the assumption that the school was randomly spying on the students inappropriately, how likely / unlikely is it that concrete evidence can be found?
And could some IT dopers advise on what the process would be like? And based on what has been reported so far, is there enough evidence to do the neccessary investigations?
Also, as a serious question.
Moving on from whether or not the computer was reported as stolen.
Once the school had a pix of what they believed was illegal behaviour, what SHOULD they have done?
If the behaviour was “inappropriate” but not illegal, what should they have done? (I put inappropriate in quotes because I can’t imagine what this would be, but hey - I’m sure someone can - maybe a thirteen year old having sex with a thirteen year old would fall into the category “parents must be told”? )
It’s possible that the kid had borrowed and taken home a loaner computer that was not supposed to be taken off school property. This is allegedly one of the scenarios under which the school activated the software (and it’s mentioned at least twice on the school’s website - link below). This would be consistent with the family’s claim that they did not report the computer lost or stolen. I guess it’s also possible that for some other reason the school believed the computer had been stolen or lost even though the student had not reported this.
I talked to a family member who is a public school teacher in another school district, and she said that if a school administration came into possession of a photograph that depicted a student engaging in dangerous behavior, the school might have an obligation to notify the family. If the kid had actually been taking drugs and died of an overdose, the school might face liability if it was later discovered that the school had known that the student was taking drugs but didn’t warn the family.
The school district web page says that the administrator was attempting to be supportive of the student and his family (who knows what that really means, though).
Yes, that is consistent with the known policy and the plaintiffs publicly leaked info. But then, it’s still a computer that was reported lost/stolen or missing.
Hmmm…that’s interesting. And it would put a different spin to the case.
But still and all, I woulda thought that the appropriate response would be to check with the last person to be in possession of the computer before turning on the camera… (but maybe this was done?)
Read the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. You know, the supreme law of the land? The one that trumps even the authority of a school administrator? There is no “expectation of privacy” on the public streets and, in general, in a motor vehicle. There is in four other contexts, which are specified in the relevant amendment.
Your point is valid. I can envision a situation in which McGinley is not lying, but stating the truth as he knows it – district policy is that the webcams are to be activated only when a laptop is reported stolen or missing, to locate it – and someone under him, like Ms. Detsko, is taking it on him/herself to go beyond that (fairly reasonable) policy.
I tend to believe the family. You don’t go to the extreme of filing this sort of lawsuit, and spending the kind of money it takes to retain that firm to bring it, unless you’re outraged by an invasion of privacy and a false accusation against your child. And surely they know that anything they say, like the Mike and Ikes candy and not having reported the laptop missing, is now admissible at trial. So they are not going to lie. But that’s not to say that the District and McGinley are POSs. To build a rule that permits strip searches, under very carefully defined conditions, only when there is a credible threat that a student is carrying a deadly weapon, can easily be warped by an officious bureaucrat with an inflated sense of his/her own authority to conduct one for the heinous crime of having chewing gum in class. At which point everyone is all up in arms. It’s possible that’s what happened here. The two actions McGinley is reported to have taken, of making a statement of the specific circumstances when the webcams had been activated by district policy, and starting an internal investigation as to what happened, conform to that reconstruction of events. But until more facts come out, all we have is speculation, founded on partial information. There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as we don’t confuse speculation with prejudgment.
But Lower Merion school district has very deep pockets. I don’t know what kind of damages it would be possible to get from a school via a lawsuit or a settlement, but if there ever was a prime target, this school is it. I’m not saying that money is the sole motivating factor in this case, but it is something to consider.
Yeah, but…if the school and/or said school administrator(s) were complicit in spying on teens via school-issued computers…that is SO Orwellian. Oh, and bad too.
Read my cite and thousands other cites like it- http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=207602622
*"She logged on to her computer remotely using the Back to My Mac program. She discovered that someone was shopping online with her computer, police said. She activated the Webcam and waited for the suspects to appear in front of the monitor. The victim snapped photos of the suspects and turned them over to the White Plains Police Department.
Police arrested to two men, Edmon Shahikian of Katonah and Ian Frias of the Bronx. Police said they retrieved about $5,000 worth of electronics, including two laptops, two flat-screen televisions, two iPods, gaming equipment, and DVDs taken from the victim’s home.
The suspects face felony charges of second-degree burglary and fourth-degree criminal possession of stolen property, according to The Journal News. "*
Where does it say in the 4th Ad that a thieves right to privacy trumps a property owners right to remotely access their own property? Find me that case. Would that mean all those cases where the police tracked a thief or murderer thru a cell phone he had stole would be thrown out? *Find me that case. *
If it’s my damn computer, and you have stolen it, I can’t imagine it would be illegal for me to turn my computer on remotely, and capture whatever data I can .
But you are right- we are hearing only one side and making judgments based upon insufficient info. Even I am.
The mere fact that the family is the protagonist here makes me want to come down on their side.
Sure, they could be lying, and they could be trying to set up the school…but that seems a little random, and one would hope that the lawyer would weed out an outright fabrication.
I don’t think it’s very fair though to start imagining reasons for why the family might be lying. Until we hear otherwise, the statements should be taken at face value, without convoluted reasons on why they shouldn’t be believed
Perhaps they are exaggerating though…
But it seems to me that the school has more to hide here… still and all, I would like to hear more.
They could be telling the truth, without the whole truth*, hoping that the case will be tried- as is here- in the Court of Public Opinion, forcing a large settlement just for damage control. Pretty common legal tactic, *and it works. *
*for example- if the laptop was a loaner, and not to be take off school grounds, but the kid did so- then “we (the family) didn’t report the laptop stolen to the school” would be a truth. But not the truth. And maybe the kid was eating candy, and the admin said “see we have a pic of your kid eating candy at home in front of a computer he wasn’t supposed to have” would be a truth. But not the truth.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. While we’re waiting for the whole story, let’s talk about it, no?
The plaintiff: “[Blake Robbins] was at home using a school issued laptop that was neither reported lost nor stolen”
True, that’s from the plaintiff. But if the school introduces evidence that the parents or the student reported it stolen (like a police report), don’t you think that would blow that statement up? Do you really think the parents would make such an allegation if they had reported it after all and could be easily revealed?
Also note that the school district has never claimed “the laptop was reported stolen.” Being silent in this regard speaks volumes. Since their claim was that remote activation was intended to be used to recover stolen units, don’t you think they would jump at the chance to say they merely activated it for that purpose? Yet they haven’t. What they don’t say may be more important than what they do.
I looked at the complaint linked on the first page of the thread. As far as I can tell, it doesn’t cite a specific amount but it requests compensatory and punitive damages on several different grounds. On a somewhat related note, though, I noticed on the school website that the school laptops cost 2.62 million dollars.
The Defendants have made NO STATEMENTS ALL ALL ON THE SPECIFICS OF THE CASE. Thus, you can’t read anything at all into what they *haven’t *said. Being silent in this regard sez NOTHING. You are listening to only one side.
And again, maybe the parents did not report it, but maybe the kid did and he’s lying to cover it up. Or maybe it wasn’t his laptop "(note the wording “…using a school issued laptop…” not HIS school issued laptop, and the school reported it missing. )
And, yes, it is quite possible that the district does have evidence “that would blow that statement up”, so? It’s not discovery yet, they don’t have to, nor should they reveal such evidence. Nor would such evidence EVER necessarily get made public Most lawsuits are settled out of court, with most of everything sealed.
Do I *really think the parents would make such an allegation *? Yes. If they either believe their kid, but he’s lying. Or if they are hoping that the case will be tried- as you are doing here- in the Court of Public Opinion, forcing a large settlement just for damage control. Pretty common legal tactic, and it works.
If the school does have indisputable proof that the laptop was reported stolen, wouldn’t that pretty much stop the case dead in the water?
If you were the school’s laywer and that was the case, what would you do? Would you somehow get this information out there to keep public opinion on your side, or keep it quiet?