I looked at the school website. There are “network technicians” that are guys. There are laptop and desktop technicians that are women. I don’t know which if any of these people would have been involved with the software at issue. But my point is really that people are assuming facts that they don’t know are true. I think it’s interesting to speculate based on the facts we do know, but I think you have to be careful when you do, that’s all.
But did anyone report it lost or stolen? The kid’s family didn’t.
Right. We don’t know whether it was reported missing or not. Also, someone else other than the kid could have reported it stolen, lost or missing (e.g., a teacher).
You’re right. It’s very important that all occurrences of “him” be replaced with “him/her” and all occurrences of “his” be replaced with “his/her” and all occurrences of “guys” with “guys and/or gals” in any and all cases where the gender of those involved can not be absolutely determined we find a non-gender-specific pronoun.
Because that’ll be totally helpful.
-Joe
Well since it wasn’t stolen, that would be a false report.
I can understand why you responded that way, but that’s really not it at all. I hate seeing him/her. I really don’t have a problem with the assumption that an IT professional is probably a guy.
What I was trying to point out (perhaps I chose a poor example to illustrate this, since the gender thing is sensitive) is that people are making a lot of assumptions about what happened in this case, without knowing the facts. I think it is fun to speculate, but we should be clear about what we do and don’t know.
So what? And stolen is only one of three options. It could have been reported missing.
By whom, the unrepentant Mike and Ike eater?
To justify spying on someone in their own personal space you have to show evidence that they were committing a crime. In the thief sting example we know someone stole the laptop, because it’s part of the narrative.
However in the school story we don’t have a gosh darn clue why they turned on the bug. Until someone provides legitimate evidence that the school thought the laptop was stolen, then any analogies of stolen laptops do not apply.
No. Leaving a laptop alone to rush to the restroom is not entrapment.
If there were an undercover cop at the next table, saying, “Hey, that guy left his laptop alone – you should steal it!” then you’d have entrapment.
It might be.
If the laptop was reported stolen, then it seems clear the police (or the school) may activate the camera without offending the Fourth Amendment.
If you disagree with that statement, then answering my thought experiment would be a good start to flesh out why you disagree.
The school spokesman has said, in effect, “We don’t turn on the camera unless the laptop is reported lost, missing, or stolen. I can’t say what we did to get this particular picture, because of the pending lawsuit, but draw your own conclusions.”
We don’t have the school’s “story” yet - they haven’t filed a response to the complaint in the lawsuit.
They have posted some information on their website. They say that their policy is to activate the tracking software if the computer is reported lost, missing or stolen. With a laptop that is owned by the school and operated by the student, it’s reasonable to assume that the reporting could be done either by the student or by a teacher or someone else at the school. One hypothetical scenario offered by the school is that a loaner laptop that is intended for use only on school property is considered missing if it is removed from school property. There are other scenarios that would fit the alleged facts, but I don’t think it’s necessary to discuss them.
The thing that bugs me is what the heck does “improper behavior in his home” even mean?
http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2010/02/spy-at-harrington-high.html
Some updates on the matter.
The software they were using is LanRev. The school sysadmin had blogged about it at length. Bad idea.
Apparently, all the laptops were configured so they’d start sending screenshots, IP address info and camera shots, as soon as they get online from anywhere outside the school’s network.
Further, the laptop was mandatory for classes. Using your own would get it confiscated. Isn’t that nice?
From evidence in that blog post, from the school sysadmin discussing the program at length, the school spokesman has no idea what the hell he’s talking about. Enjoy.
I hope the student’s family finds out about this post, it’s pretty much clear and clean.
No, he didn’t. Like I noted earlier, it’s instructive to notice what is said and not said. What he said, in effect, is, 'It’s the school district’s policy not to turn on the camera unless…" He neither affirmed nor denied that this was how they got that picture. And let us note that Blake reporting his computer missing and/or having a school loaner laptop is pure speculation, fueled by the school district’s more general comments.
As Joe Freakin’ Friday might say, “Just the facts, please.”
If the kid reported the computer stolen, then I have no problem with the school turning on the webcam remotely, in an attempt to locate it. The problem is that the kid and his family deny having done so, and the school claims that they’ve only used the remote monitoring in cases of lost or stolen laptops. So the problem is the disconnect between those statements.
Once again, it seems, from the system administrator’s own words, the laptops were configured to start taking photos (and uploading them to the school server) as soon as they went online from somewhere outside the school’s network. Like a student’s home.
This explains how the VP got the photo. See my post above.
No. The school said that the program is activated if the laptop is reported stolen, lost OR MISSING. It is possible (although we do not know this) that the laptop was reported missing by someone other than the student’s family (e.g., a teacher could have reported it missing).
ETA: It also could have been reported stolen or lost by someone other than the student or his family (e.g., a teacher).
Here is another example. If your cell phone gets stolen, I’d think that getting a log of calls made on it after it was stolen (or looking up the log on line) would not require a warrant. It’s a lot different from getting a call log from someone else, right? So I agree that turning on the Webcam - if the computer was reported stolen - wouldn’t be a problem.
Isn’t LoJack another instance of this. Bugging someone else’s care with a tracker would be illegal, perhaps - bugging your own is not. I’d guess that theft doesn’t transfer legal ownership.
Thanks for the information. I can’t believe this IT guy was blogging under his real name about a security system that he was administering at work. If this bolded part in your quote is true, there should be thousands of pictures, right? I guess I’m not tech savvy enough to understand where the bolded part is explained in his blog. Can someone point me to the quote?