I didn’t see anything there to indicate that the laptops automatically took photos at home. But it looks like the spyware was working even when the laptop was in the school network. But thanks for the link - unless they wrote a random theft report generator, it looks pretty bad. The school administration is clearly clueless, but I think we can start constructing the gallows for the IT guys.
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
Okay, even ignoring the massive privacy violations involved with that, what’s the point? If they’re accessing the internet outside of school, presumably they aren’t using it to goof off in school. No way the school’s jurisdiction extends that far. Just…wow.
I’d bet that the parents have deep pockets also - and good lawyers. Do you really think that lying about something so easily verified would be a good legal strategy?
What ever the district says or doesn’t say, if this was totally bogus we’d probably not see lots of confirmation. Instead we see lots of reports of the webcam light going on at random times, and a bs response from the IT people. Very odd if there was nothing to this, very easy to explain if there is.
This. He was “busted” for inappropriate activity- eating candy. If they had busted him for misreporting the laptop as stolen, then they could say they used the camera as part of the effort to recover it. Then they could also take action against him for that. * still woner about that computer (or several computers?) being remotely activated 42 times.
Were there really 42 computers stolen (or reported stolen)? Or ws it just his, stolen a lot of times.
Added on edit:
At this point, I suspect there won’t be any police reports on file for these ummmmm 42 computers. Why? I think it’s a last ditch effort to save some asses, after the fact.
In the webcast, the school’s network tech Mike Perbix says that the laptop periodically queries the school’s server whenever it is connected to the internet. In the event that the server is told that the tracking feature for that laptop is enabled, the laptop will begin to send out “heartbeats” which contain a screenshot, webcam pic, local network information, and tracert information to the server over that internet connection. This segment of the webcast is available on youtube here.
That’s also possible, but also makes no sense. If this computer was issued to him at the beginning of the school year, who else would or could report it lost, missing or stolen?
The family may or may not have as much money as the school district - I don’t know. I don’t know whether or not the family is misrepresenting or mistaken about any part of the story. It does sometimes happen that facts that are alleged in a complaint are not correct, though. That can happen through an honest misunderstanding or lack of access to relevant facts, too.
If you mean they would confiscate the “unauthorized” computer, good luck with that. Some clown comes here to “confiscate” anything that belongs to us (and that includes The Kid), can sit here and wait for the police to pick him up, because he won’t be taking anything.
If brought to school, it would be confiscated.
Just to play devil’s advocate for a moment, I can see a legitimate reason to only use school issued laptops. Who knows what malware might be on a students personal laptop?
Was the computer issued to him at the beginning of the school year? Did he have the same computer the whole time? I didn’t see that in the complaint. I don’t know.
I agree it is unlikely that a teacher or IT person would report a student’s laptop missing, lost or stolen. It is possible, though. I wouldn’t say it makes no sense.
http://www.saveardmorecoalition.org/node/4216
I believe this is what is meant by confiscated. It involved personal property on school grounds; the school probably does posses this authority; it’s just that its enforcement in this context also seems draconian. If you’re requiring the students to use laptops in class, why can they not use their own?
In schoolit is a different matter, and yes malware/viruses/security would be valid reasons on school property…
provided it was not a permanent confiscation.
Malware/viruses/security becomes a total non-issue if only the school would instead of sending expensive laptop to the students homes, would require all school work to be done using a school generated Linux boot CD. I’m not a raving Linux fan-boy (typing this on a Windows 7 machine), but this seems like a no-brainer. Make PC and Mac versions available, give the students USB keys to save their work to, and log the hours the students are logged into the school Linux system - requiring a minimum amount of time per school night. Once done, the students can reboot their machines back to their usual malware encrusted state.
Since the laptops could be taken home, I don’t see how anyone but the student and family could report them stolen - not being in the school was the normal case, not the abnormal case. So, either the family is lying or the laptop was not reported stolen by anyone with a legitimate reason to do so.
If the family had not seen the picture, I can see them being deluded about the innocence of the kid. I wonder if they were handed a copy?
I just read the complaint, and it alleges only that the photo was taken by the webcam and transmitted to the district. It could have been stored on the computer as part of the process (and probably was) but that was not in the complaint. The recital of the laws did mention information stored on computers, but the relevance here seemed to be the software used to take the picture, not the picture itself.
If the district also scanned disks for improper content, that would not be covered in the complaint as I read it. Employers are permitted to scan the disks of employees if they own the computers. Assuming the district owned these, I don’t think scanning the disks would be violation of privacy. I’d guess that the rules of the program forbade students from loading anything improper onto the disks.
If I’m reading the complaint wrong, please give me the page number of the claim.
