I don’t know how a Mac would do it, but it wouldn’t be hard on a PC to setup a videoconferencing software (say, Polycom PVX) that is configured to register with an externally-accessible MCU or Gatekeeper. Basically, any time the system was connected to the Internet you’d have a videophone waiting for a call.
Set it to auto-answer and you’d be set.
Not great for sneakily spying on someone, since you’d have things like the software making a ringing sound and the like, but the possibility is there.
That’s a non-Orwellian way that this could have happened, with some dickhead principal checking in on a kid who had called in sick to school that day.
Of course, there are other slightly more sinister ways to have done it, even without having some sort of specific malware installed. Put something like LogMeIn on all of your district PCs. Want to know what’s going on there? Fire it up and see. Want to see what’s going on in front of the camera? Fire up whatever webcam (let me guess - iCam or something) and see what there is to see.
Assuming the complaint is accurate, there are all sorts of possibilities as to what could have been on that computer that is legit or semi-legit. An administrator abusing it would be the most likely cause for all of this. One who is so stupid as to use whatever is found in such a way is just fucking retarded.
“I saw what you did in the locker room young lady! What do you mean, how did I know? I saw it on the surveillance camera. And since I used it to bust you, you can’t complain!”
I don’t know Mac’s either but lots of PCs come with default ‘remote assistance’ software built in. That can access the webcam, apparently without permission. There’s an example of it in this story.
I could see a school having anti-theft / remote assistance software installed on the machine. In fact I guess they were using this software.
I can’t imagine the stupidity that leads to both abusing the software and then acting on information you gained from there. It just doesn’t seem plausible …
It’s possible they thought the laptop was stolen, activated the software, caught the kid doing something bad / illegal and decided to act.
Possible.
But the line of thinking above where the picture was taken by the kid himself and the principal was merely boasting about the capabilities of the software. I.e. it was never actually used. Seems more likely.
And since when did kids get school sponsored laptops? Is this common? Gah, I feel old now.
SD
is glad his laptop has a bright-ass blue LED that lights when the cam is on.
Look at where the video or jpg files are. Are they in emails or on myface (whatever) created by the students, or are they on the hard drive of some school admin guy. People tend to forget that even if you delete a file there are ways to recover it. While you’re in there, look at the video software and see which computer on this “extended server network” is operating it. There will be drivers somewhere in the system. Find the drivers and the main program, and you got the “culprit”.
Yip, and commend the school for finding them since they can claim they were only doing it for law enforcement purposes. It’s just like how a cop can takes someone’s drug stash and be guilty of possession.
But, don’t the police have to get a warrant, in order to “violate privacy”? I’m thinking the restrictions on phone taps etc would or should also apply to video surveillance of someone’s private residence.
That’s a small part of what these idiots are staring down the barrel of, given that giving out laptops to high-school students and remote-activating the webcams is pretty much guaranteed to give you at least one image that meets even a reasonable definition (to say nothing of the definitions the law actually uses) of child pornography…
I find myself glad that when purchasing a new computer, I decided against getting one with a camera at all. If I ever get one, I’ll make sure it’s covered while not supposed to be in use even if it means duct taping a patch over it.
Ahhh, got it. Black electrical tape works quite well, and is easy to remove when you want to. Just make a small fold in one end, so you have a “handle” to grab onto.
One other thing: The OP states that the student was suspended, but the complaint nowhere alleges this or any other discipline. The suit is only about the alleged surveillance.
As others in this thread have already stated, just put some tape on the camera. But why? Yeah, kids are tech savvy but if you have no fear with a builtin webcam – and no direct evidence the camera might be a spycam – why would the thought to cover up the camera ever enter your mind?
If the information was given in a document that is clearly intended to be a legally binding contract, then by signing it you are stating you have been informed of everything in the document, even if you didn’t actually read it.
It is interesting that the complaint mentions an Assistant principal, and the school board disclaimers mention the head of the IT department as the only person notified of “stolen” laptops web cameras, or activating same.
When the stories are not the same, it seems that someone is telling a lie.
Not necessarily. All the complaint says is that the assistant principal confronted the student about the inappropriate picture. So it’s possible that the head of the IT department activated the webcam, saw the inappropriate activity, and then brought it to the assistant principal’s attention.
Yeah, I was a little surprised the class of defendants did not include more people. Lawyers, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it wise to name as many individuals as possible specifically so no one can blame someone else?