Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB (Post 1899629)

Even if parents/students over 18 signed Terms of Use agreements, it doesn't give the school access to the students' home Internet networks. They didn't just record keystrokes like many companies do, they recorded live video and audio, too. They basically placed a video camera inside their students' homes. Not even the police can do that.

A question: is this common nowadays, schools buying laptops for all students? I'm wondering what the school districts are getting out of it. Aside from ensuring all students learn how to use a computer in case they don't have one at home, I'm thinking that schools must be finding other ways to argue for them. After all, computers for every student in a district (assuming this is a district policy and not just a school) is expensive, and yet I'm guessing that most districts that can afford to do this are wealthy districts with families that could likely afford to buy their own laptops.

Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 1900034)

This particular school has $$ to burn, I'm sure. They probably do it so everything submitted will be uniform or something. Unlike a college, I don't think they can compel students to buy a certain computer.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1899768)

Can you say for sure what would have been in the Terms of Use contract? I have no idea, but it's kind of surprising to me that you see it as being so absolute even without knowing what they might have agreed to or what technology they were using. I mean, theoretically, the school could be paying for everyone to have 3G/mobile broadband/whatever to get around the limitations of some kids not having internet access at home. Or more likely that they tried to set up the terms of use so that they attempted to control how the kids would use the computers at home, even off network, and reserved the right to monitor the use.

The fact that one family thinks they can win the lawsuit indicates that they don't think they gave permission for the level of monitoring they think the school was actually using, but I don't automatically assume their claims match reality. Who knows what was really happening?

I don't think issuing computers is common. I think the schools gain being able assume a baseline of technology to then use as support for all classroom assignments. I suspect that there's academic discipline specific software they can use, as well as whatever we'd think of as almost necessary like the basic Microsoft or Open office stuff. It would take the kind of technology that you could use to a new level because you could assume kids could finish stuff at home rather than limiting the work to only what could be completed at home. You could also go to DVD or CD textbooks, internet supplements etc.

My guess is that in addition to the districts that are super affluent and just pay it out of local funds (I think that link from the district at the bottom of my previous post gives the cost in this district), there are other districts or individual schools who do a great job pursuing and using various grants. At least a decade ago at one of our local high schools, the students in one of the AP science classes all got laptops as part of a grant. (I think they just used them for the year and returned, rather than being issued for all of high school.)

But no matter how they are funded, I bet students are issued laptops in fewer than 10% of high schools nationwide.

As far as this particular case, the district claims the software only took still images of the user or the screen in cases when the computer had been reported as lost or stolen (eta: also "missing" what's the difference between a lost computer and a missing computer?)

There's no telling what could end up in the background of the still photo of the user, I suppose, but the whole situation is a little less creepy than the random audio and video webcam monitoring most of us were probably assuming based on the lawsuit.

(Assuming the district is being truthful, just knowing that the kid would have reported the laptop missing* before the software was engaged reduced the creep-factor massively as far I'm concerned. I don't have that much concern about the privacy of someone who stole the laptop or elects to use someone else's reported as lost .)

The district also indicates they have records of the circumstances when the ability was used, and that the claims about the assistant principal, who wouldn't have had access to the software, are incorrect.

Certainly, I have a problem with taping or photographing kids and their families without their knowledge, but it will be interesting to see how the suit plays out.

*re-reading the district's letter, I'm not sure that the kid would have had to report it. They spell out that they used it in cases when students have loaner computers that they took off campus without permission.

Originally Posted by UofM-TKE (Post 1917618)

The civil lawsuit filed by the parents of the student involved in this case with the US Eastern District of PA is online now. There seems to be a lot more to it than was originally known, if you can believe the plaintiff's attorney. http://media.philly.com/documents/MotiontoCompel.pdf

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB (Post 1917735)

This doesn't surprise me one bit. These are people just like any others, who just happen to have a position of power. Doesn't mean they're necessarily anymore trustworthy or decent than another.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1917777)

In you experience, would a case not get this far without merit?

I'm not particularly amazed that school personnel would screw up or abuse power, but it sort of surprises me that you are willing to accept the plaintiffs case as fact.

Is it because of your legal experience and how things typically play out? Or more because it goes along with your general view of human nature and how people with unchecked/unmonitored authority are willing to behave?

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB (Post 1918364)

I'm no lawyer, so obviously not based on legal experience. Just going with my gut that most people who would use this type of tool are probably doing it because they're voyeurs or snoopy, and using the "we had to turn on the webcam to locate the computers!" excuse as a convenient coverup for why they really want to use it. Occur to you that this spyware is ideal for pedophiles?

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1918463)

No doubt this program is really creepy, but I don't think there are a disproportionate number of pedophiles working in schools really. If anything, I think the school system was probably kind of naive about the potential for abuse and thought they have protection in place in terms of records and whatever about how it was used.

And honestly, there's probably not too much that the average creep couldn't find out by looking at kids' facebook and myspace stuff, if the media is to be believed. Not that it justifies the school looking at the kids, but just that I don't think that creepiness or pedophilia was the driving force between setting the program up, if only because non-creeps signed off on the program and real creeps probably were aware of their more limitless, off-work options for creeping.

In hindsight, it would have been a whole lot better to try to go with some kind of GPS tracker on the laptop that couldn't be turned off, if that's what they were trying to do.

I don't know why I thought you were a lawyer, but I did.