School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

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.

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.

[33girl]

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

I can see how much you could step it up if you could assume that everyone had a high level of technology and internet access all the time.

I don't think new technology is usually that important for high school education, but if you had everything else going on in terms of content and instruction AND everyone had an awesome functional laptop at home. . .

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

Was watching a story about this on CNN today, and it sounds like the school/district is lying, or doesn't know what is happening. The IT guys/gals had access to the software, and say they would only turn on the cameras when a computer had been reported missing, stolen or lost. But this student never reported his computer missing, stolen or lost. It seems too-coincidental to me that this administrator was provided with an image (apparently provided by the IT guys/gals, who they say are the only ones with access to the images) taken of this kid in his bedroom doing something they thought was illegal...at that very moment. Turns out he wasn't doing drugs, as they thought, but he WAS eating Mike & Ikes. The school is denying that the boy was shown any photos, but c'mon, how else would the kid even know about the software?

As part of the segment they had a professor of media law on, and he was commenting about how this is a pretty slam-dunk case for the filers. Not only will they likely win their civil suit, but now the FBI is investigating! As a government institution, the school is prohibited from illegal search (and obtaining anything gathered from an illegal search) - they must have a warrant, which would not be granted to a school, anyway. The FBI has apparently obtained images/data/who-knows-what-else from the school and is looking through it for evidence of constitutional rights violations, invasion of privacy (child pornography, peeping Tom-type stuff), etc. violations.

If you ask me, my gut suspicion is that this school district just decided that if they were providing laptops to students, they could monitor them at all times to see how they were being used. That included recording usage of the Webcam to make sure the students weren't abusing them. What they didn't think about (DUH!) was that they would catch kids doing things with the Webcams that they have a perfect right to do in their homes without being spied on. Not illegal stuff...just private stuff. I bet they didn't run this specific software and how it was going to be used by the legal team of the district. It is also possible that they have a pervert or two in the IT department who get their kicks watching the recorded vids of students in various states of undress and doing whatever else teenagers do.

The reason I doubt the agreement covered the Webcam recording specifically, at least in this detail? I'm assuming the parents in this super wealthy district are educated and don't just unquestionably do whatever the school tells them to do. I went to school in a district like this, and we had a hell of a lot of lawyers, businessmen, etc. as parents who sure didn't just go along for a ride. If there had been anything too hinky in an agreement like this, there's no way they would have signed it - they would have just bought their kid their own computer. This is just a school...and from experience we all know that there are plenty of h.s. teachers and administrators that are bumbling fools. When I do have kids I'll be darned if I just sit down and shut up if my kids' school ever tried to do something illegal or highly inappropriate to them.

[UGAalum94]

I don't think many parents sit back and take it when schools do bad stuff to their kids, nor should they, but there are a lot of people who don't read the fine print when they sign the paperwork for something that seems beneficial and no cost to them.

I doubt the contract spelled out approval to spy on the kids, but I think it's possible that it granted freedom to monitor use of the computer in a way that the district thought that covered what they were doing, and that, assuming that the district did only what they say they did, I suppose the court will have decide the limits of.

Have you seen the photo of the kid in question or seen direct reference to what happened to him with the school, other than his own suit? I've seen comments about candy, but I've also seen comments, maybe on ATL, about the kid having a lot of drug references on his publicly accessible facebook page, including photos that appeared to have been taken with his webcam.

I'd be about as baffled about why school personnel would try to act on what they saw on a kid's facebook or even why they'd be looking at it, but I think it's possible, if the comments about his facebook are correct, that a principal could say something to the kid about drug use based on having seen the image elsewhere.

I have reservations about whether it's plausible that the school used the software exactly as they claim, but I also have reservations about believing that the kid was disciplined at school because they took a picture of him taking what they thought was a pill at home.

It just doesn't make sense no matter how they gained their knowledge. Schools don't typically, in my experience, try to investigate and punish kids for their off campus drug use.

It will be really interesting to see what else comes out in the case, assuming that it gets released to the public.

It's not that I don't think the district lacks a motive to lie, but I think that the kid's claims are suspect too.

ETA: well, I can think of some cases in which schools tried to drug test kids with either blanket testing or random testing, and I've seen consequences in extra-curriculars for arrests or convictions, but the policies were either pretty immediately legally challenged or so ridiculously spelled on in advance to make them hard to compare to this. For all the reasons that you think, Peppy, that the parents wouldn't have signed terms that granted the school too much ability to monitor the kids, I can't see how the district or any of its personnel would think that doing what they are accused of was ever going to fly. If you work in a relatively lawyered up community, you learn to be sensitive to the legal limits of your authority, I think. The behavior they are accused of just seems so legally risky as to defy belief unless maybe they thought they had advanced permission because of the scope of releases to participate or they really did use it in the limited way they claim. But I guess I've been amazed by stupidity before.

[UofM-TKE]

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

PHILADELPHIA — A suburban Philadelphia family claiming school employees spied on students through school-supplied laptops says tracking software captured thousands of images of students. The motion filed Thursday by the family of Harriton High School student Blake Robbins says the records provided to them by Lower Merion School District also asserts that staff members viewed the images as a window into a school "soap opera."Robbins filed a federal lawsuit in February claiming the district spied on students in their homes.

District officials have acknowledged secretly activating webcams to locate 42 missing laptops. They say Robbins' webcam was activated because he wasn't authorized to take the laptop home.
A school attorney says there's no indication that images were misused.

[33girl]

Ewwwww. That Carol Cafiero chick sounds beyond creepy.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by UofM-TKE

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

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

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.

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?

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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?

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?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

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?

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.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

I agree with this. I don't think there are necessarily more pedophiles in schools, just that a tool like this plays right into the hands of someone who might be interested in it for that purpose. But overall I just find this whole story to be creepy because of the naivete (or stupidity) of the administrators who would allow this software in the first place, not assuming that it could be used in all-the-wrong-ways. I feel that in their positions, they need to be thinking about cause and effect of their actions, and when it comes to children (even those "wild" teenagers), an abundance of caution should be taken to protect them. Then there's the legal issues I would think the district lawyers would be concerned about opening themselves up to.

Though I am not a lawyer, I do work in PR and work quite a bit in difficult situations...and I work frequently with lawyers

[UofM-TKE]

This is the latest from the Lower Merion Webcam case. I live kind of close to the area.

Pa. district took 56,000 images on student laptops.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_laptop...ng_on_students

By MARYCLAIRE DALE, Associated Press Writer – Tue Apr 20, 8:24 am ET
PHILADELPHIA – A suburban school district secretly captured at least 56,000 webcam photographs and screen shots from laptops issued to high school students, its lawyer acknowledged Monday.

"It's clear there were students who were likely captured in their homes," said lawyer Henry Hockeimer, who represents the Lower Merion School District.

None of the images, captured by a tracking program to find missing computers, appeared to be salacious or inappropriate, he said. The district said it remotely activated the tracking software to find 80 missing laptops in the past two years. The Philadelphia Inquirer first reported Monday on the large number of images recovered from school servers by forensic computer experts, who were hired after student Blake Robbins filed suit over the tracking practice.

Robbins still doesn't know why the district deployed the software tracking program on his computer, as he had not reported it lost or stolen, his lawyer said.

The FBI has opened a criminal investigation into possible wiretap violations by the district, and U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, of Pennsylvania, has introduced a bill to include webcam surveillance under the federal wiretap statute.

[UGAalum94]

Even when you subtract the 38,000 that came from six stolen computers, it's mindboggling.

[Lafayette79]

School District Settles WebcamGate
Settlement worth more than $600,000

Lower Merion School District has settled the webcam case that made national headlines after students accused school officials of spying by using the webcam installed on school-issued laptops.

School Board President David Ebby: "Earlier this summer, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI and the Montgomery County District Attorney cleared the District, and its employees - current and former -- of any criminal wrongdoing".

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/...104746984.html