

US says it is not illegal for schools to spy on students at home  - wil2k
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1728400/us-illegal-schools-spy-students-home

======
goodside
The article's conclusion is absurdly misleasing given the information
presented in its source. The US Attorney did _not_ claim that spying on
students is legal, nor did he claim that the school staff did not intend to
spy on the students, nor did he even claim that no admissible evidence of a
crime existed. He claimed the investigators _failed to find_ any such
evidence. This is quite possible even if all of the first three conditions are
true--it wouldn't exactly be the first time that cops botched protocol and
made evidence key to prosecution inadmissible. The statement does not
necessarily reflect any opinion as to whether invasive surveillance of
students is legal.

~~~
marze
You over-complicate.

1\. School officials take pictures of students at home without their
knowledge.

2\. Investigation occurs.

3\. No charges, because no "criminal intent"

Sure looks like a reasonable conclusion is that the spying is not illegal in
the absence of "criminal intent".

~~~
electromagnetic
Note: it's not considered a criminal act, it doesn't mean any of these
students (or their families who could also have been photographed, who again
could file criminal charges themselves) cannot file civil charges against
their school/teachers.

Under criminal law in the US, AFAIK in the absence of criminal intent it's
very hard to get charges laid. Courts don't want to extend strict liability
onto serious cases, because you'll be landing every doctor in jail for
malpractice, negligence or simply not doing enough. I doubt courts would
extend strict liability onto any 'spying' infraction, because it would make
essentially any wiretapping, etc. to be prosecuted essentially as guilty-
until-proven-innocent.

Although I know in the UK sexual offences are strict liability, and as far as
I've seen it follows similar lines in the US too, so one inappropriate picture
would have likely turned this result 180.

------
GiraffeNecktie
It is, however, illegal to openly record a police officer in a public place
executing his or her official duties.

Go figure.

~~~
hga
Only in Massachusetts (settled case law) and Illinois (where the law was
rewritten to make this crystal clear, however it hasn't yet been tested in the
courts). The executive side of Maryland is split on this (charges are being
brought at the local level while the state AG says it's bunk) and it hasn't
been tested in the courts there.

In other states where this (too) frequently happens like Pennsylvania the
locals get reliably slapped down when they try it.

~~~
lambda
Actually, in Massachusetts it's only illegal to _secretly_ record a police
officer. Openly recording a police officer, with your cell phone for instance,
is fine, with several cases setting precedent.

[http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010...](http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/?page=full)

Of course, given the precedent here, it sounds likely that you will get
arrested and your phone confiscated, and have to spend several months fighting
your arrest in court. But there are several recent cases that were overturned
because the recording was done openly with a cell phone, rather than secretly.

I can't speak to other states. It will vary by states, and in most cases, you
may be arrested and your phone confiscated until you fight it in court. Have
your local ACLU phone number handy.

~~~
enjo
Just to be clear on this as well. In MA dual-consent is only required when one
party has a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's been extended to include
secretly taping someone in public (if the camera is hidden, the other party
has a reasonable expectation of privacy). In a public place you can record to
your hearts content.

This whole thing is about whether or not police have a right to privacy during
their work. I think when this finally hits a court of note that it will be
smacked down pretty hard. Courts have already found, for instance, that there
is no reasonable expectation of privacy during a traffic stop for the person
being stopped. Officers are now attempting to claim that privacy right for
themselves, and it seems REALLY unlikely that they will succeed in doing that.

*note: I run a business that (as part of what we do) records phone calls, so we've had to deal with some of these issues. I'm not a lawyer and probably not exactly an expert.. I just know enough to be pretty damn dangerous:)

~~~
jbooth
Yeah, as I understand it, the law in question in MA is targeted at any
interaction, not specifically those that involve police. All else being equal,
both parties deserve to know that recording is happening.

"This call may be recorded for quality assurance", right?

~~~
pyre
If you're trying to capture police misdeeds on camera, then asking for the
approval of the police, or announcing loudly to them that they are being
recorded seems to miss the point. If anything, the police should have _less_
of an expectation of privacy (in their job) than a normal person. We've armed
them and given them the discretion to kill if necessary, why shouldn't we be
able to heavily audit them to make sure that they aren't abusing that power?

~~~
ataggart
Why? Because, according to the Fraternal Order of Police, "at some point, we
have to put some faith and trust in our authority figures."[1]

[1] [http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/09/police-officers-
dont-c...](http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/09/police-officers-dont-check-
the)

~~~
pyre
You surrender a lot of your rights when you join the military, why should the
police force be any different? We arm and train them in practically the same
manner.

------
jacquesm
Weirdest conclusion. An out of control school should be brought back in to
line, intent has nothing to do with it. Privacy was breached or it wasn't,
whatever the intent.

That should only come in after it has been established that privacy was
breached, which should be an offense. That should lead to a conviction with
reduction of the sentence based on the intent, not on having the case dropped
or not filing charges.

~~~
wil2k
Indeed.

If this conclusion is extrapolated, what's next? pedophiles looking at
pictures of naked children e.g. to make sure they don't have bruises because
of abuse by their parents!?? Then such a person can claim not to look at those
pictures for for "bad reasons", to give a more extreme example..

Very, very worrying conclusion.

------
mattchew
I hope this isn't over yet. Can the parents can still file a civil suit even
if prosecutors don't want to make a public case over this?

I'm not surprised that the powers that be are uninterested in prosecuting the
school district. But I would have guessed they would have felt compelled to do
so, or at least make some noise about doing so, for the sake of appearances.
It disturbs me that they can so openly dismiss the families who got spied upon
as being beneath their regard.

~~~
dantheman
A civil suit can still be filed, and hopefully they'll get massive amounts $$$
activity like this needs to be stopped.

------
ramine
I've found a solution!

Problem: \- The US have a problem getting people to afford studies in the
first place \- You can spy on students

Solution: Sell your privacy to pay for your studies! Wouldn't it be great if
you could sell the details of your private life, which you're doing anyway, to
pay for your studies? Get a better future for free!

</rant>

~~~
yummyfajitas
Something like the JenniCam?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ringley>

------
DotSauce
An aside: While in high-school, I was suspended for broadcasting a web cam
from the classroom on to my personal blog. I only ever turned it on during
class. The teacher thought I may have been spying on her.

------
Kilimanjaro
Once in a while do a goatse, problem solved.

------
WiseWeasel
Bring on the civil suits. Looking forward to this school district being sued
into the ground.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Just remember who is ultimately paying for that lawsuit. I would prefer
criminal convictions that make the people who were really at fault pay for
their idiocy instead of just sticking it to the tax payers.

~~~
WiseWeasel
I'd wager school districts are wary of hiring administrators responsible for a
fiasco like this. At least they're likely to be out of a job.

------
duffbeer703
The headline is a really dumb conclusion to draw. What happened is that the
prosecutor (ie. the US Attorney) declined to prosecute. They have the autonomy
to do that. The school district managed to levy enough political influence to
convince the prosecutor to look the other way.

The conclusion to draw is that justice in the US is up for sale. Another US
Attorney successfully prosecuted a the principals of a seafood wholesaler, and
imprisoned them for 8 years for importing lobsters in plastic bags instead of
cardboard boxes. (True story:
<http://www.economist.com/node/16640389/comments?page=2>)

~~~
sprout
Because the alternative, that the parents of these students drummed up a
flurry of Internet rumors over nothing, is impossible.

~~~
hga
Given that that is the subject of a civil suit we may find out if it's nothing
or something.

------
lzw
The state court has determined that state employeesdidnt break a state law
when recording students without their knowledge.

Notice how the state, which has a conflict of interest here, let itself off
the hook?

Imagine if a old guy had done this by writing software that had attest mode
accidentally left in? No intent to spy, but when judging citizens that doesn't
really matter. The state cannot be trusted with justicevfor this reason.

