
School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home - rms
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/17/school-used-student.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+boingboing/iBag+(Boing+Boing)
======
ErrantX
The real question is: where is the criminal investigation?

This breaks so many laws it's not funny.

And the kid originally being disciplined _at school_ for something he did _at
home_.

It's the first time for a while news like this has made me feel physically
sick! Lock them up :(

~~~
steveklabnik
> And the kid originally being disciplined at school for something he did at
> home.

This is pretty standard practice. Schools have all kinds of 'code of conduct'
things that can get you in trouble for things that didn't happen on school
grounds.

~~~
ErrantX
I know; but in his own home! It's psychopathic.

~~~
steveklabnik
Oh, I agree. Just don't think this is a one-off kind of thing.

~~~
ErrantX
Indeed. Perhaps (hopefully) any outcome from this will spark off a review of
such policies.

~~~
cgranade
What scares me is the kind of review that will likely happen isn't going to be
one that emphasizes the rights of schoolchildren, but that emphasizes how
schools should modulate their activities to stay within the letter, if not the
spirit, of the law. For anything substantial to change would require a fairly
fundamental reexamination of the role of the school system in the private
lives of students.

------
bgraves
This was part of a program on PBS called Digital Nation. The show was very
interesting, and there's a section where the school IT administrator
demonstrates his ability to pull up a students laptop ... and working webcam.

[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/learni...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/learning/schools/how-
google-saved-a-school.html?play)

The relevant part starts at about 4:35. "They don't even realize that we are
watching. I always like to mess with them and take a picture."

~~~
soult
That's horrible!

Also: How the hell did they finance handing out Mac laptops to all their
students?

~~~
bgraves
Well, the video and article mentions Google and Google Docs about a dozen
times...I think Google provided some or all of the financing.

From their website: <http://schools.nyc.gov/SchoolPortals/09/X339/default.htm>

Showcased by Google as highly innovative school
[<http://a.parsons.edu/~jenkc865/339/nyc_is339_cs.pdf>]

------
JunkDNA
Found a PDF of the filing itself:

<http://craphound.com/robbins17.pdf>

It's hard for me to imagine how anyone could think this was an OK idea.

~~~
Silhouette
This reminds me of the strip search story from a few months ago. A young girl
was searched by school officials. As it turned out, she was only carrying
prescription drugs.

While the Supreme Court found that the search had been illegal (amazingly,
only by an 8-1 majority) they also ruled that the officials concerned could
not be held personally liable. This was because it supposedly wasn't obvious
to the officials at the time whether what they were doing was illegal or
improper.

Now, while I can understand that as a matter of law any court can only rule on
the specific details of a particular case in context and they have to worry
about a suitable burden of proof, I have to wonder how anyone could think it
was OK to strip search a 13-year-old on some vague suspicion about carrying
drugs.

[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/25/national/main51125...](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/25/national/main5112597.shtml)

~~~
sophacles
More disturbing about that is this: I face serious consequences for all sorts
of things, many of which I don't know are illegal. Some of those things I
don't know the legalities of are related to my profession. Yet, while being
tried, if I put up a "I didn't know it was illegal" defense, I would be
laughed at, found guilty and fined/jailed/etc. Why do the school officials get
out of liability for not knowing that their actions were illegal?

~~~
Silhouette
IIRC, the point was that it wasn't entirely that the officials' actions _were_
illegal. There were some earlier rulings and issues of being _in loco
parentis_ that clouded the issue sufficiently that the Supreme Court's hands
were effectively tied. Of course, now that the Supreme Court has given an
explicit ruling in this case, it would be pretty difficult for anyone to pull
that defence in future.

None of this means the actions weren't grossly disproportionate, unreasonable,
and abusive in the eyes of any sane, independent observer, but unfortunately
that isn't what court rulings are based on.

~~~
sophacles
Even worse actually. If the mandatory reporters at the school heard about this
girl being strip searched by mom & dad for drugs, they would, without a second
thought, report the parents to some authority. But when they do it _in loco
parentis_ the same behavior is OK?

~~~
cynicalkane
The idea is that, when the search took place, jurisprudence didn't make it
clear such searches are illegal. If the legal system is not sure whether
something is a crime or not, then it isn't. In theory, anyway.

------
cgranade
It would be particularly sick if the legal case for this came down to deciding
whether any adults had their privacy violated. In general, US courts have not
been to fond of protecting the rights of children (which makes the children
arrested for child porn of themselves trend still more poignant), and so I can
easily see the case coming down to deciding if adults were harmed, effectively
setting a precedent that it's OK to spy on kids.

~~~
mml
you bet your ass it's ok to spy on kids; I made em, i can spy on em (sorry
kiddos). the school district on the other hand, is not allowed to venture onto
my lawn, much less into my house.

~~~
ugh
Why would you think you should have unlimited rights to violate their privacy?
Parents already don't have an unlimited right to limit their freedom of
movement (e.g. locking them up in their room indefinitly) or the right to use
any kind of violence against them. (At least that's the case here in Germany,
but I would guess that the US are similar.)

The rights of parents are already limited by the rights of their children, I
don't see how you can then jump from "I made em" right to "i can spy on em".
We also don't jump from "I made em" right to "i can beat em up" or "i can lock
em up forever".

I would agree that some spying should be allowed, but not unlimited (similar
to freedom of movement). Putting a camera in the bathroom would definitly not
be ok. I would also argue that the rights to privacy increase with age. Secret
surveillance might be ok for infants (e.g. baby monitor) but most certainly
not for seventeen year old teenagers.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
The underlying issue here, at least in the U.S., is that as a parent, I'm
responsible for anything that happens to my children. Kid misses school, I get
in trouble. Kid deals drugs, I can go to jail. Kid has a mental disorder that
causes them to be violent and I let them roam free? I am responsible for the
consequences. Kid keeps contraband in my car or house? I could lose my car or
house to the authorities.

It's highly contextual, sure. I can't beat a kid with a stick because he eats
his cereal wrong. But I am expected to restrain my children from hurting
themselves, even if that means by using force. I am responsible to control
what goes on in my house, even if that conflicts with the idea of increasing
freedoms.

In practice, parents give way over time -- the entire idea of parenting is
that the child becomes ready to be responsible for these things themselves.
But there are lots of edge cases. You can't make blanket statements and have
them hold up. That's one of the reasons we have a juvenile court system -- to
handle the mixed rights of parents and the children they live with. In
general, however, the GP is more correct than not: children do not have rights
in the same way an adult does. Just like everybody else with diminished mental
capacity, somebody else is responsible for taking care of them, and no matter
how you do that, it's going to infringe on what they might of had if they were
an adult.

~~~
ugh
Is the law that different? I know that in Germany it's quite hard to
demonstrate that you have claims against the parents if their child damages
something. You basically have to demonstrate that the parents really screwed
up. If not, you are on your own. In Germany parents are most definitly not
responsible for everything their child does.

And I never said that children have or should have the same rights as grown-
ups. The law should only reflect that parents do not violate the child's
rights without it being necessary and justified. And it does in Germany. I
don't know about the US.

(Just one example about parent's responsibilities I remember: If, say, nine
year old children damage a parking car on their way home from the playground
it's imposible to make them responsible but it's also practically imposible to
make their parents responsible. Going alone to and from the playground is, as
long as it's not too far from home, a normal activity for nine year olds,
their parents did nothing wrong.)

~~~
DanielBMarkham
If you need a court system to determine whether it's necessary or justified
you are doing something wrong. There is a large prejudice to leaving kids and
parents to work out their own problems. Therefore in practice it's all up to
parent to determine how everybody's rights are to be balanced. And that's the
way it should be -- parents are supposed to be training their children to
uphold their values, culture, and lifestyle. This is one of the reasons we
have children. The state should only interfere if harm is coming to the child,
and having your folks scan your emails or search your room is not harming you
at all. (Not that I approve or disapprove of any specific practices. Like I
said, it's all very subjective between the kid and parent)

~~~
ugh
As I said and repeated and really like to repeat here again: children should
have limited rights and they actually do have limited rights in Germany.
Spying is ok. Reading their E-Mails and going through their drawers is ok. But
only up to a point. The parents just cannot limit their rights without limits.

I'm also not really sure why courts should not decide what's necessary and
justified. That's all we ever did in our cases in the introductory course on
public law and basic rights. (Basic rights in Germany have an influence on how
courts have to decide in civil cases - just before anybody says anything about
this being only the case in public law, i.e. citizen-state relationships, not
citizen-citizen relationships)

~~~
cgranade
I have serious concerns about any parent that decides to routinely and
casually invade the privacy of their children by reading their e-mails or
tracking their web browsing. Children raised in such an environment are being
taught that they should not expect to have privacy and that they should will
not be treated as human beings in general. That kind of casual violation is
precisely what justifies infractions like those documented in the article.

~~~
krich
I think it's actually a good idea to train them to treat the internet as a
space without privacy, because it really is. Not sure if reading their emails
etc is the way to go about it though.

------
Confusion
This really lowers ones faith in mankind. What on earth possessed these
people? There must have been at least three people with knowledge of this and
probably more. _None_ of them thought it was enough of a problem to speak out
against it and make a racket if necessary? I can understand one person having
a crazy thought and I can imagine him convincing a second. But as soon as a
third found out, the whole affair should have been seen for what it was: an
invasion of privacy.

------
jdietrich
Don't just sit there fuming - do something.

You can contact the school board's directors at capitalcomments@lmsd.org or
call (610) 645-1800

If you believe that a criminal act may have been committed, you can contact
the Montgomery County District Attorney at KKasopsk@montcopa.org or call (610)
278-3090

~~~
cgranade
It seems a bit irresponsible to me to encourage people not directly involved
to call the authorities over this. Surely they have been made aware, if only
by the media. Often times (again, not a lawyer, so I don't know how to nail
this down), charges and complaints can only be filed by those directly
victimized by a crime. If people followed your suggestion, then the DA's
office would soon be flooded with redundant, useless and perhaps counter-
productive communications.

~~~
jdietrich
The DA's office provides a form on their website to report a crime - they are
actively inviting people to report illegal activity. DAs only prosecute where
they believe it is in the public interest to do so.

Would you call the cops if you saw a guy on the corner of your street dealing
drugs? Would you do something if you heard your neighbour beating his wife? If
you would, then why stay silent just because the criminals are a school board?

It is our democratic duty to speak up. It is our duty as citizens to apply
pressure to those in power to do the right thing.

What do you think the Christian right would do if they got wind that a school
was, for instance, permitting it's students to view pornography? They would be
calling the DA, calling the school board, calling their senator in huge
numbers and rightly so - that's how you achieve change in a democracy.

It's not irresponsible to do your democratic duty.

~~~
rbanffy
> It's not irresponsible to do your democratic duty.

It goes beyond democracy. It's about the rule of law and making sure law gets
enforced.

------
obsaysditto
From the Philadelphia Inquirer: "This is the first we have heard of this
lawsuit being filed and the plaintiff's allegations," he said today. "However,
we can categorically state that we are - and have always been - committed to
protecting the privacy of our students."

"Our district was one of the first to provide free laptops to all of our high
school students," Young said. "This initiative has been incredibly successful
and well received in our school community."

"We have referred this matter to our attorneys for appropriate legal action
and plan to communicate with parents and students with more information as it
becomes available."

[http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20100218_Suit__Sc...](http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20100218_Suit__School-
issued_laptops_used_to_spy_on_kids_on_Main_Line.html)

~~~
DanielBMarkham
On one hand I really hope the original story is false/overblown, like perhaps
the kid was using his webcam in a public setting online and the administrators
were simply monitoring. (Which is weird, but not as weird as full-control
spying)

On the other hand, if it turns out that the story _is_ overblown, I am getting
really, really, really, really tired of web outlets yanking my libertarian
chain. True abuse needs to be confronted. If this is baseless rumor or
purposeful link-baiting, it does more to hurt privacy (by making people used
to such accusations) than the administrators ever may have done.

~~~
wallflower
Best case scenario for school district:

Prove via FBI or forensic information security audit team that there was no
monitoring software of any kind, no remote monitoring, no logging. Prove that
the assistant principal did not know what he/she was talking about when she
was directly questioned by the parent.

Prove there was no conspiracy to monitor students in their bedrooms. Prove
(this is hard) that the assistant principal obtained the incriminating photo
by illegally searching their hard drive. Provide settlement in six figures
with half of proceeds going to subsidize free laptop program for inner city
Philadelphia.

Put assistant principal on leave, supply black electrical tape fee-free,
remove any Remote Desktop capabilities in the OS. Hold press conference with
state attorney general in two weeks to jointly demonstrate total innocence.

Worst case: TV crews camped out on Lower Merion High School campus for weeks.

------
jrockway
The only thing I don't believe is how a school district could afford to
develop such sophisticated software.

~~~
ciscoriordan
Taxes.

~~~
jrockway
Dunno where you're from, but I've never seen government-sponsored software
that actually worked properly.

(I remember reading the unemployment insurance website for Illinois once... it
only works in IE. Error page: <http://www.ides.state.il.us/idclaim/alert.asp>
)

------
covercash
I knew some folks who worked at a neighboring school district and while
laptops never went home with the children, Remote Desktop screen caps of the
sleazy superintendent engaged in affairs with teachers and potential new hires
were taken. From the stories I hear, the administration in most PA public
school systems is disgustingly corrupt.

~~~
hga
Yeah, I can believe that, PA seems to have a lot of fantastically corrupt
public officials. This is after all the state with the "cash for kids" scheme,
where judges took bribes/extorted money from a private prison and in turn
threw thousands of kids into it, plenty completely innocent (e.g. one in a
case for publishing a web page that was derogatory towards a teacher). If it
wasn't all involving Democrats, it would be worldwide headline news, instead
the judges were allowed to plea bargain to quite modest tax evasion charges.

------
holdenc
I wonder if these laptops had a recording light by the camera like most.
Wouldn't this have been an immediate tip-off to everyone? Disabling the
recording light (if this happened) would have required some effort as well...

~~~
blhack
Uhh...which laptops have a recording light on them? Mine certainly does not.

~~~
olefoo
All Macs that have cameras do. And it shows to the OS as a USB sensor.
Obviously there must be ways to turn it on without lighting the light,

~~~
seiji
The camera LED is wired in series to the camera sensor itself. You can't power
the camera without having the LED turn on.

Conversely, you can't turn on the camera LED without having the camera
powered.

~~~
olefoo
This is true of new MacBooks, I have been told it is not true of all models of
Macs.

------
0wned
Another problem fixed with duct tape!

~~~
tlrobinson
There's still the microphone...

But this sort of thing makes me glad Apple at least hardwires an LED which
turns on when the camera is in use on all Macs.

------
tlrobinson
Watch out for the telescreens, comrades!

------
zoba
I wonder what offense the child committed at home that got him in trouble with
the school?

~~~
hga
Allegedly selling drugs. The "child" claims he was photographed holding "Mike
and Ike candy": "Official: FBI probing Pa. school webcam spy case" (an AP
story): [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/02...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/02/20/AR2010022000679.html)

~~~
hga
The referenced article has been changed by the AP; look here for how to get
the original: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1139404>

------
moron4hire
Sounds like someone in school administration sat in on the highschool
students' reading of 1984 and picked up a few ideas.

------
DanielBMarkham
Speaking of school's control and observation of kids not on their premises,
wasn't there a case a while back where a kid skipped school and later appeared
on TV holding a "Bush sucks!" protest sign? My memory is fuzzy on this, but it
seems like the courts upheld the right of the school to punish the kid?
Anybody got a link for that case?

Extrapolating from what I don't know into things I can't even speculate on (I
love the internet), what if these administrators saw the same kids engaging in
obscene political action, like defiling election signs or something? Or
witnessed a murder? If I remember correctly, even police who are authorized to
eavesdrop are bound by all kinds of rules about what they can observe and what
they're forced to take action on.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Found it -- it was the kid who displayed the sign "Bong hits for Jesus" and
the school administrators were supported in suppressing free speech at a
school-sponsored event. I love that kid!

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick>

Also for those interested in learning more about the control schools have over
free speech, here's a great PDF
<http://breitlinks.com/freespeechpdf/speech.pdf>

I guess the point I was getting to was this: if a kid is at home on a school
laptop, supposedly only doing schoolwork, is that a school-sponsored event?
Would any activity constitute a school-sponsored event? Do school
administrators have an obligation to report any crimes they may see when using
this? If not, could they be considered accomplices? I would think not, but I'm
not sure.

Not only is this an awful invasion of privacy, it muddles up the public sector
deep in the heart of all sorts of other individual rights. So if the courts
were to rule this legal (which I find highly unlikely) it would make a mess
out of all sorts of other laws. In my opinion.

~~~
nfnaaron
If a district employee came home with the student, while I was there, with my
permission, and helped him or observed his work, I'd be OK with that. Again,
with my permission and knowledge.

If the same employee was peeking through the window ...

------
motters
Technology enabled spying seems to be completely ubiquitous now. Maybe new
laws can be passed, but given recent history I'm not optimistic about that.
Probably the best strategy is to try to encourage more equiveillance.

As an immediate workaround if you are the parent of one of the children with
these laptops:

i) Complain to the school. Make sure your complaint is formally registered
(not just verbal on the phone).

ii) Install an operating system onto the laptop yourself, to ensure that there
is nothing untoward installed in the background. Preferably use some linux
distro, or if you are an ardent Windows fan take a backup image after a new
installation which can easily be restored later to overwrite any nasties which
may have been installed later.

------
rms
Update:
[http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/19/laptop.suit/index.html?h...](http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/19/laptop.suit/index.html?hpt=T2)

------
DavidSJ
This takes things one giant leap further, but my cousin in high school already
has his personal email and home web browsing read by a team of school
monitors, thanks to the provision of a laptop by his public high school.

Of course, his parents are unlikely to buy him his own laptop since he's
already got one, so what does he need another one for?

~~~
JshWright
What's stopping him from buying his own laptop?

~~~
conorgil
Money. Students in high school may not have enough money to buy a laptop.

~~~
JshWright
Go mow some lawns for a couple weeks... A few hundred dollars isn't all that
hard to come by.

~~~
cgranade
This is such a "let them eat cake" attitude. A few hundred dollars is a lot to
come by for some people, especially at that age.

~~~
JshWright
I guess that attitude comes from the fact that I've always had to buy my own
cake in life. My parents provided me with food, clothing, a place to live, and
other "necessities". They never bought me a laptop, a cell phone, a car, or
any of the dozens of other things that teenagers seem to feel entitled to
these days.

~~~
cgranade
Fine, and good for you. Opportunities aren't uniform, though, and there are
students who don't even have those necessities you mention, and have to work
for those. I likewise was fortunate to have the opportunity to make my own
money at a young age, and so I don't begrudge you that. What I take exception
to is the implication that all students have such opportunities, are aware of
them, and enjoy the familial stability required to exploit opportunities as
they arise.

~~~
JshWright
The student the OP mentioned was given a laptop by the school. I fail to see
how a _second_ laptop is anything other than a luxury.

I take exception to the implication that the student's parents are stupid for
not seeing the _obvious_ need for a _second_ laptop.

------
bediger
All this proves is that the several countries (USA, UK, others) have legal
systems that are inconsistent, at least in the formal systems sense. Starting
with "laws" as axioms, and some set of rules of deduction, you can get
anywhere: Person X is a pedophile, Student Z behaves improperly on Mars, etc
etc.

------
nym
I see a lot of child pornography arguments being made, but what if this was a
work laptop that you brought home and your boss spied on you?

Would that be okay?

------
akadien
Wait till a school administrator gets the bright idea of doing the same thing
on school-issued iPhones and other mobile devices.

~~~
johns
Schools are issuing iPhones?

~~~
akadien
Meh. Maybe I meant iPods. Too eager to get my flippant comment posted, I
guess.

------
Daniel_Newby
If this violated child pornography laws, we will get the remarkable outcome
that a school system is not allowed within 2500 feet of a school. So it's not
all bad!

~~~
cduan
There doesn't appear to be a claim in the complaint regarding any child
pornography laws yet. But who knows--that may change if new photos turn up
during discovery.

Here's some thoughts on the Fourth Amendment illegal search claim, at least:

There is this 2001 case, Kyllo v. United States, that held it illegal for the
police to use a thermal scanner to detect heat lamps in a guy's house (the
heat lamps being used to grow marijuana). The Supreme Court held, in an
opinion by Justice Scalia:

"Where...the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to
explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without
physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively
unreasonable without a warrant."

Seems to me this case falls pretty squarely within the Kyllo rule. Maybe
webcams are in public use, but a spy program connected to a webcam and
operated by someone other than the possessor of the computer would probably
not be. The webcam photos were of the inside of a home, and those photos could
not have otherwise been taken without going inside the home.

~~~
furyg3
That's with regard to a crime, however, not a school policy.

You may very well be allowed to die your hair blue, have a "legalize weed"
bumper sticker on your guitar case, or an explicit novel in your backpack off
campus, but if you do any of those things on-campus you violate school rules
and can be punished.

Furthermore, even things you do off-campus can violate your school's code of
conduct (writing about how much your teacher sucks publicly on Facebook), and
you can be punished at school.

~~~
scott_s
The school, however, can not violate the law in order to learn about actions
which are against the school's code of conduct.

