Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I had two people email me a link to this story, which may be the most outrageous invasion of privacy I have ever heard of. Get this:
According to the filings in Blake J Robbins v Lower Merion School District (PA) et al, the laptops issued to high-school students in the well-heeled Philly suburb have webcams that can be covertly activated by the schools' administrators, who have used this facility to spy on students and even their families. The issue came to light when the Robbins's child was disciplined for "improper behavior in his home" and the Vice Principal used a photo taken by the webcam as evidence.
You can read the full complaint here (PDF). The allegations are mind blowing. The parental plaintiffs say that the assistant principal at the school informed them that their son was engaging in inappropriate behavior and they produced a picture taken by the webcam of the computer and informed them that the school could turn on the webcams remotely any time they wanted.
This is obviously a violation of several state and federal laws as well as, most importantly, the 4th amendment. This is truly 1984 territory here, folks. Remember the television sets that allowed the government to view people in their homes? That's precisely what this allows them to do. Every single person involved in this process, from the decision to program the computers to allow such remote viewing to the people who actually carried it out, should not only be fired they should be in prison.
Politics
Comments
"Improper behavior?" What the hell were they expecting to see by giving a bunch of laptops to teenage boys? They should be arrested for child pornography too.
Posted by: Brandon | February 19, 2010 9:24 AM
What in the world gave the school the idea that behavior "in the home" is their business in the first place?
This is nigh-unbelievable.
Posted by: Squiddhartha | February 19, 2010 9:29 AM
What worries me even more than the school actively spying and looking for misbehavior is that it's also a complete violation of people's privacy when they're doing private but legal things. I'm sure plenty of students keep their laptops in their bedrooms, where they feel most comfortable to change clothes, be naked, masturbate, and have sex. It would be so easy for the school to spy on them doing those things, yet I bet if one of those students sexted a pic of themselves to a classmate, they'd be in really big trouble for it.
Posted by: catgirl | February 19, 2010 9:32 AM
Exactly, schools should have no authority over what students do outside of school beyond expecting that homework is returned on time. Plus, what is appropriate behaviour in the home is decided by the parents *not* the school.
Posted by: Matty | February 19, 2010 9:36 AM
When I was in late elementary school, one of my teachers said that students are considered to be on school property from the time they get to the bus stop in the morning, until they time they go into their house in the afternoon. She said it was because the school would be held responsible if one student beat up another right after getting off the bus. However, this meant that if you went to daycare or a friend's house after school, you were still considered under the authority of the school until you go home. I doubt this teacher was actually lying, but she was very probably mistaken. It is possible that some schools take it farther though. I think it's meant to catch those students who will smoke or do drugs right across the street from school property.
Posted by: catgirl | February 19, 2010 9:36 AM
When I saw the news promo, I wondered why the school would care what happens to the students when they leave them. I guess I'm use to teachers who would beat the students out the door at the end of the day.
If they thought it necessary to spy, why acknowledge it and produce a picture? Did they think they were right?
I think someones brother-in-law had software to sell. I can't get why so many school officials would allow this to happen.
Posted by: Hathor | February 19, 2010 9:40 AM
Where on earth did they get the idea in the first place that it would be desirable to secretly monitor children in their own homes? I've got an idea, but it has nothing to do with pedagogy.
Posted by: DaveL | February 19, 2010 9:51 AM
how many hours of government employees time were spent looking at videos of teenager's faces blankly staring at the computer screen? Who had that boring job?
Posted by: David | February 19, 2010 9:52 AM
Obviously they were in school, and thus the school is entirely justified in punishing them. It's like foreign embassies - "school" is defined as school property plus a little region around it, and so the laptop is surrounded by a zone of pure school.
DaveL: The phrase you're looking for is "Massive Paedophile Ring". To the media! The paedocalypse is here!
(the second part of this post was, depressingly, far more serious than the first part)
Posted by: user@example.com | February 19, 2010 9:59 AM
If this kid's 'improper behaviour in the home' happened to involve nudity, would that put the principal on a 'sex offender register'? - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 19, 2010 10:00 AM
Is it entirely off topic to ask whether that school district voted Republican? Or where its congressperson stands on issues such as wiretapping, etc.?
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | February 19, 2010 10:02 AM
Seeing as how these are minors and how at least some of the images taken were probably of minors in various states of undress and in sexual acts...can't the school get in a lot of trouble for recording that? How is this different than a hidden camera in the gym showers?
Posted by: deep | February 19, 2010 10:04 AM
I’d be surprised if the mechanism that allows them to remotely activate the webcam was specifically intended for that purpose. More likely they have full remote access to the computer and the webcam wasn’t excluded. That’s pretty routine for computers loaned out by a central body that retains ownership. It’s primarily intended as an aid for troubleshooting and for the distribution of software or patches. In some locations the owner of the computer is even legally required to police its contents. The school may be on the hook for any illegal activity involving the computer, including music sharing, allowing the kids to access porn, or even sending threatening emails. So I’d be hesitant about laying blame on the programmers.
However, I have no such reservations about the authoritarian administration that abused this power to invade people’s privacy. There’s no excuse for this. I whole-heartedly agree that everyone involved with intentionally using the webcams this way be punished to the full extent of the law. If a prosecutor can find grounds to apply child pornography or stalking laws on top of the violations Ed’s already listed then those should be included as well. This needs to be nipped in the bud with a response so vigorous and vocal that schools across the country take notice. I want the school boards of the nation rushing to cover their ass and make sure nothing like this is happening or can happen in their schools.
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 19, 2010 10:04 AM
I'm going to reserve judgment on this one until it can be conclusively proven that the school in fact had the capability to remotely activate the webcams and in fact did so.
Just because some school administrator said that they can is not proof.
Posted by: Chilidog | February 19, 2010 10:05 AM
Sadly, treating minors as less-than-human, or violating their rights "for their own good" is a strongly bi-partisan issue. When I suggest extending rights to teenagers, I usually get laughed of the stage even by the most progressive people I know.
Posted by: catgirl | February 19, 2010 10:10 AM
My step-kids attended this school. Most of the families are wealthy professionals so the need for the laptop loan program seems dubious at best but the use of technology to spy rather than track stolen assets is unforgivable.
I suspect an IT department troll with access to the tracking software figured he could get his jollies rather than it being a system-wide home invasion but as more data surfaces, we shall see. It might also be a student that figured out how to hack the system and figured he'd punk a friend or crap on an enemy. Schools are notoriously lax where IT security is concerned.
catgirl @5,
The inloco parentis rules might apply from bus stop to school and back. When I trained as a camp counselor for a weeklong camp, the American Camping Association rules were just that. We were responsible from when the bus picked them up until it returned them and we had to make sure the right kids were handed off to the right parents too. Didn't reach to their homes and bedrooms though.
Posted by: MikeMa | February 19, 2010 10:10 AM
Does anyone actually know what the "inappropriate behavior" was? The complaint alludes to the fact that there may be pictures of under dressed minors, but I wonder what the kid was doing to make the school think it was their business in the first place. Drugs maybe? Or does the school honestly have some sort of anti-masturbation policy?
Posted by: deep | February 19, 2010 10:22 AM
deep @17,
Smoking pot (allegedly). The pic made the national news this morning.
Posted by: MikeMa | February 19, 2010 10:23 AM
Surely that's a privacy issue in its own right?
Posted by: Morgan | February 19, 2010 10:26 AM
"In loco parentis"
I've always loved that phrase, because if you're a "parentis" chances are your kids are making you "loco".
Posted by: 10,000li | February 19, 2010 10:27 AM
Morgan @19,
Yikes, good point. I suppose the contract the students (or their parents) sign to get a laptop might explain some of this but...
Posted by: MikeMa | February 19, 2010 10:28 AM
Does anyone actually know what the "inappropriate behavior" was? The complaint alludes to the fact that there may be pictures of under dressed minors, but I wonder what the kid was doing to make the school think it was their business in the first place. Drugs maybe? Or does the school honestly have some sort of anti-masturbation policy?
Posted by: deep | February 19, 2010 10:33 AM
Sorry, I have no idea why that reposted. Thanks MikeMa, at least pot is actually illegal. Still a gross neglect of privacy, but I was beginning to fear a war on porn!
Posted by: deep | February 19, 2010 10:35 AM
Actually the School was not acting 'in loco parentis', since (presumably) the parent were in charge of the little
buggersdears. If it's out of school hours and off school property... - DingoPosted by: DingoJack | February 19, 2010 10:41 AM
The school has replied
So, it may be possible that the behaviour was "stealing a laptop" and the school did not know it was a student who had it, but that is by no means certainhttp://www.lmsd.org/sections/news/default.php?m=0&t=today&p=lmsd_anno&id=1138
Posted by: G.Shelley | February 19, 2010 10:41 AM
I'm a network admin, and am confident that it is entirely do-able. I remotely control my end-user's computers from anywhere, at any time, as long as they have an internet connection, including any peripheral devices they have attached and can do so with or without their knowledge or permission. (although never do so without making prior arrangements e.g. "leave your computer running so I can sort out that problem you are having later tonight when you're not busy and I'm not getting a million calls").
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | February 19, 2010 10:55 AM
Dingo @24,
While the 'dears' are at home you are correct. Catgirl was asking about the busstop to school and back responsibility. I think the school is responsible from the busstop.
G.Shelley,
Thanks for the update. This brings up a possible flaw in the reporting of laptops where, if a student wanted to cause problems for another student, (s)he might report a laptop as stolen when it wasn't. This could easily result in the kind of occurrence being reported. If so, the policy needs to be upgraded to reflect this possibility. Simply contacting the current owner of the laptop or the owner's parent to verify it as stolen would help.
Posted by: MikeMa | February 19, 2010 10:57 AM
Except the student was not arrested for theft, and likely could not even be charged for marijuana possession, if that were indeed the "inappropriate behavior" alluded to, because of 4th Amendment issues.
I am re-reading All the President's Men and of course the concept of the "non-denial denial" is a key feature of the book. This sounds like exactly that:
Notice, that does not mean that a District employee didn't "go rogue" and activate the feature for their own jollies. Houston, or in this case Merion, we have a problem.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | February 19, 2010 11:00 AM
So of course they're going to produce a document showing the laptop was reported lost/missing/stolen, right? In addition, I'd imagine that accessing these machines remotely should leave some sort of electronic paper trail, and that will be entered into evidence to show the employee wasn't connecting to other webcams, right?
I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: DaveL | February 19, 2010 11:05 AM
Glad to hear that the school has taken steps to address this intrusive and voyeuristic "security feature".
Yet I still can't shake the notion that some people declare, with some degree of delight, "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | February 19, 2010 11:07 AM
This kind of thing is why I am glad I am good with computers--repartition the hard drive and boot from a clean, spyware-free installation of Linux or even a second Windows partition while leaving the preinstalled OS unchanged so the school is none the wiser.
Or, you know, just put some tape over the webcam.
Posted by: Uncephalized | February 19, 2010 11:15 AM
Silliest "security feature" ever. Why not install some sort of super-RFID bug? Don't some cars have this kind of thing?
Seems to me that it will be very difficult to argue that no one, ever, had in mind that the remote-controlled webcam could catch some pleasant pics of naked teens.
By the way, to see the boy smoking pot, how long do you have to sit in front of your monitor? Are they also trying to have us believe that they turned the camera on by mistake, and saw some smoke at that very moment? Please...
Posted by: Christophe Thill | February 19, 2010 11:30 AM
Good for the Plaintiffs in this matter.
I hope they get a judgment that financially sets the school district in question back to the Stone Age.
Posted by: CHV | February 19, 2010 11:43 AM
From the sound of it, I think they expect us to believe that the boy reported the laptop stolen, then proceeded to sit down in front of it and toke up.
Posted by: DaveL | February 19, 2010 11:44 AM
This is the same township that distributes police decals so vehicle owners can volunteer to be pulled over after midnight:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4lYpBvjm_v8J:www.lowermerion.org/Index.aspx%3Fpage%3D542+lower+merion+police+decals&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Posted by: rpsms | February 19, 2010 12:08 PM
Thanks, Greg, for posting this. I was utterly shocked when I heard the story this morning.
Posted by: NancyNew | February 19, 2010 12:20 PM
catgirl: what's most disgusting about the situation regarding student rights these days is that the generation so dedicated to denying they exist and treating children as chattel, is the same which pushed many of the landmark Supreme Court cases on the subject; the baby boomers. For that generation student rights, as with most things, is something for them, not for others.
Posted by: Julian | February 19, 2010 12:37 PM
Page 14 of the complaint touches on the child porn aspect...
66. As the laptops at issue were routinely used by students and family members while at home, it is believed and therefore averred that many of the images captured and intercepted may consist of images of minors and their parents or friends in compromising or embarassing positions, including, but not limited to, in various stages of dress or undress.
Posted by: Richard | February 19, 2010 12:46 PM
They're probably using something similar to this, which would be a potentially efficient and low-cost way of tracking a computer that was stolen and ever subsequently connected to the internet without reformatting.
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 19, 2010 12:47 PM
Even if the webcam was an anti-theft matter, what could it achieve? Would any photos it took be admissible as evidence in court, or even just to obtain a warrant?
Posted by: G.Shelley | February 19, 2010 12:49 PM
Part of me wonders how useful suing a school district for monetary damages is; that it amounts to a potential tax rebate at most if it's a public school.
I wouldn't want money, but I'd want to see someone's head on a pike. Figuratively. Well, mostly.
Posted by: Richard | February 19, 2010 12:58 PM
@40
Sometimes it works... no idea how many times it DOESN'T work, though.
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/24/idiot-criminal-uploa.html
Posted by: Richard | February 19, 2010 1:03 PM
Wait...something doesn't add up for me in the school's statement. First they say:
Then they say:
So it sounds like they're saying "We only used the feature in a certain situation, but then again, we may not have."
Posted by: Savagemutt | February 19, 2010 1:44 PM
I can only think of two forms of "improper behavior at home" that are any of the school's business: cheating on a test, and plagiarism. If they're looking for plagiarism, it's not likely to be with a webcam: matching papers against things like Wikipedia, or even looking at a search history and then doing comparisons between the submitted paper and the sites the student visited, would be more to the point. There are privacy issues there, but different ones--and plagiarizing your term paper from Wikipedia is wrong, and deserves an F, but it's not a police/criminal matter.
There might be ways to cheat on a test that could be criminal, as possession of stolen property (a previous year's state science test, for example), but I would expect something more specific than "inappropriate behavior at home." "Cheating" or "academic dishonesty," if that were the accusation, wouldn't have them being accused of everything from general intrusiveness to possession of child pornography.
If anything like this is what's going on, I would expect them to say so, now that this is major news.
Anything else they're going to find is either none of their business, a criminal matter, or possibly both.
Posted by: Vicki | February 19, 2010 1:44 PM
The only theft security I have ever heard of for a laptop, and it makes perfect sense to me, is to have the laptop report its ISP to a security company (or in this case, the school) the first time it connects to the internet after it's been reported stolen. That gives you an actual location, rather than the image of a location, which you may not even be able to identify.
Also, who reported the laptop stolen? The kid obviously had it. I think someone is being less than forthcoming with the truth.
Posted by: valor | February 19, 2010 1:50 PM
These steps to turn America into a police state all allegedly for the purpose of "protecting/disciplining children" absolutely turn my stomach. I'm glad I'm not a child today.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 19, 2010 2:14 PM
The thing about policing laptop theft doesn't come anywhere close to being an excuse for this shocking invasion of privacy, but it does go some way to explaining how more than one administrator could stupidly think this was a good idea.
Posted by: James Sweet | February 19, 2010 2:45 PM
Actually, I understand and support the bus-stop to bus-stop rule. What I was questioning was the school's authority until the students get inside their houses. This could have major implications if students go to a friend's house, to the park, to daycare, or even play outside in their own yard before going into their hous.
Posted by: catgirl | February 19, 2010 2:46 PM
It is possible that the theft tracking feature will cause the computer to send the still image the next time it is turned on, if it is turned off at the time when it is reported stolen.
If that is the case, then the story would be the student reported his laptop stolen, then went home, found it, and simultaneously logged-on and lit up a joint, forgetting to call the school and report that he found it.
This is why I don't buy the "single still image" thing. Maybe they only provided one still image, but I am now assuming they are able to watch in real time.
Posted by: Jim | February 19, 2010 3:08 PM
One of the students from that school, also with a school laptop, had this to say:
Another said:
Source: Gizmodo
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 19, 2010 3:23 PM
Catgirl, my uneducated guess would be that teachers are considered responsible for the kids until someone else takes that responsibility from them. That would include friends parents or daycare but probably not playing outside. On a related point, if they have authority do they also have liability? That is I assume parents would have some standing to sue if a child was injured at school due to staff negligence so can they sue if the injury occurs in the local park while the child is still 'under school authority'?
Posted by: Matty | February 19, 2010 3:28 PM
Chilidog:
If it's true that said administrator produced a photo, then that would be pretty damning.
Posted by: Escuerd | February 19, 2010 3:29 PM
Opps, didn't mean to submit yet. The point that went with those quotes is that there's more reason to doubt the school's statement. Also, the software was apparently Apple Remote Desktop, which is not a security utility, but a full access application, confirming that part of my earlier speculation and further belying the school’s statement.
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 19, 2010 3:31 PM
how many hours of government employees time were spent looking at videos of teenager's faces blankly staring at the computer screen? Who had that boring job?
It's a bit like the late Jennicam: MOST of the time you'd be seeing Jenni either sleeping, absent, or doing mundane things; but keep watching long enough and you're bound to get lucky and catch her in the shower or having sex. I wonder for which time periods the greatest number of concerned kid-watchers volunteered. And which students they volunteered to watch.
Oh, and the school's "theft prevention" excuse is pure bullshit. As has already been mentioned here, all you'd need for that is an RFID tag. And the fact they used their INGSOC-brand surveillance to catch a student in an "improper activity" proves they KNOW their excuse is a lie. It was always about total surveillance, not just theft prevention. You don't "accidentally" get more functionality than you chose to build into your system.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 19, 2010 3:57 PM
The solution to this is to have every single administrator at that school arrested on child pornography charges, and put on a sex offender list until the day they die. Take invasions of privacy, combine them with existing hysteria over sex offenders, use the result to ruin the invaders' lives for all time, and maybe they'll learn some respect for privacy. While they're at it, charge them with credit card fraud, identity theft, and as many other crimes they could have committed with this setup as possible.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | February 19, 2010 4:16 PM
How far do RFID tags broadcast? As far as I can see on wikipedia (which is the be all and end all of knowledge, obviously) they don't really mention ranges. The EZ-pass on a car reaches 10 feet maybe to the scanner?
On one hand, I'm not so sure you could really expect to locate a stolen laptop that way. Even if it was 500 feet, are they supposed to walk up and down streets hoping to find it?
On the other hand, there exist already software tools for this purpose. One came pre-installed on my new dell laptop. If I recall correctly, and I'm not sure that I do, the broadcast code is contained in the BIOS somewhere and thus reformating the hard drive won't protect a miscreant.
On the gripping hand, not only does taking pictures with the webcam seem like problematic (for many reasons mentioned in this thread) but given the uproar regarding sexting it boggles the mind to consider that they gave every student a webcam :p
Posted by: JohnV | February 19, 2010 4:22 PM
Not completely technically correct. Just use current functionality in ways that aren't planned for. It's what buffer overrun exploits are all about. Another example--if you sell ant farms but only sell the live ants when someone sends you a proof of purchase, you generally don't think that a kid will use that functionality to send a package of live ants to some other poor schlub as a prank.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | February 19, 2010 4:25 PM
@57 quoting 54:
Ill go further, you damn well do get more functionality than you build into your system these days because no one builds stuff from scratch these days. Most everything in IT is built using components bought/borrowed from third parties and other projects. Dedicated component developers have an incentive to put as much functionality into their components as possible. The developers of other projects had their own goals for the components they developed, which only partially overlap with yours. The end result is systems with extraneous functionality.
Posted by: Dave | February 19, 2010 4:31 PM
Typically, tags without on-board power (these derive power from the incoming radio signal) operate at the scale of a few centimeters. Tags with on-board power (such as a battery) can work at ranges of several feet, say ten or twenty. EZ-Pass is an example of the latter.
That's typical for the industry. However, in theory the range is limited only by how powerful you can make a radio transmitter (and power source) small enough to fit in your tag.
Posted by: DaveL | February 19, 2010 4:32 PM
I'm croggled that the school authorities thought this would be acceptable. What contortions of thinking were required to come to the conclusion that covert surveillance of students in their homes would be anything but a giant law suit?
Lower Merion County has some of the best public schools in Pennsylvania, possibly in the USA in general. Did they think that parents would overlook this out of gratitude for living in a good school district?
Posted by: --E | February 19, 2010 4:40 PM
What I can't believe is that I've heard no mention of this on any major news network.
I guess they have to make room for all the important stuff, like Tiger Woods apologizing for his personal life, etc...
Posted by: KacyRay | February 19, 2010 5:00 PM
"We regret if this situation has caused any concern or inconvenience among our students and families."
Noted. And we regret finading you liable for monetary damages, convicting your entire staff of a third-degree felony, and shutting down your school.
No love lost.
Posted by: KacyRay | February 19, 2010 5:06 PM
Authoritarian personalities have an insatiable appetite for exercising control, particularly in the secondary-school context, which does not offer the reward of high pay. So you often have power-hungry dummies rising to the top of school administrative structures. I am not surprised at all.
Posted by: biosparite | February 19, 2010 5:15 PM
If they did it for one laptop, it's a crime. If they did it for two laptops, it's a pattern.
If they did it for more than that, there should be enough to send the entire school board away on RICO charges.
I hope the lawyer of the family knows about the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Among other things, there is no scienter requirement. So the district doesn't need to have evil intent in order to treble damages -- they just have to act like a criminal.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | February 19, 2010 5:25 PM
Apparently, the FBI has opened a criminal investigation of this situation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021902004.html
Posted by: SLC | February 19, 2010 5:44 PM
Wow - punished by the school for something done at home? Aaaahahahaha!
Everyone involved in that unlawful surveillance needs to go to jail - and pay out huge sums of money for their illegal spying.
I absolutely hate those built-in cameras; they are virtually worthless anyway (except on the odd occasion that you want to hold up something for a buddy to see - otherwise video calls suck because everyone's staring at your tits all the time). So, buy a sheet of those stickers that kids love and put a sticker over the peephole.
Posted by: MadScientist | February 19, 2010 6:21 PM
I've been waiting for a commenter to spout the right wing apologist blather of "If you're not guilty, what are you afraid of?"
The law enforcement agency with jurisdiction should get off their duffs and get search warrents for appropriate school areas and the private homes of the people involved in this technically enabled peeping tomfoolery before evidence is destroyed.
Any irony in my last sentence was not intentional.
Posted by: Pinky | February 19, 2010 6:53 PM
I'm not going to lie. 1984 would have been a lot less frightening if it'd been possible to defeat the telescreens with a piece of duct tape.
Posted by: Darth Conans | February 19, 2010 7:40 PM
See, this is part of the reason why I dislike compulsory education. This kind of authoritarianism is more-or-less inevitable, when you disempower young people and put them under the control of a bureaucracy.
But this is certainly the worst school privacy violation I've ever heard of. The plaintiffs should win, and win big.
Posted by: Walton | February 20, 2010 3:15 AM
The loan program is because when you do a 1:1 laptop:student program you want all the students to have the same versions of all the software.
I tell my students upfront that the district can remotely access their desktops and laptops (in school only I have 3 students to 1 computer in my class). I've actually arranged for IT to demo this to students. They think it is cool. We also have a rule that they do not take cameras or laptops into the bathroom. Besides the Ick factor, I want them to be aware what can happen if they are even accused of sexting type offenses.
BTW - when I told other teachers about this 100% said - I hope the scum does time. If they got 1 picture of a child changing clothes - they need to be convicted for kiddie porn just like those kids have been.
Posted by: Kimberly | February 20, 2010 8:46 AM
Good catch SLC thanks for the article.
Posted by: marie | February 20, 2010 9:10 AM
Hi everyone. His infraction was EATING A BOX OF MIKE AND IKES. They thought he was poppin pills. Go over to the Ohiladelphia Inquirer.
Posted by: marie | February 20, 2010 10:08 AM
I swear to god do you believe it, he was eating candy. Story on Philly.com
Posted by: Marie | February 20, 2010 10:11 AM
Not only that they PUT IT ON HIS SCHOOL RECORD. LAPTOP WAS NOT REPORTED STOLEN.
Posted by: Marie | February 20, 2010 10:16 AM
Apparently the students are making use of masking tape now just in case.
http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC100220-0000084/US-school-spied-on-students-via-laptops
Posted by: axilet | February 20, 2010 10:56 AM
Federal procecutors have issued a subpoena.
Posted by: Marie | February 20, 2010 11:17 AM
Do you see what I mean? Do you see?! Do YOU?! I've been saying it for years, but NONE of YOU listened!
Is THIS what you want? Is it?! Is it, REALLY?!
THEY start handing out computers. THEN kids steal them. THEN our children get addicted to DRUGS! Our CHILDREN!
THIS is what happens when we adequately fund PUBLIC schools!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 20, 2010 11:26 AM
This is happening n my neck of the woods and those parents are screaming bloody murder. Someone has a lot of splainin to do.
Posted by: marie | February 20, 2010 11:28 AM
If the school had actually only used the features the way they claimed, it would have been reasonable and probably legal. A person who stole a laptop has no reasonable expection of privacy because they don't really have anything to base any expectations on. The same is not true of someone who was legitimately lent a laptop.
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | February 20, 2010 4:51 PM
catgirl@5 "When I was in late elementary school, one of my teachers said that students are considered to be on school property from the time they get to the bus stop in the morning, until they time they go into their house in the afternoon. She said it was because the school would be held responsible if one student beat up another right after getting off the bus."
Interesting. I think the point here is to make clear that school personnel's requirement to protect children from harm doesn not magically stop at the limit of school property. I think this is reasonable.
This protection requirement is relinquished when the child comes under someone else's care (eg, to the daycare staff or the parents, when the children are at home). There would be a limit to this duty. That is, the school staff can't proscribe legal behavior off of school property. that is, you are under the protection of the school staff not their "authority".
Posted by: davep | February 21, 2010 12:42 PM
@18, I can't find the image you refer to anywhere on these tubez. What I did find is a quote from the plaintiff student saying that he was confronted by the assistant principal who accused him of taking pills.
The picture she produced shows him and a friend eating Mike & Ike candy.
Posted by: Joey Maloney | February 21, 2010 1:41 PM
Lots of information is known about who used the webcam and how it was used.
click to read more about them.
Posted by: ECP | March 6, 2010 9:21 PM