Schools remotely turn on webcams on school-issued laptops, spy on students off school property - or so lawsuit alleges, after a kid gets busted for "inappropriate behaviour" seen through remote webcam. Whoever thought this was a good idea? :lol:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/17/school-used-student.html
I know exactly what a school would have seen if they spied on me like that when I was a teen - a whole lot of wanking. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2010, 03:13:37 PM
Schools remotely turn on webcams on school-issued laptops, spy on students off school property - or so lawsuit alleges, after a kid gets busted for "inappropriate behaviour" seen through remote webcam. Whoever thought this was a good idea? :lol:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/17/school-used-student.html
I know exactly what a school would have seen if they spied on me like that when I was a teen - a whole lot of wanking. ;)
I find this hard to believe. Given that it is basically impossible for people to erase things from hard drives, and the slightest bit of "accidental" exposure to any of these students not fully clothed will be child pornography, how could these school officials have expected to stay out of prison (let alone continued an educational career after being registered as a sex offender)?
Somebody needs firing, stat, if this story is true.
Surely, given this is the USA, they would have consulted a lawyer before deciding they had the right to spy on their pupils outside of school? I can't believe a lawyer would have said this was a good idea.
Schools do lots of stupid things but this one is a bit hard to believe. It's just to loopy.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 18, 2010, 03:25:43 PM
Surely, given this is the USA, they would have consulted a lawyer before deciding they had the right to spy on their pupils outside of school? I can't believe a lawyer would have said this was a good idea.
You would be surprised on both counts. Lot of people do things without consulting lawyers, and incompetent lawyers abound.
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2010, 03:21:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2010, 03:13:37 PM
Schools remotely turn on webcams on school-issued laptops, spy on students off school property - or so lawsuit alleges, after a kid gets busted for "inappropriate behaviour" seen through remote webcam. Whoever thought this was a good idea? :lol:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/17/school-used-student.html
I know exactly what a school would have seen if they spied on me like that when I was a teen - a whole lot of wanking. ;)
I find this hard to believe. Given that it is basically impossible for people to erase things from hard drives, and the slightest bit of "accidental" exposure to any of these students not fully clothed will be child pornography, how could these school officials have expected to stay out of prison (let alone continued an educational career after being registered as a sex offender)?
Somebody needs firing, stat, if this story is true.
So far, only allegations in a statement of claim.
Go Philly! :cool:
Quote from: ulmont on February 18, 2010, 03:30:54 PM
Lot of people do things without consulting lawyers.
Just this morning I had a telephone conversation and took a shower without consulting a lawyer. :o
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2010, 04:37:13 PM
Quote from: ulmont on February 18, 2010, 03:30:54 PM
Lot of people do things without consulting lawyers.
Just this morning I had a telephone conversation and took a shower without consulting a lawyer. :o
And someday, that will come back to haunt you. :rolleyes:
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2010, 03:21:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2010, 03:13:37 PM
Schools remotely turn on webcams on school-issued laptops, spy on students off school property - or so lawsuit alleges, after a kid gets busted for "inappropriate behaviour" seen through remote webcam. Whoever thought this was a good idea? :lol:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/17/school-used-student.html
I know exactly what a school would have seen if they spied on me like that when I was a teen - a whole lot of wanking. ;)
I find this hard to believe. Given that it is basically impossible for people to erase things from hard drives, and the slightest bit of "accidental" exposure to any of these students not fully clothed will be child pornography, how could these school officials have expected to stay out of prison (let alone continued an educational career after being registered as a sex offender)?
Somebody needs firing, stat, if this story is true.
I find it funny how the increasingly restrictive draconian laws on sex offenses have created a perfect self-referential loop. Just get a hormone-ridden teen with a webcome, give him or her enough time, and you can arrest people by the droves (including the teen for "publishing child pornography").
There is something ironic about children of the sexual revolution putting their own children in jail for playing doctor with each other. :lol:
Quote from: ulmont on February 18, 2010, 04:40:58 PM
And someday, that will come back to haunt you. :rolleyes:
It is true, my mother will likely sue me soon. :(
Quote from: Martinus on February 18, 2010, 04:43:57 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2010, 03:21:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2010, 03:13:37 PM
Schools remotely turn on webcams on school-issued laptops, spy on students off school property - or so lawsuit alleges, after a kid gets busted for "inappropriate behaviour" seen through remote webcam. Whoever thought this was a good idea? :lol:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/17/school-used-student.html
I know exactly what a school would have seen if they spied on me like that when I was a teen - a whole lot of wanking. ;)
I find this hard to believe. Given that it is basically impossible for people to erase things from hard drives, and the slightest bit of "accidental" exposure to any of these students not fully clothed will be child pornography, how could these school officials have expected to stay out of prison (let alone continued an educational career after being registered as a sex offender)?
Somebody needs firing, stat, if this story is true.
I find it funny how the increasingly restrictive draconian laws on sex offenses have created a perfect self-referential loop. Just get a hormone-ridden teen with a webcome, give him or her enough time, and you can arrest people by the droves (including the teen for "publishing child pornography").
Prosecuting a teenager for child pornagraphy for putting racy pictures of himself or herself on the net is stupid in the first place, but it's not going to happen here. You can't successfully prosecute someone for something done without their knowledge or consent.
That assumes that the family's claims are accurate.
I wish Cory Doctrow at Boing Boing would fall into a ravine.
Possible? Definitely; any integrated webcam can be remotely activated- that fact often leaves me scratching my head when people whine about laptops not having an integrated webcam.
I wouldn't buy a laptop that didn't have an integrated webcam. For myself at least
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on February 18, 2010, 09:46:36 PM
I wouldn't buy a laptop that didn't have an integrated webcam. For myself at least
I won't buy one that does; too risky, and it tends to add a good $40-50 to ticket price, while a decent clip-on webcam will only set you back $10-20.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 18, 2010, 10:04:51 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on February 18, 2010, 09:46:36 PM
I wouldn't buy a laptop that didn't have an integrated webcam. For myself at least
I won't buy one that does; too risky.
:tinfoil:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpix.motivatedphotos.com%2F2009%2F3%2F26%2F633736618760569810-government.jpg&hash=6d9cec96186264a49d6cd3a1a602169bcf77cc08)
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on February 19, 2010, 02:57:35 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpix.motivatedphotos.com%2F2009%2F3%2F26%2F633736618760569810-government.jpg&hash=6d9cec96186264a49d6cd3a1a602169bcf77cc08)
Though it only seems to be Admiral Popeye.
This latest news doesn't look good for the school.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/20/AR2010022000679.html
QuoteOfficial: FBI probing Pa. school webcam spy case
By MARYCLAIRE DALE
The Associated Press
Saturday, February 20, 2010; 4:58 AM
PHILADELPHIA -- A Pennsylvania school district accused of secretly switching on laptop computer webcams inside students' homes is under investigation by federal authorities, a law enforcement official with knowledge of the case told The Associated Press.
The FBI will look into whether any federal wiretap or computer-intrusion laws were violated by Lower Merion School District officials, the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the investigation, told the AP on Friday.
Days after a student filed suit over the practice, Lower Merion officials acknowledged Friday that they remotely activated webcams 42 times in the past 14 months, but only to find missing student laptops. They insist they never did so to spy on students, as the student's family claimed in the federal lawsuit.
Families were not informed of the possibility the webcams might be activated in their homes without their permission in the paperwork students sign when they get the computers, district spokesman Doug Young said.
"It's clear what was in place was insufficient, and that's unacceptable," Young said.
The district has suspended the practice amid the lawsuit and the accompanying uproar from students, the community and privacy advocates. District officials hired outside counsel to review the past webcam activations and advise the district on related issues, Young said.
Remote-activation software can be used to capture keystrokes, send commands over the Internet or turn computers into listening devices by turning on built-in microphones. People often use it for legitimate purposes - to access computers from remote locations, for example. But hackers can use it to steal passwords and spouses to track the whereabouts of partners or lovers.
The Pennsylvania case shows how even well-intentioned plans can go awry if officials fail to understand the technology and its potential consequences, privacy experts said. Compromising images from inside a student's bedroom could fall into the hands of rogue school staff or otherwise be spread across the Internet, they said.
"What about the (potential) abuse of power from higher ups, trying to find out more information about the head of the PTA?" wondered Ari Schwartz, vice president at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "If you don't think about the privacy and security consequences of using this kind of technology, you run into problems."
The FBI opened its investigation after news of the suit broke on Thursday, the law-enforcement official said. Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman may also investigate, she said Friday.
Lower Merion, an affluent district in Philadelphia's suburbs, issues Apple laptops to all 2,300 students at its two high schools. Only two employees in the technology department were authorized to activate the cameras - and only to locate missing laptops, Young said. The remote activations captured images but never recorded sound, he said.
No one had complained before Harriton High School student Blake Robbins and his parents, Michael and Holly Robbins, filed their lawsuit Tuesday, he said.
According to the suit, Harriton vice principal Lindy Matsko told Blake on Nov. 11 that the school thought he was "engaged in improper behavior in his home." She allegedly cited as evidence a photograph "embedded" in his school-issued laptop.
The suit does not say if the boy's laptop had been reported stolen, and Young said the litigation prevents him from disclosing that fact. He said the district never violated its policy of only using the remote-activation software to find missing laptops. "Infer what you want," Young said.
The suit accuses the school of turning on Blake's webcam while the computer was inside his Penn Valley home, allegedly violating wiretap laws and his right to privacy.
Blake Robbins told KYW-TV on Friday that a school official described him in his room and mistook a piece of candy for a pill.
"She described what I was doing," he said. "She said she thought I had pills and said she thought that I was selling drugs."
Robbins said he was holding a Mike and Ike candy, not pills.
Holly Robbins said a school official told her that she had a picture of Blake holding up what she thought were pills.
"It was an invasion of privacy; it was like we had a Peeping Tom in our house," Holly Robbins told WPVI-TV. "I send my son to school to learn, not to be spied on."
Neither the family nor their lawyer, Mark Haltzman, returned calls from The Associated Press for comments this week.
The remote activations helped the district locate 28 of the 42 missing computers, Young said. He could not immediately say whether the technology staff was authorized to share the images with Matsko or other officials.
Either way, the potential for abuse is nearly limitless, especially because many teens keep their computers in their bedrooms, experts said.
"This is an age where kids explore their sexuality, so there's a lot of that going on in the room," said Witold Walczak, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which is not involved in the Robbins case. "This is fodder for child porn."
Does this person quoted at the very end feel that all previous ages did not involve teenagers exploring their sexuality? :huh:
Of course they didn't. This generation is the worst.
QuoteThe suit accuses the school of turning on Blake's webcam while the computer was inside his Penn Valley home, allegedly violating wiretap laws and his right to privacy.
Blake Robbins told KYW-TV on Friday that a school official described him in his room and mistook a piece of candy for a pill.
"She described what I was doing," he said. "She said she thought I had pills and said she thought that I was selling drugs."
Robbins said he was holding a Mike and Ike candy, not pills.
Holly Robbins said a school official told her that she had a picture of Blake holding up what she thought were pills.
OK, if true, the school officials just got even stupider. Suppose it was a pill; how do you leap to the conclusion that it was some type of recreational drugs and that the kid was dealing, rather than some legit medication?
These people not only need to lose their jobs and be subject to civil suit, they need to be forced to wear a dunce cap in public.
Quote from: Jaron on February 20, 2010, 05:38:27 AM
Does this person quoted at the very end feel that all previous ages did not involve teenagers exploring their sexuality? :huh:
LOL I read the quote now and either you misunderstood or you are trolling. The "age" referred to in the quote did not mean 2010 but 12-13. :P
Quote from: dps on February 20, 2010, 08:17:23 AM
QuoteThe suit accuses the school of turning on Blake's webcam while the computer was inside his Penn Valley home, allegedly violating wiretap laws and his right to privacy.
Blake Robbins told KYW-TV on Friday that a school official described him in his room and mistook a piece of candy for a pill.
"She described what I was doing," he said. "She said she thought I had pills and said she thought that I was selling drugs."
Robbins said he was holding a Mike and Ike candy, not pills.
Holly Robbins said a school official told her that she had a picture of Blake holding up what she thought were pills.
OK, if true, the school officials just got even stupider. Suppose it was a pill; how do you leap to the conclusion that it was some type of recreational drugs and that the kid was dealing, rather than some legit medication?
These people not only need to lose their jobs and be subject to civil suit, they need to be forced to wear a dunce cap in public.
Assuming there was no foul play involved (as in this being set up by a pedophile or something), this is just another example of the "think of the children" madness, where one principle ("protect children from harm") runs amok, because people do not realise it has to be checked by all other principles and values, such as the right to privacy and individual freedom. People have a hard time living in a multi-faceted word, so they just pick one cause and run with it.
Quote from: Martinus on February 19, 2010, 02:38:53 AM
:tinfoil:
It's fairly well documented that integrated webcams can be remotely activated (and now the school has admitted that they have done it). And people tend not to take seriously how risky an Internet connection is; consider the early Windows XP worm that bugged "remote assistance" to allow a remote takeover of the computer. I'm not Internet-phobic, obviously, but P2P/torrents and webcams are risky things to have connected to the Internet.
Let's assume for the moment the improbable of someone managing to hack your system and then specifically targeting and watching your webcam feed while you are at your computer (I assume you close your laptop when you are not using it).
How exactly is this a security risk warranting such a ridiculously over-careful response (other than a potential lawsuit from the hacker).
Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2010, 07:21:10 PM
Let's assume for the moment the improbable of someone managing to hack your system and then specifically targeting and watching your webcam feed while you are at your computer (I assume you close your laptop when you are not using it).
How exactly is this a security risk warranting such a ridiculously over-careful response (other than a potential lawsuit from the hacker).
How exactly is buying a forgoing an intergrated webcam in favor of a cheaper clip-on a "ridiculously over-careful response"?
Quote from: dps on February 21, 2010, 07:34:48 PM
How exactly is buying a forgoing an intergrated webcam in favor of a cheaper clip-on a "ridiculously over-careful response"?
Your proposed solution is not shrill and illogical, so of course it sucks by shrillogical standards.
Quote from: dps on February 21, 2010, 07:34:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2010, 07:21:10 PM
Let's assume for the moment the improbable of someone managing to hack your system and then specifically targeting and watching your webcam feed while you are at your computer (I assume you close your laptop when you are not using it).
How exactly is this a security risk warranting such a ridiculously over-careful response (other than a potential lawsuit from the hacker).
How exactly is buying a forgoing an intergrated webcam in favor of a cheaper clip-on a "ridiculously over-careful response"?
Most laptops have an integrated webcam these days (for example all MacBooks have one). So forgoing a whole line of products because they have an integrated webcam is ridiculous.
My laptop doesn't have a webcam.
Quote from: Monoriu on February 22, 2010, 02:53:06 AM
My laptop doesn't have a webcam.
Don't need one when you have the entire flat wired by the Chicoms anyway.
Quote from: Martinus on February 22, 2010, 02:47:24 AM
Quote from: dps on February 21, 2010, 07:34:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2010, 07:21:10 PM
Let's assume for the moment the improbable of someone managing to hack your system and then specifically targeting and watching your webcam feed while you are at your computer (I assume you close your laptop when you are not using it).
How exactly is this a security risk warranting such a ridiculously over-careful response (other than a potential lawsuit from the hacker).
How exactly is buying a forgoing an intergrated webcam in favor of a cheaper clip-on a "ridiculously over-careful response"?
Most laptops have an integrated webcam these days (for example all MacBooks have one). So forgoing a whole line of products because they have an integrated webcam is ridiculous.
I really wanted to respond to this but I am too drunk and tired.
*insert witty comment about apple products here*
Quote from: Martinus on February 22, 2010, 02:47:24 AM
Most laptops have an integrated webcam these days (for example all MacBooks have one). So forgoing a whole line of products because they have an integrated webcam is ridiculous.
There are many other reasons to forgo apple products. :)
Many places don't allow cameras so not having one built in is a plus.
56,000! They're totally fucked.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100419/world/us_laptops_spying_on_students
QuoteUS school district admits taking 56,000 secret webcam photos, screen shots of student laptops
By Maryclaire Dale, The Associated Press
ADVERTISEMENT
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.
The district photographed Robbins 400 times during a 15-day period last fall, sometimes as he slept in bed or was half-dressed, according to his lawyer, Mark Haltzman. Other times, the district captured screen shots of instant messages or video chats the Harriton High School sophomore had with friends, he said.
"Not only was Blake Robbins being spied upon, but every one of the people he was IM chatting with were spied upon," said Haltzman, whose lawsuit alleges wiretap and privacy violations. "They captured pictures of people that have nothing to do with Harriton. It could be his cousin from Connecticut."
About 38,000 of the images were taken over several months from six computers the school said were stolen from a locker room.
The tracking program took images every 15 minutes, usually capturing the webcam photo of the user and a screen shot at the same time. The program was sometimes turned on for weeks or months at a time, Hockeimer said.
"There were no written policies or procedures governing the circumstances surrounding activating the program and the circumstances regarding turning off the activations," Hockeimer said.
Robbins was one of about 20 students who had not paid the $55 insurance fee required to take the laptops home but was the only one tracked, Haltzman said.
The depositions taken to date have provided contradictory testimony about the reasons for tracking Robbins' laptop. One of the two people authorized to activate the program, technology co-ordinator Carol Cafiero, invoked her Fifth Amendment constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination and chose not to answer questions at the deposition, Haltzman said.
About 10 school officials had the right to request an activation, Hockeimer disclosed Monday.
The tracking program helped police identify a suspect not affiliated with the school in the locker room theft, Hockeimer said. The affluent Montgomery County district distributes the Macintosh notebook computers to all 2,300 students at its two high schools, Hockeimer said.
As part of the lawsuit, a federal judge this week is set to begin a confidential process of showing parents the images that were captured of their children.
The school district expects to release a written report on an internal investigation in the next few weeks, Hockeimer said. School board President David Ebby has pledged the report will contain "all the facts - good and bad."
They're going to be even more totally fucked if someone on one of these 56,000 pics is getting fucked.
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2010, 11:15:23 PM
They're going to be even more totally fucked if someone on one of these 56,000 pics is getting fucked.
They say there was nothing "salacious" photographed, but that's hard to imagine given the amount of pictures taken. Plus they haven't exactly been forthcoming, they initially said there were only 42 pictures taken after all.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 19, 2010, 11:19:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2010, 11:15:23 PM
They're going to be even more totally fucked if someone on one of these 56,000 pics is getting fucked.
They say there was nothing "salacious" photographed, but that's hard to imagine given the amount of pictures taken. Plus they haven't exactly been forthcoming, they initially said there were only 42 pictures taken after all.
Then again, who could be having sex in those pictures? Do parents actually have sex? As far as I know, my parents never did.
Lulz, fucking morons.
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201016/5526/School-district-says-56-000-photos-and-screenshots-taken-of-students
Quote
This information came from the motion to sanction Carol Cafiero, one of the two district employees with access to the security software, for refusing to turn her personal computer over for investigation. During her deposition to Robbins's lawyers, she invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer questions as not to self-incriminate. One of the questions asked of her was whether she had downloaded "...pictures to her own computer, including pictures of students who were naked while in their home," the motion notes.
According to an email she sent to a co-worker, cited by Robbins' attorney, when told that the images and screenshots from the students' laptops were like a soap opera, Cafiero said, "I know. I love it!"