Students sue school officials for remote spying

[standingwave]

Unbelievable!

Students of a Pennsylvania school district are hauling educators to court over allegations that administrators remotely activated the webcams on school-issued laptops and used that remote access to spy on students and their family members.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=30945

The issue came to light in November when an assistant principal informed a student about improper behavior in his home and produced a photograph captured from the laptop’s webcam as proof. The suit did not specify the type of activity the student was engaged in.

[Cuddles McKitten]

It might have been a bad idea to do something like that, but it was beyond stupidity to not only openly admit to spying on students but also try to use it to strong-arm a kid.

[nerdy_kid]

hey look! another good reason to be homeschooled! :D I hope that school gets in huge trouble is all i have to say, what a bunch of jerks.

[Post Monkeh]

i thought this was gonna be students complaining about having their net usage in school monitored, but i'm afraid i'll have to come down on the side of the kids here.
bloody perverts

[Seq]

hey look! another good reason to be homeschooled! :D I hope that school gets in huge trouble is all i have to say, what a bunch of jerks.

Homeschool teachers make you eat your vegetables.

[nerdy_kid]

Homeschool teachers make you eat your vegetables.

true....
:lolflag:

[lovinglinux]

Wow, that's really serious stuff.

[Tristam Green]

i thought this was gonna be students complaining about having their net usage in school monitored, but i'm afraid i'll have to come down on the side of the kids here.
bloody perverts

I gotta agree here. Unless they explicitly outlined in their usage policies their capabilities to do this, and as such the parents signed said policies, then a judge would have to be off his rocker to not side with the families of those students.

[Small_Nuke]

Unbelievable!

Students of a Pennsylvania school district are hauling educators to court over allegations that administrators remotely activated the webcams on school-issued laptops and used that remote access to spy on students and their family members.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=30945

The issue came to light in November when an assistant principal informed a student about improper behavior in his home and produced a photograph captured from the laptop’s webcam as proof. The suit did not specify the type of activity the student was engaged in.



Wow, this is why I never feel safe when using my netbook (when I'm on Windows). I don't know if someone is watching through that little camera eye!

I'd put some ducktap over it bcus I never use the dam camera anyways, but it would make it look like trash and it's a new PC so I haven't done it (yet).

I would be pissed if this were even remotely close to where I live, but in Texas we still use the ol' text book and the only time a student gets to use a laptop is in a 'tech' class that is sponsered by Dell, and the laptop doesn't usually leave the classroom.

I've been hearing some apauling things about schools here in the USA. I read a story in USA Today (I think) about public school teachers in the Atlanta area erasing student answers on standardized tests to make them look better (and earn bonuses because of it).

I thaught my college professors were bad, but it sounds like there are some serious scum in the public school system.

[Tristam Green]

Wow, this is why I never feel safe when using my netbook (when I'm on Windows). I don't know if someone is watching through that little camera eye!

Is that because it takes too long to get it working with cheese? :p

](*,)

[FuturePilot]

i thought this was gonna be students complaining about having their net usage in school monitored, but i'm afraid i'll have to come down on the side of the kids here.
bloody perverts

I thought the same thing too. And I'd have to side with the students on this one unless it was specifically mentioned in some usage policy thing that they had to sign.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Wow, this is why I never feel safe when using my netbook (when I'm on Windows). I don't know if someone is watching through that little camera eye!

There's a little light on that camera that turns on when it's in use ;)
(Unless the computer was manufactured by imbeciles, in which case it's always on).

[Small_Nuke]

There's a little light on that camera that turns on when it's in use ;)
(Unless the computer was manufactured by imbeciles, in which case it's always on).

No light on this camera. It's the camera on the Acer Aspire One D150 (10 inch). It's just this square camera thing and a lens. It really creeps me out bcus I know that you can do the network connect stuff with periphrials like these cameras. No 'on' light or notifications in the software from what I can tell.

The stuff that comes with the OEM XP may let you know it's on, but I use Win 7 and Linux so that doesn't help me.

No more privacy I swear. Also, I don't understand why these things come with a built in camera anyways. Who actually uses it? I tried to use mine once to reply with a video on YouTube and the quality was terrible.

[Post Monkeh]

No light on this camera. It's the camera on the Acer Aspire One D150 (10 inch). It's just this square camera thing and a lens. It really creeps me out bcus I know that you can do the network connect stuff with periphrials like these cameras. No 'on' light or notifications in the software from what I can tell.

The stuff that comes with the OEM XP may let you know it's on, but I use Win 7 and Linux so that doesn't help me.

No more privacy I swear. Also, I don't understand why these things come with a built in camera anyways. Who actually uses it? I tried to use mine once to reply with a video on YouTube and the quality was terrible.

they're good for webcam chats. the fiance's brother is at uni and he talks to her mum and dad all the time.

if you're really creeped out just keep the lid closed, or if that isn't possible because maybe you're doing something rude and you, erm, need to see what's on the screen, then just put a bit of tape over it.

to be honest i don't let things like that worry me. if people want to get their jollies watching my big belly wobbling while i prance around my bedroom in my trunks then fair play to them for having such a strong stomach. it would obviously be different for women though

[NoaHall]

I lol'd at the above post.(The bit on the end :))

Anyway, there are ways and means of disabling webcams so they don't turn on unless you, yourself make them turn on, but as the method is a little risky, I'm not going to tell you. Sorry.

[Yes]

Oh crap, that district's like 20 minutes from here. Weird.

My school also got a couple hundred laptops from that tech grant, I don't think they have webcams but I'll be sure to check next time I use one...

[standingwave]

I gotta agree here. Unless they explicitly outlined in their usage policies their capabilities to do this, and as such the parents signed said policies, then a judge would have to be off his rocker to not side with the families of those students.I suspect that this will be the school's defense. Somewhere buried in the usage agreement is probably some vague reference to monitoring the use of the school's computers.

[MCVenom]

We all know what teenagers do in front of their computers... I wouldn't be surprised if the district got child exploitation charges leveled against them :|

[Post Monkeh]

I suspect that this will be the school's defense. Somewhere buried in the usage agreement is probably some vague reference to monitoring the use of the school's computers.

there is a big difference between monitoring usage and this.

in fact, the webcam cannot be used to monitor anything except what the people are doing away from the computer.

[lykwydchykyn]

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

Don't they teach the classics these days?

[Hwæt]

to be honest i don't let things like that worry me. if people want to get their jollies watching my big belly wobbling while i prance around my bedroom in my trunks then fair play to them for having such a strong stomach. it would obviously be different for women though

I haven't laughed that hard in a LONG time. :lol:



I thought the same thing too. And I'd have to side with the students on this one unless it was specifically mentioned in some usage policy thing that they had to sign.

Regardless of this, do you really think that it was necessary for the school to spy on their students and monitor their private lives at home? Doesn't this go against unreasonable searches and seizures? Moreover, isn't this extremely Orwellian in concept, and isn't that something we should be fighting against at all costs, or face ending up like North Korea where the government DOES have cameras in every house? I'm sorry, but educators have no right to any of my private life. I've seen some of the most redneck, intolerant people get into teaching, and God knows what would happen if they found out that one of their students has a conflicting ideology with them.



I've been hearing some apauling things about schools here in the USA. I read a story in USA Today (I think) about public school teachers in the Atlanta area erasing student answers on standardized tests to make them look better (and earn bonuses because of it).

I thaught my college professors were bad, but it sounds like there are some serious scum in the public school system.

If we didn't pay teachers peanuts, then we may actually encourage people who are actually decent at teaching to choose it as a career. Most really intelligent people turn down teaching for better opportunities due to the extremely low pay. Not to say that there aren't public school teachers who are actually extremely gifted teachers. Don't get me wrong, because I have met some great teachers.

[t0p]

to be honest i don't let things like that worry me. if people want to get their jollies watching my big belly wobbling while i prance around my bedroom in my trunks then fair play to them for having such a strong stomach. it would obviously be different for women though

In what way is it "obviously" different for women?

[Small_Nuke]

I messed up this post big time. Anyways I was just ranting about teachers. I think it's off topic to discuss teachers since the OP is more about cameras and spying on students and I don't want to turn this thread into some political flame fest.

[chillicampari]

Response from the superintendent.

http://www.lmsd.org/sections/news/default.php?m=0&t=today&p=lmsd_anno&id=1137

[standingwave]

there is a big difference between monitoring usage and this.Oh, I agree but I will guarantee that the school's attorneys will be arguing that all the school was doing was checking up on what this student was doing with one of their computers. Lawyers love to abuse language.

[t0p]

The superintendant's response doesn't seem to address the issue at all. He seems to be claiming that the picture he showed to a student was taken because the laptop was reported stolen. The originally-linked article doesn't say the laptop had been stolen - it says the photo was produced as evidence of "improper behaviour" in the student's home.

Seems to me the superintendant is really saying "Oops, you caught us; we won't do it again." Too late, super.


Oh, I agree but I will guarantee that the school's attorneys will be arguing that all the school was doing was checking up on what this student was doing with one of their computers. Lawyers love to abuse language.

But how would the image from a webcam tell anyone what the student was doing with the computer? Unless, of course, someone held up a mirror so the webcam could see what's on the screen...

[FuturePilot]

Regardless of this, do you really think that it was necessary for the school to spy on their students and monitor their private lives at home? Doesn't this go against unreasonable searches and seizures? Moreover, isn't this extremely Orwellian in concept, and isn't that something we should be fighting against at all costs, or face ending up like North Korea where the government DOES have cameras in every house? I'm sorry, but educators have no right to any of my private life. I've seen some of the most redneck, intolerant people get into teaching, and God knows what would happen if they found out that one of their students has a conflicting ideology with them.
I completely agree. I was merely stating the fact that something could have been mentioned in a usage policy agreement. And we all know that people read those things about as well as they read EULAs. I was in no way agreeing with what the school did even if it was specified in a usage policy. But we all know how the fine print can come back to bite you.

[earthpigg]

questions about the exact limits of our civil liberties have mostly been answered by this point in our (American) history. like it or lump it, you mostly know what you are and are not allowed to do. it's common knowledge: you can make a political speech, but you cannot cry out "fire!" in a packed movie theater. you can observe and record people doing whatever it is they are doing in public, but not in their homes. everyone knows this, from your boss to your friends and family. you can protest private property with the consent of the owners, and on public land with the consent of the local government (usually police department).

i say 'mostly' answered because this clarity is not the case at all the moment a computer or the internet enters the picture. everyone suddenly thinks that we are in some magical new realm where the same laws and traditions do not apply - some people think it's ok to violate copyright law, and other folks seem to think it's ok for a company to collect evidence, to try, and then to punish an individual that chose to break copyright law with no due process at all. very grey.

it is possible the school's scumbag administrators honestly thought that what they where doing here was legal.

thesis statement ( :) ): until these things are all clarified, and when it comes to computers or the internet, we all need to think the same way an African American in Mississippi in the 1930s could be expected to justifiably think:


-assume that if it is to good to be true, it is.
-assume the government is out to get you.
-assume businesses and corporations are not going to treat you the same as they would 'one of their own'.
-trust no one that isn't clearly aligned with those establishments that exist to protect our civil liberties.... and remain skeptical of those that claim to be.


in this case, i would say that the school students that where nerds utterly failed their fellow students. the school administrators should be expected to think it's ok to peek in on a 14 year old girl while she is naked: because computers and/or the internet is involved, one should expect the school administrators to truly believe this to be acceptable.

it falls, then, to those of the persecuted students that know better to educate their fellow students on the finer points of civil disobedience. take the hard drive out of the issued laptop, put your own in... put the issued hard drive back in before returning it. boot from a live usb. et cetera. plenty of solutions.

ill give another example of how misinformed a lot of organizations and people are about computing and the internet:

a poster about "cyber safety" at the local community college, posted outside the campus police station, carried box headings such as "cyber bullying" and "avoiding malware" and "intellectual property".

under the Intellectual Property heading, this was stated:


Only download music and movies from legitimate sources (those that require payment).

the fools.

that would imply that the following website is not legitimate, because it allows me to download an album by Nine Inch Nails without paying:

http://theslip.nin.com/

upon closer inspection, it came as no surprise to see a logo in the lower left corner read "Sponsored by: AT&T"

that example was slightly off topic but it serves to illuminate just how confused everyone still seems to be about this whole "newfangled intertubes thing".

if anyone wants to call BS on my claim about the poster, ill take a high rez picture and post it.

[SaintDanBert]

...
bloody perverts
...


If you enter my home and take something without permission, it is a crime -- regardless of what you take -- stealing is stealing. Start the [highlight]prosecution[/b] there.

That said, did the folks know the laptop had a camera?
Did they know that it could be accessed remotely?
Did they know that the laptop could be monitored by the school folks?
What did they sign? Could they read what they signed (sorry!)?

Heavy sigh,
~~~ 0;-Dan

[earthpigg]

That said, did the folks know the laptop had a camera?
probably. mic, too, so don't assume electric tape over the camera will do anything. key loggers also, so don't assume it is ever safe to type your email password in.


Did they know that it could be accessed remotely?
they should have assumed it could until proven otherwise.


Did they know that the laptop could be monitored by the school folks?
should have assumed.


What did they sign? Could they read what they signed (sorry!)?
if the alternative to signing is an inferior education and fewer opportunities (due to not receiving the laptop), and this is a public school, then the contract is irrelevant. it was signed under duress.

[standingwave]

But how would the image from a webcam tell anyone what the student was doing with the computer? Unless, of course, someone held up a mirror so the webcam could see what's on the screen...Oh, who knows? Maybe they're also taking screen-caps, logging web activity and keystrokes. We don't know the nature of the student's alleged "inappropriate" behavior so we can't say what they were looking for. If it was theft of the computer itself, which the district now seems to be alluding, then why weren't the cops called back in November? All I'm saying is that I fully expect the school's (scum-sucking) lawyers to claim that the EULA, properly interpreted (i.e. as broadly as imaginable), allowed for such "monitoring."

I'm more interested in why criminal charges against the school aren't forthcoming. A lawsuit is only going to punish the district's taxpayers.

[earthpigg]

I'm more interested in why criminal charges against the school aren't forthcoming. A lawsuit is only going to punish the district's taxpayers.

a would hope for a 'conspiracy to commit...' set of charges for a couple people, and 'accessory to...' for a whole bunch of people.

if a teacher knew that the principal had eyes inside the bedrooms of several hundred minors and said nothing, the teacher is clearly an accessory.

[Yes]

Presumably the school district had the students sign a user agreement that allowed the school to do this.

Since the students would be taking the laptops home, the school should have made the parents sign a release too - if they did this, then there's no legal reason that the school (or anyone at the school) would be in trouble.

Read what you sign, and stuff like this won't happen.

[Tristam Green]

Read what you sign, and stuff like this won't happen.

ding ding ding ding

still, you'd be surprised how many people sign things like this, despite reading it over, because they don't think it's worth questioning.

"oh! they can take a picture of a bad person stealing the laptop! what a neat function!"

[etnlIcarus]

Is there any particular reason my post was deleted?

[nmccrina]

As far as I can see, the only escape for the school here is if the "inappropriate behaviour" was in fact stealing the laptop. If this is the case, then both the original article and the superintendent's response make sense, and the school was justified in using the camera. Otherwise, this was extremely illegal (and scary), and the superintendent's response was utter b*******.



if the alternative to signing is an inferior education and fewer opportunities (due to not receiving the laptop), and this is a public school, then the contract is irrelevant. it was signed under duress.

Not having a public school education = inferior education + duress? LMFAO.

[nerdy_kid]

I lol'd at the above post.(The bit on the end :))

Anyway, there are ways and means of disabling webcams so they don't turn on unless you, yourself make them turn on, but as the method is a little risky, I'm not going to tell you. Sorry.

yeah, take the screen part apart and snip the wires ;)

[NoaHall]

yeah, take the screen part apart and snip the wires ;)

No, there's a software way of doing it.

[Yes]

So apparently the agreement the students signed only contained very vague language about "not using the laptops for bad stuff". Nothing about monitoring you through a webcam.

That's just what I've heard though, I can't believe the district would be so stupid they'd spy on the kids without permission.

[Post Monkeh]

In what way is it "obviously" different for women?
because i would say 99% of peeping toms are men, so women rightly feel more uncomfortable about the whole idea.

i'd be quite chuffed if i thought someone got enjoyment from spying on me :D

[mr-woof]

I wonder how they managed to connect to the webcam? If the child was behind a router, then they wouldn't be able to initiate the connection.

[whiskeylover]

I wonder how they managed to connect to the webcam? If the child was behind a router, then they wouldn't be able to initiate the connection.

Unless there was some kind of a backdoor installed on the laptop.

[lykwydchykyn]

I wonder how they managed to connect to the webcam? If the child was behind a router, then they wouldn't be able to initiate the connection.

Likely the laptop was set up to initiate a connection back to the school's servers, such as a VPN or SSH tunnel.

[tjwoosta]

because i would say 99% of peeping toms are men, so women rightly feel more uncomfortable about the whole idea.

i'd be quite chuffed if i thought someone got enjoyment from spying on me :D

This isnt just about people seeing you naked or something stupid like that. This this a serious invasion of privacy. I would be extremely pissed off about this if it happened to me. This is like finding somebody hiding in your closet watching you and your family eat dinner or something.

[Post Monkeh]

Oh, I agree but I will guarantee that the school's attorneys will be arguing that all the school was doing was checking up on what this student was doing with one of their computers. Lawyers love to abuse language.
there are many easier ways to check on what the computer is being used for than by using the webcam. in fact the webcam CANNOT ever show what the computer is being used for, it can only show what the people in the area of the computer are doing.


If you enter my home and take something without permission, it is a crime -- regardless of what you take -- stealing is stealing. Start the [highlight]prosecution[/b] there.

That said, did the folks know the laptop had a camera?
Did they know that it could be accessed remotely?
Did they know that the laptop could be monitored by the school folks?
What did they sign? Could they read what they signed (sorry!)?

Heavy sigh,
~~~ 0;-Dan
a contract isn't valid if it contains elemants that breaks the law, no matter how many times it is signed. what happened here appears to be an invasion of privacy, and in any event taking random pictures of a minor, not knowing their state of undress, would amount to vouyerism at the very least.


Presumably the school district had the students sign a user agreement that allowed the school to do this.

Since the students would be taking the laptops home, the school should have made the parents sign a release too - if they did this, then there's no legal reason that the school (or anyone at the school) would be in trouble.

Read what you sign, and stuff like this won't happen.

see above


having said all that, if the laptop HAD been reported as stolen then that does open up a new line of defence for the school, but then it would depend on who reported it stolen, and on whether or not covert facilities like this are actually legal. it might seem like it should be, but there are strict laws in the uk anyway over the use of cctv and such like.

[Post Monkeh]

This isnt just about people seeing you naked or something stupid like that. This this a serious invasion of privacy. I would be extremely pissed off about this if it happened to me. This is like finding somebody hiding in your closet watching you and your family eat dinner or something.

yeah i agree, it's totally out of order, i just meant it wouldn't annoy me personally that much i'd obviously still be peeved, but if it caught my fiancee/sister/niece/mum or whatever then i would be fuming.

[Hwæt]

yeah i agree, it's totally out of order, i just meant it wouldn't annoy me personally that much i'd obviously still be peeved, but if it caught my fiancee/sister/niece/mum or whatever then i would be fuming.

Your fiancée is also your sister, niece, and mom? WOW, I thought my family was weird. :P

[steveneddy]

The school returned a press bit stating that they only turned on the web cams on the laptops that weren't returned to the school at the proper time.

I don't think any school is going to spy on students, <comments withheld>.

This story has been blown out of proportion by parents who were probably trying to get something for free, the laptops, and when approached about how the school knew they still had the laptops, raised a ruckus.

This is nothing more than someone getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

My youngest daughter goes to a college where they provide MacBook Pro for all school work while attending school there. But at the end of every semester the laptops are supposed to be turned in to the IT department.

This is simply a case where the students and/or parents ignored specific instructions for returning school property in a timely manner.

Just because you ignore laws and rules and may not agree with specific laws and rules does not mean that they aren't present and can't be enforced.

[Icehuck]

This is simply a case where the students and/or parents ignored specific instructions for returning school property in a timely manner.



So why did the assistant principal call the kid into his office and tell him his behavior at home was bad? Or did you skip the OP?

Pedophile? I think so.

[BETATEST]

I saw the press release too. I can understand why the school would do that to people who conveniently "forget" (i.e. attempt to possibly steal) to return loaned computer equipment. Ignoring the fact that if the unit is behind a firewall/router or the LoJack technology used or how they got the camera activated - I can see the school tracing the online laptop and then getting a snapshot of the user as evidence.

But then, they should have reported it to the police with what they had. Then - no issues. No "privacy violation" issues - how can it be a privacy violation if the owner of the laptop is trying to find their "possibly stolen" property.

A simple situation handled wrong by idiots ... again.

[Post Monkeh]

how can it be a privacy violation if the owner of the laptop is trying to find their "possibly stolen" property.

you would think, but it doesn't always work like that.

[Gallahhad]

Unbelievable!

Students of a Pennsylvania school district are hauling educators to court over allegations that administrators remotely activated the webcams on school-issued laptops and used that remote access to spy on students and their family members.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=30945

The issue came to light in November when an assistant principal informed a student about improper behavior in his home and produced a photograph captured from the laptop’s webcam as proof. The suit did not specify the type of activity the student was engaged in.



Thats pretty messed up right there.
Monitoring in school I would not have a problem with, monitoring in peoples homes, well, no, thats just not right, not right at all.

[MaxIBoy]

From the superintendent's response:

• How did the security feature work?

Upon a report of a suspected lost, stolen or missing laptop, the feature was activated by the District's security and technology departments. The tracking-security feature was limited to taking a still image of the operator and the operator's screen. This feature has only been used for the limited purpose of locating a lost, stolen or missing laptop. The District has not used the tracking feature or web cam for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever.Emphasis is mine.

So yes, the superintendent could see what the laptop was being used for.



In any case, this kind of thing is illegal, contract or not. You can't sign a contract to give someone the right to murder you, and you can't sign a contract to let someone violate your Constitutional rights.







<SNIP>
thesis statement ( :) ): until these things are all clarified, and when it comes to computers or the internet, we all need to think the same way an African American in Mississippi in the 1930s could be expected to justifiably think:


-assume that if it is to good to be true, it is.
-assume the government is out to get you.
-assume businesses and corporations are not going to treat you the same as they would 'one of their own'.
-trust no one that isn't clearly aligned with those establishments that exist to protect our civil liberties.... and remain skeptical of those that claim to be.


in this case, i would say that the school students that where nerds utterly failed their fellow students. the school administrators should be expected to think it's ok to peek in on a 14 year old girl while she is naked: because computers and/or the internet is involved, one should expect the school administrators to truly believe this to be acceptable.

it falls, then, to those of the persecuted students that know better to educate their fellow students on the finer points of civil disobedience. take the hard drive out of the issued laptop, put your own in... put the issued hard drive back in before returning it. boot from a live usb. et cetera. plenty of solutions.

<SNIP>

that example was slightly off topic but it serves to illuminate just how confused everyone still seems to be about this whole "newfangled intertubes thing".

<SNIP>Damned insightful post.

[Post Monkeh]

So yes, the superintendent could see what the laptop was being used for.


but i bet he didn't need the camera for it





In any case, this kind of thing is illegal, contract or not. You can't sign a contract to give someone the right to murder you, and you can't sign a contract to let someone violate your Constitutional rights.

this is what i would presume, but then it depends if it was reported stolen, and just exactly what you're allowed to do with a stolen laptop when you can access the webcM

[urukrama]

So why did the assistant principal call the kid into his office and tell him his behavior at home was bad? Or did you skip the OP?

The article and suit do not specify what the bad behaviour was. For all we know it was not returning the laptop and claiming it was stolen.

[Lightstar]

I'll never masturbate again.

[Yes]

From what I've heard the kid was smoking pot.

And from what my father's told me, it's perfectly legal and possible to sign away your privacy rights. Although since the kids are under 18 they'd have to have their parents sign as well. (My father's a lawyer, I imagine he knows what he's talking about).

[etnlIcarus]

Damned insightful post.

Perhaps you could explain it to me. I had issued a brief critique, however it's been removed by a moderator.

[Nerd King]

a would hope for a 'conspiracy to commit...' set of charges for a couple people, and 'accessory to...' for a whole bunch of people.

if a teacher knew that the principal had eyes inside the bedrooms of several hundred minors and said nothing, the teacher is clearly an accessory.
Do you honestly think teachers get a say in this stuff? Say something and you're fired. That's how school works.

[Hwæt]

Do you honestly think teachers get a say in this stuff? Say something and you're fired. That's how school business works.

Enron comes to mind.

[cprofitt]

If we didn't pay teachers peanuts, then we may actually encourage people who are actually decent at teaching to choose it as a career. Most really intelligent people turn down teaching for better opportunities due to the extremely low pay. Not to say that there aren't public school teachers who are actually extremely gifted teachers. Don't get me wrong, because I have met some great teachers.

Where I am from teachers are paid well... they have excellent benefits too.

You have to recall most of them work roughly 190 (5x38) days a year vs. the standard person working around 260 days a year (5x52). So if you take their salary and divide it to get their weekly salary... then multiply it by 52 you get what they would be making if they worked year round...

(example: 40,000 / 38 = 1052.63 x 52 = 54,736)

[Yes]

Where I am from teachers are paid well... they have excellent benefits too.

You have to recall most of them work roughly 190 (5x38) days a year vs. the standard person working around 260 days a year (5x52). So if you take their salary and divide it to get their weekly salary... then multiply it by 52 you get what they would be making if they worked year round...

(example: 40,000 / 38 = 1052.63 x 52 = 54,736)

It completely depends on the area. In a wealthy school district after teaching for 30 years some teachers make as much as $100k a year. Poorer districts (like inner-city districts) pay much worse.

For what it's worth, the district in question is very wealthy. I think it's ranked third in the state for scores and such too.

[standingwave]

Thats pretty messed up right there.

The FBI is getting involved now...
The FBI has opened a criminal investigation into the case of Lower Merion school officials spying its on students at home via notebook webcams, an FBI source said.

The source says the investigation will probe whether the school officials broke federal wiretap or computer-intrusion laws.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/tech/FBI-Launches-Criminal-Investigation-into-Webcam-Spying-Source-84805867.html

[Nerd King]

Where I am from teachers are paid well... they have excellent benefits too.

You have to recall most of them work roughly 190 (5x38) days a year vs. the standard person working around 260 days a year (5x52). So if you take their salary and divide it to get their weekly salary... then multiply it by 52 you get what they would be making if they worked year round...

(example: 40,000 / 38 = 1052.63 x 52 = 54,736)
Here's someone who knows nothing about teachers. We don't do it for the money, trust me. Generally, for the qualifications a teacher has, teaching is among the lower-paying things they could do. I teach, but would earn much more in IT. Why do I do it? Because it's an awesome jobs and my kids are amazing.
The holidays thing is an oft-cited pile of junk. The 'holidays' are usually taken up with paperwork, training, seminars, and about 33828 billion other bits of admin stuff. During term time we work considerably more than 9-5, I usually get to work at 7.30am and get home at 4pm, working at home til 8pm on lesson preparation, marking, etc. Yep, that stuff doesn't just magically happen, we have to do it. Contact hours are only a tiny bit of the teacher's workload.
Teachers work hard. Remember that.
Finally, a little something for those who want to tell us all how crap we are..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxsOVK4syxU

[cprofitt]

Here's someone who knows nothing about teachers. We don't do it for the money, trust me. Generally, for the qualifications a teacher has, teaching is among the lower-paying things they could do. I teach, but would earn much more in IT. Why do I do it? Because it's an awesome jobs and my kids are amazing.
The holidays thing is an oft-cited pile of junk. The 'holidays' are usually taken up with paperwork, training, seminars, and about 33828 billion other bits of admin stuff. During term time we work considerably more than 9-5, I usually get to work at 7.30am and get home at 4pm, working at home til 8pm on lesson preparation, marking, etc. Yep, that stuff doesn't just magically happen, we have to do it. Contact hours are only a tiny bit of the teacher's workload.
Teachers work hard. Remember that.
Finally, a little something for those who want to tell us all how crap we are..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxsOVK4syxU

Nerd:

To clarify I made no claims about why teachers choose their profession. I simply responded that some teachers do get paid well and that to compare their salary you have to account for the fact that they work between 180-190 days a year vs. a person who works 260 days a year.

I also understand quite well what teacher do. I also understand quite well what people other than teachers do.

Very good video.

[Nerd King]

Nerd:

To clarify I made no claims about why teachers choose their profession. I simply responded that some teachers do get paid well and that to compare their salary you have to account for the fact that they work between 180-190 days a year vs. a person who works 260 days a year.

I also understand quite well what teacher do. I also understand quite well what people other than teachers do.

Very good video.
I never suggested that you stated an opinion on why we teach, I was simply of the view that you considered teaching to be an easy option and were perpetuating that myth. ie the old holidays thing. Rubbish. I notice you didn't read about teaching hours, or chose to ignore it. We work probably more hours than most other people. Read my post again, and I'll grade your new reply after I've finished the marking and prep I'm working on this morning.

[JackRock]

From what I've heard the kid was smoking pot.

And from what my father's told me, it's perfectly legal and possible to sign away your privacy rights. Although since the kids are under 18 they'd have to have their parents sign as well. (My father's a lawyer, I imagine he knows what he's talking about).

Actually, there are several court cases recently closed that ruled in favor of the VICTIM, despite having agreements/waivers signed that supposedly protected the defendants. And the basic ruling came back essentially the same - you cannot hide behind a waiver or agreement if the activity was illegal to begin with.

In fact, in many jurisdictions, a single statement that protects against prosecution for illegal behavior invalidates the ENTIRE waiver/agreement - even the parts that would otherwise legally stand.

I am a martial arts instructor, and it is for this reason that I had removed the "even in cases of negligence on the part of the instructor" clause from my waiver. That way, at least the rest of the signed document stands.

So no. I believe this is a case of Invasion of Privacy, as there are MANY ways to locate a lost/stolen laptop without the use of webcams. Many of them at very low cost to businesses.

However: The link about the FBI story above that wonders why the Asst Principal got the image, despite that only two IT employees were authorized to activate the cams - I can provide a legal theory on this one. As an A+ technician, I can tell you that all the certification courses for the last 3-5 years have postulated examples very similar to this one. And they ALL (at least all that I've seen) teach that you should inform your supervisor immediately. Very easy to see how it would be escalated to top school officials.

[cprofitt]

I never suggested that you stated an opinion on why we teach, I was simply of the view that you considered teaching to be an easy option and were perpetuating that myth. ie the old holidays thing. Rubbish. I notice you didn't read about teaching hours, or chose to ignore it. We work probably more hours than most other people. Read my post again, and I'll grade your new reply after I've finished the marking and prep I'm working on this morning.

I sent you my reply in a private message -- our continuation of this discussion would be inappropriate IMHO. I hope my private message clears up some assumptions you made.

Peace.

[cprofitt]

However: The link about the FBI story above that wonders why the Asst Principal got the image, despite that only two IT employees were authorized to activate the cams - I can provide a legal theory on this one. As an A+ technician, I can tell you that all the certification courses for the last 3-5 years have postulated examples very similar to this one. And they ALL (at least all that I've seen) teach that you should inform your supervisor immediately. Very easy to see how it would be escalated to top school officials.

The only scenario I can think of that would result in the school being 'right' would be if the student had reported the laptop stolen in an attempt to keep it for himself, but the reports so far make that seem highly unlikely.

This will be worth watching.

I would think that students and teachers might re-evaluate their 'school owned' computing devices after this story though.

[NightwishFan]

My friend always did his homeschool from a Linux machine. I had Windows back then, but personally never participated in any webcam related educational activities. I think that the spying is a severe breach in privacy, and something like that is why I would never leave such a device connected.

[Gallahhad]

If any of my kids get a school issued laptop with a webcam, it will get a piece of black electrical tape over it when it comes in the door.

I am very suspicious of school faculty intent for covertly accessing the webcam of a teenager's computer, especially when the child is in their own home.

[Post Monkeh]

From what I've heard the kid was smoking pot.

And from what my father's told me, it's perfectly legal and possible to sign away your privacy rights. Although since the kids are under 18 they'd have to have their parents sign as well. (My father's a lawyer, I imagine he knows what he's talking about).

well there are obviously some waivers you can sign, given the amount of reality tv shows on the box these days, but i would be very surprised if a parent would be able to sign anything that would give anyone the right to spy on their kids at any time they felt like it.

[JESSU]

I live in the area. The school had software installed that let them access the web cams and take pictures. When the school was spying on them, the webcam light would go on. Students noticed it, asked about it and were lied too, told it was just a bug. I doubt all the students who noticed the light were suspected of stealing the laptop. If they wanted to know if the student had it they could have simply called home, checked who signed it out.... It wasn’t until this incident that they acknowledged that they were actually activating the web cam. They claimed it was for security and was there to help track down stolen and lost laptops. Since the incident the software has been disabled on the laptops.

[tjwoosta]

I think its about time for a PTA meeting! I for one would be moving my kid to a different district, maybe even start home schooling or something.

[Yes]

well there are obviously some waivers you can sign, given the amount of reality tv shows on the box these days, but i would be very surprised if a parent would be able to sign anything that would give anyone the right to spy on their kids at any time they felt like it.

It wouldn't be worded like that. It'd be worded something like "there's software that can be used should the laptop be stolen or lost to help find it". How many parents do you think would read that and think to ask what exactly that means? If you believe the district's story, it only was used when the laptops were reported stolen so that would be perfectly allowed.

[Kenny_Strawn]

I know, where I am, in California, none of this stuff happens. However, if this happens here in the future, all I have to do is use my personal netbook in public school instead of their issued laptops. Heck, it's even got Ubuntu 10.04 LTS Alpha 2 Daily Build on it instead of Windows. (Besides, Windows can't fit on its 8GB SSD, anyway!)

Since the netbook has Ubuntu and not Windows (or OS X, because if I had a Mac the school also would know how to handle it), the school's remote access utilities will not be able to work on it. And I also am pleased with how Ubuntu (and definitely not UNR) works on it as well as my desktop (In fact, I use the same installation disk [or USB key] on both computers!)

[Yes]

I know, where I am, in California, none of this stuff happens. However, if this happens here in the future, all I have to do is use my personal netbook in public school instead of their issued laptops. Heck, it's even got Ubuntu 10.04 LTS Alpha 2 Daily Build on it instead of Windows. (Besides, Windows can't fit on its 8GB SSD, anyway!)

Since the netbook has Ubuntu and not Windows (or OS X, because if I had a Mac the school also would know how to handle it), the school's remote access utilities will not be able to work on it. And I also am pleased with how Ubuntu (and definitely not UNR) works on it as well as my desktop (In fact, I use the same installation disk [or USB key] on both computers!)

...and chances are you won't be able to get online, making the netbook little more than an electronic notebook. Which is rather unnecessary for high school.

[earthpigg]

Perhaps you could explain it to me. I had issued a brief critique, however it's been removed by a moderator.

unfortunate. care to restate? perhaps in PM? the fact that it was removed is enough to get my interest in your opinion (i love opinions that disagree with my own).

[etnlIcarus]

In a nutshell:
- Using the example of crying fire in a crowded theatre to demonstrate anything other than really poor judicial judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#The_Schenck_cas e), will get you in trouble. The phrase is irrevocably tainted and using it sincerely will only lead to your making yourself look ignorant.
- Conjuring imagery of the civil rights movement and the civil rights abuses that preceded it, besides being a somewhat awkward comparison (especially with your 3rd dot-point, which I still don't get), is likely to backfire. And quite possibly, justifiably so, since it could be interpreted as opportunistic, exploitive and an attempt to institute a bias by way of guilt by association.
- Paranoia is not a substitute for being informed, which you sadly placed as a secondary consideration.
- You're way too broad in subject, to the point of diluting your argument. The IP stuff should be clearly segregated from the main body of your argument, rather than scattered throughout and it should bear only a passing mention. Mentioning briefly issues such as RIAA provided school materials suggesting that 'anything free is copyright infringing', and that school teacher who got into an argument with a distro developer, after threatening a student for 'stealing linux', as examples of 'digital confusion', should be sufficient and shouldn't illicit any more than a single sentence each, contained within a paragraph.
- Your overall train of thought is difficult to follow. You are, quite simply, all over the place. Some issues are raised and never taken anywhere meaningful (civil disobedience, nerd responsibility) and as already alluded to, your grammar isn't helping matters.

[earthpigg]

- Conjuring imagery of the civil rights movement and the civil rights abuses that preceded it, besides being a somewhat awkward comparison (especially with your 3rd dot-point, which I still don't get), is likely to backfire. And quite possibly, justifiably so, since it could be interpreted as opportunistic, exploitive and an attempt to institute a bias by way of guilt by association.

3rd dot-point:


assume businesses and corporations are not going to treat you the same as they would 'one of their own'.

in other words: if your collar is white, you work for a fortune 500 corporation, your son/daughter is in a private school, and you spend your weekends being an avid consumer... then you very likely have nothing to fear.


- Paranoia is not a substitute for being informed, which you sadly placed as a secondary consideration.

skeptisism and paranoia are not the same thing. i am skeptical of anything any corporation does or says. the reason is fairly simple: if a small business owner dumps toxic waste into the creek near your house, he goes to jail. if a corporation or a government agency does it, they either get indirectly fined a few cents per stock holder (corporation) or a cursory investigation is conducted and then all involved are exonerated (your local police department or school system). this deterrent is very likely to be effective with a small business owner. to a corporation or school district, however, the process of creating a cancer cluster and killing hundreds or conjuring up child pornography is merely a cost-benefit-risk analysis. morality is simply a non-issue for corporations.


<the rest>

you are correct in that i did not create an outline, seek peer review, or re-read for grammer issues. in fact, i don't even use capital letters. and? this isn't an academic essay or discussion. this is an internet discussion forum.

that being said, i do like your term "digital confusion" and shall retain it for future use.

[etnlIcarus]

skeptisism and paranoia are not the same thing'they're out to get you' is not scepticism; it's an unjustified (and no, none of ^ that constitutes a justification) positive claim, leading to the [il]logic 'it is, until it isn't', which is the polar opposite of scepticism.

And it really doesn't matter whether this is a school essay, the internet, or a bathroom wall: you can communicate yourself poorly through any written medium and the reasons why, are largely the same for each.