School Spying Scandal Gets Even More Bizarre: Student In Question Was Disciplined For Eating Candy
from the mike-&-ikes dept
The story of the school district that supposedly spied on some students keeps getting odder and odder. While the school district claims that it used the secret remote webcam activation technology 42 times -- and only to track down stolen or lost laptops -- it still hasn't explained why this particular student was punished. He claims his laptop was not stolen and there was no reason to turn it on. The school claims that the assistant principal who supposedly confronted the student with an image from the webcam is being unfairly tarnished.But here's where it gets even odder. Apparently, the "improper act" that the student was disciplined for was an accusation of either drug use or drug selling. For what? Well, the image showed the student with Mike & Ikes candies, which do have a passing resemblance to pills, but (last we checked) do not appear to be controlled substances.
Now, there certainly could be more to this story, but the school has not done a particularly good job explaining its side of things.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: candy, drugs, privacy, schools, spying, webcams
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ability does not equal right
I think we have a very serious problem today in that too many people believe that just because they can, means they are OK to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BAN CANDY NOW
[ link to this | view in thread ]
if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
All this coverage has pointed towards it being illegal to remotely enable features to check the status of the machine, but what if there is spyware on my machine that does the same thing but without my knowledge? Where would that liability fall? Is this going to be the next set of laws used to try and handicap internet profiteers?
I know that the constitutionality of the issue is at hand, with privacy and wiretapping laws being called in, but telling somebody who owns something that they cannot check the status of their property with a policy in place that lets users know this is possible seems reasonable to me, for some reason or another.
"It has been estimated that up to one quarter of all personal computers connected to the internet may be part of a botnet" taken from a random wiki article that cited it. But really, what expectation of privacy do people have when they use somebody else's pc? I personally dont have very much.
flame away, Im at work, so not spending the time to be eloquent or defend my point, just trying to bring up my thought and see if anybody is thinking along the same lines at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: BAN CANDY NOW
(think of the children ;P )
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: BAN CANDY NOW
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The school can spy on the students in their homes.
The kid was at home eating candy.
Someone at the school was spying on the kid and mistakenly believed the kid was taking drugs.
The school punished the kid for appearing to take drugs at school.
There are too many things wrong with this. First, schools should not be allowed to spy on students at home. Duh. Who the frick thought that was a good idea?!
What right does the school have to punish students for their acts at home?! Let's assume the kid was in fact doing drugs at home. Even if we accept that, the school would have no right or reason or business to punish the kid.
When faced with evidence that the kid was either taking drugs or eating candy while at home, why does the school assume he was taking drugs?
If the person spying on the kid honestly believed the kid was doing drugs, why didn't he immediately call 911 and have an ambulance sent to the kid's house so his stomach could be pumped?
I could go on and on... but you guys get the point. This is a simply bizarre story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Oops, that should read: "The school punished the kid at school for appearing to take drugs."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
If you lend a laptop to someone and it has remote activation and do NOT inform them, I would tend to believe your rights are somewhat limited.
If, however, you DO inform them and make them sign a statement indicating they understand the possibility of remote activation is possible, you are likely in a much better position.
/not a lawyer, not to be taken as legal advice, blah, blah, blah.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doubt removed!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My best guess in school is running a child porn racket on tax payer's money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Constitutionality?????
There is NO right to privacy. Many people confuse the right to protection from "unreasonable search" to be a right to privacy. They are wrong under the current laws of this land. You don't get to decide what's reasonable. An unreasonable, federal judge gets to decide that, even if he or she is wrong.Even legal wiretappers MUST discontinue listening if the conversation does not pertain to the reason for the wire tap.
Assuming the school thought it was reasonable to turn on the camera to check the status of the "school owned" laptop, they were morally and legally bound to turn off the camera as soon as they realized that the rightful student was using it. Even if the student was taking drugs, all information gleaned from that viewing would have been unusable in court and therefore the student couldn't even been questioned about it by the school, or the police, let alone punished.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
If "internet profiteers" are handing out computers to children and then arbitrarily turning on the web cams to watch the children then, yes, they are probably going to get "handicapped".
It is commonplace to have laws that specifically disallow some type of action when dealing with children and allow it when dealing with adults. I feel that this is how this whole saga will play out. No more spying on unsuspecting children. I'm okay with that.
Furthermore, and slightly off-topic, using a web cam to track down a lost/stolen laptop is a piss poor method. Even if it had never been used, whoever came up with *that* brain child would need to be fired.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
However, when one starts spying on stuff that has nothing to do with what is going on with the computer using a webcam, they are now spying on someone when there is an expectation of privacy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Doubt removed!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
I hold that all forms of spyware should be deemed illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: BAN CANDY NOW
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Student Displine
What is wrong with people and what are we really teaching our students?
If it had been one of my daughters a few people would be seeking bond money at this moment....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: BAN CANDY NOW
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
Moreover, you even contradict your own point: "ven legal wiretappers MUST discontinue listening if the conversation does not pertain to the reason for the wire tap." Why must they? Because there is a right to privacy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
From Wiki:
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment covered a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy", rather than solely on whether that person's property had been intruded upon.[20]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TO ALL KIDS
THINK OF THE CHILDREN indeed until it interferes with there PROFITS that is
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Duct Tape
The truly amazing part of this story is what's coming out
from comments from the students themselves. Some of the
interesting points:
Possession of a monitored Macbook was required for classes
Possession of an unmonitored personal computer was
forbidden and would be confiscated
Disabling the camera was impossible
Jailbreaking a school laptop in order to secure it or monitor
it against intrusion was an offense which merited expulsion
"Hi, I'm a 2009 Graduate of Harriton Highschool. [...] I and a few
of my fellow peers were suspicious of this sort of activity when
we first received the laptops. The light next to the web cam would
randomly come on, whether we were in class, in study hall or
at home minding our own business. We reported it multiple times,
each time getting the response: "It's only a malfunction. if you'd
like we'll look into it and give you a loaner computer."
While I agree that someone in the administration needs to be strung up for this, I'm at a loss to understand why the kids couldn't defeat this system, since they apparently knew (or suspected) it was going on.
A small piece of duct tape over the camera lens solves the problem. No need for "jailbreaking" or "hacking the impossible security measures". Just 1/4-square inch of tape and all this Orwellian nonsense is rendered useless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Doubt removed!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@ HymieS
if they come and leave it in your house ITS YOUR PROBLEM if you do not immediately report it and whose been at your house lately.
and it should be fairly easy to do a search for avi,wmv and jpgs and such
only stupid people need to ask what you did OR people with some way to skirt the laws and hide something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
> protection from "unreasonable search" to be a right to privacy.
> They are wrong under the current laws of this land.
Like it or not, Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution have the force of law and the Court has found there is indeed a right of privacy stemming from the 14th Amendment. You may have heard of the case: Roe vs. Wade.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reminds of Orwell's 1984
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: BAN CANDY NOW
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Constitutionality?????
You do present a valid argument between 'secure' and 'private'. That argument has been presented before. If I 'secure' my trash can lid or tie up my trash bag 'securely', the police seem to feel that just in throwing something away, I have no 'perceived expectation of privacy'. I can only assume that this means there is no such right to an expectation that doesn't exist. In my neighborhood the trash sits on what is deemed "private property" until collected by the waste company. Yet the police felt they had every right to search through a neighbors trash looking for some evidence of a yet to be established crime. Even though they found nothing, teh courts found in favor of the police in a suit brought against them for 'trespass' and 'unreasonable search'. Thus the court upheld my premise that there is NO actual right to privacy. The police said they searched the trash because they "thought" this person was doing something illegal and they didn't need a warrant because the stuff was being thrown away. The fact that they came onto this person's property to conduct the search was totally ignored by the judge, who said " trash is trash regardless of where it is."
The neighbor contended that until it was actually on public property, it was still his. He further contended that once it was on the trash truck, it was the property of the trash company and could not be searched without a warrant or written permission of the trash company. Both arguments were thrown out. WHY? because there is no such right as 'privacy'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It went from a kid doing something bad and getting caught showing a violation of privacy.
Then school district admits spied on kids "only" 42 times, and only when the laptop was reported missing or stolen. So the kid likely stole it.
The kid didn't steal the laptop. The school had no need to turn the camera on.
The bad thing the kid was doing was eating candy.
So, the school turned on a webcam to spy on a student who was in legal possession of the laptop, and who was then disciplined for eating candy in his own home.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
It's a type of judicial interpretation of case law that we get the reasonable expectation of privacy.
Also, what the hell kind of judge would find this reasonable? The students were not informed of the remote webcam activation, nor were the parents. Also, what right does a school have to extend it's authority off of school grounds?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
4Chan will love this
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, Constitutionality.
'nuff said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
Quite frankly I think the school was stupid for going this route. they spent the cash to buy a bevy of laptops, they should have gotten laptop lo-jack added to them as well, and went that route for theft recovery. Much safer on the school, and no temptation to spy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
"If the school loans out the computer with the policy that nothing on the computer should be considered private, and that they can and will monitor the computer, then that is fine. There is no expectation of privacy here"
but it's not your computer, you don't own it. It was give out for the use of doing school related things, not for you kid to be sitting in front of chatting on facebook eating candy.
If it was my house, the damn thing wouldn't have had network access, or it would have been on it's own network, with only port 80 open and only to known sites. Not because i'm worried about what my kid is doing, but that a piece of hardware running something installed by someone else is hanging around on my network. It would also have a throttled bandwidth, low enough to make things like VNC/ARD etc a no go.
"However, when one starts spying on stuff that has nothing to do with what is going on with the computer using a webcam, they are now spying on someone when there is an expectation of privacy."
Whats going on with the computer includes who is using it. It's meant for student use, not use by the parents/friends/drunken uncle.
Also it very easily could be set to automatically VPN "home" when it's off campus, effectively putting it on the schools network again(see above about how that wouldn't work on my network).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
Oh, gee, maybe it's because the constitution is interpreted by the courts, and maybe there have been certain landmark cases (Griswold v. Connecticut, Stanley v. Georgia) in which the Supreme Court established precedents that guarantee certain rights of privacy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Laptop with web cam
When there is any kind of conflict. Constitution is above law. Law is above contract. Contract is above policy (except where law applies).
If the laptop was stollen, then they could certainly turn on the web cam and use it to gather evidence, but then new it was not stolen. I was not reported as stolen and remained in the students hands with permission of the school. They had no justification to activate the web cam.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
Ours is (theoretically) a limited form of government. It isn't that the government can do anything except what appears in the Bill of Rights, it's that the government is not permitted to do anything except what we tell it to do and even that must be subject to limits. Nowhere in the Constitution does it even hint that the government is permitted to spy on little kids eating sour candies in their bedroom. Don't take my word for it: search the document for "Mike n' Ike's".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Doubt removed!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Electrical Tape
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Duct Tape
At that point instead of this situation where the kid was punished for a picture, where it's infinitely easier for the school to lose and this crap not happen again, the kid would have been expelled and the school would have been in the right.
In my opinion it's better that it happened this way. Everyone involved should lose their jobs for being ass hats that don't deserve to be responsible for the well being of children.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Doubt removed!
Second that motion. TD guys should read this at least.. good stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Student Displine
the people that authorized this system need to be punished, and those that paid for it, and those that wrote it(btw it's ARD+apature, so apple), those that used the laptops with out ensuring the laptops were being "good". so every one in the country(that pays taxes).
Just calling for the removal of IT isn't right, someone wanted some remote tracking feature, and handed it down on IT to use. that someone at least should have issues
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Constitutionality?????
I would assert that a piece of government equipment, brought into your house voluntarily under the guise of one purpose, but then the government uses that equipment (using software you were not informed of) for other purposes, i.e., gathering intelligence of illegal or improper behavior for the purposes of punishing you for that behavior, then they've got a problem with illegal searches.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Duct Tape
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
I'd say, with whoever is doing the spying. Why would you think otherwise?
Is this going to be the next set of laws used to try and handicap internet profiteers?
"Profiteers" using spyware to spy on people? I hope so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Duct Tape
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reminds of Orwell's 1984
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Right to Privacy
On numerous occasions, the Supreme Court has determined that we do indeed have a right to privacy. They have inferred such a right from any number of parts of the constitution, but especially the 9th and 14th amendments. (See Griswold v. Connecticut for one of the most important decisions.) The Supreme Court are the final arbiters in interpreting what the constitution says, and, until Congress or the people (through constitutional referendum) say otherwise, their decision has the full force of constitutional law behind it. You can disagree with it -- indeed, Justice Hugo Black, who I greatly admire and who was a strict "black-letter" Constitutionalist, dissented in Griswold -- but it does not make it untrue.
The issue is not whether we have a constitutionally protected right to privacy -- we do -- but rather how far those protections go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
OK. But are you trying to say students shouldn't be allowed eat candy at home? Wow.
If it was my house, the damn thing wouldn't have had network access,
Network access is probably required to complete homework assignments.
or it would have been on it's own network, with only port 80 open and only to known sites.
You mean like to the school? I think you're forgetting just who is alleged to have done the spying here.
It would also have a throttled bandwidth, low enough to make things like VNC/ARD etc a no go.
Even if that also made it unusable for school assignments and thus caused your child to fail? I think most other parents want their children to do well in school.
Whats going on with the computer includes who is using it. It's meant for student use, not use by the parents/friends/drunken uncle.
When it's sitting in the home the camera can view whoever is in the vicinity, not just the user.
Also it very easily could be set to automatically VPN "home" when it's off campus, effectively putting it on the schools network again(see above about how that wouldn't work on my network).
How would that help since it's the school accused of doing the spying?
Oh, wait. I see. You're trolling. Never mind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Note to self... never accept a free computer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
That's the way the child pornography laws work. It doesn't make any difference how you came to be in possession of it or if you're even aware of it. Possession is possession, period.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ban School Principles now
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Electrical Tape
Most camera sensors can see further into the infra-red than human eyes can. I have a night-scope which can see just fine through its black plastic lens cap. I haven't tried viewing through electrical tape, but it wouldn't surprise me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
However HymieS is missing the most fundamental point of the properties of the US Constitution: The Constitution explicitly says what the Federal Government is allowed to do. If its not explicitly empowered, the Federal Government does not get to to do it.
The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government. Says so here:
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So Does the Constitution say the US Government has the right to manage people's privacy? No, so that right is left to the people.
However let's see what what Bruce Schneier says about it:
Quote:
A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call out privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of their being and their cause. Of course being watched in your own home was unreasonable. Watching at all was an act so unseemly as to be inconceivable among gentlemen in their day. You watched convicted criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It's intrinsic to the concept of liberty.
The most frequently quoted statement by a Supreme Court justice on the subject of privacy comes from Justice Brandeis. (1928):
"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect."
Here are some facts about how privacy is protected by the US Constitution:
The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
The Supreme Court, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court, in two decisions in the 1920s, read the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause to prohibit states from interfering with the private decisions of educators and parents to shape the education of children. In Meyer v Nebraska (1923), the Supreme Court struck down a state law that prohibited the teaching of German and other foreign languages to children until the ninth grade. The state argued that foreign languages could lead to inculcating in students "ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country." The Court, however, in a 7 to 2 decision written by Justice McReynolds concluded that the state failed to show a compelling need to infringe upon the rights of parents and teachers to decide what course of education is best for young students. Justice McReynolds wrote:
"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
Two years late, in Pierce v Society of Sisters, the Court applied the principles of Meyer to strike down an Oregon law that compelled all children to attend public schools, a law that would have effectively closed all parochial schools in the state.
The privacy doctrine of the 1920s gained renewed life in the Warren Court of the 1960s when, in Griswold v Connecticut (1965), the Court struck down a state law prohibiting the possession, sale, and distribution of contraceptives to married couples. Different justifications were offered for the conclusion, ranging from Court's opinion by Justice Douglas that saw the "penumbras" and "emanations" of various Bill of Rights guarantees as creating "a zone of privacy," to Justice Goldberg's partial reliance on the Ninth Amendment's reference to "other rights retained by the people," to Justice Harlan's decision arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause forbade the state from engaging in conduct (such as search of marital bedrooms for evidence of illicit contraceptives) that was inconsistent with a government based "on the concept of ordered liberty."
In 1969, the Court unanimously concluded that the right of privacy protected an individual's right to possess and view pornography (including pornography that might be the basis for a criminal prosecution against its manufacturer or distributor) in his own home. Drawing support for the Court's decision from both the First and Fourth Amendments, Justice Marshall wrote in Stanley v Georgia:
"Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."
The Burger Court extended the right of privacy to include a woman's right to have an abortion in Roe v Wade (1972), but thereafter resisted several invitations to expand the right. Kelley v Johnson (1976), in which the Court upheld a grooming regulation for police officers, illustrates the trend toward limiting the scope of the "zone of privacy." (The Court left open, however, the question of whether government could apply a grooming law to members of the general public, who it assumed would have some sort of liberty interest in matters of personal appearance.) Some state courts, however, were not so reluctant about pushing the zone of privacy to new frontiers. The Alaska Supreme Court went as far in the direction of protecting privacy rights as any state. In Ravin v State (1975), drawing on cases such as Stanley and Griswold but also basing its decision on the more generous protection of the Alaska Constitution's privacy protections, the Alaska Supreme Court found constitutional protection for the right of a citizen to possess and use small quantities of marijuana in his own home.
In more recent decades, the Court recognized in Cruzan v Missouri Department of Health (1990) that individuals have a liberty interest that includes the right to make decisions to terminate life-prolonging medical treatments (although the Court accepted that states can impose certain conditions on the exercise of that right). In 2003, in Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme Court, overruling an earlier decision, found that Texas violated the liberty clause of two gay men when it enforced against them a state law prohibiting homosexual sodomy. Writing for the Court in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in broad terms the Constitution's protection for privacy:
"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. 'It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.'”
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".
Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy," Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Constitutionality?????
It's called "probable cause", and it is what allows the police to enter private property in pursuit of evidence in a crime. Besides, if the trash company is a public contractor, gathering that trash for the purpose of disposing of it under the aegis of the city/county government, it IS then public property, so there is no violation in that case.
As others have noted, the interpretive nature of the Constitution allows the SCOTUS to discern the existence of rights that are not explicitly mentioned by name, so just the simple lack of the words "right to privacy" is no argument as to its non-existence. There ARE cases where the SCOTUS has explicitly mentioned the existence of that right to privacy.
But that right is not unlimited, and the police DO have the ability to invade that privacy when the public's interest in law enforcement or public safety is paramount.
Also settled case law.
The key here is that little thing I mentioned called "probable cause". There must be evidence of criminal activity before the police are granted the right to violate that privacy, and in this case, there is no indication that the school had any such evidence before activating that software.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Easy Fix
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
My initial point, was that the privacy contingent of "warrantless wiretap" which is making it a constitutional question makes this case capable of setting precedent for technical issues of unauthorized remote enabling of hardware a serious crime. Potentially more serious than current internet legislation. And thus people who write trojans that capture information could be held to some new standard, based on this case which is being framed in a unique light due to circumstances.
my related points got merged together. the botnet point was simply there to illustrate that in my opinion people's expectation of privacy is too high when using computers in general. if there is a 25% chance that any computer (regardless of where you get it from) is insecure and open to unwanted influence from a nameless faceless entity on the internet why would you expect privacy from a computer lent to you?
My point as to checking the status of your computer was mildly understated. I do realize that activating the camera to detect anything isnt likely to give you much information, but if I was really that uptight about my computer's status I would probably just try and get as much info as I could, including but not limited to, any wifi networks available a snapshot of the webcam, any usage stats, a screenshot, various cached values on the computer, system settings, the clock settings, current ip address, various stats from various programs, ... my point being if you are being comprehensive and taking everything for your own sake, the webcam would just be lumped in as another data point, regardless of its actual utility.
As for the liability issue, I think this is an area of law that is currently lacking. Namely because being in possession of something seems a bit ill defined unless I missed some definitions somewhere. In an age when some devices are sold with spyware on them, and some companies install rootkits with their own products (for whatever asinine reasons) and when terms of use documents contain ridiculous terms about how the software can be used, I wonder what percentage of computers are not violating some law to some degree simply through accidental ineptitude. I'd laugh pretty hard if some botnet decided to download a single photo of kiddie porn to all the infected computers and then sent the FBI the list of IP addresses, because millions of people would be in possession of child porn, and would need to register as predators. Or at least thats my understanding of the laws at the present moment.
Laughing to myself at this point, but the internet is such a grey area in terms of applicable laws at this point, that I jokingly envision about multinational companies claiming that their employee laptops are actually owned by their foreign arms to prevent liability to constitutional matters for wiretapping. Sorry, I kid, but only kinda.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Well, not any more anyways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: TO ALL KIDS
No what I'm saying is that a carefully selected pseudonym and profile icon can offend people from both sides of any given argument by employing abused terms in their original context and iconography subtly altered to both offend and convey an idea. The general effect is solicitation of impulsive replies based on opinion of that moniker/icon rather than the complete content of any given thread or post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
Uhh, I don't think computers can violate laws. At least I've never heard of one being charged and convicted. Only people can violate laws.
I'd laugh pretty hard if some botnet decided to download a single photo of kiddie porn to all the infected computers and then sent the FBI the list of IP addresses, because millions of people would be in possession of child porn, and would need to register as predators. Or at least thats my understanding of the laws at the present moment.
You'd probably stop laughing by the time the handcuffs were going on. And yes, legally, that could happen. However, it would be terribly politically incorrect and so is very unlikely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe if it was like the kid was using the computer to bully another kid at the school there'd be reason for the school to get involved. But apparently dealing/using drugs? That's not the kind of thing you wait for the kid to come to school in before you punish him. That's the kind of thing that you call the police in for. Why did the school even think they have the right to be the law here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Locating Lost Laptops
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The technology behind Computrace® LoJack® for Laptops by Absolute® Software is the Computrace Agent, a small software client that is embedded into the BIOS firmware of most computers at the factory. Or you can easily install yourself.
http://www.absolute.com/products/lojackforlaptops/technology
Yes.. it's in the BIOS on systems - you may even own.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-U S:official&q=Computrace+BIOS&start=0&sa=N
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mass Hysteria
When the story broke there was a big uproar because the student was punished at school for something he did at home. But the school did not punish him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If the times were just a little different..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Doubt removed!
I think one fact that everyone is overlooking is that these laptops were required by the school for certain classes. So these kids had to use them, understandably at home, to complete their normal assignments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
Further, the Constitution deals with the Government and it's people. Not interaction between a Publicly Funded Venue and their students. There are CRIMINAL LAWS that deal with what the School has done, and the FBI is currently investigating that fact. Further, the State and Local Authorities are also investigating this case to see if any State or Local laws were broken. Considering that most States base their Laws on the Federal Code with some changes for each States differing philosophy, it's likely that the School District is also being investigated at those levels.
Lastly, what everyone seems to be missing is the fact that the School District said that this Webcam was only activated after they received a report that it had been stolen. If that is the case, why then would the School District not first call the Student's home to verify the report and then call the Police? The School District employee's and their Supervisor's who approved this "policy/plan" are most likely going to either lose their jobs or perhaps their tenure as punishment. The School District itself is now probably gathering all Documentation and Video Evidence (and if it isn't, it soon will be by subpoena) to hand over to the investigator's. This evidence will be used not only in a Criminal Proceeding, if it goes that way, but for sure in the Civil Proceeding being brought the the Robbin's family. I would be willing to bet the School District Administrator/Superintendent has already been on the phone with their Insurer and have talked about how much Money the School District should offer the Robbin's to settle with a gag order.
The real tragedy here is that the Full Student Body will most likely suffer for this "half-baked" plan of the School Districts. Most likely the School District will end the program that gave every student a Laptop, and could suffer even further cuts depending just how much Money they wind up having to pay-out to either Settle out of Court or after the lengthy Court Battle. In my opinion, the best thing this School District could do now is to admit that the program was problematic, apologize to all the Families of the School District and immediately disabled all webcams on the Laptops permanently. Doing this they would save face, be seen as being responsible, and could wind up not having to pay-out as much money as they think they might have to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
1) The kid was eating candy when the school was spying on him, and they thought it was drugs and tried to punish him for it.
or
2) The kid was eating candy when the school was spying on him, and they thought it was drugs and tried to punish him for it. But, he knew it was happening all along, and it was actually an elaborate plot to get their hands caught in the cookie jar, knowing that they had installed spy software that could highjack webcams, knowing that they couldn't tell the difference between candies and pills, and somehow failing to realize that simply informing people of this spy software would have had the same effect.
So yeah...which one does Occam's Razor tells you to ignore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@Cynyr
How is this ok? AT ALL??!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: BAN CANDY NOW
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In Re Stanley v. Georgia
But what I find interesting are the number of people on this thread who, I assume, are Americans, arguing against their own Constitutional Rights.
You've been well trained by Corporate America and the Republican Party. Have a cookie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: If the times were just a little different..
I really hope that these students and parents turn in their standard issue laptops en masse. There is this amazing technology called "pencil and paper" that makes this sort of surveillance much more difficult.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Constitutionality?????
Before you argue it, it's called 'life experience.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Server Logs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Server Logs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mass Hysteria
Really? Who was saying that? What kind of punishment did they say was meted out?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If MY kids school administration told me...
There would be a parent uprising. There would be hundreds of parents storming the school. Of course in this case it seems no one was really informed of just what the school had the ability to do. And it's pretty clear to see why!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
Yes there is. Just because it isn't specifically enumerated doesn't mean it doesn't exist and/or isn't protected. http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privacy
"Many people confuse the right to protection from "unreasonable search" to be a right to privacy. "
Who are you referring to? The Supreme Court justices, perhaps?
"They are wrong under the current laws of this land. "
No. You are. Please google "constitutional right to privacy"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ability does not equal right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
Privacy may not be mentioned in the constitution, but extensive case law exists to support the expectation.
The clowns at the PA school should have checked with their attorneys before handing out even one laptop with a camera.
A main reason Roe v. Wade has never been overturned involves the right to privacy being near and dear to conservatives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1984?
Keep in mind that there are no constitutional rights. The Constitution of the US does not give anyone any individual rights. All individual rights are considered God-given, and the constitution only reiterates that these rights cannot be taken away by the federal gov't.
Apart from that, the school and the school system have indeed acted in a most atrocious manner, and charges should be levied by those who suffered "injury" in this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
"... Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras ... or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment ..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wait...what?
But let's ignore the ignorance of the school system's idea of security. The larger outrage is the fact they were activating the software on laptops that were in fact not stolen. But this just goes along with the fact that most schools want to dictate how the kids behave outside of school...because most of them are under the impression the parents can't do it. My school system, when I was there, had absolutely no problem with suspending kids for things they did at home if mere word even got around to school. Get in a fight on the weekend in a non-school related deal? All someone has to do is mention at school and it's just as it's happened ON school ground.
Schools need to be shown a line...they are there to educate the children....they are not there to dictate behavior. I surely hope the parents win whatever suit is brought against the school system...if they don't, then god help us because more and more school systems are going to try to control people.
My kids won't have school provided laptops with spyware installed for the sake of security...they'll use the untethered unmonitored laptops I provide them with...or they won't go to that school.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 1984?
The courts disagree with you, and I think they probably have just a little more say-so in the matter than you do.
If there is a power that the constitution does not expressly give to the federal government, or does not forbid to the state governments, then the federal gov't has no such power nor jurisdiction in said matter according to the 10th Amendment.
Wrong again. The courts have ruled that rights stemming from the Constitution apply to the states as well as the Federal government.
Keep in mind that there are no constitutional rights. The Constitution of the US does not give anyone any individual rights. All individual rights are considered God-given...
Oh boy, now you're really gong off the deep end. That's so ridiculous that it doesn't even deserve a reply.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: wait...what?
Except the school keeps saying they weren't. You're not saying that the school authorities are a bunch of liars, are you?
My kids won't have school provided laptops with spyware installed for the sake of security...they'll use the untethered unmonitored laptops I provide them with...or they won't go to that school.
I hope you can afford that private education. A lot of people can't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What were they really watching for?
Not only should the school be disciplined harshly for authorizing such behavior, the individual performing unwarranted spying on students in the privacy of their homes should be investigated for child pornography offences.
If this happened to my daughters, you better believe there would be a forensic examination of the school systems used to spy on them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Constitutionality?????
Unless you can cite significant case law to support your opinion, it remains just that--your unfounded and uninformed opinion.
For which I say "Thank you for sharing"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I just have one thing to say
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I just have one thing to say
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Um.. you're watching my daughter in her room?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
Rights inhere in people, and are enshrined in documents so as to be enforceable in courtrooms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
I'm sorry to tell you but your interpretation of the US Constitution is completely and utterly wrong.
1. The Constitution specifically limits the powers of the central federal government.
2. The Constitution specifically reserves all powers and rights not allocated to the central federal government to the states and the people respectively.
3. The Right to Privacy is not outlined in the US Constitution because, again, the Constitution is not oriented towards limiting the Rights of the People but rather in limiting the Rights and Powers of the central federal government and, in some cases, the states.
4. The US Constitution doesn't specifically say that you have the Constitutional Right to hula-hoop in your home. But then again it doesn't have to say that you do. You do have that right unless it is legislated by your *state*.
The specifically listed Rights, such as the First, Second, etc etc etc, are listed specifically so to limit the central federal government and all state governments.
Hope that helped.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simple
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Doubt removed!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Duct Tape
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Duct Tape
> or jail breaking
Not sure how they could do that without admitting that they were spying on the kids at home in the first place. The fact that the admin was lying to them about what the blinking light meant, they'd have a hard time disciplining a kid for taping over the camera without having to explain how they knew the camera had tape over it in the first place.
And this is almost getting to the point where the school is essentially requiring the kids make their private home life available for scrutiny. No tape over the camera? Fine. What if the student turns the laptop toward the wall whenever he's at home? Is that "jailbreaking", too? What if they don't even take the thing out of their book bag? Are the kids required, under threat of expulsion, to make sure their laptops are situated in such a way as to make their bedroom activities accessible for school monitoring?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Duct Tape
> been in the right.
Not even remotely. The school would still have been violated a half-dozen state and federal laws, as evidenced by the ongoing FBI investigation. Calling a piece of tape "hacking" or "jailbreaking" doesn't absolve them of that fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Student Displine
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Two entirely seperate issues here
1. The right of the school to monitor the use by students of its property on/off site. Privacy issues, child protection issues, a proper minefield I cannot understand how any school principle would want to go anywhere near it.
2. The kid has been disciplined for a legal and reasonable act that would not have been a disciplinary matter within the school. Surely there is legal recourse for this child or his parents under US law. Some moron at the school, instead of saying "OK, hands up, we made a mistake, sorry", has let it go this far in a ludicrous attempt to save face. Should someone this stupid even be teaching?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
As for the actual use the webcam was put to, two things:
1) the school needs to be sued into the ground, as well as the individual who actually spied, that individual's supervisor and so on up the chain to the state's secretary of education for being invasive pervs, and
2) piece of tape. Fixes that little problem. Given that it is far too easy for a computer to pick up a 'bot of some kind - antivirus and antispyware won't pick them all up, particularly if they don't do anything to the local data or executables or otherwise act as malicious code - I'd recommend that pretty much everyone should cover up that little lens except when they want to use it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
There's ample language in the Bill of Rights to make it very clear that people are to be left alone and secure in their homes. Try reading the Fourth Amendment some time. What exactly do you think "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" means if not to effectively outline a right to privacy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
one nude pix and lets hope someone ends up in jail
I hope the ones in charge get branded as such or at the very least they get branded like that if they get jail time.
I hear jails are compassionate places towards people like that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Duct Tape
Not yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
It's useful for gathering evidence as to the possible identity of the thief.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Poll on School Webcam Incident
More in depth results can be seen at: http://www.mediacurves.com/NationalMediaFocus/J7750-SchoolWebcamSpies/Index.cfm
Thanks,
Ben
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
The case New Jersey v TLO recognized that school officials are representatives of the State. So no release or contract would apply as it would conflict with Constitutional law. By making the laptops compulsory would make any such contract a contract of adhesion which would make it invalid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
I'll beat the TAM puppets to it:
They could always move to another school district (or country). Or just home school. Or drop out. It's their choice. Nobody's making them go to school there.
[/sarcasm]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reply to Ima Fish
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Counter Suit.
Perhaps he has some odd ideas of what extracurricular activities are appropriate for someone who is responsible for kids?
Attempt to obtain child pornography anyone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
I hope the people who proposed, approved and installed this system at the school go to jail for a very long time!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: if I own a computer and lend it to somebody to use
You can hope all you want, but they're government people. The government tends to protect itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Constitutionality?????
I did a little research on my own; the use of 'privacy' in the sense it's being discussed here was established by Shakespeare's time, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. At no time has it referred to going to the toilet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Server Logs
What server logs? How much do you want to bet that those went to the great bit bucket in the sky right after this suit was filed.
I know there's now an injunction in place, but it was days before that was done. These school folks are evil, but not necessarily stupid, no matter how arrogant they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BS
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Electrical Tape
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scandal with computer camera
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Constitutionality?????
Robert Hayes Halfpenny
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Constitutionality?????
Robert Hayes Halfpenny
[ link to this | view in thread ]
re:re:re: ban candy ban homework
[ link to this | view in thread ]