Judge Orders School To Alert Students, Parents To Webcam Photos Taken

from the 58,000-photos dept

Tue, May 18th 2010 7:44am — Mike Masnick

As the details of more extensive webcam spying by the Lower Merion school district has broken it became clear how much the district tried to hide its activities. Originally, the school suggested it had only taken webcam images 42 times, but the details noted 58,000 photos were taken -- a bit of a difference. Now a magistrate judge has ordered the school district to alert students and parents who were in those photos of their existence, and allow the students to see the images -- though not to get copies of them. The students will actually have the right to view the images without their parents and to exclude "sensitive" photos from being seen by their parents.

Of course, one thing that hasn't been answered yet is how widely this sort of software is used in other schools. When the Lower Merion story broke, we pointed to a PBS Fronline episode where an IT guy proudly showed off similar technology, joking about his ability to secretly spy on kids. This clearly isn't something that was just used in a single school. You have to wonder if other schools are deleting evidence now... or realizing they should be telling their students about what kind of photos they've been storing of students.

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: high school, webcam

35 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 18 May 2010 @ 8:00am

Pick one...
"(originally, the school suggested it had only taken webcam images 42 times, but the details noted 58,000 photos were taken --"

Parentheses or double hyphens, you have to pick one. It's like the red pill and the blue pill, you can choose either, but not both....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bubba Gump (profile), 18 May 2010 @ 8:21am

Dark, you forgot the smiley
(--
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ervserver (profile), 18 May 2010 @ 8:22am

where is the outrage
If I were a student with a school issued laptop first thing I'd do is slap a strip of duct tape over the webcam
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 18 May 2010 @ 8:24am

You have to wonder if other schools are deleting evidence now
You have to wonder if other schools are deleting evidence now

I dont, they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sarcasm, 18 May 2010 @ 8:29am

Not sure what the issue with this is. If you have nothing to hide and doing nothing wrong, who cares if someone is watching you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daniel Baker, 18 May 2010 @ 8:31am

Re: Pick one...
Strunk and White much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert Ring (profile), 18 May 2010 @ 8:31am

Re:
Can't wait to see how many people reply to this without looking at your name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert Ring (profile), 18 May 2010 @ 8:33am

I would love to see a copy of the letter they use for this announcement. I'm sure it goes something like, "Though we can assure you we collected no pictures of a sensitive nature, the court has ruled that we are required to alert you to the existence of these harmless photos."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nate, 18 May 2010 @ 8:34am

Re: Re:
You ruined it for him!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 18 May 2010 @ 8:35am

Re: Dark, you forgot the smiley
Now you've confused me....

Is it right and I'm missing something? I don't mean to be a grammar nazi (ha!-- but I hate spending two whole minutes desparately searching for the other parenthasee....parenthasi....whatever....;
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MikeC (profile), 18 May 2010 @ 8:39am

Not only are they purging pic's ...
What about the backups (assuming the schools actually run them). Are there any rules about retaining them? They can purge pic's but I figure there could be some interesting subpoena action wanting to look at backup tapes if anything comes out anywhere. You know this is not the only school system doing this. The temptation is just to great, no way to control it. In particular if you consider the mindset of the average school administrator.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2010 @ 8:39am

Re:
You seem to miss the point entirely. I don't care why a web cam is watching me without my permission, the fact that it is at all is a serious violation of my privacy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2010 @ 8:39am

It's baffling to think that a computer given to a student would retain any originally installed programs/OS for more than a day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 18 May 2010 @ 8:42am

Re:
Better yet, we can probably see the reaction of the students and their parents reading this letter. We just have to watch over the shoulder of the school administrator while they watch them on the cam...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bubba Gump (profile), 18 May 2010 @ 9:02am

Re: Re: Dark, you forgot the smiley
Sorry, I just wanted to make a one-eyed smiley (note that the "eye" might really be considered a nose --
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bubba Gump (profile), 18 May 2010 @ 9:03am

Re: Re:
Apparently, Robert Ring did not COMPLETELY ruin it for him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nate, 18 May 2010 @ 9:03am

Re: Re:
No, no; I think we got it. See, you made it sound like you were non-chalant and didn't care, but then you indicated that you felt the OPPOSITE. It was subtle.

And I think we all agree with your intention: these kids shouldn't have been spied on. It also seems pretty strong that the capability was used outside the scope of its ostensible use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2010 @ 9:13am

Re:
I notice you're using sarcasm without the written approval from the good folks at SarcMark. I smell a lawsuit......
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2010 @ 9:38am

Wasn't it stated that the students could not block the camera or change/delete anything on the computer they were given?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Comboman (profile), 18 May 2010 @ 9:42am

super DRM?
allow the students to see the images -- though not to get copies of them
I was wondering what kind of magic DRM would allow that; then I realized they weren't doing it over the web but must bring them into a room and display them on a screen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 18 May 2010 @ 9:48am

Re: Pick one...
Ugh. That whole opening was a mess. Edited to clean it up. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
senshikaze (profile), 18 May 2010 @ 9:56am

Re:
it sure wouldn't at my house in high school. i would have had linux on it before i even got off the bus :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Berenerd (profile), 18 May 2010 @ 10:17am

Child Porn anyone?
There will have to be this issue. All it will take is one twisted individual in a position where they can access such things and poof, there goes our entire educational system. Seriously, what are these schools thinking?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zealeus, 18 May 2010 @ 10:23am

Re:
It's because administrators- I am one in a Mac school- take measures to prevent this.

it sure wouldn't at my house in high school. i would have had linux on it before i even got off the bus :)

Heh, too bad the same software that takes pictures can easily run automated linux scripts to check for that exact thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whisk33, 18 May 2010 @ 10:37am

Re: Child Porn anyone?
I'm surprised this topic hasn't arisen in a much larger degree. Especially considering that this is in PA where the DA has been charging teens with taking revealing photos of themselves...
It feels like a scenario like this is where the laws should be a lot more relevant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Satire, 18 May 2010 @ 10:38am

Copyright
Wouldn't the pictures be covered under copyright of the school since the school took them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 18 May 2010 @ 11:00am

what really bothers me about the entire mess is the part that says

The students will actually have the right to view the images without their parents and to exclude "sensitive" photos from being seen by their parents.

im not generally one to kneejerk react to anything at all, but that kinda leaped off the page at me.
exactly what kind of "sensitive" images would they have and exactly how is it legal for them to NOT allow the parents to see those images?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iamtheky (profile), 18 May 2010 @ 11:11am

Re: Re: Pick one...
"That whole opening was a mess"

the body is not very tidy either...

"PBS FronLine"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2010 @ 11:24am

Re:
If you were a teen, would you want some stranger watching you change clothes? Especially if you're a girl?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DH's love child, 18 May 2010 @ 11:53am

Re:
Let's go out on a limb here and say the pictures showed them changing clothes, or sleeping nude, or, um, relieving stress.

Point is, teenagers do things in the privacy of their room expecting it to be, well, private.

As far as the legality goes, I imagine as the kids are victims, there is no requirement for the parents to be in the room for them to identify pictures of themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 18 May 2010 @ 1:09pm

Re: Re:
"Point is, teenagers do things in the privacy of their room expecting it to be, well, private."

Please, let's not downplay this. The entire world could be energy independent if we could figure out a way to harness the masturbatory energy of teenagers. For a school to have a window to this is silly....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2010 @ 3:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Dark, you forgot the smiley
Double nosed, then?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DH's love child, 19 May 2010 @ 12:27pm

Re: Re: Re:
"Please, let's not downplay this. The entire world could be energy independent if we could figure out a way to harness the masturbatory energy of teenagers. For a school to have a window to this is silly...."

And I am extremely happy that my parents (well, you) also don't have a window into this. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zeiche (profile), 19 May 2010 @ 12:59pm

Re:
That leaped off the page for me as well, for how reasonable the judge was towards the children.

There may be images that could cause discord between the child and the parents, putting the child in further jeopardy (reading an old XY magazine for example). The child is probably traumatized by the invasion of privacy as it is. There is no clear reason to make the child suffer further by having to explain her actions to parents as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
byteme, 19 May 2010 @ 8:45pm

Speaking of trauma...
How mortified do you think the kids are going to feel after they are led into a room and allowed to see a collection of photos taken of them in various states of undress and possibly in compromising positions...and then being told, "Oh, by the way, you can't have these and they won't be deleted. Instead, these photos will now be scrutinized by an undisclosed number of individuals and will be kept (likely forever) by the authorities. But, that's okay, it's just for official use and to prosecute the guilty parties. Oh, yeah, they'll likely be proudly displayed to a courtroom full of people, too! Bye, now. Have a nice life."
[ link to this | view in thread ]