No charges filed against school that spied on students w/webcams

[kgbsquirrel]

*nomex underwear ON*

Problem is, I don't think they did anything illegal.  Reprehensible, yes, but not illegal.

If the equipment was owned and managed by the school, laws have recognized the owner/manager of equipment's rights to monitor that equipment.  Same laws that allow your employer to monitor your web surfing.

Just another example of laws not keeping up with technology, I am afraid.

Don't worry, the M2 zippo is out of jellied gasoline (for now.)

The problem isn't that they were monitoring the use of the equipment they owned, the problem is they were using the equipment they owned for covert observation of activities that did not involve that equipment, and were doing so in places where a reasonable expectation of privacy is to be had (a person's bedroom).  More over (and I don't know if it actually happened, so I'll only discuss the possibility) using that equipment such, and in such a location, opened them up to a variety of other violations of the law, vis-a-vis child pornography charges, if their cameras had happened to snap a few photos while the student was in their room changing their clothes. This being in addition to other violations of the law, such as (actually appropriate in this case) wire tapping (mics built into the laptop) and invasion of privacy.

I don't think the comparison of an employer monitoring the usage of their company's computer systems is as appropriate as would a comparison of an employer putting up their security cameras in grossly inappropriate locations such as the restrooms or fitting rooms of their store. If usage monitoring was truly the intended purpose then key loggers and website history recorders would have been more than sufficient, instead we have remote and surreptitious activation of hardware that allows them to observe what is going on outside of the computer.

[Nitrogen]

I don't think the comparison of an employer monitoring the usage of their company's computer systems is as appropriate as would a comparison of an employer putting up their security cameras in grossly inappropriate locations such as the restrooms or fitting rooms of their store. If usage monitoring was truly the intended purpose then key loggers and website history recorders would have been more than sufficient, instead we have remote and surreptitious activation of hardware that allows them to observe what is going on outside of the computer.

I would like to think, and I would hope you are right.
I enjoy playing devil's advocate, as you can probably tell.

I hope some judge somewhere figures out a way to make things right.

[Tallpine]

I hope some judge somewhere figures out a way to make things right.

Appears to be too late for that in this case :(




Home

School

[KD5NRH]

If a gov employee can take [nekkid] pictures of your underage daughter, on a laptop she's REQUIRED to have, and there's [apparentlly] no legal means to stop him, why not just shoot him?

So, how much light intensity does it take to permanently damage the typical webcam's sensor?  Once that's taken care of, it's just a matter of splicing into the mic line and making a small squealer to run continuously.

That, or making a point of having your kid sit in front of the camera wearing a wookiee suit, repeatedly field-stripping and reassembling a M16.

[Nitrogen]

So, how much light intensity does it take to permanently damage the typical webcam's sensor?  Once that's taken care of, it's just a matter of splicing into the mic line and making a small squealer to run continuously.

That, or making a point of having your kid sit in front of the camera wearing a wookiee suit, repeatedly field-stripping and reassembling a M16.

Do what I do, place a small bit of tape over it.  I do that on my personal laptop and my work laptop.
Wookie suits are hot, in summertime.

[BMacklem]

The problem with tape is that they said something in one of the articles about doing that as a direct violation of attempting to bypass their "security" check.

[Nitrogen]

The problem with tape is that they said something in one of the articles about doing that as a direct violation of attempting to bypass their "security" check.

My workplace says the same thing.
They can bite me.

[dogmush]

So, how much light intensity does it take to permanently damage the typical webcam's sensor?  Once that's taken care of, it's just a matter of splicing into the mic line and making a small squealer to run continuously.

That, or making a point of having your kid sit in front of the camera wearing a wookiee suit, repeatedly field-stripping and reassembling a M16.

The evil person in me says, if I know the district twerp is checking laptops, break into his house while he's at work, and plant a small camera in his bedroom. Then crack the district's network so whichever webcam is activated, it plays the output of the IT nerd's bedroom cam.

Yes, I know it'd be illegal, but it'd also be righteous.  But I don't have kids either.  I could very well be less prone to a humerous response if it was my kid they were spying on.

Similarly, the vice principal that started this whole thing with a pic of Mike and Ikes?  I'd be outside the next PTA Meeting trying to raise money to hire paparazzi to follow him around and take pics of EVERYTHING he does.  After all, if a students behaviour in his bedroom can get him in trouble at school, then anything the administrator does, ever, anywhere, is fair game as well.  Eventually he'd do something gross on camera.

[Hawkmoon]

Regarding the passage of manhunt costs on to the husband - I am reminded of an argument we had here when the jetliner went down into the Hudson River last year.  All parties acted in good faith and the best possible outcome was had, and yet there were those who argued that "someone has to pay".

I recall that. And since the parties who were the proximate cause of the incident (the birds who flew into the plane's engines) were deceased and there were no apparent heirs or estates with any resources to be tapped, the hue and cry thus fell upon the airline to pay ... even though they were in no way responsible for the incident, and WERE responsible (through the person of their employee, the captain) for saving the passengers' lives.

[RevDisk]

*nomex underwear ON*

Problem is, I don't think they did anything illegal.  Reprehensible, yes, but not illegal.

If the equipment was owned and managed by the school, laws have recognized the owner/manager of equipment's rights to monitor that equipment.  Same laws that allow your employer to monitor your web surfing.

Just another example of laws not keeping up with technology, I am afraid.

Yes, they did do many illegal things.  They acted without a) permission from the parents and b) informed consent.  Consent is not enough, if they were intentionally misleading or not extremely explicit in their consent agreement.  I don't know about fed law, but they violated the hell out of state law.  This is Pennsylvania.  Not the Soviet Union, not China, not New Jersey, not Cuba.  We have the strictest wiretap laws in the country.  Even our LE are very, very limited in what they are allowed to record without notification.

And I quote  Pa.C.S.A. § 5703 "Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communications" (Part of the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act)

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he:

(1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication;
(2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or
(3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.

Now a person might say, well, does "electronic communications" include webcams?  Why, I'm glad you asked.  

"Electronic communication." Any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical system

A webcam is a photo-optical system that transfers images.  Ergo, the school has committed a felony of the third degree if a single photo was taken inside the person's residence without their consent.  For any purpose, unless a court order has been issued.  Folks don't need to be sued.  They need to go to jail.  For a very long time.  If a government employee conducts illegal wiretapping of citizens of MY state, they are felons, a danger to our citizenry and need to be treated as the criminals they are.  In addition, they need to be nailed to the wall as sex offenders if they took a single revealing photo of a minor.  Which apparently, they did.  

They were kind enough to confess to these crimes as well.  Hence why I am so pissed at the feds for covering for them.  We had them dead to rights.  

The problem with tape is that they said something in one of the articles about doing that as a direct violation of attempting to bypass their "security" check.

More systemic solutions are being rolled out.  Mainly, countermeasures in case other schools are doing the same thing.  Not just to block photos from being taken, but to prove criminal behavior if it occurs.  Again, the only solution to this is to jail the appropriate parties if they violate the law.

[Nitrogen]

Sometimes I'm glad to be wrong.

[RevDisk]

Sometimes I'm glad to be wrong.

Na.  In a lot of states, you'd probably be right.  Plenty of states have plenty of laws to safeguard perverts, criminals and corrupt officials.  We just happened to not be one.

[Harold Tuttle]

[CNYCacher]

We recently had two judges sending kids to hell camps for crimes they did not commit.

If I remember correctly, those were privately-owned camps which were giving the judges a commission for every kid they sent.  I believe the judges made millions.

[RevDisk]

If I remember correctly, those were privately-owned camps which were giving the judges a commission for every kid they sent.  I believe the judges made millions.

Yep, usually unofficially known as "hell camps", for obvious reasons.  Federal prosecutors tried to give the judges a sweetheart plea bargain.  Noticing a trend yet?  Federal prosecutors don't like prosecuting government employees who abuse, exploit or harm children.  At least in Pennsylvania.  Federal judge flipped his lid and told them (judges and prosecutors) to go to hell.  There are 48 indictments against Ciavarella and Conahan including racketeering, fraud, money laundering, extortion, bribery and federal tax violations.    

[gunsmith]

iirc this case got busted open after they tried to bust some kid for drugs when he was just eating candy in his bedroom? What's happened to all the pics ?
Frakin berstards