Schools Spy on Students

[AgentDarkApple]

Re: Schools Spy on Students

Thorn, you are the legal expert for the most part, so this question is mainly for you and anyone else who may have extended legal knowledge. I have had to study some relevant laws in both Cyberlaw and Cybercrime class, but I was wondering how they would apply here. In relation to this incident, if video clips/photos were found of nude underage kids in more innocent acts such as changing clothes, could the length of clip and times it was played back show that it was basically being used for the purposes of voyeuristic porn? And if images/video were captured of a kid pleasuring him/herself, stripteasing, or making woo hoo with their boy/girlfriend, under child porn laws, wouldn't that count as possession of explicit sexual depictions involving minors? If the school officials don't get burned for violating wiretapping laws or for outright voyeurism, it would be hilarious to see them get into deep doo for the types of acts they caught on video.

[Thorn]

Re: Schools Spy on Students

Thorn, you are the legal expert for the most part, so this question is mainly for you and anyone else who may have extended legal knowledge.

Just to be clear, I'm not a lawyer, although I've had criminal law training.

I have had to study some relevant laws in both Cyberlaw and Cybercrime class, but I was wondering how they would apply here. In relation to this incident, if video clips/photos were found of nude underage kids in more innocent acts such as changing clothes, could the length of clip and times it was played back show that it was basically being used for the purposes of voyeuristic porn? And if images/video were captured of a kid pleasuring him/herself, stripteasing, or making woo hoo with their boy/girlfriend, under child porn laws, wouldn't that count as possession of explicit sexual depictions involving minors? If the school officials don't get burned for violating wiretapping laws or for outright voyeurism, it would be hilarious to see them get into deep doo for the types of acts they caught on video.

Such images would probably count as possession, assuming the exist. However, intent can and would likely enter into consideration regarding any prosecution. Two examples: 1) A bunch of images such as you describe -and nothing but those images- are found on the hard drive of a school employee in a directory named "Kids I Love". 2) Among thousands of images of students collected automatically to a server -say once every hour, 24/7- are some like you describe, along with thousands of other images of kids doing everything from doing homework to picking their noses.

In the first example, intent is pretty clear and would be very easy to prove to a jury, merely by the circumstances. In the second, it would be very difficult to prove the schools authorities knew the images were there, and the proving any intent beyond extremely bad judgment would be all but impossible.

Frankly, i doubt wiretapping laws will apply here based on the circumstances that I know thus far. Capturing video usually doesn't apply to wiretap laws; usually such laws only apply to audio. In fact, I really doubt much will happen with this case as far as any criminal case is concerned. All-in-all, the facts don't seem to support it.

From a legal standpoint, I still think this whole case will hinge on the EULA, and that it won't get very far in civil court, especially if it stated that remote monitoring was allowed. The school is in for some bad publicity, but that will probably be the worst of it. If they get in a real bind, the school administrators will probably sacrifice some IT staff as scapegoats.

[barry99705]

Re: Schools Spy on Students

In my previous life, I've had to deal with similar technology. We implemented a "one for one" laptop environment with part of our district's 6th grade. I think we issued around a hundred laptops. These were all MacBooks, so they did have built in web cams. We built custom "phone home" software that would give hostname and ip information to one of our web servers. The idea of capturing images from the web cam came up and was quickly dismissed because of the ages of the people using the computers. The software works, and we even were able to use it to recover a couple stolen laptops. Though the location of the school district makes it a little easier to recover, there's just not many places to get rid of them up there.

If we thought about the possible legal ramifications of capturing children's images, I'd be highly surprised if the folks in PA didn't as well. Even if the AUP said they could monitor the camera, I don't see how they thought it was a good idea to turn them on during non-school hours, or from a non-school ip address. That's just asking for trouble, and they got it. Watch, one of the lower in the food chain IT guys will get the can, and then there will be a law passed that forbids computers with cameras in schools.

[xor]

Re: Schools Spy on Students

In my previous life, I've had to deal with similar technology. We implemented a "one for one" laptop environment with part of our district's 6th grade. I think we issued around a hundred laptops. These were all MacBooks, so they did have built in web cams. We built custom "phone home" software that would give hostname and ip information to one of our web servers. The idea of capturing images from the web cam came up and was quickly dismissed because of the ages of the people using the computers. The software works, and we even were able to use it to recover a couple stolen laptops. Though the location of the school district makes it a little easier to recover, there's just not many places to get rid of them up there.

If we thought about the possible legal ramifications of capturing children's images, I'd be highly surprised if the folks in PA didn't as well. Even if the AUP said they could monitor the camera, I don't see how they thought it was a good idea to turn them on during non-school hours, or from a non-school ip address. That's just asking for trouble, and they got it. Watch, one of the lower in the food chain IT guys will get the can, and then there will be a law passed that forbids computers with cameras in schools.

The laptops here in PA, in question, are Macbooks.

xor

[streaker69]

Re: Schools Spy on Students

The laptops here in PA, in question, are Macbooks.

xor

So much for Apple's "Do no Evil" philosophy.

Oh wait, that's Google. Apple can continue being evil.







I keeid, I keeid.

[xor]

Re: Schools Spy on Students

Actually my bad, they look like they were from Asus; dam white cases.

The product they used is no longer available and called Theft-Track. http://www.absolute.com/ purchased the company and did away with the web cam feature.

xor

[YenTheFirst]

Re: Schools Spy on Students

Thorn: I think the wiretapping laws have a good chance of sticking, in this case. The law charged with explicitly states

any transfer of signs, signals, writing, imaging, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature

At best, you could say that it wasn't communications, as the students weren't using the webcams at the time. That could go either way.

From a legal standpoint, I still think this whole case will hinge on the EULA, and that it won't get very far in civil court, especially if it stated that remote monitoring was allowed.

The big problem here is that the documentation and agreements didn't state that remote monitoring was possible or practiced. If it were part of published policy, then even in a worst-case scenario, you could contain the PR/legal damage to 'rouge IT employees'.

But, this 'feature' was effectively snuck in to children's homes and bedrooms. Even if no abuse of the system happened at all, the school district acted wrong, and should be punished for such.

If they get in a real bind, the school administrators will probably sacrifice some IT staff as scapegoats.

that's my concern about the whole thing. If the school officials really did attempt to discipline a child for 'inappropriate behavior in the home' (still alleged, at this point), the problem is more than just some power-tripping sysadmins.

[Thorn]

Re: Schools Spy on Students

Thorn: I think the wiretapping laws have a good chance of sticking, in this case. The law charged with explicitly states

At best, you could say that it wasn't communications, as the students weren't using the webcams at the time. That could go either way.

Do you have a link to whatever statute that's quoted from? I'd be interested in seeing reading it.

"any transfer of signs, signals, writing, imaging, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature" is about as broad as a law can be. In the past it's been my experience that wiretap laws are usually applied only to audio communications, although state laws may differ.

The big problem here is that the documentation and agreements didn't state that remote monitoring was possible or practiced. If it were part of published policy, then even in a worst-case scenario, you could contain the PR/legal damage to 'rouge IT employees'.

But, this 'feature' was effectively snuck in to children's homes and bedrooms. Even if no abuse of the system happened at all, the school district acted wrong, and should be punished for such.

That's what I mean about it depending on the EULA, which I still haven't seen. If you have a link, I'd like to read that, too.

that's my concern about the whole thing. If the school officials really did attempt to discipline a child for 'inappropriate behavior in the home' (still alleged, at this point), the problem is more than just some power-tripping sysadmins.

Ah, you caught that, too. By disciplining the student as alleged, they may have painted themselves into a corner and precluded any attempt to blame a 'rogue IT employee." Even if it was a rogue who reported something upstairs for some inane reason, the school should have immediately fired the employee, rather than trying to discipline the student. By taking the action they did, they've effectively condoned any actions by the IT staff.

[YenTheFirst]

Re: Schools Spy on Students

thorn: http://craphound.com/robbins17.pdf
that's a copy of the actual suit/complaint. It cites all the laws they're charging the defendants under, and quotes relevant sections.

I expect the full text of each of those laws are available online, but I haven't attempted to look any of it up.

The plaintiffs assert in paragraph 32 that the captured webcam images constitute an 'electronic communication' by section 2520 of the ECPA(Electronic Communications Privacy Act).

Of course, them asserting it doesn't make it true. The law also requires that the communication affect interstate or foreign commerce. I suppose, broadly enough, though, any internet communication could.

"any transfer of signs, signals, writing, imaging, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature" is about as broad as a law can be. In the past it's been my experience that wiretap laws are usually applied only to audio communications, although state laws may differ.

Interesting. it makes sense to me that any valid form of communication should be protected from eavesdropping. Not only phone calls, but text chats, email, and video conferences could have sensitive information.

That's what I mean about it depending on the EULA, which I still haven't seen. If you have a link, I'd like to read that, too.

unfortunately, I don't have a link to that; I'd be interested to read as well. However, given that the school hasn't tried to say 'it was in the AUP', and in fact has backpedaled admitting it didn't disclose the ability properly [I'm sure I remember hearing that, but I can't find a cite at the moment], it's probably safe to say that the ability isn't properly disclosed.

[Thorn]

Re: Schools Spy on Students

thorn: http://craphound.com/robbins17.pdf
that's a copy of the actual suit/complaint. It cites all the laws they're charging the defendants under, and quotes relevant sections.

I expect the full text of each of those laws are available online, but I haven't attempted to look any of it up.

The plaintiffs assert in paragraph 32 that the captured webcam images constitute an 'electronic communication' by section 2520 of the ECPA(Electronic Communications Privacy Act).

Of course, them asserting it doesn't make it true. The law also requires that the communication affect interstate or foreign commerce. I suppose, broadly enough, though, any internet communication could.


Interesting. it makes sense to me that any valid form of communication should be protected from eavesdropping. Not only phone calls, but text chats, email, and video conferences could have sensitive information.



unfortunately, I don't have a link to that; I'd be interested to read as well. However, given that the school hasn't tried to say 'it was in the AUP', and in fact has backpedaled admitting it didn't disclose the ability properly [I'm sure I remember hearing that, but I can't find a cite at the moment], it's probably safe to say that the ability isn't properly disclosed.

Thanks. Civil lawsuits tend to throw everything but kitchen sink. Allegations of criminal actions in a civil suit don't mean a whole lot. If and when criminal charges are filed by a prosecutor, it will be more revealing.

As far as what communications are protected, things such as text chats generally aren't protected by themselves, although such info may be protected under generic 'anti-hacking' laws. Email has it's own protection under federal laws.

[TwinVega]

Re: Schools Spy on Students

As for the improper behavior itself, the family's attorney has stated that Blake was eating Mike and Ike's candy while using the computer.
http://hothardware.com/News/FBI-Inve...Webcam-Spying/

Wow.
It seems to me that we could prevent much more Mike and Ike eating in front of the computer if we install remote monitoring software on all computers across the country. Think of all the sticky keyboards we could save!

[streaker69]

Re: Schools Spy on Students

Wow.
It seems to me that we could prevent much more Mike and Ike eating in front of the computer if we install remote monitoring software on all computers across the country. Think of all the sticky keyboards we could save!

I'm not so sure that Mike and Ike's is really cause of sticky keyboards across the country among teens.

[Ellen]

Re: Schools Spy on Students

http://www.lmsd.org/sections/schools...y_anno&id=1143

[TwinVega]

Re: Schools Spy on Students

http://www.lmsd.org/sections/schools...y_anno&id=1143

3. Were students and families explicitly told about the laptop security system?
No. There was no formal notice given to students or their families. The functionality and intended use of the security feature should have been communicated clearly to students and families.

Woops.

9. Is remote access activity by the district logged?
Yes. There is a log entry for every instance of the security feature activation. The logs will be reviewed as part of the special review conducted under the direction of special outside counsel.

11. Did the district remotely access any laptops which were not lost, missing or stolen?
No.

It sounds like these two statements cannot both be true. How do they know that they didn't access any laptops that weren't lost, missing, or stolen if they are still planning on reviewing the logs?

[facon12]

Re: Schools Spy on Students

1. Did an assistant principal at Harriton ever have the ability to remotely monitor a student at home? Did she utilize a photo taken by a school-issued laptop to discipline a student?
• No. At no time did any high school administrator have the ability or actually access the security- tracking software. …The district never did and never would use such tactics as a basis for disciplinary action.

They seem to be calling the kid and his family liars at this point. They are now disputing that the event that started off this whole thing even happened. It seems way late in the game for that, why didn’t they just say this from the start?

3. Were students and families explicitly told about the laptop security system?
•No. There was no formal notice given to students or their families. The functionality and intended use of the security feature should have been communicated clearly to students and families.

Even if they didn’t try to discipline a student, it seems like the fact that they put something in people’s homes that could be used to remotely monitor them, without their knowledge, raises some pretty serious issues.

9. Is remote access activity by the district logged?
•Yes. There is a log entry for every instance of the security feature activation. The logs will be reviewed as part of the special review conducted under the direction of special outside counsel.
11. Did the district remotely access any laptops which were not lost, missing or stolen?
•No.

So if they did take a picture of a student, regardless of how it was used, they should be able to produce a dated document showing the claim of a lost or stolen laptop for every single time the log shows that the feature was used. It’s probably the skeptic/paranoid person in me, but it seems like they could have easily “modified” their logs at this point since they are being looked at so long after the event, I don’t know if that’s actually possible, I just wonder.