Posted on 02/17/2010 5:28:43 PM PST by CJBernard
The complaint, filed by minor high school student Blake Robbins and his parents, alleges that the school district has been spying on the activities of students and students’ families through the “indiscriminant use of and ability to remotely activate the webcams incorporated into each laptop issued to students,” all without the knowledge or consent of any of the students or parents involved.
How the capability was discovered should be enough to put any who value civil liberties and privacy on the edge of their seat. From the complaint (emphasis mine):
"On November 11, 2009, Plaintiffs were for the first time informed of the above-mentioned capability and practice by the School District when Lindy Matsko, an Assistant Principal at Harriton High School, informed minor Plaintiff that the School District was of the belief that minor Plaintiff was engaged in improper behavior in his home, and cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam embedded in minor Plaintiff’s personal laptop issued by the School District."
(Excerpt) Read more at americasright.com ...
I don't know. You tell us. You condemn us for implying the obvious from your comments and then are equally vague in this post, expecting us to imply your position from yet more questions.
So far, you just hinted and implied stuff. The best we can gather from the comments you made was that, yeah it was technically and legally wrong but what if they had caught a crime? Then it would have been OK.
Well, like someone else pointed out that we all know, the evidence would have been thrown out in court as having been gotten illegally. There is no excuse for this kind of monitoring.
"What if..." nothing.
If you're all for freedom, where is the blanket condemnation of the school doing this, even if they had found out a crime? Where is your objection to the gross violation of privacy and laws that this displays.
Simply hinting at objecting to it is not the same as taking a stand. and turning it around to accuse us and deflect attention is pretty suspicious looking. You didn't change your tune until confronted and even then not completely.
After looking at lots of posts, I must point out that these are allegations. Nobody has offered any proof that the school even has the capability to activate the cameras remortely and get images from them, let alone that they have been doing that.
If I’m wrong please point out where these are any more than allegations.
I understand that the seriousness of the charges dictates the response...where have I heard that before?
See post 111 where Tribune7 posted a link to the suit.
http://billlawrenceonline.com/photos/RobbinsvLM.pdf
From the link....
Look at page 6 number 23 and 24.
Twenty-three was in the excerpt of the article in the thread and says,....
“On November 11, 2009, Plaintiffs were for the first time informed of the above-mentioned capability and practice by the School District when Lindy Matsko, an Assistant Principal at Harriton High School, informed minor Plaintiff that the School District was of the belief that minor Plaintiff was engaged in improper behavior in his home, and cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam embedded in minor Plaintiff’s personal laptop issued by the School District.”
The real eye opener, is on the next page, page 7, where the school acknowledges that that the computers and school have the ability to do this.....
ARGH, can’t copy and past off the pdf......
I’m going to type it out here....
24. “Michael Robbins thereafter verified, through Ms. Matsko, that the School District in fact has the ability to remotely activate the webcam contained in a students’ personal laptop computer issued by the School District at any time it chose and to view and capture any images that were in front of the webcam, all without the knowledge, permission, or authorization of any persons then and there using the laptop computer.”
Number 25 is even more alarming....
25. Additionally, by virtue of the fact that the webcam can activated at any time by the School District, the webcam will capture anything happening in the room in which the laptop computer is located, regardless of whether the student is sitting at the computer and using it.
I hope that clears up any uncertainty anyone has about whether it was possible or not.
The rest of the pdf shows legal areas where the school is going to be SOOOOOOO screwed......
It was illegal what the school district did. People are all up in arms about it, when charges should have been filed.
I am asking the horrific questions to cause trouble and muddy the waters on the topic. Why? Our technological age continues to bring us face to face with technology, morals, and principles. I was/am being deliberately vague.
Technology is pushing the bounds of the 4th Amendment. Note I was only 1 of 2 that even mentioned the little matter of a warrant. No takers on that line, why? Everyone continues to focus on the horrific questions. It is an interesting push back.
I am not at all upset, mad, etc. with any of the posts back to me. Frankly it is both interesting and a relief. The school district is using such software as a means to discipline and police the students. This is wrong as I said on many levels.
Having the capability is not a crime. If it were every laptop mfg could be included in the suit.
The question is, did they use the capability?
Legality and morality aren’t the same thing. You said it was illegal but went on to imply that it wasn’t immoral. I accept your reasoning. I sometimes like to play devil’s advocate as well. However, you were NOT clear and did not clarify in the same comment.
What warrant btw? There were no takers because it doesn’t make any sense. They were spied on not staked out.
should be “I can not believe the administration is that dumb”
Exactly. My post 74 states:
I thought it was illegal to record stuff in a person's home without prior notification or a warrant. Thereby the school is wrong on at least one level.
Ok we are not on the same page here. A school has no authority to EVER spy on a student in their home even if they have a warrant. So the actions of the school are illegal with or without a warrant. There is no legal reason for the school to EVER do this.
You know, I read that PDF earlier, and I forgot all about those statements! Thank you for going back into it and pointing them out. We’re probably all so shocked, and we’re trying to wrap our minds around this whole story. How can it be that school administrators believe they can do this? It sounds like something right out of “1984”.
We don’t want to believe this story is true. And then there it is... in numbers 24 and 25.
Where do I state it is ok?
I’ve used webcams on websites, the kind that are set up online for the public to use. But, I’ve never used a webcam to personally communicate with another person or to take a picture of myself or anyone else. That is, I’ve never used one for two-way communication.
PS, if they had a warrant it would not have been the school spying.
I never said that you did. We are having a communication disconnect so I give up.
The school can’t get a warrant so the point is moot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.