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 ...
And you said, Yes and No and went on to explain that maybe they could have caught a crime.
You exposed yourself and the some of the rest of us aren't buying you deflections and weaseling.
The idiots from that school district didn't notify the people receiving the computers that they had that capability, so they were dishonest, read "lied", about that to begin with.
For another thing, even if they had inadvertently stumbled onto this event, as improbable as it would be that someone just happened to capture the event just as it was happening, all by accident, the morons should know better that evidence not legally gained is inadmissible in a court of law.
So, after their duplicity we are to believe them if the claim that they didn't use the technology they deliberately put in there for only one purpose that anyone with half a brain can think of?
They put it in there for a reason.
But that was not your concern in your post that I answered. What you said was..."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." I supplied the proof that they had the capability.It answered your concern. Whether they did is a different issue. Them coming forward with a photo is proof that they did.
Actually the school could not execute a warrant, although appropriate authorities could use the school’s software.
I don’t think we’re having a communication disconnect. Your challenges just demonstrate how wrong the school is.
Okay let me word it differently. You keep bringing up irrelevant information without actually answering the questions posed to you so I am having a hard time following you.
You remind me of the AZ state congressman who is pushing for a law that would allow him access to all the databases that house private information about welfare recipients. Well, they’re getting stuff for free, so they should have to walk around naked in front of everyone because they have had bad fortune in life.
That guy is my hero. Proposals like that are LONG overdue.
No worries. He’ll need 10 mb at least.
It should be so simple. It's not a matter of having *bad fortune in life*. Most welfare recipients are deadbeats with a huge entitlement mentality, and are third and fourth generation recipients; their parents did it, their grandparents did it and their great grandparents did it. It's become a career choice, not a safety net.
If you're going to mooch off the government instead of getting off your butt and getting an education and working for a living, you take what you get. Welfare SHOULD come with strings attached. No free rides, ever......
Even if it was, people in that boat should be grateful that they live in a country that even offers welfare. In many other countries people who run into hard luck are pretty much thrown to the wolves.
If people don’t want strings attached, they could find some other way of making it. There are other options out there.
Amen.
You said that. I responded that if the school had a warrant then it wouldn't be the school spying. I guess I should have said it would be police.
You asked me what warrant? Only two posts on this entire thread mentioned the need for a warrant. One was mine in post 74.
Your post to me 154 I took to imply that I approved of the schools spying and I asked you where I had appoved? We agree that I never approved.
Your post 160 says the issue of a warrant is a moot point. I don't see the matter of a 4th Amendment violation as a moot point. Here we disagee. While teachers often serve as a form of proxy law enforcement at schools...they cannot do that with webcams on school laptops taken into a private home.
Big Brother IS watching you in Pennsylvania!
Heads should roll over this.
The issue is the SCHOOL spying NOT the police getting a warrant. That is why a warrant is a moot point. The school can’t get a warrant for what they did illegally so there is no reason to bring up getting a warrant in this thread. If the police did the spying without a warrant then there would be a need to bring up that they should have gotten warrant. I am really tired of going around in circles with this. Yes I care about the Constitution and the Constitution doesn’t allow this behaviour by the school EVER and THAT is the point.
A lot of nasty stuff goes down in Main Line school districts.
This is what was going on in neighboring Upper Merion School District in the seventies:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/classics/mainline_murders/1.html
Just to kick the creepiness factor up a bit: unless the principal or VPs actually installed, maintained and monitored the cameras themselves they would have hired some IT guys to do it.
Think about your average SomethingAwful, Fark or 4chan denizen with access to that.
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.
They needed a search warrant to do what they were doing. If they'd found evidence of a crime underway the perp would walk because of the absence of a warrant.
*ping*
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.