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 ...
As it turns out, that's exactly the argument the school is using.
We all paid for this.
The FBI should have immediately raided the school's admin offices and checked what is on their computers.
Seriously? I was truly reaching trying to think of something they might use as the excuse. Wow.
Here’s the excuse they used — apparently, they didn’t use an excuse...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2454858/posts
I’m no lawyer, but it seems like the statement given by the school district was dumb.
The school bought every student in school Macbooks with track-back feature which allows the school district to take photos anytime a laptop is reported missing in order to help find it. They didn't have to hack any computers to do this.
These computers are not cheep btw. How the school district could justify such a huge expenditure, paid for by a state grant, while other school districts are destitute should be interesting to hear them explain also.
What is clear is that the assistant principal was misusing the tracking feature and that she and anyone else that was doing this should end up in prison. They are also going to cost the school district millions in damages. Here is another article with much more detail.
Most Windows-savvy people here have stated that any comptent hacker can activate the camera embedded in a laptop.
Apparently any camera-equipped laptop can be remotely hacked without knowlege of the user.
I’ll remain sceptical in this case- it could be that the principal (or whoever was the secondhand source) was asked if it ws possible to hack a laptop in such a manner, and he said, yes it is, if the hacker understands how to do it, which was then reported to the hysterical parent as, yes the school can activate the camera.
When I said, did the school have the capability, I’d assume that the capability would include whatever software and net gear is needed, a place to do it from, some room or office with the appropriately prepared computer and net gear, and a protocol to execut e the plans from. An actual capability, not one inherent in the laptop design. Is there evidence of an actualized capability, or only a conceptualized capability?
having a picture is not evidence. If it were then al the cases of kids sexting in which the school ends up with a cell phone picture would be evidence that the school is remotely accessing kids cell phones.
Apparently everyone “has the capability to do it” to a laptop if what other posters here have hinted at.
I’ll follow this news story and court case as it develops before I decide that the school is guilty as alleged
If the feature were truly for tracking lost or stolen computers, then it would go to reason, for any sane, normal, non-educrat, that it would NOT be activated unless there was a report of a lost or stolen computer.
You do realize, don’t you, that the student was called in to the vice-principle’s office (or where ever) and was reprimanded for said *improper* behavior?
Well, the story is so bizzarre that it's hard to believe. I started questioning it, too.
Because, if it's true, it's a nightmare-come-true.
Now it sounds like heads are rolling over there.
For the record, other sources say both state and federal grants were used to buy those laptops.
If you've never been to Lower Merion, you have to see it to believe it. It's beautiful.
Not every single family there is wealthy, but many are.
Keep posting any more links to any more information you find out down there.
Anyone in your area talking about this?
No one I know is addicted to a certain internet news forum like I am. ;-) I sent the story through a local e-mail group, and no one commented. My DH heard it for the first time last night from me.
But, we’re in NJ. I’m sure people in PA are talking about it now. We receive Philly talkradio in this area, but I don’t get to listen to it very often at night. I’ll try to tonight.
Pennsylvania’s wiretapping prohibition is among the strictest, but it doesn’t prohibit all interception. Here’s the list of exceptions:
§ 5704. Exceptions to prohibition of interception and disclosure of communications
It shall not be unlawful and no prior court approval shall be required under this chapter for:
(1) An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent or employee of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of wire or electronic communication service. However, no provider of wire or electronic communication service shall utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.
(2) Any investigative or law enforcement officer or any person acting at the direction or request of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication involving suspected criminal activities, including, but not limited to, the crimes enumerated in section 5708 (relating to order authorizing interception of wire, electronic or oral communications), where:
(i) Deleted.
(ii) one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception. However, no interception under this paragraph shall be made unless the Attorney General or a deputy attorney general designated in writing by the Attorney General, or the district attorney, or an assistant district attorney designated in writing by the district attorney, of the county wherein the interception is to be made, has reviewed the facts and is satisfied that the consent is voluntary and has given prior approval for the interception; however such interception shall be subject to the recording and record keeping requirements of section 5714(a) (relating to recording of intercepted communications) and that the Attorney General, deputy attorney general, district attorney or assistant district attorney authorizing the interception shall be the custodian of recorded evidence obtained therefrom;
(iii) the investigative or law enforcement officer meets in person with a suspected felon and wears a concealed electronic or mechanical device capable of intercepting or recording oral communications. However, no interception under this subparagraph may be used in any criminal prosecution except for a prosecution involving harm done to the investigative or law enforcement officer. This subparagraph shall not be construed to limit the interception and disclosure authority provided for in this subchapter; or
(iv) the requirements of this subparagraph are met. If an oral interception otherwise authorized under this paragraph will take place in the home of a nonconsenting party, then, in addition to the requirements of subparagraph (ii), the interception shall not be conducted until an order is first obtained from the president judge, or his designee who shall also be a judge, of a court of common pleas, authorizing such in-home interception, based upon an affidavit by an investigative or law enforcement officer that establishes probable cause for the issuance of such an order. No such order or affidavit shall be required where probable cause and exigent circumstances exist. For the purposes of this paragraph, an oral interception shall be deemed to take place in the home of a nonconsenting party only if both the consenting and nonconsenting parties are physically present in the home at the time of the interception.
(3) Police and emergency communications systems to record telephone communications coming into and going out of the communications system of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency or a police department, fire department or county emergency center, if:
(i) the telephones thereof are limited to the exclusive use of the communication system for administrative purposes and provided the communication system employs a periodic warning which indicates to the parties to the conversation that the call is being recorded;
(ii) all recordings made pursuant to this clause, all notes made therefrom, and all transcriptions thereof may be destroyed at any time, unless required with regard to a pending matter; and
(iii) at least one nonrecorded telephone line is made available for public use at the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency and at each police department, fire department or county emergency center.
(4) A person, to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where all parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.
(5) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or communication common carrier acting at the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer or in the normal course of its business, to use a pen register, trap and trace device, or telecommunication identification interception device as provided in Subchapter E (relating to pen registers, trap and trace devices and telecommunication identification interception devices).
(6) Personnel of any public utility to record telephone conversations with utility customers or the general public relating to receiving and dispatching of emergency and service calls provided there is, during such recording, a periodic warning which indicates to the parties to the conversation that the call is being recorded.
(7) A user, or any officer, employee or agent of such user, to record telephone communications between himself and a contractor or designer, or any officer, employee or agent of such contractor or designer, pertaining to excavation or demolition work or other related matters, if the user or its agent indicates to the parties to the conversation that the call will be or is being recorded. As used in this paragraph, the terms “user,” “contractor,” “demolition work,” “designer” and “excavation work” shall have the meanings given to them in the act of December 10, 1974 (P.L. 852, No. 287), referred to as the Underground Utility Line Protection Law; [FN1] and a one call system shall be considered for this purpose to be an agent of any user which is a member thereof.
(8) A provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect the provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful or abusive use of the service.
(9) A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public to divulge the contents of any such communication:
(i) as otherwise authorized in this section or section 5717 (relating to investigative disclosure or use of contents of wire, electronic or oral communications or derivative evidence);
(ii) with the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of the communication;
(iii) to a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward the communication to its destination; or
(iv) which were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if such divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.
A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication (other than one directed to the person or entity, or an agent thereof) while in transmission of that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of the communication or an agent of the addressee or intended recipient.
(10) Any person:
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system configured so that the electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted:
(A) by a station for the use of the general public, or which relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles or persons in distress;
(B) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile or public safety communication system, including police and fire systems, readily accessible to the general public;
(C) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band or general mobile radio services; or
(D) by any marine or aeronautical communication system;
(iii) to engage in any conduct which:
(a) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 1105, 47 U.S.C. § 553); or
(b) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 605(a)) by section 705(b) of that act (47 U.S.C. § 605(b)); or
(iv) to intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station, to the extent necessary to identify the source of the interference.
(11) Other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system which utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provisions or use of the system, if the communication is not scrambled or encrypted.
(12) Any investigative or law enforcement officer or any person acting at the direction or request of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire or oral communication involving suspected criminal activities where the officer or the person is a party to the communication and there is reasonable cause to believe that:
(i) the other party to the communication is either:
(A) holding a hostage; or
(B) has barricaded himself and taken a position of confinement to avoid apprehension; and
(ii) that party:
(A) will resist with the use of weapons; or
(B) is threatening suicide or harm to others.
(13) An investigative officer, a law enforcement officer or employees of the Department of Corrections for State correctional facilities to intercept, record, monitor or divulge any telephone calls from or to an inmate in a facility under the following conditions:
(i) The Department of Corrections shall adhere to the following procedures and restrictions when intercepting, recording, monitoring or divulging any telephone calls from or to an inmate in a State correctional facility as provided for by this paragraph:
(A) Before the implementation of this paragraph, all inmates of the facility shall be notified in writing that, as of the effective date of this paragraph, their telephone conversations may be intercepted, recorded, monitored or divulged.
(B) Unless otherwise provided for in this paragraph, after intercepting or recording a telephone conversation, only the superintendent, warden or a designee of the superintendent or warden or other chief administrative official or his or her designee shall have access to that recording.
(C) The contents of an intercepted and recorded telephone conversation shall be divulged only as is necessary to safeguard the orderly operation of the facility, in response to a court order or in the prosecution or investigation of any crime.
(ii) So as to safeguard the attorney-client privilege, the Department of Corrections shall not intercept, record, monitor or divulge any conversation between an inmate and an attorney.
(iii) Persons who are calling in to a facility to speak to an inmate shall be notified that the call may be recorded or monitored.
(iv) The Department of Corrections shall promulgate guidelines to implement the provisions of this paragraph for State correctional facilities.
(14) An investigative officer, a law enforcement officer or employees of a county correctional facility to intercept, record, monitor or divulge any telephone calls from or to an inmate in a facility under the following conditions:
(i) The county correctional facility shall adhere to the following procedures and restrictions when intercepting, recording, monitoring or divulging any telephone calls from or to an inmate in a county correctional facility as provided for by this paragraph:
(A) Before the implementation of this paragraph, all inmates of the facility shall be notified in writing that, as of the effective date of this paragraph, their telephone conversations may be intercepted, recorded, monitored or divulged.
(B) Unless otherwise provided for in this paragraph, after intercepting or recording a telephone conversation, only the superintendent, warden or a designee of the superintendent or warden or other chief administrative official or his or her designee shall have access to that recording.
(C) The contents of an intercepted and recorded telephone conversation shall be divulged only as is necessary to safeguard the orderly operation of the facility, in response to a court order or in the prosecution or investigation of any crime.
(ii) So as to safeguard the attorney-client privilege, the county correctional facility shall not intercept, record, monitor or divulge any conversation between an inmate and an attorney.
(iii) Persons who are calling into a facility to speak to an inmate shall be notified that the call may be recorded or monitored.
(iv) The superintendent, warden or a designee of the superintendent or warden or other chief administrative official of the county correctional system shall promulgate guidelines to implement the provisions of this paragraph for county correctional facilities.
(15) The personnel of a business engaged in telephone marketing or telephone customer service by means of wire, oral or electronic communication to intercept such marketing or customer service communications where such interception is made for the sole purpose of training, quality control or monitoring by the business, provided that one party involved in the communications has consented to such intercept. Any communications recorded pursuant to this paragraph may only be used by the business for the purpose of training or quality control. Unless otherwise required by Federal or State law, communications recorded pursuant to this paragraph shall be destroyed within one year from the date of recording.
(16) A law enforcement officer, whether or not certified under section 5724 (relating to training), acting in the performance of his official duties to intercept and record an oral communication between individuals in accordance with the following:
(i) At the time of the interception, the oral communication does not occur inside the residence of any of the individuals.
(ii) At the time of the interception, the law enforcement officer:
(A) is operating the visual or audible warning system of the law enforcement officer’s vehicle authorized by 75 Pa.C.S. § 4571 (relating to visual and audible signals on emergency vehicles) or is clearly identifiable as a law enforcement officer;
(B) is in close proximity to the individuals’ oral communication;
(C) is using an electronic, mechanical or other device which has been approved under section 5706(b) (4)(relating to exceptions to prohibitions in possession, sale, distribution, manufacture or advertisement of electronic, mechanical or other devices) to intercept the oral communication, the recorder of which is mounted in the law enforcement officer’s vehicle; and
(D) informs, as soon as reasonably practicable, the individuals identifiably present that he has intercepted and recorded the oral communication.
(iii) As used in this paragraph, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subparagraph:
“Law enforcement officer.” A member of the Pennsylvania State Police or an individual employed as a police officer who holds a current certificate under 53 Pa.C.S. Ch. 21 Subch. D [FN2] (relating to municipal police education and training).
“Recorder.” An electronic, mechanical or other device used to store an oral communication on tape or on some other comparable medium.
The school has admitted to accessing 45 times.All related to thief of laptop.
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.