I still have not seen it alleged that the remote web cam activation was actually used to spy on anyone or take the photo in question. The fact that the lawsuit does not specifically allege this makes farily certain it did not happen.
My guess is it played out something like this:
1) Student takes incriminating photo of himself with school issued laptop.
2) Photo is either emailed by student or automatically synched back to school servers.
3) Vice principal is made aware of photo and confronts the boy about it.
4) In discussing the photo it comes out that the anti-theft feauture theoretically COULD be used to spy by remotely activating laptop web cams. Remember the suit never claims that this is how the Vice Principal obtained the photo.
5) Parents and student decide to use this fact to cover for the kid’s behavior and try to ripoff the taxpayers of the district with a lawsuit.
Maybe some truly horrible spying did go on here, and if so, those involved should be serving decades in prison. However, at this point, I doubt that is what happened.
I'm all for a less litigious society, but school administrations need to be kept in their box, and slapped hard when they try to climb out.