Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Laptop family is no stranger to legal disputes (Webcamgate Lower Merion)
Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 02/25/2010 | Larry King and Bonnie L. Cook

Posted on 02/25/2010 5:18:17 AM PST by Kid Shelleen

The vice chairman of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission could scarcely contain his scorn.

Before the commission was yet another appeal from a Philadelphia-area family, again seeking a break on unpaid electric and gas bills that by last year were closing in on $30,000.

This family lived in a $986,000 house on the Main Line. The breadwinner, until recently, had earned well more than $100,000 per year. Yet he and his wife were in hock to creditors, ranging from Uncle Sam to their former synagogue - and had regularly been stiffing Peco Energy for five years, breaking payment plan after payment plan

(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: arth; laptop; lowermerion; webcam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-224 next last
To: paulycy
A live video feed requires more than what this District was using. This was a simple RDP enable and a scripted iSight capture. If the lid is closed, the iSight is off. You can script disable the "lid closed" behavior, but then you'll only get audio.

Using the software they had, they go onto Absolutes website, login, punch in the account info for the laptop (probably the serial number), and then they wait. Next time the laptop is connected to the Internet, it "phones home" to the Absolute database and checks to see if it has been flagged. If so, it turns the iSight on, snaps a picture, and returns a system snap shot with relevant info in it like IP, DNS info, that could be used to help track the system down.

That is a far cry from having an active, "all the time" spy node in someones house.

There is a way to do it with Apple's Remote Desktop, but you'd need to be VPN'd into the school's network for the sys admin to get at it.

81 posted on 02/25/2010 6:34:27 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ican'tbelieveit

Our main computer labs are open for two hours after school specifically for this purpose.


82 posted on 02/25/2010 6:35:09 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Sorry, it was reasonable to assume that the laptop was in possession of the student, or another his age (since if it were stolen it would most likely be by a classmate) which means they were risking charges of child pornography by taking pictures. Stupid of the district, and the whole case should raise some interesting technical law questions that need to be addressed that will pertain to workplaces, I think.


83 posted on 02/25/2010 6:35:33 AM PST by JenB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Kid Shelleen

Typical smear tactics from the left. The NEA wants this family destroyed for daring to complain about their privacy being invaded.

Reminiscent of Joe the Plumber.


84 posted on 02/25/2010 6:35:36 AM PST by Carley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HereInTheHeartland

And then a teacher took the picture and confronted the student because the teacher wanted to be in on the lawsuit...

What are you smoking.


85 posted on 02/25/2010 6:37:08 AM PST by Carley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
the argument could be made that they weren't spying on the kid per se, they were spying on the laptop that had been checked out and the insurance not paid for because the kids parents are deadbeats.

Believing it to be stolen was, IMHO, a legitimate reason for activating the laptop.

The question seems to be did the school have a right to use any observations after activating the laptop to discipline the child for a matter unrelated to the unauthorized possession of the laptop?

Again, IMHO, no. The school had no authority to use information gathered as a disciplinary tool.

They will take a legal spanking if they did.

86 posted on 02/25/2010 6:38:46 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am not a administrative, corporate, collective, legal, political or public entity or ~person~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: paulycy
I don't see where a school district has any business or even a legal right without a warrant to monitor a video feed of a student's house, car, life, backpack, etc. wherever that pc is.

If they do, then certain other parties have a reasonable case for doing the same. For example your bank that holds a mortgage on your house, to make sure you're taking good care of their investment; your car insurance company, to determine how risky you really are or how much mileage you actually accrue; your city sewer authority, just in case you want to drain the wrong runoff, like pool water; your health insurance company (which may soon be your mandatory health insurance company!); or even the clothing store that currently trusts you to try on clothing in a private booth.

Really, the only privacy that is sacred in liberal thought is the one you have when you are killing a baby -- or an invalid.

87 posted on 02/25/2010 6:39:38 AM PST by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (STOP the Tyrananny State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Kid Shelleen
HMMMmmmmmmm.....

A lawyer would argue that the two cases were completely separate.

A FReeper would look at one, then the other, and likely conclude that someone was wanting to get paid.

88 posted on 02/25/2010 6:39:46 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

They admitted to activating the cameras 42 times.

Not one time did the school state that all those laptops had been reported stolen.

Guess you too are on the smear Joe the Plumber bandwagon because he dared to speak out.


89 posted on 02/25/2010 6:40:51 AM PST by Carley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JenB
So, any equipment capable of taking a picture of a juvenile loaned out to said juvenile is a priori evidence of kiddy porn?

Does that mean I need to pull all the digital still cameras, cam enabled iPods, and video cameras back from our video/digital media labs? Because kids "might" take naughty photos of themselves?

Is that really what you are saying? That because it "could" happen, it should not have been allowed in the first place?

Isn't that the same arguments gun control advocates use against firearms Rights? Because something "could" happen, that we need tighter controls?

Is that really where you want to take this line of reasoning?

90 posted on 02/25/2010 6:41:20 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
Really, the only privacy that is sacred in liberal thought is the one you have when you are killing a baby -- or an invalid.

That is really depressingly, outrageously true.

91 posted on 02/25/2010 6:41:21 AM PST by paulycy (Demand Constitutionality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
The question seems to be did the school have a right to use any observations after activating the laptop to discipline the child for a matter unrelated to the unauthorized possession of the laptop?

Good question. That would depend a lot on the rules and regs that District has set up governing technology use. They do not make all of the forms available online, so it is hard to tell.

I do know that illegal items "found" on laptops can, and has, landed folks in jail or the unemployment line. We had a staff member a couple years before I started here, that turned in a laptop for service. There was an extensive amount of porn on it, some of it possibly kiddy porn.

Not sure if they handed the matter over to the cops, but I do know he doesn't work here any more.

Does the District deserve a "legal spanking" for that as well? Or is there no expectation of privacy on a PUBLICALLY owned resource?

92 posted on 02/25/2010 6:45:47 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

I would take you up on that bet, if the city is Detroit. ;)


93 posted on 02/25/2010 6:46:45 AM PST by NativeNewYorker (Freepin' Jew Boy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Not a bit of what I said. A sensible school district, however, would have known better than to take pictures remotely with the laptop knowing that all they had to do was accidentally get a picture of a teen girl with her shirt off and they’d be in big, big trouble.

Reasonable expectations of privacy, and such. A kid who strips naked in the middle of the mall is going to have a hard time suing the mall security folks for the surveillance vids. A kid at home in her bedroom with her school-issued laptop will reasonably expect privacy.

Not to mention FORCING every kid in the school to use a laptop that had this technology available is just not right. According to other stories, students using personal laptops had them confiscated, students who tried to put sticky notes over the camera almost got expelled - this whole situation stinks. Have you see the video with the school technical admin raving about this technology? As a professional, I suggest you read http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2458270/posts - it’s fascinating.


94 posted on 02/25/2010 6:46:48 AM PST by JenB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

We’re off on the wrong foot here. I have a fairly extensive background in technology including, as it turns out, remote video applications as a computer user interface designer for such things (in the early 90s R&D.) I understand the technical points.

NONE of the technology strengths or weaknesses excuse the invasion of privacy issue. It does not matter where or when you can turn on the camera. If it can be turned on at all there exists the possiblity of unconstitutional search (IANAL) and privacy rights violations.

Cost doesn’t matter. If you can’t afford the solution that protects privacy then you don’t have an excuse to use the solution that DOES violate privacy rights. That’s just patently obvious.


95 posted on 02/25/2010 6:48:10 AM PST by paulycy (Demand Constitutionality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
You’d be surprised how beans and rice can give you the strength needed to fend off grifters, parasites, con men and psychopathic would-be tenants who are all very attracted to mansions. :)

LOL! Then you're one up on me. I've never even been in a mansion!

;-)

96 posted on 02/25/2010 6:48:19 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am not a administrative, corporate, collective, legal, political or public entity or ~person~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: JenB
A kid at home in her bedroom with her school-issued laptop will reasonably expect privacy.

Sounds more like you need to not let your kids have laptops in their bedrooms.

Standing rule at my house is that the kids will only use computers in the common areas of the house. Specifically to curtail "naughty" behavior on the computers.

It's called "good parenting".

97 posted on 02/25/2010 6:49:55 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: paulycy
NONE of the technology strengths or weaknesses excuse the invasion of privacy issue.

Is there an expectation of privacy on a PUBLIC resource?

98 posted on 02/25/2010 6:50:50 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
My electric bill doesn't amount to more than $1000 a year. If we used gas that might come to another $1000.

Come to think of it....you're absolutely right. My house is a sieve when it comes to heat/AC, and I pay about 2K a year, gas/electric combined.

Even if these yahoos were paying 2 or 3 times as much as me (certainly possible) ... they're years in arrears.

Something doesn't smell right, here.

99 posted on 02/25/2010 6:56:43 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Is there an expectation of privacy on a PUBLIC resource?

You didn't read my earlier post carefully enough I think. If the resource and ONLY the resource is monitored, such as by using GPS, then there are no privacy concerns, no "collateral damage" so to speak.

Once you turn on a video camera the "collateral damage" begins and yes, there is an expectation of privacy SURROUNDING the public resource.

You can't claim innocence in the following case: You decide (legally) to blow up a tree stump using dynamite. But the only kind available to you would also blow up your neighbor's house.

You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT then to proceed to blow up your neighbor's house along with the stump simply because the existing technology was not capable of doing only the limited job you initially intended.

100 posted on 02/25/2010 7:00:01 AM PST by paulycy (Demand Constitutionality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-224 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson