|
|
Post by Not Me on Feb 20, 2010 8:41:38 GMT -5
The big story around here is about a school district who was spying on the students through their laptops. Lower Merion School District (where Kobe Bryant went to school) gave the high school student Mac laptops. Last week they disciplined a kid for something they saw him do on his web cam. While he was in his own house. They have software on there that they can use to access the computer, see what's on the screen, take still pictures through the web cam, and even operate the web cam itself. Without the user knowing. Not only are they getting sued by the parents, but they are now being investigated by the FBI. This is scary that they would allow the school employees to spy on students. They claim, in their defense, that the software was only used when a laptop was reported missing or stolen. www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20100220_Subpoena_issued_in_L__Merion_webcam_case.html |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 20, 2010 10:43:59 GMT -5
Anything I do on my work laptop is logged and can be reviewed by the company at any time. However, I'm warned of this every time I log on. And they are paying me.
This is a more ambiguous situation. Apparently it is the school's laptop, but did they give the students a choice about using them? Did they warn them about the monitoring? Is a student really in the same situation as an employee?
And the webcam thing probably violates the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thrill of the 'ville on Feb 20, 2010 10:51:53 GMT -5
I can understand monitoring what websites and programs the student is accessing and reprimanding them for violations (while also blocking some websites) but I think that using a webcam to spy on the child at their own home is a little ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Feb 20, 2010 19:26:47 GMT -5
I understand the school trying to protect their investment. The webcam could show where the coumuter was. However, that wasn't thought through very well if it really was the purpose. The chance of a webcan actually showing where the coumuter was is pretty small. If keeping track of the computer was really the purpose, GPS would work much beter. Anyway you look at it, very bad job.
These are the prople who are in charge of educating our children?
|
|
|
|
Post by stonehands on Feb 21, 2010 17:48:54 GMT -5
The district was trying to protect their assets with the tracking software and you can't blame them, most business do too. But like mikegarrison said, if you're using it, you know about it, unless you don't read the agreements that accompany your company/school owned equipment.
Kids lose stuff all the time. It's much more efficient to provide tech support remotely. Thumbs down to the CTO or CIO for not informing both the students and their parents about the software, how it works, and the conditions for activation. The tech that activated the software while the laptop was in lawful possession certainly bears some fault. Not to mention the stupid kid doing drugs and his stupid parents for not knowing. I would have to agree someone did a poor job developing, documenting, and implementing this security feature.
GPS would need to be installed on the manufacturing level and requires line of sight to the satellites. Use the device indoors and GPS is useless. I don't believe a school district would be able to afford after-market GPS to track their laptops. Without knowing what software they actually used, the IP address of the laptop will give you a location and picture from the webcam will give you a pic of the perp. Wiping the hard drive won't do anything since the software resides in the firmware.
|
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Feb 21, 2010 21:06:42 GMT -5
Apparently they did not tell the students/parents that they had this ability.
the school district claims that they have only used the software on computers which were reported lost or stolen. This wasn't the case with this laptop / child. So apparently, even if there were policies about the software's use, they weren't being followed.
You would think that if this was one incident of a rouge tech just tapping into computers, then they would have fired that person on the spot. But the fact that they haven't, and not only did they use the web cam, but took action with what they saw seems to indicate that they knew what they were doing.
I wonder if they recorded what they saw each time they tapped into someone's web cam?
I wonder how often they tapped in, and caught a student in a state of undress in their own room?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Feb 22, 2010 0:36:32 GMT -5
The district was trying to protect their assets with the tracking software and you can't blame them, most business do too. But like mikegarrison said, if you're using it, you know about it, unless you don't read the agreements that accompany your company/school owned equipment. Kids lose stuff all the time. It's much more efficient to provide tech support remotely. Thumbs down to the CTO or CIO for not informing both the students and their parents about the software, how it works, and the conditions for activation. The tech that activated the software while the laptop was in lawful possession certainly bears some fault. Not to mention the stupid kid doing drugs and his stupid parents for not knowing. I would have to agree someone did a poor job developing, documenting, and implementing this security feature. GPS would need to be installed on the manufacturing level and requires line of sight to the satellites. Use the device indoors and GPS is useless. I don't believe a school district would be able to afford after-market GPS to track their laptops. Without knowing what software they actually used, the IP address of the laptop will give you a location and picture from the webcam will give you a pic of the perp. Wiping the hard drive won't do anything since the software resides in the firmware. And a laptop webcam is going to tell you where the computer is? I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by XAsstCoach on Feb 22, 2010 1:56:41 GMT -5
Read that they have established a procedure in order to access the webcam, a procedure where they need to obtain permission from several offices/admins before its done. Hope they have all the documents signed and a valid reason as to why the laptop was claimed stolen. If the student himself claimed it stolen in order to keep it, then he got what he deserved.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardinalvolleyball on Feb 23, 2010 12:30:45 GMT -5
Apparently they did not tell the students/parents that they had this ability. the school district claims that they have only used the software on computers which were reported lost or stolen. This wasn't the case with this laptop / child. So apparently, even if there were policies about the software's use, they weren't being followed. You would think that if this was one incident of a rouge tech just tapping into computers, then they would have fired that person on the spot. But the fact that they haven't, and not only did they use the web cam, but took action with what they saw seems to indicate that they knew what they were doing. I wonder if they recorded what they saw each time they tapped into someone's web cam? I wonder how often they tapped in, and caught a student in a state of undress in their own room? That's very intersting. Does anyone know the law around this? If you are recording for security purposes and catch a child in undress would you then be in posession of child pornography? Seems like there has to be a better way to keep your computers safe then the process this school chose. |
|
|
|
Post by m on Feb 23, 2010 18:10:11 GMT -5
Apparently they did not tell the students/parents that they had this ability. the school district claims that they have only used the software on computers which were reported lost or stolen. This wasn't the case with this laptop / child. So apparently, even if there were policies about the software's use, they weren't being followed. You would think that if this was one incident of a rouge tech just tapping into computers, then they would have fired that person on the spot. But the fact that they haven't, and not only did they use the web cam, but took action with what they saw seems to indicate that they knew what they were doing. I wonder if they recorded what they saw each time they tapped into someone's web cam? I wonder how often they tapped in, and caught a student in a state of undress in their own room? That's very intersting. Does anyone know the law around this? If you are recording for security purposes and catch a child in undress would you then be in posession of child pornography? Seems like there has to be a better way to keep your computers safe then the process this school chose. That's an interesting question. I am guessing, since it wasn't the intent to record for sexual purposes, it maybe hard to prosecute as such and win that case. |
|
|
|
Post by stonehands on Feb 23, 2010 18:49:11 GMT -5
The district was trying to protect their assets with the tracking software and you can't blame them, most business do too. But like mikegarrison said, if you're using it, you know about it, unless you don't read the agreements that accompany your company/school owned equipment. Kids lose stuff all the time. It's much more efficient to provide tech support remotely. Thumbs down to the CTO or CIO for not informing both the students and their parents about the software, how it works, and the conditions for activation. The tech that activated the software while the laptop was in lawful possession certainly bears some fault. Not to mention the stupid kid doing drugs and his stupid parents for not knowing. I would have to agree someone did a poor job developing, documenting, and implementing this security feature. GPS would need to be installed on the manufacturing level and requires line of sight to the satellites. Use the device indoors and GPS is useless. I don't believe a school district would be able to afford after-market GPS to track their laptops. Without knowing what software they actually used, the IP address of the laptop will give you a location and picture from the webcam will give you a pic of the perp. Wiping the hard drive won't do anything since the software resides in the firmware. And a laptop webcam is going to tell you where the computer is? I don't think so. I re-read my post to make sure i didn't I didn't type something i didn't mean to. I did not say that a webcam is going to tell you where the computer is. The webcam can give you a picture of the person that stole it and the IP address of the computer will tell you where the computer is. Send the pic and the locus to the cops and there you go. Looks like the feds are saying no to Lower Merion on this software. This could have all been avoided if they followed their own policies and notified all users of them. www.computerworld.com/s/article/9160878/Federal_judge_orders_Pa._schools_to_stop_laptop_spying |
|
|
|
Post by cardinalvolleyball on Feb 24, 2010 16:15:47 GMT -5
I don't understand why if they are giving these labtops to students they do not hold them financially responsible for them. In the high schools around me if you have outstanding debts you do not graduate; and we are talking $35 dollars for not returning a sports uniform. The kids that are receiving laptops need to be held financially responsible if they lose them.
Or, better yet. You give a laptop to everyone in the school but they have to stay in the school. Buy each kid a flash drive and problem is solved.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 17, 2010 15:59:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Apr 20, 2010 7:01:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Semp12 on Apr 24, 2010 18:14:42 GMT -5
The fact that people working in a school district did this is just sick. It is a complete violation of privacy. How could anyone think this could be legal and something they could do secretly.
Everyone involved should lose their jobs. Without a doubt, if pictures had been taken of me I would be suing.
|
|
