Remember the school-owned laptops that were taking unauthorized pictures?

[Renee in NC]

I know we talked about this a couple of months ago.

 

Check out this link:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/16/school.webcams/index.html

I cannot believe how far this went. Not just a few pictures, but 400?!?! Their excuse is crazy. I am just floored that the school district is not falling all over themselves trying to make up for this incredible violation of students' privacy!

Edited April 17, 2010 by Renee in FL

[SonshineLearner]

The link's not working out for me...

[Renee in NC]

The link's not working out for me...

 

Fixed it!

[ondreeuh]

Try this link

 

School Webcam Lawsuit

[RoughCollie]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/91010604.html

 

It is alleged that thousands of snapshots were taken.

Edited April 18, 2010 by RoughCollie

[Renai]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/91010604.html

 

It is alleged that thousands of snapshots were taken.

 

Hmmm. 1000's taken, but over 400 of the same kid (the one seen sleeping). Pretty crazy...

[ConnieB]

wow...and then they called the parents accusing the kid of using drugs when he was eating candy! Makes you wonder how many years it's been going on, but perhaps this was the first time they THOUGHT they saw something serious.

 

And............Hmmmm, let's think about this....it took pictures of him eating, sleeping....but what comes between those two activities....undressing to put on pajamas?

 

Yeah, lawsuit time big time. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to videotape/photograph you in your own home without permission.

[RoughCollie]

In this situation, beyond penalties likely to be imposed on the school and its employees from a lawsuit, I think the school system should fire everyone who was involved.

Edited April 18, 2010 by RoughCollie

[Harriet Vane]

I am horrified. I cannot believe the administrators are minimizing and defending any piece of this.

[Hen]

I'm horrified, too. I doubt anyone will be fired, the union won't allow it. Those involved will be put on paid leave until it blows over, or on paid leave till they retire. I've seen such things done in our area.

[happi duck]

This is insane! No one thought this was WRONG!?!

 

I watched a report that mentioned an email exchange of school staff about how the webcams were like a "soap opera" and a reply of "I know. I love it."

 

The one boy was interviewed and said it's weird for him to see his asst. principal because he knows she saw n@ked photos of him.

 

Gross!

[RoughCollie]

This is insane! No one thought this was WRONG!?!

 

It's a no-brainer, or should be for "educators". They are a government organization, so they violated the U.S. and state Constitutions, no doubt.

 

If their union prevents them from being fired, then that is just one more reason why government workers, who are paid by the taxpayers, should not be permitted to unionize.

Edited April 18, 2010 by RoughCollie

[Willow]

I find this stunning. Is this legal in the USA?

 

Willow (In NZ)

[ConnieB]

This is insane! No one thought this was WRONG!?!

 

I watched a report that mentioned an email exchange of school staff about how the webcams were like a "soap opera" and a reply of "I know. I love it."

 

The one boy was interviewed and said it's weird for him to see his asst. principal because he knows she saw n@ked photos of him.

 

Gross!

 

See, and I think that makes it a crime in my book. Child p*rn...it's illegal to view photos of n@ked children online, and isn't that what they were doing? How is this viewing any different from the security cameras that were in the dressing rooms at stores? or the holes drilled in the wall at the fitness center women's locker room?

 

I can't quite buy the "we did it so we could see who stole it".....first if that's the case, why would TEACHERS be viewing the photos (of course, I guess actually first is since it wasn't stolen why is the camera on in the first place), but only admin or security folks should then be viewing to see if they can identify the thief. Not that I agree that is ok either, but if it's not stolen there shouldn't be any photos, and if it is stolen certainly it shouldn't be something that teachers see and share comments about.

 

And yeah, sadly I agree with others, the teacher's union will find someway to either prevent firing, or drag it out for years and years of paid leave while it winds its way through the legal system. If it were MY kid, I'd have called the police first and asked for s*x charges against ANYONE who viewed the photos.

[grace'smom]

This is sick. I can't believe anyone at all would think it was not illegal for one, but also that no adult teacher/adminstrator would not stand up and say it was morally wrong. Where are the morals and values here?

[Renee in NC]

I find this stunning. Is this legal in the USA?

 

Willow (In NZ)

 

No, it isn't legal. However, so far no one is being criminally charged. I think they should be! I can see turning on the camera to see who stole a laptop, but these weren't stolen laptops! If the kids in question were not supposed to have them at home, then it would have taken 1 time to ascertain that they were violating the agreement (if they were) and then action taken. They were *watching* these kids (and this one especially) over time.

[Tracy in Ky]

I wonder if it is simply the next step in the government's acting out the belief that they, and not the parents, not only know what is best for our children, but also that they have the right to become involved in the children's lives at nearly every level. The state keeps taking over more of their care, and parents keep giving more--the state feeds the children, gets involved with their health care, their sex education, their weight, where they spend their time (curfews etc.) their values and attitudes and worldviews--on and on and on.

 

It just wouldn't surprise me if on some level, some of those involved don't see this as that big of a deal. With its fingers and prying eyes in so much of the child's and the family's lives, and so much of the authority over the children handed over to them by willing parents, why shouldn't the state take a little more ground? a few more hours of watch-care? a little closer monitoring--in the best interest of the children and society of course :glare: . Maybe that is why there isn't such an uproar as those who think a little more carefully regarding these issues might expect; it is somewhat of a logical extension of what is in place already.

 

My thoughts anyway. I guess I sound like a conspiracy theorist. :sneaky2: Maybe I've read too much Gatto. Regardless, once the initial shock wore off, the whole thing really doesn't surprise me, nor does the absence of uproar on the part of those responsible. There is a real sense on the part of the school system and the state that they have at least as much right to our children as we do, perhaps more. This issue falls right in with that thinking.

 

And as an aside, I wonder if some parents wouldn't even welcome the monitoring. Perhaps their reasoning is that the school might be able to do a better job of monitoring their children than they can. A sobering thought, to be sure.

 

Double Agent Tracy :D

Edited April 18, 2010 by Tracy in Ky

[pqr]

Where are the morals and values here?

 

 

They stopped teaching morality and values in many schools a long time ago.

[Gratia271]

I am horrified. I cannot believe the administrators are minimizing and defending any piece of this.

:iagree:

[Gratia271]

They stopped teaching morality and values in many schools a long time ago.

 

Sad but true.

[Tangerine]

See, and I think that makes it a crime in my book. Child p*rn...it's illegal to view photos of n@ked children online, and isn't that what they were doing?

 

This is what I don't get. Especially in light of the sexting business, where kids are being charged with sex crimes. This was surreptitiously taking nude photographs of minors. It's no different than a "shoe cam".

[Heather in Neverland]

OK, i admit that I am not a techno genius but are you saying that someone can turn on MY webcam from another computer and take pics of me without me knowing it? Really? How?

[TravelingChris]

No, Heather, I don't think anyone can do that to you unless your computer is really someone else's. These were computers that were lent to the students. They had a security program installed on them to take photos and it was supposed to be only used if the computer was reported stolen. THe kid who is suing didn't report his laptop stolen. THe administerator just turned on the camera for unknown reasons. Once the thing was turned on, it took pictures every so often. THe kid didn't know it and if it was happening to you, you wouldn't either. IT captured lots of pictures of him sleeping, others of him typing, others of him changing clothes. Normal things a teen would be doing in his room. The very disturbing part here is that not only were these pictures taken, but people were actually viewing and commenting on them. So the reason the kid found out was that he got an oblique comment on how he shouldn't be doing drugs and that they know. THey didn't know anything since he was eating Mike and Ike candy and if it ws my kids, they could have been taking their allergy meds.

[mcconnellboys]

Yeah, I was having a hard time believing this could be true. It's incredible to me that this sort of violation has occurred. They're now saying that the person in charge of these was perhaps a voyeur..... ya think? This school, and I would think the computer company that sold them the product with no sort of controls in place, are in for HUGE lawsuits (I hope).

 

Technology has vastly outstripped the current laws that are in place for media. The many pornography charges of middle schoolers over sexting are just a single example of the problems now in play. With chat roullette and shuffle people now becoming popular, I can only imagine that the problems are going to continue to escalate - at least for a while....

[Sahamamama]

In this situation, beyond penalties likely to be imposed on the school and its employees from a lawsuit, I think the school system should fire everyone who was involved.

 

:iagree:Because, as far as I can tell, they knew what they were doing -- 1000s of photos? Firing those people responsible would send a clear message to anyone else currently doing this -- a clear message that this is WRONG.

[Sahamamama]

If they needed to know "where" the stolen laptops were, why not just put a GPS into the laptop -- not a camera? :glare:

[JulieJ]

Perfect example of groupthink!

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I was talking to my dad about these cases. He was in military intelligence gathering and he says he wouldn't own any computer with a built in camera if you paid him.

[Tracy in Ky]

I was talking to my dad about these cases. He was in military intelligence gathering and he says he wouldn't own any computer with a built in camera if you paid him.

 

Lovely. Ask him if it would help if I put duct tape over the camera. Yikes.:confused:

[In The Great White North]

One of the earlier threads on this said tape wasn't enough, to tape a dime over it.

[ConnieB]

OK, i admit that I am not a techno genius but are you saying that someone can turn on MY webcam from another computer and take pics of me without me knowing it? Really? How?

 

ONLY if you have special software installed on both your laptop (or desktop) and the "watcher" computer. And of course you have to have a webcam. As I understand it these computers are owned by the school who of course have the right to install any software they choose.....BUT, the line that I see they crossed was in turning on that software and taking photos (nude or otherwise) without the students knowledge.

 

As for whether it's on YOUR COmputer....chances are slim, but never absolute. A virus or trojan that you inadvertently allowed in could theorectically load such software. It's not common that's for sure, though so I wouldn't panic about it. But...if your webcam is one that has a light or indicator to show it's on....and you feel it's lit when it shouldn't be....I would get a professional to check your computer for payloads. But...I wouldn't really panic about it unless strange things seem to be handling.

 

Of course, had these children NOT had the laptop in their bedroom, or left them running when not being used, the photos would only have been with them sitting at the computer, instead of other parts of the room which normally would have been blocked by a person sitting in front of the camera. But....had they been aware.........

[RoughCollie]

It doesn't matter how the children used the laptops. It is a violation of privacy, and is unconstitutional.

 

To me, it is similar to a governmental unit wiretapping your phones without a warrant, for no lawfully excepted purpose.

 

Two of my kids have school-issued laptops. They do not have webcams, thank goodness. I have warned the kids from the beginning that there may be software on their computers that allows the schools to read whatever they type or to keep track of which websites they visit. I told them they had no expectation of privacy simply because we have no idea if there are hidden invasive programs on these laptops.

[ConnieB]

If they needed to know "where" the stolen laptops were, why not just put a GPS into the laptop -- not a camera? :glare:

 

 

Yeah, 'cause I'm still trying to figure out how a photo of someone is going to find a stolen laptop. I mean really, how many bank robbers and convenience store murders are caught on video and yet no arrest is ever made. Seeing a face might work if the thief was a student at the same school, since the admin would recognize them, but sheesh that's a rather narrow security aim. A GPS in a computer would mean that the police could drive to the house where the thief lives.....getting a search warrant would seem somewhat easy (depending on the Judge's interpretation on GPS use). Anyone remember "LoJack" I think it was/is called....the guarantee that if your car is stolen they'll find it.....that was because it had GPS very early technology and could therefore follow the car and point the police to the exact intersection where they could find the stolen car. A camera photo of the thief driving away isn't going to ever get that car back, lol.

[elizabeth]

 

http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Robbinsfinal.pdf A request for injunction from the ....ACLU . They do a great deal of good in this country especially in terms of privacy rights.

[elizabeth]

Here is the lawsuit filed as a class action I think many parents will opt out of the class however before it is certified.

http://safekids.com/robbins17.pdf

Edited April 18, 2010 by elizabeth
better link

[pqr]

....ACLU . They do a great deal of good in this country especially in terms of privacy rights.

 

Some would say that they also do a great deal of harm in this country ... let us not forget that they are suing on behalf of the cretins from Westboro Baptist Church who picket military funerals.

[mcconnellboys]

So, it can "see" through the tape? Weird.....

[elizabeth]

As you might guess I find Westboro Church and Fred Phelps family a disgusting bunch and reject entirely their beliefs. However, defending all speech with the caveats in place by caselaw, not just that with which we agree, is the essence of the first amendment.

[pqr]

I fully support free speech, even that which I find loathsome, but a funeral for a serviceman is not the place for their displays. Free speech does not cover incitement to violence and telling a Father that his God is glad that his son was killed by an IED is a pretty clear incitement for someone to vent their anguish in shall we say a physical manner.

 

The law that they are challenging bans picketing and protests "in front of or about" any location where a funeral is held, from an hour before it begins until an hour after it ends. This is not limiting speech or expression and they can protest all they want outside bases, gov't buildings etc. The ACLU is way off on this one.

 

The ACLU revels in antics such as this and as such does harm not good.

 

They also seem perfectly happy to limit an individual's or group's right to religious expression, shall we say student led prayer at a graduation. (with the obvious exception of the Westboro cretins who they are defending).

Edited April 18, 2010 by pqr

[Aggie]

I wonder if it is simply the next step in the government's acting out the belief that they, and not the parents, not only know what is best for our children, but also that they have the right to become involved in the children's lives at nearly every level. The state keeps taking over more of their care, and parents keep giving more--the state feeds the children, gets involved with their health care, their sex education, their weight, where they spend their time (curfews etc.) their values and attitudes and worldviews--on and on and on.

 

It just wouldn't surprise me if on some level, some of those involved don't see this as that big of a deal. With its fingers and prying eyes in so much of the child's and the family's lives, and so much of the authority over the children handed over to them by willing parents, why shouldn't the state take a little more ground? a few more hours of watch-care? a little closer monitoring--in the best interest of the children and society of course :glare: . Maybe that is why there isn't such an uproar as those who think a little more carefully regarding these issues might expect; it is somewhat of a logical extension of what is in place already.

 

My thoughts anyway. I guess I sound like a conspiracy theorist. :sneaky2: Maybe I've read too much Gatto. Regardless, once the initial shock wore off, the whole thing really doesn't surprise me, nor does the absence of uproar on the part of those responsible. There is a real sense on the part of the school system and the state that they have at least as much right to our children as we do, perhaps more. This issue falls right in with that thinking.

 

And as an aside, I wonder if some parents wouldn't even welcome the monitoring. Perhaps their reasoning is that the school might be able to do a better job of monitoring their children than they can. A sobering thought, to be sure.

 

Double Agent Tracy :D

 

My thoughts, too, Tracy.

[Tangerine]

http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Robbinsfinal.pdf A request for injunction from the ....ACLU . They do a great deal of good in this country especially in terms of privacy rights.

 

Good for you for stating unpopular truth.

[pqr]

Good for you for stating unpopular truth.

 

 

It is an opinion, no one has demonstrated that this is a truth.

[Sahamamama]

I wonder if it is simply the next step in the government's acting out the belief that they, and not the parents, not only know what is best for our children, but also that they have the right to become involved in the children's lives at nearly every level. The state keeps taking over more of their care, and parents keep giving more--the state feeds the children, gets involved with their health care, their sex education, their weight, where they spend their time (curfews etc.) their values and attitudes and worldviews--on and on and on.

 

It just wouldn't surprise me if on some level, some of those involved don't see this as that big of a deal. With its fingers and prying eyes in so much of the child's and the family's lives, and so much of the authority over the children handed over to them by willing parents, why shouldn't the state take a little more ground? a few more hours of watch-care? a little closer monitoring--in the best interest of the children and society of course :glare:.

 

Double Agent Tracy :D

 

:iagree:Tracy, this is a great list of control areas regularly enacted by the school system, and to it I'll add these: (1) "journal-style" writing assignments and/or class discussions that require students to share their personal lives in public (or make something up); (2) "lunch bunch" groups, in which the school social worker "chats" with a selected group of elementary students about their home lives (without parents' prior knowledge or consent); (3) birth control and abortions being available through the school; (4) encouraging students to judge and look down on (and report?) their own parents for everything from leaving a light on to using the "wrong" type of toothpaste, from not recycling properly to eating the "wrong" diet (and on and on); and, finally (5) assigning required reading and homework over every "break" and during the summer months, thus effectively thrusting their controlling hands into any and all family time that might exist during "off" time. :tongue_smilie:

[elizabeth]

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Snyder_v._Phelps#Certiorari-Stage_Documents Here is the case that pqr and I are discussing. It is a very important First Amendment case that will be heard by the Supreme Court in a short time. This is really about classifications. Who is a public personage and who is a private personage as the standards for malicious intent vary radically depending on the answer to this fundamental question. Please read the links as this case could very well change the manner in which people may assemble and in turn, define and limit peaceable assembly for the modern age.

[Mrs Mungo]

As you might guess I find Westboro Church and Fred Phelps family a disgusting bunch and reject entirely their beliefs. However, defending all speech with the caveats in place by caselaw, not just that with which we agree, is the essence of the first amendment.

 

I agree, as much as I cannot stand Fred Phelps and his bunch.

 

I fully support free speech, even that which I find loathsome, but a funeral for a serviceman is not the place for their displays. Free speech does not cover incitement to violence and telling a Father that his God is glad that his son was killed by an IED is a pretty clear incitement for someone to vent their anguish in shall we say a physical manner.

 

The law that they are challenging bans picketing and protests "in front of or about" any location where a funeral is held, from an hour before it begins until an hour after it ends. This is not limiting speech or expression and they can protest all they want outside bases, gov't buildings etc. The ACLU is way off on this one.

 

Which case are you talking about? *Many* states have passed these laws and only a handful of them are being challenged by the ACLU for being overly broad (such as the Ohio case) or limiting specific reasons for protesting (such as the Missouri case). I'm not sure which one you're talking about, which makes it hard to discuss possible good reasons the ACLU might have. Feel free to pm me a link, if necessary.

 

They also seem perfectly happy to limit an individual's or group's right to religious expression, shall we say student led prayer at a graduation. (with the obvious exception of the Westboro cretins who they are defending).

 

Private schools can have all the prayer they want. Public schools are paid for by the government. The government is not supposed to endorse religion.

[Tangerine]

It is an opinion, no one has demonstrated that this is a truth.

 

Well, I suppose so. I'm pretty keen on Brown v. Board of Education.

[Mrs Mungo]

Here is the case that pqr and I are discussing. It is a very important First Amendment case that will be heard by the Supreme Court in a short time. This is really about classifications. Who is a public personage and who is a private personage as the standards for malicious intent vary radically depending on the answer to this fundamental question. Please read the links as this case could very well change the manner in which people may assemble and in turn, define and limit peaceable assembly for the modern age.

 

I'm editing out the link, just in case.

 

The trouble with the Snyder case, specifically, is that Phelps and clan were 1,000 feet away on public property. The family knew they were there but neither saw nor heard them at all. Buffer zone laws have been upheld by SCOTUS in such cases as Hill v. Colorado.

 

eta:

 

I am going to quote this bit again because I have a question for elizabeth:

Who is a public personage and who is a private personage as the standards for malicious intent vary radically depending on the answer to this fundamental question. Please read the links as this case could very well change the manner in which people may assemble and in turn, define and limit peaceable assembly for the modern age.

 

Just to clarify what is at stake-if Phelps is found to have defamed Snyder, then could certain tax protesters with signs regarding the president or congress be treated the same way?

Edited April 19, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[pqr]

 

Which case are you talking about? *Many* states have passed these laws and only a handful of them are being challenged by the ACLU for being overly broad (such as the Ohio case) or limiting specific reasons for protesting (such as the Missouri case). I'm not sure which one you're talking about, which makes it hard to discuss possible good reasons the ACLU might have. Feel free to pm me a link, if necessary.

 

.

 

The Missouri case was the one to which I was speaking.

[RoughCollie]

:iagree:Tracy, this is a great list of control areas regularly enacted by the school system, and to it I'll add these:

 

I fully agree with both of you. It makes me mad.

[Mrs Mungo]

The Missouri case was the one to which I was speaking.

 

That case is done. The circuit court found in favor of Phelps & Co, that the law was too broad and SCOTUS refused to hear the case. So, Missouri needs to re-do its law. Not all states have had their laws on this subject challenged.