View Full Version : School issued laptops - clandestine wiretaps?
Now, that's quite a title, isn't it?
Here's an article excerpt:
A suburban Philadelphia school district remotely activates the cameras in school-provided laptops to spy on students in their homes, a lawsuit filed in federal court Tuesday alleged.
According to the lawsuit filed by a high school student and his parents, the Lower Merion School District of Ardmore, Pa. has spied on students and families by "indiscriminate use of and ability to remotely activate the Webcams incorporated into each laptop issued to students by the School District."
Approximately 1,800 students at the district's two high schools have been given laptops as part of a state- and federally-funded "one-to-one" student-to-laptop initiative.
LINK (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9158818/Pennsylvania_schools_spying_on_students_using_lapt op_Webcams_claims_lawsuit?taxonomyId=146)
A class action lawsuit has been filed against a Pennsylvania school district. Here's an excerpt:
Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and the members of the Class, and without their authorization, Defendants have been spying on the activities of Plaintiffs and Class members by Defendants' indiscriminant use of and ability to remotely activate the webcams incorporated into each laptop issued to students by the School District. This continuing surveillance of Plaintiffs' and the Class members' home use of the laptop issued by the School District, including the indiscriminant remote activation of the webcams incorporated into each laptop, was accomplished without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiffs or the members of the Class.
So the webcam can be activated without notice or warning?
Visions of Big Brother and 1984 dance through my head.
The citation is attached as a PDF. Or, one can go directly to a LINK (http://craphound.com/robbins17.pdf)
I'm curious to see if the school district did indeed have remote access to these laptops, or if a bunch of kids with no home computing security understanding didn't employ any or adequate personal security measures (i.e., changing default firewall settings, even having a firewall in the first place, running AV and anti-spyware sweeps, disabling any remote access software, not downloading programs from unknown contributors, not visiting porn sites and clicking on active content links, etc.), and were exploited by a tech savvy classmate.
Ret10Echo
02-18-2010, 20:09
So the webcam can be activated without notice or warning?
Visions of Big Brother and 1984 dance through my head.
Actually nmap, the first thing that popped into my head was the 102nd thing you can do with duct tape.....
Not unusual for a network administrator to be able to gain access to a networked computer, even over a VPN connection. If the systems were set up by an administrator that allowed remote access then there are a number of things that could be done. Interesting twist.
I'm curious to see if the school district did indeed have remote access to these laptops, or if a bunch of kids with no home computing security understanding didn't ................
"......Michael and Holly Robbins of Penn Valley, Pa., said they first found out about the alleged spying last November after their son Blake was accused by a Harriton High School official of "improper behavior in his home" and shown a photograph taken by his laptop.
An assistant principal at Harriton later confirmed that the district could remotely activate the Webcam in students' laptops..............."
Sounds like they sure did do it.
Actually nmap, the first thing that popped into my head was the 102nd thing you can do with duct tape.....
And the possibilities for disinformation are delightful. :D
There are troubling implications, though. Let us suppose the person doing the monitoring see what they believe to be a crime. They report it; however, they are in error and all manner of embarrassing things happen. Is there a civil liability issue?
Or, let's suppose they witness a crime. Again, they report it. Is the evidence tainted?
Does their monitoring schedule look at all students equally? Or is there a disparity?
What are the implications of certain behaviors that are not illegal, but might not be suitable for broadcast. I will leave those possibilities to the imagination.
For myself, the solution is clear. If someone provides such a laptop, I should carefully position it so it can get a clear and constant view of the cat's litter box. :cool:
ZonieDiver
02-18-2010, 21:43
Yeah, but FINALLY, you can determine whether or not the dog actually DID eat the homework! :D
Swell - even more fodder for conspiracy theorists trumpeting 'Big Brother' invasiveness and for editorialists decrying the current state of our educational system. Brilliant! :eek: :rolleyes: :mad:
Richard
armymom1228
02-18-2010, 23:46
Actually nmap, the first thing that popped into my head was the 102nd thing you can do with duct tape.....
.
Nail Polish works better. Doesn't every guy keep a jar of Hot Pink Polish in his tool box???:D
armymom1228
02-18-2010, 23:49
Yeah, but FINALLY, you can determine whether or not the dog actually DID eat the homework! :D
NO, No, it was the cat who used it for a scratchpad and a litter box. How dare you demean the noble friend of man. The Cat set him up to take the fall.
Plutarch
02-19-2010, 01:59
Guess I was in Law Enforcement to long, but what were they trying to see on the camera? Were they trying to see teenagers undressed? WTF are they doing taking pictures of underage students? Child molesters tend to go to jobs where they are in a position of trust to their victoms ie teachers, priests, etc etc. If it was my kid I would be asking some questions am I am not sure court would be the place I would be asking them.
This was my first thought as well.
Ret10Echo
02-19-2010, 03:49
Swell - even more fodder for conspiracy theorists trumpeting 'Big Brother' invasiveness and for editorialists decrying the current state of our educational system. Brilliant! :eek: :rolleyes: :mad:
Richard
Richard,
On the up side, I always remind myself that somewhere in a dim candlelit room, deep withing the bowels of a munincipal building is someone with a stubby pencil and legal pad coming up with an even more stupid and damaging idea to be exectued by a group of incompetents.
An unfortunate reality.
I suspect that it will be argued that because the school district owned and maintain the PC's, there was no reasonable expectation of personal privacy and that they have a valid right to know what their property is doing..
Public Definition: Expectation of privacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy
This is similar to several laws that have been introduced (but denied) to stop internet crime.. Specifically that the owner of the net-work is responsible for all traffic and should control access to "illegal" porn sites by ALL users.
The key will be in the end user agreement and conditional license that (should have) been signed by the parents, detailing the use of the PC's.
The ability of the OWNER to put reasonable limits on their services is a hot topic.
Everyone here has voiced an opinion about testing welfare recipients for drugs??
Same Same Water Buffalo, GI.. :cool:
Caveat Emptor :eek::confused::rolleyes:
bravo22b
02-19-2010, 06:31
I live and work right across the Schuykill River from Lower Merion Township. This is pretty big news here, and for anyone interested, here is a link from the Philadelphia Inquirer:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20100219_Student_claims_school_spied_on_him_via_co mputer_webcam.html
The story that is being put out on the news around here is that this feature was intended for use in tracking down stolen laptops, and had apparently been used for this purpose before.
It makes a small amount of sense viewed in that light, but once again, you really have to question the foresight of whoever is in charge of this. It should seem as plain as day that this would cause a huge and justified reaction if misused.
This is a big mistake that will not turn out well for the school district.
The story that is being put out on the news around here is that this feature was intended for use in tracking down stolen laptops, and had apparently been used for this purpose before.
I could buy that argument if they could activate individually coded laptops when a specific unit had been identified as being missing - otherwise...:confused:
FWIW - having students with the webcam equipped laptops for class related video-conferencing during extended periods of school closings (e.g., weather, flu epidemic, etc) would be of great benefit. ;)
But 'indiscriminate' activation on the part of whenever some Principal Strickland (Back To The Future) out there decides to do so is problematic on so many levels.
I always remind myself that somewhere in a dim candlelit room, deep withing the bowels of a munincipal building is someone with a stubby pencil and legal pad coming up with an even more stupid and damaging idea to be exectued by a group of incompetents.
If you ever take a deviant psych class and have to read Humphreys' Tearoom Trade you'll learn to avoid those 'bowels' of public buildings - and many other public places. :eek:
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
More developments.
LINK (http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20100220_Spying_on_L__Merion_students_sparks_probe s_by_FBI__Montco_detectives.html)
Spying on L. Merion students sparks probes by FBI, Montco detectives
By WILLIAM BENDER
Philadelphia Daily News
A federal invasion-of-privacy lawsuit may be the least of the Lower Merion School District's problems.
Allegations that the affluent suburban district used webcams on school-issued laptops to "spy" on students in their homes has now caught the attention of Montgomery County detectives and the FBI, both of which are looking into whether the practice violated wiretap and privacy laws.
The district is also fighting off a coast-to-coast onslaught of negative publicity that appeared to be growing more intense yesterday.
Some creeped-out students have placed tape over the cameras, and parody T-shirts are already being sold on the Internet – including one that features the ominous red camera eye of HAL 9000 from the sci-fi film "2001: A Space Odyssey" inside the district's circular logo.
"Upon arriving in the office this morning, we were inundated with calls from members of the community asking about this," Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman said yesterday. "It became clear to me that we needed to look at this further to see if a criminal investigation is warranted."
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday on behalf of Harriton High School student Blake Robbins, claims that an assistant principal reprimanded the 15-year-old for "improper behavior in his home" that was captured by the embedded camera on Robbins' school-issued Apple MacBook.
Robbins told reporters outside his house last night that the improper behavior he was cited for was eating Mike & Ike candies, which he said the school mistook for illegal pills.
District spokesman Doug Young acknowledged yesterday that officials had remotely activated computer webcams 42 times, but only in an attempt to recover missing or stolen laptops, and never to spy on students. He said families had not been notified about the possibility that the cameras on the 2,300 laptops could be activated in their homes without their permission.
Yesterday, the Robbinses attorney, Mark Haltzman, filed an emergency motion in federal court demanding that the district halt the use of "peeping-tom technology," preserve all electronic files related to the webcams, and not attempt to confiscate the laptops.
"They think they're like the police," Haltzman said last night. "Lower Merion is not the police, they're not there to enforce anything other than what goes on in school, not what happens in people's homes. That's what parents are for."
Haltzman also questioned why officials would place the incident on Robbins' school record if the webcams were activated only to recover missing laptops.
"It's getting pretty intense," said Tom Halpern, 15, a Harriton High sophomore from Wynnewood whose "LMSD Is Watching You" Facebook page was already nearing 800 members by last night.
"The first time I heard it, I just couldn't believe it," he said. "It's just so beyond anything I would have imagined happening so close to home."
Lower Merion School District Superintendent Christopher McGinley said in a letter to parents that the "security feature," which enabled the webcams to take still photos if they were reported stolen, has been disabled in the wake of the lawsuit and subsequent uproar from parents and students.
"Privacy is a basic right in our society and a matter we take very seriously," McGinley wrote. "We believe that a good job can always be done better."
David Kairys, a Temple University law professor who specializes in civil rights and constitutional law, described the policy as Orwellian. He said it appears to be a "very clear civil-rights violation."
"It's pretty outrageous," Kairys said. "It's sort of beyond belief that they wouldn't say, 'This is going too far.' "
incarcerated
02-20-2010, 16:04
This story has earned its own Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_J._Robbins_v._Lower_Merion_School_District
Does a school disrict really need to provide 1.800 laptops to students?
Here is the opposite,, Google executives are prosecuted for NOT watching everybody that uses their video servers.
"If I can't sue for one reason, I'll try the other, remember the only thing that counts is billable hours" World Wide Ambulance Chasers Inc.
Italy Convicts 3 Google Execs in Abuse Video Case, AP
An Italian judge sentenced the three to a six-month suspended sentence and absolved them of defamation charges for allowing a video of an autistic boy being abused to be posted online.
MILAN -- An Italian court convicted three Google executives of privacy violations Wednesday because they did not act quickly enough to pull down a video that showed bullies abusing an autistic boy.
The case was being closely watched around the world due to its implications for Internet freedom.
In the first such criminal trial of its kind, Judge Oscar Magi sentenced the three to a six-month suspended sentence and absolved them of defamation charges. A fourth defendant, charged only with defamation, was acquitted.
Google called the decision "astonishing" and said it would appeal.
"The judge has decided I'm primarily responsible for the actions of some teenagers who uploaded a reprehensible video to Google video," Google's global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer, who was convicted in absentia, said in a statement.
The trial could help define whether the Internet in Italy is an open, self-regulating platform or if content must be better monitored for abusive material.
Google, based in Mountain View, California, had said it considered the trial a threat to freedom on the Internet because it could force providers to attempt an impossible task -- prescreening the thousands of hours of footage uploaded every day onto sites like YouTube.
"We will appeal this astonishing decision," Google spokesman Bill Echikson said at the courthouse. "We are deeply troubled by this decision. It attacks the principles of freedom on which the Internet was built."
Convicted of privacy violations along with Fleischer were Google's senior vice president and chief legal officer David Drummond, retired chief financial officer George Reyes. Senior product marketing manager Arvind Desikan was acquitted.
Prosecutors had insisted the case wasn't about censorship but about balancing the freedom of expression with the rights of an individual.
Prosecutor Alfredo Robledo said he was satisfied with the decision and that Google will now have to consider better monitoring its video.
The charges were sought by Vivi Down, an advocacy group for people with Down syndrome. The group alerted prosecutors to the 2006 video showing an autistic student in Turin being beaten and insulted by bullies at school. In the footage, the youth is being mistreated while one of the teenagers puts in a mock telephone call to Vivi Down.
Google Italy, which is based in Milan, took down the video, though the two sides disagree on how fast the company reacted to complaints. Thanks to the footage and Google's cooperation, the four bullies were identified and sentenced by a juvenile court to community service.
The events shortly preceded Google's 2006 acquisition of YouTube.
All four executives, who were tried in absentia, denied wrongdoing. None was in any way involved with the production of the video or uploading it onto the viewing platform, but prosecutors argued that it shot to the top of a most-viewed list and should have been noticed.
Google also ran into other setbacks Wednesday in Europe.
In Brussels, the European Commission said it has asked Google to comment on allegations by rivals that it demotes their sites in its search rankings.
EU spokeswoman Amelia Torres said the EU antitrust office has received complaints from three Google rivals but had not "opened a formal investigation, for the time being."
She declined to name the three rivals or elaborate.
Google said it would provide "feedback and additional information on these complaints," but stressed it was not violating any EU antitrust rules.
On the company's corporate blog, Julia Holtz, Google's senior competition counsel, said those complaining were Foundem, a British price comparison site; the French legal search engine ejustice.fr, which complained about being ranked in low in Google searches; and Microsoft Corp's Ciao! from Bing, complaining about Google's standard terms and conditions.
The low rankings complaint is significant because high rankings in Google searches drive higher volumes of traffic to web sites. "Our algorithms aim to rank first what people are most likely to find useful," Holtz said.
She said after Microsoft acquired Ciao! in 2008, "we started receiving complaints about our standard terms and conditions," an issue that is now before the EU antitrust office.
Holtz said while Foundem and ejustice.fr on the one hand, and Ciao! from Bing on the other, raise "slightly different issues, the question they ultimately pose is whether Google is doing anything to choke off competition or hurt our users and partners. This is not the case."
[ur]http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/24/google-execs-convicted-privacy-violations/?test=latestnews[/url]
I suspect that it will be argued that because the school district owned and maintain the PC's, there was no reasonable expectation of personal privacy and that they have a valid right to know what their property is doing..
:
JJ_BPK,
Systems admins and companies constantly express that POV.
Actually, there is little to no REP in the computer. If they have the means to technically pull the data, they can.
But here, the real analysis is what REP does the student have in his/her bedroom? The home is about the highest REP one has, perhaps only superceded by the REP under one's skin. Persons, papers, houses and effects...
18 USC 2510 et seq makes what they apparently did, a crime in violation of TIII
v/r
phil
JJ_BPK,
Systems admins and companies constantly express that POV.
Actually, there is little to no REP in the computer. If they have the means to technically pull the data, they can.
But here, the real analysis is what REP does the student have in his/her bedroom? The home is about the highest REP one has, perhaps only superceded by the REP under one's skin. Persons, papers, houses and effects...
18 USC 2510 et seq makes what they apparently did, a crime in violation of TIII
v/r
phil
Phil
I don't disagree,, it's just the sad way humans do evolve,,
"It's the tallest blade of grass that dulls the lawn mower"
:eek:
DJ Urbanovsky
02-24-2010, 13:40
IMHO, children have absolutely zero business dicking around with webcams in the first place. They are a recipe for trouble.
Secondly, not to be all tinfoil, but if an organization issues you a laptop with a webcam on it, I think you've pretty much got to be an idiot to not consider the possibility that they might be surveilling you with it. They might be doing it even if it DOESN'T have a webcam on it. There's a boatload of remote access software out there.
Third, it's amazing the problems you can solve with a little electrical or 100mph tape. Or by knowing which processes are which in task manager or the system configuration utility and knowing how to kill them. :D
I think a situation like this didn't need to happen, and it's just one more indicator about how uncommon common sense has become.
Least anyone think the schools security is a new item,, from a 2005 press release..
Forgot to add: Every time you turn your system on, Bill Gates is kind enough to go and check for any software updates and if you allow him, the updates are automatically installed..
Additionally and at the same time,, he tells MS your IP number and verifies your MS license.
All in the name of customer service...
IBM Locks Up Lead in PC Security
February 16, 2005
IBM today built on nearly six years of leadership and innovation in PC security by announcing three new security technologies for its industry-leading ThinkPad notebooks and ThinkCentre desktops, including new biometric fingerprint options, data encryption solutions and embedded notebook traceability tools.
The availability of these new technologies follows results last week from IBM's 2004 Global Business Security Index Report, which provided new details about the spread of viruses and worms and their impact on users and IT departments.
Since 1999, when IBM announced the industry's first PC with an Embedded Security Subsystem, IBM has literally set the security standards for other PC companies to emulate. A founding member of the Trusted Computing Group, an industry standards body for security, IBM is focused on developing the industry's most innovative and secure PCs. In 2005, IBM will extend its previously announced biometric security solutions by expanding the availability of integrated fingerprint readers more widely among ThinkPad notebooks, and offering new fingerprint reader options for ThinkCentre desktops and ThinkPad notebooks, all of which make it one of the industry's largest suppliers of biometric-equipped PCs. Other additions to its security portfolio for ThinkPad notebooks and ThinkCentre desktops include new data encryption solutions and enhanced anti-theft technologies.
"Every PC user recognizes that security threats are increasing in volume and complexity," said Clain Anderson, program director for wireless and security solutions, IBM Personal Computing Division. "Our solution is to provide an even stronger, multi-layered set of security tools that builds on IBM industry leadership."
Biometric Security Authentication
The new IBM Preferred Pro USB Fingerprint Keyboard and IBM USB Fingerprint Reader offer biometric solutions to authentication, providing one of the most secure log-in processes available. The new keyboard and reader offer users the convenience to gain access to confidential files with the swipe of a finger, rather than typing passwords for many applications. IBM began offering a built-in fingerprint reader in the ThinkPad T42 notebook in October 2004, and these new security solutions extend biometrics to ThinkCentre desktops and to other ThinkPad models. They also work together with IBM's patented Embedded Security Subsystem, available on select models, to provide a multi-layered approach that exceeds the capability of many software-only solutions. The IBM Preferred Pro USB Fingerprint Keyboard, priced at $99, and the IBM USB Fingerprint Reader, priced at $69, will be available on February 28, 2005 at http://www.ibm.com.
Data Encryption and Security
In response to demand for improved data security, IBM worked with Utimaco, a leader in enterprise information security, to announce SafeGuard PrivateDisk, a tool that generates an encrypted "virtual" disk drive that serves as an electronic safe for the secure encryption and storage of sensitive data -- on local hard disks, network drives, and all removable media. This software enables customers to back up, save and encrypt data on removable media without worry that, if lost or stolen, important information would be compromised. SafeGuard PrivateDisk further compliments SafeGuard Easy, a full hard-drive encryption product previously announced by IBM. The new tool is also integrated with IBM's embedded security chip, offering users even more data security protection. In conjunction with these offerings, IBM and Utimaco have signed a global alliance agreement for joint marketing of PC encryption solutions.
Two versions of SafeGuard PrivateDisk will be available; the Personal Edition that is designed for small and medium-sized businesses and the Enterprise Edition, which with its extended configuration and distribution options, is designed to meet the needs of larger organizations. SafeGuard PrivateDisk-Personal Edition will be available for free web download for IBM customers at http://www.ibm.com starting March 1, 2005.
PC Theft Recovery and Asset Tracking Solutions
To help organizations overcome the security risks associated with remote, mobile and desktop computer loss, IBM worked with Absolute Software to integrate a new version of Absolute's Computrace solution with the BIOS firmware of new ThinkPad notebooks, making IBM the only vendor to embed the anti-theft traceability tool in the hardware of the PC. In the event that a user's ThinkPad notebook or ThinkCentre desktop is stolen, Absolute guarantees its recovery, and at the user's request, can remotely delete sensitive data from the stolen computer if data privacy is a concern. If the computer is not recovered within 30-60 days, the user may be eligible for a Recovery Guarantee payment of up to $1,000. Additionally, Absolute provides users with a cost-effective solution for tracking computer location, providing computer hardware/software inventories, managing lease returns and enabling software title tracking and license compliance. IBM ThinkPad notebooks preloaded with Absolute's Computrace technology will be available later this month..
Defender968
02-24-2010, 14:35
I suspect that it will be argued that because the school district owned and maintain the PC's, there was no reasonable expectation of personal privacy and that they have a valid right to know what their property is doing..
Public Definition: Expectation of privacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy
This is similar to several laws that have been introduced (but denied) to stop internet crime.. Specifically that the owner of the net-work is responsible for all traffic and should control access to "illegal" porn sites by ALL users.
The key will be in the end user agreement and conditional license that (should have) been signed by the parents, detailing the use of the PC's.
The ability of the OWNER to put reasonable limits on their services is a hot topic.
Everyone here has voiced an opinion about testing welfare recipients for drugs??
Same Same Water Buffalo, GI.. :cool:
Caveat Emptor :eek::confused::rolleyes:
If it were monitoring email/internet communication of the student I might say that argument could hold a little water, however in this case the computer is taking pictures inside the students house where they and their parents DO have every expectation of privacy. On top of this IMO flagrant violation of their privacy there are the child pornography implication as others have already brought up.
The explanation I heard on the news was that the school used the camera if/when laptops were stolen, however the young man's laptop who was accused of drug use when he was eating mike and ikes hadn't reported it stolen...according to the news. As stated above the allegation is that the student was shown a picture of him eating the mike and ikes, if that's the case then they were monitoring students in their homes without any authorization and IMO someone needs to hang for it weather it was a pedophile or some misguided administrator.
A bad search on a suspect by an LEO can easily bring 15K in punitive damages out of an officers pocket and they have the lawful authority to search, how much do you think a couple of unauthorized/clandestine pictures of a minor in their underwear, pjs or god forbid in nothing will bring in punitive damages especially when, last time I checked the school has no lawful authority to search anything off of school property....normally I’m not a fan of lawsuits but in this case I hope the crucify whoever is responsible.
Notice that someone at the school district also monitored the typing. Apparently, they can do quite a lot of monitoring of the machine. In addition, the assistant principal states that she was not the one who activated the webcam - which implies that more than one person is involved.
Let's see now...time to surf the web for bizarre religious cults...guns and shooting techniques...Gilligan's Island reruns...chemical supply houses...back copies of the Journal of Toxicology.... :D
LINK (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20100225_Contradictions_in_L__Merion_Web-cam_case.html)
Contradictions in L. Merion Web-cam case
By Derrick Nunnally and Larry King
Inquirer Staff Writers
The computer-snooping controversy in Lower Merion schools took a new twist last night as a lawyer claimed that a school official told his 15-year-old client that his school laptop contained evidence - both pictures and words - that he might be dealing drugs.
"She called him into the office and told him, basically, 'I've been watching what was on the Web cam and saw what was in your hands,' " lawyer Mark S. Haltzman said in an interview. " 'I've been reading what you've been typing, and I'm afraid you are involved in drugs and trying to sell pills.' "
Haltzman, who represents 15-year-old Blake Robbins and his parents in their controversial invasion-of-privacy suit against the Lower Merion School District, alleged that Lindy Matsko, assistant vice principal at Harrington High School, first contacted Michael and Holly Robbins in November and then called their son in.
The parents told school officials that they were mistaken, Haltzman said, and Blake was not disciplined. The lawyer said the family decided to sue only after a counselor told them that an account of the incident had been placed in Blake's school file.
Haltzman's new allegations - some of which go further than the broad language of the suit he filed last week - came on a day that began with Matsko angrily denying as "outrageous" any suggestion that she used school computers to spy on Robbins in his home.
Matsko's lawyer could not be reached for comment last night on Haltzman's latest allegations. School district spokesman Douglas Young said he could not comment because of the pending suit, which has prompted an FBI investigation into whether district officials violated wiretap and privacy laws.
Matsko trembled with anger yesterday morning as she stood in her lawyers' Center City office and said "many falsehoods and misperceptions" had been aired regarding her role.
She said she had two teenage sons and would be as furious if laptops were used to look in on them. "If I believed anyone was spying on either of my children in my home," Matsko said, "I, too, would be outraged."
Hours later, the response was delivered by a jacketless 15-year-old Blake Robbins, reading a lawyer's script in the shivering cold, yards from his parents' snow-piled Penn Valley driveway.
Matsko, who is in her 25th year working for the school district, took no questions after reading her six-minute statement.
"At no time have I ever monitored a student via a laptop Web cam," said Matsko, her voice occasionally swelling and quavering, "nor have I ever authorized the monitoring of a student via a laptop Web cam, either at school or in the home. And I never would."
Robbins, a Harriton sophomore, stood surrounded by his family and Haltzman as he read a statement on Haltzman's letterhead that praised Matsko as "a good educator and a good person" before alleging that she had, in effect, snooped.
"Ms. Matsko does not deny that she saw a Web-cam picture and screenshot of me in my home," said Robbins, a blue-jeaned, slight teenager with brown bangs. "She only denies that she is the one who activated the Web cam."
Last night, a reporter asked Haltzman why the suit did not specifically allege that Matsko had cited what Blake Robbins had typed on his laptop.
"I do not have the [lawsuit] complaint in front of me," Haltzman replied by e-mail. "But I recall that Blake has stated during interviews that Matsko stated to him that [she] had seen a picture of him and what he had been typing on the screen."
Why hadn't the family gone to law-enforcement authorities? "Their thinking was, back in November, to just let it go," said Haltzman, who has described the photo snapped by the school laptop camera as merely showing Blake Robbins with his favorite candy, Mike & Ike. "Blake protected himself by putting tape over the spot on the Web cam."
Then, he said, the family learned that the episode "was in his file. . . . That's the part that got them outraged."
[QUOTE=nmap;317379]
Journal of Toxicology.... :D
nmap, We do have something common,, I'm looking for the January, 1963 issue, with the Gambierdiscus toxicus center fold,, in tact?? :D
I think either Ms Matsko (& her co-horts) or Mstr Robbins (& his parents) are in deep doo-doo..
If she did and had proof the kids was dealing, she blew it on all counts..
If he is dealing or BS'ing, it will come out..
Video at 11:00...
Dam, I love a good mystery..
Bill Harsey
02-25-2010, 13:35
If, and I mean only IF the student had done something against school rules or illegal with the laptop in question while in their home or bedroom and without the knowledge of being under electronic surveillance...
...would this evidence be tainted under 'fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine?
If, and I mean only IF the student had done something against school rules or illegal with the laptop in question while in their home or bedroom and without the knowledge of being under electronic surveillance...
...would this evidence be tainted under 'fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine?
Not a lawyer, BUt I worked on internal user agreements that were use at one time in big blue. Our lawyers crafted pre-nup's, if you will, that were gtg in court.
The key at the time (20 yrs ago) was the users awareness of the restricted use of the equipment..
Basically "you are using my equipment and I will monitor it's usage, failure to abide means you will be fired."
That's why earlier I staid that if the school had the properly worded user agreement AND the parents sign it, the school should be safe.
That did not mean that the school (or any of its employees) could do anything outside the stated user agreement. It's a two edge sword.
The user agreement is a common part of modern business. Your boss owns the equipment you use and will monitor it's usage. People are fired every day for sending dirty jokes, viewing porn sites, or running non-business related software.
The owner does not have to have a bench warrant to monitor their own property.
Any one here have a security camera on their front door?? at your business?? In the school parking lot?? Did you get a warrant?? You don't have to.
I am sure the PC this school handed out were linked into the school systems network. ALL TRAFFIC to and from the laptop is logged on the server history.
We have discussed many times how we found data on posers that was still in the google archive, long after the poser took it off their web page.
Now did this all happen correctly and with proper documentation??
That's for the ambulance chasers to figure out...
Like I said,, I love a good mystery...
That's why earlier I staid that if the school had the properly worded user agreement AND the parents sign it, the school should be safe.
A minor can't sign any agreement.
If they didn't get the parents signature and consent on the user agreement?????
I don't know of any school that doesn't have student user agreements for just about every occasion.
side-story: I mentioned to my cuz in Miami that the SFUWO in Key West did tours. He is a retired Navy Cmd and runs the JROTC program at a local HS.
He made plans to take the kids, so I asked if I could tag along to see the new dive center and chamber tower.
He said NO,, I was not vetted in the Miami school district so I could not attend in any fashion. They do a LEO check, finger prints,, yady yady yada...
:mad:
I
A minor can't sign any agreement.
If they didn't get the parents signature and consent on the user agreement?????
Our computer policy was included in the student handbook which was in the student assignment book.
Every student had to have their assignment book in their possession every day and it was checked by teachers for every class period.
A forgotten assignment book meant:
(first offense) an automatic 1 hour after-school detention and a call home to parents;
(second offense) an automatic 1 day of ISS
(third offense) an automatic 3 days of ISS
(fourth offense) an automatic one day suspension (zero for any work due), parent conference, placed in PGP (Personal Goals Program)
(fifth offense) an automatic 3 days of suspension (zero for any work due), parent conference (discussion of suitability for school and potential denial of re-enrollment)
(sixth offense) never had one go that far
A lost assignment book had to be replaced immediately at a cost of $25 to the student.
The student and the parent both signed the computer use policy in the handbook, and the handbook with signed agreement had to be verified and remain on view next to the computer whenever a student was on a school computer.
A copy of the co-signed computer use policy was kept in each student's record on file in the school office.
Students also had to log in with their user code, and we'd check logs randomly for compliance with the rules and specifically when something came to our attention.
A minor violation of the rules meant no computer use for a period of time, repetitive or moderate violations would mean further suspension from computer use or from school, a major violation meant expulsion.
I only had to expel one student in more than a decade of using this policy.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
GratefulCitizen
02-25-2010, 16:29
(fifth offense) an automatic 3 days of suspension (zero for any work due), parent conference (discussion of suitability for school and potential denial of re-enrollment)
(sixth offense) never had one go that far
A minor violation of the rules meant no computer use for a period of time, repetitive or moderate violations would mean further suspension from computer use or from school, a major violation meant expulsion.
I only had to expel one student in more than a decade of using this policy.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
IMO, this is a big part of why charter schools and private schools work.
When education is a privilege, rather than a requirement, students demonstrate better behavior and motivation.
Not a lawyer, BUt I worked on internal user agreements that were use at one time in big blue. Our lawyers crafted pre-nup's, if you will, that were gtg in court.
The key at the time (20 yrs ago) was the users awareness of the restricted use of the equipment..
Basically "you are using my equipment and I will monitor it's usage, failure to abide means you will be fired."
That's why earlier I staid that if the school had the properly worded user agreement AND the parents sign it, the school should be safe.
That did not mean that the school (or any of its employees) could do anything outside the stated user agreement. It's a two edge sword.
The user agreement is a common part of modern business. Your boss owns the equipment you use and will monitor it's usage. People are fired every day for sending dirty jokes, viewing porn sites, or running non-business related software.
The owner does not have to have a bench warrant to monitor their own property.
Any one here have a security camera on their front door?? at your business?? In the school parking lot?? Did you get a warrant?? You don't have to.
I am sure the PC this school handed out were linked into the school systems network. ALL TRAFFIC to and from the laptop is logged on the server history.
We have discussed many times how we found data on posers that was still in the google archive, long after the poser took it off their web page.
Now did this all happen correctly and with proper documentation??
That's for the ambulance chasers to figure out...
Like I said,, I love a good mystery...
Forgive me for stiring the fire, but monitoring traffic going back and forth on a laptop is one thing.
Activating a webcam attached to a laptop to snoop around is different. There is a difference between being out in a public area and having a camera at you (school, business, etc), these are legal because anyone can go there at any time. It becomes a different matter all together when you have the presumption of privacy inside your own house.
RELATED
School administrator boasts to PBS about his laptop spying
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/25/school-administrator.html
".........A few weeks ago, Frontline premiered a documentary called "Digital Nation". In one segment, the vice-principle of Intermediate School 339, Bronx, NY, Dan Ackerman, demonstrates how he "remotely monitors" the students' laptops for "inappropriate use". (his demonstration begins at 4:36)
He says "They don't even realize we are watching," "I always like to mess with them and take a picture," and "9 times out of 10, THEY DUCK OUT OF THE WAY."
He says the students "use it like it's a mirror" and he watches............"
It just gets messier....
LINK (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20100305_Two_tech_workers_sidelined_in_Web-cam_case.html?viewAll=Y&text=#comments)
Two tech workers sidelined in Web-cam case
By Joseph Tanfani
Inquirer Staff Writer
Two information-technology employees of the Lower Merion School District have been placed on leave while an investigation continues into the use of remote surveillance software on student laptops.
The two people authorized to activate the software - Michael Perbix, a network technician, and Carol Cafiero, information systems coordinator - were put on paid leave last week while lawyers and technicians examine how the remote system was used, The Inquirer learned yesterday.
Lawyers for Cafiero and Perbix said their clients did nothing wrong. Perbix and Cafiero turned on the remote software only when a laptop was reported missing, they said - and administrators knew what they were doing.
"A phone call had to come from the high school to turn it on," said Charles Mandracchia, attorney for Cafiero. "And if it was turned on, it was turned on with the understanding that the computer was either lost or stolen."
Perbix's salary this year is $86,379. Cafiero, who supervises 16 technicians and administrative assistants, makes $105,569. Both have been with the Lower Merion district for 12 years, according to spokesman Douglas Young.
Their lawyers said the use of the software was no secret. On at least two occasions, the district turned over pictures and other information to Lower Merion police so they could help track stolen laptops.
The district even set up a secure Web site so the police could have access to pictures and other information, according to attorneys in the case.
"Quite honestly, the police knew about these devices," said Marc Neff, a lawyer representing Perbix. "They were not in the dark about the fact that these computers were being tracked."
Side note: Does this suggest that law enforcement officers were engaged in wiretap activities without a court order?
Lower Merion Township Police Superintendent Michael J. McGrath did not return calls seeking comment.
The district's use of the software touched off a national furor when the parents of Harriton High School sophomore Blake Robbins, 15, filed a federal lawsuit on Feb. 16 saying that school officials used the remote-control software to invade his privacy.
An assistant principal later confronted Robbins because she thought a photo and screen image showed he might be dealing drugs, according to Mark Haltzman, the attorney who represents Blake and his parents, Michael and Holly Robbins.
The district says it turned on the camera in Robbins' computer because, since he had not paid a $55 insurance fee, he should not have been taking it home.
Since then, the district has acknowledged that the software was used 42 times this school year to help recover 18 laptops. Still unknown is how many students were photographed, how many photos were taken, and what they showed.
After the lawsuit was filed, district officials said they had disabled the remote surveillance system. They also acknowledged they had not disclosed its existence to parents.
Lawyers hired by the district to conduct an internal review have been interviewing staff, and a computer-forensics firm has begun to sift through photos and data collected by the system.
Henry E. Hockeimer, the Ballard Spahr lawyer heading that effort, declined to comment.
Federal authorities also have opened a grand jury probe, and have given the district a subpoena for records relating to the alleged laptop spying.
In the last two years, the Lower Merion district has supplied Apple MacBooks to all 2,300 high school students.
The theft-tracking software was a feature in a program called LanREV, purchased by the district in 2007 to help manage the growing laptop network. It allows the technology staff to update software to all the computers at once, remotely.
It also has a feature called "Theft Tracker" that lets the network administrators figure out where their computers are - and capture images of who is using them, and what is on the computer screen.
In each case, the tracking has to be turned on for an individual computer. Once that happens, the program will begin snapping photos and recording the computer's Internet location at regular intervals, as long as the laptop is on, open, and connected.
At Lower Merion, that interval was usually set at the default, 15 minutes.
The photos were snapped and turned over to police not long after Harriton students got their laptops in the fall of 2008. A half-dozen laptops were stolen from the Harriton locker room during a gym class, according to people familiar with the incident.
Police were given access to the remote-control photos and screen shots; the information allowed them to recover some of the missing computers.
In a 2008 promotional Webcast for LanREV, Perbix spoke enthusiastically about the tracking ability, calling it a "fantastic feature" that had allowed him to find missing laptops.
Once, he said, he turned it on and found out that a computer thought missing was really in a classroom; by the time he checked, the camera had snapped 20 pictures of a teacher and students, he said.
Neff, his attorney, described Perbix as a "hardworking computer guy" who "year round, day after day, takes care of these things like they're his children."
He said that no one in the 26-member technology department was using the system for any reason other than to locate missing MacBooks.
"There were enough policies in place that no one was running amok with these systems," Neff said, but no one in the district's administration office made those policies official.
"Unfortunately, I don't think they were written policies that were adopted by administrators," Neff said.
.
"There were enough policies in place that no one was running amok with these systems," Neff said, but no one in the district's administration office made those policies official.
"Unfortunately, I don't think they were written policies that were adopted by administrators," Neff said.
This school district is in DEEP DOO DOO!!!
:confused::eek::rolleyes::mad:
Lawyer: Laptops took thousands of images
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20100415_Lawyer__Laptops_took_thousands_of_photos. html
"......Back at district offices, the Robbins motion says, employees with access to the images marveled at the tracking software. It was like a window into "a little LMSD soap opera," a staffer is quoted as saying in an e-mail to Carol Cafiero, the administrator running the program.
"I know, I love it," she is quoted as having replied..................."
Dozer523
04-16-2010, 06:14
Lawyer: Laptops took thousands of images
It was like a window into "a little LMSD soap opera," a staffer is quoted as saying in an e-mail to Carol Cafiero, the administrator running the program.
"I know, I love it," she is quoted as having replied..................."In order to prevent children from inappropriate use.
I might not be an "A" student, baby. . .
Adults mis-use technology
But I'm tryin' to be. Cuz maybe by bein' an "A" student, baby
And yuck it up at the expense of their charges
I'd win your love for me
GPS phone trackers, home monitoring cameras,
What a wonderful world this would be
Everyone who watched the "soap opera" gets to wear an ankle monitor for the next school year.
This school district is in DEEP DOO DOO!!!
:confused::eek::rolleyes::mad:Hopefully, the investigations don't stop with the misuse of the laptops.
For the cart to go so far track, the school district may have other skeletons in the closet.
Hopefully, the investigations don't stop with the misuse of the laptops.
For the cart to go so far track, the school district may have other skeletons in the closet.
I'll be surprised if someone doesn't end up getting indicted in this mess.
Dozer523
04-16-2010, 13:16
Hopefully, the investigations don't stop with the misuse of the laptops.
For the cart to go so far track, the school district may have other skeletons in the closet. Oh goodie, a class action law suit against the individuals, the school Board, the School District, the State Superintendent.
I will give a little slack to people who can't see third and fourth level effect but, No one saw THIS coming? (who woulda thought that someone who could spy, would?)
That's it, no more computers . . .slate and chalk!
I'll be surprised if someone doesn't end up getting indicted in this mess.
Oh goodie, a class action law suit against the individuals, the school Board, the School District, the State Superintendent.
I will give a little slack to people who can't see third and fourth level effect but, No one saw THIS coming? (who woulda thought that someone who could spy, would?)
That's it, no more computers . . .slate and chalk!I augur that serious criminal charges will follow.
I suspect that someone has compromising self-portrait photos some misguided emo kid took of her/himself as part of the digital version of "You show me yours...(and I'll post your photo on 4chan--just for lolz)."
Words fail me. :rolleyes:
LINK (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20100419_Lower_Merion_details_Web_cam_scope.html)
Lower Merion report: Web cams snapped 56,000 images
By John P. Martin
INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
Lower Merion School District employees activated the web cameras and tracking software on laptops they gave to high school students about 80 times in the past two school years, snapping nearly 56,000 images that included photos of students, pictures inside their homes and copies of the programs or files running on their screens, district investigators have concluded.
In most of the cases, technicians turned on the system after a student or staffer reported a laptop missing and turned it off when the machine was found, the investigators determined.
But in at least five instances, school employees let the Web cams keep clicking for days or weeks after students found their missing laptops, according to the review. Those computers - programmed to snap a photo and capture a screen shot every 15 minutes when the machine was on - fired nearly 13,000 images back to the school district servers.
The data, given to The Inquirer on Monday by a school district lawyer, represents the most detailed account yet of how and when Lower Merion used the remote tracking system, a practice that has sparked a civil rights lawsuit, an FBI investigation and new federal legislation.
The district's attorney, Henry Hockeimer, declined to describe in detail any of the recovered Web cam photos, or identify the people in them or their surroundings. He said none appeared to show "salacious or inappropriate" images but said that in no way justified the use of the program.
"The taking of these pictures without student consent in their homes was obviously wrong," Hockeimer said.
A federal magistrate judge is expected this week to begin the process of arranging for parents whose children were photographed to privately view the photos.
Hockeimer said the district's internal investigation is ongoing and that the numbers could change. He said the board authorized him to release the information in response to a new court motion filed last week by Harriton High School sophomore Blake Robbins, whose lawsuit contends the program invaded his privacy.
In the motion, Robbins' attorney, Mark Haltzman, argued that the now-disabled system had surreptitiously collected more than 400 photos of his client - including shots of him when he was shirtless and while he slept in his bed last fall - as well as thousands of images from other students' computers.
The numbers disclosed by the district Monday confirmed that assertion and added more clarity. The district's full report is due within the next two weeks.
Lower Merion began using the system after deciding to give each of its nearly 2,300 high school students their own laptop computer. The program started in 2008 at Harriton High School and expanded this school year to Lower Merion High.
In addition to the photos and screen shots, the technology also used the laptop's Internet address to pinpoint its location. The system was designed to automatically purge all the images after the tracking was deactivated.
Hockeimer said that attorneys from his firm, Ballard Spahr, and specialists from L3, a computer forensics firm, have used e-mails, voice mails and network data to piece together how often, when and why school officials used the technology.
The "vast majority" of instances, he said, represent cases in which the technology appeared to be used for the reasons the district first implemented it in 2008: to find a lost or stolen laptop or, in a few cases, whether a student took the computer without paying a required insurance fee.
About 38,500 images - or almost two-thirds of the total number retrieved so far - came from six laptops that were reported missing from the Harriton High School gymnasium in September 2008. The tracking system continued to store images from those computers for nearly six months, until police recovered them and charged a suspect with theft in March 2009.
The next biggest chunk of images stem from the five or so laptops where employees failed or forgot to turn off the tracking software even after the student recovered the computer.
In a few other cases, Hockeimer said, the team has been unable to recover images or photos stored by the tracking system.
And in about 15 activations, investigators have been unable to identify exactly why a student's laptop was being monitored.
Hockeimer said that the investigation found that administrators activated the tracking system for just one student this year who failed to pay the $55 insurance fee.
Robbins claims he is that student; Hockeimer declined to confirm or deny that.
About 10 employees at the district and its two high schools had the authority to request the computer administrators to activate the tracking system on a student's laptop, Hockeimer said.
Only two employees - information systems coordinator Carol Cafiero and network technician Mike Perbix - have the ability to actually turn on and off the tracking. Hockeimer said the district investigators have no evidence to suggest either Perbix or Cafiero activated the system without being asked.
But the requests were loose and disorganized, he said, sometimes amounting to just an brief e-mail.
"The whole situation was riddled with the problem of not having any written policies and procedures in place," Hockeimer said. "And that impacted so much of what happened here."
Robbins has claimed that an assistant principal confronted him in November with a Web cam photo of him in his bedroom. Robbins said the photo shows him with a handful of Mike & Ike candies, but that the assistant principal thought they were drugs.
His attorney, Haltzman, greeted the release of the numbers skeptically.
"I wish the school district would have come clean earlier, as soon as they had this information and not waiting until something was filed in court revealing the extent of the spying," he said.
It seems the school district made an expensive mistake.
LINK (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_region/20100608_Lower_Merion_s_legal_fees_near__1_million _in_webcam_case.html#axzz0qGgQa1AO)
Lower Merion's legal fees near $1 million in webcam case
By John P. Martin
Inquirer Staff Writer
Legal fees in the Lower Merion School District's webcam case are inching toward $1 million, a sum that could end up handed to local taxpayers.
A district spokesman on Monday disclosed that the bills to defend the use of the now-disabled laptop tracking system have grown to about $780,000.
At the same time, the lawyer whose lawsuit over the webcam monitoring drew worldwide attention disclosed in court papers that his fees - costs he is likely to ask Lower Merion to pay - were more than $148,000 and climbing.
And the district's insurance firm renewed its contention that it shouldn't have to foot the bill in the case.
The insurer, Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance, argued in a filing in federal court that the school district had violated the terms of its insurance policy when it hired lawyers to defend the case without first getting the insurer's approval.
The developments, all which came Monday, suggested progress but also potential roadblocks to resolving the four-month-old case.
The district has already approved payments of more than $550,000 to the Ballard Spahr law firm and L3, a computer forensics firm hired to help investigate the laptop-monitoring program and defend against the suit. District spokesman Doug Young said Monday that the law firm had since submitted bills for an additional $235,000.
In a motion seeking class-action status for the case, attorney Mark S. Haltzman offered the first glimpse of his fees. His motion for certification, filed in federal court in Philadelphia, said he had already devoted more than 350 hours to the case, which, at $425 an hour, translates to $148,750. Two partners have assisted, the motion said, and the firm also hired a computer forensics expert.
Haltzman asked U.S. District Judge Jan E. DuBois to appoint him and his Trevose firm, Lamm Rubenstone L.L.C., as the lawyers for the class, arguing that the firm is qualified and has devoted hundreds of hours to the case.
Haltzman represents Blake Robbins, the Harriton High School sophomore whose lawsuit brought the tracking program to light.
Robbins alleged the district secretly spied on him at home through his laptop webcam. His suit said Robbins was a member of a class of victims - Lower Merion students - whose privacy may have been violated.
The district has since disabled the system, and acknowledged that it was plagued by poor planning and management and that it captured thousands of images of students.
Last month, DuBois signed an injunction that bars Lower Merion from using such invasive technology without getting written waivers from students and their parents.
Haltzman has said he would not seek a lump sum of damages on behalf of the class because Robbins and other students photographed by laptops had unique experiences and couldn't be equally compensated.
Henry E. Hockeimer Jr., the lawyer representing the school district, declined to comment on the filing.
Who will pay the legal tab remains unclear. Attorneys for Lower Merion contend that the district's multimillion-dollar insurance policy covers Robbins' claim. But in its Monday filing, Graphic Arts contended the district had breached its policy by "unilaterally retaining counsel and incurring other obligations and expenses."
Lawyers for the school district didn't respond to requests for comment on the new filing.