PA School Spied On Students Via School-Issued Laptop Webcams

[Scutter01]

Over 56,000 images were taken surreptitiously, according to lawyer.

PHILADELPHIA -A suburban school district secretly captured at least 56,000 webcam photographs and screen shots from laptops issued to high school students, its lawyer acknowledged Monday.

"It's clear there were students who were likely captured in their homes," said lawyer Henry Hockeimer, who represents the Lower Merion School District.

None of the images, captured by a tracking program to find missing computers, appeared to be salacious or inappropriate, he said. The district said it remotely activated the tracking software to find 80 missing laptops in the past two years.

The Philadelphia Inquirer first reported Monday on the large number of images recovered from school servers by forensic computer experts, who were hired after student Blake Robbins filed suit over the tracking practice.
Robbins still doesn't know why the district deployed the software tracking program on his computer, as he had not reported it lost or stolen, his lawyer said.

The FBI has opened a criminal investigation into possible wiretap violations by the district, and U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, of Pennsylvania, has introduced a bill to include webcam surveillance under the federal wiretap statute.


More at the source:

Pa. district took 56,000 images on student laptops - DailyFinance
​

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

The lady in charge of the program pleaded the 5th Amendment when they tried to question her about this. Me thinks she lawyer'd up quick.

 

[Joe Williams]

The lady in charge of the program pleaded the 5th Amendment when they tried to question her about this. Me thinks she lawyer'd up quick.

A very smart move on her part. When you are being investigated, there is ZERO benefit to waiving your right to counsel.

 

[Scutter01]

The lady in charge of the program pleaded the 5th Amendment when they tried to question her about this. Me thinks she lawyer'd up quick.

A lot of commenters on other forums seem to be taking that as implicit admission of guilt, but opening her mouth at this point cannot possibly help her regardless of her culpability.

 

[longbow]

some serious dollars are going to be paid on this, jobs lost, taxes increase and more tape will be placed on web cams on computers............

 

[longbow]

I had a chance today to see how small the web cams are on the new computers, WOW!

If the cheap ones are that small, how small are the good ones?

 

[spartan933]

I am not even sure how to respond to this. I think I am in shock from all the curse words that are going through my mind.

 

[longbow]

I counted the number of cameras that can be accessed by phone or online in my home right now ( 12 )

6 on the phones we have
4 computer webcams

2 on a game system

and that does not count audio................

 

[Scutter01]

I counted the number of cameras that can be accessed by phone or online in my home right now ( 12 )

6 on the phones we have
4 computer webcams

2 on a game system

and that does not count audio................

The difference (and the only one that matters) is that YOU control the "On" switch (tinfoil notwithstanding).

 

[SavageEagle]

The difference (and the only one that matters) is that YOU control the "On" switch (tinfoil notwithstanding).

Yes and no. If the webcams are in laptops and the laptops are on, no. Obviously. Same with cell phones. I'm not sure how it works with cell phones, but I know it's possible. Game systems I'm not familiar with.

But if the systems are turned off, then they can't be accessed. If they are indeed laptops, those are technically always "on" unless disabled in device manager. Even then, a hacker can override that with access to the system. If you're online, it can happen. If you're not connected, it can't. Same with your home network.

With Desktops, it's a bit different. If it's plugged in, yea, it can be accessed. If not, no worries. That's why my webcam is always unplugged unless needed.

My wife's laptop...

 

[longbow]

The difference (and the only one that matters) is that YOU control the "On" switch (tinfoil notwithstanding).

This case shows the off switch can be turned on with no indication....

 

[Scutter01]

Assume I posted a facepalm graphic here. My failure. I wrongly assumed that you would understand that I didn't necessarily mean an actual, physical, "On" switch. To be more precise, assuming you didn't acquire your laptop through your school and it only contains software that you have loaded onto it and know to be tamper-free, you control whether or not the camera is actually taking any pictures or video. In other words, you are the operator of the equipment and not an external third party.

Do I need to go over every single contingency where your camera could possibly be compromised, or do you at least understand my point now? We can nitpick the comment all night or we can move the discussion forward.

 

[SavageEagle]

Assume I posted a facepalm graphic here. My failure. I wrongly assumed that you would understand that I didn't necessarily mean an actual, physical, "On" switch. To be more precise, assuming you didn't acquire your laptop through your school and it only contains software that you have loaded onto it and know to be tamper-free, you control whether or not the camera is actually taking any pictures or video. In other words, you are the operator of the equipment and not an external third party.

Do I need to go over every single contingency where your camera could possibly be compromised, or do you at least understand my point now? We can nitpick the comment all night or we can move the discussion forward.

By your previous post it just looks like you MEANT that no one can tamper with your webcam if "assuming you didn't acquire your laptop through your school and it only contains software that you have loaded onto it and know to be tamper-free, you control whether or not the camera is actually taking any pictures or video" which is false. We both know this. Not a lot of people do. I was only pointing that out.

No need for the long, snide comment.

 

[Scutter01]

You can say that about anything in your house. You control the light in your fridge unless someone breaks into your house and installs a remote switch. You control which way the toilet paper hangs on the roll, unless a guest at a party turns it the other way. Going into detail about all the ways your personal life can be compromised has exactly zero to do with either my comment or the discussion.

If you had a camera in your house that you knew (or suspected) was under the control of someone else, would you still allow it in your house? Of course you wouldn't. But just having cameras in your house is not a bad thing. The difference is that they are under YOUR control and not a third party. In other words, YOU control the "On" switch, and that's the only difference between the two.

 

[SavageEagle]

You can say that about anything in your house. You control the light in your fridge unless someone breaks into your house and installs a remote switch. You control which way the toilet paper hangs on the roll, unless a guest at a party turns it the other way. Going into detail about all the ways your personal life can be compromised has exactly zero to do with either my comment or the discussion.

If you had a camera in your house that you knew (or suspected) was under the control of someone else, would you still allow it in your house? Of course you wouldn't. But just having cameras in your house is not a bad thing. The difference is that they are under YOUR control and not a third party. In other words, YOU control the "On" switch, and that's the only difference between the two.

My bad. You woke up on the wrong side of the bed. I get it. Chill.

 

[longbow]

....we both are on the same page, and all is well!

My work laptop has the same remote funtions that this school had, and for the same reasons. Work just made a change, and anytime they will be accessing the computer web cam remotely, a warning box will pop up with a countdown warning. They still have the ablity to do it, just now it comes with a warning.

They also can take screen shots of what I'm doing at any time without me knowing it...

I know this because I have a junk file called "classic porn" just to be funny, and they noticed the icon. They thought it was funny AFTER they saw it was my junk file.

 

[mrjarrell]

Well, it looks like the schools insurance company isn't backing them up on this one. If they lose, which they should, given the evidence, then the school district will be on the hook for the pay out.

via Philly.com

A New York insurer is balking at the Lower Merion School District's request to cover costs arising from the lawsuit that has put a national spotlight on the district's laptop-tracking system.
In papers filed in federal court, Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Co. contends that none of the allegations in the suit filed by Harriton High School sophomore Blake Robbins and his parents fits the definitions in the school district's $1 million liability policy.
The Robbins suit says the district invaded his privacy, violated his civil rights, and broke wiretapping and other laws when it secretly activated the Web camera on his school-issued laptop in the fall.
"Those allegations do not state any claims for 'bodily injury' or 'property damage' as those terms are defined in the policy," Graphic Arts Mutual said in its complaint, filed last week.
If the courts agree with the insurer, the impact could be costly for the Lower Merion district, which has hired lawyers from an elite Philadelphia law firm, Ballard Spahr L.L.P., and specialists from L3 Communications Corp., a computer forensics firm, to defend itself in the suit and to investigate the now-disabled laptop-tracking system.
In its complaint, Graphic Arts Mutual said the district had submitted the Robbins claim for "insurance coverage" under its policy. The New Hartford, N.Y., insurer "agrees to assist in the funding" of the district's defense in the case even as the firm awaits a court ruling on its request, the complaint said.
The company names as defendants the school board and district superintendent, plus Robbins and his parents, Michael and Holly.
Doug Young, a Lower Merion schools spokesman, declined Thursday to discuss details of the insurance dispute.

More at the source.