http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/school-allegedly-spied-via-web-cams-19196035

A Philadelphia school district is being sued because of school-issued laptops being remotely accessed to take pictures of various students. The child that this video details didn't lose or have his laptop stolen, but it was activated anyways. They could have taken it back at any time, rather than just taking the pictures. They admitted that the camera was turned on, then back off every 15 minutes by their technology department. This is also not the only child it happened to.

However, his family had not fully paid the required insurance for the laptop. The fine print supposedly states that the district has the right to activate the cameras if the insurance has not been paid for. The family acknowledged that the district had the right to track the computer, especially if it's missing, stolen, or not paid for. The family had paid half, and the district said it would be alright if they took some time and then paid the other half.

Does the school have a legitimate reason to be taking pictures, or have they overstepped a legal boundary?

If the child is under no complusion to be taking the laptop home, then it's his fault. If the school requires him to do his homework on it or something, then yeah there's a legal problem.

Edit: he's a dumbass for not putting a piece of duct tape over the camera in the first place. that's the first thing I'd have done if I knew the school could remotely access the computer or had software installed like that

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 18 2010, 6:47 am by Vrael.

There's a legal problem anyways. They have no reason to be taking pictures of him because they didn't get the insurance, especially the pictures of him undressing. Creepy.

A story similar to this happened near me, and if I'm not mistaken this isn't the same guy. The school distributed laptops with webcams, some guy gets pictures snapped of him taking some illegal pill, and he's taken to court saying it's a Mike and Ike. Also, teh hawtest child pr0nz on the web were probably taken by this school.

I think it is complete illegal for such a function because it can get more information than necessary. (and also unhelpful information? because sometimes pictures will not help you get a location?)
Why didn't they just place something like GPS chips in each of them?

What I'm still trying to figure out is why the school bought macs...
And the kid's an idiot for not stopping all running processes for school programs.

It's wrong for the school to take pictures without telling the student and parents, but it seems that they did put it on the contract. I think that it is the fault of the parents for blindly signing a legal contract.

Because then they wouldn't be able to take kiddie porn and blame it on insurance payments.

I'd have installed linux on it in the first place, I don't want any school bloatware on MY computer.

Legally, you aren't allowed to take pictures or videos of anyone without their consent, but the legal contract gave consent, so it was just silly parents.

Sounds a little suspicious to me. The software being mentioned (which I think is standard anti-theft on Apple computers with a webcam) is only meant to be used if the laptop is suspected to have been stolen. Checking up on students via the webcam without reasonable suspicion that they have made off with the computer is a bit Orwellian.

Quote from lil-Inferno

Also, teh hawtest child pr0nz on the web were probably taken by this school.

You obviously didn't watch the video in the link.

Quote from MasterJohnny

Why didn't they just place something like GPS chips in each of them?

From the video, it sounds like they might have, but...

Quote from fat_flying_pigs

What I'm still trying to figure out is why the school bought macs...

QFT.

Quote from fat_flying_pigs

I think that it is the fault of the parents for blindly signing a legal contract.

This, more so than anything else in the thread so far. Did they read the fine print when they bought their car(s)?

My intuition tells me that the parents will win because what the school did was morally and ethically wrong, not legally wrong. Society is blurring the lines. Sadly, the video didn't show the document, so we can only guess about what the fine print says. The parents' story changed at the end, so I can infer that they don't know what it says either.

[deleted]

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 5 2018, 3:54 am by DavidJCobb. Reason: ugh