• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Suit: Pa. school used webcams to spy on students

Well they could start by explaining why pictures of the kid smoking pot are all over his facebook page with no privacy settings.
Is there are source for this other than the anonymous tip? Has anyone else seen these photos?
And pot HAS come up in the case. It's precisely the "inappropriate behavior" that was brought to the administrator's attention.
It is? Because so far I haven't heard either side mention it. There was some mention of PILLS, but not pot. They don't look anything alike.
And yes, Right's link is proof of something: that the kid had no discretion about broadcasting his vices on the internet and that information the administrator had could have come from more than just spying on him through the web cam.
Except that the accusation comes from someone who will not even give his name. Anonymous accusations get zero credibility, since they can be leveled by anyone for any reason.
 
Is there are source for this other than the anonymous tip? Has anyone else seen these photos?

I haven't bothered to look at them. Whether the source was anonymous or not has zero to do with whether the source pointed to facts. The veracity of the information is not dependent on the source naming themselves.


It is.

Because so far I haven't heard either side mention it. There was some mention of PILLS, but not pot. They don't look anything alike.

Right's link mentioned pot. The original argument said he was accused of selling drugs (my assumption would be pot since that's what he is broadcasting on Facebook).

Either way, pills/pot...his activity has been broadcast with no privacy controls. It is totally plausible that his activities were discovered through several means other than the webcam in that computer.

Except that the accusation comes from someone who will not even give his name. Anonymous accusations get zero credibility, since they can be leveled by anyone for any reason.

Perhaps in your world. Cops act anonymous tips all the time. And the anonymity of the source does not diminish the veracity of the information passed on. Sorry bout that.
 
I was just pointing out to Hoplite that the principal is to blame. Nother whether or not it should be legal for schools to spy on students and parents.



That should be changed to "tax payer funded entity".Your tax money does not belong to the government.So it is not the government's money but the tax payer's money.
Given how the 1st Amendment is used by schools to squash religious freedom, so to the school (i.e., the State) has committed a violation of the 4th Amendment. Where were the warrants, and where was the probable cause to support them?
 
Quotes from the aforementioned linked story:

School officials in Pennsylvania who admit remotely activating student webcams to locate missing laptops could have used far less intrusive methods such as GPS tracking devices, technology and privacy experts say.
The school officials admit that they activated the webcams.

According to Rotenberg, those photographs could also raise legal problems for Lower Merion, since officials have said students did not sign waivers agreeing to the hidden use of webcams.
No legal waivers were signed by the students' parents before the webcams were turned on. Being that they are minors, the students themselves couldn't have signed a legal agreement.

Apparently for the school district . . . :hitsfan:
 
Quotes from the aforementioned linked story:


The school officials admit that they activated the webcams.

If you read the thread, you'll see that this has never been in dispute. The school has stated that it turned on the cameras only when it was trying to find lost or possibly stolen laptops.

No legal waivers were signed by the students' parents before the webcams were turned on. Being that they are minors, the students themselves couldn't have signed a legal agreement.

Apparently for the school district . . . :hitsfan:

And the parents of these students had to sign a legal waiver acknowledging that if the laptops were stolen, the school could use this technology to try to recover them?
 
And the parents of these students had to sign a legal waiver acknowledging that if the laptops were stolen, the school could use this technology to try to recover them?
No such thing is mentioned in the aforementioned news story that I linked to.

Here is an excerpt from the Courthouse News Service story pertaining to the case:
But the parents and students say that, without their knowledge, the access went both ways. Nowhere in any "written documentation accompanying the laptop," or in any "documentation appearing on any Web site or handed out to students or parents concerning the use of the laptop," was any reference made "to the fact that the school district has the ability to remotely activate the embedded webcam at any time the school district wished to intercept images from that webcam of anyone or anything appearing in front of the camera," the complaint states.

1. The parents didn't sign a legal waiver permitting the use of the webcams in their homes.

2. As someone else has already pointed out, a webcam could have been turned on while a student was undressed in front of a computer.

3. The reason for turning on the webcams is immaterial if the school district did not have the legal authority to turn on the webcams while the computers were in the homes of the students.
 
Last edited:
No such thing is mentioned in the aforementioned news story that I linked to.

Here is an excerpt from the Courthouse News Service story pertaining to the case:


1. The parents didn't sign a legal waiver permitting the use of the webcams in their homes.

Who says they had to?

2. As someone else has already pointed out, a webcam could have been turned on while a student was undressed in front of a computer.

And the principal could have broken into the kids home and taken pictures of the same thing. Since neither happened, I don't see how that's relevant.

3. The reason for turning on the webcams is immaterial if the school district did not have the legal authority to turn on the webcams while the computers were in the homes of the students.

Again, what is your basis for arguing that the school did not have the legal authority to do what it says it did?
 
Again, what is your basis for arguing that the school did not have the legal authority to do what it says it did?
Amendment IV if the U.S. Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The webcams were turned on for the purpose of making a search.

The parents did not give the school district permission to search their homes via the webcams.
 
Amendment IV if the U.S. Constitution



The webcams were turned on for the purpose of making a search.

The parents did not give the school district permission to search their homes via the webcams.

I can see what you are saying, but there is a key point that may negate that: the search isn't "of" a suspect in a crime. The search is "for" a lost piece of property. There is no attempt here to get around a search warrant in pursuit of charges for commission of a crime.
 
Does anyone have a link? This is so preposterous I find it hard to believe a school would be this dumb. Many times there's much more to the story.

Latest I heard, the "more to the story" could end up being child porn accusations.
 
The search is "for" a lost piece of property.

The more I hear/think about it, the more illogical the reasoning becomes.

What does remotely activating a camera and viewing through it do what GPS doesn't, if the purpose for activating the camera that they use is just what GPS is perfect for, why not just use GPS chips, and save them the legal issues?
 
Why aren't they being criminally charged?

It's against the law to trespass in someones home.
Also possible child porn crimes.


What if one of these laptops had been used and inappropriate behavior between parent and child, that had been totally covered up with no prior evidence, discovered? I have a feeling some on here's tune would change a bit.
 
Last edited:
The more I hear/think about it, the more illogical the reasoning becomes.

What does remotely activating a camera and viewing through it do what GPS doesn't, if the purpose for activating the camera that they use is just what GPS is perfect for, why not just use GPS chips, and save them the legal issues?

It's my understanding that GPS chips are part of the location software.

If the camera is only activated upon report of theft of the device, I see nothing wrong with this. It's no different to me than an ATM catching the face of everyone who walks up to it to make a transaction.
 
I can see what you are saying, but there is a key point that may negate that: the search isn't "of" a suspect in a crime. The search is "for" a lost piece of property. There is no attempt here to get around a search warrant in pursuit of charges for commission of a crime.
The object of the search isn't relevant. The location of the search is. Law officers can't search a person's home unless they have either a search warrant or permission from the home owner. Public school officials aren't exempt from laws governing the search of private property.
 
It's my understanding that GPS chips are part of the location software.

If the camera is only activated upon report of theft of the device, I see nothing wrong with this. It's no different to me than an ATM catching the face of everyone who walks up to it to make a transaction.
It's different from an ATM because ATMs are located in public places, as opposed being located in private homes, which is where the laptops were located.
 
Amendment IV if the U.S. Constitution

The webcams were turned on for the purpose of making a search.

The parents did not give the school district permission to search their homes via the webcams.

Again, making some oblique and nonsensical reference to the fourth amendment doesn't cut it in court. This is nowhere near as simplistic as you're making it out to be.

Latest I heard, the "more to the story" could end up being child porn accusations.

The more I hear/think about it, the more illogical the reasoning becomes.

What does remotely activating a camera and viewing through it do what GPS doesn't, if the purpose for activating the camera that they use is just what GPS is perfect for, why not just use GPS chips, and save them the legal issues?

This is the problem with cases like this - rumors get spread around without evidence.

1) There is not even a shred of evidence (or even an accusation) of anything related to child porn.

2) This has nothing to do with GPS chips - that's not how it works. It's software on the computer. The reason they don't use GPS chips is because it would make no sense to crack the computers open and install a GPS chip when you can just use IP information.

The object of the search isn't relevant. The location of the search is. Law officers can't search a person's home unless they have either a search warrant or permission from the home owner. Public school officials aren't exempt from laws governing the search of private property.

And what on earth indicates to you that this constituted a search?

Edit: Hell, let's pretend that we're in an alternate universe where it does constitute a search. What's the constitutional remedy?
 
Last edited:
The object of the search isn't relevant. The location of the search is. Law officers can't search a person's home unless they have either a search warrant or permission from the home owner. Public school officials aren't exempt from laws governing the search of private property.

It most certainly is relevant. No kid from the school is being searched. What is being searched is the location of the laptop and if the laptop reports evidence that it is in a specific location, then I see a search warrant being required to go in and physically search for the laptop with police. However, as it stands, the laptop isn't "searching" anything. It's just reporting its location and that is perfectly legal. We use the same kind of software here at the institute I work for to find missing laptops all the time. Activate the software and get its gps location. If it isn't in the building or at the address it was checked out to, we can activate the web cam and snap a shot of the thief in possession of it.

There's nothing illegal about that. Nothing at all.
 
2) This has nothing to do with GPS chips - that's not how it works. It's software on the computer. The reason they don't use GPS chips is because it would make no sense to crack the

Actually, a lot of laptops already have gps transmitters installed right on the mainboard if you order them that way. It's about as common now as having a gps locator in your cell phone, I imagine. I order all of our laptops this way.
 
It's different from an ATM because ATMs are located in public places, as opposed being located in private homes, which is where the laptops were located.

The laptop is public property. It just happens to be mobile.
 
It most certainly is relevant. No kid from the school is being searched. What is being searched is the location of the laptop and if the laptop reports evidence that it is in a specific location, then I see a search warrant being required to go in and physically search for the laptop with police. However, as it stands, the laptop isn't "searching" anything. It's just reporting its location and that is perfectly legal. We use the same kind of software here at the institute I work for to find missing laptops all the time. Activate the software and get its gps location. If it isn't in the building or at the address it was checked out to, we can activate the web cam and snap a shot of the thief in possession of it.

There's nothing illegal about that. Nothing at all.
The gps would provide a single piece of evidence about the laptop, while the webcam could provide evidence unrelated to the laptop, therefore it is an unreasonable search.
 
More fun details:

Laptop family is no stranger to legal disputes

The vice chairman of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission could scarcely contain his scorn. Before the commission was yet another appeal from a Philadelphia-area family, again seeking a break on unpaid electric and gas bills that by last year were closing in on $30,000.

This family lived in a $986,000 house on the Main Line. The breadwinner, until recently, had earned well more than $100,000 per year. Yet he and his wife were in hock to creditors, ranging from Uncle Sam to their former synagogue - and had regularly been stiffing Peco Energy for five years, breaking payment plan after payment plan.

"Our procedures," the commission's Tyrone J. Christy wrote in a Dec. 17 motion, "were not meant to allow customers living in $986,000 houses, with incomes in excess of $100,000 per year, to run up arrearages approaching $30,000."

The debtors in question were insurance broker Michael Robbins and his wife, Holly, who now find themselves in the national spotlight after suing the Lower Merion School District, saying it allegedly spied on their child at home via a Web cam on a school-issued laptop.

In addition to the Peco debt, the PUC noted, the Robbinses had been hit with numerous civil judgments in recent years totaling more than $365,000.

To Haltzman - who had taken them to court himself in 2002 - their finances and personal lives are irrelevant to the Lower Merion lawsuit.

...

According to court records, their unpaid debts range from $62,692 owed to the IRS to lesser debts of a few thousand to their dentist, their former synagogue's preschool, and a Montgomery County lawyer.

...

Michael Robbins is currently embroiled in a legal dispute with his former employer, Interstate Motor Carriers Agency Inc. of Freehold, N.J.

In a federal lawsuit filed by Haltzman last year, Robbins contends that Interstate owes him about $5 million in commissions. Bill Buckley, an attorney for Interstate, declined to comment.

Setting aside the fact that I'm perplexed as to how they're being represented by a lawyer who previous sued them, this provides a little light as to the type of people who are bringing this suit. I'm counting no less than seven lawsuits that were already ongoing even before this claim.
 
Update:

U.S. ends webcam probe; no charges | Philadelphia Inquirer | 08/17/2010

Federal prosecutors on Tuesday closed their investigation into Lower Merion School District's secret use of software to track student laptops, saying they found no evidence that anyone intentionally committed a crime.

The decision, announced by U.S. Attorney Zane Memeger, ended a six-month probe by the FBI into allegations that district employees might have spied on students through webcams on their school-issued laptops.

In a brief statement released by his office, Memeger didn't disclose details of the investigation, but said agents and prosecutors concluded that charges were unwarranted.
 
Back
Top Bottom