The school spy-cam case has implications far beyond just what actually heppened in this case

[Duer 157099]

I see lots of discussion about the details of what did or did not happen, or who was involved, etc. Of course all of that is important to the court case on that matter, but the implications for ALL of us are so great that it's a very good thing that this has gotten the attention that it has.

Aside from the specifics of this case:

1) it is immaterial that children were involved. The moral outrage should NOT be limited to the fact that minors were potentially being covertly monitored. While OBVIOUSLY that is a critical issue in and of itself, that is not THE critical factor. I would not be satisfied with a law that said that it was OK to covertly monitor adults.

2) it is immaterial WHO had so-called "access" to the security feature. Surely by now, everybody has heard of the concept of hacking, yes?

3) it is immaterial that the webcam could easily be covered up with a piece of tape and voila! problem solved. No, problem not solved. Problem accepted.

4) it is totally immaterial whether one has "signed-off" on this by either reading a disclosure form or signing same. I can certainly imagine situations where such compliance is MANDATORY (well, if you want to stay in that school, or in that job, or whatever).

The way I see it, this same situation could have (and frankly, most likely already does) happened in a private company, with company-issued laptops.

I cannot even begin to count the number of potential nefarious uses of such a situation! No, it's not paranoia.

Let's see, there's corporate espionage. There's insider trading. There's corporate, personal and/or political blackmail. I mean, the possibilities extend as far as the imagination.

So, rather than arguing about the minutia of this particular case with the warm glowy comfort of knowing that it could *never* happen to YOU (why, you don't live in a school district that is rich enough to send home laptops, or your particular employer--at this time--does not issue company laptops, etc etc etc) just try to expand your imagination to the worst-case scenarios and ask yourself how you would recognize it if it were happening, and what you would or could do to prevent or stop it.

[zipplewrath]

1. This was stupid with a capital S

Regardless of how one wants to defend this, in the end it was stupid with a capital S. It was just begging for abuse, whether it was or not. If it wasn't, they were lucky. It was relatively pointless. A stolen lap top would be better tracked through other technological means. And quite honestly, considering what kids do with their cell phone cameras, the school was just begging for trouble FROM THE KIDS by supplying them with these cameras.

If there is a silver lining to all of this it is that this one case will probably dissuade future organizations from trying anything like it.

[tonysam]

6. Nobody has the real facts here, just what a plaintiff claims

Lawyers should have the good sense to not comment at all on their cases and bar their clients from doing so.

[Caretha]

11. Lawyers cannot

bar anyone from commenting on a case, they can certainly suggest it, but Judges are the only ones with the power to make those kind of decrees. Did you not know that?

[mindwalker_i]

13. Yeah, absolutely

The court hasn't gone through the whole procedure, seen all the evidence, and made a final judgment yet, so we should all just shut up and not talk about until they are done. We are completely talking out of our asses since we don't have all the relevant and non-relvant facts completely proven yet.

Just like we didn't have absolute, incontrovertible proof of whether people were tortured by or at the request of the Bush administration, we don't know how, when, or exactly what was done, or even what rooms it was done in, so we should have never been asking questions about it until we had all the facts. Everything was just hearsay. We should have waited until there was video, notarized by the supreme court - the current one and one from the past, at least 50 years ago, just to be safe.

Yeah, right. I get sick of people saying this, even after the school admitted the feature was there, used it to get a picture of the kid eating Mike & Ikes, presented said picture to him, etc. These are facts. Since they happened, there is definite proof that the feature was used in a situation where the laptop was not stolen as per their claims that the camera would only be activated under those circumstances. There is very good reason to investigate this further. Add to it that the school has made several attempts to cover up the story.

So the argument that we should all say nothing because not every fact is known is bullshit.

[zipplewrath]

17. I have the facts relavent to my comment

They distributed school owned laptops to children. They had embedded cameras in them. The school district maintained a capacity to remotely activate and view images from those embedded cameras.

None of those facts are in dispute.

All of them are sufficient to support my assertion. Regardless of intent or actual use, it was an abuse waiting to happen, by either the students or those with access to the school systems network.

[LiberalLoner]

2. Another thing I haven't heard mentioned yet....

If the cameras turn on randomly when they are in the rooms of the teenagers, what if the teenagers are undressing or undressed or practicing...um...reproductive activities by themselves?

And what if those on the other end make copies of the tape and sell them? For big money since I heard the disgusting KP industry makes big money.

How does everyone feel about that aspect of this case?

It was the first thing I thought about when I heard about this. I mean the FIRST thing.

[Duer 157099]

3. I'm sure that's been mentioned somewhere

But just as unsavory: what about using any images as blackmail against the parents? I don't mean by the school people, but by the phantom hacker who could surely find his way into the system.

THe possibilities are endless and frightening.

[niyad]

4. welcome to DU--the child porn aspect of this has been widely discussed,, but, as the OP pointed out,

that is only one of a host of problems and issues. this case is beyond disgusting, and the people who defend it or dismiss it are really pissing me off.

[tonysam]

7. No, the people who piss ME off are the kneejerk types who believe

every bit of shit a plaintiff's lawyer spews.

It has nothing to do with defending a school district. I KNOW, having been the target of a fraudulent civil suit, how these bullshit cases go. Very few of these lawsuits by parents have any merit at all, but their lawyers know they will get a big, fat insurance payout.

[hobbit709]

8. The point is not about a lawsuit

The point is about the POTENTIAL for spying and the abuse of that ability

[Caretha]

12. That has been pointed out

to this particular poster over & over again, ad nausem. He has a really hard time understanding that. He has several personal demons he is dealing with. Good luck.

[Chemisse]

10. It doesn't matter what is true or untrue about this particular case

As the OP pointed out, of you draw back and look at the big picture here, it is very chilling.

[niyad]

14. we know that you are suffering right now, but this is a very different situation, and it needs to be

discussed, widely. it is obvious you don't believe anything that has been said, and that is your perogative. however, the rest of us are free to discuss all the issues involved, regardless of your certainty that this is all make-believe.

you know, it would make me happy to know that you are correct--that a school district really wasn't this stupid, this criminal, this sick--but, given what I have observed the last couple of decades, I doubt it.

[beevul]

15. You already have your mind made up. Thats the problem.

"I KNOW, having been the target of a fraudulent civil suit, how these bullshit cases go."


Context implies that you already have your mind made up, and this case is one of "these bullshit cases".

That is the problem.

[dgibby]

5. If something like this had happened to me during the Bush

administration, I'm fairly sure I'd be on a no-fly list!:evilgrin:

[hayu_lol]

9. The point the OP is making...

is that the installation and use of these spy-cameras were criminal acts under the 4th amendment.

The camera shots took up half the monitor so they were not just little pics down in one corner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vza_bMuy42M&feature=related

One girl fixing her hair using the monitor screen as mirror, one girl doing makeup, and a boy working at his desk. Obviously, in most rooms if the child were not at a desk, the entire room would be visible.

Someone decided to use these cameras and those persons need to go to prison. Others involved need to be terminated and blackballed from the teaching profession.

4th Amendment stuff here.

[beevul]

16. Well said. K & R N/T