Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 160 posts

Re: School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home

#141

Post by cduan »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #120
dpatru wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An unlawful search is illegal. Whether the cop go to jail depends on if they're convicted of a criminal law. Usually an illegal search is brought up as a defense by the person who was searched and is now being charged with evidence obtained in the search. The issue in these cases is whether the fruits of the illegal search should be used against the person who was searched. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusion…

An unlawful search is illegal. Whether the cop go to jail depends on if they're convicted of a criminal law. As far as I'm aware this never happens, or at least I've never heard of it. But then, IANAL. Not that I disbelieve you, but I'm curious. Can you cite some real-life cases where officers that poked their noses where they ought not have later been prosecuted and actually been punished? My guess is that they'll b…

Fair enough, I should have been more precise with my language.

Section 1983 says that a violation of a constitutional right gives rise to a civil remedy for damages. A violation of the Fourth Amendment right is such a violation of a constitutional right. If the school officials, being officers of the state, did not comply with the rule in Kyllo, then they would be in violation of the Fourth Amendment, so they could be liable for damages under section 1983.

The officials could defend on the grounds of qualified immunity. However, to win on this defense, the officers must show that the law was not "clearly established." The argument I would make is that Kyllo is clearly established, so qualified immunity would not apply.

The Wikipedia article on section 1983 provides some examples of its uses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1983

Re: School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home

#142

Post by NEPatriot »

JunkDNA wrote: post #4

Found a PDF of the filing itself: http://craphound.com/robbins17.pdf It's hard for me to imagine how anyone could think this was an OK idea.

I've always been paranoid that the people I work for would turn on the video camera on my laptop and just observe me work...

Re: School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home

#143

Post by electromagnetic »

olliesaunders wrote: post #128
tibbon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should set some interesting precedent. If this isn't child pornography, spying, unlawful wiretapping, etc... then I don't know what is.

Since when did surveillance == pornography? Is CCTV pornography? This story isn't even about pornography. Why are we talking about pornography?!

I believe it's because you basically handed a remotely activated camera to a teenager in the implicit knowledge that said remotely activated camera will be taken into the teenagers room where they're going to at some point be naked.

Placing a camera in someone's room is akin to placing it in a bathroom, because at some point someone's getting naked and how a group of adults didn't comprehend this speaks worlds about the quality of education provided by the school in question.

There's also the very concerning matter that 50% of the students are likely male, and ~90% of males access porn through the internet. This means that 45% of students likely used this computer to look at porn, which likely means at some point 45% of the students had their penis' out in front of the laptop in question, which has a remotely activated camera on it. This isn't even discussing the 1/3 of women who access porn via the internet. This isn't even discussing the fact that a percentage of these students likely used the cameras for video-sex with their partners (personal experience on that one).

I'm sorry this is either gross ignorance that should be as severely punished as possible or it's exactly as bad as this thread of comments has taken it, and it should be as severely punished as possible. Regardless the potential was there to use the system for child pornography, and if there are no records that any compromising pictures were taken, then the school and its board members got exceptionally lucky.

Re: School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home

#144

Post by electromagnetic »

Skriticos wrote: post #24
ErrantX wrote: post #22

The real question is: where is the criminal investigation? This breaks so many laws it's not funny. And the kid originally being disciplined at school for something he did at home . It's the first time for a while news like this has made me feel physically sick! Lock them up :(

This was the first thing I was asking myself too. AFAIK only a limited group of people is allowed to do such a thing (law enforcement) and only if the have a court warrant for it. If they really pulled this off, then they are in very deep shit..

Well not only could every board member potentially face criminal charges, similar for every teacher who was in on this, but the entire school (or multiple if it's owned by a group) is financially liable, likely to the tune of tens to hundreds of thousands per person. This shit could easily shut this school down, and if that's the least that happens it's a grand achievement.

Re: School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home

#145

Post by anamax »

kelnos wrote: post #136
dnsworks wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Crimes against government agents are prosecuted far more severely than crimes against the common man. If you rob a post office at gunpoint, it's a federal felony, with more extreme punishments than if you rob a corner store at gunpoint. The law singles out government employees as being more important than the common man in terms of protection.

You've answered your own question. The law doesn't say government agents who engage in child pornography should be punished more severely than regular citizens. In the case of holding up a post office at gunpoint, it's not applying the law differently because the law is different. FWIW, my understanding is that messing with the post in general is a federal crime. It has nothing to do with the government employee bein…

> The law doesn't say government agents who engage in child pornography should be punished more severely than regular citizens.

We know. We think that the law is wrong.

Note that DAs tend to give their fellow govt employees, especially police, a pass, so in practice the law is easier on govt employees. It's a trifecta of tribal, lobbying by govt employees, and "one hand washes the other".

> It has nothing to do with the government employee being more 'important' than the common man; that's just an unintended side effect.

Actually, it's quite intended. Look into the history of how those laws came about. They were lobbied for by govt employees.

And then there's the fact that DAs tend to go hard whenever a fellow govt employee is a victim. It's the same trifecta.

Re: School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home

#146

Post by anamax »

koepked wrote: post #135
anamax wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Govt workers typically have great authority to impose things on other people. For example, school officials can suspend students. If they're not up to being held to a higher standard, they're not up to having authority. Plus, enforcing more harshly on them brings attention to bad laws. Like I said, if they're unwilling to accept this, if they want to be treated like an ordinary citizen, they can quit govt work and be…

Some government workers have great authority to impose things on people, but I don't know if I'd agree that it's typical.

> Some government workers have great authority to impose things on people, but I don't know if I'd agree that it's typical.

Every paper-pusher can make your life a living hell. Every teacher and adminstrator can punish your kid. And, I haven't even mentioned police, DAs, judges, and folks who are supposed to exercise discretion.

Janitors and the equivalent are about the only govt employees who don't have considerable power. They're a small minority of govt workers.

Re: School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home

#148

Post by olefoo »

seiji wrote: post #109
olefoo wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All Macs that have cameras do. And it shows to the OS as a USB sensor. Obviously there must be ways to turn it on without lighting the light,

The camera LED is wired in series to the camera sensor itself. You can't power the camera without having the LED turn on. Conversely, you can't turn on the camera LED without having the camera powered.

This is true of new MacBooks, I have been told it is not true of all models of Macs.

Re: School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home

#149

Post by mkyc »

3dFlatLander wrote: post #66
bgraves wrote: post #25

This was part of a program on PBS called Digital Nation. The show was very interesting, and there's a section where the school IT administrator demonstrates his ability to pull up a students laptop ... and working webcam. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/learni... The relevant part starts at about 4:35. "They don't even realize that we are watching. I always like to mess with them and take a pict…

To be fair to the school shown in that particular documentary, they weren't looking at the students through a webcam. It looks like they're using a remote desktop program to look at the students desktop. He explained that many students use the webcam program as a mirror to look at themselves or just mess around.

The students and parents are also presumably fully aware. If on the other hand they were unaware, the student's mistake of opening a webcam program would not reduce culpability.

Re: School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home

#150

Post by Daniel_Newby »

olliesaunders wrote: post #128
tibbon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should set some interesting precedent. If this isn't child pornography, spying, unlawful wiretapping, etc... then I don't know what is.

Since when did surveillance == pornography? Is CCTV pornography? This story isn't even about pornography. Why are we talking about pornography?!

"Since when did surveillance == pornography?"

Since the camera was issued to accompany the student throughout their daily life: bedroom, changing the diaper of a toddler they are babysitting, bathroom, etc.

Post reply on HN