I wouldn't take one student's opinion of the news frenzy as an indication of what all the students feel at Harriton. Chatter on the web pretty much is unanimous that they feel pretty violated, but they had all heard rumors that the school district could observe them at the district's will, by using the webcam option. So they had time to process the injustice and learn to live with it, justifying it in their heads until they came to a point where they could live with it day by day. The post-it note placed over the camera seems to be a well-used option by those who couldn't come to that peaceful point. (This was all before the media frenzy).

Knowing the school district and the people as I do, I have to assume that the actions of the system admins and the principal in installing the software and the ignoring of the student leaderships' concerns are all due to arrogance. This is a very entitled bunch for sure. Of course the parents would sue the district — but only after an egregious overstepping of bounds. Because otherwise, believe me, they can't be bothered. This is the Main Line. Look it up in Wikipedia. They are more concerned with themselves than community, and the school getting their kid into a good college is the only thing these parents care about. It's every man for himself out this way. We don't have McMansions, we have mansions. 16-year-olds don't inherit their parents' stationwagons, they get brand new cars for their birthday. They don't care about privacy unless it is their own. They will only speak up once that has been violated in a way that can't be justified. Child porn
potential is the sure-fire winner in the “you've got our attention now” game.

But I still can't get over the pure, unadulterated stupidity of the admin. I mean, honestly, singing the praises of this software? Is he nuts? It just reeks of amateur all around. We, as administrators, never worked without the close partnership of the law firms. We just didn't.

-Christine Cavalier

________________________________

PurpleCar commented on what the kid did to get on the principal's bad side. I don't know what supports that comment. I guess I'm more willing to believe that a principal is genuinely concerned for a student in an area dripping with cash and at high risk for upper class drug abuse and privately calls him aside based on more than just one snapshot. It blows up from there as a defensive denial, a parent's overprotection and maybe denial of a real problem, media Schadenfreude, and knee-jerk over reactive protections of privacy that we tech-savvy outsiders are only projecting onto the situation based on the morsels we have been fed.

Suing the school district over this is messed up. Waiting to be sued, or waiting for a media circus in order to comply with the law is messed up. The courts were never intended to sort out this much failure of cool heads, common sense, and willful ignorance. I mean it is no big news to deploy new technology and not realize the implications. Law of unintended consequences applies all the time in tech. But knowing the legal landscape of the last 20 years, and having a student come to you with concerns should have triggered a conversation with the district solicitor.

Seems as though the school district was doing some amateur detective work (see the video I just posted from ABC6 news).

In the video, the father expresses concern about child porn (in this case, it wouldn't be child porn because his daughter is 18, but that's besides the point).

The concern I have about the child porn charges is that I don't know if they will stick. The prosecution would be hard pressed to show intent to make and distribute child porn, especially if all 42 cases of the camera activation were in response to a stolen laptop (Well, 41 cases, as the Robbins say they never reported a stolen laptop). The news said they recovered 28 laptops using the webcam system.

Maybe the school district is so stupid as to not wipe their drives before the feds got there, and we'll see if any child porn comes out. It's obvious to me the system was not only ill-thought out but abused. There are so many other ways to track stolen laptops. A webcam shot is such a back-assward, low tech solution, it's almost embarrassing. Since the idea is SO egregiously stupid (especially when other security systems were in place like an IP ping), it makes me think that the school district's intent was to spy on students. It makes me think they knew what they were doing and just didn't think they'd be caught.

But yes, it will probably come down to child porn. I disagree with you that the wiretapping act wasn't violated. Even the ACLU and the EFF have said so. But I'm sure the Feds are chomping at the bit to charge whomever they can with child porn violations. The Feds have been known to prosecute minors on sexting, and that's when the minors texted pictures of their own bodies to friends. They don't fool around.

So, we'll see what comes out. I wonder how this Blake Robbins kid got under the skin of the assistant principal for her to go after him with such vigor, but all of that is irrelevant to the case. I really don't think any of this will show up in court. It's pretty clear cut so far. People can't do amateur detective work. School districts have no more rights than the police. These are consistent, clear messages the Supreme Court has sent over the years, and Lower Merion just thought themselves too lofty and immune to listen.

________________________________

But I am wondering if the TOS, consent, wiretapping, and theft are the issues. I don't think a thief has any statutory expectation that stolen property affords privacy in its use. A thief does not consent to the TOS so is not availed of its conditions and limitations. Even if the thief consented to the TOS on the laptop they were issued, it applies to the laptop they were issued, not the one they stole. Newer cars have satellite based anti-theft mechanisms which can track location and degrade engine location. Is there any legal basis for a thief to sue under privacy that they had not consented to the use of technology owned by another and in the possession of the thief illegally? If they activated On-Star, is it protected by wiretapping laws? I doubt it.

Wiretapping applies to “intercepted communications.” Turning on the webcam as described does not “intercept communication.”

The school district is shown to have made mistakes, but I think the most grievous and risky one is that turning on the webcams remotely and violating the wiretapping law is not the most serious legal risk. Violating child pornography and civil privacy laws are. There are probably other laws that restrict this kind of do-it-yourself detective work, too.

In the end, I suspect that child pornography may be what this case is actually about. “Engaging in inappropriate behavior _at home_” is not how one would describe theft, even euphemistically, is it?

It won't be settled quickly. Where Harriton is (very close to me) is the home of all those Philadelphia Main Line lawyers you hear about. It will go on and on. Even though it's practically next door, I'm actually in another county, so I wouldn't have a chance to be on a jury. But the school district wants to avoid a jury at all costs, because none of these helicopter, privileged parents will have any sympathy.

________________________________