PurpleCar

If you haven’t heard of all this mess yet today, let me sum up:

Harriton High School, one of the richest high schools in the country, has been named in a lawsuit for using webcam-activation software on school-issued laptops to spy on a student. It’s come to light that all 2,000+ laptops issued (for which the students paid insurance) had been set up with remote-activation webcam software. This means that the school district could turn on the webcam in any laptop at any time. It did so in the case of Blake Robbins and used evidence obtained from the laptop in Robbins’ possession to bring about disciplinary action against Robbins. Robbins parents are now suing the district, seeking class-action status.

Here are some articles on the subject:
Ars Technica
New York Times
Philly Inquirer

One of only three International Baccalaureate Diploma Programs in the Delaware Valley (i.e. western Philadelphia suburbs); student/teacher ratio of 16:1; extensive AP programs) and honors course offerings; 94 percent of graduates attend four-year college; two-time recipient of Department of Education Blue Ribbon School of Excellence Award. The school district of Lower Merion township, in Montgomery County, PA, has an annual budget of $175.2 million. The school district serves mostly privileged upper middle class and upper class kids.

Here are a few of my questions, as a former systems admin:
How efficient is this webcam tracking system? If a real criminal stole the laptop, he or she would have the harddrive wiped clean before attempted resale, so the webcam- remote activation software would be wiped with the rest of the files on the drive. Basically, this software was installed with the intent not to catch hardened non-student criminals. It was installed to catch fellow students stealing other students’ laptops. Intentionally spying on minors without guardian consent is in violation of the wire tapping act. Plus, I’ve met a few of these students before and I’ve seen the laptops. They informed me they had to pay insurance on them. Why track them if there is money to replace them? Doesn’t this kind of action put students at risk of retaliation and violence? Just let the laptop go and replace it! This kind of spying also opens up the school district for lawsuits, obviously. It will definitely be a landmark case, however it plays out.

Did Blake Robbins, the student against whom evidence gathered from the webcam, steal the particular laptop? Did the webcam get activated upon request of the victim of theft? Harritons’ website is suggesting this in their statement.

Did the school district ever inform parents of the possibility of remote-activation of webcams? Did each student and parent give informed, signed consent for this potential action? (Everything I read says NO. A clear Terms of Service would have helped the school district in this situation).

This smacks of amateur administration to me. When I worked as a systems administrator, the Fortune 500 I worked for issued laptops to the sales force. The support staff could access the laptop remotely, but only with the user there to click through the permission screens. As soon as the user rebooted the machine, the permissions would have to be granted to the support staff again. Also, we had very, very clear policies of appropriate use of the laptop and software, including email. As an administrator, I could go into anyone’s email. Absolutely any email account in the entire company. Did I? No, of course not. Having the keys to the kingdom also means having the knowledge of the policies (Plus, who has time? I’m not interested in your emails to your mom. My team was busy enough trying to keep the manufacturing lines up and the grid healthy).

I actually got into a bit of hot water once, when a very high-ranking manager came to me, asking for access to his employees accounts. A “bad email” (i.e. racist jokes) was being sent around to his whole manufacturing site. He called me and asked me to track the emails. Together (him remotely) we paged through some email accounts.

I was too inexperienced to have the wherewithal to tell the supervisor to contact my supervisor or my boss’s boss who was equal in rank. I told my boss what happened and I was on the verge of being disciplined. They took mercy on me, because I was new. Eventually I’d come to say “No” constantly to all sorts of high-ranking CEOs in the company, but it was a lesson hard learned.

My point in telling you this story: it’s the tech administrator’s job to know what opens up the company to potential lawsuits. The installation of this webcam software without a very clear Terms of Service and informed consent was just plain stupid. If you are a techie at all, you know about the wire tapping act. You also know that the law doesn’t much care about who “owns” the camera. Your job is to know how to design the infrastructure to protect the company.

I must hold out hope for humanity by imagining that a lowly techie at Harriton High School knew the score, probably spoke up, and the non-technical department heads ignored the warnings. (I can’t tell you how many times that happened to me, telling my boss or others about a weakness in the infrastructure, me being ignored, then a few days later watch it all crash down. After a while, you just don’t even get angry anymore. You just do as you’re told and go home at the end of the day.) It’s hard for me to think that there was not one person in all of the sickeningly-well-funded Harriton school district’s employ that didn’t have 1 clue about the potential mess remote-activation of camera software would bring, no matter what circumstance. I can’t stand to think they’d ALL be that stupid.

And yet, here we are.

Let me know what you think in the comments.
-Christine Cavalier, PurpleCar

The pdf of the actual lawsuit:
robbins17

UPDATE: Feb 19, 2010: The Associated Press reports that the FBI is now looking into criminal charges against the district. The webcams were activated 42 times in the last 14 months supposedly in search of stolen or missing laptops. article here. Also, this video says that Apple released a statement about a bug in the intel-based macbooks that caused the webcam recording light to come on even though the camera wasn’t recording. NBC10 has a bit more to say, including the name of the assistant principal involved. The main question: if only 2 tech admins had access to turn on the webcams, how did the assistant principal get access? (Probably she strong-armed a tech into giving it to her, or she stood over the shoulder of the tech and watched while she/he carried out her commands, much like the email scanning situation I was in that I mentioned above).

CNN has more, citing quotes from Doug Young, the school district’s spokesman:

“Doug Young, a spokesman for the Lower Merion School District, said the district would only remotely access a laptop if it were reported to be lost, stolen or missing.

Young said if there were such a report, the district first would have to request access from its technology and security department and receive authorization. Then it would use the built-in security feature to take over the laptop and see whatever was in the webcam’s field of vision, potentially allowing it to track down the missing computer.

Young said parents and students were not explicitly told about this built-in security feature.

To receive the laptop, the family had to sign an “acceptable-use” agreement. To take the laptop home, the family also would have to buy insurance for the computer.

In an “acceptable-use” agreement, the families are made aware of the school’s ability to “monitor” the hardware, he said, but it stops short of explicitly explaining the security feature. He termed that a mistake.

Young added that mistakes might be made when combining technology and education in a cutting-edge way.”

Wow is this district in hot water or what? There are some lost careers here for sure. Unfortunately, the poor lowly techs – who should’ve known better and should’ve refused – will face criminal charges most likely, when this all comes out. Ultimately, they are the ones who broke the wiretapping laws. Take heed, fellow admins: know your limits.

And Mr. Young’s last statement is ludicrous. Oh sure, “mistakes might be made.” Yes, mistakes might be made when combining technology and dressing rooms too. Or combining alcohol or cars. How about combining idiots with security design?

Flippantly saying “oh, you know, we’re trying, and it’s all new to us” trivializes the matter and further violates and betrays the students and families in the district. It really is no excuse. He’s trying to garner public sympathy by playing on the same old fears of any new media and technology.

The family speaks: ABC6 News Apparently, Blake Robbins was “dealing” Mike & Ikes (mute your speakers before you click that link, jeez!). In the news video, listen to what the father says about worrying about his daughter being photographed when exiting the shower, then see Forrest’s comment below. This case will come down to child porn, especially if the feds are involved.

UPDATE: Feb 22, 2010: Evidence that the admins were stupid, and the administration should listen to its student leaders: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20100222_Laptop_camera_snapped_away_in_one_classroom.html The computing staff lauds the security system in this article, and there’s a link to a webcast about it. The systems administrator goes on and on about how great the camera shots are, without any sense of the law or the possible implications of using this feature with minors. Wow. Just, wow.

UPDATE: Feb. 24th 2010: More he said she said. http://www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/news_breaking/20100224_L__Merion_spying_case_figure__I_did_not_snoop_on_kids.html

This techrepublic blog has a great round-up of tech articles about the software, LanRev, and some other similar apps, as well as commentary about the implications. http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/itdojo/?p=1559

Tags: administration, Blake Robbins, can a school spy on kids, can webcams start up by themselves, education, Harriton, laptop, lawsuit, Lower Merion., Philadelphia, steal, technology, webcam

Book Review:

NurtureShock: New Thinking about Children

Po Bronson & Ashley Merryman 2009

New York Magazine journalists Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman team up to add commentary and more information to their articles in this new book published by Twelve, a division of the Hachette Book Group.

The last page of the book has this blurb about Twelve:

“TWELVE was established in August 2005 with the objective of publishing no more than one book per month. We strive to publish the singular book, by authors who have a unique perspective and compelling authority.”

They lost me at “compelling authority.”

Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman are journalists, not scientists. This book isn’t a synthesis of research; it’s an opinion piece with a conservative bent (indeed, Ashley Merryman’s back-flap bio boasts that she “lives in Los Angeles, where she runs a church-based tutoring program for inner-city children.”)

I’m not advocating gatekeeping; there’s definitely a place for independent research and grass-roots efforts. Child Psychology isn’t one of those places. NutureShock is just another parenting book in a long line of books written by reporters for profit. The authors have a reputation for reporting on overlooked studies with rare results, as they boast in their chapter notes that their New York Magazine articles were popular. Compiling and expounding on past work seems to be the best way to write a book these days; this doesn’t mean that the articles, as a book, make a cohesive or worthy statement.

Basically, I found the book to be the amateur, armchair science that is fun to read in small bites while on the train. Read it for entertainment purposes, but don’t implement the few approaches outlined at home; they aren’t tested enough, and the results have yet to be repeated to gain respect in academia.

The book does, unwittingly, bring up some good points about statistics, studies, and systemic judgments based on those studies. Statistics and study results are nothing to respect when presented alone. The best way to make decisions about anything is to weigh multiple instances of evidence, to never rely on one event. The authors do their best to rip up school district decisions on testing, anti-obesity and anti-bullying programs, by claiming these decisions were not based on scientific results but just made using traditional thought and instinct. While some programs in districts may be made more based on hope than science, the majority of IQ testing and other educational programs are based on years of study and a large meta-analysis of results of hundreds of studies. To suggest otherwise, as the authors do, is hasty, irresponsible, and insulting to educational scholars, teachers, and parents.

The authors proceed to cite a study here, a successful preschool program there, to illustrate their point that decisions about children should be based on evidence. I agree. But A LOT of evidence. Not an anecdotal story or two (which the authors provide), nor 1 or 2 labs that keep getting the same results for their handful of articles. The authors bemoan the lack of long-term studies in almost every chapter, yet fail to mention the very sophisticated and accurate methods of behavioral statistics answers this issue.  They sing praises of a preschool program called Tools of the Mind, but conveniently forget to list the challenges associated with the program.  This book is a thinly disguised attempt to steer the conversation toward a conservative agenda in education.

The writing is ok. Their lack of academic tone in parts is jarring. For example, on page 190, the authors use colloquial language where they shouldn’t have:

“… a separate word to distinguish the kind of popular teen who diminishes others –in Dutch, for instance, the idiomatic expression popie-jopie refers to teens who are bitchy, slutty, cocky, loud and arrogant.”

An academic article would have used words like “promiscuous,” “disagreeable,” and “condescending,” especially since the Dutch don’t use the English colloquial words that are listed. I also question the choice of listing the derogatory words for females first, or at all.

At times the authors conduct their own “studies,” but we should disregard these results. We have no idea what the sampling was, what the control group was given (if there even was a control group), or how the study was designed at all.  Until their results can be repeated many times, then one-off studies should merely bring up ideas for further study.

The only good that comes out NutureShock is the reminder to hold studies, especially those recounted by non-scientist media, in suspicion. If you are planning to pick up this book, read it for entertainment purposes only.  It may make you think a bit differently in some aspects of child-rearing, like how your teen may see arguing as the opposite of lying, or how we whites actively avoid talking about race. The authors should have stayed with reflecting trends in traditional parenting, and avoided passing themselves off as authorities.

Tags: about, book, children, conservative, education, new book, obesity, parenting, party, positive psychology, psychology, race, research, review, studies, study

Hey all!  I’ll be in New York City on Thursday, April 24th to Sunday April 27th.  I’ll be presenting my theory on how to raise kids in this digital world at 2 p.m. Friday, and then at 4 p.m. I’ll be on a panel about video conversations hosted by Annie Boccio.  Saturday morning I’ll be on another panel hosted by Chris Hambly discussion web 2.0 and education.  If you are at podcamp on Friday, April 25th and Saturday, April 26, come find me and say hello!

Tags: camp, education, podcamp, podcamp NYC, podcampNYC2, presenting, web2.0