Robbins v. Lower Merion School District is a federal class action lawsuit, filed in February 2010 on behalf of students from two high schools in Lower Merion Township, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia.. In October 2010, the school district agreed to pay $ 610,000 to settle Robbins and link Hasan lawsuits against him.
The lawsuit alleges that, in what is dubbed the " WebcamGate scandal, schools are secretly spying on students while they are in the privacy of their homes. School authorities are quietly and the remote-activated webcam is embedded in a school-issued laptop used by students at home. After the lawsuit was brought, the school district, where two secondary schools were part, revealed that it had secretly taken over 66,000 pictures. The lawsuit alleges that in doing so the district violates the privacy rights of the students. A federal judge issued an initial court order, instructed the school district to stop monitoring his secret webcam, and ordered the district to pay the cost of the plaintiff's lawyer.
The lawsuit was filed after a 15 year old sophomore high school (second year student) Blake Robbins was disciplined at school for his behavior at home. The school bases its decision to discipline Robbins on a photograph he secretly picked up in his bedroom, via a webcam on his school-issued laptop. Without telling their students, the schools remotely accessed laptops expelled by their schools to secretly take photos of students in their own homes, their chat logs, and notes from the websites they visited. The school then sends the photos to the school's server, where the school authority reviews them and shares them with others. In one widely publicized photo, the school took Robbins's picture on his bed. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the US Attorney's Office, and Montgomery District Attorney all initiated a criminal investigation into the matter, which they merged and then closed because they found no evidence "that will build up without a doubt that everyone involved has a criminal intent." In addition, the US Senate Senate subcommittee held hearings on issues raised by the school's secret supervision, and Senator Arlen Specter introduced a bill in the Senate to protect it in the future. Parents, media, and academics criticize schools, and this issue is cited as an example of a warning about how modern technology can be used to violate personal privacy.
In July 2010, another student, Jalil Hasan, filed a second parallel lawsuit. It deals with 1,000 pictures taken secretly through his computer for two months, including photos of him in his bedroom. The district has disabled its student supervision in February 2010, after the Robbins lawsuit was filed. Five months later - under a court order in the case of Robbins - it tells Hasan for the first time that secretly taking a photo. The district was notified of the third parallel setting intended by the third student to fight the district, due to "improper surveillance of Merion High School students at his school take out laptops", which included taking over 700 catapults and webcam screens between December 2009 and February 2010.
Video Robbins v. Lower Merion School District
Complaint
Lawsuit Robbins v. Lower Merion School District was filed on February 11, 2010, in US District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania, by plaintiffs main lawyer Mark S. Haltzman of Silverang, Donohoe, Rosenzweig & amp; Haltzman LLC. It was filed on behalf of Blake J. Robbins, and other high school students from the school district, by Robbins's parents.
The complaint alleged that after high school took out a MacBook laptop with built-in iSight webcam to students, the school staff remotely activated the laptop webcam in secret as the students did not attend school, thus violating the students' privacy. The plaintiffs said they did not approve of spying.
The defendants are the Lower Merion School District (LMSD) in Pennsylvania (where two secondary schools are part), nine members of the Board of Directors, and his Superintendent (Christopher McGinley). Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr., of Ballard Spahr LLP is the principal adviser to the defendants.
Maps Robbins v. Lower Merion School District
Laptop with hidden camera
Program
At the beginning of the school year 2009-10, the school district issued Apple MacBook laptop computers each to its 2,306 high school students. The laptop is for use at school and at home.
It is part of the One-to-One school district initiative. The program was piloted in September 2008 at Harriton High School and expanded in September 2009 to Lower Merion High School. It costs $ 2.6 million, less than a third covered by a grant.
Confidential oversight capabilities
The school loads each student's computer with LANrev remote activation and tracking software. These include "TheftTrack" which is now discontinued. While TheftTrack is not enabled by default in the software, the program allows the school district to choose to enable it, and to enable any TheftTrack monitoring option that the school wants.
The school chose to enable TheftTrack to allow school district employees secretly and remotely enable the standard webcam displayed on all Apple laptops since 2006. It allows school officials to secretly take photos via webcam, whatever is in front of it and in the line of sight , and send photos to school servers. The system takes new photos every 15 minutes when the laptop is on, and TheftTrack is enabled, although school employees can adjust the time period to as low as one minute interval. LANrev disables webcam for all other uses ( for example. , students can not use Photo Booth or video chat), so most students incorrectly believe that their webcam is not working at all.
In addition, TheftTrack allows school officials to take screenshots, and send them to school servers. Additionally, devices looking for locations will record the Internet (IP) address of the laptop, allowing district technicians to discover which city the laptop is located and its internet service provider. (A call to the provider will be asked to determine the exact location.) In addition, LANrev allows school officials to take snapshots of instant messages, web searches, music playlists, and written compositions.
After sending the image to the school server, the laptop was programmed to remove the "sent" files made on the laptop. That way, there will be no trace where students may realize that they are being watched and photographed. The forwarded photos, screenshots, and IP addresses are stored on the school server, until they are cleared by school employees. It is not clear who in school has access to photos and other images. Furthermore, LANrev can be programmed to capture webcam images and screenshots automatically, and store them on a laptop hard disk for later removal in computer storage areas that students can not access, and that can be remotely wiped.
Fred Cate, Director of the Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research at Indiana University, said: "It's a classic definition of spyware. Eileen Lake of Wynnewood, whose three children attend school in the district school, said: "If there is a concern that the laptop is misplaced or stolen, they should install a chip to place it instead.There should be no reason to use a web camera for that purpose." Marc Rotenberg , professor of information privacy at Georgetown University Law School and President and Executive Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), said: "There are less intrusive ways to track stolen laptops, no question about it.
Buy
Commenting on the now-discontinued TheftTrack, Carol Cafiero (School District Information System Coordinator, and supervisor of 16 technicians and administrative assistants) wrote to his superintendent Virginia DiMedio (Director of District Technology for several years, until June 2009, and a member of the cabinet of five District inspectors ) that Mike Perbix District Network Technician "loves it, and I agree it's a great product." Perbix also raved about TheftTrack spy skills in the LANrev promotional webcast of May 2008, saying he "very, very" liked it.
DiMedio considers Perbix and Cafiero's recommendation that the district purchase the software, including the memo in which Cafiero noted that: "we can mark [student laptop as stolen] on LANrev servers, and then the laptop will take screenshots and user images with the built-in camera, and sending that information back to our servers. "DiMedio then approved the purchase and installation of the $ 156,000 surveillance software.
Supervision masking
The school district intentionally did not publicize the existence of surveillance technology. It also actively seeks to hide it.
The district does not notify the students or their parents, in any communication with them (including the promotion of laptop programs in the district, laptop guides, and individual contracts awarded to students for signing), provided by the laptop to the district's ability to secretly take whatever photo is on the line of sight of the student's issued laptop webcam, and to take a screenshot. Nor did they tell them that the district would take advantage of that ability. The district also does not adopt a policy on the use of TheftTrack by district employees.
DiMedio said "the district does not publicly broadcast features" for obvious reasons. ' "He reportedly refused to tell students about TheftTrack because it can" defeat the purpose. "
Perbix says that when "you control a person's machine, you do not want them to know what you're doing." He praised TheftTrack in the YouTube video he produced, saying: "It's... just a fantastic feature... especially when you're in a school environment". Perbix maintains a personal blog where he discusses computer surveillance techniques, including how to envelop remote monitoring so as not to be seen by users.
Concerns raised by apprentice students
On August 11, 2008, a few weeks before the districts handed out laptops to students, students of Harriton High School who were apprenticing in the school's IT Department sent an email to DiMedio, with the subject line: "1: 1 (Important) attention." He said that he recently learned of LANrev district purchase, and has been researching the software. He has made a "surprising" discovery that it will allow school employees to monitor student laptops remotely. He writes:
I will not find this problem if students are told that this is possible, for the sake of privacy. What is surprising, however, is that not only districts do not tell parents and students about this fact... [W] hile You may feel that you can say that this access will not be abused, I feel that this is not enough to ensure integrity students, and that even if no one will have a way of knowing (especially the end user). I think it would be better if the students and parents are informed about this before they accept their computer.... I can see not telling parents and students about this fact caused a big uproar.
DiMedio replied:
[T] here is absolutely impossible Tech District people will monitor students at home.... If we will monitor the use of students at home, we will say so. Think about it - why do we do that? No purpose. We are not a police state.... It is impossible for me to approve or advocate for student monitoring at home.
I suggest you take a breath and relax.
DiMedio then forwarded the e-mail to the Network Technician of Kecamatan Perbix, which suggested further responses to apprentices. With DiMedio's approval, Perbix sent e-mails to apprentices, also rejected students' concerns:
[T] Its feature is only used to track equipment... reportedly stolen or lost. The only information possessed by this feature is the IP and DNS information of the connected network, and occasional camera shots/snapshots of the computer being operated.... The tracking feature DOES NOT do things like record web browsing, chatting, email, or any other type of "spyware" feature you might think of.
Being an apprentice with us means you know some things that are rarely seen by others, and some things that might bother us. I guarantee that we have absolutely no form, or form of using Big Brother tactics, especially with computers outside the network.
Principal Kline
In addition, two members of the Harriton High School student council twice personally confronted their Principal, Steven Kline, more than a year before the lawsuit. They worry "that schools can secretly photograph students using a laptop camera." The students were disturbed by the blazing green light of their web camera activation, which some students reported would periodically turn on when the camera was not being used, indicating that the webcam was turned on. Student Katerina Perech recalled: "It was really creepy." Some school officials reportedly denied that it was anything other than a technical fault, and offered to have the laptop checked if students were worried. Kline admits schools can secretly photograph students using a laptop camera. The students told him that they were worried about the right of privacy, asking if the school system read the files stored on their computer, and suggested that at least the student body should be formally alerted about possible oversight. No action taken.
Robbins lawsuit
Confidential oversight
On October 20, 2009, school district officials knew Blake J. Robbins, a second-year student at Harriton High School, owning his laptop and taking him home. On that day, they decided to start taking photos and screenshots of webcam from school-issued MacBooks, by activating their cameras in disguise. Building Level Technician Kyle O'Brien testified later, at deposition, Harolds Assistant Vice Principal, Lindy Matsko directing O'Brien to activate the tracking. O'Brien complied, by sending an e-mail to the Perbix District Network Technician, and directing it to start TheftTrack. At deposition, Matsko refused to allow tracking.
Two hours later on October 20, Perbix e-mailed O'Brien to let him know that TheftTrack was running on Robbins's computer, and that the Perbix had determined the location of Robbins. Perbix writes: "It is now online at home." The next day, Perbix asks O'Brien if he should continue tracking the laptop, and O'Brien answers "yes."
Over the next 15 days, the school district captures at least 210 webcam photos and 218 screenshots. The photographs included photographs inside Robbins's sleeping house and partially loosened bodies, and photographs of his father. The district also took pictures of Robbins's instant messages and video chat with his friends, and sent them to his server. However, the 429 pictures reflect only the number of images that were later found - during the next admitted litigation the district could not recover the one-week-old picture it had taken. "
On October 26, Perbix observed one of Robbins's screenshots, taken in his bedroom. Four days later, Perbix showed it to his boss, District Information System Director George Frazier. After discussing it with Frazier, Perbix shared pictures taken from webcam and Robbins screenshots with Harriton High School Principal Kline and with Matsko. In early November, a number of Harriton High School administrators, including Kline, Matsko, and Assistant Principal Lauren Marcuson, met to discuss the pictures. According to Matsko, Kline advised him that unless there is additional evidence that gives them a contextual basis for doing so, they should not discuss pictures with Robbins or his parents, as they involve activities outside of school. However, Matsko finally decided to discuss certain drawings with Robbins or his parents.
Matsko summoned Robbins to his office on November 11, 2009. He showed him a photo taken with a webcam embedded in his school-issued laptop while he was in his bedroom at Penn Valley's home. Matsko indicated that he thought it was "proof", and initially disciplined him for "inappropriate behavior" (drug use and sales). Her parents were contacted, and they told the school officials that the officials were wrong. In the end, Robbins was not disciplined.
Robbins said that Matsko told him that the district was able to activate a webcam embedded in student laptops remotely anytime, and view and capture any visible images - without the knowledge or consent of anyone in the webcam's line of sight. After a district counselor told them that reports about the incident had been incorporated into Blake's private school files, however, the family decided to file a lawsuit.
Complaint
The plaintiffs allege that:
many pictures taken and tapped can consist of images of minors and their parents or friends in compromising or embarrassing positions, including... various stages of dress or clothing.
In the widely publicized photo, Robbins is shown sleeping in his bed. Hundreds of photos taken from the 15-year-old boy also included him standing without clothes after coming out of the bathroom, as well as photographs of his father and friends. Not included in what is left to a family worth a week from a picture that the school district says it can not recover.
The lawsuit claims that the use of webcam by districts violates United States Constitution guarantees about the privacy of students and their families and friends at home, as well as Pennsylvania common law (privacy expectations) and Section 1983 of the US Civil Rights Act (privacy right).
It also accuses officials of spying "indiscriminate use of the ability to remotely activate Webcam inserted into every laptop", and thus violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (right to privacy) and a number of electronic communications laws: Communications The US Electronic Privacy Act (ECPA: eavesdropping of electronic communications), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA; deliberate access from computers over authorization for information), Stored Communications Act (SCA) unauthorized acquisition of stored electronic communications ), and the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act (PWESA: deliberate interception of electronic communications).
Initial response
"We will win," school district spokesman Doug Young announced that the school district intends to oppose the lawsuit. Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr., and four lawyers Ballard Spahr represent the district.
On February 18, 2010, the day when the case was announced, the school district posted an initial reply to its website stating that: "The security-tracking feature is limited for taking still images from operators and operator screens," and that "is used for a limited purpose only for found a lost, stolen, or lost laptop. [T] including tracking a borrower's computer that, contrary to the rules, may be taken from campus. " The complaint did not indicate whether Robbins' laptop was reported missing or stolen, and Young said the district could not reveal the fact. Young insists that the district has never violated its policy of only using remote activation software to find the missing laptop. "Guess what you want," Young said.
On the same day, the district turned off TheftTrack on a tracked laptop, and deleted the image from LANrev, as found by the next forensic review. The district also denied that school administrators had used photos taken by laptops issued by schools to discipline a student. The vice principal repeated the statement in a video that was distributed to the national media on February 24, 2010.
On February 20, 2010, Haltzman, Robbins's adviser, told MSNBC Live that Robbins had sat at his house eating candy "Mike and Ike" in front of his school-issued laptop. The lawyer said that the deputy headmaster accused Robbins of taking illegal pills after seeing him eating candy in a webcam image. Michael Smerconish, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist who reviewed the photo, says it has the same size and shape as Mike and Ike candy. Haltzman said that his client's laptop has not been reported stolen or lost. The lawyer also asked questions about who in the school system decides when to activate the webcam of each student, and for what reason.
In a statement to the press on February 24, 2010, Robbins stressed that the case relates to an undisclosed spying ability that the district maintains in secret.
Reception, and then instance
The school district then acknowledged "serious mistakes" and "perverse acts." He also admitted that his supervisory system was flawed, and "not handled properly." The district inspector acknowledges that students and parents are not informed of the secret spy feature, and the district says that "notices should be given" to students and parents, and that the district failure to do so "is a significant mistake". School Council President David Ebby said: "It's a big mistake and big in judgment."
The school district finally admitted that it had taken more than half the pictures after the lost laptop was found. A computer forensic study commissioned by the defendant found 66,503 images produced by LANrev, although it was unable to recover all that was removed by the county employees. The district affirms that it has no evidence that individual students have been specifically targeted. Haltzman said: "I hope the school district [has] come clean before, as soon as they have this information... do not wait until something is filed in court that reveals the extent of the spy."
Christopher Null, technology writer for Yahoo! News, observed: "It's a bit hard to believe that no matter is taken is a scandal".
The district also acknowledged that in Robbins's case remote surveillance was activated and allowed to run for two weeks, although school officials knew the laptop was at Robbins's home. It was also acknowledged that his technology staff activated the camera on his computer, and gave a covert image taken to two Harriton school principals.
Six days after the start of the lawsuit, and after reviewing the district's privacy policy, the school district disabled its ability to activate the student webcam remotely. Lillie Coney from the Electronic Privacy Information Center said: "If they think it's true, they will not stop."
On February 24, the district suspended and granted paid administrative leave to two of its staff authorized to enable remote monitoring, Cafiero's 12-year-veteran Information System coordinator and the Network Technician of Perbix. District shows that it has been done as a precaution, given their role in activating TheftTrack, and subsequent investigations.
In a motion attempting to examine Cafiero's computer, an email snippet between him and Amanda Wuest, District Desktop Technician, about a secretly cited webcam where the technician sent an email to Cafiero: "It's incredible. It's like a small LMSD soap opera," and Cafiero replied, "I know, I love it". His lawyer, Charles Mandracchia of Mandracchia & amp; McWhirk LLC, said he only changed the webcam system when asked to do so by school officials.
When Haltzman tried to overthrow Cafiero, he struggled to ask his questions in a statement. However, US District Judge Jan DuBois refused to dismiss Haltzman's case, which came to power in April 2010 that Cafiero may have information relevant to the case. In his first deposition, Cafiero refused to answer questions, citing his Fifth Amendment against the allegations. However, after he was interviewed by the FBI in April 2010, in deposition he then answered the question under oath. Others were ousted including Matsko, Perbix, and O'Brien.
In June and July 2010, in accordance with an order from a federal judge, dozens of other high school students were told by lawyers to school that they had also been secretly photographed by school authorities via their webcam. The school district says that over 58,000 photos have been taken from November 2008 to February 2010 and restored on school servers, but the exact number is unknown because some photos have been deleted by the district. Students and their parents are invited to review the photos taken personally, and a federal judge oversees the review process. About 15 cases, the school said there was no answer who ordered the covert webcam activation, or why.
Student reactions
Tom Halpern, a 15-year-old student who attended high school, told CBS News, "Everyone is so disgusted.... I think that's very reprehensible." Many students say they mostly use their laptop in their bedroom, and rarely turn it off. Karen Gotlieb, whose daughter attended school, said, "I just received an e-mail from my daughter, who was very upset, saying, 'Mom, I have my laptop open in my room all the time, even when I change." Savanna Williams, a second-year student in Harriton, said that he always keeps his computer open, his webcam opens, when he changes in his bedroom, and in the bathroom when he takes a shower. He said: "I'm like, 'Mom, I have this open all the time.... It's annoying.'" Her mother said: "this possibility to be true is" a complete privacy violation, from us the whole house - not just Savanna. They have the option of watching [me], my husband, my other child. They violate our beliefs. "
Candace Chacona's mother said she was "stunned" by the accusation: "My first thought was that my son has his computer open most of the time in his bedroom. Chuck Barsh, an insurance broker whose son was in high school, called the district's act "a big invasion" of student privacy, and supported the lawsuit, saying: "These guys can see our kids in our house." Mike Salmonson, the father of a primary school student, said the issue was "part of... institutional pride - lack of full disclosure and honesty" on the part of the district administrator.
Reactions of legal experts and computer experts
John Palfrey, professor of Harvard Law School and Vice Dean, and Co-Director Berkman Center for Internet & amp; The cyberspace research center said: "If the facts are as apparent in the claims by students, that's surprising." David Kairys, a professor of Temple University Law School specializing in civil rights and constitutional law and author of Philadelphia Freedom, Memoir of Civil Rights Lawyer, described the school district policy as "Orwellian". He said that it appeared to be a "very clear violation of civil rights", continued: "It's quite embarrassing.This is sort of beyond belief that they will not say, 'It's gone too far.'" Susan Friewald, University Professor of Law School San Francisco and an expert in electronic privacy laws, said: "they should get approval to take photos... [I] f school district will use [laptops] to spy on students, we should certainly care."
Witold "Vic" Walczak, Legal Director of the Pennsylvania American Civil Liberties Union (not a party in the lawsuit), commented:
This is the age at which children explore their sexuality, so there is a lot going on in the room This is food for child pornography.
Joseph Daly, who retired in 2009 as Lower Merion Police Inspector, when notified of photographs taken from student laptops, said: "It's illegal."
Lillie Coney, Associate Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (a public interest research center for civil liberties), said: "This is definitely not... a rational thing for schools to get involved," and called it "an outrageous invasion of individual privacy." Ari Schwartz, President and COO at the Center for Democracy and Technology (a civil-rights interest organization), said: "What about the potential abuse of power from superiors, trying to find out more information about the head of the PTA [Parent-Teacher Association]? think about the privacy and security consequences of using this kind of technology, you have a problem. "
Kevin Bankston, a senior staff lawyer specializing in privacy legislation with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (digital rights advocacy and international legal organization), said: "I have never heard of these trivialities.No one would imagine that schools will peek into private students, homes, and even bedrooms, without any justification.He continues: "This is really shocking, and blatant violations [fourth amendment of students] constitutional rights. The school district will no longer have the right to [use laptop webcam] instead of installing secret hearing devices in textbooks they give to students. "He suggested that students record their laptop camera lenses, Parry Aftab, internet privacy lawyer and executive director of WiredSafety.org, said the district made clear violations of several laws including the Fourth Amendment.
And Tynan, Executive Editor of PC World and author of Computer Privacy Annoyances (2005), said: "This is very scary, and far beyond the scope of school.. really no need to try to take someone's photo - in fact, how can you prove the person in front of the laptop is the one who stole it?... And to install these items on anyone's computer and not tell them about, it's just begging for a world sick. "Robert Richardson, Director of the Computer Security Institute, said:" It is remarkable that they do not realize they are playing with fire. " Technology journalist Robert X. Cringely writes on InfoWorld :
Is there a reason why you need to take a photo for two weeks to find a lost laptop, especially when you already have other ways to track it? I do not think so.... Cafiero issued... a rather interesting statement that the 15-year-old Robbins had "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in his own home, because... his family did not pay the $ 55 insurance fee required by school for home borrowers. In other words: If you do not pay your dues, we can keep an eye on you while you sleep. Have I already said "creepy"?
LANrev, the software manufacturer - acquired by Absolute Software, and renamed "Absolute Manage" in February 2010 - denounced the use of its software for any illegal purpose, stressing that theft-recovery should be left to professional law enforcement, and criticize vigilantism. The company rejects knowledge, or engagement in, either the Perbix or the district action. Absolute Software then permanently disables TheftTrack in the next LANrev update.
Media reactions
Kolumnis The Philadelphia Inquirer Monica Yant Kinney menulis:
School district technicians peek into private homes, even for a moment, under the guise of finding lost laptops?
Even in this "supervisory society," it is almost incomprehensible.
The newspaper, in an editorial, called the school's decision to use the remote camera feature "misdirected", and wrote "families have the right to be shocked." As an anti-theft strategy, webcam tracking is redundant - and not even as useful as other means And then failing to disclose the use of webcam is a big mistake, compounded by the lack of policies that maintain student privacy. "Host radio talks and Philadelphia Inquirer Columnist Michael Smerconish added:
The most surprising is the [picture] that shows the face or... posts [classmates, friends, family members, and parents] who communicate with Robbins. What gives Merion Down the right to invade the privacy of these people? Their image represents a severe privacy violation, similar to listening to personal phone communications between two individuals, at least one of which is totally unaware of the presence of an interloper. That's the real anger... unforgivable for the school district to invade third party privacy on the way to breaking Blake Robbins.
The Pittsburgh Post-Sheet writes in an editorial: "Schools have no business or jurisdiction in student homes.The District... should never have been in the surveillance business in the first Place. which is strictly necessary to prevent Lower Merion or other school districts from this path again. " The New York Times , in an editorial, said:" Conducting video surveillance of students in their homes is a big breach of their privacy. If the district is really worried about losing a laptop, it could be used GPS devices to track their whereabouts... Whatever it is, schools have a responsibility to let students know that if they accept a laptop they will also receive monitoring. "
Technology writer Dan Gillmor, writing in Salon , said: "This case also reminds us that civil law plays an important role in our society.... sometimes, as in this case, they are a line last defense when strong institutions beat individuals, we forget that with our danger. "
Motions; orders and legal fees are given
Haltzman filed an emergency movement seeking orders to prevent the school district reactivating what he called "peek-tom technology". The Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) proposed a brief amicus to support students, arguing that the photo was an illegal search. Citing the shoes of privacy and unconstitutional search, the ACLU brief states: "While the act of placing a camera inside a student's laptop may not have implications on the Fourth Amendment, once the camera is used the search has occurred that, no warrant or permit, violates the Fourth Amendment (< see United States v. Karo ). "Witold" Vic "J. Walczak, ACLU from the Pennsylvania Legal Director, said:
No government official, whether a police officer or a principal, may enter a private home, whether physically or electronically, without invitation or warrant. In this case, officials not only enter the foyer, but the child's bedroom. Assuming the allegations are true, this is a terrible privacy violation.
US District Court Judge Jan DuBois granted Haltzman's request on February 23, 2010, instructing the district to stop remotely activating the web camera and taking screenshots of laptops issued by students' schools, and for storing all relevant electronic data. While remote webcam activation is disabled, LANrev software is not deleted. Unbelieving students in two high schools took to recording above their laptop's webcam, even though school officials insisted that they had stopped the exercise. In May, after it was revealed that the school had secretly arrested tens of thousands of images and screenshots of webcam, the judges made a ban on webcam monitoring the secret of permanent schools.
In addition, the court issued a silencing order, which prohibited district officials to discuss the case with students and parents without first clearing their communications with plaintiffs' lawyers.
Class action demands for class status on the grounds that individual compensation may be small, and therefore many parties need to share in covering legal costs. On July 7, 2010, Judge DuBois issued a directive granting the district a second time extension to respond to the plaintiff's request for classroom action certification.
The judge issued an order in April 2010 that gave Haltzman a move that required Caliero to let Haltzman make copies of hard drives from his two personal computers, to determine if Caliero had used the software to spy on students, and transfer the images to his own computer. The judge issued an order in May, which required school officials to arrange for 40 high school students and their parents to view pictures taken secretly from their laptops. Judge DuBois in June 2010 ordered the district to share with a consultant for some computer evidence of Robbins, collected in an investigation by lawyers and computer experts hired by the defendants.
The district suggested Robbins had a loaner laptop because he had not paid the $ 55 insurance fee that would allow him to use a regular computer. In a 2009 letter to parents, High School Principal Harriton Kline said that "no uninsured laptops are allowed off-campus", and says that students who have not paid insurance fees can use the borrower. Asked whether Robbins took the unauthorized borrower's computer, Young declined to comment. Haltzman denied that Robbins had been told that the use of his computer was a problem, and said that Robbins had taken home his computer "every day" for a month. He also points out that while Robbins is one of about 20 students who have not paid the $ 55 insurance fee, he is the only one who is tracked.
On August 31, 2010, Judge DuBois ordered the school district, as the defeated party, to pay the plaintiff's lawyer, the legal costs associated with his actions that led to an initial court order to monitor the secret cameras of the school district, as the successful "party applicants" civil rights cases.
Litigation of the school district with its associated company
The school district and its insurance company, Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company, filed federal lawsuits against each other in April 2010. They argued over who should pay for any settlement by the district, and district-related bills. Ballard Spahr also represents the district in insurance litigation.
Graphic art asks for declarations, so there is no need to pay the district legal bills. The insurance company believes that none of Robbins's claims are "personal injury", as defined and covered by the district's $ 1 million liability policy. District and insurance companies also accuse each other of violating their contracts.
The district, on the Philadelphia Highway, is one of the richest school systems in Pennsylvania. It has a $ 193 million budget and spends $ 21,600 per student in 2008-09, the most in the Philadelphia area.
The district was billed $ 953,000 in legal fees in May 2010 by four lawyers Ballard Spahr. In addition, L-3 Communications, its computer consultant, has charged $ 240,000 districts through May 2010 to analyze forensic district computers. Furthermore, on June 30, the SunGard software company has charged $ 32,000 to help revise its policy on laptops issued by schools. The district also paid a salary of $ 200,000 from two employees who have been suspended. If the judge is fully in favor of the insurer, the county will also be responsible for paying all litigation fees with the insurance company.
In the end, the insurer agreed to cover $ 1.2 million of the district fee.
Defendants report
Conclusion
The defendants commissioned a 69-page report, prepared by lawyers from Ballard Spahr, the same law firm that the school district had rented to keep it in Robbins's case. However, the defendant's lawyers are entitled to 3 May 2010, their report: "Independent Investigation".
The report cites districts for inconsistent policies, poor records, missteps and misuse of "overzealous" technology without regard to privacy considerations. "Regarding some secret reconnaissance, the report says:" Wisdom and propriety enable image tracking in this situation is questionable. "
The report says that as far as district council members, the Inspectors (who learned from TheftTrack at their cabinet meeting in 2008), and the perpetrators are aware of TheftTrack's abilities, they "do not appreciate the potential ability to raise serious privacy issues, and they should seek more information... or advice "from the district attorney. The report also said that school board members and school administrators who knew that tracking on the spot failed to ask proper questions about privacy issues, district attorneys did not investigate legal considerations in distributing computers, and administrators did not talk about the consequences. He noted that Harriton High School Principal Kline, for example, learned about TheftTrack monitoring in September 2008, and said he asked DiMedio whether the district should advise students and parents about it. But he never visited the subject after DiMedio argued that the district should not be because it would undermine the effectiveness of TheftTrack. The report blames district administrators and staff for failing to disclose and mismanagement oversight systems, and for failing to establish strict policies to protect the privacy of "unsuspecting" students.
The report also found that district officials knew that Robbins had brought his laptop home, but still decided to activate secret surveillance secretly capturing hundreds of photos and webcam screenshots - including photos of sleeping and partially released Robbins, his father's photos, and pictures instant messages and photos of friends with whom Robbins does a video chat. Once the program is enabled on Robbins's computer, a district employee has sent an email to another: "It is online at home".
The report acknowledges that investigators were unable to find an explanation for some tracking activations, and why the district failed to consider the privacy implications. It notes the conflicting accounts of the county employees, that there is a data gap, and says evidence is still being collected. The report said covert cameras were used both for lost computers and for unknown purposes, and that the district let those webcams be switched on for long periods in cases "where there is no legitimate reason possible" to capture images.
Fixed image
The report attaches an L-3 computer forensic study that shows it has restored 66,503 images generated by LANrev from instances where schools chose to activate webcam snapshots and secret screenshot features, although the researchers were unable to recover all the images as numbers had been removed by employees district. From the pictures found, reports show that 30,564 webcam images and 27,428 screenshots are taken from the LANrev server itself. The report notes that images that have been taken covertly have been deleted from the district server periodically since March 2009 on. Many of the photos are from students, their family members, and others in their homes and elsewhere. Secret photos include "a number of male photographs without shirts, and other content displayed by people in photographs that may be considered the same personal nature".
Looking at the information available to it, the report found evidence of TheftTrack being triggered on 177 laptops in the 2008-10 time period. In 57% of cases, schools choose to only enable IP address tracking feature, and not to enable the feature that triggers the snapshot taking and screenshots of the webcam webcam. Based on available evidence, the report found that Cafiero enabled TheftTrack 3 times on student laptops, and Perbix activated it 161 times. The report notes that in some cases TheftTrack was abandoned, snapping photos and screenshots for a long time even when laptops were not considered lost or stolen.
In addition, there are 13 activations on student laptops where the researchers can not determine who activates TheftTrack, as well as 10 activations that researchers can not determine why the tracking begins. Together, they generate thousands of photos and screenshots. Of the 10 unexplained activations, in 7 cases the researchers were unable to recover any images from the remaining district records.
Not only students who have a secret surveillance mechanism of their laptop are turned on. The school also enables supervision through a laptop of six high school teachers. Researchers can not determine why teacher's covert supervision has begun or, in half cases, that have made surveillance requests.
Researchers can not determine how often the images are seen by school personnel. A total of 18 members of the district system staff had LANrev administrator permissions during the school year 2008-10, and 16 of them had access to data stored on LANrev servers. In addition, those who have access to photos and screenshots can, and in some cases, forward photos and screenshots to others.
IT Staff
The report also criticized district information system personnel. The district's high-tech administrator since July 2009, George Frazier, told investigators that he considered the "Wild West" system department, "because there were some official policies, and no manual procedures, and personnel were not regularly evaluated." The report said the former Director of DiMedio's information system and his staff "did not come" about tracking technology; DiMedio refused to be interviewed unless the district returned it for the cost of retaining a lawyer, who was rejected by the district. DiMedio's lawyer criticized the report for DiMedio's role error in using the district web camera. He criticized the front-page descriptions of the work of the researchers as an "independent" investigation, saying: "It is not an independent investigation.What flows from [the report] is a clear effort to protect and protect the current [district] council at the expense of [ information technology] IT and employees like Ginny... to dump it under the bus. "He said DiMedio never hides software tracking features from administrators or board members. He also notes that DiMedio has been away for months when the assistant principal faces Robbins with a photo taken by his laptop webcam at his home.
The report criticized Perbix for reacting negatively on September 11, 2009, when Frazier told him that a teacher had requested that his webcam be disabled, with Perbijo writing to Frazier: "teachers should not be allowed to cover cameras like they do now. does not record video, just snapshots every 15 minutes.Is someone afraid of us spying on them? "Jason Hilt, District Instructional Technology Superintendent, when he learned that TheftTrack can be activated without police involvement, was recorded on camera and shared his worries about webcam activation distance with Frazier and Director of Service Curriculum Steve Barbato.
Policy changes
The school district does not have an official policy or procedure for using TheftTrack. Neither the Board, its administrators, school administrators, nor its IT department head impose any formal restrictions on the use of the software's covert surveillance features.
In May 2010, Judge DuBois ordered the district to adopt policies relating to its supervision through student laptops. The district now promises never to see a student's laptop file, except: a) the laptop has been returned to school; b) there is "reasonable suspicion" that students violate any law, school rules, or district policy; or c) a student has signed the consent form. Following criticism of training requirements and standards of computer responsibility of districts, the district is considering new written policies in these areas as well. On August 16, 2010, the Council banned the district from surveillance of webcam through student laptops, in response to the Robbins lawsuit.
Opposition
Contrary to the lawsuit, some parents formed the Lower Meridian Parent Committee. Parents on one side are angry about the use of secret cameras of the school district to see students and their friends and their families in their homes. But on the other hand, parents worry that they themselves should bear the financial costs of paying for district litigation, and the possibility of court settlement or punishment.
The group is worried that Robbins's lawsuit will be expensive, attracting negative attention to the district while harming the "tone of citizenship" and distracting from its educational mission, and it will take a long time to complete. Particular attention is paid to the fact that payments for class members in a class action suit will effectively come from district taxpayers, if not an insurance firm. Lower Merion Parents do not, however, oppose the full investigation of the technological capabilities of the district and any violations committed by the district.
On March 2, 2010, more than 100 parents met in Narberth, Pennsylvania, to discuss the issue. Robbins's lawyer, Mark Haltzman, asked for an opportunity to talk with the group to update the parents, but was rejected. The meeting focused on whether parents want the Robbins family to represent them, how to revoke the court's "court order" order that district officials and school board members are not talking about the case without first consulting with Robbinses and their lawyers, and what learning which actually happens with laptops and webcam. One option against the parents is to file a motion to intervene, which is an agreement to be a party to the case, but with the different interests of the plaintiff. A similar group called Parents in Support from the Lower Merion District School collected more than 750 signatures on March 3 in an online petition. Philadelphia Weekly notes that "Paradoxically, Merion Under's parents group will try to stop the litigation haphazardly by involving more lawyers."
Criminal investigation
The FBI, US Attorney, and Montgomery District Attorney all investigated whether the school district had violated the criminal law. On August 17, 2010, US Attorney Zane David Memeger announced that he would not file a lawsuit against the district official, because: "We have not found any evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone involved has criminal intent."
The US Attorney's Office in Philadelphia has started a criminal investigation, and in February 2010 issued a jury call, asking the district for various records. The Office took an unusual step announcing on Feb. 22 that it would investigate the matter, saying: "Our focus will only be on whether anyone is committing a crime." In April, the Office sought access to photographs of a number of children, some of which may include naked or partially dressed pictures, since taking naked pictures of children could be a criminal behavior.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated whether federal criminal laws, including wiretapping, computer intrusion, and privacy laws, were violated. The FBI and the US Attorney's Office said in a joint statement in July 2010: "[US Attorney's Office] intends to work as a team with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Montgomery County DA, Montgomery County Detective and Lower Merion Police Department to determine whether there is a crime committed ". The FBI agent reviews the school district computer and thousands of images taken secretly from the student's computer, interviews district employees, and reviews the district records.
Montgomery County Attorney and Lower Merion detectives have also launched an investigation to see if any criminal laws were broken, including wiretapping and privacy laws. District Prosecutor Risa Vetri Ferman said: "We are inundated with calls from community members asking this question." It became clear to me that we needed to see this further. "
Civil lawsuits have a much lower burden of evidence, and are unaffected by the decision. Merion Police Inspector Down Michael McGrath said: "This seems to be a problem to be solved in civil courts."
AS. Judicial Assembly Judicial Assembly
Arlen Specter, US senator (D-PA) and Chairman of the Senate Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, held a hearing on March 29, 2010, investigating the use of computers to spy on students. The Specters say: "The problem is one of the tapper silently, unbeknownst to people, their movements and activities are under surveillance."
The Specters say the current tapping and video-voyeurism laws do not address the current widespread use of cell phones, laptops and surveillance cameras. After hearing testimony to the trial of Blake Robbins and others, Specter said that the new federal laws are needed to regulate electronic privacy.
Specters introduce legislation to clarify that it is illegal to capture a silent visual image inside one's home. Specter said: "... a very significant privacy invasion with this webcam..."
... we hope... video surveillance when we leave our house and go out every day - at ATMs, at traffic lights, or in stores... we do not expect... surveillance at our house, in our bedroom... we do not expect it for our children in our homes.
Other consequences
The Facebook page "LMSD is Watching You" has started, and within days there are hundreds of members. At the same time, parody t-shirts have been sold on the internet, including one that features horrible red camera eyes from HAL 9000 from the 2001 science fiction film A Space Odyssey within the circular school school district.
Both The Philadelphia Inquirer and The New York Times reported that: "With a brown hair wrapped in black T-shirts and jeans, Blake Robbins smiles when being told the suit has earned him Wikipedia page. "
The court also encourages "What's With People?" segment at Dr. Phil appears. The British news agency The Register has reported that: "The UK agent in charge of IT in British schools has insisted that there is no possibility of a government free laptop program exposing UK student bedroom activities."
Litigation also prompted a new law in New Jersey, sponsored by New Jersey State Sen. Donald Norcross. "Big Brother has no place in our school, it's an administrative task to educate, not monitor their students," Norcross said. The New Jersey "Anti-Big Brother Act" (S-2057) was signed into law by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on April 15, 2013. The law requires the New Jersey school district to notify students (and their parents) electronic devices from their schools that their activities can be monitored or recorded. It's the subject of a school district that fails to comply with legal requirements for a $ 250 fine per student, per incident.
Hasan's Lawsuit
On July 27, 2010, a second high school student, Jalil Hasan, and his mother filed a civil suit for a breach of privacy against the school district. The lawsuit was over the supervision of Jalil's school at his home, through a computer issued by his school, without the knowledge or consent of high school students or their parents. Hasan was 17 years old at the time. The lawsuit was also referred to as the defendant of the Board of Directors and the District Inspector, as well as the Perbix, Charles Gintner (an employee of the Department IS district), and "John Does 1-5" (district clerks requesting, validating, enabling, or viewing images, to continue). Mark Haltzman also represents Hasan.
Lower Merion school administrators had informed Hasans by mail that schools had secretly monitored Jalil by a webcam embedded in his school-spent laptop for two months while he was a senior at Lower Merion High School. The letter was one of 40 that the district sent to comply with a May 2010 court order by US Chancellor Judge Thomas Rueter. Rueter has ordered the district to send letters to all the relevant high school students showing the activation dates of schools from their webcam, and the number of photos and screenshots taken by each student's computer affected.
Hasan misplaced his laptop in high school on Friday, December 18, 2009. The complaint stated that day a teacher found a laptop, and handed it to the IS Department, from where Hasan picked it up on Monday, December 21, 2009. However, the complaint alleged that on the day it Hasan took the laptop from the information system, Gitner, Perbix, and others covertly activate TheftTrack scanning software on laptops issued by Hasan's school. They allegedly continued to run surveillance for nearly two months after returning the laptop to Hasan. They just turned off the surveillance behind the publicity surrounding the Robbins case that broke out on February 18, 2010.
More than 1,000 images were secretly taken by the district through laptops issued by Hasan's school - consisting of 469 photos taken via a laptop webcam and 543 screenshots. They include pictures of him in his bedroom in Ardmore, Pennsylvania, home, and other family members and friends. The school district did not inform Hasan and his family about this until July 8, 2010, when a lawyer for the district (Hank Hockeimer) told them about the whereabouts of the photos. The complaint says: "Actually, if the class action suit Robbins is not filed, practically Jalil laptop will continue to circle take photos and take screenshots every time it is turned on.
The lawsuit was made on the basis of Hasan's invasion of Hasan's privacy without his knowledge or authorization, referring to the same law cited in the Robbins lawsuit. This is charged by districts with:
omissions, ignorance and neglect of all responsibility for training, supervising, controlling, monitoring, and disciplining school district employees acting in their course and scope of work, and with the actual or covert approval of the School District in the activities and behaviors of its employees... which, with all moral, legal, ethical, and rational standards... is outrageous.
"When I look at these pictures, it really scares me," says Jalil Hasan. I.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments