ie8 fix

Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

At Lower Merion schools, webcam spying on students was no crime

By | August 17, 2010, 11:55am PDT

Summary: Pennsylvania school officials will not face criminal charges for activating a tracking feature on school-issued laptops that allowed them to spy on students, which resulted in the capture of 56,000 webcam and screenshot images. Meanwhile, the district has approved new laptop policies.

School officials in Pennsylvania’s Lower Merion School District will not face criminal charges for activating a tracking feature on school-issued webcams that allowed them to capture about 56,000 images of unsuspecting students and their families at home.

Federal prosecutors said today that they will not file charges against the district or its employees, according to an Associated Press report. Investigators found no evidence of criminal intent by those who activated the feature and/or reviewed the images.

Also today, the district announced new policies for its One-to-One laptop program. In a statement, the district explained the new policies and emphasized how it would be allowed to activate the tracking feature in the future. The district wrote (with bold emphasis coming from the district):

The most important changes to the policy concern theft tracking, remote access and the privacy of students’ files on District laptops. The School District will only access a student’s computer with the explicit written authority from parents/guardians and students. School personnel will only access a student’s laptop remotely to resolve a technical problem only if the student formally gives the district permission to do so. If the student chooses, he or she can decline the remote access and take the laptop directly to the school’s IT center for repair. Theft tracking software will only be activated if a student and parent/guardian file a police report and provide a signed “remote file access consent” form and a signed incident report to the principal verifying that a laptop has been lost or stolen. Theft tracking software would never have the capability of capturing screen shots, audio, video and on-screen text.

An investigation conducted by lawyers hired by the school district concluded in May that school administrators meant no harm, though they did act carelessly and failed to use good judgement in using the remote access program. In addition, the investigation found no evidence that school board members or school administrators knew how the feature worked.

It’s somewhat disappointing that federal prosecutors aren’t holding someone responsible for this blatant stomping of personal privacy rights - not only of students, but also members of their families who had no idea that district officials were watching them at home. Maybe the whole “we didn’t mean to” argument would work if it were only one or two students affected or a dozen or so images accidentally had been captured. But we’re talking 56,000 images here.

Fifty-six thousand images. How is that an accident?

You’ll recall that a student and his family exposed what was happening when school officials approached him with an image of himself at home when they suspected that he was taking drugs. It turned out that he was eating candy.

The student and his parents have filed a civil suit against the district, its board of directors and the Superintendent. It alleges violations of the electronic Communications Privacy Act, The Computer Fraud Abuse Act and the Stored Communications Act, among others.

That case is on-going.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Sam has been a technology and business blogger for more than 18 years.

Disclosure

Sam Diaz

Sam Diaz has nothing to disclose.

Biography

Sam Diaz

Sam has been a technology and business blogger, reporter and editor at ZDNet, the Washington Post, San Jose Mercury News and Fresno Bee for more than 18 years. He's a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and a graduate of California State University, Fresno.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
36
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: At Lower Merion schools, webcam spying on students was no crime
tomlin21-24319035676893835085146735905770 11th Oct
Excellent to acquire likely to your website nevertheless once again, it really is received been months for me. nfl jersey
"But we?re talking 56,000 images here...Five thousand, six hundred images. How is that an accident?"


5,600 or 56,000?
@msalzberg Excellent catch! It's 56,000 and I went in and fixed my post. (Kind of messes up the emphasis when I get it wrong, huh?) Thanks for pointing it out...
@msalzberg
The article quotes the number 56,000 three times...
never mentioned Five thousand, six hundred
..........What's your question?
"I didn't know I was breaking the law" shouldn't be allowed as a defense in this case. There are too many images. They also activated this on computers that were not reported lost or stolen. Consequences should include more than a written policy change. I wish the families the best of luck in their civil lawsuit.
@Bookmark71 This is probably the most important point in the whole story. How many times have we been told that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it? Do we now have a separate legal standard for school administrators?
0 Votes
+ -
Government protecting itself against citizens
Jeff Richardson 20th Aug 2010
@carno Government prosecutors have a different legal standard for other Government employees. Remember Tim Geithner and the IRS.
I wonder if the "I didn't know it was wrong" will work with the RIAA.
"Investigators found no evidence of criminal intent by those who activated the feature and/or reviewed the images." From a previous post: "In at least five instances, district employees kept the Webcams on and took pictures for days."
Isn't peeking in a minor's bedroom window (via electronic means) a crime in itself?
"In addition, the investigation found no evidence that school board members or school administrators knew how the feature worked." "...school officials approached him with an image of himself at home when they suspected that he was taking drugs. It turned out that he was eating candy."
For not knowing how it worked, they certainly seem to know how to access the images. What are they talking about with "not know(ing) how it worked" --not knowing TCP & IP protocols?
In my mind these quotes just do not add up. Seems to me that someone is changing the context to get the desired result.
0 Votes
+ -
If the school district used the remote webcam feature every day for three years that would average out to more than 50 pictures a day. That's fifty pictures a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, for three years. This was an appalling invasion of students privacy. "No evidence of criminal intent" or not, it was still a crime and should be prosecuted. Lack of intent does not remove responsibility for criminal activity. This was no accident and was not infrequent.
0 Votes
+ -
That statement is false.
wolf_z 17th Aug 2010
@sismoc

"Lack of intent does not remove responsibility for criminal activity. This was no accident and was not infrequent."

Um, it can. Depends on how the crime is *defined*. See here:

http://www.quizlaw.com/criminal_law/what_are_specific_intent_cri.php

Law doesn't follow logic, morals, or anything else. It's a case of "this is what it *says*. Do it or we bash your head in with a rock/electrocute you/gas you/cage you for life".

I'm betting the DOJ wanted to nail them but didn't think it could prove intent. All the school authorities would have to do is look ignorant--which they *are*...

Now if any of those images had shown two students having sex, well, that would be DIFFERENT, now wouldn't it?

Fortunately or not, it appears none of the pics did. Or their feet wouldn't have touched the ground before they found themselves in jail as sex offenders.
@sismoc thats 56000 images over 2300 different laptops. Thats only 24 images per laptop! One student had 210 images and over 200 screen captures in a 2 week period. So about 400 snaps in 2 weeks... thats about 29 a day. In short, not an unreasonable number.
0 Votes
+ -
Two Legal Systems
PreachJohn 17th Aug 2010
Your US law makes more active use of the civil law system than ours. It seems to me as a Canadian viewer, that civil law is invoked often where criminal law did not result in the desired end. Quite often it brings remedy, as in the O. J. Simpson case, where the rules of evidence are more relaxed than in criminal law.
In other words, if you can't get them one way, get them another way, another kick at the can.
Whereas, in Canada, it seems to me that civil law is appealed to only when criminal law does not apply as the arena of litigation.
Not as I see the use of US civil law; a parallel legal system often used consecutive to failure of satisfaction via criminal law.
And this appears to be what's happening here.
This is my take on it all. I'd like input from other observers of it 'all'.
@preachjohn
Almost true. What I've seen more often in Canada is actually the opposite as the US. If a crime that also involved personal damages results in a conviction, the victims ALSO turn to the civil court to extract damages from the criminal (convictions make it quite easy to prove damages in a lawsuit). So it's more of a "pay twice" type of deal, which is only fair since it seems even convicted criminals seem to get off pretty easy here. The lack of a criminal conviction actually makes it harder to prove damages in a lawsuit, so it's less likely to see a lawsuit pick up where a criminal trial left off.
@daftkey: You don't come across as daft at all! lol
I wanted to know if my impression is correct. Now I have to research. How else can I ever be satisfied? Thanks for your response.
0 Votes
+ -
The DOJ authority is giving the school authorities a pass, It would have been a completely different outcome if the one who did this was a small business or individual. The DOJ has immense resources at its disposal, both in statute and in prosecutorial powers. There are so many Federal laws with overlaps that almost any defendant can be charged with tens or hundreds of different offenses, just take a look at the "Blago" trial now ongoing.

Prosecutors are allowed considerable leeway in Federal courts, in front of judges who are mostly comprised of former prosecutors. Intent is often substantiated only by circumstantial evidence or only inferred, and many laws require no intent be shown. Many laws are now being written with "prima facie" language that do not require intent, only evidence of the incident or offense.

So my take is that the US Attorney *could* have prosecuted or pursued a plea bargain, but chose not to out of "professional courtesy" to fellow authorities.
I always thought this was way out of proportion.
They are School Computers, as such they should have the right to activate anything on the computer at any time. It is, after all, their property. Companies track company cell phone useage, why shouldn't a school track it's property? As for the number of images, I bet the software automatically captures at a predefined time period, not like the people in charge physically "clicked" each picture.
@doc@...
Nope. The school could track the computer usage- much like any company- but accessing their systems without their knowledge, and outside of the timeframe of when they were being actively used and outside the environment of the school is out of bounds.
I can track the usage of an employees cell phone usage, but I can't access the content of the calls, nor could I turn on the camera to capture random images.
Just because it's "My Machine" doesnt' mean that I can use it to violate someone's privacy. Usage logs- fine, Screen captures- fine, email on my server- fine. Images of the environment- NO.
Accessing the laptop's camera does NOTHING to help in the tracking of the asset. There's no reason for remotely accessing the camera at all- not even during a remote support session.
In addition, since they used images captured to monitor the activity of students (and non-students) in their private residence and to take punitive action based on them it doesn't matter if they were random or not- they shouldn't have taken them.
@davesully
Extremely well said Dave! IMHO, Wiretap laws apply here.
No judge authorized this invasion of privacy!
0 Votes
+ -
@doc@...: "Companies track company cell phone usage, why shouldn't a school track it's property?" Sure they do, but they don't listen in on the conversations that take place on them. That is very different from what those school officials did. Using a laptop's webcam to take pictures of students and their family, at home, when there is no reason given by the student and/or their family, is a gross invasion of privacy of that family.

Just because the DOJ has decided not to prosecute, doesn't mean that what has been done is okay. We are talking about 56,000 images here. This does not happen by accident, regardless of what you think: "As for the number of images, I bet the software automatically captures at a predefined time period, not like the people in charge physically "clicked" each picture." As a justification for the number of images, that statement is irrelevant. Whether it was done manually, or set in the software to capture at predefined intervals, has no bearing.

How would you like it if your child was in possession of a laptop, issued by their school, and you were photographed having sex with your partner, wife or whatever, whoever? They gave themselves the right to activate the webcam whenever they wanted to, and this is the upshot of that action.

So, why are you defending these people for what they did? It may not have been illegal, but it most definitely is wrong by any reasonable definition.
@doc@... No. "Watching the captured photos was like a LMSD soap opera" should tell you that (one of the administrators said that, as I recall.)

And it's illegal to put recording devices in school changerooms for a reason. Even if they did catch someone stealing out of someone's bag, they'd be slapped with 2 civil lawsuits and upwards of 5 years in jail.
The same applies to everyone, even schools.

The administrators are lucky, very lucky, that the cameras didn't catch any student in the nude. Even one would have gotten the whole lot of them thrown into jail.

Is the charge for creating child pornography "Way out of proportion?"
0 Votes
+ -
Doc, you don't understand
dave@... 19th Aug 2010
A company can monitor a company provided cell phone for activity, they CAN'T record your actual conversations.

A company can monitor laptop useage, in terms of web browsing, etc, they can't take pictures of non work activity such as you walking past your laptop in your underwear.

The prosecutors should have, in lieu of the number of pictures and the accusation against the student with the candy, pursued this against the school.

Taking a picture of the inside of my house, without my permission, with your computer is akin to you entering my house without my permission. That's breaking and entering and without a warrant it's against the law last time I looked.

Hey doc, here is a laptop let me take pictures of you, your wife, your family in any state of undress. See your tune change!!!!
0 Votes
+ -
Interesting Dilemma
DaveN_MVP Updated - 18th Aug 2010
This is certainly one of the most egregious abuses of authority we've seen in recent years. If the school district officials lacked malicious intent, their gross incompetence is staggering and inexcusable.

On one hand, one hates to see taxpayer money used to fund costly litigation and pay damages to those who the school district abused. On the other hand, one hates to see them get away with such a high level of malfeasance.

In my opinion, anyone who authorized or participated in the photographing of students, or who knew of it and did nothing, should be immediately terminated from school district employment. That goes for the lowest IT person right on up to the school board and superintendent. Termination is the only way to send a message that the district understands the severity of their actions, as opposed to what I belive, which is that they are a bunch of abusive autocrats who will do anything they can get away with.
0 Votes
+ -
No underage porn?
Bryan Price 18th Aug 2010
That's an incredible amount of photos taken. I'm surprised that there aren't any that caught any of the students nude, let alone masturbating.
0 Votes
+ -
How can this be?
SlammerDev 18th Aug 2010
How is the statement, "Theft tracking software would never have the capability of capturing screen shots, audio, video and on-screen text." conducive to the reported 56,000 photos? Is a video-cam still shot not video?
@SlammerDev The old software did all that video, screen capture, etc. Presumably they're saying the new (or reconfigured) software can't do any of that, so it only tracks by IP address or whatever.

Where I live, you're lucky if the police respond to a stolen car. You can forget about them getting a warrant to search someone's house for your stolen laptop - the best you're going to get is a telephone police report that you pick up yourself, for a fee.
So, if I rob a bank it's okay as long as I don't have criminal intent ("I was just trying to take care of my family and pay the bills, and since that's no crime, I commited no crime"? Hey criminals, Pennsylvania welcomes you!!!!!
Kids that take pictures of themselves dressed in less than street clothes are in jeapardy of being charged for child porn and being labeled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives while these so-called school authorities are allowed to get away scot free for it?

This is a DOJ SUPER FAIL here.
@Tholian_53: As per a number of posts above, similar to yours, I agree!
Somebodies, at some level(s), DID KNOW exactly what this software was capable of, and what it was doing over an extended period of time.
And what pathetic person would dare to try to plead such gross ignorance of privacy statutes?
These are all ostensibly university educated adults.
There is culpability aplenty, if one CHOSE to pursue the matter, as other posts have opined.
Besides, students shouldn't be free to jack off or jill off in the privacy of their own bedrooms, beyond the reach of the Adolescence Police, in any case.
0 Votes
+ -
4th Amendment Violation
Dr_Zinj 19th Aug 2010
We're talking the equivalent of a felony committed by the school district. This is an illegel "search" without a warrant, and without probably cause.

Now look at it from the DoJ's stand point; if they let the school get away with it, it sets a precedent for the DoJ and other federal entities to do the same thing; unauthorized, unapproved spying on private citizens not under suspicion of crimes.

A very BAD precedent.
0 Votes
+ -
Orwell was only off by 25 years.
NanoProgrammer 19th Aug 2010
In the dark ages, it was the church that pulled the government strings. Now it is the Teachers Unions. Don't mess with the Unions, they run this country and own the courts (and white house and congress).
Of all the replies, doc makes the most sense. I can imagine a person clicking 58 000 times to activate them! Logic, which many times, is not applied, should have shown this up as a ludicrous claim.
Typical conspiracy theories abounding.
Remember he who pays the piper, should call the tune.
People should take responsibility for their actions.
The State is your employee not your controller!
Butt out!
0 Votes
+ -
Criminal Intent Is Obvious
CFWhitman 19th Aug 2010
What are they talking about when they say "no evidence of criminal intent"? They activated the cameras and they looked at the images. That is criminal. Are they saying that they activated the cameras and collected 56,000 images accidentally? I don't care what their intent was beyond capturing and looking at the images. That in itself was criminal, and they should have realized that. Their motives are immaterial.

This is like saying that drunk driving is OK because the people who do it don't intend any harm. If this is a defense, it could be used for most traffic infractions as well.

They captured the images without permission.
They captured the images where people had an expectation of privacy.
They captured the images on purpose.
Where is the question of intent?
Is this not just a form of wire tapping and don't you need a warrant signed by a judge to wire tap people without their knowledge! When did you guys In the US give your teachers and school boards similar powers to the C.I.A? The one thing you have to also think about is the images are stills taken from a live stream. What else have they been watching that they did not take stills of? They might have watched young children and their family taking their cloths off and not taken still images of the event. I'm sure they will be getting a few calls from Communist North Korea wanting to know how they can set up a similar program in their schools!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: At Lower Merion schools, webcam spying on students was no crime
jackson1984-24316069205748857739440257893812 10th Oct
I believed it had been likely to be some uninteresting older short article, but mulberry purses it primarily compensated for my time.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: At Lower Merion schools, webcam spying on students was no crime
tomlin21-24319035676893835085146735905770 11th Oct
Excellent to acquire likely to your website nevertheless once again, it really is received been months for me. nfl jersey

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix