School uses student laptop webcams to spy on them at home

The camera, computer, and anything on the computer are property of the school. Vandalvideo

Do we know that its their property? Do we know if the school gave those laptops to the students from which point those laptops are now theirs (the students')? (I read the article; didnt find anything about what the agreement was)

If yes, then how are those the school's property from the point where it has been given to the students?

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]The problem being that unless the school considers the students themselves 'property of the school,' they're still committing invasion of privacy. It's not like putting an internet censoring program on the laptop, this is being able to access and record images from the laptop's camera and, frankly, unless they caught the student smoking pot or watching pornography they have no case whatsoever.And besides, you may agree to the school's honor code, but that doesn't mean you are no longer subject to United States law. Even children have 'rights' under our system, whether or not those administrators want to admit it.Vandalvideo

Did their parents give consent to the administration to access the camera without their children knowing about it?

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]So. Wrong. :|xTheExploited

I'd definitely had been a kid who reformated the computer, or just used my own computer.
Hope they get what's coming to them...


For the arguement towards LJ: I believe he means that the school can put whatever software on their computers they want, but that the spying is wrong and illegal anyway. Which sounds about right.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]The camera, computer, and anything on the computer are property of the school. Teenaged

Do we know that its their property? Do we know if the school gave those laptops to the students from which point those laptops are now theirs (the students')? (I read the article; didnt find anything about what the agreement was)

If yes, then how are those the school's property from the point where it has been given to the students?

It's the same argument for textbooks. The students are essentially leased the textbooks. They don't own them. Indeed, if they are damaged or destroyed the student and his/her family must pay for a replacement. Neither the student nor his/her family paid for the laptop directly, thus it isn't technically theirs.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Okay to equip their computers? Yes. Uh...your analogy is flawed. It's not illegal to put a web cam on lap top. Child porn is illegal. False analogy.LJS9502_basic

Spying is also illegal. Putting the webcam on the computer isn't illegal. Putting spying software on the computer is.

Let's use a better analogy though. Let's say I've found this cute girl who needs a laptop. I tell her she can have mine for as long as she wants, but what I don't tell her is that I've done what this school did; ie I've put software on the computer that allows me to remotely access the built-in webcam. I then use the laptop to stalk her and use pictures of her (some of which are sure to be naked photos if she has the laptop in her bedroom like most people) however I want (take a guess). According to you, this is perfectly acceptable.

No one's complaining about the webcam. I don't know why you think we are.

What people are complaining about is that the school installed spyware on the computer which then allowed them to remotely access the webcam without students' knowledge. The webcam isn't the problem, it's the software the school put on the computer and moreso how they used that software and hardware that makes it illegal.

In fact, you're killing your own argument with the statement "the mere presence of a webcam does not mean one is spying". You're absolutely correct. Hence why this is most definitely spying since a reasonable person would not assume that they are being spied on simply because there is a camera visable on the computer.

That's ****ed up

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]The camera, computer, and anything on the computer are property of the school. tycoonmike

Do we know that its their property? Do we know if the school gave those laptops to the students from which point those laptops are now theirs (the students')? (I read the article; didnt find anything about what the agreement was)

If yes, then how are those the school's property from the point where it has been given to the students?

It's the same argument for textbooks. The students are essentially leased the textbooks. They don't own them. Indeed, if they are damaged or destroyed the student and his/her family must pay for a replacement. Neither the student nor his/her family paid for the laptop directly, thus it isn't technically theirs.

Actually, typically they arent theirs. Technically they are. The laptops will stay to the students and the school will never ask for them back.

I guess it really doesn't matter, anymore. Their own website says they've disabled the feature.

Great. Issue is though that A) you assume they even signed a contract (to my knowledge there are no contracts/agreements signed when a child enrolls in a public school) and B) that there was ever any transparancy provided about this survallience.Also, I would expect that a lawyer would be aware that contracts that involve illegal activities are non-binding. For example, I can't have a family agree to a loan that includes their children as collateral and still have it be legally binding. I can't make a woman sign a contract to use a laptop I'm giving her that includes a clause that allows me to monitor her and use any pictures I take with the laptop's webcam however I wish (ie upload naked photos of her to the internet) and still have it be binding.gameguy6700

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]The camera, computer, and anything on the computer are property of the school. Teenaged

Do we know that its their property? Do we know if the school gave those laptops to the students from which point those laptops are now theirs (the students')? (I read the article; didnt find anything about what the agreement was)

If yes, then how are those the school's property from the point where it has been given to the students?

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Wait a minute; what do we know about this very thing?

Do we know that its their property? Do we know if the school gave those laptops to the students from which point those laptops are now theirs (the students')? (I read the article; didnt find anything about what the agreement was)

If yes, then how are those the school's property from the point where it has been given to the students?

Teenaged

It's the same argument for textbooks. The students are essentially leased the textbooks. They don't own them. Indeed, if they are damaged or destroyed the student and his/her family must pay for a replacement. Neither the student nor his/her family paid for the laptop directly, thus it isn't technically theirs.

Actually, typically they arent theirs. Technically they are. The laptops will stay to the students and the school will never ask for them back.

No, that's not what I mean. They must pay the school not only to replace the old textbook but if they want to graduate. They don't own the books, period, and by the same argument they don't own the laptops either.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]The camera, computer, and anything on the computer are property of the school. Vandalvideo

Do we know that its their property? Do we know if the school gave those laptops to the students from which point those laptops are now theirs (the students')? (I read the article; didnt find anything about what the agreement was)

If yes, then how are those the school's property from the point where it has been given to the students?

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Great. Issue is though that A) you assume they even signed a contract (to my knowledge there are no contracts/agreements signed when a child enrolls in a public school) and B) that there was ever any transparancy provided about this survallience.Also, I would expect that a lawyer would be aware that contracts that involve illegal activities are non-binding. For example, I can't have a family agree to a loan that includes their children as collateral and still have it be legally binding. I can't make a woman sign a contract to use a laptop I'm giving her that includes a clause that allows me to monitor her and use any pictures I take with the laptop's webcam however I wish (ie upload naked photos of her to the internet) and still have it be binding.Vandalvideo

Once again, where in their code of conduct does it say they have the right to spy on the students while at home?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

It's the same argument for textbooks. The students are essentially leased the textbooks. They don't own them. Indeed, if they are damaged or destroyed the student and his/her family must pay for a replacement. Neither the student nor his/her family paid for the laptop directly, thus it isn't technically theirs.

tycoonmike

Actually, typically they arent theirs. Technically they are. The laptops will stay to the students and the school will never ask for them back.

No, that's not what I mean. They must pay the school not only to replace the old textbook but if they want to graduate. They don't own the books, period, and by the same argument they don't own the laptops either.

If they keep them, then how does that constitute a loan and not ownership?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

wtf?

Why would they even carewhat their students are doing at home?

xaos

Did their parents give consent to the administration to access the camera without their children knowing about it?tycoonmike

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]They must pay if they want to geta new one, I assume you mean, right? If so then they still dont owe money to the school, if the textbook is damaged or destroyed. Its just that the school doesnt owe the student a second copy.

Actually, typically they arent theirs. Technically they are. The laptops will stay to the students and the school will never ask for them back.

Teenaged

No, that's not what I mean. They must pay the school not only to replace the old textbook but if they want to graduate. They don't own the books, period, and by the same argument they don't own the laptops either.

If they keep them, then how does that constitute a loan and not ownership?

They don't keep them. High school students must either return or pay for the textbooks or else they do not graduate. The books are loaned out to the students. It isn't like college, where students can buy their own textbooks and keep them.

Wow. WHY? Why do you care what your students do IN THEIR OWN HOME?! :evil:

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]Did their parents give consent to the administration to access the camera without their children knowing about it?Vandalvideo

The problem being that what you've said is only conjecture. From what I understand, the feature that allows the administration to access the camera remotely is only in the case of a reported theft, in which case they would have the permission of the student to whom they loaned the laptop to remotely access the camera to see who had stolen the laptop. Unless you can provide me something from their website that says something to the effect of "the school retains the right to remotely access the camera without the knowledge of the student to whom the laptop was provided in cases other than the reported theft of their laptop" neither they nor you have a case whatsoever.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]Did their parents give consent to the administration to access the camera without their children knowing about it?Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

No, that's not what I mean. They must pay the school not only to replace the old textbook but if they want to graduate. They don't own the books, period, and by the same argument they don't own the laptops either.

tycoonmike

If they keep them, then how does that constitute a loan and not ownership?

They don't keep them. High school students must either return or pay for the textbooks or else they do not graduate. The books are loaned out to the students. It isn't like college, where students can buy their own textbooks and keep them.

Wow, that's quite a way to find an excuse to punish students.

Since its been argued whether someone should read what is in the Honor Code (? - I guess thats the service agreement that specifies rules and such), if, in a hypothetical scenario, a service agreement stated explicitely that the laptops are bombs which the school can activate at any time (KABOOM), wont the school be sued (or whatever) for the death of people just because it has been stated in the service agreement which no one bothered to read?Teenaged

[

No one's complaining about the webcam. I don't know why you think we are.

What people are complaining about is that the school installed spyware on the computer which then allowed them to remotely access the webcam without students' knowledge. The webcam isn't the problem, it's the software the school put on the computer and moreso how they used that software and hardware that makes it illegal.

In fact, you're killing your own argument with the statement "the mere presence of a webcam does not mean one is spying". You're absolutely correct. Hence why this is most definitely spying since a reasonable person would not assume that they are being spied on simply because there is a camera visable on the computer.

gameguy6700

My own argument is not killed. My argument has ONLY been that the web cam itself is not illegal. No, the presence of the web cam itself does NOT automatically equate to spying. I could give you a computer with a web cam but either not have a way to monitor it...or no desire. You are making assumptions.

The problem being that what you've said is only conjecture. From what I understand, the feature that allows the administration to access the camera remotely is only in the case of a reported theft, in which case they would have the permission of the student to whom they loaned the laptop to remotely access the camera to see who had stolen the laptop. Unless you can provide me something from their website that says something to the effect of "the school retains the right to remotely access the camera without the knowledge of the student to whom the laptop was provided in cases other than the reported theft of their laptop" neither they nor you have a case whatsoever.tycoonmike

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[

No one's complaining about the webcam. I don't know why you think we are.

What people are complaining about is that the school installed spyware on the computer which then allowed them to remotely access the webcam without students' knowledge. The webcam isn't the problem, it's the software the school put on the computer and moreso how they used that software and hardware that makes it illegal.

In fact, you're killing your own argument with the statement "the mere presence of a webcam does not mean one is spying". You're absolutely correct. Hence why this is most definitely spying since a reasonable person would not assume that they are being spied on simply because there is a camera visable on the computer.

LJS9502_basic

My own argument is not killed. My argument has ONLY been that the web cam itself is not illegal. No, the presence of the web cam itself does NOT automatically equate to spying. I could give you a computer with a web cam but either not have a way to monitor it...or no desire. You are making assumptions.

I never equated the web cam to illegal activity. I've stated that several times now. Stop using strawman arguments.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Since its been argued whether someone should read what is in the Honor Code (? - I guess thats the service agreement that specifies rules and such), if, in a hypothetical scenario, a service agreement stated explicitely that the laptops are bombs which the school can activate at any time (KABOOM), wont the school be sued (or whatever) for the death of people just because it has been stated in the service agreement which no one bothered to read?

Vandalvideo

Could the fact that the camera was used for purposes other than theft prevention count as something the school shouldnt do and should be sued for?

The laptop after all wasnt reported as stolen and the school says that the camera turns on after it has ben reported as stolen (if I understood correctly).

Or does a possible condition in the Honor Code go above this and covers them.

In tycoonmikes post (with the link where the school explains the situation), they describe in detail what the camera would be used for by the school.Could the fact that the camera was used for purposes other than theft prevention count as something the school shouldnt do and should be sued for? Or does a possible condition in the Honor Code go above this and covers them.Teenaged

that's pretty hot :oops:BiancaDK

*watches*

Man thats boring..... DO SOME FUNNY FACES!

I never equated the web cam to illegal activity. I've stated that several times now. Stop using strawman arguments.

gameguy6700

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

I never equated the web cam to illegal activity. I've stated that several times now. Stop using strawman arguments.

LJS9502_basic

If you said that the school is in the wrong for what they did with the laptops but not because of the laptops/cameras themselves, then yes, we're in agreement and were only arguing over a misunderstanding.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

I never equated the web cam to illegal activity. I've stated that several times now. Stop using strawman arguments.

gameguy6700

If you said that the school is in the wrong for what they did with the laptops but not because of the laptops/cameras themselves, then yes, we're in agreement and were only arguing over a misunderstanding.

[QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"]

Then what the hell is your statement supposed to mean in the context of this argument? The topic is about a school illegally spying on students in their homes. How exactly is one supposed to interpet "the school can put anything they want on their laptops" with that context in mind. That's either totally irrelevant, or you just intentionally put these dubious statements up and then defend them by saying over and over and over that we're not on the same page semantically. Every argument I've seen you in, you do this. :roll:

LJS9502_basic

I mean, to be fair to the others, the implication of your post was that there was no problem with the computers doing this and distributing it to kids. Now that obviously wasn't your original intention, so I'm wondering why you haven't gone back to edit your post to make that clear.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"]

Then what the hell is your statement supposed to mean in the context of this argument? The topic is about a school illegally spying on students in their homes. How exactly is one supposed to interpet "the school can put anything they want on their laptops" with that context in mind. That's either totally irrelevant, or you just intentionally put these dubious statements up and then defend them by saying over and over and over that we're not on the same page semantically. Every argument I've seen you in, you do this. :roll:

chessmaster1989

I mean, to be fair to the others, the implication of your post was that there was no problem with the computers doing this and distributing it to kids. Now that obviously wasn't your original intention, so I'm wondering why you haven't gone back to edit your post to make that clear.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well I could point out that you assumed things I did not say. In the context of the article...it is NOT illegal for the school to equip lap tops with what they want. Which IS what I said.:roll:

LJS9502_basic

I mean, to be fair to the others, the implication of your post was that there was no problem with the computers doing this and distributing it to kids. Now that obviously wasn't your original intention, so I'm wondering why you haven't gone back to edit your post to make that clear.

All I'm saying is that it's a fair interpretation given the context of the thread. That doesn't make it right of course, but it's understandable why it was posted. I don't want to get into an argument about this though because it's a fairly silly thing to argue over. With the number of times though that I've seen you accidentally misinterpret a user's post and then defend your misinterpretation (and in some cases your misinterpretation was certainly justified) I'm surprised your less understanding of this simple mistake...

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I mean, to be fair to the others, the implication of your post was that there was no problem with the computers doing this and distributing it to kids. Now that obviously wasn't your original intention, so I'm wondering why you haven't gone back to edit your post to make that clear.

chessmaster1989

All I'm saying is that it's a fair interpretation given the context of the thread. That doesn't make it right of course, but it's understandable why it was posted. I don't want to get into an argument about this though because it's a fairly silly thing to argue over. With the number of times though that I've seen you accidentally misinterpret a user's post and then defend your misinterpretation (and in some cases your misinterpretation was certainly justified) I'm surprised your less understanding of this simple mistake...

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No. I never stated that. To be fair people should read what I post and not make their own interpretations.LJS9502_basic

All I'm saying is that it's a fair interpretation given the context of the thread. That doesn't make it right of course, but it's understandable why it was posted. I don't want to get into an argument about this though because it's a fairly silly thing to argue over. With the number of times though that I've seen you accidentally misinterpret a user's post and then defend your misinterpretation (and in some cases your misinterpretation was certainly justified) I'm surprised your less understanding of this simple mistake...

Oh I'm not defending people who are still pushing the point even after you told them directly what you meant. I'm just saying that the initial misunderstanding is understandable.

LOL OMG if that was me I would kick my principles Arss XD hmm I wonder what "Innaproriate Behavior" was this little boy conducting >.>

Sick people these days.

I'm dumbfounded.. How could anyone even try to pass this off as being okay? Good luck to the families in court, they will certainly win if they sue and win big. I see those involved being put in jail, or at least having their teaching licences revoked and a permanent mark on their criminal background for some very high level charges. This is just so messed up..