We Teach the Children: School district watching students with webcams?

[Eli]

You voluntarily took the laptop into your home. How is that not consent?

If you hand me a baby monitor and I take it into my house, am I allowed to sue you when I find out you were listening to it the whole time? I willingly took it, didn't I? Doesn't that mean I gave consent?

*sigh*

Can someone explain this better than me? Your scenario with a baby MONITOR is not comparable to a laptop with a webcam. A baby monitor is designed to monitor, a laptop with a webcam is not. Obviously if I were to hand you a baby monitor, the expectation would be that I was monitoring something.

Let's say you're given a work-issued cell phone. Later, you learn that said cell phone could be turned on at any time. You learn that it was indeed turned on, and that your boss was listening to you have sex with your wife. Would you be OK with that?

Because if you are, you really have a twisted view of the expectation of privacy within your own home. How on earth can you think this is okay? You do realize that the expectation of privacy within your own home is a constitutional right... Right?

 

[zinfamous]

i wonder how many dads they've got jacking off while taking a shit lol

hahaha.

total revenge against the creepy perv accessing the webcam

 

[ShawnD1]

Let's say you're given a work-issued cell phone. Later, you learn that said cell phone could be turned on at any time. You learn that it was indeed turned on, and that your boss was listening to you have sex with your wife. Would you be OK with that?

The government-owned laptop will only record me having sex when it's turned on. If I don't want the computer to monitor me having sex, I turn it off. This is really not that complicated.

 

[Cheesetogo]

The government-owned laptop will only record me having sex when it's turned on. If I don't want the computer to monitor me having sex, I turn it off. This is really not that complicated.

I would try to point out the errors in your logic, but it's generally a bad idea to argue with an idiot of your caliber.

 

[Eli]

The government-owned laptop will only record me having sex when it's turned on. If I don't want the computer to monitor me having sex, I turn it off. This is really not that complicated.

wow

Seriously.... wow.

 

[OutHouse]

Example. A parent will use VNC to check their home computer while they are at work. They will see that someone is looking at porn. Wanting to know who it is, they make the webcam take a picture and email it to themselves.

Jesus you are a complete moron. did you fall out of the stupid tree and hit every branch down?

i have a absolute right to VNC into MY property in my home to see what is being done on my property. a school has no such right at all to invade my privacy or my kids just because they have a school issued laptop. EVER!

 

[ShawnD1]

i have a absolute right to VNC into MY property in my home to see what is being done on my property. a school has no such right at all to invade my privacy or my kids just because they have a school issued laptop. EVER!

So if your son takes your laptop over to his friend's house, you no longer have a right to VNC into it to see what it's doing? Cool!

 

[OutHouse]

You voluntarily took the laptop into your home. How is that not consent?

If you hand me a baby monitor and I take it into my house, am I allowed to sue you when I find out you were listening to it the whole time? I willingly took it, didn't I? Doesn't that mean I gave consent?

this is a joke right? please tell us you are not this stupid.

 

[OutHouse]

So if your son takes your laptop over to his friend's house, you no longer have a right to VNC into it to see what it's doing? Cool!

yip i sure do, and dont get any more stupid by asking

"well whats the difference between you and the school" if you don't know the difference then you need to crack a book.

 

[Eli]

So if your son takes your laptop over to his friend's house, you no longer have a right to VNC into it to see what it's doing? Cool!

Now you're just being stupid.

We have already established that a parent has a right to monitor their children.

If your son took a laptop over to his friends house, left it there, and you used the laptop to watch his friend, took pictures.. you would be in jail before you knew what happened to you.

I cannot believe that you can't see the difference between parenting and invasion of privacy. It doesn't matter who the laptop belonged to, it is ILLEGAL to invade ones privacy. Period!

In your baby monitor scenario.. If I used the baby monitor to record you without your consent, that would be illegal. Even if you consented it into your house in the first place.

 

[ShawnD1]

If your son took a laptop over to his friends house, left it there, and you used the laptop to watch his friend, took pictures.. you would be in jail before you knew what happened to you.

The above quote is a lot more telling than you realize. You're saying that it's legal to take pictures of an unknown person as long as the unknown person turns out to be your son. As soon as it's someone else, such as the neighbor or someone who stole the laptop, it's illegal. Basically what you're saying is that it's not your actions that are illegal, but the results that are illegal. You can perform the exact same action twice and get completely different legal outcomes.


The mentality in this thread certainly explains why the US has more prisoners than any other country in the world. Instead of disagreeing with the licensing terms and giving the computers back to the school, ATOT is demanding people be thrown in jail.

 

[spidey07]

The above quote is a lot more telling than you realize. You're saying that it's legal to take pictures of an unknown person as long as the unknown person turns out to be your son. As soon as it's someone else, such as the neighbor or someone who stole the laptop, it's illegal. Basically what you're saying is that it's not your actions that are illegal, but the results that are illegal. You can perform the exact same action twice and get completely different legal outcomes.


The mentality in this thread certainly explains why the US has more prisoners than any other country in the world. Instead of disagreeing with the licensing terms and giving the computers back to the school, ATOT is demanding people be thrown in jail.

I don't think you understand reasonable expectation of privacy. The home or residence is purely protected by the 4th.

I see your point and it is summarily dismissed. I don't know if you're a us citizen or not but ones home and property is sacred to our very way of life. You have a point, but it fails.

 

[Eli]

The above quote is a lot more telling than you realize. You're saying that it's legal to take pictures of an unknown person as long as the unknown person turns out to be your son. As soon as it's someone else, such as the neighbor or someone who stole the laptop, it's illegal. Basically what you're saying is that it's not your actions that are illegal, but the results that are illegal. You can perform the exact same action twice and get completely different legal outcomes.


The mentality in this thread certainly explains why the US has more prisoners than any other country in the world. Instead of disagreeing with the licensing terms and giving the computers back to the school, ATOT is demanding people be thrown in jail.

I wish I could explain this better to you. Is it because you aren't from the US?

An individual in the US has a right to privacy in their own home. The moment you break that privacy, you are breaking the law. Period.

Yes, you can monitor your son via a laptop. No, you cannot monitor your neighbor via a laptop. Yes, two actions that are the same. Two different outcomes legally, because as a parent you have the right to monitor your children. You do not have the right to monitor a stranger.

This isn't that hard to understand...

 

[MotF Bane]

It is sad that anyone can come in here and defend the actions of the school administration.

 

[spidey07]

It is sad that anyone can come in here and defend the actions of the school administration.

To be truly fair the allegations are still alegations. If true they are in a world of hurt.

And remember I'm the corporate apolgist here. If true then lotta federal and stAte laws broken. Why no criminal charges is the biggest concern.

 

[shiner]

You voluntarily took the laptop into your home. How is that not consent?

If you hand me a baby monitor and I take it into my house, am I allowed to sue you when I find out you were listening to it the whole time? I willingly took it, didn't I? Doesn't that mean I gave consent?

You're an idiot

 

[Zenmervolt]

nope. its not installed at the OS level. formatting will not "delete" the tracking software.

So it's part of the BIOS then? Or does it merely reside in a hidden and protected partition that normal formatting will not access?

I have a hard time imagining anything surviving a full-on FFR (fdisk, format, reinstall) unless it somehow kept anything from ever touching the partition or resided in BIOS/off the HDD.

ZV

 

[Eli]

So it's part of the BIOS then? Or does it merely reside in a hidden and protected partition that normal formatting will not access?

I have a hard time imagining anything surviving a full-on FFR (fdisk, format, reinstall) unless it somehow kept anything from ever touching the partition or resided in BIOS/off the HDD.

ZV

Yeah, I was wondering this myself. It's kinda scary that something like that could exist even after a full format/reinstall. What is keeping someone from developing a virus that uses this technique, whatever it is? Yikes.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Yeah, I was wondering this myself. It's kinda scary that something like that could exist even after a full format/reinstall. What is keeping someone from developing a virus that uses this technique, whatever it is? Yikes.

If it resides on the disk, it can be eliminated by FFR. Remove the partition tables and it removes everything on the disk.

Now, I can see embedded solutions using either custom BIOS or custom drives that could survive a FFR by either holding the monitoring software in the BIOS or in a protected partition that the disc controller does not allow the OS to see, but that seems as though it would be prohibitively expensive.

 

[ShawnD1]

I wish I could explain this better to you. Is it because you aren't from the US?

It must be. This complete lack of trust between the government and citizens seems very strange to me. I grew up in a place where we deal with the government on a daily basis, and there's a certain level of trust that comes with that. Where I live, the government owns and controls our water supply, electricity, much of the telephone network, all hospitals, all recycling and waste centers, all roads and highways, all schools and universities (private schools are extremely rare), all jails and prisons, and in some parts of the country they control all minerals, oil, natural gas, and trees.

Not much noise is made about constitutional violations because most of us don't even know what the constitution says. Canada didn't have a real constitution until 1982, and our rights are never talked about in school or on television.

stuff about removing the tracking software

Doing this might count as vandalizing government property if you don't have written permission to format it. Remember that this is not your computer. It's a school computer that you are borrowing.

 

[Phoenix86]

To be truly fair the allegations are still alegations. If true they are in a world of hurt.

And remember I'm the corporate apolgist here. If true then lotta federal and stAte laws broken. Why no criminal charges is the biggest concern.

This is just as big a problem as the incident. The cops sure will arrest a kid at the drop of a hat, but turn the tables in a MUCH more serious offense and the cops are sitting on their hands?

Is this system is still in place?!? D:

 

[imagoon]

nope. wiping it does not work.

Her's specifically. I work in corporate IT. I am well aware of BIOS level systems abilities and limitations.

 

[imagoon]

If it resides on the disk, it can be eliminated by FFR. Remove the partition tables and it removes everything on the disk.

Now, I can see embedded solutions using either custom BIOS or custom drives that could survive a FFR by either holding the monitoring software in the BIOS or in a protected partition that the disc controller does not allow the OS to see, but that seems as though it would be prohibitively expensive.

In most cases such as computrace, the 'tracer' can live in the BIOS and report the IP and UUID of the machine to computrace's servers without the HDD in the machine. This assumes that the tracer is actually there and built in by the provider. The HDD portion can be blown away which eliminates the remote connection side of it.

Basically the BIOS portion is pretty limited (mostly pinging back the location and the ability to blow away the HDD on command). The software on the machine provides things like asset information. Format the HDD and the tracer still runs and your HDD can be randomly wiped from remote but it can't access most hardware anymore.

 

[Eli]

It must be. This complete lack of trust between the government and citizens seems very strange to me. I grew up in a place where we deal with the government on a daily basis, and there's a certain level of trust that comes with that. Where I live, the government owns and controls our water supply, electricity, much of the telephone network, all hospitals, all recycling and waste centers, all roads and highways, all schools and universities (private schools are extremely rare), all jails and prisons, and in some parts of the country they control all minerals, oil, natural gas, and trees.

Not much noise is made about constitutional violations because most of us don't even know what the constitution says. Canada didn't have a real constitution until 1982, and our rights are never talked about in school or on television.


Doing this might count as vandalizing government property if you don't have written permission to format it. Remember that this is not your computer. It's a school computer that you are borrowing.

It's not a complete lack of trust between citizens and it's government, its our laws. It's in the same privacy vein as why a hotel/motel cannot install cameras in its hotel rooms, or why there cannot be cameras in bathrooms. In the US, we have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Now, the government has every right to circumvent these laws if, beyond a reasonable doubt, there is suspected illegal activity. At that point, a warrant will be issued and the police can wire tap, monitor, and do just about anything else they want in that vein. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. Every citizen has these rights .. until the scale tips towards illegality.. which in itself is kinda scary, honestly. That's why people in general are weary about things like the Patriot Act, that give the government even more power in these matters.

Let's not forget that we're talking about minors here, too. That changes everything. If these were university level adults, they would still be in a world of hurt. But because it involves minors, its twice as bad. They have violated the rights of both the children and the parents.

These kind of actions go against our very core values as citizens of the US.

 

[TechBoyJK]

You voluntarily took the laptop into your home. How is that not consent?

If you hand me a baby monitor and I take it into my house, am I allowed to sue you when I find out you were listening to it the whole time? I willingly took it, didn't I? Doesn't that mean I gave consent?

Are you trolling or just really, really ignorant?

How, in any circumstance, is it legal for anybody to look through a webcam at a minor? I can understand if on school property, but if I found out some teacher or principal was able to look at my kids, in their bedroom, without their consent, and they actually did it, wow, they'd probably get hurt.