Find the Latest Resources in Education Today
SUBSCRIBE
Official: FBI probing school webcam spying case
District admits remotely activating webcams in student laptops, but only to locate missing machines
The FBI reportedly is probing whether any federal wiretap laws were violated.
A Pennsylvania school district accused of secretly switching on laptop computer webcams inside students’ homes is under investigation by federal authorities, a law-enforcement official with knowledge of the case told the Associated Press (AP).
For its part, the district says it never used webcam images to monitor or discipline students and believes one of its administrators has been “unfairly portrayed and unjustly attacked.”
The Federal Bureau of Investigation will look into whether any federal wiretap or computer-intrusion laws were violated by Lower Merion School District officials, the official—who spoke on condition of anonymity—told the AP on Feb. 19.
Days after a student filed suit over the practice, Lower Merion officials acknowledged Feb. 19 that they remotely activated webcams 42 times in the past 14 months, but only to find missing student laptops—which they noted might include “a loaner computer that, against regulations, might be taken off campus.” They insist they never did so to spy on students, as the student’s family claimed in the federal lawsuit.
“Despite some reports to the contrary, be assured that the security-tracking software has been completely disabled,” Superintendent Christopher W. McGinley said in a statement on the district’s web site. Officials vowed a comprehensive review that McGinley said should result in stronger privacy policies.
Families were not informed of the possibility the webcams might be activated in their homes without their permission in the paperwork students sign when they get the computers, district spokesman Doug Young said.
“It’s clear what was in place was insufficient, and that’s unacceptable,” Young said.
The district has suspended the practice amid the lawsuit and the accompanying uproar from students, the community, and privacy advocates. District officials have hired outside counsel to review the past webcam activations and advise the district on related issues, Young said.
Remote-activation software can be used to capture keystrokes, send commands over the internet, or turn computers into listening devices by turning on built-in microphones. People often use it for legitimate purposes—to access computers from remote locations, for example. But hackers can use it to steal passwords, and spouses to track the whereabouts of partners or lovers.
The Pennsylvania case shows how even well-intentioned plans can go awry if officials fail to understand the technology and its potential consequences, privacy experts said. Compromising images from inside a student’s bedroom could fall into the hands of rogue school staff or otherwise be spread across the internet, they said.
“What about the [potential] abuse of power from higher-ups, trying to find out more information about the head of the PTA?” wondered Ari Schwartz, vice president at the Center for Democracy and Technology. “If you don’t think about the privacy and security consequences of using this kind of technology, you run into problems.”
The FBI opened its investigation after news of the suit broke on Feb. 18, the law-enforcement official said. Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman also might investigate, she said Feb. 19.
Lower Merion, an affluent district in Philadelphia’s suburbs, issues Apple laptops to all 2,300 students at its two high schools. Only two employees in the technology department were authorized to activate the cameras—and only to locate missing laptops, Young said. The remote activations captured images but never recorded sound, he said.
No one had complained before Harriton High School student Blake Robbins and his parents, Michael and Holly Robbins, filed their lawsuit on Feb. 16, he said.
According to the suit, Harriton vice principal Lindy Matsko told Blake on Nov. 11 that the school thought he was “engaged in improper behavior in his home.” She allegedly cited as evidence a photograph “embedded” in his school-issued laptop.
8 Responses to Official: FBI probing school webcam spying case
You must be logged in to post a comment Login
blumanfry
February 21, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Its amazing to me that these laptops were distributed to the students without properly informing them that this type of software existed on the laptop. Common sense would dictate this. Administrators not understanding the technology or the consequences of deploying this type of monitoring application can be pretty hazardous to the district’s image. It amazes me that no one could foresee that viewing a student in their home without their knowledge would be a “bad thing”. Did these school administrators miss the part where they have to follow laws and common decency as well? Common sense people!
Shane Crockett
———————————–
http://www.blumanfry.com
http://twitter.com/blumanfry
blumanfry
February 21, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Its amazing to me that these laptops were distributed to the students without properly informing them that this type of software existed on the laptop. Common sense would dictate this. Administrators not understanding the technology or the consequences of deploying this type of monitoring application can be pretty hazardous to the district’s image. It amazes me that no one could foresee that viewing a student in their home without their knowledge would be a “bad thing”. Did these school administrators miss the part where they have to follow laws and common decency as well? Common sense people!
Shane Crockett
———————————–
http://www.blumanfry.com
http://twitter.com/blumanfry
kevinsmith5
February 22, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Great. Now every time you try to issue computers for a 1-to-1 program there will be parents who are afraid this will happen and will refuse to let their children participate. Nice work on the part of these administrators…..
kevinsmith5
February 22, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Great. Now every time you try to issue computers for a 1-to-1 program there will be parents who are afraid this will happen and will refuse to let their children participate. Nice work on the part of these administrators…..
twinkie1cat
February 22, 2010 at 10:05 pm
It should have been part of the program that students knew that the system could turn on their webcan for security purposes. What if the little boy had decided to change clothes with webcam on. The district could have been charged with possession of child pornography, much worse than what happened. And whose business was it if he was selling drugs other than his parents? Some people always assume the worst in students.
One more use, however might be if a student was being abused he could activate the software and get a recording of the abuser without him or her knowing it. This would be especially useful if the student had not been able to get help because an adult was influential.
twinkie1cat
February 22, 2010 at 10:05 pm
It should have been part of the program that students knew that the system could turn on their webcan for security purposes. What if the little boy had decided to change clothes with webcam on. The district could have been charged with possession of child pornography, much worse than what happened. And whose business was it if he was selling drugs other than his parents? Some people always assume the worst in students.
One more use, however might be if a student was being abused he could activate the software and get a recording of the abuser without him or her knowing it. This would be especially useful if the student had not been able to get help because an adult was influential.
blumanfry
February 25, 2010 at 2:39 pm
In reference to the use of the remote software to activate for recording an abuser in action, this would have to be something that would need to be initiated by the user (abused student). I believe in most (if not all) states; as well as federally, even if there was some sort of abuse going on, for a 3rd party, such as the school, to try and record that abuse remotely there would have to be some sort of legal warrant in place, otherwise it is breaching privacy, wire-tapping and intrusion laws. Now if the student could activate the laptop in some way to record it themselves, this is different than the school admins activating it in a remote or automated fashion. This would be basically the same action as if the student checked out a video camera from the school library, and set it up to record the abuse themselves. It’s the schools equipment, but the abused student themselves would be doing the recording. It’s really who is doing the recording, etc. Similar to copyright, the student should then be able to use that video in any means they wish as they are the producer of the video (ie, turn the tape over to police/school officials/etc). I’m not an expert on this by any means, so you would have to refer to your local and federal laws.
Shane Crockett
———————————–
http://www.blumanfry.com
http://twitter.com/blumanfry
blumanfry
February 25, 2010 at 2:39 pm
In reference to the use of the remote software to activate for recording an abuser in action, this would have to be something that would need to be initiated by the user (abused student). I believe in most (if not all) states; as well as federally, even if there was some sort of abuse going on, for a 3rd party, such as the school, to try and record that abuse remotely there would have to be some sort of legal warrant in place, otherwise it is breaching privacy, wire-tapping and intrusion laws. Now if the student could activate the laptop in some way to record it themselves, this is different than the school admins activating it in a remote or automated fashion. This would be basically the same action as if the student checked out a video camera from the school library, and set it up to record the abuse themselves. It’s the schools equipment, but the abused student themselves would be doing the recording. It’s really who is doing the recording, etc. Similar to copyright, the student should then be able to use that video in any means they wish as they are the producer of the video (ie, turn the tape over to police/school officials/etc). I’m not an expert on this by any means, so you would have to refer to your local and federal laws.
Shane Crockett
———————————–
http://www.blumanfry.com
http://twitter.com/blumanfry