No charges...
Which is the bit I find amazing. Surely, somewhere, somebody should be going to jail for this massive invasion of privacy.
The US school which used laptop cameras to spy on its students has agreed to pay damages to settle a civil suit brought as a result of the scandal. The Lower Merion School District in Philadelphia used tracking software from LanRev and laptops' internal cameras to take covert pictures of students. The school has now agreed to …
@AC: It looks like the damages and costs were paid by the school's insurers, who also took the decision not to defend the case further. I dare say insurance premiums will rise for this school and perhaps all schools as a result, and it's possible that the school will have paid an excess, but I don't suppose either amount will have the kind of impact you imply.
Fifty. Eight. Thousand. Photos. And no criminal intent.
So what *was* their intent? What did they think they were doing it for? That's not any kind of casual operation, it must have had some specific reason.
If it wasn't to get photos of undressed students, then the only thing that seems to make sense is that they were spying on students simply because they could.
They had the ability to watch students without them knowing, so they just went ahead and did so. Presumably convincing themselves that they were in charge of the students and supposed to look after them so it was OK to do this.
After all, children don't have any real rights, and the school knows what's best for them better than they or their parents do.
Grab all the information possible, just in case someone somewhere is doing something you don't approve of.
That would certainly fit with the way they were found out. They saw a student eating something and decided "Oh! It must be Drugs!". Because that's how they were justifying it to themselves - that they might spot just that kind of thing happening, and could Save that poor child.
And they'd persuaded themselves of this so much that they went ahead and accused him, and blew the whole thing. They had convinced themselves so strongly that they were justified that they didn't realise the rest of the world might not agree.
It's for their Own Good!
No criminal intent.
So, let me get this principle straight in my mind.
Massive invasion of privacy.
Got found out.
Reason given: protecting the public (of course).
No criminal intent there, so no prosecution, even though the law was clearly broken.
Hmm, I can't see how that principle could undermine anything, so go right ahead. If it looks like a dead rat that chocked on a rotten piece of fish, and smells like one too, then it probably is.
They can't give people the real reasons for these things, otherwise they'd have something concrete to rally against. Better to slowly boil that frog.
Jebus almighty, it's like the Daily Mail comments page in here!
Ok, so which criminal statutory provision do you think they are in breach of? Having stated that* you now need to show mens rea and actus reus. AR may be moderately straightforward (depending on which statutory provision you picked) but MR can be extremely hard to prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. Sometimes negligence is enough, sometimes it ain't. Ofc you all know this and work as CPS officers/state prosecutors.....Oh wait...
As to AC (she told me she was 18 officer) - two words : strict liability.
Re: the facts of the case - to even know if what the school did was reasonable you'd need to know where the pics were taken (at the kids homes, at school, or both?), what triggered the taking of the pics (prohibited activity, just logging on to the PC?), what T&Cs the PCs were issued subject to, the age of the kids, if the parents signed paperwork prior to the issue of the PCs, what that paperwork (if any) said and the rather complicated contract law argument as to whether the parents were bound by all of the terms of that paperwork, how the pics were stored, how long for and for what purpose, etc.
Without that it's just a bunch of ppl thinking "shit, if that was me they'd have pics of me wanking off over Justin Beiber! I better argue against it!!!"
</rant> I'm off to take the lithium now...
---
*lolz, I know - nobody bothered, they were too busy thinking of the children.
...if you bothered to look into the case a little you'd know the kids were photographed at home and there certainly wasn't a signed contract with parents to let them do so! The "criminal intent" was the deliberate invasion of privacy in the first place, never mind what was or wasn't done with the images, but hey, they're kids so the don't have any rights. That's why the school was sued, because of the failure of the police to make a case, when in reality the local DA should have been over this like a rash, but then who knows what other skeletons these 'public servants' have in their closet that could have come out in court?
Ah, lack of intent doesn't _usually_ inhibit prosecutors in the US. The prisons are stuffed with people serving lengthy sentences for what would, in civilized countries, be considered accidents. This case was no accident - they didn't accidentally leave the cameras on and accidentally record thousands of covert pictures of juveniles, so intent is a no-brainer. Normally in America the prosecution would threaten them with 5000 years in jail, and let them plea-bargain it down to a year, a year's income fine and life on the sex offenders list. That they didn't do so in this case is pure politics, and deserves to be protested.
"The school has now agreed to pay $175,000 (£110,000) to Blake Robins, one of the students, $10,000 (£6,300) to Jalil Hassan and $425,000 (£268,000) to their lawyers."
Is there a reason why one kid gets £110 000 and the other only gets £6300? That seems a bit off. Is there some background reason I'm unaware of?
They went to an awful lot of effort to do what they did 58,000 times. Its seems a few of this times would be likely to have involved minors with their kit off, something that should have been rather obvious to anyone who thought it through. Since a fair few people were involved in conceiving, approving and setting this up it seems unreasonable to suggest that no one guessed a few laws would be broken - yet they proceeded anyway.
I'm fairly stunned by the combative statement from the schools weasel-in-chief; I would have thought a bit of contrite humble pie consumption might have been more appropriate than a broad hint they were right all along.
Prosecutions or no, anyone remotely involved in seriously distasteful crap like this should never be allowed near schools, other human beings or public office again.
It's interesting that the school had to be sued - I would have expected a criminal prosecution to take place for the violation of privacy, and taking pictures of minors. After all, you can't take a picture of your own kids anymore without some idiot accusing you of being a pedophile so I find the leniency staggering.
Actually, to do it right the prosecution should be for the idiot who took the decision to go ahead with this, that way you don't remove resources from the school itself.
So I have to ask why are the federal prosecutors so adamantly clinging to such an implausible argument?
Or more to the point, who is pressuring the federal prosecutors into giving this implausible argument?
Who stands to loose if this case was prosecuted as criminal intent?
Could it be the federal prosecutors didn't press charges because they knew that would have created a legal precedent against state workers spying. So they diverted it into becoming just a civil law case.
A legal precedent against state workers spying would have helped stop future acts of state spying. So its very interesting the federal prosecutors chose not to create that legal precedent.
The way privacy is being killed off around the world these days, people very much need more protection against increasing spying, so its very interesting the federal prosecutors chose not to create a legal precedent that would have helped increase people's privacy.
Therefore sadly it looks like they really do want more state spying. :(
"Although we would have valued the opportunity to finally share an important, untold story in the courtroom, we recognise that in this case, a lengthy, costly trial would benefit no one. It would have been an unfair distraction for our students and staff and it would have cost taxpayers additional dollars that are better devoted to education."
Translation: The school still thinks it was justified, so it wanted to go to court, but its lawyers know better, so the insurance company pulled the plug.
Not only that, you can bet the Lower Merion school district will now be paying much higher premiums for it's tort liability insurance from here on out.
School boards in Pennsylvania are elected, and most of their funding comes from property taxes that the school districts there levy on real-estate owners located within the district. Pennsylvania's personal income tax is much lower than other easter US states, and the state's contribution to school district revenue represents a much smaller proportion of school district budgets, relative to other eastern states which have higher income taxes but also contribute more money at the state level to public education, thus helping to keep their local property taxes significantly lower than is normal in Pennsylvania.
The net effect is that local property owners in Lower Merion will pay a larger chunk of the cost of their school district's mistake than they might have elsewhere. These people vote as well as pay property taxes, so I expect there will be good turnouts at the next few local elections involving school board members. With US voters, the general political mantra today is "when in doubt, throw the bums out".
Expect tears in some quarters.
"finally share an important, untold story in the courtroom"
If the "untold story" is so relevant, why isn't it being told!!!! There's no requirement for the story only to be told in the courtroom - why not just tell us it then we can continue the "trial by media" and decide if the school was guilty or not.
There may well have been intent, the issue I suspect is proof of said intent.
Can you prove that this was the result of the school wanting to gather this info, or was it a monumental cock up with some features enabled without thought/knowledge/understanding of the implications?
The decision to prosecute would be based on evidence available and I suspect that without a whistle blower within the school all you really have is speculation... (and a shed load of pictures)
...........
Just lucky no one in the school had organised the pics into Fit/Munter Directories.
"Can you prove that this was the result of the school wanting to gather this info, or was it a monumental cock up with some features enabled without thought/knowledge/understanding of the implications?"
To receive and store 58.000 photographs you need an infrastructure. Those photos use a good chunk of hdd real state, and needed a lot of bandwidth just to reach the school. So yeah, there were lots of people who knew about the photos being taken and stored, and lots of people who watched those photos -as stated by some articles on this subject. The "no criminal intent" part is just crap, as every fucking body knows that spying on someone at his own home and taking/storing the photographs obtained is totally illegal.
If any particular citizen did the same even in a much smaller scale he would be in the slammer for decades, and with good reason. These 'public servants' got Scott free and had their constituents paying the bill. It stinks.
"1. 2300 laptops Installed with spy software!
2. The software was enabled!
3. Collected X thousands of pictures!
Decision? There was "NO INTENT"??!?!
Just staggering! Just, absolutely freaking mind-blowing!"
Well the next time you take a picture of a minor you can also say there was no criminal intent... I'm sure that'll work, after all, the goverment did it..
Before all of you keep posting at this outrageous invasion of privacy and the criminal intent, why dont you find out WHY the pictures were taken?
The laptops contained software to help them combat theft. System takes pictures every 15mins and I assume broadcasts them when it is believed the laptop is stolen. The issue was that the some of the pictures were triggered when they shouldnt have been , ie a laptop werent stolen. One case was because the student had not renewed the insurance allowing him to take the laptop off campus and when the laptop went off campus it started snapping.
Thats why there is no criminal intent. It is also probably why there were probably few students that got paid out.
Cant say I like it but it isnt some pervi scam that many of you are suggesting so get a grip!
"a lengthy, costly trial would benefit no one. ".... except the lawyers I would think. The mind-boggling thing is that even with a settlement avoiding a lengthy, costly trial, "the school's insurers had already spent $1.2m". And "The school has now agreed to pay $175,000 to Blake Robins, $10,000 to Jalil Hassan and $425,000 to their lawyers." (Total $610,000, with presumably the bulk of the other $590k going to the school's lawyers). So just over 15% of the payout went to the injured parties, and 80-odd% to the sharks.
Way to go, justice! Not.
It was part of a standard security system to track the laptop if it was stolen, the admin was supposed to not look at any of the pictures unless a machine was stolen.
They were handing out a couple of million quids worths of macbooks.
And the parents presumably agreed to this with some click through EULA
So no criminal intent - bloody stupid - but not criminal.
This post has been deleted by its author
"The school has now agreed to pay $175,000 (£110,000) to Blake Robins, one of the students, $10,000 (£6,300) to Jalil Hassan and $425,000 (£268,000) to their lawyers."
Oh, Bloody Hell. Lawyers got more. Than both the 'hurt' victims.
Effing surprise there...
I'm sorry, I'm fuc*king gobsmacked. But, being in the USA, I can easily believe it.
O, and @ Pahhh. So I guess you know completely what they were doing when the camera snapped them. Bit of "How's your Father" with another college mate, Campus, or Camp, doesn't really matter. Or exploring the 'heavens' with the handy help of Joddrell Bank....
Pah. Back of my hand to yer.
The US is just one big joke these days. The fact that a school could actually implement a system like this without fully comprehending the legal implications stretches credulity. The fact the federal prosecutors failed to pursue the matter is clearly not in the public interest. The damages seem rather high for the individuals involved, regardless of the severity of the breach of privacy and the split of the damages awarded (i.e. mainly to the lawyers) is just disgusting.
There are about another hundred questions that haven't been clarified in the story but suffice to say I grow increasingly uncomfortable that this is the country that styles itself as the 'World's policeman'.
I guess there's nobody doing anything bad to anyone in Britain, then, is there? I mean, if there were, your cherry-picking a single example of monumental idiocy, among 250+m people, as proof of an entire country's depravity would seem quite hypocritical.
Apparently you also missed the bit where we kicked out Bush and elected Obama, who is proceeding to curtail the aforementioned "world's policeman" type behavior - which, incidentally, was heavily supported by the guys that *you* just kicked out after an even longer stint in office.
There are plenty of evil acts and stupid mistakes going on in every country in the world. Pretending that the US is the only country in the world where bad things happen is not only absurd, it makes you look like you think you're still living in the sun-never-sets Victorian glory days.
I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with David W (an American perhaps?). Though I still have reservations about the 'Team America World Police' thing which is pervasive even though the splendid Mr Obama (for so he is) has changed the White House's direction on this issue. I look forward to the same change in the general population's mindset (with more hope than expectation).
The reason your comments have been downvoted, and the reason why people are complaining about the school being let off because of "no criminal intent" is the monstrous double standard that has been laid bare here. We've all known for years that there's "one law for Them and another law for Us" but never before has there been such concrete, in-your-face proof of it.
Consider it: If you or I sold laptops that snapped pictures of children because the laptop might have been stolen, and had those laptops transmit said pictures to our computers, you or I would be looking at hard time for child pornography, and the question of "criminal intent" wouldn't even have been raised - and if it was, would have been ignored in any court. But when a statutory authority (in this case a school) commits the same offence, there's "no criminal intent" and the people involved get off scot-free.
What it establishes, beyond any doubt, is the agenda of political correctness, the politics of fear and the the misapplication of law to create a culture of oppression and tyranny that robs the average Joe of his freedom and serves only the will of the rich and powerful. This is one concrete thing we can point to and say "They're allowed to do it, be We aren't! Why is that?"
here's the _real_ reason why one of the children got $175k and the other got $10k.
<http://kwtv.images.worldnow.com/images/12889282_BG1.jpg>
Hint: the one who got the $10k is on the right. Who wants to bet that if he'd been the only one to sue he'd not have got a penny?
<exit, stage right, whistling 'Dixie'> <and, yes, I'm damn pissed.>
... Michael Moore - or Louis Theroux - or both - to really get to the bottom of this. If these people are going to get off scott free, then at least let's have a full scale media persecution.
If my kids school ever does this to my kids I will be down there with a truck bomb. Oh wait - I could actually get into more trouble just for saying that than these teachers got for their extended pervathon.
I dont mind being downvoted. I dont mind being corrected either. My statement wasnt there to gain popularity contest or to shock.
What I did try to do, and obviously completely failed, is try to attach an element of perspective to this whole situation.
There is so much written about double standards of the state and our continuing erosion of our privacy and people being deliberately pervi.
I am father and I really care about issues like this. Nothing would appaul me more than the idea of some pedo watching my son. But I see this case for what it is. A misguided attempt to secure equipment. But somehow you guys have all turned this into state run pervs being protectected by a the state. Well I am calling it out as I see it and I think most of the comments are complete bullshit!! - downvote me , I dont care, most of your guys lost common sense it seems.