If the kid didn't pay the insurance, but then took the laptop home (violating the contractual agreement) at that point wasn't the laptop technically stolen and warranted the activation?

I don't just walk out of the office with the my printer and plan to bring it back. Nor do I walk out of walmart with t-shirts I haven't paid for. It's called theft...

Sry no link. Get over it.

4/20/2010 1:23:22 AM

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20100415_Lawyer__Laptops_took_thousands_of_photos.html

4/20/2010 1:39:45 AM

4/20/2010 6:19:15 AM

Quote :

"What we do not expect is to be under visual surveillance in our homes, in our bedrooms and, most especially, we do not expect it for our children in our homes.""

then don't steal a damn laptop. I have no problem with this system.

4/20/2010 8:42:18 AM

Quote :

"More than once, the motion asserts, the camera on Robbins' school-issued laptop took photos of Robbins as he slept in his bed."

4/20/2010 8:46:45 AM

Quote :

"The district has said it turned on the camera in Robbins' computer because his family had not paid the $55 insurance fee and he was not authorized to take the laptop home."

4/20/2010 9:09:54 AM

But if I recall correctly--they weren't allowed to use their own laptops, and were forced to use these in order to turn in their homework. They might not have paid the "insurance fee" out of principle, in which case, who can argue it was stolen?

[Edited on April 20, 2010 at 9:14 AM. Reason : ]

4/20/2010 9:11:17 AM

They took regular photos of him in states of undress. They had a private website that was a collection of these photos that others could look at. They talked back and forth with each other about the "unfolding drama" between students.

You're really defending this?

http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=588741

[Edited on April 20, 2010 at 9:12 AM. Reason : ]

4/20/2010 9:11:30 AM

how does an unpaid $55 insurance fee warrant thousands of pics

and why the fuck is it broadcasting pics and not the location of where the fuck its connected to online to track a lost/stolen laptop

[Edited on April 20, 2010 at 9:14 AM. Reason : .]

4/20/2010 9:13:14 AM

I'm defending the system. Not the school's abuse of the system.

4/20/2010 9:13:58 AM

Aren't you a conservative? I would think that you would oppose an invasion of personal liberty.

^^Because they were just using it to take photos of the students and spy on them. It had nothing to do with security. That's just a cover story.

[Edited on April 20, 2010 at 9:16 AM. Reason : ]

4/20/2010 9:15:13 AM

i know, its just baffling how they can possibly use that in any sense of a cover story.

i imagine someone is going to agree with them though and decide this is the right way to go about doing things

4/20/2010 9:17:12 AM

^^^How can you defend the system when this is true?

Quote :

"Details continue to trickle out about Lower Merion School District, their MacBook loan program, and the unsavoury security practices they used to keep those computers safe. The latest: the school-supplied MacBooks were required for classes and students could not use their own personal machines in their place. Worse yet, it was impossible to disable the laptops’ iSight cameras and attempting to circumvent the school’s security software was grounds for expulsion."

[Edited on April 20, 2010 at 9:22 AM. Reason : ]

4/20/2010 9:21:43 AM

Quote :

"Aren't you a conservative? I would think that you would oppose an invasion of personal liberty."

back to the old political labeling game eh? And this is not an issue of personal liberties - it's an issue of someone stealing a laptop and then the owning entity using that stolen device's abilities to find it. It's similar to bait cars or bikes, where a car thief steals it and then the police track it (and yes, some have cameras). The laptop issue is a bit different because of the range of it's intrusion, but I think that outweighs a thief's rights. Now, the school's abuse of the system is horrible and they should all be fired; I was just commenting on the security system.

Quote :

"Quote: "Details continue to trickle out about Lower Merion School District, their MacBook loan program, and the unsavoury security practices they used to keep those computers safe. The latest: the school-supplied MacBooks were required for classes and students could not use their own personal machines in their place. Worse yet, it was impossible to disable the laptops’ iSight cameras and attempting to circumvent the school’s security software was grounds for expulsion.""

what does this have to do with the security system? I see nothing in here that points out how the system was bad? Students were required to use the laptops; if they wanted to take them home, they had to pay. Furthermore, disabling the security system was disallowed... not the student's computer, so the school has the right to place security software on them

my real problem with that is the school forcing apples on the students..

[Edited on April 20, 2010 at 9:32 AM. Reason : .]

4/20/2010 9:23:14 AM

^This.

4/20/2010 9:27:53 AM

^^Because the "system" is impossible to implement without the potential for abuse. Obviously putting this kind of technology into a school official's hands is a mistake, but if you were to have this system, what other option is there? And forcing someone to use a school issued laptop, then charging them money on top of that, is ridiculous.

[Edited on April 20, 2010 at 9:30 AM. Reason : ]

4/20/2010 9:28:27 AM

^so we shouldn't implement things that can be abused? every law and governmental program is abused. no reason to say fuck it now. and apparently you only had to pay to take it home... and it was cheap... still nothing wrong with the system.

Was the security system not disclosed to students? If it wasn't, then that's more ammo against the admin; however, if it was, it's the kids own damn fault for being stupid.

[Edited on April 20, 2010 at 9:34 AM. Reason : ,]

4/20/2010 9:31:26 AM

I think we're referring to the "system" as two different things. I'm talking about the system of implementation--like start to finish. I think you're referring to the actual technology. If that's the case, I don't have a problem with the technology per se, but I think it can be better. Taking pictures every 15 minutes is a stretch, perhaps 1 picture and a location given would be better.

^And no, the system was not disclosed at all to the students or parents. And when the "green light" of the security camera caused some students to question the IT person, they were told that it was a glitch.

[Edited on April 20, 2010 at 9:35 AM. Reason : ]

4/20/2010 9:34:25 AM

^oh, well fuck that. get rid of the school's staff. yeh, I'm talking more about the technology than the school's policy (though I don't believe there were any legal problems with requiring the students to use the school laptops, pay if they wanted to take them home, and having the security system on the laptops take pictures, etc.; the legal problems, at least to me were: not disclosing information about the system to students/parents and the obvious abuse of the pictures taken)

[Edited on April 20, 2010 at 9:38 AM. Reason : .]

4/20/2010 9:35:49 AM

on a side note....shouldnt he have the lid closed on the laptop when he's asleep anyways?

4/20/2010 9:36:30 AM

And this was all discovered when the student was disciplined for "improper behavior at home." They thought he had drugs, and it was candy or something. So, I'm not sure how they can justify this saying it was "stolen."

4/20/2010 9:37:14 AM

Quote :

"forcing someone to use a school issued laptop, then charging them money on top of that, is ridiculous."

Sure, I agree. And that should be changed within the school system. But until it is, you need to pay the fee before taking the laptop home.

4/20/2010 9:38:10 AM

oh, dammit I need to read up on this then. last I read, he/his parents didn't pay some security fee to take the laptop home, thus the school reported it as stolen.

4/20/2010 9:38:55 AM

Quote :

"it was impossible to disable the laptops’ iSight cameras "

I believe electrical tape would work, I guess that's too low-tech. What about using it when you're working on whatever and then powering it down when you're done.

4/20/2010 9:39:23 AM

^^That is true. But he was called into the principle's office for eating Mike&Ikes and handed the photo, and that's why the lawsuit was brought. Also, I think most of the time it was activated for the security/stolen purpose, but 15 of the activations they didn't have a reason for.

^A lot of students did have duct tape over the camera and the light, because they thought it was "creepy." More probably would have if they knew it had the potential to take a picture without authorization.

[Edited on April 20, 2010 at 9:50 AM. Reason : ]

4/20/2010 9:41:38 AM

I think house arrest ankle bracelets are a violation of civil liberties

4/20/2010 9:49:35 AM

Quote :

"But he was called into the principle's office for eating Mike&Ikes and handed the photo, and that's why the lawsuit was brought. Also, I think most of the time it was activated for the security/stolen purpose, but 15 of the activations they didn't have a reason for."

ah, sleazy and gross.

4/20/2010 9:52:19 AM

better than being handed a pic of himself and the log of him accessing something like redtube...

4/20/2010 9:55:00 AM