Pennsylvania schools are watching you!

[Wapiti]

PA is watching you! (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ents.html)

What the hell were they thinking? This one baffles me. So you are watching a kid whack off on (apparently likely looking at porn I'm guessing) on the schools laptop while at his house using a system developed for "theft prevention" and you go and rat yourself out thinking that you are in the right because the kid shouldn't be doing that, especially with school property, and don't think of the ramifications of what you are about to do and the impact it will have once made public. They(school) in effect told the world they were looking at child porn???? hmmm... And these are the teachers and faculty of a "school." Brilliant. I find this funny, sad but funny in a way.

Questions resurface with regard to cell phone usage and reasonable expectation of privacy and what if the government or private industry is watching you via your camera phone, it is possible. But it's ok cause you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Oh for a little piece of tape.

[S3raphymn]

Class-action suit's going to bury them. Hard.

[AaronSheffield]

My initial thought was to wonder why the school would even care about "improper behaviour at home", but given the number of "honor codes" for sports and other extracurricular activities and the precedents that those activities can, in fact, compel behaviour codes off campus a part of me wonders if the HS official thought (mistakenly) that the spying was thereby acceptable.

Also, the article never mentions what the "improper behaviour" was. There is currently no evidence available to us that would support Wapiti's claim that the plaintiff was engaged in masturbation. The portion of the article discussing the potential for the issue to become child pornography is purely speculative and is not based on any information that is currently available to the public about the case.

Really though, I'm amazed that the district thought any policy that allowed remote webcam activation would be acceptable. Software to monitor what the student installed/downloaded or what websites were visited is understandable, but the webcam part should have been pretty clearly a terrible idea.

[Wapiti]

True but lets speculate for a moment. What possible behaviour would be so haneous that the school would take it upon itself to confront the boy and make known to all that they had the power to look into the childs home? Wiping a bugger on the keyboard monitor, typing incorrectly, bad ergonomics????

My theory, I think that there were multiple involved in the viewing of the webcams from the school and I believe that they saw something they shouldn't have and in an effort to possibly cover the situation up, someone thought they'd try to make it out to be the childs fault for his "improper behaivour" regardless of what it may be. Because invariably, if more than one was involved in the viewing of webcams in someones home it is likely that it would eventually leak out. And, although not validated as sexual in nature, there could be criminal penalties involved. But this is only my wild imagination running away. I would be even more so disappointed with those in the school to learn it was something less of an offense such as punching his sister or what not.

[ArtistTyrant]

this um...amazes me...what is wrong with these people? don't they understand the concept of privacy 0_o? and btw, how the hell is masturbation "improper conduct at home"??? wtf "mom, dad, i got an F in Chemistry and got kicked out of the baseball team because my school found out i masturbate while alone!"

[AaronSheffield]

True but lets speculate for a moment. What possible behaviour would be so haneous that the school would take it upon itself to confront the boy and make known to all that they had the power to look into the childs home? Wiping a bugger on the keyboard monitor, typing incorrectly, bad ergonomics????

Alcohol? Drugs? Tobacco?

It is no stretch at all to believe that an overzealous HS administrator might confront a child for any of those three activities. In fact, it's much more likely that they would confront the child over those activities (which are clearly illegal) than over masturbation, which is perfectly legal and, frankly, which any administrator would know that HS students are going to be doing anyway.

My theory, I think that there were multiple involved in the viewing of the webcams from the school and I believe that they saw something they shouldn't have and in an effort to possibly cover the situation up, someone thought they'd try to make it out to be the childs fault for his "improper behaivour" regardless of what it may be. Because invariably, if more than one was involved in the viewing of webcams in someones home it is likely that it would eventually leak out. And, although not validated as sexual in nature, there could be criminal penalties involved.

This doesn't make sense. If you're trying to hush something up, you don't show someone proof that it happened. If the goal was to cover the situation up, the monitoring software would have been quietly disabled and the webcam controls removed or deactivated. Much more logical and much less likely to result in being found out.

But this is only my wild imagination running away. I would be even more so disappointed with those in the school to learn it was something less of an offense such as punching his sister or what not.

I have to assume that you mean a mild shoving match of the sort common among siblings and not a full-on beat-down. Because I just can't fathom a world in which domestic violence is "less of an offense" than masturbation.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 11:10 AM ----------

this um...amazes me...what is wrong with these people? don't they understand the concept of privacy 0_o? and btw, how the hell is masturbation "improper conduct at home"??? wtf "mom, dad, i got an F in Chemistry and got kicked out of the baseball team because my school found out i masturbate while alone!"

*sigh*

Read the article first, then comment. Otherwise you risk looking like a fool by repeating things that are pure speculation and have no supporting evidence.

[LordCorbin]

This would be more interesting if there was any hard evidence. There isnt in this article. Kid says he was confronted, School says no. I understand the idea of using the remote activation of the cam as a theft deterrent but you would think a school system bloated as they are with unneccesary bureaucracy would have undergone some serious CYA and notified the parents via signed wavers. That was just sloppy.

[Wapiti]

Alcohol? Drugs? Tobacco?

It is no stretch at all to believe that an overzealous HS administrator might confront a child for any of those three activities. In fact, it's much more likely that they would confront the child over those activities (which are clearly illegal) than over masturbation, which is perfectly legal and, frankly, which any administrator would know that HS students are going to be doing anyway.

Yes, absolutely. Quit messing with my sexual fantasy angle with this story man. :rolleyes: Quite possible but the grave indescretion here is that the child was confronted and if something illegal was done, the administrator is setting themself way out on a limb without the immediate involvement of law enforcement and parents at that point.


This doesn't make sense. If you're trying to hush something up, you don't show someone proof that it happened. If the goal was to cover the situation up, the monitoring software would have been quietly disabled and the webcam controls removed or deactivated. Much more logical and much less likely to result in being found out.
It's hard to follow but one involved was trying to take the high ground and preparing to make themself look better than the others involved so that the others would take the fall. Even if the software was quietly turned off and removed, eventually one would spill. You can't trust people to not release something of this nature and never tell a soul. Word would eventually leak and then there's the whole digital trail. Someone or someone's computer has pictures of soemthing. They're not all erased.



I have to assume that you mean a mild shoving match of the sort common among siblings and not a full-on beat-down. Because I just can't fathom a world in which domestic violence is "less of an offense" than masturbation.

Yes but a possible violation of "code of conduct."



*sigh*

Read the article first, then comment. Otherwise you risk looking like a fool by repeating things that are pure speculation and have no supporting evidence.


I did read the article(this time.) Have some imagination. Regardles off supoporting evidence, this was WRONG, so very wrong, regardless of what the student was doing and that is the main point here. [edit]ooops, apparently I didn't read that this quote was for someone else....

[ArtistTyrant]

uhuh...Sheffield...there isn't a whole lot of data if you didn't notice, i just went with a plausible story that would make sense considering how socialist/statist schools are nowadays =.= i dun look like a fool just because i have a little fun with a story :) you just look wound up over nothing :D

[Wapiti]

This would be more interesting if there was any hard evidence. There isnt in this article. Kid says he was confronted, School says no. I understand the idea of using the remote activation of the cam as a theft deterrent but you would think a school system bloated as they are with unneccesary bureaucracy would have undergone some serious CYA and notified the parents via signed wavers. That was just sloppy.

The school is not denying that they had the ability to remotely monitor the cameras yet state that it is a theft deterrent measure which is an admition that they can watch whoever, whenever is it not? They don't seem to be denying that fact.



OK, Theory #2. The kids making it all up because he and his girlfriend were doing the deed along with some qualoods (how to spell qualoods, hmmm) and booze. He had his mac out playing music the whole time and later learned that the school had the power to watch becasue of the "theft prevention." So he made up the story of being confronted to draw some attention to the fact that the school had the ability.

[ArtistTyrant]

if they want a theft deterrent measure, wouldn't it make more sense to have a GPS in the laptop?

[Wapiti]

And if it was strictly a deterrent measure wouldn't you tell everyone that theft deterrent measures were installed? So they would be less inclined to steal them and then quickly report theft ASAP so that such measures could be used?

[cannotseethe]

The first line of the article:


A Philadelphia-area school district finds itself under scrutiny after remotely activating a MacBook Web cam and capturing a young student engaging in "improper behavior at home."

and then

The student was confronted by a Harrington High School official and shown photographs of his actions. These photographs set off privacy alarms

I'm assuming he didn't know the camera was being monitored, which rules out things like flipping the bird and mooning. So here you have a teenage boy with a computer and an internet connection who thinks he's alone doing something a school official would refer to as "improper behavior." What activity, besides jerking off, is highly likely in this scenario?

[AaronSheffield]

Yes, absolutely. Quit messing with my sexual fantasy angle with this story man. :rolleyes: Quite possible but the grave indescretion here is that the child was confronted and if something illegal was done, the administrator is setting themself way out on a limb without the immediate involvement of law enforcement and parents at that point.

Fair enough. The issue I have is that the OP made it seem as though there had been confirmation that the observed act was, in fact, masturbation. I had to read the article to realise that the OP was your own speculation. Speculation is fine, but when it isn't presented clearly as speculation, it can cloud views on the issue and impede the discovery of facts.

It's hard to follow but one involved was trying to take the high ground and preparing to make themself look better than the others involved so that the others would take the fall. Even if the software was quietly turned off and removed, eventually one would spill. You can't trust people to not release something of this nature and never tell a soul. Word would eventually leak and then there's the whole digital trail. Someone or someone's computer has pictures of soemthing. They're not all erased.

I guess I can see someone reasoning that way, but it's still about the worst possible plan that one could come up with. Think about it. It involves showing the photos to the very person whose rights were violated and who is most likely to raise an uproar.

The "cover up" solution would have been to fire the person who used the software to spy on the boy. It could easily be played off as a single person violating the district's guidelines and spun to praise the district for their immediate response to the discovery.

Yes but a possible violation of "code of conduct."

Conceded.

[edit]ooops, apparently I didn't read that this quote was for someone else....

It happens, no worries.

[rahdam]

they busted a teenage male for jerking off?
are they going to bust the entire male population?
They do not need those cameras to prevent theft.
If the laptop goes missing, the student is responsible, charge them; if they do not pay, they do not graduate.

[Wapiti]

Fair enough. The issue I have is that the OP made it seem as though there had been confirmation that the observed act was, in fact, masturbation. I had to read the article to realise that the OP was your own speculation. Speculation is fine, but when it isn't presented clearly as speculation, it can cloud views on the issue and impede the discovery of facts.

It does make for a good entertainment though and grabbing your attention at least to the point that I choose to make with the article. Whatever the student was doing is not the problem here at all in the least. If the story were written that he/she were observed doing his/her homework and showed the photos and rewarded the next day at school, the root issue is the same. That the school had the ability to do so and did not disclose it in anyway is where they are going to run into issues.


I guess I can see someone reasoning that way, but it's still about the worst possible plan that one could come up with. Think about it. It involves showing the photos to the very person whose rights were violated and who is most likely to raise an uproar.

The "cover up" solution would have been to fire the person who used the software to spy on the boy. It could easily be played off as a single person violating the district's guidelines and spun to praise the district for their immediate response to the discovery.
But the scapegoat person was smart and has the goods on the powers that be so......enough with the crazy speculation I guess, we could make a game thread out of it.

[AaronSheffield]

uhuh...Sheffield...there isn't a whole lot of data if you didn't notice, i just went with a plausible story that would make sense considering how socialist/statist schools are nowadays =.= i dun look like a fool just because i have a little fun with a story :) you just look wound up over nothing :D

Leave politics out of this. It has nothing to do with socialism or statism.

What you post did was perpetuate the impression that the "improper behaviour" had been confirmed to be masturbation. I see threads all the time where a few of the first posters misread an article and the end result is 100+ post threads in which 85-90 posts are people outraged over something that never actually happened because they are reading the misunderstanding or theorizing as though it were fact. Yes, I get more wound up about it than I should, and yes I've seen it enough that I should expect it, but I can't stop hoping that on the forums at least I can get away from the sensationalist theorizing that we see in the news all the time. :p

[ArtistTyrant]

0_o overreaching schools who think they can do whatever they want with the kids, breaking their Constitutional rights and not respecting them as human beings, has absolutely nothing to do with the trend towards breaking Constitutional rights left and right and lording authority over people? really? :rolleyes:

i didn't say it was for sure, i was just having some fun with the article, i doubt it could have been many different things, and if it were something like illegal drug usage, i doubt it would have blown up like this, if the school administration were smart they would have found an alternative way to prove that the kid was breaking laws or something (but i doubt they could do that, being idiotic fuckwits that work in a high school and all)

hum, i see your point about the sensationalist thing

[AaronSheffield]

I'm assuming he didn't know the camera was being monitored, which rules out things like flipping the bird and mooning. So here you have a teenage boy with a computer and an internet connection who thinks he's alone doing something a school official would refer to as "improper behavior." What activity, besides jerking off, is highly likely in this scenario?

Most people I know leave computers running even when they aren't using them. The situation I feel is most likely is that the student had the laptop on and open but was not using it at the time the webcam was activated. So my theory is that we have a situation where the kid has the laptop open and running but sitting on the couch or the desk or the table while he's doing something else in the room. In this scenario, it seems more likely that he got into his father's alcohol or was smoking something and didn't realise that the computer was also a surveillance camera.

The reason that the masturbation theory doesn't work for me is that if a kid is masturbating in front of a computer, he will have porn displayed on the computer screen. In which case a screen shot is by far the more effective means of documenting the act, plus it confirms an actual violation of policy rather than just "improper behaviour at home" for which the school cannot officially punish the student.

But the scapegoat person was smart and has the goods on the powers that be so......enough with the crazy speculation I guess, we could make a game thread out of it.

That would actually be a pretty cool game thread. Rube Goldberg cover-ups. :)

[ArtistTyrant]

doesn't necessarily need porn, but being male it is more likely than not >_>

@_@

[AaronSheffield]

0_o overreaching schools who think they can do whatever they want with the kids, breaking their Constitutional rights and not respecting them as human beings, has absolutely nothing to do with the trend towards breaking Constitutional rights left and right and lording authority over people? really? :rolleyes:

It has long been established that minors do not enjoy full protection of their constitutional rights. This is not new, and it's not part of any new trend.

[cannotseethe]

In this scenario, it seems more likely that he got into his father's alcohol or was smoking something and didn't realise that the computer was also a surveillance camera.

I masturbated about 1,000 times more often than I stole my parent's alcohol or cigarettes. Just sayin'.


a screen shot is by far the more effective means of documenting the act

Perhaps they weren't able to take a remote screen shot with their "security" software. Perhaps what he was viewing on the screen would not obviously qualify as porn (bra ads or something).

[AaronSheffield]

I masturbated about 1,000 times more often than I stole my parent's alcohol or cigarettes. Just sayin'.

In my case it was infinitely more often since I never stole alcohol or cigarettes, but that still doesn't make the masturbation theory any more tenable given the parameters of the situation. Besides, as I said already, I simply cannot conceive of any HS administrator at a public school seriously believe that masturbation was "improper" for a teenager.

Perhaps they weren't able to take a remote screen shot with their "security" software.

If it could activate the webcam and record, it could take screen shots. A security tracking software that cannot capture screen shots is a bit like a car that doesn't include a steering wheel.

Perhaps what he was viewing on the screen would not obviously qualify as porn (bra ads or something).

Bra ads would count as far as a high school's policies are concerned. So would swimsuit models or really anything else that a person could get off to.

[Nemesis]

The student was confronted by a Harrington High School official and shown photographs of his actions.

This is why I'm skeptical that the kid was masturbating. If they have photographic evidence of a kid jerking off... the school officials are veering dangerously close to possession and circulation of child pornography.

[ArtistTyrant]

but they're morons with ego issues, so what's the problem? lol

[Theaetetus]

Why couldn't they just use a web filter like everyone else? They're not the most effective, but it's good enough to let the kids know what the laptop is for.

[Wapiti]

The FBI is now looking into it. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Ray9]

This would be more interesting if there was any hard evidence.

Interesting choice of words when considering masturbation.

[Lucid]

Class-action suit's going to bury them. Hard.

Best news I've heard today.

It doesn't really matter what the kid was doing. Inappropriate behavior (and notice that they didn't say illegal or illicit anything) at home is the responsibility of the parents. In appropriate behavior at school is the responsibility of the school. The school does not get to monitor children at home. It doesn't matter if he was jerking off to Victoria Secret circulars or freebasing.

There are some people who are only happy if they can monitor and control every aspect of other people's lives. These people are extremely likely to go into secondary education.

[Ray9]

There are some people who are only happy if they can monitor and control every aspect of other people's lives. These people are extremely likely to go into secondary education.


I totally agree. My guess is that ninety nine percent of them are Democrats as well.

[Grimstad]

This is why I'm skeptical that the kid was masturbating. If they have photographic evidence of a kid jerking off... the school officials are veering dangerously close to possession and circulation of child pornography.

Not close at all. They are there. If someone IS in possession of such evidence they ARE guilty of child porn and should be arrested immediately

[Night Runner]

I, for one, am creeped out by the fact that a complete stranger can watch you through your MacBook. Then again, I'm sure this is possible with every computer with a built-in webcam... *huggles his prehistoric webcam-less laptop*

[Grimstad]

There are much better ways to achieve the same end. There is software that will send IP addresses to the owner. There is GPS. But using the device in question for remote viewing? The software is responsible for recovering 28 of 42 devices. I think GPS would do a much better job. With the other sw they would have the IP address (traceable) of anyone that went on line with a missing one.

[Lucid]

I totally agree. My guess is that ninety nine percent of them are Democrats as well.

I know, because you fail at seeing reality in non-partisan terms. Many of them are democrats. But just as many are republicans. Each party has its share of busy bodies who want to censor, ban, outlaw and control. The democrats came up with the Parental Advisory sticker, but the republicans came up with the illegal wire tapping. The Democrats came up with quotas of women and minorities at work places, but the republicans don't want to let gay people get married. The Patriot Act on the right, censoring video games on the left. The right wants to outlaw abortion, the left wants to regulate guns.

You see only one side of the control issue and are completely blind to anything that does not fit with your preconceived view. This is called confirmation bias. It's common in humans and almost none of us can completely rise above it. But the extent to which you are in its thrall is unusual and kind of a shame. It makes conversations with you difficult and ultimately futile.

[cannotseethe]

There are much better ways to achieve the same end. There is software that will send IP addresses to the owner. There is GPS. But using the device in question for remote viewing?

This case teaches would-be laptop thieves to put a piece of tape over the webcam lens. Poof, security system thwarted. Disabling the laptop from ringing home with an IP address or coordinates is more challenging.

[Wapiti]

A New York School (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) boasts of it's ability to monitor kids. A little different as it appears the students know of the ability, I think. There seems to be some mixed statements on the issue. So many questions I have. Is this a prison or school? What does the monitoring of children actually teach the children? Does the benefits of monitoring and the ability to monitor the students outway the negatives? Who is actually paying for this service and ability, the taxpayers?

[Elfrun]

And people laugh at me for covering my webcam with a post it note!

[pip]

Has anyone read the comments on that first article?
You really should, it's quite amusing.

[RBM]

Has anyone read the comments on that first article?
You really should, it's quite amusing.

And/or read the followup stories - suggested search terms, 'PA school, bizarre'.

[Yhor]

I think it's just a matter of conditioning the future generations for acceptance of digital monitoring. It sucks to think of it like that, but looking at public school agendas, it's hard to think of another logical reason (given the access to so many other different, less invasive, security measures).

Anyway... more information that sheds some light on what it was they 'caught' him doing that was 'inappropriate'. The admin supposedly thought candy was drugs..

From the wiki..
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
On February 20, 2010, the plaintiffs' lawyer, Mark S. Haltzman of Lamm Rubenstone LLC, told MSNBC Live that the student had been eating "Mike and Ike" candy in front of the laptop assigned to him, in his own home. The attorney said that the school administrator had accused the student of using illegal drugs, after seeing him eating the candy in a webcam image. The lawyer said that his client's laptop had not been reported stolen or lost. The lawyer raised questions about who is deciding when to activate the webcam, and for what reasons.

[Thrasymachus]

And people laugh at me for covering my webcam with a post it note!

I never even thought to do this, not even after I read the article!
*looks around for post it note*
*makes mental note to get one, or maybe duct tape . . .*
done
(i went with duct tape :))