Schools Spying On Students

[Peikko 1,575]

Whatever the reason for school issued laptops, it is unlikely to have been student poverty. Perhaps the school had a requirement that the only laptops brought into school were school issued? I wouldn't be surprised at that, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone was perfectly well aware of the web cam issue and wanted to make sure that web cam activity was in the hands of the school to prevent pupils from doing the exact same thing - but in reverse!

[Ali G. 37]

Schools need to realize that certain parents are playing a gotcha game. Going over everything with a fine tooth comb, in order to sue the government (the people) and be awarded millions for squat. Unfortunately rather than actually providing kids with an education, school districts need to waste time crossing their ts and dotting their is, to lessen the chance of this.

The thought that a school district set out to deliberately spy on the students, especially in their private time, is not in the least plausible. Nonetheless, someone has found a way to exploit this mistake and now the students of this county will have to suffer because of the lawsuit, brought on my one parent, whose child was probably caught masturbating. After all, school districts throughout America are just overflowing with money in 2010.

Edit: Now that I think about it, I bet the student was flagged for visiting inappropriate websites, which led to the 'discovery',

Edited February 18, 2010 by Booyah

[Peikko 1,575]

Schools need to realize that certain parents are playing a gotcha game. Going over everything with a fine tooth comb, in order to sue the government (the people) and be awarded millions for squat. Unfortunately rather than actually providing kids with an education, school districts need to waste time crossing their ts and dotting their is, to lessen the chance of this.

The thought that a school district set out to deliberately spy on the students, especially in their private time, is not in the least plausible. Nonetheless, someone has found a way to exploit this mistake and now the students of this county will have to suffer because of the lawsuit, brought on my one parent, whose child was probably caught masturbating. After all, school districts throughout America are just overflowing with money in 2010.

No BY, there is nothing justifiable about the situation presented and the school district deserves to pay. The kid had a right to an expectation of privacy in his own home, period - I am of course assuming the story is a reasonable reflection of what occurred.

[Ali G. 37]

No BY, there is nothing justifiable about the situation presented and the school district deserves to pay. The kid had a right to an expectation of privacy in his own home, period - I am of course assuming the story is a reasonable reflection of what occurred.

Cleo, your silliness only gets better as time goes by.

Would they be able to sue in the UK or under most other legal systems for millions of dollars, when no financial loss has occurred? This pattern towards such things is no surprise; as it was not regarding paying for a 11 year old's own child. People with your idiotic left wing views seem to assume you are sticking it to Exxon or the rich man. Any such lawsuits will come out of this school's budget for the year. Yes Cleo, the money kids desperately need to be provided with an education.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Booyah

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What kind of software would be on those computers that would allow someone at the school to remote activate it?

Certainly does make you wonder about what motivated the people doing the alleged snooping. If that is what happened, there's not really any justification for that.

Cleo, your silliness only gets better as time goes by.

Would they be able to sue in the UK or under most other legal systems for millions of dollars, when no financial loss has occurred? This pattern towards such things is no surprise; as it was not regarding paying for a 11 year old's own child. People with your idiotic left wing views seem to assume you are sticking it to Exxon or the rich man. Any such lawsuits will come out of this school's budget for the year. Yes Cleo, the money kids desperately need to be provided with an education.

The school shouldn't be employing people who snoop on children in their rooms via remote webcams. They deserve to get sued.

[Peikko 1,575]

Cleo, your silliness only gets better as time goes by.

Would they be able to sue in the UK or under most other legal systems for millions of dollars, when no financial loss has occurred? This pattern towards such things is no surprise; as it was not regarding paying for a 11 year old's own child. People with your idiotic left wing views seem to assume you are sticking it to Exxon or the rich man. Any such lawsuits will come out of this school's budget for the year. Yes Cleo, the money kids desperately need to be provided with an education.

BY, how the hell did you conclude from the article that the lawsuit was about financial compensation?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Because its the springboard to his usual old git rant about how kids of today are brats who need the snot beaten out of them with a leather belt.

[Ali G. 37]

What kind of software would be on those computers that would allow someone at the school to remote activate it?

Certainly does make you wonder about what motivated the people doing the alleged snooping. If that is what happened, there's not really any justification for that.

The school shouldn't be employing people who snoop on children in their rooms via remote webcams. They deserve to get sued.

The point was that without any actual financial loss, you cannot sue for ridiculous and exorbitant amounts abroad. Certainly not when it's the students of the county that will suffer because of it.

My guess is that the school has some sort of flag when a student is accessing inappropriate sites, using the government's laptop they have borrowed. The vice principal would have then had some sort of access to the PC remotely. It's the same deal with using your employer's net access. There is no privacy when you do it on the job. Hence, why I have a netbook and a remote session linking me to my PC.

[Ali G. 37]

Because its the springboard to his usual old git rant about how kids of today are brats who need the snot beaten out of them with a leather belt.

So bitching about some sort of government conspiracy regarding the alleged invasion of privacy is not an "old git rant" but suggesting otherwise is. As pointed out to you many times before, anyone discussing something that you interested in has a different set of rules to people discussing something that is of no interest to you. If these posters happen to be on your sh-t/hit list, you get even more worked up.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Booyah

[Peikko 1,575]

Do you suffer from ADD BY?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The point was that without any actual financial loss, you cannot sue for ridiculous and exorbitant amounts abroad. Certainly not when it's the students of the county that will suffer because of it.

My guess is that the school has some sort of flag when a student is accessing inappropriate sites, using the government's laptop they have borrowed. The vice principal would have then had some sort of access to the PC remotely. It's the same deal with using your employer's net access. There is no privacy when you do it on the job. Hence, why I have a netbook and a remote session linking me to my PC.

That's a stupid point, BY. What would be the purpose of that?

If the kid is using the laptop at home to connect through a home network - there's no way that the school could reasonably keep track of what sites the child was visiting without installing spyware (but doing so would infringe on the privacy of the person who owns the internet account). The only way they could do it is by physically looking at the computer when the student brought it into the school.

What practical purpose is served by snooping on kids through a remote controlled webcam (which would surely also require spyware to operate)?

None - unless you want to look at kids naked.

So bitching about some sort of government conspiracy regarding the alleged invasion of privacy is not an "old git rant" but suggesting otherwise is. As pointed out to you many times before, anyone discussing something that you interested in has a different set of rules to people discussing something that is of no interest to you. If these posters happen to be on your sh-t/hit list, you get even more worked up.

Do you really think that I'm worked up?

[natty bumppo 297]

What kind of software would be on those computers that would allow someone at the school to remote activate it?

administrator rights .... remote access enabled.

pretty standard stuff. heck our IT dept does this for off-site ppl when someone has pc problems. it's pretty cool watching them drive your pc ...

[Ali G. 37]

That's a stupid point, BY. What would be the purpose of that?

If the kid is using the laptop at home to connect through a home network - there's no way that the school could reasonably keep track of what sites the child was visiting without installing spyware (but doing so would infringe on the privacy of the person who owns the internet account). The only way they could do it is by physically looking at the computer when the student brought it into the school.

What practical purpose is served by snooping on kids through a remote controlled webcam (which would surely also require spyware to operate)?

None - unless you want to look at kids naked.

This is a government loaned commuter, which would have been accompanied with T&C that the student's legal guardians signed and agreed to. Don't act as if the school district snooped on the student's private computer. A simple firing, or prosecution of those breaching any rules or laws will be more than sufficient.

Do you really think that I'm worked up?

Nah, not really focused at you but definitely your like-minded buds here. Yes, the ones you deny having the same exact view with on pretty much everything. Furthermore, you're just not a guy who is passionate or get's worked up about anything. Well not unless it involves sticking up for minorities and the undeniable over representation regarding crime. It's why you come here and mock anyone who is passionate about anything you deem idiotic; unless it's defending the aforementioned of course.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Booyah

[The_Dude 1,142]

The key element that was absent from the article, and subsequent ones on the topic that I have read is the disclosure issued when the laptops were distributed. Did the school notify the students and parents when they gave out the laptops that this was school property, to be used for school related purposes and that it could be monitored? Or did they issue the laptops with carte blanche? I think that will determine how nefarious this whole situation is and how large the punitive damages will be.

[Peikko 1,575]

No one in their right mind would sign a T&C that included being spied upon - as if that wasn't a contradiction in terms. Trying to defend the actions of the school simply because the law suit might end up using public money that should go towards educating children is mindless. If the school hadn't acted improperly, they wouldn't be in this pickle. Someone in the school district ###### up, and ignoring it isn't going to help anyone.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Madame Cleo