7 ms·

If this violated child pornography laws, we will get the remarkable outcome that a school system is not allowed within 2500 feet of a school. So it's not all b

If this violated child pornography laws, we will get the remarkable outcome that a school system is not allowed within 2500 feet of a school. So it's not all bad!

tibbon 17y ago
Should set some interesting precedent. If this isn't child pornography, spying, unlawful wiretapping, etc... then I don't know what is.
- cgranade 17y ago
  Given the role that schools have played in destroying the lives of some children by getting authorities involved in "sexting" cases, it would be especially ironic if this spying program produced child pornography charges. After all, in many cases, intent isn't required-- people have been arrested for having malware download child porn without the user's authorization or knowledge. Given that precedent, doing something like this and accidentally gathering child porn by taking an irresponsible and already likely illegal action would seem to be enough for the courts. Not being a lawyer, I don't know if this intuition is correct, but it would be an interesting precedent, no doubt.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    > reople have been arrested for having malware download child porn without the user's authorization or knowledge Do you have a citation for that, out of interest. It's considered something of a myth within LE and I wasn't aware a case like that actually existed.
    - cgranade 17y ago
      Sadly, I don't have the citation off the top of my head. For all I know, I could've fallen for an urban legend. If I have, sorry for being gullible!
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        It's cool - I do believe you. [You'll always get suspicion over that story because it is the #1 most common defence (and ironically easy to disprove)] I'd always be interested to see if it actually happened though - it would be useful research.
        cx01 17y ago
        How is it easy to disprove? The trojan could delete itself after downloading CP. Should be impossible to reconstruct what happened exactly.
        ErrantX 17y ago
        Of course there is an upper limit to how provable it is. But that is fairly elaborate malware your describing (because if that is all it did it should be fairly apparent - it also has to fake fairly extensive use as well). Mostly it is very easy to see the CP activity (dont forget were not just talking about images on the HDD here but actual activity indicative of behavior). If it were downloaded all together, with no references in, say, web history etc, no thumbnails and nothing in the cache files (which are FULL of rich information) then it would ring alarm bells :) Eventually even the most elaborate malware will make a mistake with activity that is not "normal" - and the investigation is intensive enough to pick this up.
        cx01 17y ago
        I don't think it would be hard. Just create a Windows application that hosts an IE ActiveX control and hides its main window. Or even better: When the user's screen saver is running, start a full-blown IE window and control it through Window messages. The traces would be identical to the case in which the user used IE himself.
    - aplusbi 17y ago
      Here is one such case: http://www.scmagazineus.com/malware-to-blame-for-porn-on-state-workers-laptop/article/111407/ http://www.scmagazineus.com/malware-to-blame-for-porn-on-sta... I also recall a case of a teacher whose school computer had malware that ended up displaying porn in the classroom who was arrested and faced up to 40 years in jail. I'm pretty sure she was acquitted.
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        Interesting. Do you know how/if I can get hold of the court documents relating to that?
      - protomyth 17y ago
        If I remember right, she was forced to give up her teacher's license.
        hga 17y ago
        Search on teacher virus porn, e.g. http://www.daniweb.com/news/story219946.html http://www.daniweb.com/news/story219946.html After the initial conviction was set aside, after 4 delays in sentencing, "[...] facing health problems, Amero pleaded guilty to one count of misdemeanor disorderly conduct, paying a $100 fine and losing her teaching license, just to settle the case."
- olliesaunders 17y ago
  Since when did surveillance == pornography? Is CCTV pornography? This story isn't even about pornography. Why are we talking about pornography?!
  - andrewcooke 17y ago
    because child porn laws - or at least the perception of them - have become so disconnected from basic ideas like victim and intention that they appear completely arbitrary, associated with little more than unauthorised pictures of minors.
  - electromagnetic 17y ago
    I believe it's because you basically handed a remotely activated camera to a teenager in the implicit knowledge that said remotely activated camera will be taken into the teenagers room where they're going to at some point be naked. Placing a camera in someone's room is akin to placing it in a bathroom, because at some point someone's getting naked and how a group of adults didn't comprehend this speaks worlds about the quality of education provided by the school in question. There's also the very concerning matter that 50% of the students are likely male, and ~90% of males access porn through the internet. This means that 45% of students likely used this computer to look at porn, which likely means at some point 45% of the students had their penis' out in front of the laptop in question, which has a remotely activated camera on it. This isn't even discussing the 1/3 of women who access porn via the internet. This isn't even discussing the fact that a percentage of these students likely used the cameras for video-sex with their partners (personal experience on that one). I'm sorry this is either gross ignorance that should be as severely punished as possible or it's exactly as bad as this thread of comments has taken it, and it should be as severely punished as possible. Regardless the potential was there to use the system for child pornography, and if there are no records that any compromising pictures were taken, then the school and its board members got exceptionally lucky.
  - Daniel_Newby 17y ago
    "Since when did surveillance == pornography?" Since the camera was issued to accompany the student throughout their daily life: bedroom, changing the diaper of a toddler they are babysitting, bathroom, etc.
dbz 17y ago
Everyone who even knew about the computer webcam spying should go to prison. The fact that this could have been used as spying for child pornography- should be treated as an attempt of attaining child pornography.
- Confusion 17y ago
  No it shouldn't. As long as there is no indication that there were sexual motives, than no accusations of sexual motives should be made. The invasion of our rights in the name of our children has gone far enough. You shouldn't gratuitously say anything that encourages child pornography hysteria. You are just saying it because it serves your point that these guys should be punished severely. However, not even these guys deserve to be branded as child pornographers if they aren't.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > As long as there is no indication that there were sexual motives, than no accusations of sexual motives should be made. That's not how child porn laws work. Laws should always be enforced most harshly against govt agents and folks who actually advocate the laws in question. Govt employment is not a right and if someone is unwilling to accept heightened scrutiny, they can work for someone who is willing to accomodate that preference.
    - lambda 17y ago
      No, laws should be applied equally to everyone. You should not be punished more harshly because you are a "government agent." What does your postal clerk have to do with some idiot congressman who passed too strict a law on child porn?
      - dnsworks 17y ago
        Why? Crimes against government agents are prosecuted far more severely than crimes against the common man. If you rob a post office at gunpoint, it's a federal felony, with more extreme punishments than if you rob a corner store at gunpoint. The law singles out government employees as being more important than the common man in terms of protection.
cduan 17y ago
There doesn't appear to be a claim in the complaint regarding any child pornography laws yet. But who knows--that may change if new photos turn up during discovery. Here's some thoughts on the Fourth Amendment illegal search claim, at least: There is this 2001 case, Kyllo v. United States, that held it illegal for the police to use a thermal scanner to detect heat lamps in a guy's house (the heat lamps being used to grow marijuana). The Supreme Court held, in an opinion by Justice Scalia: "Where...the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant." Seems to me this case falls pretty squarely within the Kyllo rule. Maybe webcams are in public use, but a spy program connected to a webcam and operated by someone other than the possessor of the computer would probably not be. The webcam photos were of the inside of a home, and those photos could not have otherwise been taken without going inside the home.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  There is this 2001 case, Kyllo v. United States, that held it illegal for the police to use a thermal scanner to detect heat lamps I don't think that's precisely correct. It's not illegal -- the cops aren't going to be sent to jail. It just makes the evidence inadmissible. And that subtlety makes all the difference in this application.
  - dpatru 17y ago
    An unlawful search is illegal. Whether the cop go to jail depends on if they're convicted of a criminal law. Usually an illegal search is brought up as a defense by the person who was searched and is now being charged with evidence obtained in the search. The issue in these cases is whether the fruits of the illegal search should be used against the person who was searched. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule) An illegal search is in all cases a violation of a right and therefore the person who was searched has a legal remedy. This is the basis of the suit by the students against the school (see the pdf at the bottom of the article.)

If this violated child pornography laws, we will get the remarkable outcome that a school system is not allowed within 2500 feet of a school. So it's not all bad!

tibbon 17y ago

Should set some interesting precedent. If this isn't child pornography, spying, unlawful wiretapping, etc... then I don't know what is.

cgranade 17y ago
Given the role that schools have played in destroying the lives of some children by getting authorities involved in "sexting" cases, it would be especially ironic if this spying program produced child pornography charges. After all, in many cases, intent isn't required-- people have been arrested for having malware download child porn without the user's authorization or knowledge. Given that precedent, doing something like this and accidentally gathering child porn by taking an irresponsible and already likely illegal action would seem to be enough for the courts. Not being a lawyer, I don't know if this intuition is correct, but it would be an interesting precedent, no doubt.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  > reople have been arrested for having malware download child porn without the user's authorization or knowledge Do you have a citation for that, out of interest. It's considered something of a myth within LE and I wasn't aware a case like that actually existed.
  - cgranade 17y ago
    Sadly, I don't have the citation off the top of my head. For all I know, I could've fallen for an urban legend. If I have, sorry for being gullible!
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      It's cool - I do believe you. [You'll always get suspicion over that story because it is the #1 most common defence (and ironically easy to disprove)] I'd always be interested to see if it actually happened though - it would be useful research.
      - cx01 17y ago
        How is it easy to disprove? The trojan could delete itself after downloading CP. Should be impossible to reconstruct what happened exactly.
        ErrantX 17y ago
        Of course there is an upper limit to how provable it is. But that is fairly elaborate malware your describing (because if that is all it did it should be fairly apparent - it also has to fake fairly extensive use as well). Mostly it is very easy to see the CP activity (dont forget were not just talking about images on the HDD here but actual activity indicative of behavior). If it were downloaded all together, with no references in, say, web history etc, no thumbnails and nothing in the cache files (which are FULL of rich information) then it would ring alarm bells :) Eventually even the most elaborate malware will make a mistake with activity that is not "normal" - and the investigation is intensive enough to pick this up.
        cx01 17y ago
        I don't think it would be hard. Just create a Windows application that hosts an IE ActiveX control and hides its main window. Or even better: When the user's screen saver is running, start a full-blown IE window and control it through Window messages. The traces would be identical to the case in which the user used IE himself.
  - aplusbi 17y ago
    Here is one such case: http://www.scmagazineus.com/malware-to-blame-for-porn-on-state-workers-laptop/article/111407/ http://www.scmagazineus.com/malware-to-blame-for-porn-on-sta... I also recall a case of a teacher whose school computer had malware that ended up displaying porn in the classroom who was arrested and faced up to 40 years in jail. I'm pretty sure she was acquitted.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      Interesting. Do you know how/if I can get hold of the court documents relating to that?
    - protomyth 17y ago
      If I remember right, she was forced to give up her teacher's license.
      - hga 17y ago
        Search on teacher virus porn, e.g. http://www.daniweb.com/news/story219946.html http://www.daniweb.com/news/story219946.html After the initial conviction was set aside, after 4 delays in sentencing, "[...] facing health problems, Amero pleaded guilty to one count of misdemeanor disorderly conduct, paying a $100 fine and losing her teaching license, just to settle the case."
olliesaunders 17y ago
Since when did surveillance == pornography? Is CCTV pornography? This story isn't even about pornography. Why are we talking about pornography?!
- andrewcooke 17y ago
  because child porn laws - or at least the perception of them - have become so disconnected from basic ideas like victim and intention that they appear completely arbitrary, associated with little more than unauthorised pictures of minors.
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  I believe it's because you basically handed a remotely activated camera to a teenager in the implicit knowledge that said remotely activated camera will be taken into the teenagers room where they're going to at some point be naked. Placing a camera in someone's room is akin to placing it in a bathroom, because at some point someone's getting naked and how a group of adults didn't comprehend this speaks worlds about the quality of education provided by the school in question. There's also the very concerning matter that 50% of the students are likely male, and ~90% of males access porn through the internet. This means that 45% of students likely used this computer to look at porn, which likely means at some point 45% of the students had their penis' out in front of the laptop in question, which has a remotely activated camera on it. This isn't even discussing the 1/3 of women who access porn via the internet. This isn't even discussing the fact that a percentage of these students likely used the cameras for video-sex with their partners (personal experience on that one). I'm sorry this is either gross ignorance that should be as severely punished as possible or it's exactly as bad as this thread of comments has taken it, and it should be as severely punished as possible. Regardless the potential was there to use the system for child pornography, and if there are no records that any compromising pictures were taken, then the school and its board members got exceptionally lucky.
- Daniel_Newby 17y ago
  "Since when did surveillance == pornography?" Since the camera was issued to accompany the student throughout their daily life: bedroom, changing the diaper of a toddler they are babysitting, bathroom, etc.

dbz 17y ago

Everyone who even knew about the computer webcam spying should go to prison. The fact that this could have been used as spying for child pornography- should be treated as an attempt of attaining child pornography.

Confusion 17y ago
No it shouldn't. As long as there is no indication that there were sexual motives, than no accusations of sexual motives should be made. The invasion of our rights in the name of our children has gone far enough. You shouldn't gratuitously say anything that encourages child pornography hysteria. You are just saying it because it serves your point that these guys should be punished severely. However, not even these guys deserve to be branded as child pornographers if they aren't.
- anamax 17y ago
  > As long as there is no indication that there were sexual motives, than no accusations of sexual motives should be made. That's not how child porn laws work. Laws should always be enforced most harshly against govt agents and folks who actually advocate the laws in question. Govt employment is not a right and if someone is unwilling to accept heightened scrutiny, they can work for someone who is willing to accomodate that preference.
  - lambda 17y ago
    No, laws should be applied equally to everyone. You should not be punished more harshly because you are a "government agent." What does your postal clerk have to do with some idiot congressman who passed too strict a law on child porn?
    - dnsworks 17y ago
      Why? Crimes against government agents are prosecuted far more severely than crimes against the common man. If you rob a post office at gunpoint, it's a federal felony, with more extreme punishments than if you rob a corner store at gunpoint. The law singles out government employees as being more important than the common man in terms of protection.

cduan 17y ago

There doesn't appear to be a claim in the complaint regarding any child pornography laws yet. But who knows--that may change if new photos turn up during discovery. Here's some thoughts on the Fourth Amendment illegal search claim, at least: There is this 2001 case, Kyllo v. United States, that held it illegal for the police to use a thermal scanner to detect heat lamps in a guy's house (the heat lamps being used to grow marijuana). The Supreme Court held, in an opinion by Justice Scalia: "Where...the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant." Seems to me this case falls pretty squarely within the Kyllo rule. Maybe webcams are in public use, but a spy program connected to a webcam and operated by someone other than the possessor of the computer would probably not be. The webcam photos were of the inside of a home, and those photos could not have otherwise been taken without going inside the home.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
There is this 2001 case, Kyllo v. United States, that held it illegal for the police to use a thermal scanner to detect heat lamps I don't think that's precisely correct. It's not illegal -- the cops aren't going to be sent to jail. It just makes the evidence inadmissible. And that subtlety makes all the difference in this application.
- dpatru 17y ago
  An unlawful search is illegal. Whether the cop go to jail depends on if they're convicted of a criminal law. Usually an illegal search is brought up as a defense by the person who was searched and is now being charged with evidence obtained in the search. The issue in these cases is whether the fruits of the illegal search should be used against the person who was searched. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule) An illegal search is in all cases a violation of a right and therefore the person who was searched has a legal remedy. This is the basis of the suit by the students against the school (see the pdf at the bottom of the article.)