4 ms·

The problem with computer misuse laws is that they often come down to proving intent. That's why you'll see a lot of computer criminals being hauled up for frau

by ErrantX 17y ago

The problem with computer misuse laws is that they often come down to proving intent. That's why you'll see a lot of computer criminals being hauled up for fraud etc. simply because it is easier to prosecute them for it. In this case they have a clear intent to spy (especially as it looks like they have been spying). So it looks like the right laws will get applied. I think it would be extremely difficult to prosecute them with CP laws anyway.

Daniel_Newby 17y ago
Prosecution depends on what pics the staff were emailing around. If forensics turns up salacious pictures, along with inept cover ups that demonstrate intent, then the fishing expedition starts. Depending on how out of control the school was, the Feds could end up with an open-ended fishing expedition into staff home computers and a warehouse full of evidence.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Well of course; but if that's what they find would you not agree CP laws would start to apply :) Your right about the fishing trip though. In this case, while I disagree in general with open ended investigations, I'd support it - great punishment in a way to invade the privacy of these people, see how the like it :) (I know that's a somewhat petty attitude).
- hga 17y ago
  As used as a term of art "fishing expedition" just isn't correct usage here. Those are searches etc. that are based on a pretext and are looking for anything possible to zap someone. In this case, we are presuming that a broad based search won't happen unless and until evidence of real violations are found, upon which the FBI will naturally want to discover the scope of them. Even then, to search an individual's home computer without any evidence the individual was engaged in wrongdoing would in theory not hold up in court. But the FBI is famously abusive and publicity hungry and "child p0rn is the root password to the US Constitution".
  - Daniel_Newby 17y ago
    I see two likely scenarios: 1. A prissy, overbearing administrator did this carefully, with due attention to privacy of records. 2. Misuse of the webcams was rife and uncontrolled. School staff were emailing funny webcam captures with no regard for privacy, public opinion, or self preservation. The investigation will rapidly turn into "copy every hard drive touched by a staff member". I.e., a fishing expedition.
    - hga 17y ago
      No, it's only a fishing expedition if the copying is done on a pretext to find something, anything to "get" someone with. If the extreme of #2 occurred, it would only be sane to copy every disk drive to preserve evidence. Given the real cost of examining disk images (especially for deleted pictures), I wouldn't be surprised if the searches wouldn't then be driven real evidence ... although I suppose after capturing metadata it would be easy to see "who has or had a copy of this picture or video". But even then, even if abusive in scope, it's not a fishing expedition.
    - dantheman 17y ago
      A fishing expedition is when you want to prosecute person A and don't have any reason to. So you go and search & surveil until something is discovered that they can be prosecuted for. If the administrators were shown to be sending files around, and if their is evidence that they also used their home computers to conduct the monitoring then those systems too will be searched.
jaxn 17y ago
The cameras were only activated in the case of missing laptops and the school district says they never broke that policy. It sounds to me like the kid reported the computer stolen and was caught using it. The "Improper behavior at home" is probably just how they could punish the kid within the framework of their student handbook.
- joezydeco 17y ago
  The district needed to classify theft as "improper behavior at home" and not just plain old "theft"? That seems doubtful.
  - tedunangst 17y ago
    If it was never stolen, there's no theft to classify as theft.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - joezydeco 17y ago
      None of these theories support the fact that there's a class-action lawsuit being filed. You don't go through this kind of trouble over "oh, little Timmy lied about a laptop being stolen and got busted". The family has given an interview and claims the school is accusing the student of selling drugs http://news.cnet.com/8301-30977_3-10457077-10347072.html?tag=mncol;txt http://news.cnet.com/8301-30977_3-10457077-10347072.html?tag...
      - hga 17y ago
        Good point. The plaintiff lawyers are almost certainly doing this at least in part for a piece of the action and wouldn't bother unless they thought they had a case. If the family is putting up all the money, it would be, as you point out, not even vaguely worth it if the school's story is the truth. On the other hand, you can imagine the fury of the parents if their story is true, that the school was randomly spying on the students and careless with what they saw. That would make it worth their while to put together such an effort.

by ErrantX 17y ago

Daniel_Newby 17y ago

Prosecution depends on what pics the staff were emailing around. If forensics turns up salacious pictures, along with inept cover ups that demonstrate intent, then the fishing expedition starts. Depending on how out of control the school was, the Feds could end up with an open-ended fishing expedition into staff home computers and a warehouse full of evidence.

ErrantX 17y ago
Well of course; but if that's what they find would you not agree CP laws would start to apply :) Your right about the fishing trip though. In this case, while I disagree in general with open ended investigations, I'd support it - great punishment in a way to invade the privacy of these people, see how the like it :) (I know that's a somewhat petty attitude).
hga 17y ago
As used as a term of art "fishing expedition" just isn't correct usage here. Those are searches etc. that are based on a pretext and are looking for anything possible to zap someone. In this case, we are presuming that a broad based search won't happen unless and until evidence of real violations are found, upon which the FBI will naturally want to discover the scope of them. Even then, to search an individual's home computer without any evidence the individual was engaged in wrongdoing would in theory not hold up in court. But the FBI is famously abusive and publicity hungry and "child p0rn is the root password to the US Constitution".
- Daniel_Newby 17y ago
  I see two likely scenarios: 1. A prissy, overbearing administrator did this carefully, with due attention to privacy of records. 2. Misuse of the webcams was rife and uncontrolled. School staff were emailing funny webcam captures with no regard for privacy, public opinion, or self preservation. The investigation will rapidly turn into "copy every hard drive touched by a staff member". I.e., a fishing expedition.
  - hga 17y ago
    No, it's only a fishing expedition if the copying is done on a pretext to find something, anything to "get" someone with. If the extreme of #2 occurred, it would only be sane to copy every disk drive to preserve evidence. Given the real cost of examining disk images (especially for deleted pictures), I wouldn't be surprised if the searches wouldn't then be driven real evidence ... although I suppose after capturing metadata it would be easy to see "who has or had a copy of this picture or video". But even then, even if abusive in scope, it's not a fishing expedition.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    A fishing expedition is when you want to prosecute person A and don't have any reason to. So you go and search & surveil until something is discovered that they can be prosecuted for. If the administrators were shown to be sending files around, and if their is evidence that they also used their home computers to conduct the monitoring then those systems too will be searched.

jaxn 17y ago

The cameras were only activated in the case of missing laptops and the school district says they never broke that policy. It sounds to me like the kid reported the computer stolen and was caught using it. The "Improper behavior at home" is probably just how they could punish the kid within the framework of their student handbook.

joezydeco 17y ago
The district needed to classify theft as "improper behavior at home" and not just plain old "theft"? That seems doubtful.
- tedunangst 17y ago
  If it was never stolen, there's no theft to classify as theft.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - joezydeco 17y ago
    None of these theories support the fact that there's a class-action lawsuit being filed. You don't go through this kind of trouble over "oh, little Timmy lied about a laptop being stolen and got busted". The family has given an interview and claims the school is accusing the student of selling drugs http://news.cnet.com/8301-30977_3-10457077-10347072.html?tag=mncol;txt http://news.cnet.com/8301-30977_3-10457077-10347072.html?tag...
    - hga 17y ago
      Good point. The plaintiff lawyers are almost certainly doing this at least in part for a piece of the action and wouldn't bother unless they thought they had a case. If the family is putting up all the money, it would be, as you point out, not even vaguely worth it if the school's story is the truth. On the other hand, you can imagine the fury of the parents if their story is true, that the school was randomly spying on the students and careless with what they saw. That would make it worth their while to put together such an effort.