5 ms·

School district says 56,000 photos were taken of students using spyware

30 points by vaksel 17y ago

dasil003 17y ago
I can't help but wonder... did the light come on?
- nearestneighbor 17y ago
  It probably flickers very briefly, so your eye might not even see it (just a guess). Edit: give it a try, report back: http://www.intergalactic.de/pages/iSight.html http://www.intergalactic.de/pages/iSight.html This might be relevant too: http://macosx.com/forums/1427678-post3.html http://macosx.com/forums/1427678-post3.html
  - varaon 17y ago
    The light stays on for a full second and is a bright green LED - impossible to miss if you're looking at the screen.
    - qq66 17y ago
      Looks like many of these pictures were taken when the kids were not looking at the screen.
- njl 17y ago
  My understanding is that kids were told that this was a common malfunction and not to worry about it. This whole thing has struck me as beyond creepy. I'm embarrassed both as a technologist and as a former educator. That this was allowed to happen is just horrifying.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    I remember an article from when this story broke about how the administrators bragged about a script they wrote that would turn the camera on, but block it's output so if a user saw it was on and then loaded a program to see what was display they would see nothing. Apparently the also ran this randomly so it would flicker every now and then... purely despicable.
    - drivebyacct 17y ago
      Huh, I guess I had thought they'd disabled the light somehow...
      - varaon 17y ago
        I think the light may be in hardware. It is on the OLPC.
        qq66 17y ago
        Even for a hardware implementation, the LED will be driven by an output pin of the onboard microcontroller. If the webcam firmware is flashable over USB it could be remotely disabled by software.
        hga 17y ago
        They're Macs, Apple is wise about this and it's in the hardware and cannot be disabled without doing physical "surgery" to the hardware.
        drivebyacct 17y ago
        Well that's certainly the way it ought to be, if you ask me.
alayne 17y ago
Why is nobody in prison yet?
- johnswamps 17y ago
  Because the trial hasn't taken place yet.
  - DavidSJ 17y ago
    Agreed. This was outrageous behavior on the part of the school district, but we must remember that we have due process.
  - hga 17y ago
    Actually, no criminal charges have been made yet. In a situation like this, it will take some time to put together a solid case that you can put before a jury.
ErrantX 17y ago
Every new article I see about this story appears to have more and more pointers towards a child porn investigation. I hope someone sensible thinks very seriously before deciding to do that...
- ct4ul4u 17y ago
  I suspect that is inevitable. This is a heinous violation of the privacy of minors in their parents homes. I suspect that prosecutors will be forced to reach for the biggest hammer they have.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Well my US law grounding is only the basics but they have some fairly big hammers they can bring to bear before CP law are required. I'm not sure if the state this is in has Voyeurism laws but that is a good place to start. Then you have unlawful recording, various surveillance laws and lots of privacy law violations. Of course if this woman has taken the images with a sexual intent (or used them with a sexual intent) then totally; throw the book at her :)
- branden 17y ago
  Child porn laws, like any laws, should be enforced without respect for the defendant's status. If the definition of child porn is so broad as to include what this school has done, then they should be prosecuted as mercilessly as anyone else would be.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Well, yes, if the CP laws have been broken then definitely. However, from what I have read (and based on my experience) this does not fit any of the profiles of an child pornography case. It is actually damaging to other cases if this is prosecuted badly.
    - elblanco 17y ago
      I think it depends on what the intent was. If the intent was to surreptitious take pictures of minors with the hopes of catching some nudity, then I'm guess it falls into the CP bucket. I think it would be hard to show though that there could be a different intent though for surreptitiously taking photos of teens at random times.
raganwald 17y ago
If this is the case that was in the news a while back, a major issue was that students were required to use the school-issued computers and threatened with expulsion if they brought their own computers to school. If it's the same case, that's a big problem: The defense so far is that all this spyware was required for theft recovery. If so, why not allow students to use their own computers? Requiring students to use computers that invade their privacy seems extremely suspicious to me.
- hga 17y ago
  Suspicious, but given that this is a group of obvious control freaks we don't have to look further than "You will use the school's supplied computer and only it because I Am The Law."
sorbus 17y ago
"During her deposition to Robbins’s lawyers, she invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer questions as not to self-incriminate. One of the questions asked of her was whether she had downloaded “…pictures to her own computer, including pictures of students who were naked while in their home,” the motion notes." Somehow, I can't help but think that it would have been better just to answer the question - refusing to answer on the grounds of self-incrimination sounds just as bad or worse as answering yes to the question. On the other hand, maybe she hasn't looked through all the pictures she's downloaded, and doesn't want to be hit with perjury as well. Or maybe it's that combined with having used a computer which was not technically hers but which was not used by anyone else, making definitions potentially a tad unclear.
elblanco 17y ago
> According to an email she sent to a co-worker, cited by Robbins’ attorney, when told that the images and screenshots from the students’ laptops were like a soap opera, Cafiero said, “I know. I love it!” Disgusting.

30 points by vaksel 17y ago

dasil003 17y ago

I can't help but wonder... did the light come on?

nearestneighbor 17y ago
It probably flickers very briefly, so your eye might not even see it (just a guess). Edit: give it a try, report back: http://www.intergalactic.de/pages/iSight.html http://www.intergalactic.de/pages/iSight.html This might be relevant too: http://macosx.com/forums/1427678-post3.html http://macosx.com/forums/1427678-post3.html
- varaon 17y ago
  The light stays on for a full second and is a bright green LED - impossible to miss if you're looking at the screen.
  - qq66 17y ago
    Looks like many of these pictures were taken when the kids were not looking at the screen.
njl 17y ago
My understanding is that kids were told that this was a common malfunction and not to worry about it. This whole thing has struck me as beyond creepy. I'm embarrassed both as a technologist and as a former educator. That this was allowed to happen is just horrifying.
- dantheman 17y ago
  I remember an article from when this story broke about how the administrators bragged about a script they wrote that would turn the camera on, but block it's output so if a user saw it was on and then loaded a program to see what was display they would see nothing. Apparently the also ran this randomly so it would flicker every now and then... purely despicable.
  - drivebyacct 17y ago
    Huh, I guess I had thought they'd disabled the light somehow...
    - varaon 17y ago
      I think the light may be in hardware. It is on the OLPC.
      - qq66 17y ago
        Even for a hardware implementation, the LED will be driven by an output pin of the onboard microcontroller. If the webcam firmware is flashable over USB it could be remotely disabled by software.
      - hga 17y ago
        They're Macs, Apple is wise about this and it's in the hardware and cannot be disabled without doing physical "surgery" to the hardware.
        drivebyacct 17y ago
        Well that's certainly the way it ought to be, if you ask me.

alayne 17y ago

Why is nobody in prison yet?

johnswamps 17y ago
Because the trial hasn't taken place yet.
- DavidSJ 17y ago
  Agreed. This was outrageous behavior on the part of the school district, but we must remember that we have due process.
- hga 17y ago
  Actually, no criminal charges have been made yet. In a situation like this, it will take some time to put together a solid case that you can put before a jury.

ErrantX 17y ago

Every new article I see about this story appears to have more and more pointers towards a child porn investigation. I hope someone sensible thinks very seriously before deciding to do that...

ct4ul4u 17y ago
I suspect that is inevitable. This is a heinous violation of the privacy of minors in their parents homes. I suspect that prosecutors will be forced to reach for the biggest hammer they have.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Well my US law grounding is only the basics but they have some fairly big hammers they can bring to bear before CP law are required. I'm not sure if the state this is in has Voyeurism laws but that is a good place to start. Then you have unlawful recording, various surveillance laws and lots of privacy law violations. Of course if this woman has taken the images with a sexual intent (or used them with a sexual intent) then totally; throw the book at her :)
branden 17y ago
Child porn laws, like any laws, should be enforced without respect for the defendant's status. If the definition of child porn is so broad as to include what this school has done, then they should be prosecuted as mercilessly as anyone else would be.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Well, yes, if the CP laws have been broken then definitely. However, from what I have read (and based on my experience) this does not fit any of the profiles of an child pornography case. It is actually damaging to other cases if this is prosecuted badly.
  - elblanco 17y ago
    I think it depends on what the intent was. If the intent was to surreptitious take pictures of minors with the hopes of catching some nudity, then I'm guess it falls into the CP bucket. I think it would be hard to show though that there could be a different intent though for surreptitiously taking photos of teens at random times.

raganwald 17y ago

If this is the case that was in the news a while back, a major issue was that students were required to use the school-issued computers and threatened with expulsion if they brought their own computers to school. If it's the same case, that's a big problem: The defense so far is that all this spyware was required for theft recovery. If so, why not allow students to use their own computers? Requiring students to use computers that invade their privacy seems extremely suspicious to me.

hga 17y ago
Suspicious, but given that this is a group of obvious control freaks we don't have to look further than "You will use the school's supplied computer and only it because I Am The Law."

sorbus 17y ago

"During her deposition to Robbins’s lawyers, she invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer questions as not to self-incriminate. One of the questions asked of her was whether she had downloaded “…pictures to her own computer, including pictures of students who were naked while in their home,” the motion notes." Somehow, I can't help but think that it would have been better just to answer the question - refusing to answer on the grounds of self-incrimination sounds just as bad or worse as answering yes to the question. On the other hand, maybe she hasn't looked through all the pictures she's downloaded, and doesn't want to be hit with perjury as well. Or maybe it's that combined with having used a computer which was not technically hers but which was not used by anyone else, making definitions potentially a tad unclear.

elblanco 17y ago

> According to an email she sent to a co-worker, cited by Robbins’ attorney, when told that the images and screenshots from the students’ laptops were like a soap opera, Cafiero said, “I know. I love it!” Disgusting.