5 ms·

US says it is not illegal for schools to spy on students at home

101 points by wil2k 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago
Weirdest conclusion. An out of control school should be brought back in to line, intent has nothing to do with it. Privacy was breached or it wasn't, whatever the intent. That should only come in after it has been established that privacy was breached, which should be an offense. That should lead to a conviction with reduction of the sentence based on the intent, not on having the case dropped or not filing charges.
- wil2k 16y ago
  Indeed. If this conclusion is extrapolated, what's next? pedophiles looking at pictures of naked children e.g. to make sure they don't have bruises because of abuse by their parents!?? Then such a person can claim not to look at those pictures for for "bad reasons", to give a more extreme example.. Very, very worrying conclusion.
GiraffeNecktie 16y ago
It is, however, illegal to openly record a police officer in a public place executing his or her official duties. Go figure.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- hga 16y ago
  Only in Massachusetts (settled case law) and Illinois (where the law was rewritten to make this crystal clear, however it hasn't yet been tested in the courts). The executive side of Maryland is split on this (charges are being brought at the local level while the state AG says it's bunk) and it hasn't been tested in the courts there. In other states where this (too) frequently happens like Pennsylvania the locals get reliably slapped down when they try it.
  - lambda 16y ago
    Actually, in Massachusetts it's only illegal to secretly record a police officer. Openly recording a police officer, with your cell phone for instance, is fine, with several cases setting precedent. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/?page=full http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010... Of course, given the precedent here, it sounds likely that you will get arrested and your phone confiscated, and have to spend several months fighting your arrest in court. But there are several recent cases that were overturned because the recording was done openly with a cell phone, rather than secretly. I can't speak to other states. It will vary by states, and in most cases, you may be arrested and your phone confiscated until you fight it in court. Have your local ACLU phone number handy.
    - enjo 16y ago
      Just to be clear on this as well. In MA dual-consent is only required when one party has a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's been extended to include secretly taping someone in public (if the camera is hidden, the other party has a reasonable expectation of privacy). In a public place you can record to your hearts content. This whole thing is about whether or not police have a right to privacy during their work. I think when this finally hits a court of note that it will be smacked down pretty hard. Courts have already found, for instance, that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy during a traffic stop for the person being stopped. Officers are now attempting to claim that privacy right for themselves, and it seems REALLY unlikely that they will succeed in doing that. *note: I run a business that (as part of what we do) records phone calls, so we've had to deal with some of these issues. I'm not a lawyer and probably not exactly an expert.. I just know enough to be pretty damn dangerous:)
      - Anechoic 16y ago
        I think when this finally hits a court of note that it will be smacked down pretty hard. Courts have already found, for instance, that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy during a traffic stop for the person being stopped. The issue already hit the SJC (Commonwealth v. Hyde has indicated in lambda's link) and they ruled for the officer.
ramine 16y ago
I've found a solution! Problem: - The US have a problem getting people to afford studies in the first place - You can spy on students Solution: Sell your privacy to pay for your studies! Wouldn't it be great if you could sell the details of your private life, which you're doing anyway, to pay for your studies? Get a better future for free! </rant>
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Something like the JenniCam? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ringley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ringley
mattchew 16y ago
I hope this isn't over yet. Can the parents can still file a civil suit even if prosecutors don't want to make a public case over this? I'm not surprised that the powers that be are uninterested in prosecuting the school district. But I would have guessed they would have felt compelled to do so, or at least make some noise about doing so, for the sake of appearances. It disturbs me that they can so openly dismiss the families who got spied upon as being beneath their regard.
- dantheman 16y ago
  A civil suit can still be filed, and hopefully they'll get massive amounts $$$ activity like this needs to be stopped.
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  Firstly the courts won't prosecute something like this in absence of criminal intent (it would make a precedent against police, FBI, ATF, etc. that spying is guilty-until-proven-innocent/just). Secondly, civil suits are completely unrelated to criminal suits, in most districts these are completely different court buildings and judges. Thirdly, criminal suits can still be filed by anyone who was inappropriately photographed (IE compromising photographs), also the parents (or anyone except the children) can file their own criminal suit for any photographs taken of themselves (not their children). The Attorney said criminal charges won't be laid against the school for the systems use against the child, not that no criminal act was committed. Finally, the Inquirer's writing ability is utter shit... just thought I'd add it to the list because frankly this article was appallingly written.
goodside 16y ago
The article's conclusion is absurdly misleasing given the information presented in its source. The US Attorney did not claim that spying on students is legal, nor did he claim that the school staff did not intend to spy on the students, nor did he even claim that no admissible evidence of a crime existed. He claimed the investigators failed to find any such evidence. This is quite possible even if all of the first three conditions are true--it wouldn't exactly be the first time that cops botched protocol and made evidence key to prosecution inadmissible. The statement does not necessarily reflect any opinion as to whether invasive surveillance of students is legal.
- marze 16y ago
  You over-complicate. 1. School officials take pictures of students at home without their knowledge. 2. Investigation occurs. 3. No charges, because no "criminal intent" Sure looks like a reasonable conclusion is that the spying is not illegal in the absence of "criminal intent".
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    Note: it's not considered a criminal act, it doesn't mean any of these students (or their families who could also have been photographed, who again could file criminal charges themselves) cannot file civil charges against their school/teachers. Under criminal law in the US, AFAIK in the absence of criminal intent it's very hard to get charges laid. Courts don't want to extend strict liability onto serious cases, because you'll be landing every doctor in jail for malpractice, negligence or simply not doing enough. I doubt courts would extend strict liability onto any 'spying' infraction, because it would make essentially any wiretapping, etc. to be prosecuted essentially as guilty-until-proven-innocent. Although I know in the UK sexual offences are strict liability, and as far as I've seen it follows similar lines in the US too, so one inappropriate picture would have likely turned this result 180.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
duffbeer703 16y ago
The headline is a really dumb conclusion to draw. What happened is that the prosecutor (ie. the US Attorney) declined to prosecute. They have the autonomy to do that. The school district managed to levy enough political influence to convince the prosecutor to look the other way. The conclusion to draw is that justice in the US is up for sale. Another US Attorney successfully prosecuted a the principals of a seafood wholesaler, and imprisoned them for 8 years for importing lobsters in plastic bags instead of cardboard boxes. (True story: http://www.economist.com/node/16640389/comments?page=2 http://www.economist.com/node/16640389/comments?page=2)
- sprout 16y ago
  Because the alternative, that the parents of these students drummed up a flurry of Internet rumors over nothing, is impossible.
  - hga 16y ago
    Given that that is the subject of a civil suit we may find out if it's nothing or something.
  - duffbeer703 16y ago
    Sure its possible. The stories written about this seemed credible enough to show that something very wrong was happening. It's also possible that the US Attorney concluded that the admin at the school was incompetent, but not intentionally acting in a criminal way.
DotSauce 16y ago
An aside: While in high-school, I was suspended for broadcasting a web cam from the classroom on to my personal blog. I only ever turned it on during class. The teacher thought I may have been spying on her.
WiseWeasel 16y ago
Bring on the civil suits. Looking forward to this school district being sued into the ground.
- SoftwareMaven 16y ago
  Just remember who is ultimately paying for that lawsuit. I would prefer criminal convictions that make the people who were really at fault pay for their idiocy instead of just sticking it to the tax payers.
  - WiseWeasel 16y ago
    I'd wager school districts are wary of hiring administrators responsible for a fiasco like this. At least they're likely to be out of a job.
Kilimanjaro 16y ago
Once in a while do a goatse, problem solved.
lzw 16y ago
The state court has determined that state employeesdidnt break a state law when recording students without their knowledge. Notice how the state, which has a conflict of interest here, let itself off the hook? Imagine if a old guy had done this by writing software that had attest mode accidentally left in? No intent to spy, but when judging citizens that doesn't really matter. The state cannot be trusted with justicevfor this reason.

101 points by wil2k 16y ago

Weirdest conclusion. An out of control school should be brought back in to line, intent has nothing to do with it. Privacy was breached or it wasn't, whatever the intent. That should only come in after it has been established that privacy was breached, which should be an offense. That should lead to a conviction with reduction of the sentence based on the intent, not on having the case dropped or not filing charges.

wil2k 16y ago
Indeed. If this conclusion is extrapolated, what's next? pedophiles looking at pictures of naked children e.g. to make sure they don't have bruises because of abuse by their parents!?? Then such a person can claim not to look at those pictures for for "bad reasons", to give a more extreme example.. Very, very worrying conclusion.

GiraffeNecktie 16y ago

It is, however, illegal to openly record a police officer in a public place executing his or her official duties. Go figure.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
hga 16y ago
Only in Massachusetts (settled case law) and Illinois (where the law was rewritten to make this crystal clear, however it hasn't yet been tested in the courts). The executive side of Maryland is split on this (charges are being brought at the local level while the state AG says it's bunk) and it hasn't been tested in the courts there. In other states where this (too) frequently happens like Pennsylvania the locals get reliably slapped down when they try it.
- lambda 16y ago
  Actually, in Massachusetts it's only illegal to secretly record a police officer. Openly recording a police officer, with your cell phone for instance, is fine, with several cases setting precedent. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/?page=full http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010... Of course, given the precedent here, it sounds likely that you will get arrested and your phone confiscated, and have to spend several months fighting your arrest in court. But there are several recent cases that were overturned because the recording was done openly with a cell phone, rather than secretly. I can't speak to other states. It will vary by states, and in most cases, you may be arrested and your phone confiscated until you fight it in court. Have your local ACLU phone number handy.
  - enjo 16y ago
    Just to be clear on this as well. In MA dual-consent is only required when one party has a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's been extended to include secretly taping someone in public (if the camera is hidden, the other party has a reasonable expectation of privacy). In a public place you can record to your hearts content. This whole thing is about whether or not police have a right to privacy during their work. I think when this finally hits a court of note that it will be smacked down pretty hard. Courts have already found, for instance, that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy during a traffic stop for the person being stopped. Officers are now attempting to claim that privacy right for themselves, and it seems REALLY unlikely that they will succeed in doing that. *note: I run a business that (as part of what we do) records phone calls, so we've had to deal with some of these issues. I'm not a lawyer and probably not exactly an expert.. I just know enough to be pretty damn dangerous:)
    - Anechoic 16y ago
      I think when this finally hits a court of note that it will be smacked down pretty hard. Courts have already found, for instance, that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy during a traffic stop for the person being stopped. The issue already hit the SJC (Commonwealth v. Hyde has indicated in lambda's link) and they ruled for the officer.

ramine 16y ago

I've found a solution! Problem: - The US have a problem getting people to afford studies in the first place - You can spy on students Solution: Sell your privacy to pay for your studies! Wouldn't it be great if you could sell the details of your private life, which you're doing anyway, to pay for your studies? Get a better future for free! </rant>

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Something like the JenniCam? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ringley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ringley

mattchew 16y ago

I hope this isn't over yet. Can the parents can still file a civil suit even if prosecutors don't want to make a public case over this? I'm not surprised that the powers that be are uninterested in prosecuting the school district. But I would have guessed they would have felt compelled to do so, or at least make some noise about doing so, for the sake of appearances. It disturbs me that they can so openly dismiss the families who got spied upon as being beneath their regard.

dantheman 16y ago
A civil suit can still be filed, and hopefully they'll get massive amounts $$$ activity like this needs to be stopped.
electromagnetic 16y ago
Firstly the courts won't prosecute something like this in absence of criminal intent (it would make a precedent against police, FBI, ATF, etc. that spying is guilty-until-proven-innocent/just). Secondly, civil suits are completely unrelated to criminal suits, in most districts these are completely different court buildings and judges. Thirdly, criminal suits can still be filed by anyone who was inappropriately photographed (IE compromising photographs), also the parents (or anyone except the children) can file their own criminal suit for any photographs taken of themselves (not their children). The Attorney said criminal charges won't be laid against the school for the systems use against the child, not that no criminal act was committed. Finally, the Inquirer's writing ability is utter shit... just thought I'd add it to the list because frankly this article was appallingly written.

goodside 16y ago

The article's conclusion is absurdly misleasing given the information presented in its source. The US Attorney did not claim that spying on students is legal, nor did he claim that the school staff did not intend to spy on the students, nor did he even claim that no admissible evidence of a crime existed. He claimed the investigators failed to find any such evidence. This is quite possible even if all of the first three conditions are true--it wouldn't exactly be the first time that cops botched protocol and made evidence key to prosecution inadmissible. The statement does not necessarily reflect any opinion as to whether invasive surveillance of students is legal.

marze 16y ago
You over-complicate. 1. School officials take pictures of students at home without their knowledge. 2. Investigation occurs. 3. No charges, because no "criminal intent" Sure looks like a reasonable conclusion is that the spying is not illegal in the absence of "criminal intent".
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  Note: it's not considered a criminal act, it doesn't mean any of these students (or their families who could also have been photographed, who again could file criminal charges themselves) cannot file civil charges against their school/teachers. Under criminal law in the US, AFAIK in the absence of criminal intent it's very hard to get charges laid. Courts don't want to extend strict liability onto serious cases, because you'll be landing every doctor in jail for malpractice, negligence or simply not doing enough. I doubt courts would extend strict liability onto any 'spying' infraction, because it would make essentially any wiretapping, etc. to be prosecuted essentially as guilty-until-proven-innocent. Although I know in the UK sexual offences are strict liability, and as far as I've seen it follows similar lines in the US too, so one inappropriate picture would have likely turned this result 180.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

duffbeer703 16y ago

The headline is a really dumb conclusion to draw. What happened is that the prosecutor (ie. the US Attorney) declined to prosecute. They have the autonomy to do that. The school district managed to levy enough political influence to convince the prosecutor to look the other way. The conclusion to draw is that justice in the US is up for sale. Another US Attorney successfully prosecuted a the principals of a seafood wholesaler, and imprisoned them for 8 years for importing lobsters in plastic bags instead of cardboard boxes. (True story: http://www.economist.com/node/16640389/comments?page=2 http://www.economist.com/node/16640389/comments?page=2)

sprout 16y ago
Because the alternative, that the parents of these students drummed up a flurry of Internet rumors over nothing, is impossible.
- hga 16y ago
  Given that that is the subject of a civil suit we may find out if it's nothing or something.
- duffbeer703 16y ago
  Sure its possible. The stories written about this seemed credible enough to show that something very wrong was happening. It's also possible that the US Attorney concluded that the admin at the school was incompetent, but not intentionally acting in a criminal way.

DotSauce 16y ago

An aside: While in high-school, I was suspended for broadcasting a web cam from the classroom on to my personal blog. I only ever turned it on during class. The teacher thought I may have been spying on her.

WiseWeasel 16y ago

Bring on the civil suits. Looking forward to this school district being sued into the ground.

SoftwareMaven 16y ago
Just remember who is ultimately paying for that lawsuit. I would prefer criminal convictions that make the people who were really at fault pay for their idiocy instead of just sticking it to the tax payers.
- WiseWeasel 16y ago
  I'd wager school districts are wary of hiring administrators responsible for a fiasco like this. At least they're likely to be out of a job.

Kilimanjaro 16y ago

Once in a while do a goatse, problem solved.

lzw 16y ago

The state court has determined that state employeesdidnt break a state law when recording students without their knowledge. Notice how the state, which has a conflict of interest here, let itself off the hook? Imagine if a old guy had done this by writing software that had attest mode accidentally left in? No intent to spy, but when judging citizens that doesn't really matter. The state cannot be trusted with justicevfor this reason.