Spy Gate: How this Case Could Endanger the Classroom of the Future
Now this is a story that hits close to home, though it has received enough words and video for the Lunch Break to leave it alone: Lower Merion Denies Spy Webcam Threat. If you haven’t heard, a high school vice principal used a picture from a camera located on a school official laptop computer to call in a student who they feared was using drugs. But there are some issues that have not been addressed that could provide a decent discussion. First, why doesn’t the school have the right to the contents on one of its computers? Secondly, if a school official fears that a child’s behavior is endangering them or the school community shouldn’t they move to protect all involved? Finally, why are children always right?
The school district is a locally controlled entity that is meant to educate and protect the children of the community. The first issue deals with the new technology and education. Technology has made learning a 24 hour experience. From teacher websites, to chat lines, to social media, issues that are discussed in class or homework are going on in a communal format. Clearly, Lower Merion wants this for their children since they have decided that laptops could be taken home. Albeit of the forms the parents and students signed that basically stated that anything they do on the computer is under the jurisdiction of school policy, the parents and students know that the computers had cameras and features to insure security and educated related work. Anything that is done with the computers is part of the school curriculum and subjected to review by the administrators the community has deemed responsible for the education. Lower Merion should defend their employee because the future will have much more interaction with computers outside school hours. The naiveté of parents to allow school computers in their house and not think there could be negative implications is equivalent to letting vampires in:
That revelation has parents angry and students wondering whether they have any privacy at all when using the school laptops. "We had to sign a lot of forms to get the laptops initially and forms for insurance and appropriate use that the students had to abide by," Harriton H.S. parent Cici Brooks told Fox 29. "And there was never anything, to my knowledge, that we signed that let us know as parents or a student that they have that device that could tape and take pictures at home. And to me that's outrageous."
But did the disciplinarian do anything wrong? Teachers’ jobs are to address improper behavior so that a wrong doesn’t become a criminal activity that the community would have to pay much more money in missed wage taxes and perhaps future incarceration. Schools promote socially acceptable behavior according to that community’s ideals of a safe environment and to establish proper citizenship. The administrator would have been amiss in his duties if he did not address the issue of the picture and potential drug use. To think that an administrator was arresting the child is an incorrect misinterpretation of discipline in modern schools.
"They thought I was selling drugs because they thought I was popping pills when really I was just eating Mike & Ikes. So they thought that I could possibly be selling drugs, too – which they found out they were wrong about," the boy told reporters. "I just hope that they're not watching me."
If there is a tool that makes children more conscience of their behavior and protects themselves and others in the community, I believe the school has the right to bestow it. Computer technology has opened our lives in ways we are just starting to understand. Proper behavior of society has infiltrated the home and definitely the workplace. We are judged for our behavior and the internet and cameras are a major reason. It is 24 four hour moral society; a lesson Lower Merion has imparted to the students this year.
The last issue is why a child is always abused when an adult asked them a question or cares enough to suspect an area of change. The parents and child should have addressed the issue of the suspected drug use and denied it. The parents should have said that they no longer care for the laptop to be in their house. An accusation by school officials is not a criminal charge or defamation. It is a person hired by the community to investigate harmful behavior by students and get them help if his hypothesis is verified. The statements by the attorney make it sound like frivolous lawsuit:
But the Robbinses' attorney, Mark Haltzman, "It's absolutely not true that this was a lost or stolen laptop." Haltzman added, "They were trying to allege that when Blake was holding two Mike & Ikes in his hand – which he apparently loves and eats religiously – that those were pills and somehow he was involved in selling drugs. And, you know, that's what they wanted to bring to his attention. That's what they were bringing to the parents' attention. But that doesn't fall in line with their stated purpose of why they're turning on these webcams."
Why would a child love and eat Mike & Ikes religiously? There seems to be quite a bit of the story missing. We have a tendency to believe children over adults in our society without ever taking in the full account of the story. The media has portrayed Lower Merion as virtual child pornographers because of this episode. How can a child sue a school because they were acting in his best interest? Schools are already at a disadvantage because they are losing more and more of their power to educate and form good citizens because they fear the public’s opinion. We have made an enemy of the schools as the statement illustrates:
In the new legal documents, the family's attorneys say Lower Merion "has the ability to unilaterally, arbitrarily and capriciously activate and deactivate the camera and software that is utilized to accomplish this invasion of privacy.”
The real victims here will be the poorer students of the community who do not have access to computers at home. Changes will be made to the district technology rules and cameras will be removed, not because they are evil, but they can be used for evil. The vice principal will be forced to resign for doing his job. Schools lose more and more of their grip in creating responsible citizens for their towns and cities because they can not bestow the order and discipline needed to promote productive learners and future professionals. Worst perhaps, we are allowing our children to teach and run the schools instead of the local leaders who are being paid to do just that.
Camera, Foz 29, Harriton HS, Laptops, Lower Merion, Mike & Ikes 
Reader Comments (19)
Dugan
You may need to remove your "Pro-Teacher" visor here and look at this objectively and really see how grossly wrong this whole escapade was. This was indefensible. If the school thought what they were doing was right, they would have announced to everyone before the computers come out that they had built in camera that could allow one to view back out into the students homes. They did not. The computers are their property and they do have the right to track where it is and even to put firewalls in to prevent students from viewing adult sites, gambling sites, even social networking sites if they choose. But to have "Big Brother" monitoring equipment w/o them knowing is an Invasion of Privacy at its worst. And don;t for a second think that they only time they used this was to catch a "Mike and Ike" afficinado. I am sure there were plenty of other times these cameras were used to check out the nightlife and bedroom habits of some of these kids.
The schools authority should begin and end within its doors and grounds. Outside of that, they are overstepping their bounds. I am one who does not appreaciate the giv't involved with every aspect of my life...I certainly would not want a school board doing the same for kids once they are outside their domain.
Everyone who authorized this will and should be fired. This district will have many years ahead of it before it earns the trust back of its community.
Let us not ignore that the criminal investigation under way by The U.S.
Attorney and the FBI no less. The fact that Lower Marion Big Brother Council most likey was peaking in on the dressings/undressings of minors can alos bring some pretty hefty heat on them as well. because, NO ONE knows why, how and when these cameras were turned on and who was watching.
I agree to a point with your post, in that the school district should and must be allowed to defend themselves. Although my gut tells me this was indeed a gross invasion of privacy, we cannot declare the district guilty in the court of public opinion until all the facts have come to light. I do agree with CJ though, that all of this technology should've been disclosed to parents, especially if it was entering their homes.
I think probably both sides are leaving things out of the story, so the media's portrayal of it is skewed. We still don't know exactly what the student was doing and I find the two Mike&Ike's story to be a little far fetched. As if the assistant principal has nothing better to do then spend valuable time hauling in kids simply for chewing on large pill shaped candies after school hours. Instinct suggests that this kid has probably had some other disciplinary concerns, but I don't want to speculate until it comes out in the ongoing investigation.
I also agree that it's very shady that the school district had the software that allows them to spy on kids at home installed in the first place, hasn't revealed who has access to it, and claims it's only used for "lost or stolen computers" when this case didn't involve any missing laptops. Obviously, the district lawyers have their staff tongue tied, lest they damage their chances of winning in court.
However, as interesting as this case is, I don't think anyone should be shocked by it anymore. Are some parents overly litigious? Do some kids do/deal illegal drugs? Is modern technology more and more invasive? Do people in positions of power sometimes abuse this power? The answers to all of these questions are not that far-fetched, and I doubt the conclusion to this case will be either.
CJ -- I have read these parental assent papers that school districts hand out and they cover everything. The classroom no longer ends at the last bell. Did teh parenst or students believe that computers would not have tracking devices. Our home computers are tracked by our internet providers. The problem here is it with kids. Do children have rights not to be spied on? As the school district as the parent, do they not have the right to their own property and the contents. If I give you my car and it is involved in a crime, will I not be accountable, especially if I gave my car to a minor? I think Nick is right. Big Brother is watching. That is how schools and society discipline. 10% there and 90% we think we are there. If not, your taxes would be 90% higher.
I agree with your ideas. The technology is much more than the district was even capable of contemplating let alone exacting. It is like pandora's box. You open up a educational job to 24 seven, your will be responsible for that same time. It is a strange time.
You make an astute point about technology being more and more invasive. What is the extent that technology can be extended while local traditional ideas of school still exist?
There is a point where local control will end when education happens in cyberspace. How can we be held accountable for somthing that would be illegal or perceived illegal in one arena, when a whole different interpretation can be dervived in another. For example, pills are illegal and taking them, even if they are fake, could arouse suspicion in schools, and thus an investigation. But if they are done in an area where there are no pills but just candy that look like pills, then clearly no wrong doing has occured.
You and CJ are absolutely right that the traditional parameters of schools are not ready for the ambiguity the real world or the virtual world creates.
This is only the beginning of the virtual school world. This has probably started the end of local control of education for American schools. It is a big case and should be investigated and discussed. I feel bad for the people involved because they are in the origin of a issue that will shape the future of education. This is not a new idea, but one that has its roots in homeschooling and parent choice. I find it ironic that schools promote this new technology that will one day be their ruin (and I don't judge one or the other better or worst).
The future of school distrcits will become corporate entities trying to get as many students as possible, regardless of geographic bounds, to join. Technology will allow choice of teachers and class and philosophy of schools like no time ever in education. Educational jobs will become quite different in the future and most teachers will become only assitants facilitating a scrip program that has attracted the most parents interests.
As I said before. It is a strange time, especially for education. Give me your thoughts.
I have no issue with the technology like a GPS tracker that could track down lost/stolen computers. I have no issue with firewalling or even checking what websites these kids are seeing since it is not their property. When this grossly oversetps its bounds is when the school has the ability to physically look through the computer into the kids houses and not only view the kid but anyone else in the family within eyeshot. I strongly believe that studenst have the right to NOT be spied on when they are in the privacy of their own homes. The parents did not sign up to have personaly discussions, arguements or even randiness between Mom and Dad to be viewed by some all-seeing school board. I find it incredibly unbelievable that this was the only time the school used its technolgy to look into a classroom. Who views these cameras? What was the protocol for the school to decide whose compyter to view and why? How do they know what they are seeing is wrong?
I have no issues with a school board determining cirricculum (sp?), hiring practces, etc. I have a MAJOR issue with them becoming a moral judge outside the classroom and spying into students personal lives. The most sacred place for teenages (and we all can remember how f'd of a time this was in our lives) is normally their room where they can be themselves and alone with tthier thoughts, fears, cries, etc. How dare this district invade this privacy.
This case is difficult to assess on many levels, but I think anyone outside of education cannot understand why it feels almost personal to educators. We know that our job does not end when the kids leave the building - and neither does our liability. If through that webcam, an educator gained knowledge about a threat to the school or the child and did nothing to prevent it, the district and the individual would be blamed. If there was some true suspicion of drug use, and the child died, the vice-principal would be held accountable if it turned out she had knowledge and did not diclose it. This webcam issue is new in a way because it involves technology, but educators have had views into students' and their parents' lives for years - just not literally until now. If we suspect or have proof of abuse, we are legally obligated to investigate. Every thing a child says or does in our classroom and for school purposes becomes our legal responsibility.
I think that I am just annoyed that people in the media and in the public think that educators have nothing better to do than to spy on children and their families in their homes. This case is just reinforcing the idea that kids have that they are our whole lives, as if we have really always wanted to invade the sanctity of their bedrooms and now we have a means to do so. When the facts come out about this case, I am fairly certain that this administrator is not going to turn out to be some woman who gets a kick out of looking at a student in his bedroom. Most likely, she is a person who was confused about what her legal obligation was to the district, the student and the parents.
If the intentions were so noble, why then was it not disclosed to the parents and students that these computers had the capability of being spycams? "Hey parents, since you do not have the time these days to watch your kids 24/7, we now have the technology to do it ourselves!" I am certain that had this been disclosed, the overriding majority of parents and students would never have bought in. I for one certainly would not have.
Why was it that as soon as this news broke, they immediately turned off the remote access function? They knew that what they were doing was in essence, morally wrong and they got caught.
I undertand the educators reponsibility to the students well being WITHIN the boundries of the classroom. I also understand that if educators feel that there are problems at home that could affect the safety of the student that have an obligation to report it to the proper authorities whether it be the police or social services. But to monitor these kids at home without them knowing it is such a disgusting abuse, I cannot accept any explanation for it.
If this was some governmrent agency, or a car company or friggin McDonalds doing the same thing to its employees...I am willing to bet the folks here would be as up in arms about it as I am. However, because it happened in a school district...all of a sudden the rules change and they are just looking out for the safety of kids. Bullshit. The parents did not sign up to have their sanctity of their home invaded, 95% of the kids who live straight and narrow paths did not sign up for this.
I see the point of the inappropriate use of a webcam in a house. I wouldn't think of it if my kid brought home a laptop. I would be nervous as hell to have someone's laptop in my home.
There are boundries that have been redefined. That is what I think is at stake. The school has stepped over a line; there is no doubt. The interesting thing though, Lower Merion might have the resources and gumption to challenge where the new education line should be.
It is like a incentous family: parents, school board, administrators and teachers. Everyone of them doing what is best for the kids, yet all of them seem to be going in different directions. If the school district does not fight this though, they could put their technology (and all those state funded laptops) out to pasture for awhile. Back to black boards and chalk like when I was in school.
I understand your outrage CJ, but I am still curious what the parents did sign up for. The assumption that the district implemented this program as a means to spy on kids is a bit unfair. I do not deny that this case may have been an abuse of the program, but I still believe that there must have been a reason why this administrator felt that she had a legal obligation to intervene based on the policy of the program - the policy that all parents signed. Whether or not she grossly misinterpreted the policy or the parents underestimated the the laptops's capability's, I still feel like there is some shared responsibility in this case. Maybe no one really fully investigated the legality of issuing school laptops equipped with cameras and tracking devices. I am fairly certain that this case will now help determine the legal procedures for future programs.
I also feel like your comparison of schools to McDonalds and other companies that service adults is unfair. These businesses are not entrusted with the well being of children. The rules do change when children are involved.
Aprilmae,
The entire reason for this outcry is because no one knew that these computers could be accessed to be looked into. There was nothing on the parental sheet that stated that the school had the ability to look into through the webcam back into the students environment. Had it been stated initially, I pretty much guarantee that this is not nearly the story it became. The fact that the parents and students did not know about this and then once it came out, this school deactivated this function shows me that they knew all along that this was a morally questionable thing to do. This is my whole problem with the district's decision. I have no prblem with them installing traffic devices...when they install cameras that can view into a studnets home without the families knowing...that is just an obscene abuse.
I see no difference whether it be a private business, public works or school. When you spy on someone without them knowing, it is simply wrong. We are not talking about 4 year olds in kiddie care...these are 15-18 year olds. Some of them can vote, marry and fight in a war. They have the right to privacy in their home with their families. The school does not have the right to under whatever guise they want to use to invade that.
if people here think this is fine, why don't we put cameras in every classroom so every parent can remotely monitor their kids at school to make sure they are being treated fairly? It will still be better than what happened because at least the teachers will be aware they are being watched.
I am shocked to see any defense of this ALLEGED abuse, corruption, and downright, unequivocal breaking of the law!
Dugan, your post states, "If you haven’t heard, a high school vice principal used a picture from a camera located on a school official laptop computer to call in a student who they feared was using drugs." This is not true as of right now. This is an allegation by the student. There has been zero confirmation of this. This is one reason why newspapers, and worse yet, BLOGS, are becoming such a hazard to people. The paper writes alleged once, usually in the 3rd paragraph of the piece and then never mentions it again, leaving too many readers to believe the story and allegation is absolutely true. Blogs, such as this entry, completely distort the fact with a statement such as yours in the opening paragraph and many others read it as factual. This is a huge problem when discussing any legal issue, regardless if children are involved or not.
As for the ALLEGATION- If true, it is an unquestionable violation of the law. There is no black and white here because it's school property or there are kids involved and the school has a responsibility for them once they leave or any other nonsensical, absurd reasoning to even remotely justify the actions of this principal. It is against the law to use technology in this fashion. Cops must have a warrant, based on substantial evidence to acquire a wiretap or video surveillance, and it is issued by a judge and cosigned by a District Attorney, who are meant to be outside, objective parties to help avoid any form of corruption or abuse of such invasive means of policing. These laws are in place to protect even the most horrendous scum imaginable and are also in place to protect police and other law enforcement agents from themselves. Anyone who believes that school officials are somehow superior or above this because they are responsible for children needs to check their constitution because you're liable to have your rights trampled on.
Furthermore, the district has no need for such security measures in the first place. They have insurance if computers are stolen and the police to investigate when a crime has been committed. According to the stats, 44 computers have been stolen and only 15 retrieved through this security measure, so it apparently doesn't work too well. Philadelphia has a GPS system to locate a stolen computer. The fact that Philadelphia, one of the most corrupt cities in terms of education and policing, has more sense than Lower Merion should reveal to everyone how flawed this security measure is. Also, the computers are not technically the school's property; they were acquired from a state grant and therefore state property.
The idea that schools have a responsibility and that this therefore justifies their actions is ridiculous. Educators are not the law, and nor should they be. If the school had any real concern about a student's habits, they have a million other alternatives to address this concern, none of which should involve using an educational tool to spy on someone. To argue that the ALLEGED principal simply didn't know her boundaries because the education is so new and the laws are changing is equally as absurd. Unfortunately, ignorance is not a defense. If this turns out to be exactly or even remotely similar to the student's alleged story, then this woman, and any other educator aware of its use for such means must be fired and even potentially sent to jail, if for no other reason than sheer stupidity to not realize this is a gross abuse of power.
There is an amazing irony here that seems to have escaped many- that the accused used her obligation to the safety of the student and the community to shatter her responsibility of actually protecting children from such abuses. Educators do have a great responsibility, one that many can not appreciate, but to attempt to utilize this responsibility to justify such actions reflects great naivete of the system's actual purpose.
Great post Patrick and very well stated. I agree with you 100%. I cannot fathom anyone defending this behavior or initiative in the slightest.
I would make two arguments. The Patriot Act does not necessarily require warrants by law enforcement. Second, do children have the same rights as adults when it comes to their clandestine behavior?
Any law or justice system must be given the benefit of the doubt and some leeway to make a community safe. We must believe our law enforcement, and as much as you may think teachers and adminstrators are acting as "wanna be" police, the community must trust their behavior and morality. I stated there are things left out of the story and this plagues any truth, but not the philosophy suggested by the the two sides.
Is there possible misuse of technology? The media has decided there is whether facts will be released later that deny this. The vice principal and school district has provided some defense in recent days that makes this sound plausible. (after the incident had blown up for almost five days). It is not the media's fault that the school district has not faught the allegations with a stronger, more immediate action that could have prevented the uninformed.
But the argument still exists, is what is found using cameras outside of the classroom or school time evidence that can and should be used to prosecute or in this case help the student. I am saying because of the climate of modern education, new technology, and responsibility of educators, they are within their traditional rights.
If you believe there are malicious entities trying to corrupt youth in our schools by giving them trojan horses to alienate and remove them from society, then you must not think highly of our educational institutions.
"But the argument still exists, is what is found using cameras outside of the classroom or school time evidence that can and should be used to prosecute or in this case help the student"
No! This argument does not exist. There is no argument because there is no reason whatsoever for any school official to be monitoring the activity of the students outside of the school. This accused behavior belies your argument and is the real and only issue at hand. While teachers have a responsibility for students once they leave the school grounds, it is merely reactive to information that they legally, inadvertently see or hear from someone else. If this allegation is true, then the school went well beyond its responsibility in a proactive manner, using nefarious means to procure information. That is not their job and not their right. It's not an argument for discussion, it's a violation of a very serious law. The district has already consented to this by stating repeatedly that the only use of the computer cameras outside of school is if a computer is stolen, which according to the accuser, was not. I tend to believe him here because if this was the case, the district probably would have produced evidence of such.
Also, I was really hoping no one would go to the Patriot Act as a means of defense. The Patriot Act is to protect against suspected terrorist activity, not potential drug deals or drug use. It is also monitored and restricted to the FBI and CIA, institutions of Law Enforcement, and not for the use of common citizens or schools. And while its existence may offend some, it has absolutely nothing to do with this current predicament.
Comrade Dugan,
By your logic, then let's put cameras in every room of every home that has children in it. That way we can watch their every move and ensure nothing bad ever happens!!! You are trying to justify a move that is so Un-American it defies logic. Do you want a camera in your home without your knowledge recording every move of you, your wife and children?
My wife is a teacher and I had this discussion with some of her collegaues. They are all appalled by this event and think it brings even worse heat on an already embattled profession. so I cannot even say this is a teacher/non-teacher debate. Educators alreaduy have enough on theor plate they need to worry about...they do not need the added responsibility of watchguarding what happens outside their class. Nor is it something I anyone, I believe, would appoint them to in the first place.
Patrick and CJ,
It is not possible to defend spying on students in their home - I don't think anyone is trying to do that - I just can't believe that spying was the vice-principal's motive. I think that she is being unfairly villianized. I also refuse to believe that she is some stupid person who does not deserve the job that she has. This Lanrev management software was ALLEGEDLY used 42 times by the district to locate lost or stolen computers. I can't help but assume that she was operating under prior practice of the district. I am still not defending the practice, I am merely trying to understand what may have happened that led to this case. WIthout knowledge of the details of the case, only being privy to what the student is saying, I can not call for people to be fired without a full investigation. I am just trying to put myself in the position of this principal. If a picture of this student was brought to her attention, and it looked like he was engaging in dangerous behavior, she could be held liable if she did not do anything about it. I know that both of you are looking at the bigger picture of invasion of privacy, which of course is the more important priority, but I can't help but feel that many people are responsible for failing to anticipate that this type of technology could lead to these problems. I do not just blame the vice-principal - every person knows that everything that they do on a computer is documented and stored somewhere. Maybe parents had absolutely no idea that a webcam could be turned on remotely when they signed the contract that brought the state-owned computer into their home, but even I understand that nothing that I do on a computer is completely private, and I am technologically challenged. Again, I am not excusing the practice of a government agency turning on a camera in someone's home, but I think people's assumption that this case was Big Brother at work is dangerous too. We all have to accept that technology has created many situations that are not "black and white," and I hope that people are able to create policy that can clearly protect an individual's right to privacy while still utilizing advanced technology.
What is good for the state is good for the people! The computers are an extension of the classroom. That is the argument.
You are both right. I am sounding a bit Communist. I better knock it off until they use the Patriot Act on me.
Anyway Edmonds -- drug cartels and Green Peace were both considered terrorist groups and investigated under that Act.
Just one more thing that I forgot to ask in my last post - and I am completely sincere when I ask this. Since I am not a CFF teacher, I am not sure what the contract looks like that people in our own district signed. I see teachers everyday use these state owned comouters for their personal use. People bring these computers into their homes, may even let husbands or wives use them. The cameras issued with this equipment are used to take pictures of things that are not related to school. Music is downloaded - shopping is done. I am curious about what expectation of privacy is there when using these computers in your home? If something you or someone else did with the state's computer was considered to be innappropriate, is there any recourse? Do the contracts say that you can use them for personal use, or are they strictly supposed to be used for educational reasons?