Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:18, 11 August 2010

Blake J. Robbins v. Lower Merion School District is a class action lawsuit (pending certification), brought on behalf of students of the Lower Merion School District (LMSD) in Pennsylvania.

The suit alleges that the school secretly spied on the students while they were in the privacy of their own homes. School authorities allegedly surreptitiously activated webcams remotely, which were installed in school-issued laptops that the students were using at home. The suit charges that the school district therefore infringed on the privacy rights of its students.

The lawsuit was filed after Blake Robbins was disciplined at school for his behavior in his home. The evidence for the discipline was a photograph secretly taken by the school via the webcam on his school-issued laptop. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has initiated an investigation of the matter, and is being cited as a cautionary example of how modern technology can impact personal privacy. The laptops were used by the school to collect pictures of students in their own homes, chat logs, and records of the websites they visited, and the information was sent to servers at the school.

Technical background

At the beginning of the 2009–10 school year, LMSD, in a suburb of Philadelphia--Lower Merion, Pennsylvania, in the United States--issued MacBook laptops to 2,300 high school students. As part of the One-to-one initiative, a program piloted in 2008 at Harriton High School and expanded in 2009 at Lower Merion High School, each student was provided his or her individual laptop computer for both in-school and at-home use. The school equipped the computers with LANrev's remote activation and tracking software, including the now-discontinued Theft Track, which allowed remote webcam activation.

Two members of the school's student council had twice confronted the principal more than a year prior to the suit, concerned "that the school could covertly photograph students using the laptops' cameras." Students were particularly bothered by the webcam's flickering green activation light, which several students reported would periodically turn on when the camera wasn't in use. School officials denied that it was anything but a technical glitch, and offered to have the laptops looked at if students were concerned. In neither the promotion of the laptop program nor the individual contracts that students signed did the school make mention of the computer's remote activation features.

Michael Perbix, network technician within the Lower Merion school district, can be seen enthusiastically describing the spying capabilities of the LANrev software on a LANRev promotional video. At time mark 35:47, Perbix states that when "you're controlling someone's machine, you don't want them to know what you're doing." Perbix had previously praised Theft Track in a YouTube video that he produced, saying:

It's an excellent feature. Yes, we have used it, and yes, it has gleaned some results for us. But it, in and of itself, is just a fantastic feature for trying to—especially when you're in a school environment and you have a lot of laptops and you're worried about, you know, laptops getting up and missing. I've actually had some laptops we thought were stolen which actually were still in a classroom, because they were misplaced, and by the time we found out they were back, I had to turn the tracking off. And I had, you know, a good twenty snapshots of the teacher and students using the machines in the classroom.

Perbix maintains a personal blog in which he discusses computer oversight techniques, including how to cloak remote monitoring so it is invisible to the user.

LANrev's new owner, Absolute Software, staunchly denounced the use of its software for any illegal purpose, emphasizing that theft-recovery should be left to law enforcement professionals. The company further denied any knowledge of or complicity in either Perbix's or the school district's actions. Absolute stated that the next update of LANrev, which would ship in the next several weeks, would permanently disable Theft Track.

While remote activation of the webcam is currently deactivated by court agreement, the LANrev software has not yet been removed. In addition to webcam surveillance, LANrev allows technicians to take snapshots of instant messages, web browsing, music playlists, and written compositions, all of which can still be monitored and archived via screen capture. Further, LANrev can be programmed to automatically capture webcam pictures and screen captures and store them on the hard disk for later retrieval in areas of the computer's memory that are not accessible by the student, and can be deleted remotely. Because of these capabilities, removal of the hard drive is recommended for preserving forensic evidence.

Robbins lawsuit

The lawsuit, brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of Blake J. Robbins and other students of the school district, alleges that school-issued MacBooks with built-in webcams were used by school staff to invade the students' privacy by remotely activating the laptop cameras while the students were off school property.

Robbins, a Robbins, a student at Harriton High School, was called into his assistant principal's office, shown a photograph taken on the webcam of his school-issued laptop in his home, and disciplined for "improper behavior". According to the Philadelphia Daily News, "the lawsuit does not specify why the photograph was objectionable."

Robbins said that Assistant Principal Lindy Matsko told him that the school district was able at any time to activate the webcam remotely in a student's laptop, and view and capture whatever image was visible without the knowledge or consent of anyone in its line of sight. Witold Walczak, the Legal Director of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (not a party in the lawsuit), commented: "This is fodder for child porn."

The plaintiffs allege that "many of the images captured and intercepted may consist of minors and their parents or friends in compromising or embarrassing positions", including "various stages of undress." In a widely published photograph, Robbins was shown sleeping in his bed. The lawsuit claims that the district's use of the webcams violates the Constitution's guarantees of privacy of the students and their families and friends at home, as well as Pennsylvania common law and the U.S. Civil Rights Act. It also accused officials of violating electronic communications laws by spying through "indiscriminate use of an ability to remotely activate the webcams incorporated into each laptop".

Following the initiation of the lawsuit and a review by the district of privacy policies, the district disabled the school's ability to remotely activate the webcam.

Ongoing events

Initial Response

On February 18, 2010, the school district posted a reply on its website stating that "The tracking-security feature was limited to taking a still image of the operator and the operator's screen," and that it "has only been used for the limited purpose of locating a lost, stolen, or missing laptop." "his includes tracking down a loaner computer that, against regulations, might be taken off campus." The complaint does not state whether Robbins' laptop had been reported stolen, and district spokesman Doug Young said the district cannot disclose that fact. He said the district never violated its policy of only using the remote-activation software to find missing laptops. "Infer what you want," Young said.

On February 20, 2010, the plaintiffs' lawyer, Mark S. Haltzman of Lamm Rubenstone LLC, told MSNBC Live that the student had been eating "Mike and Ike" candy in front of the laptop assigned to him, in his own home. The attorney said that the school administrator had accused the student of using illegal drugs, after seeing him eating the candy in a webcam image. Haltzman said that his client's laptop had not been reported stolen or lost. The lawyer raised questions about who is deciding when to activate the webcam, and for what reasons.

The school district issued a statement on its website denying that the administrator at the school had ever used a photo taken by a school-issued laptop to discipline a student. The administrator herself repeated this statement in video distributed to national media on February 24, 2010.

Motions in case

At a hearing that week, Haltzman sought an injunction to prevent the school from reactivating the security feature. The school district avoided it by voluntarily consenting to comply. In addition, the court issued a gag order, preventing the district from discussing the case without first clearing its communications with the plaintiff's attorney.

In support of the motion for injunction, the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs. Citing relevant case law regarding privacy and unconstitutional searches, the brief stated: "While the act of placing the camera inside students’ laptops may not implicate the Fourth Amendment, once the camera is used a search has occurred that, absent a warrant or consent, violates the Fourth Amendment" (see United States v. Karo).

Loaner claim

The school district has suggested that Blake was in possession of a loaner laptop, because he had not paid a $55 insurance fee which would have permitted him to use one of the regular computers. In a 2009 letter to parents, Harriton principal Steven R. Kline stated that "no uninsured laptops are permitted off campus," and explained that students who had not paid the insurance fee could use one of the loaners. Asked if Robbins took a loaner computer home without authorization, Young declined to comment. The Philadelphia Inquirer speculated that, if the loaner was considered missing, the circumstances might have prompted the district to activate the webcam. Haltzman denied that Blake was ever notified that his computer use was a problem, and stated that Blake had taken a computer home "every single day" for a month.

Responding to criticism that the Robbins family has been involved in several recent lawsuits, possibly stemming from accrued personal debt, Haltzman denied that financial issues or recent legal judgments have any relevance or were a motivation. Further, the class-action lawsuit brought by the Robbinses argues for class status on the grounds that individual compensation may be small, and therefore multiple parties will need to share in covering the legal fees.

In a statement made to the press on February 24, Blake emphasized that the case was neither about his vice principal's misconduct nor his own, but about the undisclosed spying capabilities which the district covertly maintained.

Opposition to initial lawsuit

In opposition to the lawsuit, a group of concerned parents formed a committee called Lower Merion Parents. The group's concerns were that the Robbins lawsuit will be excessively costly, attract undue attention to the district while harming its civic tone and distracting from its educational mission, and take too long to resolve. Particular attention was given to the fact that any payment for the members of the class in the class action suit would effectively come from the taxpayers who live in the district. Lower Merion Parents was not opposed to a full investigation of the district's technological capabilities and of any abuses the district committed; however, the group's objective was to avoid a lawsuit.

On March 2, 150 parents met in Narberth to discuss these ideas. Robbins' attorney Mark Haltzman requested an opportunity to speak to the group, but was denied. As summarized by a founder of Lower Merion Parents, the meeting was geared towards answering three questions:

• Did the parents want the Robbins family representing them?
• How could the court's "gag order" agreement that district officials and school board members not talk about the case without first consulting the Robbinses and their lawyer be lifted?
• How could parents get all the facts about what actually happened with laptops and webcams?

One of the options that parents have is to file a motion to intervene, which is an agreement to be parties in the case, but with different interests than the plaintiff.

A similar group called Parents in Support of the Lower Merion School District had collected more than 750 signatures by March 3 in an online petition located at ipetitions.com.

Hasan lawsuit

In July 2010, a second Lower Merion graduate and his mother filed a civil suit for invasion of privacy against the school district over the school's use of the LANRev software. Lower Merion school administrators informed the Hasans by letter that Jalil had been secretly monitored by the webcam on his school-issued laptop.

Over 1,000 images were surreptitiously taken by the computer--consisting of 469 webcam photographs, and 543 screen shots, including shots of him in his bedroom and of other family members and friends. A laptop that Jalil had misplaced at the school for three days had the surveillance software covertly activated for nearly two months following its recovery. It was only deactivated after the first lawsuit was filed. "When I saw these pictures, it really freaked me out," said Jalil Hasan.

References

1. ^ "School district accused of spying on kids via laptop webcams". USA Today. February 18, 2010. Retrieved February 19, 2010.
2. ^ "School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home". Boing Boing. February 17, 2010. Retrieved February 18, 2010.
3. "Lawsuit: PA School District Using School-Issued Laptop Webcams to Spy on Students". America's Right website. Retrieved February 18, 2010.
4. ^ "Official: FBI probing Pa. school webcam spy case". The Washington Post. February 19, 2010. Retrieved February 20, 2010.
5. Martin, John P. (April 16, 2010). "Lower Merion schools". philly.com. Retrieved April 16, 2010.
6. ^ "School Laptop camera snapped away in one classroom". The Philadelphia Inquirer. February 22, 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2010.
7. ^ "LANrev to lose Theft Track feature following Pa. school spying allegations". Blogs.techrepublic.com.com. February 23, 2010. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
8. LMSD Staff List, http://www.lmsd.org/sections/about/depart/tech/default.php?t=departments&p=depart_tech_techstaff
9. http://webcast.macenterprise.org/2008Webcasts/2008-05-20-LANrev-Webcast.zip
10. The Spy at Harrington High http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2010/02/spy-at-harrington-high.html
11. "FBI, US Attorney Probing Penn. School District's Computer Spying". Democracynow.org. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
12. Turning off the Lightspeed LsSaAlerter in OSX http://bestsinceslicedbread.blogspot.com/2009_11_01_archive.html
13. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9160278/Software_maker_blasts_vigilantism_in_Pa._school_spying_case?taxonomyId=12
14. School spying: infected laptops mandatory, jailbreaking grounds for expulsion http://boingboing.net/2010/02/22/school-spying-infect.html
15. "Stryde Hax: The Spy at Harriton High". Strydehax.blogspot.com. February 21, 2010. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
16. "Lower Merion School District sued for cyber spying on students". Philadelphia Daily News. February 18, 2010. Retrieved February 19, 2010.
17. Leonard, Tom (February 18, 2010). "School 'spied on pupils at home through webcams'". The Telegraph. London. Retrieved February 19, 2010.
18. "Official: FBI Probing Pa. School Webcam Spy Case", CBS3.com, February 20, 2010
19. "LMSD response to invasion of privacy allegation". Lower Merion School District website. February 18, 2010. Retrieved February 19, 2010.
20. "Update from Dr. McGinley regarding high school student laptop security". Lower Merion School District website. February 19, 2010. Retrieved February 24, 2010.
21. "Update from Dr. McGinley regarding high school student laptop security". Lower Merion School District website. February 19, 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2010.
22. "Principal Accused in "WebcamGate": I'm No Spy". NBC News. February 24, 2010. Retrieved February 24, 2010.
23. ^ Tanfani, Joseph (February 22, 2010). "Judge: School officials must clear "webcamgate" comments with lawyers". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
24. Lattanzio, Vince (February 20, 2010). "WebcamGate Teen: "I Hope They're Not Watching Me"". WCAV. Retrieved February 20, 2010.
25. Rivero, Claudia; Ryan, Bruce (February 20, 2010). "WebcamGate Family's Attorney: "Who Has Access"". WCAU. Retrieved February 20, 2010.
26. http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Robbinsfinal.pdf
27. Fitzgerald, Thomas (February 22, 2010). "Laptop camera snapped away in one classroom". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
28. Stringer, David (February 25, 2010). "Laptop family is no stranger to legal disputes". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
29. King, Larry (February 25, 2010). "Laptop family is no stranger to legal disputes". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
30. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9162940/_Spygate_teenager_demands_webcam_pix_from_Pa._school?taxonomyId=15
31. William Bender (March 3, 2010). "Parents meet to slam Lower Merion spy-cam suit". Philadelphia Daily News. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
32. Stringer, David (March 3, 2010). "L. Merion parents discuss a response in laptop suit". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
34. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_laptops_spying_on_students
35. http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/tech/2nd-Lawsuit-Filed-Over-WebcamGate-99368474.html

External links

• Text of the class-action civil suit
• Justia.com's index of court documents
• LMSD responses to invasion of privacy allegation
• Pennsylvania ACLU's amicus brief, friend of the court brief citing privacy case law in favor of Robbins
• The Spy at Harriton High, detailed technical discussion from the Stryde Hax blog
• Michael Perbix of LMSD discussing the use of LANrev (laptop tracking software)
• Best Since Sliced Bread, personal tech blog of LMSD IT director, Michael Perbix
• LMSD Parents, community group opposed to an expensive lawsuit
• School district report

• Civil law
• United States lawsuits
• Privacy law
• Surveillance scandals
• Pennsylvania law