Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:47, 13 August 2010

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

The suit alleges that, in what has been termed the "WebcamGate" scandal, 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. After the suit was brought, the district revealed that it had secretly activated webcams that had produced more than 58,000 images. The suit charges that the school district therefore infringed on the privacy rights of its students.

The lawsuit was filed after 15-year-old high school sophomore 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 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. In a widely published photograph, Robbins had been photographed in his bed. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), U.S. Attorney's Office, and Montgomery County District Attorney all initiated investigations of the matter, a U.S. Senate subcommittee held hearings on the issues it raised, parents, media, and academicians criticized the school, and it was cited as a cautionary example of how modern technology can be used to infringe on personal privacy.

In July 2010, a second Lower Merion graduate filed a similar second suit, regarding 1,000+ images that were surreptitiously taken by the school via his computer, including shots of him in his bedroom. The district deactivated its surveillance of the student in February 2010, after the first lawsuit was filed, and informed the student of the existence of the photographs five months later.

Laptops with covert cameras

At the beginning of the 2009–10 school year, LMSD, in a suburb of Philadelphia—Lower Merion, Pennsylvania, in the United States—issued Apple MacBook laptops to all of its 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, and provided to use it. The program cost $2.6 million, less than a third of which was covered by grants.

The school equipped the computers with LANrev's remote activation and tracking software, including the now-discontinued "TheftTrack", which allowed remote webcam activation. That, in turn, allowed school officials to secretly take photos and take screen shots. The system snapped and stored a new photo every 15 minutes when the laptops were on, through a tiny camera embedded in the laptop. The LANrev software disabled the cameras for all other uses (students were unable to use PhotoBooth or video chat), so apparently most of them believed that the camera did not work at all. In addition to snapping the photos, software inside the laptop would copy the laptop screen image, and a locating device woud record the Internet address, which could allow district technicians to pinpoint where the machine was. When it took a picture, it sent it to the school's server, then erased the file created on the laptop so that there was no trace for users to figure out that they were being watched. It's not clear who in the Lower Merion schools had access to the Web cam photos.

The district's information systems director, Virginia DiMedio, approved the purchase and installation of the $156,000 surveillance software. The District intentionally did not publicize the existence of the technology.

In August 2008, weeks before the district handed out the laptops, a Harriton High School student interning in the IT department sent an email to DiMedio, saying he had researched the laptops' software and discovered it would allow employees to monitor students' laptops remotely. He called it "appalling" that the district hadn't told students and their parents "for privacy's sake", and wrote: "I feel it would be best that students and parents are informed of this before they receive their computers.... I could see not informing parents and students of this fact causing a huge uproar". DiMedio responded:

If we were going to monitor student use at home, we would have stated so. Think about it—why would we do that? There is no purpose. We are not a police state. I suggest you take a breath and relax.

Michael Perbix, District network technician, also dismissed the student's concerns in a reply e-mail.

Two members of the Harriton student council 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, signaling that the built-in webcam had been turned on. Student Katerina Perech said: "It was just really creepy". School officials denied that it was anything other than a technical glitch, and offered to have the laptops examined 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 surveillance activation features.

Cafiero wrote to her boss Demedio: "Mike loves it, and I agree it is a great product." Perbix raved about the spying capabilities of the LANrev software on a LANrev 2008 promotional webcast. At time mark 35:47, Perbix said that when "you're controlling someone's machine, you don't want them to know what you're doing." He had previously praised TheftTrack in a YouTube video he produced, saying: "It's ... just a fantastic feature ... especially when you're in a school environment". 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.

In addition to webcam surveillance, LANrev allowed school officials 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 capture webcam pictures and screen captures automatically, 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. Fred Cate, Director of the Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research at Indiana University, said: "This is the classic definition of spyware. It's as bad as you can imagine."

After the suit was filed, Eileen Lake of Wynnewood, whose three children attend district schools, said: "If there's a concern that laptops are misplaced or stolen, they should install a chip to relocate them instead. There shouldn't be a reason to use webcams for that purpose."

Robbins lawsuit

The lawsuit was filed on February 11, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, by plaintiffs' lead lawyer, Mark S. Haltzman of Lamm Rubenstone LLC. It was filed on behalf of Blake Robbins, and other students of the school district.

The complaint alleges that school-issued MacBooks with built-in iSight webcams were used by school staff to invade the students' privacy by remotely activating the laptop cameras covertly while the students were off school property. The defendants are the District, its nine-member Board of Directors, and its Superintendent.

Covert surveillance

While District officials knew Robbins had his laptop, and had taken it home, on October 20, 2009, they decided to start capturing webcam photos and screenshots from his school-issued MacBook by activating its covert camera. Two hours later, Perbix, the District network technician, e-mailed building-level technician Kyle O'Brien to let him know that TheftTrack was running on Robbins' computer. Perbix wrote: "Now currently online at home." Over the next 15 days, the District captured at least 210 webcam photos and 218 screenshots, including photos of Robbins sleeping and of him partially undressed, and of his father, inside their home. The district also sent images of Robbins' instant messages and video chats with friends to its servers.

On October 26, Perbix brought to the attention of his boss, District director of information services George Frazier, one of the screenshots of Robbins, taken at his home. In early November, a number of Harriton High administrators incuding Steve Klein, the school's principal, met to discuss the images.

Robbins, a sophomore at Harriton High School, was called into his Assistant Principal's office on November 11, 2009, shown a photograph taken on the webcam of his school-issued laptop in his bedroom in his Penn Valley home as what the Assistant Principal thought was "proof", and disciplined for "improper behavior". His parents were contacted and told school officials that they were mistaken, and Blake was not disciplined, but the family decided to sue after a counselor told them that an account of the incident had been placed in Blake's school file.

Robbins said that Assistant Principal Lindy Matsko told him that the 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.

Complaint

The plaintiffs alleged that

many of the images captured and intercepted may consist of images of minors and their parents or friends in compromising or embarrassing positions, incuding ... various stages of dress or undress.

In a widely published photograph, Robbins was shown sleeping in his bed. The hundreds of photos taken of the 15-year-old also included him standing shirtless after getting out of the shower, as well as his father and friends. Not included in what was turned over to the family was a week's worth of images that the district says it has not been able to recover.

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 Section 1983 of the U.S. Civil Rights Act. It also accused officials of violating electronic communications laws (the U.S. Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Stored Communications Act, and the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act) by spying through "indiscriminate use of an ability to remotely activate the webcams incorporated into each laptop".

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, Haltzman 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 taking illegal pills, 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. Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr., and four Ballard Spahr attorneys represent the district.

In a statement to the press on February 24, 2010, Robbins emphasized that the case was about the undisclosed spying capabilities which the district covertly maintained.

The district denied that the school administrator 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.

Admissions, and further instances

The district later admitted to "serious mistakes" and "misguided actions," that its monitoring system was flawed and "not handled appropriately", that "notice should have been given" to the families, and that its failure to do so "was a significant mistake". The District's superintendent admitted that students and parents were not informed of the spying feature. The district also admitted that the remote surveillance was activated and left running for two weeks, even though school officials knew it was at Robbins' home. It also admitted that its technology staff activated the camera on the computer Robbins had, and gave images it covertly snapped to two Harriton High principals.

On February 24 the district suspended, by putting on paid administrative leave, its two staffers who were authorized to activate the remote monitoring, district 12-year-veterans Information Systems Coordinator Carol Cafiero and Network Technician Perbix.] Haltzman wrote in a motion in which he sought to examine the computer of the suspended Cafiero that she "may be a voyeur." He cited excerpts of e-mails between her and a district technician about the surreptitious webcam, in which the technician emailed Cafiero that it was "like a little LMSD soap opera," and she replied, "I know, I love it". She was interviewed by the FBI in April 2010. Her lawyer said she had only turned the webcam system on when requested to do so by school officials. Cafiero in her first deposition declined to answer questions, citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, but in a later deposition after she had been interviewed by the FBI, answered questions under oath.

The District also revealed that the secretly activated webcams had produced more than 58,000 images, and acknowledged that more than half the images were created after missing laptops were recovered. While asserting that it did not have any evidence that individual students had been specifically targeted, the district issued a statement acknowledging that "mistakes were made". In addition, the school later said they it should have informed students and parents about the secret surveillance software.

Following the initiation of the lawsuit and a review by the district of privacy policies, the district disabled the school's ability to activate the webcam remotely. Lillie Coney of the Electronic Privacy Information Center said: "If they thought it was right, they wouldn't have stopped."

In June and July 2010, dozens of other students were notified that they too had been secretly photographed by school authorities via their webcams. The District said that more than 58,000 photos had been taken since September 2008, but that the exact number was not known as a number of the photos had been deleted. The students were invited to privately review the photos that had been taken, and a federal judge is overseeing the review process. In a number of cases, the school had no answer as to who ordered the surreptitious webcam activation, or why.

Reactions of students, media, academia, and computer experts

Tom Halpern, a 15-year-old sophomore who attends the school, told CBS News, "Everybody's pretty disgusted.... I think its pretty despicable." Karen Gotlieb, whose daughter attends the school, said, "I just received an e-mail from my daughter, who is very upset, saying, 'Mom, I have my laptop open in my room all the time, even when I'm changing." Savanna Williams, a sophomore at Harriton High, said she always keeps her computer open, its webcam exposed, when she's changing in her bedroom and in the bathroom when she's taking a shower. She said: "I was like, 'Mom, I have this open all the time. … This is disturbing.'" Her mother said: "the possibility of this being true is a "complete violation of her privacy, of our entire home–not just Savanna. They have the option to watch , my husband, my other child. They violated our trust." Mother Candace Chacona said she was "flabbergasted" by the allegations: "My first thought was that my daughter has her computer open almost around the clock in her bedroom. Has she been spied on?" Chuck Barsh, an insurance broker whose son is in high school, called the district's actions a "gross invasion" of student privacy and supported the lawsuit, saying: "These people were able to look at our kids in our house".

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Monica Yant Kinney wrote:

School district techies peering into private homes, even for a moment, under the guise of locating a lost laptop?
Even in this "surveillance society," it's almost beyond comprehension.

The Philadelphia Inquirer, in an editorial, called the school's decision to use the remote-camera feature "misguided", and wrote "families had every right to be shocked. As an antitheft strategy, the webcam tracking was overkill–and not even as useful as other means. Then failing to disclose the webcam use was a huge gaffe, compounded by a lack of policies safeguarding students' privacy." The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote in an editorial: "Schools have no business or jurisdiction in the homes of students. The ... District ... should never have been in the business of surveillance in the first place. Tough laws are needed to prevent Lower Merion or other school districts from going down this path again." The New York Times, in an editorial, said: "Conducting video surveillance of students in their homes is an enormous invasion of their privacy. If the district was really worried about losing the laptops, it could have used GPS devices to track their whereabouts ... Whatever it did, the school had a responsibility to inform students that if they accepted the laptops, they would also accept monitoring."

John Palfrey, law professor and co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, said: “If the facts are as they appear to be in the claims by the student, it’s shocking." David Kairys, a Temple University Law School professor who specializes in civil rights and constitutional law, described the district's policy as Orwellian. He said that it appeared to be a "very clear civil-rights violation", continuing: "It's pretty outrageous. It's sort of beyond belief that they wouldn't say, 'This is going too far.'"

Witold Walczak, the Legal Director of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (not a party in the lawsuit), commented:

This is an age where kids explore their sexuality, so there's a lot of that going on in the room.
This is fodder for child porn.

Joseph Daly, who retired in 2009 as Lower Merion Police Superintendent, when told about the pictures snapped from students' laptops, said: "That's illegal as hell."

Lillie Coney, Associate Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a public interest research center, said: "This definitively was not a safe or a secure even a rational thing for the school to be engaged in," and called it "an outrageous invasion of individual privacy." Ari Schwartz, vice president at the Center for Democracy and Technology, said: "What about the (potential) abuse of power from higher ups, trying to find out more information about the head of the PTA? If you don't think about the privacy and security consequences of using this kind of technology, you run into problems."

Dan Tynan, a contributing editor of PC World magazine and author of the 2005 book Computer Privacy Annoyances, said: "This is extremely creepy, and way beyond the purview of the school.... There's really no need to try to take a picture of someone-in fact, how can you prove the person in front of the laptop was the one who stole it?... And to install this stuff on anyone's computer and not notify them about it is just begging for a world of pain." Robert Richardson, Director of the Computer Security Institute, said: "It's incredible that they didn't realize they were playing with fire."

LANrev, the manufacturer of the software–acquired by and rebranded as Absolute Software, in February 2010 denounced the use of its software for any illegal purpose, emphasized that theft-recovery should be left to law enforcement professionals, and criticized what it called "vigilantism". The company denied any knowledge of or complicity in either Perbix's or the district's actions. Absolute then permanently disabled TheftTrack in its next update of LANrev.

Motions

Haltzman filed an emergency motion seeking an injunction to prevent the school from reactivating what he referred to as its "peeping-tom technology". U.S. District Court Judge Jan DuBois granted Haltzman's request, ordering the district to stop remotely activating the web cameras, or taking screenshots from, the school-issued laptops. While remote activation of the webcam is currently deactivated pursuant to court order, the LANrev software has not yet been removed.

In support of the motion for injunction, the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sought permission from the plaintiffs to participate in the case, nd submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs. Citing relevant case law regarding privacy and unconstitutional searches, the ACLU's 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). Witold "Vic" J. Walczak, the ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director, said: "No government official, be it police officer or school principal, can enter a private home, physically or electronically, without an invitation or warrant. In this case, the officials are not just entering the foyer, but a child's bedroom. Assuming the allegations are true, this is an egregious invasion of privacy."

In addition, the court issued a gag order, preventing district officials from discussing the case with students and parents without first clearing its communications with the plaintiffs' attorney. If the district wants to update parents on the litigation, it was ordered to submit the text of its proposed communication to Haltzman at least six hours before sending out the information.

The Robbins class-action lawsuit 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.

The judge issued an order in April 2010 granting Haltzman's motion requiring Caliero to let Haltzman make copies of the hard drives of her two personal computers, to determine whether Caliero had used the software to spy on students, and transferred images to her own computers.

Judge DuBois in June 2010 ordered the district to share with a consultant for Robbins some of its computer evidence, gathered in an investigation conducted by lawyers and computer experts hired by the defendants.

The District and its insurance company, Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company, filed lawsuits against each other in federal court over who should pay any settlements by the District and its related bills (it had been billed more than $780,000 by Ballard Spahr and its computer consultant by May 2010). The insurance company contended that none of Robbins' claims amounted to "personal injury", as defined in the district's $1 million liability coverage. The District and the insurance company also accused each other of breaching its contract. The District was also paying the aggregate $200,000 salary of its two employes that it had suspended.

The district suggested that Robbins had a loaner laptop, because he had not paid a $55 insurance fee which would have permitted him to use one a regular computer. In a 2009 letter to parents, Harriton High principal Steven Kline said that "no uninsured laptops are permitted off campus," and said that students who had not paid the insurance fee could use one a loaner. Asked if Robbins took a loaner computer home without authorization, Young declined to comment. Haltzman denied that Robbins was ever notified that his computer use was a problem, and said that Robbins had taken his computer home "every single day" for a month. He also pointed out that while Robbins was one of about 20 students who had not paid the $55 insurance fee, he was the only one tracked.

Defendants' Report

The defendants' May 2010 69-page report, prepared by lawyers from Ballard Spahr who had been hired by defendants—the same firm the district hired to defend it in the Robbins lawsuit, but which the defendants nevertheless entitled "Independent Investigation"—faulted district administrators and staffers for failing to disclose and mismanaging the surveillance system, and for failing to set up strict policies to protect students' privacy. It also cited the district for inconsistent policies, shoddy recordkeeping, misstep after misstep, and "overzealous" use of technology "without any apparent regard for privacy considerations." The district's new top technology administrator, George Frazier, told investigators that he considered the department the Wild West "because there were few officials policies, and no manuals of procedures, and personnel were not regularly evaluated." The report also said that school board members failed to ask the right questions, district lawyers didn't probe the legal considerations of handing out computers, and administrators didn't talk about the ramifications.

The report also found that district officials knew that Robbins had taken his laptop home, but still decided to activate the covert surveillance that secretly captured hundreds of webcam photos and screenshots—included pictures of Robbins sleeping and partially undressed, a photo of his father, and images of instant messages and photos of friends with whom Robbins was video-chatting. After the program was activated on Robbins' computer, one district employee emailed another: "Now currently online at home".

The report acknowledged being unable to find explanations for all the tracking activations, or why the district failed to consider privacy implications. It noted conflicting accounts from district employees, gaps in data, and said evidence was still being gathered. The report said the covert camera was used both for missing computers and for unknown purposes, and that the district left it activated for long periods in cases "in which there was no longer any possible legitimate reason" for capturing images.

The report said former informations systems director Virginia DiMedio and her staffers "were not forthcoming" about the tracking technology. DiMedio's lawyer criticized the report for faulting DiMedio's role in the district's use of web cameras. He criticized the cover-page description of the investigators' work as an "independent" probe, saying: "It was not an independent investigation. What flows from that is a clear attempt to insulate and protect the current board at the expense of the IT department and employees like Ginny ... to throw her under the bus." He said DiMedio never hid the software's tracking features from administrators or board members. He also noted that DiMedio had been gone for months when the assistant principal confronted Robbins with the photo taken by his laptop webcam in his home.

Changes in policy

In May 2010, Judge Jan DuBois ordered the district to make policy changes. Months after the suit was filed, the district adopted new policies that now require the district to obtain a student's permission before the school activates the monitoring software. The district also now promises never to look at a student's laptop files unless the laptop has been returned to the school, there is "reasonable suspicion" that the student is violating law, school rules, or district policies, or a student has signed a consent form. Following criticism of the district's training requirements and computer responsibility standards, it is considering new written policies in those areas as well. On July 19, 2010, a proposal was introduced at a district meeting to adopt a new written policy banning all laptop webcam surveillance by school officials.

Opposition

In opposition to the lawsuit, a group of parents formed the Lower Merion Parents committee. The group's concerns were that the Robbins lawsuit will be 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 district's taxpayer. Lower Merion Parents did not, however, oppose a full investigation of the district's technological capabilities and of any abuses the district committed.

On March 2, more than 100 parents met in Narberth, Pennsylvania, to discuss the issues. Robbins' attorney Mark Haltzman requested an opportunity to speak to the group to update the parents, but was denied. A founder of Lower Merion Parents said the meeting focused on whether the parents wanted the Robbins family to represent them, how to lift 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, and how to learn what actually happened with the laptops and webcams. One option opposing 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 collected over 750 signatures by March 3 in an online petition.

Investigations by FBI, U.S. Attorney, and Montgomery County District Attorney

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating whether federal laws, including wiretap, computer-intrusion, and privacy laws, were violated by school administrators and technology staffers as they monitored the webcam images without alerting the students. Its Philadelphia office confirmed in July that it was investigating the charges. FBI Special Agent-in-Charge Janice Fedarcyk and U.S. Attorney Michael Levy said in a joint statement: "We intend to work as a team with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office, Montgomery County detectives, and the Lower Merion Police Department to determine if any crimes were committed". FBI agents reviewed thousands of images secretly captured from students' computers, interviewed District employees, and reviewed District records as part of the investigation.

The U.S. Attorney's Office initiated a probe into the matter, and in February 2010 federal prosecutors issued a grand jury subpoena to the District for documents related to the remote-control cameras, asking for a broad range of records related to the webcams and the security system that district officials used to activate them.

The Montgomery County District Attorney and detectives also launched an investigation to see if any criminal laws were broken, including wiretap and privacy laws. District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman said: "Upon arriving in the office this morning, we were inundated with calls from members of the community asking about this. It became clear to me that we needed to look at this further to see if a criminal investigation is warranted."

U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing

Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) held a hearing on March 29, 2010, of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, which he chairs, on the use of student-issued computers to allegedly spy on students in their homes. Specter said: "The issue is one of surreptitious eavesdropping. Unbeknownst to people, their movements and activities were under surveillance."

Specter said he believes existing wiretap and video-voyeurism statutes do not adequately address concerns in today's era of widespread use of cell-phone, laptop and surveillance cameras. After hearing testimony at the hearing from Blake Robbins and others, Specter said that the testimony he heard and Lower Merion's use of laptop cameras for surveillance had convinced him that new federal legislation is needed to regulate electronic privacy.

Specter then introduced legislation in April 2010 to amend the federal Wiretap Act to clarify that is is illegal to capture silent visual images inside another person's home, saying: "This is going to become law. You have a very significant invasion of privacy with these webcams, as more information is coming to light." Speaking on the floor of the Senate, he said:

Many of us expect to be subject to ... video surveillance when we leave our homes and go out each day--at the ATM, at traffic lights, or in stores, for example. What we do not expect is to be under visual surveillance in our homes, in our bedrooms, and, most especially, we do not expect it for our children in our homes.

Other ramifications

An "LMSD is Watching You" Facebook page was started, and within days had hundreds of members. At the same time, parody T-shirts were already being sold on the net, including one featuring the ominous red camera eye of HAL 9000 from the science fiction movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, inside the district's circular logo.

Both The Philadelphia Inquirer and The New York Times reported that "With a mop of brown hair and clad in a black T-shirt and jeans, smiled when told the suit had earned him a Misplaced Pages page."

The litigation also prompted a "What's Wrong With People?" segment on the Dr. Phil show.

Hasan lawsuit

In July 2010, a second Lower Merion student and his mother filed a civil suit for invasion of privacy against the school district over the school's use of the LANrev software, without the high school student's knowledge or consent. Lower Merion school administrators informed the Hasans by letter that Jalil had been secretly monitored by the webcam on his school-issued laptop for two months while he was a senior at Lower Merion High School. Haltzman is also representing the Hasans. The letter was one of 40 that the district sent out to comply with a May 2010 court order by U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Thomas Rueter, who had order the District to send out letters were to indicate the date of Webcam activations, and the number of photographs and screenshots taken by each affected student's computer.

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 in his Ardmore, Pennsylvania, home, and of other family members and friends. A laptop that Jalil had misplaced at the school for three days in December 2009 had the surveillance software covertly activated by the school for nearly two months following its recovery. It was only deactivated in February 2010, after publicity surrounding the Robbins case unfolded. The school district did not inform Hasan and his family of this until July 8, 2010, when a lawyer for the school district notified them of the existence of the photographs.

"When I saw these pictures, it really freaked me out," said Jalil Hasan. His mother said: "Right now I feel very violated... When I'm looking at these pictures, and I'm looking at these snapshots, I'm feeling, 'Where did I send my child?'"

References

1. ^ "School district accused of spying on kids via laptop webcams". USA Today. February 18, 2010. Retrieved February 19, 2010.
2. ^ William Bender (July 28, 2010). "2nd Lower Merion student sues over 'spycam'". Philadelphia Daily News. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
3. Grant, Anne (July 19, 2010). "Officials Revisit Lower Merion WebcamGate". NBC Philadelphia. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
4. ^ Daniel Nasaw. "US school district spied on students through webcams, court told". The Guardian. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
5. ^ Holmes, Kristin E. (July 28, 2010). "Second suit over Lower Merion webcam snooping". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
6. ^ "School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home". Boing Boing. February 17, 2010. Retrieved February 18, 2010.
7. "Lawsuit: PA School District Using School-Issued Laptop Webcams to Spy on Students". America's Right website. Retrieved February 18, 2010.
8. ^ Wood, Sam (July 27, 2010). "A lawyer in the Lower Merion webcam case wants to be paid now". Philadelphia Daily News. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
9. Martin, John P. (April 16, 2010). "Lower Merion schools". philly.com. Retrieved April 16, 2010.
10. ^ Holmes, Kristin E. (July 28, 2010). "Second suit over Lower Merion webcam snooping". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
11. ^ "Official: FBI probing Pa. school webcam spy case". The Washington Post. February 19, 2010. Retrieved February 20, 2010.
12. ^ Albanesius, Chloe. "Another Lawsuit Filed Over School Webcam Spying". PCMag.com. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
13. Levinson, Alexis (June 30, 2010). "Big Brother is watching. And blackmailing you". The Daily Caller. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
14. ^ Moore, Martha T. (May 3, 2010). "Pa. school district's webcam surveillance focus of suit". USA Today. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
15. ^ "School Laptop camera snapped away in one classroom". The Philadelphia Inquirer. February 22, 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2010.
16. ^ "LANrev to lose Theft Track feature following Pa. school spying allegations". techrepublic.com.com. February 23, 2010. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
17. ^ McCullough, Marie (April 22, 2010). "Settlement near in Web cam suit?". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
18. ^ Porten, Jeff (February 23, 2010). "School District Faces Lawsuit Over Webcam Spying Claims". PC World. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
19. ^ Fernandez, Bob (May 2, 2010). "Student foresaw Web-cam troubles". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
20. ^ Schaefer, Mari A. (May 5, 2010). "L. Merion smearing former IT chief, lawyer says". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 13, 2010.
21. ^ Gregg Keizer (May 4, 2010). "Report blames IT staff for school Webcam 'spying' mess". Computerworld. Retrieved August 13, 2010.
22. LMSD Staff List, http://www.lmsd.org/sections/about/depart/tech/default.php?t=departments&p=depart_tech_techstaff
23. http://webcast.macenterprise.org/2008Webcasts/2008-05-20-LANrev-Webcast.zip
24. The Spy at Harrington High http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2010/02/spy-at-harrington-high.html
25. "FBI, US Attorney Probing Penn. School District's Computer Spying". Democracynow.org. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
26. Turning off the Lightspeed LsSaAlerter in OSX http://bestsinceslicedbread.blogspot.com/2009_11_01_archive.html
27. School spying: infected laptops mandatory, jailbreaking grounds for expulsion http://boingboing.net/2010/02/22/school-spying-infect.html
28. "Stryde Hax: The Spy at Harriton High". Stryde Hax. February 21, 2010. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
29. ^ Giordano, Rita (February 20, 2010). "Subpoena issued in L. Merion webcam case". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
30. ^ http://craphound.com/robbins17.pdf
31. ^ http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9160878/Federal_judge_orders_Pa._schools_to_stop_laptop_spying
32. ^ Dean, Mensah M. (February 18, 2010). "Lower Merion School District sued for cyber spying on students". Philadelphia Daily News. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
33. ^ William Bender (May 4, 2010). "'Webcamgate' findings". Philadelphia Daily News. Retrieved August 13, 2010.
34. ^ http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9176293/Report_blames_IT_staff_for_school_Webcam_spying_mess?taxonomyId=84&pageNumber=2
35. ^ Holmes, Kristin E. (July 19, 2010). "Lower Merion school board to consider webcam policy". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
36. ^ Holmes, Kristin E. (July 19, 2010). "Lower Merion school board to consider webcam policy". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
37. "Lower Merion School District sued for cyber spying on students". Philadelphia Daily News. February 18, 2010. Retrieved February 19, 2010.
38. Timpane, John (July 30, 2010). "Contradictions in L. Merion Web-cam case". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
39. Leonard, Tom (February 18, 2010). "School 'spied on pupils at home through webcams'". The Telegraph. London. Retrieved February 19, 2010.
40. Daniel Nasaw. "US school district spied on students through webcams, court told". The Guardian. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
41. "LMSD response to invasion of privacy allegation". Lower Merion School District website. February 18, 2010. Retrieved February 19, 2010.
42. "Update from Dr. McGinley regarding high school student laptop security". Lower Merion School District website. February 19, 2010. Retrieved February 24, 2010.
43. Holmes, Kristin E. (July 30, 2010). "No word after lawyers meet in Lower Merion webcam case". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
44. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9162940/_Spygate_teenager_demands_webcam_pix_from_Pa._school?taxonomyId=15
45. "Update from Dr. McGinley regarding high school student laptop security". Lower Merion School District website. February 19, 2010. Retrieved February 22, 2010.
46. "Principal Accused in "WebcamGate": I'm No Spy". NBC News. February 24, 2010. Retrieved February 24, 2010.
47. Wood, Sam (April 24, 2010). "L. Merion school official to turn over computer". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
48. ^ Flegenheimer, Matt (May 6, 2010). "L. Merion won't block feds in Web-cam case". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 13, 2010.
49. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9161958/Pa._school_spying_case_What_s_the_law_?taxonomyId=84&pageNumber=2
50. "News". Main Line Media News. July 21, 2010. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
51. http://www.lmsd.org/documents/news/100503_ballard_spahr_report.pdf
52. ^ Wood, Sam (April 24, 2010). "L. Merion school official to turn over computer". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
53. David Henry (April 21, 2010). "Lower Merion IT staffer: "I am not a voyeur"". ABC. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
54. ^ VoIP and Call Center News Editor (June 9, 2010). "'Spycam' judge orders district to share evidence". Tmcnet.com. Retrieved August 12, 2010. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
55. ^ Yant, Monica (February 28, 2010). "Monica Yant Kinney: Another pin in the privacy balloon". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
56. ^ "Did School Spy on Kid at Home via Webcam? – The Early Show". CBS News. February 19, 2010. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
57. ^ Fernandez, Bob (February 19, 2010). "Student claims school spied on him via computer webcam". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
58. ^ "Editorial: Untangling a legal web". The Philadelphia Inquirer. July 20, 2010. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
59. "Picture this: No school should have webcams in students' homes". The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. April 23, 2010. Retrieved August 12, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
60. "Teen says school spied on him at home via school-issued laptop". The Christian Science Monitor. February 19, 2010. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
61. ^ Hinkelman, Michael (February 20, 2010). "Spying on L. Merion students sparks probes by FBI, Montco detectives". Philadelphia Daily News. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
62. "Official: FBI Probing Pa. School Webcam Spy Case", CBS3, February 20, 2010
63. ^ s (February 19, 2010). "FBI Probing School Webcam Spy Case". CBS News. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
64. Difilippo, Dana (February 19, 2010). "School-issued PCs were spying on kids". Philadelphia Daily News. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
65. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9160278/Software_maker_blasts_vigilantism_in_Pa._school_spying_case?taxonomyId=12
66. ^ Computer World
67. http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Robbinsfinal.pdf
68. Oliver, Kealan (February 19, 2010). "Suit: Lower Merion School District Allegedly Spied on Students Through Webcams – Crimesider". CBS News. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
69. ^ Tanfani, Joseph (February 22, 2010). "Judge: School officials must clear "webcamgate" comments with lawyers". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
70. Lattanzio, Vince (February 20, 2010). "WebcamGate Teen: "I Hope They're Not Watching Me"". WCAV. Retrieved February 20, 2010.
71. Rivero, Claudia; Ryan, Bruce (February 20, 2010). "WebcamGate Family's Attorney: "Who Has Access?"". WCAU. Retrieved February 20, 2010.
72. King, Larry (February 25, 2010). "Laptop family is no stranger to legal disputes". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
73. Steele, Allison (April 22, 2010). "Insurer balks at covering L. Merion in Web cam case". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
74. ^ Martin, John P. (August 12, 2010). "LMSD to opposing lawyer: Go pound sand". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 13, 2010.
75. Fitzgerald, Thomas (February 22, 2010). "Laptop camera snapped away in one classroom". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
76. Shields, Jeff (May 3, 2010). "Lower Merion report rips “overzealous” Web cam use". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 12, 2010. {{cite web}}: C1 control character in |title= at position 26 (help)
77. ^ Bender, William (May 3, 2010). "District knew laptop’s location; activated Webcam software anyway". Philadelphia Daily News. Retrieved August 12, 2010. {{cite web}}: C1 control character in |title= at position 21 (help)
78. Lockley, Nicole (May 4, 2010). "Web cam report blasts Lower Merion school district". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 13, 2010.
79. "Report: No spying in Pa. school laptops case". WTVM. Retrieved August 13, 2010.
80. "News". Main Line Media News. August 5, 2010. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
81. ^ http://www.lmsd.org/documents/laptops/100719_p134.pdf
82. Holmes, Kristin E. (July 20, 2010). "Lower Merion district would ban all webcam surveillance". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
83. William Bender (March 3, 2010). "Parents meet to slam Lower Merion spy-cam suit". Philadelphia Daily News. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
84. Difilippo, Dana (March 3, 2010). "Parents meet to slam Lower Merion spy-cam suit". Philadelphia Daily News. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
85. Stringer, David (March 3, 2010). "L. Merion parents discuss a response in laptop suit". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
86. KYW 1060
87. "Pa. school spy case sparks fight over money". Networkworld.com. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
88. "Pa. school spy case sparks fight over money". Network World. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
89. ^ Dale, Maryclaire (March 29, 2010). "Specter pushes for stronger federal privacy laws". BusinessWeek. Retrieved August 13, 2010.
90. Maryclaire Dale (March 29, 2010). "Specter pushes in Pa. for electronic privacy laws". SignOnSanDiego.com. Retrieved August 13, 2010.
91. Rao, Maya (March 29, 2010). "Specter wants to extend U.S. privacy curbs to Web-cam use". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved August 13, 2010.
92. Mackey, Robert (February 19, 2010). "School Accused of Using Webcam to Photograph Student at Home". The New York Times. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
93. ^ "Second Lawsuit Filed In Lower Merion Laptop Spying Case". CBS3. July 27, 2010. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
94. "School Sued over Webcam Spying on Students". PC World. Retrieved August 12, 2010.
95. "2nd Pa. student files suit alleging laptop spying". Yahoo! News. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
96. Lattanzio, Vince (July 28, 2010). "2nd Lawsuit Filed Over WebcamGate". NBC Philadelphia. Retrieved August 11, 2010.

External links

• Text of class action civil suit
• Justia.com index of court documents
• LMSD responses to invasion of privacy allegation
• Pennsylvania ACLU's amicus brief, friend of the court brief citing privacy caselaw in favor of Robbins
• "The Spy at Harriton High", detailed technical discussion from 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, parents opposed to expensive lawsuit
• School District Report
• "Initial LANrev System Findings", LMSD Redacted Forensic Analysis, May 2010
• "LMSD is Watching You", Facebook page

• Civil law
• United States lawsuits
• Privacy law
• Surveillance scandals
• Pennsylvania law
• Computer law
• Privacy of telecommunications
• Class action lawsuits