I subscribe to several IT newsletters. I got this article in one of them today.

It just goes t show that anything that can be used can and will be abused. Now maybe my friends will understand I won't buy GM car because of OnStar.

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/itdoj ... ag=nl.e103

IT run amok: Pa. school allegedly spied on students via webcams

• Date: February 19th, 2010

• Author: Bill Detwiler

• Category: Apple, Network Administration, Poll, Security, TR Dojo, privacy

• Tags: Security, Webcam, Information Technology, Student, Monitoring, Laptop Computer, Lower Merion School District, Security Feature, Bill Detwiler

•

Earlier this week, I published a TR Dojo episode on using Prey to recover stolen laptops. This free application allows individuals to collect information that can describe a stolen machine’s whereabouts, such as the status of the computer, a list of running programs, network and Wi-Fi information, a screenshot of the running desktop, and a picture of the physical surroundings (if the machine has a webcam). It’s this last piece of information that can be extremely helpful, but also the most controversial.

On Tuesday, a federal lawsuit was filed against the Lower Merion School District in Ardmore, Pa. accusing school officials of spying on students at Harriton High School through the webcams on school-issued Macbooks. By Wednesday, the story had exploded across the Web and been picked up by local and national media outlets.

According to an Associate Press report published by CBS News:

Lower Merion School District officials can activate the webcams without students’ knowledge or permission, the suit said. Plaintiffs Michael and Holly Robbins suspect the cameras captured students and family members as they undressed and in other embarrassing situations, according to the suit.

How did the plaintiffs find out about the school districts ability to remotely activate the webcams? Here’s another excerpt from the same AP report:

The Robbinses said they learned of the alleged webcam images when Lindy Matsko, an assistant principal at Harriton High School, told their son that school officials thought he had engaged in improper behavior at home. The behavior was not specified in the suit.

“(Matsko) cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam embedded in minor plaintiff’s personal laptop issued by the school district,” the suit states.

Matsko later confirmed to Michael Robbins that the school had the ability to activate the webcams remotely

The Philadelphia Inquirer posted a complete text of the suit (PDF document).

It’s important to note that the activities outlined in the lawsuit are still accusations and have not been proven in a court. And although Christopher McGinley, the superintendent of Lower Merion School District, admitted that district personnel could remotely activate the webcams, he asserted that such action was only taken to recover a lost or stolen machine.

In a letter sent to parents and posted on the school district’s Web site, McGinley wrote:

Upon a report of a suspected lost, stolen or missing laptop, the feature would be activated by the District’s security and technology departments. The security feature’s capabilities were limited to taking a still image of the operator and the operator’s screen. This feature was only used for the narrow purpose of locating a lost, stolen or missing laptop. The District never activated the security feature for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever.

And on Friday, the AP reported that, Doug Young, a spokesman for the Lower Merion School District, said that district personnel “remotely activated webcams 42 times to find missing student laptops, but never did so to spy on students, as a lawsuit claims.” Young also told the AP “that only two technology department employees were authorized to activate the cameras — and only to locate missing laptops.”

Spying or hardware monitoring?

These were school-issued machines and, according to reports, students and parents signed agreements to use the machines appropriately. According a CNN report:

To receive the laptop, the family had to sign an “acceptable-use” agreement. To take the laptop home, the family also would have to buy insurance for the computer. In an “acceptable-use” agreement, the families are made aware of the school’s ability to “monitor” the hardware, [Young] said, but it stops short of explicitly explaining the security feature.

And, I would expect no less. IT departments having been using acceptable-use policies for decades, and I think most end users are aware that their activity on a company/institution-owned computer can be monitored. However, I believe most reasonable people (both IT professionals and end-users alike) would interpret “monitoring” to include scanning files on the hard drive, looking for unauthorized applications, and perhaps logging the Web sites accessed through the machine’s browser. I find it nearly impossible to believe a reasonable person would assume “monitoring” meant remotely activating a Web cam and taking pictures inside an individual’s home.

Unfortunately, there’s still a lot we don’t know about this case, and there are direct contradictions in the school district’s statements and the claims of the plaintiffs and even other students. Various news outlets have quoted Harriton High School students who claim that their Macbook webcams would turn on at random times and without any action on their part. Furthermore, according to a Gizmodo report, when students reported the webcam activations, district IT personnel said the behavior was a technical glitch.

IT/management run amok?

I’ve been in IT for nearly 15 years and seen plenty of poor decisions, bad behavior, and even a few cases of true legal violations by IT personnel. But if these allegations are true, this episode takes the cake. And, I can’t wait to learn the answers to several important questions.

First, were the webcams EVER activated outside the 42 instances of lost/stolen laptops mentioned by Young? The Lower Merion School District seems to be saying no, while, according to students, district IT personnel have said the camera could be activated due to a technical glitch. Which is it?

Second, was an image taken from a webcam used as evidence as described in the lawsuit. If so, what was the justification for taking such a photo? Had the laptop been reported lost or stolen?

Third, if the cameras were being activated, who was doing the activating and why? Were IT personnel secretly spying on students? Were administrators instructing IT personnel to activate the Webcams when they suspected students were involved in “inappropriate behavior?”

Lastly, did anyone involved in the decision making process which led to the installation of the monitoring software think this was a bad idea? Didn’t anyone think parents and students should be told they might be photographed without their knowledge–even if it was by accident?

Watching this play out in the courts

As of this posting, the Lower Merion School District has said it is immediately disabled the tracking system, performing a “thorough review of the existing policies for student laptop use” and reviewing “security procedures to help safeguard the protection of privacy, including a review of the instances in which the security software was activated.”

There's a thread I started on this one, too, in the list.

I wouldn't want On-Star either. I do NOT trust it.

I couldn't find you thread about OnStar. Please post a link if you get a chance.

I am glad to see that I am not the only one with a healthy sense of paranoia.

micropenis (imported) wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:58 pm I couldn't find you thread about OnStar. Please post a link if you get a chance.

I am glad to see that I am not the only one with a healthy sense of paranoia.

His thread was about laptops....

http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=17500

I like OnStar, use it for GPS directions, on board phone, etc. I like that I can call for help if needed. Maybe they can track me, but if I warrant tracking I guess I'd be desparate enough to disable it by disconnecting the power to it.

kristoff wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:52 pm His thread was about laptops....

http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=17500

I like OnStar, use it for GPS directions, on board phone, etc. I like that I can call for help if needed. Maybe they can track me, but if I warrant tracking I guess I'd be desparate enough to disable it by disconnecting the power to it.

I have a friend who is near 100 years old and drives up to Cape Cod from Pittsburgh twice each year. He has ONSTAR and says it's wonderful to use the GPS maps and directions. All of his younger friends (like most of the rest of the world) breath a little easier that he has ONSTAR. If this was the only fault with ONSTAR, I wouldn't care.

micropenis,

onstar is not the HALF of it...

the computer that controls the systems like anti-lock brakes, ignition timing, injection mixtures and so forth records during auto accidents, too. So insurance companies can access the information in your car to determine fault in an accident.

it is like the black box in-flight data recorders in planes...

that would be great for people like that stupid woman who rearended me a few years back, I was doing 65 she hit me doing over a 100, totaled the car I was in, first thing out of her mouth, "I was not on my cell phone". If there was a little box in her car it would not have said she was on the phone but it would have said how fast she was going.

River

A-1 (imported) wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:47 pm micropenis,

onstar is not the HALF of it...

the computer that controls the systems like anti-lock brakes, ignition timing, injection mixtures and so forth records during auto accidents, too. So insurance companies can access the information in your car to determine fault in an accident.

it is like the black box in-flight data recorders in planes...

Been that way for a long time now. Those computer chips record many things including the insurance cheats who run their cars on overheat and after the motor burns say "I only drove a short distance to the shop"...

They also record speed which is notoriously lied about in accidents. I was doing 35 mph doesn't count if the chip reads 50 mph.

People, society, government and businesses all collect data on your activities. However most of it will be lost in a sea of muck!

Think of standing at the mouth of the Amazon river now I am going way upstream. When i get upstream I will pour out ten bottles of liquid into the water, and you have to catch that liquid as it goes by. Is it possible? Technically yes. Now lets send 1,000 people upstream to dump liquid. Would you be able to catch that liquid before it hits the ocean? Maybe, but it would take money, time and resources to do so!

You are just one drop in the river of humanity unless you do something that warrants someone else to pay attention to you! There is one exception to this...data collected could be used to advertise goods and services that you might be interested in. Its sort of like...oh look he/she dumped a bottle of Pepsi in the river, so lets send him/her adds for similar products!

During my day I thought of a class I use to have in college. In this class were these three 20ish males, and they were self confessed virgins and let everyone know (all i could think of was what a waste of man flesh...thats beside the point )...one day one talked about who he made money...every month he went to the county court house and bought a list of all the people that had been arrested for DUI. He then broke that list down and sold it to the same lawyers each month...the point being that if you own a home, received a ticket, gotten a DUI, been in a accident, etc.. then your information is for sale at your local court/county records and any one can go in and buy a copy to use.