Nosy school authorities deserve detention
By Hannah WeinerThe Guardsman
Philadelphia high school student Blake Robbins and his family recently filed a lawsuit against school officials who allegedly violated wiretap laws after they used remote-activated webcams on school-issued Apple laptops to spy on him in his room.
It’s unclear what good can come to high schools issuing expensive equipment to the whole of their student bodies — in this case, all 2,300 students in the Lower Merion School District.
However, if school officials are going to distribute laptops to their students they should make sure that these children and their families are aware of the security software installed on them. In addition, the security software installed on aforementioned laptops should not be a webcam. That’s just stupid.
The case is a clear violation of privacy rights.
The Robbins family filed the suit after Harriton High School vice principal Lindy Matsko allegedly referenced a photo taken from the webcam on Robbins’ laptop to tell him she thought he was participating in improper behavior.
The Associated Press reported that the Robbins family told reporters an official mistook a piece of candy for a pill and thought he was selling drugs.
The webcams were only supposed to be activated when the computers were lost or stolen, according to a CBS news article. There has been no indication by school officials whether Robbins’ computer was thought to be either lost or stolen. But disregarding that information, how is it decided who gets to see what comes up on the screens? And what qualifies those chosen individuals to act as security guards as opposed to members of the school technology department?
“The general rule in Pennsylvania is that electronic surveillance is illegal,” according to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General’s Web site. While there are exceptions to the rule, special permissions must be obtained from law enforcement officials before any sort of surveillance is taken or intercepted.
Placing some sort of tracking device on school property seems absolutely reasonable if it is in accordance with the law. But putting a camera on a laptop that a student is going to take into the privacy of his or her own home is totally unnecessary. Scratch that — it’s ludicrous.
Even when a criminal offender is put on house arrest he or she simply wears an ankle bracelet. Law enforcers certainly don’t install cameras all over the individual’s house.
It’s laughable that the school district didn’t see this one coming and that administrators are trying to defend themselves. It all comes down to this: If school officials aren’t thoroughly confident in their students, they probably shouldn’t entrust these kids with take-home computers. And they might want to make a simple pros and cons list concerning the idea of using webcam surveillance as a school equipment safeguard.
