If it’s school equipment and they are only to use it for school then they should be able to sign on remotely to a school network in order to do the work. In that case the school can track what they need to.
I see NO reason for the school to be allowed to remotely turn on a webcam. It doesn’t matter what the kid was or was not doing…it is his privacy that was violated and the privacy of the home itself.
I hope the kid wins! We have to draw a line in the sand with who can just decide to enter our homes…..especially like this and without knowledge.
Paddice not only do you make a spot on point, but you bring up an even more interesting question. If this web cam could be activated any time, then would not only are the student’s rights be violated, but by definition the parent/guardian’s rights be violated as well since this has the possibility of taking place in their home? If so, then even if the school as they alleged “notified” the students that the webcam could take pictures under certain circumstances, they would undoubtably have needed the parent/guardian permission as well as they would be affected by this.
TN,
No one wants to see your fat son naked. Tell him to put some clothes on. LOL Actually here is something interesting, where in the world is this school getting money from to buy laptops for students? This should be a good learning lesson for them. Make the students buy their own, so if they get stolen they can buy themselves a new one. Then when school laptops are stolen turn the camera on 24/7 until they are returned. I bet more will be coming out on this as something might be fishy. Hopefully the school had them sign something that they might be viewed via a webcam, if not, they don’t have a very good risk manager in place.
Parents can supply their own laptops for their kids rather than obtaining at home equipment from the school district. This way the school doesn’t have to try to locate missing equipment; the parents and students can then do what ever they want.
Why do students need $3,500 laptops? As a business person my personal laptop certainly did not cost $3,500. I conduct all I need to from it including downloand music, movies, etc, plus I’m taking on-line college classes. Today’s $500 can pretty much handle everything.
If it the cost of software that is the issue, find the schoold district can provide this. Microsoft offers a student version of the entire Microsoft Office Suite. By purchasing it through my school, it only cost $100.
Boy’s not fat (allthough the way he eats he should be)
My biggest issue here is why the school system didn’t take steps to adequately notify the kids – AND parents of the fact that the webcam could be activated remotely. By adequately notify I mean in writing to ALL parties, requiring a signed acknowledgement. It’s like walking into a place and seeing the sign “Premises are under video surveillance” At that point you know that there’s a camera watching you, and if you decide to do something embarrasing or illegal anyway, it’s on you.
Maybe the claim was made against the wrong policy.
I have no personal knowledge of or interest in the case except as an observer. However, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, “In papers filed in federal court, Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Co. contends that none of the allegations in the suit filed by Harriton High School sophomore Blake Robbins and his parents fits the definitions in the school district’s $1 million liability policy.
“The Robbins suit says the district invaded his privacy, violated his civil rights, and broke wiretapping and other laws when it secretly activated the Web camera on his school-issued laptop in the fall.
“Those allegations do not state any claims for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ as those terms are defined in the policy,” Graphic Arts Mutual said in its complaint, filed last week.”
In reading all the comments I am wondering if I am missing the point? Didn’t the kid steal the computer? “Robbins had damaged or destroyed two other school laptops, and failed to pay the required $55 insurance fee on the one he had. He therefore had no right to bring the laptop home.” Does a thief have an expectation of privacy?
He wasn’t a thief, just had a history of bad luck with laptops. The $55 fee should/could have been addressed with the parents. Does not give them the right to do what they did.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
If it’s school equipment and they are only to use it for school then they should be able to sign on remotely to a school network in order to do the work. In that case the school can track what they need to.
I see NO reason for the school to be allowed to remotely turn on a webcam. It doesn’t matter what the kid was or was not doing…it is his privacy that was violated and the privacy of the home itself.
I hope the kid wins! We have to draw a line in the sand with who can just decide to enter our homes…..especially like this and without knowledge.
Paddice not only do you make a spot on point, but you bring up an even more interesting question. If this web cam could be activated any time, then would not only are the student’s rights be violated, but by definition the parent/guardian’s rights be violated as well since this has the possibility of taking place in their home? If so, then even if the school as they alleged “notified” the students that the webcam could take pictures under certain circumstances, they would undoubtably have needed the parent/guardian permission as well as they would be affected by this.
TN,
No one wants to see your fat son naked. Tell him to put some clothes on. LOL Actually here is something interesting, where in the world is this school getting money from to buy laptops for students? This should be a good learning lesson for them. Make the students buy their own, so if they get stolen they can buy themselves a new one. Then when school laptops are stolen turn the camera on 24/7 until they are returned. I bet more will be coming out on this as something might be fishy. Hopefully the school had them sign something that they might be viewed via a webcam, if not, they don’t have a very good risk manager in place.
Parents can supply their own laptops for their kids rather than obtaining at home equipment from the school district. This way the school doesn’t have to try to locate missing equipment; the parents and students can then do what ever they want.
Why do students need $3,500 laptops? As a business person my personal laptop certainly did not cost $3,500. I conduct all I need to from it including downloand music, movies, etc, plus I’m taking on-line college classes. Today’s $500 can pretty much handle everything.
If it the cost of software that is the issue, find the schoold district can provide this. Microsoft offers a student version of the entire Microsoft Office Suite. By purchasing it through my school, it only cost $100.
My hunch is that this claim is being made against the school board/educators liability policy and not the districts CGL.
Most claims for the policies/decisions of a school district are made under the educators liability policy.
Boy’s not fat (allthough the way he eats he should be)
My biggest issue here is why the school system didn’t take steps to adequately notify the kids – AND parents of the fact that the webcam could be activated remotely. By adequately notify I mean in writing to ALL parties, requiring a signed acknowledgement. It’s like walking into a place and seeing the sign “Premises are under video surveillance” At that point you know that there’s a camera watching you, and if you decide to do something embarrasing or illegal anyway, it’s on you.
Maybe the claim was made against the wrong policy.
I have no personal knowledge of or interest in the case except as an observer. However, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, “In papers filed in federal court, Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Co. contends that none of the allegations in the suit filed by Harriton High School sophomore Blake Robbins and his parents fits the definitions in the school district’s $1 million liability policy.
“The Robbins suit says the district invaded his privacy, violated his civil rights, and broke wiretapping and other laws when it secretly activated the Web camera on his school-issued laptop in the fall.
“Those allegations do not state any claims for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ as those terms are defined in the policy,” Graphic Arts Mutual said in its complaint, filed last week.”
Source: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20100423_N_Y__insurer_balks_at_coverage_for_laptop_suit.html
In reading all the comments I am wondering if I am missing the point? Didn’t the kid steal the computer? “Robbins had damaged or destroyed two other school laptops, and failed to pay the required $55 insurance fee on the one he had. He therefore had no right to bring the laptop home.” Does a thief have an expectation of privacy?
He wasn’t a thief, just had a history of bad luck with laptops. The $55 fee should/could have been addressed with the parents. Does not give them the right to do what they did.