And fire the Risk Manager because they obviously aren’t doing their job. No way something like this should have become a lawsuit. If the risk manager was overruled by the school board or dean, then someone needs to be fired or resign.
These are high end lap tops, according to the press’ description of the units. How many parents can afford to shell out an average of $3500 a piece, with all the software that is licensed to these lap tops?
Another prime example of a school going to extremes to provide only the best for steudents to “learn” on, while teachers and other staffers face being laid off due to the district’s spending habits.
The INSURANCE Journal should be more careful in its use of technical INSURANCE terms. The article states: “Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company said that costs stemming from the Robbins lawsuit are not covered under its PERSONAL INJURY policy with the district.” (EMPHASIS ADDED)Other articles–in non-insurance publications–state that the claim was denied because the policy covers BODILY INJURY and PROPERTY DAMAGE. Invasion of privacy and similar offenses are commonly covered by an insurance policy that covers PERSONAL INJURY, but they are not BODILY INJURY. No matter how egregious the offense, assuming these other publications’ comments are accurate, it appears that the school district did not buy insurance against this particular exposure.
I saw a former co-worker from Lower Merion being interviewed on Fox News when this thing broke. She was totally favor of the school being able to spy on her kid. Well, what if her kid were doing something very private in his bedroom while the school district snapped away.
I guess that might not be so okay.
Here’s my two cents. If the equipment belongs to the school district they are within their rights to verify how the equipment is used. Just as an employer has a right to monitor an employees use of a company issued laptop.
If aech laptop that is assigned has a disclosure that is signed the parent and student, plus an additional pop up message stating the montioring policy when you boot up the computer, I say it is user beware.
Of course if the schoold district never disclosed that they do this monitoring, then this will be an interesting case to watch.
Based upon what was on the news they were never told that the computer had the capabilityto be turned on remotly or that they could be watched.
I guess they never heard of GPS recovery systems.
Unless they signed an agreement forbiding them from using the computer for anything except school the reason of checking on what they are being used for does not stand.
Personally, if I ever discovered that my son’s school did this, I would have them arrested – especially if they had pictures or captures of him “partially undressed” not only is that a serious violation of his rights, but it sounds like they would be in possession of child pornography.
This has been all over the news around here (Philly area suburbs) for months. Apparently, the kid that’s suing was busted when someone found a picture of him “doing drugs” that was taken by the laptop. He’s claiming he was only eating Mike n’ Ike’s. It’s a complete circus now.
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.
And fire the Risk Manager because they obviously aren’t doing their job. No way something like this should have become a lawsuit. If the risk manager was overruled by the school board or dean, then someone needs to be fired or resign.
No, unfortunately it’s not.
These are high end lap tops, according to the press’ description of the units. How many parents can afford to shell out an average of $3500 a piece, with all the software that is licensed to these lap tops?
Another prime example of a school going to extremes to provide only the best for steudents to “learn” on, while teachers and other staffers face being laid off due to the district’s spending habits.
The INSURANCE Journal should be more careful in its use of technical INSURANCE terms. The article states: “Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company said that costs stemming from the Robbins lawsuit are not covered under its PERSONAL INJURY policy with the district.” (EMPHASIS ADDED)Other articles–in non-insurance publications–state that the claim was denied because the policy covers BODILY INJURY and PROPERTY DAMAGE. Invasion of privacy and similar offenses are commonly covered by an insurance policy that covers PERSONAL INJURY, but they are not BODILY INJURY. No matter how egregious the offense, assuming these other publications’ comments are accurate, it appears that the school district did not buy insurance against this particular exposure.
I saw a former co-worker from Lower Merion being interviewed on Fox News when this thing broke. She was totally favor of the school being able to spy on her kid. Well, what if her kid were doing something very private in his bedroom while the school district snapped away.
I guess that might not be so okay.
The worst part is the innocent third parties whose pictures and conversations were also captured in all of this. What about their rights to privacy?
Here’s my two cents. If the equipment belongs to the school district they are within their rights to verify how the equipment is used. Just as an employer has a right to monitor an employees use of a company issued laptop.
If aech laptop that is assigned has a disclosure that is signed the parent and student, plus an additional pop up message stating the montioring policy when you boot up the computer, I say it is user beware.
Of course if the schoold district never disclosed that they do this monitoring, then this will be an interesting case to watch.
Based upon what was on the news they were never told that the computer had the capabilityto be turned on remotly or that they could be watched.
I guess they never heard of GPS recovery systems.
Unless they signed an agreement forbiding them from using the computer for anything except school the reason of checking on what they are being used for does not stand.
Personally, if I ever discovered that my son’s school did this, I would have them arrested – especially if they had pictures or captures of him “partially undressed” not only is that a serious violation of his rights, but it sounds like they would be in possession of child pornography.
This has been all over the news around here (Philly area suburbs) for months. Apparently, the kid that’s suing was busted when someone found a picture of him “doing drugs” that was taken by the laptop. He’s claiming he was only eating Mike n’ Ike’s. It’s a complete circus now.
If I was plaintiff’s counsel, I wouldn’t rest until ALL their pictures were surrendered in discovery.