There is a tendency in society for people to blame the victim. You hear about rape crimes, and people ask what the girl was wearing with the idea that somehow she was 'asking for it.' I try to view the situation from both sides as much as possible, but I do not advocate blaming the vicitim in most circumstances.
In this particular case, it is stupid for the school system to even implement this policy in the first place. There are multiple issues with this other than the spying aspect.
(1) Why is the school letting the kids use laptops in the first place? What is wrong with desktop machines that are cheaper that stay at the school? Is there really a significant advantage given to learning or is it worth it to the taxpayer? I highly doubt a positive correlation exists between computer use and higher grades.
(2) They could simply have installed other tracking software or reported the IP address back to a server have the laptops found if stolen. They could have required some form of collateral or payment if a student lost a laptop or if the laptop was stolen. It does not make sense to justify such a method of tracking when other (better) solutions exist.
(3) The system was only 'activated' 42* times, but it took thousands of pictures? You only need one picture to identify someone. They were actively spying on these kids.
Besides all this, why the heck do they need pictures to track a device? A picture of a bedroom doesn't even tell you where the laptop is. A GPS reading does, and is far less invasive (though I would still insist on the students being notified about GPS tracking).
I think they thought that they would get a photo of the thief and it would make it easier to prosecute. (And giving that photo to the police would put that person on their radar as well).
WRT 3: If you think about it, a system has to be in "phone home" mode when it leaves (the school LAN in this case) for an anti-theft system to work.
As I recall from my interpretation of what the school's sysadmin said (and perhaps others), when the system connects to the net and it's not the normal LAN, it automatically starts taking pictures and sending those, screen shots and the usual (IP address etc.) to the school's servers. But I may be wrong.
ADDED: But I'm pretty sure I'm right, these are Macs with their hardwired "camera on" lights. Which many students noticed blinking and were assured was merely a "glitch". At least according to many accounts ... I guess we'll find out in the upcoming trials.
"Activated" in that context is using the theft server software to look at that already stored info. The only question then would be if administrators also looked at the pictures in one way or another outside of the scope of a "stolen" or whatever laptop.
Whichever, it sounds like some of the were having a little too much fun spying on their charges. Which should have told them something....
WRT 1: There's the theory that laptop use in the classroom is good. I think this is bogus (it's been much discussed in general) but they were working on that theory. Laptops also allow work to be completed away from fixed workstations, including obviously in this case at home. Use of the laptops was mandatory for various classes.
WRT 2: They did require some sort of collateral or payment, but still had situations where a laptop was out there without it. I think this lawsuit is one of those cases, or they are now claiming so.
> As I recall from my interpretation of what the school's sysadmin said (and perhaps others), when the system connects to the net and it's not the normal LAN, it automatically starts taking pictures and sending those, screen shots and the usual (IP address etc.) to the school's servers. But I may be wrong.
Wouldn't it make more sense to query the school system to see if the laptop is flagged as stolen before using the camera?
That's the failure in that logic. "Purely from a security viewpoint," it would make sense to strip all airline passengers naked and force them to stow all their luggage/clothes (i.e. no carry-ons), and have armed security agents staring them down the entire flight.
Hmmm, that brings up the question "Can this software ever be moral or legal?"
I.e. if you were to use it outside of the context of a school, there's still the possibility a minor might steal your laptop, set it up in his bedroom, have legal (for him and her) XXX with another minor....
In the above case I think you haven't broken the spirit of US child porn laws (that they are born illegal because they can't be taken without hurting the minor(s) in question), but I could be wrong. Legally your case is much iffier. Morally it's stronger, but how much so?
In this particular case, it is stupid for the school system to even implement this policy in the first place. There are multiple issues with this other than the spying aspect.
(1) Why is the school letting the kids use laptops in the first place? What is wrong with desktop machines that are cheaper that stay at the school? Is there really a significant advantage given to learning or is it worth it to the taxpayer? I highly doubt a positive correlation exists between computer use and higher grades.
(2) They could simply have installed other tracking software or reported the IP address back to a server have the laptops found if stolen. They could have required some form of collateral or payment if a student lost a laptop or if the laptop was stolen. It does not make sense to justify such a method of tracking when other (better) solutions exist.
(3) The system was only 'activated' 42* times, but it took thousands of pictures? You only need one picture to identify someone. They were actively spying on these kids.