04-17-2010, 12:00 PM
After reading the article, and the school district's "security update". I get the impression that the 'retrieval' software was "always on", while the computer was powered on, taking camera images every (5 minutes? no interval was stated), and mailing them to the district server. That way, the district has a snapshot record of the computer's use for however long a period it wants to retain (1 day, 2, 3, 4, one week, longer). A computer reported stolen or missing can then be followed in its photo trail to locate it.
This is in contrast to the 'computer lo-jack'-style retrieval software which is passive, and is 'turned on' by the tracking server when the computer is reported stolen or missing. (A variation of this would use a deadman switch to periodically reset a timer on the tracking server while the computer owner was logged in; failure to reset the timer would imply either (1) computer off (owner on vacation, computer disabled) or (2) computer stolen and in use by others. The timer could then trigger the 'turn-on' of the computer's 'take images and phone home' feature.
The issue seems to be that the 'active', 'always on', image taking is a violation of minor (underage) students' (and their legal guardians') reasonable expectation of privacy in their own homes. It also opens the school district to charges of trafficking in child pornography. Regardless of intent, the creation, transport, and storage of images of naked children, fits the description of Level 3 of the COPINE scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#Typology).
As mentioned above there may have been release forms involved; the articles I read did not discuss them. If there were, and the security tracking system was not described, the school district has a lot of trouble on its hands. If the security tracking system was described, then the whole privacy issue is mooted.
I think the issue then becomes one of 'what secures the tracking server against compromise' and 'what safeguards prevent release of images to the public'.
There is not enough information present to support reasonable discussion.
My CAN$0.02
This is in contrast to the 'computer lo-jack'-style retrieval software which is passive, and is 'turned on' by the tracking server when the computer is reported stolen or missing. (A variation of this would use a deadman switch to periodically reset a timer on the tracking server while the computer owner was logged in; failure to reset the timer would imply either (1) computer off (owner on vacation, computer disabled) or (2) computer stolen and in use by others. The timer could then trigger the 'turn-on' of the computer's 'take images and phone home' feature.
The issue seems to be that the 'active', 'always on', image taking is a violation of minor (underage) students' (and their legal guardians') reasonable expectation of privacy in their own homes. It also opens the school district to charges of trafficking in child pornography. Regardless of intent, the creation, transport, and storage of images of naked children, fits the description of Level 3 of the COPINE scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#Typology).
As mentioned above there may have been release forms involved; the articles I read did not discuss them. If there were, and the security tracking system was not described, the school district has a lot of trouble on its hands. If the security tracking system was described, then the whole privacy issue is mooted.
I think the issue then becomes one of 'what secures the tracking server against compromise' and 'what safeguards prevent release of images to the public'.
There is not enough information present to support reasonable discussion.
My CAN$0.02