Students' rights to digital privacy versus "in loco parentis"/parents' interests

[steve2470]

My 17 year old son told me the following story, not vouching for the 100% accuracy thereof:

He has a 15 year old female friend who attends another high school nearby. Supposedly....she sent a Android app message (starts with a K...I'll go look it up) to a fellow student. Again, supposedly....she volunteered to go buy LSD for this fellow student. Her high school supposedly provides free wifi with no agreements that must be signed informing the kids upfront that their digital privacy may be invaded at any time.

Soon, she was summoned down to the main disciplinary office of the high school. Again, supposedly, the high school has installed a system on their wifi that scans for keywords like LSD. Her mother was called to the high school and now she is in deep doodoo but no legal trouble.

Again, without talking to this 15 year old, I do not know how accurate all this is. I've never even been to the high school in question, which is near Daytona Beach, FL.

Assuming the story is basically correct....school in the clear or school in hot water ? I explained to my son the whole in loco parentis" doctrine. Apparently according to that Wiki link, it has been not upheld on numerous occasions.

What say you ?

eta: My son was outraged that, supposedly, the school had done this with his friend. I told my son I completely understood his outrage but, because of my limited knowledge of in loco parentis, that I could see the school district winning in court. Now that I've read a bit more on ILP, I could be wrong. To be clear, I sure don't want my son selling LSD, so I tend to side with the school district if this account is basically correct.


eta2: I think this was the app: Klyph for Facebook

2 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Assuming correct story, school was correct
	2 (100%)
	Assuming correct story, school was in the wrong to invade her privacy and inform her parents
	0 (0%)
	Other (see my post)
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Niceguy1]

1. they are using someone

Elses network.... glad they scan, if true.

[PowerToThePeople]

2. I voted yes, but

I highly doubt any message is sent plain text from an android ap. If it did, then for the ap developers.

[steve2470]

3. he said the name of the app, started with a K, works with android, it's an IM kind of app nt

[Tien1985]

4. I'm honestly not sure

If it has anything to do with in loco parentis. If you are using someone else's wifi, it must be assumed that they might be looking in. Usually there is even a "I agree" page that makes you accept such terms before you even connect to a network.

It's actually a very good, fairly safe learning opportunity for your son. Stores use this type of scanning software. Anybody could potentially see the messages that he sends, so he should be very careful about what he sends out. It ISN'T private.

[steve2470]

5. yes my son learned once again that there is no such thing as total privacy on the internet

I didn't think about the using another network angle, but that's absolutely correct. I'm just glad he understands the need for "society"/the state/parents to safeguard children at least until they are 18. He still grumbled a tad after I explained the ILP doctrine to him, but he's 17

[Downwinder]

6. Lesson learned. There is no privacy in communications.

[Tien1985]

7. I see that

I definitely grumbled a lot in high school too!

I was lucky, they didn't have the technology to monitor out cell phones when I was in high school. My job does though--and so did my college.

Half the problem is that they can be (sometimes) held liable for what people upload/download on their network. If someone, for instance, uploads child porn (aka a picture that one student sent to another in various states of undress) the school could be liable depending on the state.

The RIAA set the example by suing several colleges for students using school networks to torrent music and few years back.

[steve2470]

8. ah yes, all good points, thanks ! nt