School webcam spying attorney: It wasn't wiretapping because there's no audio

[pokerfan]

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/030510_Lower_Merion_Webcam_Spying_Lawsuit">Lawyers: IT People Just Followed Orders

Long article. Couple of clips:

Attorney Marc Neff represents Michael Perpix, one of the IT workers on paid administrative leave, and he says Perpix used the remote software more than 40 times, but always at the directive of the district. “Did he ever see a high school student? There were images of people that he saw he doesn’t know who they are he doesn't recognize them."

Charles Mandracchia, tattorney for Lower Merion systems information coordinator Carol Cafiero said of his client and Perpix did what they were told. "It was their duty to turn on the camera. But they would only do that if they received a request from the two high schools, the two buildings, because they had no direct contact with the students, they didn't know the students." Once the security feature was activated and the computer was opened, the webcam would snap a photo every 15 minutes. "But it was only done – it was only supposed to be done if the computer was lost or stolen," Mandracchia said.

Tackling one of the allegations in the lawsuit, Mandracchia asserted, "It truly doesn't violate the wire tap act because there's no audio involved."

If that's the case then I think the law needs to catch up here. Wiretap law was formed when telecommunications meant only the telephone.

[RC]

1. So doesn't that mean I can install a wireless camera in your bedroom and watch it from the street?

And record it also? There is no microphone involved. So what's the problem? :eyes:

[pokerfan]

10. As long as it only takes a still picture every fifteen minutes

and you don't recognize any of the subjects. :crazy:

"That goes into the district's statements all along, which is we didn't take any streaming web videos of your daughters in your bedrooms. All we were doing was taking a still shot when a laptop that had been reported lost or stolen was opened."

[csziggy]

80. There was a case of a woman who found that her neighbor had installed cameras in her house

So he could watch her take baths, dress, sleep, etc. The police found that they could not charge him with a crime past illegally entering her house since there was no sound. This was years and years ago - I had hoped that the law had caught up with technology.

But then a few years back in this county, the state attorney could not charge a young man and a friend with having intercourse with his mother's body after they killed her - there was no law in Florida that prohibited sex with a dead person, just "interfering with a corpse." It grossed the jury out enough that though they could not justify the death penalty, they recommended life imprisonment for the two men.

So sometimes the law just does not cover things thought improbable.

[Edweird]

2. Well, at least we are at the point where they admit doing it.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Edweird]

7. My thoughts exactly.

[SidDithers]

8. +1...nt

Sid

[etherealtruth]

11. ...but, but, but ....

If "they" did it, it can't be wrong.

:sarcasm:

[girl gone mad]

37. IMO, they admitted it from day one...

in statements to the media. Not sure what all of the denialists here were thinking.

[Edweird]

50. They did, as I recall, but this leaves no weasel room.

[Little Star]

3. Wonder about lip reading. That's listening sort of. n/t

[boppers]

6. You can lip read from a split second image taken every 15 minutes?

Impressive!

:evilgrin:

[gmoney]

9. I hear you can't even tell amphetamines from Mike & Ike's

(They look alike!)

[pokerfan]

13. honest mistake

[951-Riverside]

4. I guess "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for his client" isnt always true.

Mythbusted!

:rofl:

[MicaelS]

12. I'm sure the apologists here on DU

For the school district will be along shortly.

[boppers]

14. Count me present.

A student took home a device that takes pictures, and is upset when it takes pictures....

If you don't want to be monitored, but voluntarily bring supplied monitoring equipment into your home, well, that's not exactly bright.

[PCIntern]

15. Would have been nice if they'd TOLD THE PARENTS,,,

don'tcha think?

[boppers]

17. The parents are too stupid to know what a camera is?

Seriously?

[PCIntern]

18. We weren't told that the camera could be

activated remotely...

Where TF have you been?

Don't lecture me on this...I lived it...

[boppers]

19. Did you know there's a microphone, too, on most laptops?

Lets try a simpler one.

Do you have cell phones? Do you know what those are?

Did you know cell phone cameras and microphones can be remotely activated, as well?

Or do you expect a letter to be sent to you to inform you of that basic fact?

[PCIntern]

20. Can I activate your cell phone?

Well...can I?

[boppers]

25. You can't.... Because I don't have one.

If you did *supply* me with one, you certainly could.

Same laws apply to all computer and communications equipment, the owner of the equipment gets to inspect and monitor any and all use.

[PCIntern]

28. ...sure...

you have no idea what you are talking about...

No one can monitor audio or video within my home without my permission or a warrant.

[boppers]

32. I've been working in computer surveillance for over 20 years.

Permission and warrants are required by law enforcement. They're not required for private companies. Where school districts are in that spectrum will be litigated shortly, I assume.

[PCIntern]

38. ...but you don't have a cell phone...

Well, you're the 'expert', so you think it's OK to have surreptitious cameras in my home...

I call BS here...

[boppers]

57. Yeah, I don't have a cell phone. Too easy to get information out of them.

I prefer 1024-bit RSA (or better) for my sensitive communications, and most phones don't do that.

As far as "surreptitious cameras", the easiest way to get people to surrender their privacy seems to be to offer them extremely meager benefits, such as a shopper discount card, or use of a laptop, or a free email account (etc.)

[Caretha]

71. You are very sadly mistaken

it is still illegal no matter what. And as far as I can see, with an attitude like yours it should be a hangin' offense.

[Neurotica]

24. As a parent, I would expect full disclosure from the school system

In my district, the kids and parents have to sign appropriate use policies that indicate that they understand all the rules regarding computer and Internet use at school.

I don't know if we have computers that students can take home, but if we do, I would expect any remote monitoring capabilities to be fully disclosed in the appropriate use policy.

The problem is that in this case the parents and students were *not* told that the school could take pictures of the children in their own homes.

This is a huge privacy violation. Are we supposed to accept the idea that surveillance of our children in our own homes by school system personnel is ok?!

[boppers]

46. If you use other people's equipment, they get to monitor its use.

I'll have to look at the AUP, but it really shouldn't have to be spelled out in small words, as this is basic common sense... if you're using somebody else's laptop, they get to control and monitor its use.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

76. of course that isn't true for minors

what garbage. You should be ashamed.

[boppers]

79. Wrong. Minors are not exempt from having computer equipment monitored.

Go ahead, show me law.

[ThomCat]

90. But they were not just monitoring the use.

They were also monitoring the users, even when they were not using the laptop.

The lawsuit started over a situation of them taking a video a kid eating candy, and they mistook it for taking drugs.

That goes beyond monitoring their computers. They have no legal right to spy on kids, and you can't manufacture one no matter how much you try to spin this.

[proud2BlibKansan]

55. +1

[Caretha]

70. What part of illegally

taking pictures of minors and their parents/family/home/bedroom/bathroom do you not understand?

[boppers]

75. The part where the minor was taking a device home, that took pictures of themselves.

Oh, and the part where pictures were only taken under loss/theft/misappropriation conditions. Some less sensationalist background:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/86505452.html

[Caretha]

77. I get it

you don't understand illegal. You understand bullshit real well though.

[boppers]

78. He effectively stole a device with a camera. I understand that much.

That's illegal.

In the process of locating the device, a picture was taken. That's not illegal. The device owner took the picture. That's not illegal. The device owner did not have consent of the thief to take the picture, which may be illegal, but it's a pretty lame defense for an act of theft... "Ignore my child stealing this laptop, get outraged that a laptop can take a picture of a thief without their consent, because the thief was a child!"

Is this illegal:
http://www.gadgettrak.com/

Yes or No.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boppers]

83. He didn't have permission to take it home.

Taking something without permission is theft, they chose not to report it and press charges.

Should I be forbidden from installing camera snapshot software on a computer, because a child might take it?

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Canuckistanian]

16. It was a covert recording device

If you or I did it, even if it was just still photos, we'd be liable to be sued according to tort law.

As wiki descibes it:

Modern tort law

In the United States today, "invasion of privacy" is a commonly used cause of action in legal pleadings. Modern tort law includes four categories of invasion of privacy:

1. Intrusion of solitude: physical or electronic intrusion into one's private quarters.
2. Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable
3. False light: the publication of facts which place a person in a false light, even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory.
4. Appropriation: the unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness to obtain some benefits.


I think #1 just about covers this situation.

[boppers]

21. How is it covert?

The student took the recording device into their home voluntarily, with the consent of his parents... or did the parents not know the student had a laptop?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boppers]

27. The parents didn't know the student had a laptop, or didn't know what laptops did?

What, exactly, were the parents not informed about? From what I read, the parents didn't understand simple computer monitoring.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boppers]

36. No, not insane, I've been doing computer security for many years.

Before snapping pictures with on board cameras, pictures of the "desktop" were used to try and locate or otherwise monitor equipment. The camera is just one more data point, and has been used ever since cameras were added to computer systems.

[itsrobert]

42. And was that disclosed precisely in writing?

You have no problem with not being upfront with people? I'm sure some legal terminology was used, but that's a cop out.

[boppers]

48. How would you write it out?

"This is school property" should cover it, or should parents get a separate notification of each and every piece of school equipment, exactly who is monitoring it, exactly how it is being monitored, etc.?

Do you know how your phone is being monitored? Your internet logins? Your email records? Your credit card purchases?

[Maat]

84. I'm laughing

The school district and those involved will settle quickly. The defendants will try to avoid criminal charges, but that doesn't mean that they could avoid a civil judgment. The defendants' attorneys know there isn't the chance a snowball in Hades has, if this gets to court, in my humble opinion (no legal advice given here, just the opinion of a regular citizen, who happens to have graduated from law school). Thus, there will be a quick and nice settlement (nice for the plaintiffs).

This is an unbelievable invasion of privacy, and, unless the defendants' attorneys' can provide written consent, signed by each of those who could provide legal consent and who were subject to the spying, the defendants are "toast."

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hobbit709]

53. there's a word for that.

[pipi_k]

47. I think the concept people are trying to get across here is...

that even though the parents might have had a clue that the laptops COULD do certain things, nobody expected that they WOULD.

None of the parents was ever informed that the cameras would be activated, nor under what circumstances.

And if some of the parents were so computer illiterate that they didn't even know what those laptops were able to do, then that's even worse for the school.

In any case, the trust and privacy of the kids and their parents was violated when the school district didn't inform any of them of what they intended to do after the kids got those computers home.

that's all the school had to do...just tell the parents beforehand.

[reggie the dog]

26. they were not told that the school would be taking photos of them

Did you assume that your cell phone service would just randomly take photos of you?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boppers]

31. I don't assume that all cell phones would randomly take photos.

As I mentioned above, I don't have a cell phone. I don't like bugging myself.

I would, however, assume that if I did use a piece of equipment, and it turned up missing, it would be activated and traced. In this case, the trace involved sending images to help determine location.

[Canuckistanian]

29. Easy

They didn't know it was a recording device controlled by a third party.

It's not that it was a school laptop. It was a school laptop with an undisclosed remotely-controlled camera.

That's about as covert as you can get.

[boppers]

34. So, their claim is basically ignorance.

It's a programmable device, with a camera, and network connections.

Adding those three factors up is not complex.

[etherealtruth]

39. Possibly, more likely it was a matter of trust

The parents trusted that the district would not invade their privacy. Obviously, their trust was misplaced. Just because the technological capabilities exist, people should be able to trust their schools not to abuse the technology.

I am not very "technology" savvy. My lap top does not have a camera or a microphone (then again maybe it does). Is that ignorance .... most assuredly. Is it stupidity .... No.

[itsrobert]

45. The lens on my laptop is so small and unnoticeble

That if you didn't know it was there, you could be using it for months not aware of it.

[etherealtruth]

49. :-)

[boppers]

59. If you post the make and model, I can look that up for you?

Might be good for you to know, if for no other reason to be aware of what your system is capable of.

[etherealtruth]

63. Thanks ...

It's an inexpensive Toshiba. I pulled it out and looked; no it doesn't have either. Those are features i would not need or be looking for ....but, you never know. Thank you, though.

[Canuckistanian]

41. So, we, as citizens should ASSUME that ALL programmable devices are spying on us?

OK.

Good to know.

[boppers]

52. When the POTUS gets on Airforce One to fly to undisclosed locations, phones aren't just turned off.

The batteries are removed.

What does that tell you?

[PCIntern]

56. that's different...(Insert violation of DU Rules here)

[Canuckistanian]

58. Wha?

I don't see the rationale for continuing this discussion.

[boppers]

60. The point is that remote monitoring is simple, and pervasive.

The prevalence of electronic devices with multiple means of monitoring means that the mere presence of a functional device is enough to assume monitoring.

[pipi_k]

100. Oh, I get it now...

Just like the presence of a strange cigarette butt in the ashtray is enough for a spouse to assume an illicit affair is going on.

Or the presence of a $20 bill on top of a restaurant table is enough to assume someone left it there for us to take.


Or a hundred other instances in which the mere presence of something wouldn't necessarily translate to someone's "assuming" anything at all.


In the case of the school, it's a sad commentary when parents trust the school not to act in a sleazy manner but it does anyway.


I realize how unwise it is to run around trusting indiscriminately, but sometimes it's not even a matter of trust. Sometimes it's a matter of being unknowing...and the school district took advantage of some of those parents' lack of technical knowledge.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boppers]

61. So, don't allow computers or cell phones into your house.

Simple as that.

[PCIntern]

62. Nice post.

Thanks!

:hi:

[pipi_k]

65. So, what are we supposed to be thinking now...

that ANY computer we might buy will be the instrument of spying by some unknown person or persons?

You mean to tell me that the cute little notepad computer I got a few months ago...with the attached webcam and microphone...is being used as a spy device by, perhaps, the people who manufactured it?

Or maybe somebody else?


Yeah...ooga booga...just don't allow computers or cellphones in our homes because they're being bugged by, perhaps, Bill Gates.

I always wondered how he was going to get all that money to us if only we would forward those chain emails to 500 of our friends...

:silly:

[boppers]

74. Perhaps a better understanding of the compromises we make would help.

If a consumer cannot audit their own hardware and software, there's an ongoing problem of them not understanding it, and making bad assumptions about how it's being used (or mis-used)... that's why botnets continue to thrive.

Put another way:
"ANY computer we might buy can be the instrument of spying", so learn to audit it, or (a more low-tech approach to this situation) cover the camera when you don't want to use it.

[pipi_k]

99. Put another way....

are you actually suggesting that the manufacturer of my notepad computer:

1. Has the right to monitor me without my knowledge and

2. Is actually doing it

?



In any event, not everyone is, or wants to, become so paranoid about covering up their electronic devices. Certainly not the parents of those kids in PA who probably never thought in a million years that someone would actually use webcams to spy on them or their kids.

The issue isn't about whether they could do it, or that they should do it, but that they did it without informing anyone that it might be done.

It's basically the same courtesy/legality that some companies use when you call them and they inform you that the call "may be monitored for training purposes".

And in my state, it's not even legal to tape record a phone conversation without letting the other party know first.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boppers]

87. Which Good Germans brought cameras home?

Which children brought home equipment that can be used to spy on parents, neighbors, themselves?

Which Good Germans said "I didn't know this was happening", and blamed the state, accepting no personal responsibility for what had happened?

[Incitatus]

35. You're wasting your time. nt

[Canuckistanian]

40. Apparently n/t

[Ms. Toad]

22. wiki does not understand the system of law in this country.

Each state has its own standards for invasion of privacy (or may not have any). There is no such thing as country wide tort law.

In this instance, you would need to explore if Pennsylvania has an "invasion of privacy" tort, and whether it prohibited electronic intrusion into one's private quarters.

[bridgit]

43. Good Grief! That's their atty? Where'd they get him? A candy machine in the cafeteria?

Attorney at Law, Marc Neff, Esq., needs a spanking. I'm surprised he didn't assert that it does not constitute 'wiretapping' cause a 'wire' didn't actually go from the laps all the way to the eyes of whomever perp. Viewing vid or recording audio of someone surreptitiously falls under PI guidelines in my state. If you know of a feature that by pushing a button you're able, in the fullness of time; to witness 'boys being boys', or young women float past the screen in their PJ's or a thong you haven't merely violated someone's rights to privacy...you are a sick pup that needs to be stopped

[PCIntern]

44. Ed Zachary My Point!

Well put...

[boppers]

64. Ahem.

http://www.gadgettrak.com/

Is this software illegal in your state?

[bridgit]

73. I've worn wires & vid cams into boardrooms to ferret out ways & means of nefarious doings...

Contracted as such by persons with controlling interests in such matters. But not after obtaining a bonded certificate to do so for the duration of the compliance: one day, one week, a month, etc, whatever may be deemed important by parties seeking info on others they could not discern for themselves or otherwise; so please do not toss me a geek-link to some software somewhere

In my town they are called Spy Stores where you can actually hold the assets in your hand. It is what you choose to do with them after that moment in time that may leave you in legal jeopardy again - in my state - here, because locks only keep honest people out, we are *of course* talking legal, above board and certifiable interests and yeah...I am, ahem, able to recognize the level of your investment in this topic

With respect to this laptop matter and/or whether your ninja software applies or not: we are talking a clear intrusion upon rights to peace & security in this case in ones house & home. But we may not even need to go there when a case for simple sexual predation could be made by a young, freshly shingled lawyer - make that attorney a female and you could hear the slam dunk from where you are

And if you think that kind of behavior is defensible then you should have been there to testify http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bal-erin-andrews-video-722,0,5493646.story

[Paper Roses]

66. My simple opinion. This is spying.

Unless the user was told the camera was there and could be used by someone elsewhere to watch them...I feel the user is being spied upon. From what I read, no parent, no child, gave permission for this spying to be carried out


I'd be rip-roaring mad if my kids had been subjects of this bull. I don't buy the idea that if it is the schools property, they can do with it what they want with their on-loan computers.

ACLU should take a peek at this.

I'd be hiring a lawyer.

[pokerfan]

67. ACLU

http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Robbinsfinal.pdf

[Paper Roses]

68. I guess I should have known . Thanks for the link, I'm off now to read.

[pokerfan]

69. in this case, brief really does mean brief

It's just seven pages.

[boppers]

82. A covert beeper is not a laptop with a camera...

Interesting argument they make, though.

[Maat]

85. The ACLU is ...

quite correct.

[boppers]

86. Another real gem from the article:

"Robbins claims in the class-action lawsuit that he had no idea his laptop had a remote tracking device."

Robbins apparently doesn't understand TCP/IP, WiFi (etc.), and judging from the comments on this thread, most people don't.

[bridgit]

88. Exactly, which leaves the larger onus on they that do understand TCP/IP, WiFi...

to *not* abuse such information in such a manner that willfully disadvantages the innocent. Willfully disadvantaging the innocent, while seemingly an uber-cool thing to do, remains a frowned upon activity. To knowingly continue to perform that frowned upon activity in such a way and within a set of what are themselves: traceable/printer friendly metrics, is to invite potential incarceration beside the likes of Bernie Madoff, Jack Abramoff, and neo-G. Gordon Liddy types such as The Acorn Pimp regardless of whether the 'knowing' hacker understands *that* or not

[boppers]

89. Stealing a laptop and taking it home is not "innocent".

People who dabble in technology, without understanding it, baffle me.

"I didn't know the car could be tracked via GPS" is not a defense.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

93. And as others have asked you

where is the proof it was stolen like you claim?

I have not seen a single word written anywhere aside from a few people like you who claim it but never provide the proof

[ThomCat]

94. You keep saying that he stole it.

:wtf:

Not even the school district has ever claimed that. Where are you getting that from? Unless you can provide a source, we're all going to have to assume it's bullshit you just made up.

[bridgit]

96. Now you're making excuses for criminal behavior on the part of surreptitious hackers...

Better to read it more carefully and in that process understand just where some things do go instead

•The Harriton High School in Philadelphia offers loaner laptops to students whose own laptops are broken.
•The laptop are equipped with Webcams — but these Webcams are only activated “in the case of a stolen, missing or lost laptop,” Lower Merion School District spokesman Doug Young told Wired.
•Blake Robbins, 15, borrowed one of the school’s laptops because his own computer was broken.
•According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the school district activated the Webcam in Robbins’s borrowed laptop because he never paid the mandatory $55 insurance fee for students wishing to take the laptops home with them.
•Robbins was unaware of this security feature. While he was in his bedroom doing his homework, the activated Webcam showed him popping “Mike & Ike,” his favorite candy.
•When he returned the lap to school, Assistant Vice Principal Lindy Matsko examined the video secretly recorded by the Webcam — then called Robbins into her office. She accused him of “improper behavior” — taking drugs — inside his bedroom. She warned Robbins that the school had the smoking gun against him: snapshots of him popping pills from the laptop computer’s Webcam that he borrowed from the school.
•Blake Robbins and his parents have initiated a class action lawsuit (pdf) against the elite Lower Merion School District on behalf of the 2,300 high school students who received Apple MacBooks from the school district. The complaint alleges that the actions of administrators at Harriton High School violated the constitutional rights of Robbins, Pennsylvania state law, and several federal statutes, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
•According to the lawsuit, the school district never informed students or their parents that the laptop computers came equipped with a Webcam that could be activated whenever administrators chose as part of an anti-theft program.
•The incident has since exploded into a national scandal with even the FBI and federal prosecutors getting involved. “The issues raised by these allegations are wide-ranging and involve the meeting of the new world of cyberspace with that of physical space,” said Michael L. Levy, U.S. Attorney for Philadelphia. “Our focus will only be on whether anyone committed any crimes.”
•The district says it has activated the MacBook’s webcam 42 times this school year. The school has since disabled the Webcam security feature in all computers in reaction to the scandal.

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/philadelphia-story-schools-loaner-laptops-spy-students

As if having to endure "the mandatory $55 insurance fee for students wishing to take the laptops home with them" policy of usury fees weren't enough for the kids of parents that are less able to pay, we have high falootin IT techs with years of dazzling knowledge and experience in their fields *of* expertise making excuses for their being able to disadvantage people simply because they aren't as smart as...who again? You?

Aside from being among the strangest positions I've seen on DU, that dog will not hunt upon your command. And as a suggested truism review in earnest here:

•The district says it has activated the MacBook’s webcam 42 times this school year. The school has since disabled the Webcam security feature in all computers in reaction to the scandal.

There would be '0' compunction for the district in doing so were they not informed that they stand not just within a form of legal jeopardy but with both tits in a wringer so don't kid yourself. As I mentioned above; it is what you do with the knowledge you have. Some, it is clear, are tickled pink when they can capture someone's cursor and change it to a black butterfly

Others see the world and try to make it better http://www2.smarttech.com/st/en-US/Products/Bridgit

I see people driving Maserati' and Ferrari' all the time. Extrapolated outward, your position says that one needs to be able to change-out their own rings, pistons, and timing chains just to own one. Your position asserts a bit further that: absent a percievable witness to your cross-proceedings you feel entitled to run red stop lights simply because you can, you know, like the way a dog licks his balls - and that I find a strange positon to be defending

[pokerfan]

101. +1

Good summary.

[Maat]

97. Boppers ...

my husband has been in the computer and software industry for decades, AND he earned a Juris Doctor (law degree); he says the district "is toast."

It doesn't matter what the kids knew, what they did, etc., etc. - what matters is that, for each and every laptop, there is no signed consent form - signed by a person who is legally capable of giving consent to the invasion of privacy. If there's no legal consent, the district is liable for this invasion of privacy. There definitely was no valid consent if adequate notice of the potential invasion was not given.

See the ACLU brief.

Whoever thought this was a good idea needs to take some lessons in the law - badly. The legal eagles don't care about the software/security acumen of the district employees or the kids.

[saltpoint]

95. So then, if a deaf person is peeping through your bedroom window

at night it's ok because he can see but not hear anything?

[slampoet]

98. Is it not Child Pornography if there is not audio?