ShiroiHikari (post: 1375092) wrote:As for teachers monitoring kids on Facebook or whatever, I'm honestly not sure how I feel about that. I mean, it is a relatively public social networking site, so you should watch what you say in the first place. Also you don't have to approve every friend request you get, so if you don't want Teach "spying" on your FB page, make your profile private and don't add them. XD
Radical Dreamer (post: 1374977) wrote:Oh yeah, I'm fully aware of schools like that enforcing those kinds of "off-campus rules." I was fortunate enough to attend a private Christian school that didn't have those kinds of rules (as far as seeing R-rated movies and listening to "secular" music--students could certainly still be penalized if caught drinking underage or doing drugs). Granted, we weren't allowed to bring "secular" music on field trips in middle school, but by the time high school rolled around, practically no one followed that rule, and no one enforced it (I recall talking conversationally to a few teachers about the music I was listening to, actually XD). I think it's pretty ridiculous to try to enforce students to conform to rules that extend beyond the campus that aren't illegal by law, though.
Maokun: Ninjas or Pirates? (Vikings are not a valid answer, sorry)
EricTheFred: Vikings are always a valid answer.
Lynna wrote:lol. I was talking about "the Beast" in rev
Imo this whole issue is part of a greater problem of the school wanting to have control over the kid's lives either because they do not trust the students or to enforce their own brand of morality on them.
Roy Mustang (post: 1374960) wrote:For the question about can people hack into webcams and see you while the camera is in use if so how can you prevent it?
Yes. But it requires the delivery of a Trojan horse. Trojan horse has to be something that allows a remote user to take control of your system. This isn't as hard as it sounds. The Symantec product, "PC Anywhere," does this on the white-hat side of the street, for instance. Perhaps the most effective of the Trojan payloads for this would be "Back Orifice" -- a remote controller produced by Cult of the Dead Cow (CotDC), once a black-hat organization, now offering consulting services and operating sort of in the middle of the road.
The way to avoid this problem is to be extremely careful about what you download. If your operating system is properly updated, the only way you're likely to get this is as an attachment or an .exe file that will extract and hide the BO code.
Don't be too worried, though. This product can be operated by the moderately skilled, but it takes some reasonably serious talent to hide it from AV software. And most people at that skill level aren't interested in committing a serious federal offense simply to peep in through someone's camera. Also, this malware is detectable by unexpected activity on various ports.
[font="Book Antiqua"][color="Red"]Col. Roy Mustang[/color][/font]
Nate (post: 1375207) wrote:
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Oh, you mean like private schools already do? So wait, why is it okay for private schools to not trust students and enforce their own brand of morality on them, but it's not okay for public schools to do it?
Or is it just that the private schools are enforcing the "right" brand of morality?
Because I've seen the rules at Liberty University. Rules like,
"Student participation in on-campus demonstrations, petitions or picketing is prohibited unless approved by Liberty University administration. The administration may also prohibit or restrict student participation in demonstrations, petitions or picketing at places other than on campus, where such participation would contradict or otherwise compromise the principles and policies of Liberty University."
"Hair and clothing styles related to counterculture (as determined by the Deans’ Review Committee) are not acceptable."
"Handholding is the only appropriate form of personal contact."
Oh and no facial hair, no R-rated movies, no music with swearing, etc.
Yes, public schools are so horrible to not act just like this. [/sarcasm]
The Lower Merion School District, in response to a suit filed by a student, has acknowledged that webcams were remotely activated 42 times in the past 14 months, but only to find missing, lost or stolen laptops - which the district noted would include "a loaner computer that, against regulations, might be taken off campus."
Warrior4Christ wrote:Microsoft includes Remote Desktop with Windows which lets you take control of the system. We use VNC at work a lot for the same purpose.
A Trojan Horse in an unauthorised piece of software that allows a degree of control -- PC Anywhere, VNC, Remote Desktop, etc are authorised ones which the user of the computer agrees to hand over control of the system.
So I don't think this school was actually having general control over the system - just control over turning on webcam/(microphone?) and sending data from the devices. And it's not a Trojan Horse per se, because the school authorised the installation on the computers.
ShiroiHikari (post: 1375285) wrote:I still think they're taking it a wee bit too far. Couldn't they just use those RFID thingies? Or is there some reason they can't do that?
Maokun: Ninjas or Pirates? (Vikings are not a valid answer, sorry)
EricTheFred: Vikings are always a valid answer.
EricTheFred (post: 1375376) wrote:Personally, I suspect the claim that they were 'only activating cameras to track down stolen laptops' is a fairly flimsy claim made up after the fact by their legal staff. The whole thing became public because they tried to discipline one of their students for something they observed through the web cam. You would be activating the cams on the laptops that had been stolen in such a case, not the ones still in possession of your students.
That Dude (post: 1375078) wrote:I think one of the major problems is the fact that we think that the school system should be responsible for our/the kids. I know that there are exceptions and whatnot, but seriously parents need to be integral in their kids education. I don't care whether it's public, private or homeschool. Parent's are responsible for their kids and need to stop letting everybody else take over that responsibility. The schools should be there to HELP parents educate their kids, not own the children.
And as far as the school. I seriously hope that they get the living crap sued out of them. Their actions were quite illegal, so the need to be punished to the full extent of the law here.
Don't put words into my mouth. I never said it was fine for private schools to do these things, in fact I used the term, "school." You sir, are using a straw man.
To be honest, this action by a "public" school seems to far surpass anything by a private. At least when you go to a private school, you know what you're getting into.
My school's an offshoot of a conservative Baptist church, so that stems from how the church looks at things. So all rock just kinda got grouped into that label of being bad. It's fading some now, but there's still plenty of people involved with the school/church that would be very opposed to it.Lynna wrote:They labeled christian rock as bad?????!!! Why?
We weren't quite that bad. Praise and worship stuff and probably some lighter contemporary Christian music was all right.Ante Bellum wrote:I take it that it was one of those schools that only allowed classical music.
But then the teacher that added you has this reaction: "Hm...[student] denied my request so they must be hiding something." And if they have that reaction and decide there's reason to, you could end up being forced to let them see it. My friend's older sister once got in trouble for some stuff on her Myspace because apparently her friend's mom saw it over her daughter's shoulder or something and made her print alot of it out.Shiroi Hikari wrote:Also you don't have to approve every friend request you get,
Liberty's got a no facial hair rule? Darn. And I was looking forward to being out from under that after high school, lol.Because I've seen the rules at Liberty University. Rules like,
Oh and no facial hair, no R-rated movies, no music with swearing, etc.
[SIZE="7"][color="MediumTurquoise"]Cobalt Figure 8[/color][/SIZE]UC Pseudonym wrote:For a while I wasn't sure how to answer this, and then I thought "What would Batman do?" Excuse me while I find a warehouse with a skylight...
Rusty Claymore wrote:Just wondering, but why does this school need to be defended? No one is under attack, people are merely seeking restitution.
Both parties comitted crimes and should be dealt with accordingly.
SnoringFrog (post: 1375465) wrote:But then the teacher that added you has this reaction: "Hm...[student] denied my request so they must be hiding something." And if they have that reaction and decide there's reason to, you could end up being forced to let them see it. My friend's older sister once got in trouble for some stuff on her Myspace because apparently her friend's mom saw it over her daughter's shoulder or something and made her print alot of it out.
Nate wrote:"Invasion of privacy" blah blah blah. Y'know maybe if the student didn't want his privacy invaded he shouldn't have taken a school laptop computer WITH A WEBCAM to his house against the school regulations! If I build a house out of glass I don't have a right to complain when people watch me take a shower.
The punishing of a student is not a crime. Using illegally acquired evidence to do it, is. And if it is not, I would move to a different state.Nate wrote:But that's different from a crime.
Rusty Claymore wrote:But I've always been more of a 'sticks and stones' person I guess.
Nate, I must not have made my post clear enough. Mods forgive me for the example but]only[/I] the evidence I need. But say she started changing out of her thief outfit, and I got a few snapshots of that?
The punishing of a student is not a crime. Using illegally acquired evidence to do it, is. And if it is not, I would move to a different state.
Ante Bellum wrote:Knowing from personal experience, you CAN get sued for being robbed.
Maybe this boy WAS doing something illegal on the computer, the school took notice of it, and activated the webcam to capture the person doing it.
It didn't say why they activated the camera, why they installed the software, anything like that.
Etoh*the*Greato (post: 1375392) wrote:Given that schools are literally responsible for our children for more than half of their waking life during the work week, I would argue that they are responsible. I'm not just saying this as a wacko, I'm seriously saying this as someone who came very close to going out there as a teacher myself. When they're educating the educators, a good university or college will require you to think about this implication on more than one occasion. Even if you're not directly nannying them, you're responsible for those fields of development I mentioned by the simple fact that you the teacher are the most visible and most readily present authority figure they have in their lives while they are under your care. The fact that you are means that even if you're not directly interfereing in their lives intentionally, every action you make is being watched, judged, and taken into consideration by them. They will look to you - even if they think you're dumb as kids often do - as a source of representation for what an adult should be. And even if they don't like you, they will take that into account in their own lives.
It was honestly the contemplation of this very fact that lead me to actually leave the certification program to become an elementary teacher in the first place.
Rusty Claymore wrote:@ Nate: So if I use a telescope it's alright? (I guess I made the faulty assumption that peeping is a universally acknowledged wrong.)
I don't believe in justification of actions. Period. Doing something wrong because someone else did something wrong is what children do. I don't care if it feels right or if the wrong was grievous.
With lawsuits, the problem is the courts agreeing to outrageous lawsuits, not lawsuits themselves. It's like a knife. Knives are made to cut meat, but people use them to murder people.
By, "I'm more of a sticks and stones person myself," I meant if I want to hurt someone, I'm gonna hit them, not insult their mom.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 92 guests