iSeeYou! Big Brother Issues iMacs

While the Harrington High School teen's story seems disturbing, it seems to be equally extreme to remove these types of tracking technologies off of computers in the event that they are stolen. In this particular instance, based on the one-sided comments of the plaintiffs, the school's actions crossed the line when, after reaching an agreement about the computer insurance fee and realizing that the computer was not in fact stolen, chose to repeatedly activate the photo-tracking technology and delete the pictures.

However, the family is also responsible for reading and understanding the terms of the agreement regarding the insurance fee and what programs will be activated. These tracking technologies, while out of place in this particular instance, are a valuable security measure for recovering a missing or stolen computer (as long as the thief is not smart enough to cover the microphone and camera) and it makes sense for the school to have such measures in place. CNN reports that "the school district installed the LANrev webcam security system for use if the laptop is reported lost, missing or stolen."

Unfortunately, this story does not make clear the response of the Lower Merion School District school district nor its current actions after the Robbins family filed their lawsuit. According to this article, "both state and federal officials are investigating the district for possible wiretap violations."

The New York Times reports that "using this surveillance capability, school officials found images that led them to believe that Blake Robbins, a 15-year-old student, was using illegal drugs. Mr. Robbins said the 'pills' he was seen consuming were Mike and Ike candies." However, if the purpose of the camera activation technology is to prevent theft or damage to the laptops, as the school states, then it is irrelevant whether or not the school thought that the student was consuming illegal drugs, as the computer was not damaged nor was it stolen. As the editorial in the New York Times pointedly argues, "If the district was really worried about losing the laptops, it could have used GPS devices to track their whereabouts or other less-intrusive methods. Whatever it did, the school had a responsibility to inform students that if they accepted the laptops, they would also accept monitoring."

Yes, the school district does bear the responsibility of informing the students about the technology with which the laptops are equipped, but in the digital age, it is also important for individuals to know and understand these technologies and their proper usage. The laptops did not belong to the students and if the students take them home under the terms of the agreement made with the school, it seems unreasonable to expect complete privacy using property belonging to a public school district. Despite all of these factors, based on the available information, the school district grossly overstepped its rights when realizing that, as the laptop was not missing, damaged, or stolen, and still chose to activate and reactivate the software.