So... Someone is going to jail for that, right?
Right?
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
443 points (99.6% liked)
Today I Learned
17785 readers
438 users here now
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Settled for $610,000...so no. I feel like, given that minors were involved, the settlement should have been on top of criminal charges.
And I’m assuming that $610,000 came out of taxpayer funds, didn’t it?
Always.
And also didn't go to any of the victims
Says at the bottom, 175k to the first victim to open a case, 10k to the second case and.... 475k to the lawyers.
Well, I stand corrected... But Jesus those lawyer fees...
Usually when you hear about a settlement (and not a plea deal) that means this was a civil case and not a criminal one. A civil case doesn't weigh in on whether or not criminal charges will be brought.
If enough people push the Attorney General of that state to pursue charges they still could (Edit: it's been 14 years and the Statute of Limitations is 5 years for wiretapping which I think is the highest possible charge). But there is a higher standard for evidence in criminal trials. Not to mention the defense's argument would likely be that schools have the right to wiretap students' issued laptops, so the AG probably doesn't want this to go to court and end up enshrining such a right when it currently holds civil liability due to the civil case succeeding.
wiretapping which I think is the highest possible charge
Wouldn't the highest charge be all that child pornography they intentionally created?
load more comments
(3 replies)
It's worth reading the entire article, it just gets worse and worse.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Attorney's Office, and Montgomery County District Attorney all initiated criminal investigations of the matter, which they combined and then closed because they did not find evidence "that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone involved had criminal intent".
That's not even close to the worst thing in the article, but GG justice system. I'll remember this one day when I'm in court. "Well I didn't have criminal intent."
That's a defense now?? One that removes the need to even have a trial at all??
The article actually goes easy on them. The first plaintiff sued because the student was brought into the principal’s office and told they were being suspended for drug use, and as evidence showed a photo of them eating something in their room. It turned out to be Mike and Ike’s candy. The family was so upset they were spying on the child in their bedroom that it escalated to an investigation and then the scandal unfolded.
The school tried to backpedal and claim that the app takes photos on a timer and they had no idea, and this was proven to be a lie in court when they showed the IT training video explaining how proud they were of the webcam snooping feature.
It gets even worse: During the investigation, it was discovered that at least one person had copied videos and photos onto an external hard drive and taken them. The investigation never discovered who it was, or how many people had made copies; They just knew that files had been copied to at least one external storage drive.
The implication being that all of the teenage girls had their laptops open in their bedrooms, and at least one random employee had copies of their photos and videos.
Its been a defence for several hundred years, in fact! Showing intent is one of the three things you need to establish in every criminal case for it to be considered valid. Fuck the cops for dropping this case though, how in hell was there no intent to commit a crime here wtf.
Weird, I've literally always heard "ignorance of the law is no excuse to break the law", which seems to imply criminal intent doesn't matter. Only that the action that was take was illegal.
There are strict liability crimes. Like if you admit to shooting someone but maintain it was an accident. You won't get a murder charge, (or murder 1 depending on state) but you are going to get time in prison.
Well......you see......here's the thing........
Fuck you!
~Sincerely, the rich and elite, which control the legal system which is not meant to ever be in YOUR favor. It's a big club, and you ain't in it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Intent to perform an action.
If they legitimately didn't know there was spying software on the computers and it was discovered later then they didn't intend to do it. But they did intend to spy on the students, and it doesn't matter if they thought it was legal.
"Strict liability" crimes are the exception to that rule. A lot of relatively minor crimes, like code violations or letting minors into a bar, are in that category.
Its always been intent. If you pay with counterfeit bills but didn't realize because you got them from the shop that gave you change, you didn't intend to do fraud.
Intent matters, always has.
Of course, but in this case, their intent was to spy on children.
The use of the software after installation conveys criminal intent. IANAL. How could you use the software in a home environment without criminal intent?
load more comments
(1 replies)
But they did mean to take pictures of minors in the privacy of their bedrooms in the name of stopping petty theft which I'm doubtful would have occurred on any meaningful scale in the first place. Whether they meant it "criminally" seems immaterial here. I think they got off exceptionally light, and it's a travesty of justice. You won't convince me otherwise.
I feel very sure we have prisons full of people who didn't mean to do whatever they did to be there.
"I like Apple devices because they respect my privacy"
Except for the part where all that’s been preempted by organizational settings.
Out of the box, Apple does fairly well.
Gotta respect a company that tells the US government to pound sand with regularity (when they want a phone cracked)
"Apple gave data to law enforcement 90% of the time"
Apple's apparent privacy stance is just marketing
Aren't they required to by law?
Without a warrant no, but for the most part they do it willingly.
Gotta respect a company
No you don't
Fair point! Fuck 'em. Theres always more reasons to NOT respect a corporation than there are to respect them.
It’s worth noting that in recent MacBooks the camera can’t turn on if the led is off. It’s an electrical thing, not a software thing.
Am I the only person that immediately covers their webcam with Scotch's Magic Tape? It frosts the image so that it doesn't look like it has been covered but rather that it is extremely smudged and thus only silhouettes can be somewhat discerned.
Thankfully most laptops I see now come with a built in physical cover for the webcam.
And in context of this post…Mac laptops do not. So the scotch tape (or black tape) idea is sound.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Don’t forget the mic
DELL laptops are neat in that they let you disable all these in the firmware.
Even neater if there is a hardware switch to enable/disable on the fly.
it is best to switch to Linux so the webcam doesn't work even if you wanted to
(old joke I know)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Maybe if it was something like this where it’s not my laptop but I’m not worried about people hacking my personal computer
load more comments
(1 replies)
I hate Apple so god damned much. When I got started in 2003 with the cohort I was in for my elementary education degree, the university required us to get an Apple MacBook G4. We weren't allowed to choose any other laptop, just that one, and we had to get it from the campus computer store (so of course the school was getting a kickback 🖕).
The power cord on those had a weird round dongle on the end that plugged into the computer. In the center of the dongle was a very thin pin. So, of course, I accidentally tripped on it, and the pin snapped off inside the computer. Easy enough to remove, but it meant I had to buy a brand new adapter to do my coursework.
$80.
Eighty fucking dollars. And there were no third-party adapters at the time (at least when I looked). Oh, and that replacement adapter? CAUGHT ON FUCKING FIRE.
I have not spend a dime on anything Apple touches since then. I've been issued iPads by school districts for which I've worked in the past, but those pretty much stay locked up in my cabinet. Nope...no Apple Music, no Apple TV, not even a covered-by-the-district $1.99 app for my school iPad.
Luckily, as teacher, I've either been issued a Dell or at the very least a MacBook Air with Windows 10 bootcamped every year since. Unfortunately, I am in a new district in Oregon this year (had been in Texas), and my device this year is a non-bootcampable MacBook Air. 🤬
load more comments
(4 replies)
Dell and other Windows based OEM laptop manufactures have built in camera covers now-a-days. Just saying.
I am absolutely not terribly invested here. But I wanted to kick something around (I opened the wiki and just decided I don't care that much to invest time into this but it is a thought kicking around my brain so I figured I'll express it here) - I am wondering if the school that did this is relatively wealthy. As Macbooks aren't cheap, and I think most schools were tossing around chromebooks instead right? So perhaps the reason why nobody ultimately got in the appropriate amount of trouble for this crime is because they themselves were people of a certain status. Or knew how to grease the right palms.
load more comments
(3 replies)
As a cybersecurity specialist even using my phone kind of give me the creeps. Anyone anytime can access your camera easily, BUT if the item was issued by a third party always assume they are spying. I've seen this happend in huge corporations that you would not believe do that. Also a 20 something IT support guy have access to it for sure.
Be safe, if you cant format or disable the driver for microphone and camera just turn it off when naked please
The worst part about this IMO is the school system teaching digital dependency on proprietary software vendors.
Big tech salivates at the thought of being a child's "first"... much like other kinds of child groomers.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›