<p>Latest from the Phila.Inq: LMSD’s insurance company does not believe LMSD actions and resulting legal action are covered under their insurance policy.</p>
<p>
Of course not. This is a huge blow to the school district, obviously. One reason for having liability insurance is so the school district can make a “confidential” pay off if they ever lose in court. This eases the tax burden and allows the money to be received confidentially. Otherwise, I don’t see how they can keep any punative damages confidential if any were awarded. Those who live there are probably wishing they had sold their house yesterday.</p>
<p>Even if not illegal, it shows a tremendous lack of respect for students and their families and lack of honesty. Children learn by example.</p>
<p>This case just keeps getting worse and worse, doesn’t it? </p>
<p>I think it’s pretty appalling about the parents who were publicly against this young man and his family…kind of like the Duke Professors making their infamous statement about those young men before having all the facts.</p>
<p>You better believe that after hearing about this case, every school district’s legal counsel is doing an audit of anything that is remotely like this case for possible wrongdoing.</p>
<p>The school district just released its own investigation into the matter saying that the actions of school employees constituted “Overzealous” use of technology, “without any apparent regard for privacy considerations.”</p>
<p>The latest numbers also cite 50,000 images recorded by computers that were legitimately in the hands of students (e.g not suspected as lost or stolen)… primarily due to the incompetence of school staff.</p>
<p>For the moment, the school (or at least its “independent investigators”) appear to be throwing their technology employees in front of a bus but many questions still remain… such as how and why did the assistant principal allegedly come into possession of cover surveillance photos and then proceed to use them for confronting a student about things occurring in their home. </p>
<p>The investigators are apparently as confused as anyone else in regards to the ‘what were they thinking’ question simply saying:</p>
<p>“Our investigation leaves unresolved questions that raise serious questions about why so many images were captured without apparent regard for privacy considerations.”</p>
<p>I find it hard to believe that this much spying was allegedly going on (50,000??) and the tech employees were the only ones responsible? I bet it was common knowledge among staff, otherwise, why would the assistant principal get ahold of the images that started all this in the first place?</p>
<p>The report also confirms previous rumors that some technologically inclined students (who had figured out on their own what the software could potentially do) privately complained about the possible abuse of the software system the school installed on computers and the students were essentially told to go away and that there was nothing to be worried about. When a student privately raised the possibility of being photographed at home by school officials via the laptop they were told (in an e-mail response):</p>
<p>
Oops.</p>
<p>Regarding Linda Matsko, the assistant principal accused of using spy images to confront the plaintiff about his ‘inappropriate activities’ at home… the IT tech who sent the e-mail to Mr Perbix (IT admin) asking him to activate covert surveillance testified that Ms Matsko herself had ordered the surveillance on the plaintiff’s laptop while Ms Matsko testified that she did not… a bit of finger pointing there. </p>
<p>The report indicates that those parties knew the plaintiff had the laptop because the school had just given it to him… the initial e-mail conversations were around that fact. Consequently, it’s not clear why they were so eager to use a system self designated for “lost or stolen” laptops on a laptop they knew was neither lost or stolen. It also confirms that the student was given the laptop in question by the school rather than him having taken one without permission. </p>
<p>Similarly, it’s not clear why, if they just wanted the laptop back after having mistakenly giving it to the student, they just didn’t ask for it back or call the parents and ask for it back. E-mail evidence now shows they knew for certain the student in question had the laptop and had it at home, and yet they continued snapping photos inside his home. That just leaves me speechless…</p>
<p>The report then also confirms that Ms Matsko did indeed confront the student about activities in the home using photos from the covert surveillance operation as “evidence” in that confrontation… something she all but directly denied during her angry press conference when this whole thing kicked off a while back.</p>
<p>AP article:
</p>
<p>The principal not only knew about the pics but was also aware of the legal issues they presented, so he took steps to hide their existence. Unfortunately for LMSD, not everyone got the word. </p>
<p>[Link</a> To Story](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100504/ap_on_re_us/us_laptops_spying_on_students]Link”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100504/ap_on_re_us/us_laptops_spying_on_students)</p>
<p>The court has banned LMSD from further use of the webcam technology (read spycam). Students whose images were captured (illegally in my opinion) will be notified by mail and allowed to see the screen shots in the presence of a US Magistrate.They will also have discretion in allowing their parents to see the screen shots. What a mess.</p>
<p>This case keeps getting more interesting as there appears to be clear evidence of lying and cover up by school officials and/or employees. I personally am waiting for the results of the FBI and State Attorney investigations. I hope that heads roll and that criminal charges are filed.</p>
<p>As someone who lives on the Main Line, the thought of some pedophillic techie spying on my teenaged daughter in her bedroom without her knowledge or consent (which apparently is exactly what could have occurred), makes my blood boil. I am so glad my kid didn’t attend Harritan. </p>
<p>Those posters here on CC who in a previous thread on this subject chose to attack the Robbins boy and his family are idiots in my opinion. The school district may be on the hook for millions of dollars before this is all over, and there is some question now of whether the insurance policy will cover this. </p>
<p>[LMSD</a> barred from using webcam technology - Main Line Times - Main Line Media News](<a href=“http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/05/16/main_line_times/news/lmspygate/doc4bedc1e55690e454372779.txt]LMSD”>http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/05/16/main_line_times/news/lmspygate/doc4bedc1e55690e454372779.txt)</p>
<p>More on the LMSD case. </p>
<p>[Robbins</a>’ attorney: LMSD took thousands of webcam images of students - Main Line Times - Main Line Media News](<a href=“http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/05/28/main_line_times/news/lmspygate/doc4bc87db34de89814449210.txt]Robbins”>http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/05/28/main_line_times/news/lmspygate/doc4bc87db34de89814449210.txt)</p>
<p>$610,000 settlement.</p>
<p>Who’s getting and who’s paying?</p>
<p>From an article:
Zowie!</p>
<p>So the lawyer gets most of the money… of course.</p>
<p>Although he’s the one who did the work. The kid just got filmed in his room without his knowledge.</p>
<p>No big surprise that the law is written as to benefit lawyers. After all, they are the ones that craft it. </p>
<p>What happened to the country I grew up in?</p>
<p>School’s insurance carrier is paying, I thought I read. Getting 2/3 of a settlement is higher than most contingencies…</p>
<p>What did the second student get a settlement for? Don’t remember anything about a second student…</p>
<p>
Maybe the lawyer wasn’t working on contingency.</p>
<p>He billed that many hours??? :eek:</p>
<p>Was there no consequence to the school personal who allowed this to happen?</p>