School Caught Spying In Kids' Bedrooms With Laptops

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Why do I only see mention of a Class Action suit? Why no mention of criminal charges and members of the school administration being arrested?

Maybe because the case was filed two days ago? Maybe the Lower Merion Township Police should hire you to tell them who should be arrested and who shouldn't, rather than waste time and money on "investigations".

I'm predicting that this will turn into a Federal criminal case in pretty short order, actually. This is the perfect scenario for the 'Make an example of someone' school of thought, so I hope the Feds throw the book at someone when they find out who to throw it at, then invite the newsies for a big Perp Walk. I just hope for the school admins' sake the kid wasn't being spied on (and punished!) for something like masturbation. That would be absolutely inexcusable...

[Bilbo]

Playing devil's advocate here.

Sounds like the laptops are owned by the school,as such a I'm sure that there as usage agreement that the student had to sign, but as we can see the article is a bit too vague on those details.

You are right the article is very vague. I am 100% certain though that anything signed by just the student (a minor) wouldnt hold up for a second in court. The agreement would have to be signed by the parents as well and include a very well defined clause that every aspect of the laptop could be used to spy on the students. As the article is written it would appear, at least right now, that no agreement was signed by the parents. If there was then verbage by the parents and lawyers would be different. It wouldnt be "they never told us" it would be "their contract never stated".

Again though it can all come down to poor reporting.

[RedImperator]

Why do I only see mention of a Class Action suit? Why no mention of criminal charges and members of the school administration being arrested?

Maybe because the case was filed two days ago? Maybe the Lower Merion Township Police should hire you to tell them who should be arrested and who shouldn't, rather than waste time and money on "investigations".

What part of CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT suggests any police involvement. Sounds like no law enforcement involvement at all.

Are you some kind of fuckwit? Never mind, of course you are. I suppose the question is, are you actually a big enough fuckwit to think the police should be arresting people today based on the uncorroborated contents of a class action lawsuit filed on Tuesday?

ShadowDragon, I'll deal with you later.

[Bilbo]

I just hope for the school admins' sake the kid wasn't being spied on (and punished!) for something like masturbation. That would be absolutely inexcusable...

That would also make the picture child pornography and thus the VP, whoever printed it and gave it to the VP, and possibly the IT guy who activated the webcam, would suddenly come under sex offender charges.

Since nothing of this sort is mentioned I doubt its that extreme.

[Bilbo]

What part of CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT suggests any police involvement. Sounds like no law enforcement involvement at all.

Are you some kind of fuckwit? Never mind, of course you are. I suppose the question is, are you actually a big enough fuckwit to think the police should be arresting people today based on the uncorroborated contents of a class action lawsuit filed on Tuesday?

ShadowDragon, I'll deal with you later.

Are you fucking stupid. Yes you are.

THE INCIDENT HAPPENED LAST NOVEMBER YOU FUCKING MORON.

Are you trying to suggest to me that the parents sat there quietly saying and doing nothing between November and now and then suddenly sprang a Class Action lawsuit?

HOW FUCKING LIKELY IS THAT IDIOT.

Obviously you are 12 with no children of your own and no fucking brain what so ever to consider how quickly a parent would act on this.

[ShadowDragon8685]

What part of CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT suggests any police involvement. Sounds like no law enforcement involvement at all.

Are you some kind of fuckwit? Never mind, of course you are. I suppose the question is, are you actually a big enough fuckwit to think the police should be arresting people today based on the uncorroborated contents of a class action lawsuit filed on Tuesday?

THE INCIDENT HAPPENED LAST NOVEMBER YOU FUCKING MORON.

Are you trying to suggest to me that the parents sat there quietly saying and doing nothing between November and now and then suddenly sprang a Class Action lawsuit?

It's entirely possible it did happen that way. It could be the parents have few means at their disposal and they didn't want to jump the gun and watch everything fall flat. They might have been saving money in order to retain a lawyer to advise them on how to proceed. The might not have known if criminal charges were appropriate, or how to file them. They might have been afraid the police would side with the school out of hand.

I agree that there needs to be arrests made, criminal charges filed, administrators hauled out in irons, but there's a lot of factors that might be playing into that not happening - or not being publicized.

[Bilbo]

It's entirely possible it did happen that way. It could be the parents have few means at their disposal and they didn't want to jump the gun and watch everything fall flat. They might have been saving money in order to retain a lawyer to advise them on how to proceed. The might not have known if criminal charges were appropriate, or how to file them. They might have been afraid the police would side with the school out of hand.

I agree that there needs to be arrests made, criminal charges filed, administrators hauled out in irons, but there's a lot of factors that might be playing into that not happening - or not being publicized.

Possible, but considering this is the type of case the ACLU creams itself over I seriously doubt lack of funds would hold up this going to court. One call to them and you would easily have a lawyer ready to attack this.

[RedImperator]

What part of CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT suggests any police involvement. Sounds like no law enforcement involvement at all.

Are you some kind of fuckwit? Never mind, of course you are. I suppose the question is, are you actually a big enough fuckwit to think the police should be arresting people today based on the uncorroborated contents of a class action lawsuit filed on Tuesday?

ShadowDragon, I'll deal with you later.

Are you fucking stupid. Yes you are.

THE INCIDENT HAPPENED LAST NOVEMBER YOU FUCKING MORON.

Are you trying to suggest to me that the parents sat there quietly saying and doing nothing between November and now and then suddenly sprang a Class Action lawsuit?

HOW FUCKING LIKELY IS THAT IDIOT.

You tell me, you pigfucker. Cough up the fucking evidence that the police were involved or even notified before this. And if they were notified and didn't do anything, hey--maybe they know something you don't. Believe me, that's not very hard.

It's fucking hilarious how often this shit happens on this board. "Hey guys, I read a newspaper article with almost no detail about a case, with no direct statement from the plaintiffs, no response from the other side, and nobody's even talked to the prosecutors or the police yet. I don't know the facts of the case, I have no legal training, and I don't understand the law in even a vague, general way, let alone the specific state and federal laws which may have been violated here. WHY AREN'T THE POLICE DOING WHAT I SAY THEY SHOULD BE DOING RIGHT NOW!" Maybe you should start a law firm--"Dickbrain, Halfwit, and Bilbo, Interwebs Attorneys".

Obviously you are 12 with no children of your own and no fucking brain what so ever to consider how quickly a parent would act on this.

Actually, professional educator who's forgotten more about schools and their operation than you could ever fit inside your tiny brain. So blow me.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Why do I only see mention of a Class Action suit? Why no mention of criminal charges and members of the school administration being arrested?

Maybe because the case was filed two days ago? Maybe the Lower Merion Township Police should hire you to tell them who should be arrested and who shouldn't, rather than waste time and money on "investigations".

What part of CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT suggests any police involvement. Sounds like no law enforcement involvement at all. This happened last November, since then things must have happened before the Class Action lawsuit was filed by the parents. I want to know why the local District Attorney has done nothing.

Or maybe its just an incredibly lazy reporter that didnt bother to get the whole story. That is possible too.

What would you charge them with? In order to be charged with a crime they have to be in violation of an existing criminal statute. It is possible that they aren't in violation of any criminal statute.

[Uraniun235]

They're basically frustrated middle-management. They have all the responsibilities of the principal - discipling students, managing the school - half the pay and none of the prestige; and if any pooches get screwed, guess who the principal will be throwing under the bus to save his own hide?

Unless the district in question has an enormously skewed pay curve, "half the pay" seems pretty unlikely to me. I work at a public school district myself and I have some numbers from the budget discussions last year. (These numbers are all a matter of public record.) I can't find the pay for our high school principal at the moment so I'll have to use the numbers from our grades 5-6 middle school as an example, but they're probably pretty close proportionally.

A vice principal's position at the 5-6 middle school is budgeted at about $135,000; this includes salary and benefits. The principal's position is budgeted at about $146,000, which isn't really so hugely greater. (The salary difference is probably somewhere around $6-7,000 per year.)

For comparison, the high school vice principals are budgeted at $142,000. Now, it's possible there's a higher disparity at the high school level in our district, but even so I don't think it could be by anywhere near twice as much, as the superintendent is the highest-paid position in the district and her position is budgeted at about $186,000. I rather doubt the high school principal makes more than the superintendent; but I also very much think the difference is probably about the same between the high school principal and vice-principals as it is between the 5-6 principal and vice-principal.



Maybe other districts actually pay their principals literally twice as much as their vice-principals. But it doesn't seem likely to me.

[Bilbo]

What would you charge them with? In order to be charged with a crime they have to be in violation of an existing criminal statute. It is possible that they aren't in violation of any criminal statute.

At least one if not more articles I have read on this say that remotely activating the webcams, which the school has admitted it has the power to do and does whenever it wants to, violates federal statues.

Which does beg the question you could answer for me. Will local police arrest for the violation of a federal law that does not have a state or local equivalent.

[General Zod]

Will local police arrest for the violation of a federal law that does not have a state or local equivalent.

Wouldn't that depend on the law? The police will already arrest people for, say, marijuana possession because it violates federal statutes even if there's no real local equivalent. Alternatively they could just give someone a slap on the wrist depending on how much of a dick they feel like being.

[Kamakazie Sith]

What would you charge them with? In order to be charged with a crime they have to be in violation of an existing criminal statute. It is possible that they aren't in violation of any criminal statute.

At least one if not more articles I have read on this say that remotely activating the webcams, which the school has admitted it has the power to do and does whenever it wants to, violates federal statues.

Which does beg the question you could answer for me. Will local police arrest for the violation of a federal law that does not have a state or local equivalent.

Which federal statute, and are they criminal statutes or civil?

For example. If a police officer violates your fourth amendment rights...that is not a criminal violation...it is civil.

I would guess that there isn't a federal criminal law that isn't back by local level laws. However, if that were the case then a Federal law enforcement organization would have to conduct the investigation and make any arrests. I really don't know if a local entity could do so...

[The Spartan]

If it's a Civil rather than Criminal matter then the police aren't going to be making arrests are they?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Will local police arrest for the violation of a federal law that does not have a state or local equivalent.

Wouldn't that depend on the law? The police will already arrest people for, say, marijuana possession because it violates federal statutes even if there's no real local equivalent. Alternatively they could just give someone a slap on the wrist depending on how much of a dick they feel like being.

Chances are those were arrests made by federal officers. If there is no local equivalent then the local departments aren't going to add to their workload.

[Bakustra]

Will local police arrest for the violation of a federal law that does not have a state or local equivalent.

Wouldn't that depend on the law? The police will already arrest people for, say, marijuana possession because it violates federal statutes even if there's no real local equivalent. Alternatively they could just give someone a slap on the wrist depending on how much of a dick they feel like being.

Could you give me an example of this happening? A number of states do have their own statutes concerning drug possession/use/distribution. Some local municipalities have their own laws as well. However, the converse is not true. The FBI cannot arrest you for a violating a state crime with no duplication within federal law. That's why bills like the Major Crimes Act have been passed.

[ShadowDragon8685]

What would you charge them with? In order to be charged with a crime they have to be in violation of an existing criminal statute. It is possible that they aren't in violation of any criminal statute.

Actually, the brief filed by the plaintiff's attourney alleges violations of 18USC; 2511, 2520, 1030, and 2701; 42USC; 1983; 18 Pa.CSA 5701; and the Fourth Ammendment of the United States Constitution.

Title 18 of the United States Code, by the way, is Crimes and Criminal Proceedure. So they're alleging violation of Federal law. They're also alleging violation of Pa. state law (the Pennsylvania Wiretpaping and Electronic Surveilance Act).

IANAL, but I'd still say that allegations of violations of the aforementioned statuettes are almost certainly criminally actionable offenses. I'm inclined to take the brief's word when it declares 'this court' (being the court they filed in) has jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' and class' federal law allegations as per 28USC 1131 and 1137 and the state law claims pursuant to 28USC 1367.

Unfortunately, the brief doesn't go into chapter and verse as to which heading of the many codes of jurisprudance it alleges violations of, or I'd go into chapter and verse about why they seem to have a damn good case. However, I will say that The Brief (PDF) is well, well worth the read.

[Azazal]

At least one if not more articles I have read on this say that remotely activating the webcams, which the school has admitted it has the power to do and does whenever it wants to, violates federal statues.

This Article?

School-issued laptops are becoming more and more common these days, but thanks to the action of one high school, students and parents might have second thoughts about bringing them home. The parents of a Pennsylvania high school student, Blake J. Robbins, have filed a lawsuit against his school district after discovering that school officials had allegedly been remotely accessing the laptop in order to take webcam photos of the students at home (via BoingBoing). There are a number of unanswered questions about this story, but if true, it could mean serious penalties for the Lower Merion School District.

According to the complaint, the school in question (Harriton High School) had issued laptops equipped with built-in webcams to every student so that they could have "24/7 access to school based resources" and the ability to work seamlessly between school and home when it comes to research and projects. In November of 2009, however, Robbins was disciplined by the Assistant Principal of his school, Lindy Matsko, for engaging in "improper behavior" in his home. At that time, Matsko cited a photograph from the built-in webcam on the laptop.

Robbins' father Michael supposedly confirmed with Matsko that the school has the ability to remotely activate the webcam "at any time it chose to view and capture whatever images were in front of the webcam." Needless to say, Robbins' parents were outraged at this development, as neither the school nor the district had told parents about this capability. As a result, the Robbins have filed a class-action lawsuit against the district, charging it with interception of electronic communications under the ECPA, theft of intellectual property under the CFAA, violations of the Stored Communications Act, violations of the Civil Rights Act, invasions of privacy, and violations of the Pennsylvania wiretapping and electronic surveillance act.

Ars tried to get clarification from Harriton High School about its laptop policy, but were told that no one at the school would be willing to discuss it with us. (Merion School District has not responded to our request for comment either.) As such, we're left speculating as to what else could have happened to led up to this seemingly surreal series of events.

It's possible that things may have played out differently than the complaint alleges, though. If it was a MacBook, for example, Blake may have used the built-in Photo Booth software to take a picture of himself doing something questionable while at home, which may or may not be against the school's policy. If that photo got posted online or even synced back with the school's admins the next day, it's possible that Matsko was given access to the photo for disciplinary purposes. This, of course, doesn't account for the claim that Matsko confirmed with Michael Robbins that the school could (and had) spied on Blake remotely, but we haven't heard the school's side of the story yet.

If the Robbins' allegations are true, then it certainly looks as if there were serious privacy violations at hand. The school may have the right to retain admin control over its own laptops, but spying on kids at home without their knowledge is likely not one of them. This is similar to a case from 2008 when a Florida woman took her laptop in for repairs and eventually discovered it was rigged up to take webcam photos of her at home without her knowledge. The Peeping Tom in that case ended up confessing to the deed and getting arrested, but things could get far more complicated if a government entity (in this case, a public school) was the one guilty of the peeping.

the reason I ask is because of this part,

Robbins' father Michael supposedly confirmed with Matsko that the school has the ability to remotely activate the webcam "at any time it chose to view and capture whatever images were in front of the webcam.

The kids father saying that the VP told him they can spy whenever. Call me skeptical, but I would like to here from the school's IT dept on this and not hearsay info from the father of the kid in trouble

plus this makes more sense to me,

If it was a MacBook, for example, Blake may have used the built-in Photo Booth software to take a picture of himself doing something questionable while at home, which may or may not be against the school's policy. If that photo got posted online or even synced back with the school's admins the next day, it's possible that Matsko was given access to the photo for disciplinary purposes.

So before everyone goes off half cocked screaming about big brother watching, lets get more info.

[Bilbo]

This article gives some more information. The assisstant principle in question was a woman. For some reason that surprises me.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/artic ... em-lawsuit

This article mentions the laws being broken. Some are federal, but at least one is a state law in that its the Pennsylvania law on wiretapping.


http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/ ... onomyId=84

[Kamakazie Sith]

What would you charge them with? In order to be charged with a crime they have to be in violation of an existing criminal statute. It is possible that they aren't in violation of any criminal statute.

Actually, the brief filed by the plaintiff's attourney alleges violations of 18USC; 2511, 2520, 1030, and 2701; 42USC; 1983; 18 Pa.CSA 5701; and the Fourth Ammendment of the United States Constitution.

Title 18 of the United States Code, by the way, is Crimes and Criminal Proceedure. So they're alleging violation of Federal law. They're also alleging violation of Pa. state law (the Pennsylvania Wiretpaping and Electronic Surveilance Act).

IANAL, but I'd still say that allegations of violations of the aforementioned statuettes are almost certainly criminally actionable offenses. I'm inclined to take the brief's word when it declares 'this court' (being the court they filed in) has jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' and class' federal law allegations as per 28USC 1131 and 1137 and the state law claims pursuant to 28USC 1367.

Unfortunately, the brief doesn't go into chapter and verse as to which heading of the many codes of jurisprudance it alleges violations of, or I'd go into chapter and verse about why they seem to have a damn good case. However, I will say that The Brief (PDF) is well, well worth the read.

I only checked a few of those, and some are criminal and others are civil. The criminal codes violated are 18usc1030, and 18usc2701. I couldn't locate 18 Pa.CSA 5701 (i didn't look too hard either).

FYI - Do you know how you can tell if something is a criminal code? You'll see a criminal penalty section which outlines what the possible penalties are and they will always include optional jail time or the degree (misdemeanor, felony).

[Azazal]

This article gives some more information. The assisstant principle in question was a woman. For some reason that surprises me.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/artic ... em-lawsuit

A wealthy suburban Philadelphia school district spied on its students with webcams in school-issued laptops, a lawsuit filed by one student’s parents charges.

Students only found out about the snooping when a principal told a student they had a picture of him doing something wrong in his home, the suit says.

“The school district has the ability to intercept images from that webcam of anyone or anything appearing in front of the camera at the time of activation,” the lawsuit against the Lower Merion School District claims.

“The school district has the ability to remotely activate the embedded webcam at any time,” the lawsuit says.

“Many of the images captured may consist of minors and their parents or friends in compromising or embarrassing positions, including various stages of undress.”

It was only when an assistant principal at Harriton High School told Grade 10 student Blake Robbins she had a picture that proved he “was engaged in improper behaviour in his home” that anyone realized the school could peep into students’ home lives without them knowing, the lawsuit says.

Assistant principal Lindy Matsko “cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam embedded in” Robbins’ school-issued laptop, the lawsuit says.

Blake’s parents, Michael and Holly Robbins, filed the lawsuit Feb. 11 on behalf of all 1,800 students at Lower Merion’s schools. The lawsuit alleges the webcams violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of privacy, Pennsylvania common law, the U.S. Civil Rights Act, and a variety of other laws.

In his welcome to students, posted on the district website, school district superintendent Dr. Christopher McGinley speaks glowingly of the program to give every student their own laptop and create “an authentic, mobile, 21st century learning environment.”

The program “ensures that all students have 24/7 access to school-based resources.”

The Robbins lawsuit contends the district also had 24/7 access to the students “by the unauthorized, inappropriate and indiscriminate remote activation of a webcam.”

“This is the first we have heard of the allegations,” district spokesman Doug Young said Thursday. “We can categorically state that we are, and always have been, committed to the privacy of our students.”

Young promised to answer specific questions at a later date.

Serving the wealthy Main Line outside of Philadelphia, the Lower Merion School District “is one of only two districts in Pennsylvania to earn Moody’s highest bond rating,” information in McGinley’s biography says. Its teachers are among the highest paid in Pennsylvania and its students’ college-entrance scores are among the highest in the country, the information says.

Notice the liberal user of the weasel words "the lawsuit says." Again we need info from some one other the the kid, his parents or their lawyers as independent confirmation that the school was remote controlling the web-cams.

This article mentions the laws being broken. Some are federal, but at least one is a state law in that its the Pennsylvania law on wiretapping.


http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/ ... onomyId=84

A suburban Philadelphia school district remotely activates the cameras in school-provided laptops to spy on students in their homes, a lawsuit filed in federal court Tuesday alleged.

According to the lawsuit filed by a high school student and his parents, the Lower Merion School District of Ardmore, Pa. has spied on students and families by "indiscriminate use of and ability to remotely activate the webcams incorporated into each laptop issued to students by the School District."

Approximately 1,800 students at the district's two high schools have been given laptops as part of a state- and federally-funded "one-to-one" student-to-laptop initiative.

Michael and Holly Robbins of Penn Valley, Pa., said they first found out about the alleged spying last November after their son Blake was accused by a Harriton High School official of "improper behavior in his home" and shown a photograph taken by his laptop.

An assistant principal at Harriton later confirmed that the district could remotely activate the webcam in students' laptops. "Michael Robbins thereafter verified, through [Assistant Principal] Ms. Matsko, that the school district in fact has the ability to remotely activate the webcam contained in a student's personal laptop computer issued by the school district at any time it chose and to view and capture whatever images were in front of the webcam, all without the knowledge, permission or authorization of any persons then and there using the laptop computer," the lawsuit stated.

The Robbins claimed that the district did not tell them beforehand that their son's laptop webcam could be activated remotely, and added that there was no mention of the functionality in any of the documentation they received or on the district's Web site.

And the privacy of non-students has been violated, the Robbins said. "By virtue of the fact that the webcam can be remotely activated at any time by the School District, the webcam will capture anything happening in the room in which the laptop computer is located, regardless of whether the student is sitting at the computer and using it," the lawsuit charged.

The suit accuses the school district of violating the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and other federal and state statues, including the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.

Mark Haltzman of the law firm Lamm Rubenstone, and the Robbins' attorney, did not return a call for comment. A spokesman for the Lower Merion School District said early Thursday that the district had only found out about the suit hours before, and so was not able to immediately comment on the case.

If the lawsuit is granted class-action status, other students in the district and their families would be able to join the action.

The Robbins family has asked for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and demanded that the court issue an injunction barring the district from activating students' laptop cameras.

Again, quoting the farther quoting the VP, we need more supporting evidence

[Kamakazie Sith]

This article mentions the laws being broken. Some are federal, but at least one is a state law in that its the Pennsylvania law on wiretapping.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/ ... onomyId=84

As far as I can tell that Pennsylvania wiretapping code is civil in nature.

[Bakustra]

What would you charge them with? In order to be charged with a crime they have to be in violation of an existing criminal statute. It is possible that they aren't in violation of any criminal statute.

Actually, the brief filed by the plaintiff's attourney alleges violations of 18USC; 2511, 2520, 1030, and 2701; 42USC; 1983; 18 Pa.CSA 5701; and the Fourth Ammendment of the United States Constitution.

Title 18 of the United States Code, by the way, is Crimes and Criminal Proceedure. So they're alleging violation of Federal law. They're also alleging violation of Pa. state law (the Pennsylvania Wiretpaping and Electronic Surveilance Act).

IANAL, but I'd still say that allegations of violations of the aforementioned statuettes are almost certainly criminally actionable offenses. I'm inclined to take the brief's word when it declares 'this court' (being the court they filed in) has jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' and class' federal law allegations as per 28USC 1131 and 1137 and the state law claims pursuant to 28USC 1367.

Unfortunately, the brief doesn't go into chapter and verse as to which heading of the many codes of jurisprudance it alleges violations of, or I'd go into chapter and verse about why they seem to have a damn good case. However, I will say that The Brief (PDF) is well, well worth the read.

While I am not an expert on the law, reading Title XVIII, Sec. 2511 reveals that the matter is civil, rather than criminal. The offenses described therein are unlawful, but civil suits under Sec. 2520 take precedence over federal criminal proceedings. If the defendants are found liable, then they will also be fined $500 by the US government. Sec. 2520 lays out guidelines for damages, as far as I can tell. So no go on the FBI or U.S. Marshals breaking down the door of the high school and dragging the vice-principal and superintendent away. Alas, Pennsylvania's electronic statutes are currently unavailable, so I cannot be sure, but I doubt that there is significant difference between the two sets on this matter.

This article mentions the laws being broken. Some are federal, but at least one is a state law in that its the Pennsylvania law on wiretapping.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/ ... onomyId=84

As far as I can tell that Pennsylvania wiretapping code is civil in nature.

Really. So no go on the Pennsylvania Highway Patrol doing the break-down-the-door thing either. Huh. Well what d'ya know?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

boards.4chan.org/g/res/8332679 (Link Suppressed for safety)

Looks like 4chan is on the case with their usual mishmash of randomness and juicy tidbits of info. According to them (hah!) the laptops were GIVEN to the students free and clear. Someone also posted a link to the Lower Merion School District's contact page: lmsd.org/sections/contact/ (NO FUCKING WAY I'll let SDN show up in the referrer logs!!!)

[Bakustra]

boards.4chan.org/g/res/8332679 (Link Suppressed for safety)

Looks like 4chan is on the case with their usual mishmash of randomness and juicy tidbits of info. According to them (hah!) the laptops were GIVEN to the students free and clear. Someone also posted a link to the Lower Merion School District's contact page: lmsd.org/sections/contact/ (NO FUCKING WAY I'll let SDN show up in the referrer logs!!!)

Yes. That is a common proposal amongst a certain segment of high schools. I know that the high school of the charter school "district" where I went for grades K-9 repeatedly tried to acquire sufficient laptops for the entire student body. Of course, they may be claiming that the students were gifted the laptops, which seems improbable, to say the least, unless the school is in a aging, high-tax area with few kids and more disposable cash than they know what do to with, which is only slightly more probable.