Staff Editorial: Peeping Toms Among Us
Imagine that you are in the privacy of your own room, doing whatever it is you do on a daily basis. Despite your solitude, you feel like you’re being watched. For the students of Pennsylvania’s Lower Merion School District, this feeling wasn’t just a case of paranoia. The young scholars of Harriton High School (HHS) in this particular district were given the privilege of borrowing and even bringing home a school laptop.
What a thoughtful gesture. The only catch is that the pupils with the temporary ownership of the bring-home computers could be monitored at any time by school administrators.
Spyware had been installed into all of the laptops that the school had purchased. Despite common supposition, this type of spyware doesn’t lurk into the hard drives; its only purpose is to activate the webcams already in the computers to identify any thieves in the event that the laptop is presumed stolen. HHS students took them home and unwittingly used them while the webcams in these laptops could have been switched on at any moment.
It’s safe to assume that we all have the same thoughts on this; how creepy. However, the school has its reasons for “spying.” Since the computers are paid for by the district, they have every right to tend to and protect their property in whatever fashion they choose. According to Superintendent Dr. Christopher McGinley of the Lower Merion District, these webcams would only be activated if theft was suspected. School administrators would then start up the camera in an attempt to take still-images of the perpetrator.
Despite this claim, there have been cases regarding the misuse of the webcams. One student who took a laptop home had innocently consumed candy in front of the laptop, and was confronted the next day by an assistant principal about his supposed “abuse of drugs.” Another family whose child had brought the laptop home accused the district of “spying on” the student undress while she was unaware of being watched.
In such scenarios, the computers had not been reported stolen, so why the need to switch on the spyware security feature?
Of course, the assistant principal that had accused the student of drug abuse only did so because of the assumption that this student was breaking the law, and more importantly, it seemed that the student was harming himself. It may be an invasion of privacy, and maybe out of the school’s jurisdiction. However, the intentions of these actions remain valid in some aspects, despite the fact that they do not pertain to the original purpose of preventing thievery.
Some arguments state that it is unfair that the students had no knowledge of this surveillance, but had the students been aware, they could have easily bypassed the security feature. One suggestion is to constitute an official student contract recognizing the monitoring of criminals, though those enjoying the challenge may even develop a proxy to disable the spyware, or simply cover the lens with a scrap of paper. It’s no wonder administrators chose to keep their secret supervision just that, a secret.
And yet suspicions of perverted ulterior motives remain. Sure, cameras can be used to capture pictures of thieves, but they can also capture pictures of an unsuspecting student in his room. What is the need for these cameras when there are alternatives such as LoJack, or other types of far more suitable tracking devices that actually pinpoint locations. In addition, the cost of the prospective installment is a bit easier on the wallet than monthly payments on a spyware program—and these can’t be obstructed by a simple sticky note, so why go with the faulty webcam plan?
Interestingly enough, this scenario doesn’t quite score as morally ambiguous. As long as the administrators stuck with the original plan to protect their property, it’s quite tolerable that schools are up-to-date with peeping-tom technology.