Jump to content

Talk:Robbins v. Lower Merion School District

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

confirmation

[edit]

The story has been confirmed. There are already copies of the actual lawsuit online, they were there yesterday, perhaps you need to learn how to read the AP article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.163.92 (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No verification of the story has been made. All information on the internet is a repeat of the story at the following web site:
http://americasright.com/?p=3159&cpage=1#comment-30138
The tabloid/scandle newspaper Philidelphia Daily News ends it's story with:
The Robbins' attorney, Mark Haltzman, couldn't be reached this morning. McGinley and District Spokesman Doug Young did not immediately return telephone calls for comment today.
The AP version of the story has embedded in it:
Neither the Robbinses nor their lawyer, Mark S. Haltzman, returned messages left Thursday by The Associated Press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truerock2 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loaner system?

[edit]

Revision 346116553 by 69.253.71.86 makes an interesting claim:

"However, in subsequent accounts, it was stated that Robbins had failed to pay the required insurance fee and so was in possession of a loaner computer, which he was not supposed to take home according to school regulations (and so it could be inferred that activation of the camera in this instance was in keeping with school policies concerning missing or stolen computers). Robbins stated that he had never been informed of this regulation and had been taking the loaner computer home every day for at least 30 days without prior objection from school authorities."

This text got reverted because it was not sourced. But if true it could reconcile the inconsistency between the school's claim that the feature had only been activated when justified, and the student's claim that the laptop had never been reported stolen. Can anyone track down a source for this? 207.71.226.132 (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Philadelphia Inquirer story has some information about it. I can probably add it to the article myself later, unless anyone would like to go ahead and add it first... — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes from the inquirer articles:
  • Even so, it was the apparent failure to pay a fee - a $55 insurance payment to permit the Robbinses' son Blake to take his laptop home from Harriton High School - that might have prompted the district to activate the Web cam." [1]
  • But the district requires all students to pay a $55 insurance fee, with a $100 deductible if they are damaged or lost, according to a 2009 letter to parents from Harriton principal Steven R. Kline. "No uninsured laptops are permitted off campus," Kline wrote. Each school has a pool of "loaner laptops" available for students who haven't paid the fee. Asked if Robbins took a loaner computer home without authorization, Young declined to comment. The district defended the Harriton High administrator who confronted Robbins, assistant principal Lynn Matsko, saying she has been "unfairly portrayed and unjustly attacked in connection with her attempts to be supportive of a student and his family." [2]
I think that this is slightly speculative, because, while it's a reasonable inference, we don't have an actual person voicing it. Still, we could include it, but I think we'd have to source the speculation as belonging to the Philadelphia Inquirer. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violating comments removed 66.108.69.23 (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Direct denial" by the school

[edit]

Maybe I'm just blind, but I just don't see how the references used in this paragraph justify its content. Nowhere in the sources does it say that "the school had [n]ever used a photo taken by a school-issued laptop to discipline a student". As such, I've removed the paragraph, again. --Conti|✉ 19:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep the paragraph, and the sources, while significantly minimizing/correcting the claims. Currently, the article is a little biased against the district, and anything the district has said which speaks in its favor should be fully represented. I'll rewrite it, and you can check to see if it's a more accurate version. 68.82.197.202 (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. The article is really fine as it is. 68.82.197.202 (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the article is fine without the school's denial that they did anything wrong. For now I have re-added what I wrote about this denial, because user Conti has just said that he had not seen the denial in the sources. I cited the school's website and a video of the administrator in question, both of which deny the charges, so I consider the info in this paragraph to be twice sourced. Here is some text from the website:

1. Did an assistant principal at Harriton ever have the ability to remotely monitor a student at home? Did she utilize a photo taken by a school-issued laptop to discipline a student?

  • No. At no time did any high school administrator have the ability or actually access the security- tracking software. We believe that the administrator at Harriton has been unfairly portrayed and unjustly attacked in connection with her attempts to be supportive of a student and his family. The district never did and never would use such tactics as a basis for disciplinary action.
Have I addressed your concern? If not, please clarify.Blue Rasberry 20:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, wait. I see what happened. When I first posted, the school was putting all their notices on one page. Now they moved each one to its own page. So the link I originally used was referring to a notice that did not cite what I was claiming. Sorry, but fixed now. Blue Rasberry 20:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that explains it. With that out of the way, I have no objections to the paragraph anymore. --Conti|✉ 20:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I'm interested in adding a section describing relevant legal issues--federal statues, pa law, and supreme court cases-- that might have bearing on the case. It's a little legal-ish, but then again, this is a page about a lawsuit. I don't know if legal commentary would typically be considered off-topic or speculative, but I think if we could source it from reliable places(i.e. cato.org, aclu.com, eff.org, volokhconspiracy.com, techliberation.com) it would be helpful for the reader. Lots of people want to know about what laws may have been broken, so if we can address that issue, shouldn't we?

legal analysis from lots of different (hopefully reliable) sources:

68.82.197.202 (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Class status?

[edit]

(moved from above) The opening line that the suit was brought about by Blake Robbins and other Harriton High students is incorrect. The suit was brought by his parents on behalf of them and their minor son, and as a class action suit in which the class consists of families from the Lower Merion School District who were issued a laptop. This class consists of students from the two high schools in the district, Lower Merion and Harriton. Further, the statement that is posted is misleading, because the class action has not been approved by a judge yet, and as of yet, no other students or parents have publicly made similar claims. -User Morningstar

I think you're right. Is it common to say the lawsuit is brought "on behalf" of minors? Also, do we not call it a class action lawsuit merely because class status hasn't been granted? It's still a class action suit, and if it's not, what would we call it--just a lawsuit? (Or a lawsuit seeking class action status?)
68.82.197.202 (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Thanks for moving my comments to a better spot!) The suit says "...bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of their minor son...and as a Class Action on behalf of a class consisting of plaintiffs and all other students, together with their parents and families..."
I think it's a lawsuit seeking class-action status.
In addition, there is now a group of parents in the LMSD who have mobilized to discuss ways to derail the expensive class-action case against their district. There is opposition to one family bringing the action on behalf of the entire community, which includes all taxpayers who conceivably would be affected by the lawsuit. http://www.philly.com/philly/education/85934477.html J (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Missing details

[edit]

The article is very thorough, but a few facts are left out. Maybe someone can add them (with sources, of course):

  • The district admitted to using the webcam activation feature 42 times
  • The eastern Pennsylvania US attorney's office is also involved in the case
  • A subpoena was issued to the school district for all information related to the case

68.82.197.202 (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • tech used? i.e. the exact type of laptops, a description of the software used, and most curiously, how the software goes undetected.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.95.46.53 (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • network techs on paid leave
  • relaxation of gag order
  • update lower merion parents anti-suit info
  • hearings in congress held by senator specter
  • network tech subpoenaed
  • judge rules confidentiality for photos
  • district admits to 56,000 photos taken
  • specter introduced legislation
  • motion filed for it tech's computer files —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.154.10 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

206.53.157.222 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What were they thinking of?

[edit]

This is not an apology for spying... but what were these kids thinking of when they left the eyeholes open? One inch of insulating tape over the lens, and it's better then dead.

East of Borschov 09:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably they were thinking the same things as I think when I don't unplug the microphone attached to this computer every time I have a private conversation - by telephone or with friends present - in this room. Or what I was thinking when I would happily leave my work-issued cellphone on the dinner table during a private dinner with friends - or indeed on the bedside table at other times.
It is common for people simply not to be aware that snooping of this sort is technically possible - or, for them to assume that even if possible, it simply wouldn't be "done" or wouldn't be "allowed".
In this case, even before the scandal first unfolded, students had brought forward concerns via two different routes. One of these approaches was quashed by an email basically just saying "we wouldn't do things like that", and the other dampened down by some other means. I can imagine there were also plenty of instances of students addressing concerns to parents - or vice versa - and just being told "don't be silly, they can't do that", and it being taken no further. People tend to assume that others will always act in good faith (chuckle), or that authority figures should be trusted when they issue trite assurances without justification.
Apparently some students did indeed start taping over the lens, but only once the story broke. The fact that none of the students who originally raised concerns about the cams, went on to encourage other students to cover the camera lenses back then - after being reassured by the school authorities - is indicative of the type of position of trust and authority that school principals and IT staff are in.
I guess the publicity surrounding this case means it's more likely that people will look at cameras and microphones in a slightly more suspicious way in future. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of violating notaforum, I note that the article indicates Perbix reacted negatively on September 11, 2009, when Frazier told him a teacher had requested that his webcam be disabled, writing: "teachers should not even be allowed to cover the cameras as they do now". There is also mention that Jason Hilt, district Supervisor of Instructional Technology, when he learned that TheftTrack could be activated without police involvement taped over his camera. So, as to teachers, there may have been more "taping the camera".--Epeefleche (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sluggo edit warring; images

[edit]

Editor Sluggo had repeatedly deleted images from the article. I will repeat here the message I left for him on his talk page. "The images you removed serve precisely the purpose that images are for. They enhance the readers understanding of what is being discussed. There is certainly no consensus for your removal. The paragraphs that the images enhance are those that discuss the application of the Bill of Rights, and the use of a candy which was mistaken for a drug. The images clearly enhance the readers understanding of the time at which the Bill of Rights was written, and the appearance of the candy. Please desist in your removals. Have a great day.--Epeefleche (talk) 1:24 pm, Today (UTC−4)" I would again ask him to stop his edit warring, and his removal of relevant images.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I partially agree with Epeefleche here. I know what the U.S. Bill of Rights looks like (aged parchment, fancy penmanship). But readers can’t be expected to know what “Mike and Ike” candy looks like, nor should they have to click on a link to understand the basic nature of what looks like. That’s what photographs are for and there is plenty of electronic white space for a small photograph that clearly illustrates that the candy sure looks like candy. Greg L (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers of images

[edit]

I've just corrected what seemed to be a typo in the number of images, from the PDF of the document produced by the school. That is, I've changed 66053 in the article to 66503 which is what the document says - as far as I can see.

Further, in the section "Admissions, and further instances" the article currently says "More than 58,000 images" and then uses as references the PDF (which gives the 66503 figure as noted above) and a Philadelphia Enquirer article, whose headline says 56000 but whose text says "nearly 56000".

Now of course 66503 is indeed more than 58000, so the article is not wrong, but it seems to be using the wrong references. Is the "more than 58000" phrase coming from somewhere else that I've missed? Either way I think it needs to be made clearer. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch on the 66#. Looks good to me. I think that most of the RSs say more than 58K, but the actual facts in the core documents relate to the 66K. The 56# appears to be a non-consensus minority number, not supported by the underlying docs, perhaps a mistake that was picked up and repeated a couple of times before fixed. Nice work.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- it appears that the "more than 58K number" refers to the images taken by the system that were recovered and had not been deleted. The 66K number refers to the images taken by the system that were recovered (through May 2020), and includes some images deleted from the system that the forensics firm nevertheless managed to find.
  • L3 Review (66,503 distinct images). The review done by L3, the computer forensics firm hired by the defendants, indicates that through the date of the report (May 2010) "66,503 distinct images ... produced by LANrev have been recovered." The report at p. 42 describes the methodology in detail; e.g., images without supporting metadata, etc., were not included. It also describes how the report is only reflecting which images it had managed to recover so far, as images had been deleted. Also, if the webcam took the same photo 15 minutes apart, it counted that as two photos even if what was viewed was the same. So, in short, this suggests that the actual number could be higher than 58K (thought "more than 58K would not, as pointed out, be incorrect).--Epeefleche (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ballard Spahr report (57,992 images--but this is only the images in the IS systems as of that date, not the images taken by the laptops over the course of the program, including those taken by the laptops and purged from the IS system by the staff but then recovered by L3). The report by Ballard Spahr, the law firm hired by the defendants never gave a one-figure aggregate "images captured number". The closes it came was when it said on page 2 that "electronic copies of 30,564 webcam photographs and 27,428 screenshots existed in IS Department systems as of February 23, 2010. But it failed to mention or include those screenshots that the IS Department purged from its systems, but which the L3 computer forensics specialist recovered. The Ballard report also discussed on pp. 65-66 the periodic purging of the records of the images from the IS system. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK so we appear to have (1) the law firm reported a total of 57,992, (2) the forensics firm reported [at least] 66,503 because they recovered some extra although still not all, (3) most of the RS seem to be going with 58,000 or "more than 58,000" which we can assume is either approximately or erroneously based on the 57,992 figure (that's just me editorialising, but they really shouldn't say "more than 58,000" when all they can be certain of is that it's more than 57,992 - even though in practice they turned out to be right based on the later forensics), (4) the Philadelphia Inquirer went with "nearly 56,000", perhaps as an interpretation of the 57,992 number but with a mis-reading of the second digit.
Anyway I'm going to tweak the article slightly to remove the first sentence mentioning 58,000 - all of its significant content is repeated later in the same section and better referenced there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one point -- while not perfectly clear, because the law firm report mentions the forensics report, and was based on it, I would expect the forensics report precedes the law firm report. Otherwise, I think you are correct--though if you add up the individual numbers in the body of the law firm report, I think it is slightly higher even ... But, for whatever reason, the law firm: a) never in the report mentions an aggregate number of any sort, and b) only in its reports mentions the images not deleted from the servers (while mentioning images were deleted) ... leaving out the fact that counting the deleted photos, there were 8.5 thousand more that were recovered (though there are more not recovered). This hasn't been spelled out in the press as of yet, but there's an entire story just in that!--Epeefleche (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-title article

[edit]

Perhaps someone can help me here? The article name should actually not include "Blake J." If someone knows how to re-title it accordingly, that would be great.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been addressed, tx to Wavelength.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

210 + 218 = 428

[edit]

Search for "210". Summing is erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.119.28 (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Null's opinion

[edit]

Null is an op-ed blogger. Most of his work involves re-stating what journalists have written, and then adding his own POV slant. It is my opinion that his opinion on this case brings little to this article. Also, I think that where his opinion has been placed in this article is clearly meant to influence the reader's opinion. Those are the reasons why I removed it. Now that it has been placed back in, I will not remove it. But I invite other editors to weigh in on whether or not Null's opinion should be included in this article. Kingturtle = (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with editor HaeB's re-adding it to the article. This isn't the POV that we guard against. "POV" refers to editor POV. Op-ed writers of course have an opinion -- that is what an op ed is all about -- and while editor POV is not appropriate to reflect in wp articles, op-ed writer opinions (identified as such) are appropriate. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

Maybe someone wants to update the article with Laptop Lawsuit Redux: Robbins Family Sues School District Again. 167.107.191.217 (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

image deletion

[edit]

The article mentions data being deleted, does anyone know if there was any investigation done into when or why images were deleted, or if there was any attempt to remove evidence? Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scarequotes

[edit]

I changed the following sentence:

The school's "evidence" that triggered his discipline was a photograph that the school had secretly taken of him in his bedroom, via the webcam in his school-issued laptop.

To read:

The school based its decision to discipline Robbins on a photograph that had been secretly taken of him in his bedroom, via the webcam in his school-issued laptop

However, User:Epeefleche reverted the change. We should not be putting the word evidence in quotes here, see WP:SCAREQUOTES. The photograph was evidence (whether or not is showed what school officials thought it showed) and putting quotes around the word implies that we're making an editorial judgment. If we're going to state that the evidence was problematic, we should explain why in text. Secondly, I dropped the phrase "that the school had" from the sentence in order to avoid using the same word (school) three times in one sentence. This is just bad style. I understand Epeefleche's point about attribution and would be fine with another word, like "that administrators had secretly taken..." instead. GabrielF (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world are you seeking to censor the article to hide the fact that it was the school itself that took the photo?
Also, scarequotes relates to a different circumstance. Here, "evidence" is properly put in quotes, as the "evidence" was not compelling -- the school payed hundreds of thousands out as a result. Scarequotes is about circumstances where quotation marks may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression -- that's not the case. It simply properly brings into question whether the evidence was in fact evidence of what it purported to evidence. Also, it is key that the school was the party that took the photos -- not some third party. I don't care if the reference is to school administrators, but let's not censor the article by hiding the crucial fact that it was the school that was taking the images secretly. That's important. Epeefleche (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what WP:SCAREQUOTES refers to. The fact that the school took the photo is not hidden, but rather now worded in a neutral voice. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 03:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeking to censor anything. I am seeking to correct issues of style, including the repetition of the same word three times in one sentence. I request that you assume good faith and retract the allegation.
Wikipedia's own definition of a scare quote states that a scare quote "impl[ies] that [a word] may not signify its apparent meaning or that it is not necessarily the way the quoting person would express its concept". That is exactly how you are trying to use quotation marks. Wikipedia's article also states that "Style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles or academic discussion." Writing in language that implies that the author has a point of view on an article subject is not appropriate per WP:NPOV. If you want to demonstrate that this evidence was flawed, the more policy-compliant means of doing so is to use the text of the article to state how the evidence was interpreted by the parties involved in the suit and by the courts, and to cite that text to a reliable source. You cannot cite a punctuation mark. If you write it as text, you can make the text sound impartial, but scare quotes do not sound impartial.GabrielF (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Robbins v. Lower Merion School District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 18 external links on Robbins v. Lower Merion School District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Robbins v. Lower Merion School District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robbins_v._Lower_Merion_School_District&oldid=1240186577"