The article's conclusion is absurdly misleasing given the information presented in its source. The US Attorney did not claim that spying on students is legal, nor did he claim that the school staff did not intend to spy on the students, nor did he even claim that no admissible evidence of a crime existed. He claimed the investigators failed to find any such evidence. This is quite possible even if all of the first three conditions are true--it wouldn't exactly be the first time that cops botched protocol and made evidence key to prosecution inadmissible. The statement does not necessarily reflect any opinion as to whether invasive surveillance of students is legal.
Note: it's not considered a criminal act, it doesn't mean any of these students (or their families who could also have been photographed, who again could file criminal charges themselves) cannot file civil charges against their school/teachers.
Under criminal law in the US, AFAIK in the absence of criminal intent it's very hard to get charges laid. Courts don't want to extend strict liability onto serious cases, because you'll be landing every doctor in jail for malpractice, negligence or simply not doing enough. I doubt courts would extend strict liability onto any 'spying' infraction, because it would make essentially any wiretapping, etc. to be prosecuted essentially as guilty-until-proven-innocent.
Although I know in the UK sexual offences are strict liability, and as far as I've seen it follows similar lines in the US too, so one inappropriate picture would have likely turned this result 180.
Only in Massachusetts (settled case law) and Illinois (where the law was rewritten to make this crystal clear, however it hasn't yet been tested in the courts). The executive side of Maryland is split on this (charges are being brought at the local level while the state AG says it's bunk) and it hasn't been tested in the courts there.
In other states where this (too) frequently happens like Pennsylvania the locals get reliably slapped down when they try it.
Actually, in Massachusetts it's only illegal to secretly record a police officer. Openly recording a police officer, with your cell phone for instance, is fine, with several cases setting precedent.
Of course, given the precedent here, it sounds likely that you will get arrested and your phone confiscated, and have to spend several months fighting your arrest in court. But there are several recent cases that were overturned because the recording was done openly with a cell phone, rather than secretly.
I can't speak to other states. It will vary by states, and in most cases, you may be arrested and your phone confiscated until you fight it in court. Have your local ACLU phone number handy.
Just to be clear on this as well. In MA dual-consent is only required when one party has a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's been extended to include secretly taping someone in public (if the camera is hidden, the other party has a reasonable expectation of privacy). In a public place you can record to your hearts content.
This whole thing is about whether or not police have a right to privacy during their work. I think when this finally hits a court of note that it will be smacked down pretty hard. Courts have already found, for instance, that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy during a traffic stop for the person being stopped. Officers are now attempting to claim that privacy right for themselves, and it seems REALLY unlikely that they will succeed in doing that.
*note: I run a business that (as part of what we do) records phone calls, so we've had to deal with some of these issues. I'm not a lawyer and probably not exactly an expert.. I just know enough to be pretty damn dangerous:)
I think when this finally hits a court of note that it will be smacked down pretty hard. Courts have already found, for instance, that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy during a traffic stop for the person being stopped.
The issue already hit the SJC (Commonwealth v. Hyde has indicated in lambda's link) and they ruled for the officer.
Yeah, as I understand it, the law in question in MA is targeted at any interaction, not specifically those that involve police. All else being equal, both parties deserve to know that recording is happening.
"This call may be recorded for quality assurance", right?
If you're trying to capture police misdeeds on camera, then asking for the approval of the police, or announcing loudly to them that they are being recorded seems to miss the point. If anything, the police should have less of an expectation of privacy (in their job) than a normal person. We've armed them and given them the discretion to kill if necessary, why shouldn't we be able to heavily audit them to make sure that they aren't abusing that power?
You surrender a lot of your rights when you join the military, why should the police force be any different? We arm and train them in practically the same manner.
I'm pretty sure the law in question also has clauses about reasonable expectation of privacy. If you're on the phone, that's one thing, if you're in a public place, that's another.
I'm not saying that the police have any more right to demand someone turns their phone off in a public place than anyone else.
But the laws that do exist actually create protection of civilians from police -- otherwise they could surveil you at will. Just a funny point we've reached, is all.
Ah, so it is "legal" to video an officer only under circumstances where the officer can and will "legally" prevent you from doing it and make your actual actions moot... yes... sounds quite congruent with the laws of Iran or the former Soviet Union.
Perhaps once people start using cameras with live feeds... they'll make it completely illegal.
Weirdest conclusion. An out of control school should be brought back in to line, intent has nothing to do with it. Privacy was breached or it wasn't, whatever the intent.
That should only come in after it has been established that privacy was breached, which should be an offense. That should lead to a conviction with reduction of the sentence based on the intent, not on having the case dropped or not filing charges.
If this conclusion is extrapolated, what's next? pedophiles looking at pictures of naked children e.g. to make sure they don't have bruises because of abuse by their parents!??
Then such a person can claim not to look at those pictures for for "bad reasons", to give a more extreme example..
I hope this isn't over yet. Can the parents can still file a civil suit even if prosecutors don't want to make a public case over this?
I'm not surprised that the powers that be are uninterested in prosecuting the school district. But I would have guessed they would have felt compelled to do so, or at least make some noise about doing so, for the sake of appearances. It disturbs me that they can so openly dismiss the families who got spied upon as being beneath their regard.
Firstly the courts won't prosecute something like this in absence of criminal intent (it would make a precedent against police, FBI, ATF, etc. that spying is guilty-until-proven-innocent/just).
Secondly, civil suits are completely unrelated to criminal suits, in most districts these are completely different court buildings and judges.
Thirdly, criminal suits can still be filed by anyone who was inappropriately photographed (IE compromising photographs), also the parents (or anyone except the children) can file their own criminal suit for any photographs taken of themselves (not their children). The Attorney said criminal charges won't be laid against the school for the systems use against the child, not that no criminal act was committed.
Finally, the Inquirer's writing ability is utter shit... just thought I'd add it to the list because frankly this article was appallingly written.
Problem:
- The US have a problem getting people to afford studies in the first place
- You can spy on students
Solution:
Sell your privacy to pay for your studies!
Wouldn't it be great if you could sell the details of your private life, which you're doing anyway, to pay for your studies? Get a better future for free!
An aside: While in high-school, I was suspended for broadcasting a web cam from the classroom on to my personal blog. I only ever turned it on during class. The teacher thought I may have been spying on her.
Just remember who is ultimately paying for that lawsuit. I would prefer criminal convictions that make the people who were really at fault pay for their idiocy instead of just sticking it to the tax payers.
The headline is a really dumb conclusion to draw. What happened is that the prosecutor (ie. the US Attorney) declined to prosecute. They have the autonomy to do that. The school district managed to levy enough political influence to convince the prosecutor to look the other way.
The conclusion to draw is that justice in the US is up for sale. Another US Attorney successfully prosecuted a the principals of a seafood wholesaler, and imprisoned them for 8 years for importing lobsters in plastic bags instead of cardboard boxes. (True story: http://www.economist.com/node/16640389/comments?page=2)
The state court has determined that state employeesdidnt break a state law when recording students without their knowledge.
Notice how the state, which has a conflict of interest here, let itself off the hook?
Imagine if a old guy had done this by writing software that had attest mode accidentally left in? No intent to spy, but when judging citizens that doesn't really matter. The state cannot be trusted with justicevfor this reason.
