Amongst all of the rumors, accusations, and FUD lies one statement that will certainly cause heads to roll:

Families were not informed of the possibility the webcams might be activated in their homes without their permission in the paperwork students sign when they get the computers, district spokesman Doug Young said.

Another interesting aspect of the case is whether or not the laptop was reported as stolen or missing. A Washington Post article, by Maryclaire Dale, states

The suit does not say if his laptop had been reported stolen, and Young said the litigation prevents him from disclosing that fact. He said the district never violated its policy of only using the remote-activation software to find missing laptops.

If the laptop was not reported missing or stolen and the school turned on the webcam to gather evidence showing that Blake Robbins (the student) was “engaged in improper behavior in his home,” the school district is screwed.

I also liked the following quote from Ron Todt’s Associated Press article:

The [school district web] site also noted that there was nothing to prevent students from covering the webcam with tape.

Erm…um…right. The families and students were not informed of the possibility the webcams might be activated in their homes, so why would the students think about the need to put tape over the camera? There are less intrusive ways to track lost or stolen laptops.

Then there’s the whole “student who leaves her laptop open in the shower to listen to music” thing. Jesus Quincy Adams.

It seems two of the most popular Firefox add-ons, both of which I use, AdBlock Plus and NoScript are not BFFs. The Register posted an interesting story, informing us that:

Giorgio Maone [NoScript creator] admitted that he added a small piece of code that worked around the EasyList filter used by Adblock Plus. The code, which was obscured so it wouldn’t be noticed by people who maintain the Adblock filter, was designed to ensure that commercial ads carried on Maone’s websites continued to be displayed on browsers that use the popular ad-blocking extension.

Wow. But wait, there’s more!

Maone said he added the anti-Adblock Plus functionality on Friday, after discovering the people who maintain EasyList had modified the filter so it blocked not just ads on Maone’s websites, but all scripting languages as well. This made it impossible for Adblock Plus users to get updates for NoScript or FlashGot, another Firefox extension Maone maintains, he said.

Giorgio did apologize, but this does not look good for Mozilla’s blessed add-on model for its flagship browser and struggling mail client. Mozilla quickly responded, but the obvious question is “How many other add-ons are doing this?” I’m not familiar with the add-on submission process, but it would seem Mozilla could implement a Public/Private key encryption system for each add-on based upon a given domain name or author ID. A given add-on could not alter another unless it was capable of exchanging keys. I wonder if the Moz team saw this coming and was the topic of many heated debates over dark beer. More to come…

Dear Sdoownek:

First of all, thanks for taking the time to post such a thoughtful rebuttal! You rock. I consider you one of the most intelligent guys I know, but I’m afraid a few of your main arguments are flawed. After all, what I post is the truth according to me. ;-)

You’re correct in that this is an ethical and moral issue. I was more disappointed when I read the article than pissed off. Google makes such useful software, but it seems it’s simply a “front” to gather information. So, who cares? I do.

What are the moral rights granted to an company/organization if you choose to shop at their store or visit their website? Is there an expected right to privacy? Should there be? Is that reasonable?

Most high end department stores have dedicated personnel whose job it is to do nothing other than observe customers…….to figure out what they’re interested in buying. That information is then passed to their “personal shopper” (ie, required assigned, salesperson) How is that conceptually different than what Google’s doing?

If the store’s dedicated personnel where to follow me around the rest of the day, and 89 days after that (90 days is the default browser history in Firefox), I would have to think about taking legal action. The difference between the department store and what Google is doing is that the department store no longer knows what I do and where I’ve been the rest of the day after I leave the store.

Your bitch with google isn’t about what they’re doing, it’s about the fact that you’re not in total control of the information. If you were _really_ concerned about your privacy, you wouldn’t tweet, you wouldn’t have a blog/post to it, and you wouldn’t own your own domain name (which, btw, you need to update your address with your registrar). I contend that your perception of your privacy is inaccurate.

You might be right about my perception of privacy. It’s actually about [the lack of] choice. I tweet, I write blog posts and purchased my own domain name because I chose to do so. In this case, I am given a choice, but my choice is reactive because Google thinks the ads I see on the web should be “more interesting.”

Google’s new “service” is opt-out and you know as well as I that your Dad, the average internet user, is (1) not going to go through the hassle of opting out, (2) going to opt-out, but have a difficult time doing so, or (3) say it’s not worth the hassle and become yet another stat that feeds the Borg.

In the end, Google will have a lot of information about a lot of poeple, on servers spread out all over the world. All I’m saying is that given recent events, it’s no longer just about “tubesteak.”

Talk to you soon, my friend.

Bookmark and Share