Remote webcam activation now disabled in software that led to controversy at Pennsylvania school

Much of the original incident doesn't pass the smell test to me.

Point 1: the family that's suing the school is doing so because their kid claims he was accused of doing drugs in front of the camera. Schools in the real world don't make accusations like that then just drop them - and according to the kid, this happened last Nov. He would've been investigated, suspended, the parents and the police notified... and the school can document that there was no action taken last fall.

Point 2: the school claims they've only turned on the cameras remotely to track down lost or stolen laptops (remember, these are school property). The feces struck the oscillator this Feb. because the kid claimed his laptop was stolen. When the camera was turned on they found that this was a lie. The kid was in serious trouble for making a false theft report - and suddenly it's "Mom! Dad! They're spying on me!"

Point 3: In many schools, kids and their parents sign what's called an acceptable use agreement for things like this. The school provides a laptop, and in exchange the kid acts responsibly. No surfing porn, no torrents, no selling the laptop on Craigslist, that sort of thing. Most importantly, you agree to the same sort of supervision as is found on school grounds. I don't know if an AUA was signed in this case, but if so, the parents may find that they agreed to the webcam being used remotely to track lost/stolen property.

This seems like overkill to me... If I had remote tracking software on my MacBook, I'd absolutely want the ability to use the camera as part of the software. I also happen to work in the IT department of a private school in PA and I still think this is getting out of hand. For LANrev to remove this feature for ALL of their customers is just stupid. This CAN be an effective tool in finding a stolen laptop, but should only be administered by trusted IT department members and upper level administration.

My understanding is that the green indicator light did not come on when this software was activated. If that is the case then all those other students were delusional, had some other software using the camera or, just maybe, were 'jumping on the bandwagon'.
Personal view, 'A man's home is his castle' taken into consideration, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. IF the software was implemented properly, that is, to be activated in the case of a lost or stolen device, then WHY would we as a society think that if the thief can make it 'home' before he opens said stolen property then he is deemed 'safe' 'cause the nasty naughty school district/cops/whoever have 'invaded his privacy'? Silly, at the least. Let's take this a step further. You learn who stole your laptop. You are able to see the laptop inside the thief's home. You call the cops. The cops arrive, ream you out for being a 'peeping Tom', maybe on a good day even arrest you. At the end of it all, the thief keeps the laptop, you swallow hard, cough up the money and buy a replacement. Meanwhile, there sits your property, plain as can be, sitting on the thief's lap. We seem nowadays to automatically assume, in fact 'know' that the district/IT people/administrators/cops are, for sure, 100% absolutely WRONG. That they MUST all be perverts/thieves/child abusers or whatever. There are 'less desirable' people in every walk of life, but nowadays we seem to paint everyone with the same brush. Maybe it's because so many folks now call the lawyer to sue the horrible people, oftentimes before they even call 'the authorities'. Sad state of affairs.

sounds great in theory and all..but since when do schools actually update software? tape over the lens fixes the problem easy as well

Except webcam footage was submitted in an abuse case. They made the information public.

I know a couple of kids who go to this school and I'm pretty sure this whole thing is just a way to make that family money. I don't think these kids were actually spied on, especially given the vice principal's comments on the matter.

Apparently the family has sued the school district before, too...