Northwest Education Law Blog : Northwest Education Lawyer & Attorney : Williams Kastner Law Firm : Tacoma, Seattle, Portland

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Seattle Times reports that a University of Washington police officer attended meetings of student organizations undercover, posing as a student. According to the report, Officer Tanesha Van Leuven attended a Student Workers Coalition meeting and identified herself as "Tani," concealing her identity so that she could conduct surveillance on the organization, which had been planning a demonstration in support of UW custodians. In the wake of the discovery of Officer Van Leuven's true identity, theAmerican Civil Liberties Union is calling for anti-surveillance legislation. The Times also reports that UW officials have expressed their disapproval of Officer Van Leuven's actions. A Komo News report includes additional information on this story, including a photograph of the officer at issue.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The parents of Blake Robbins, a 15-year-old student at Harriton High School, an elite suburban Philadelphia public school in the Lower Merion School District, have filed a lawsuit alleging that the school district violated Robbins’ privacy rights when it activated the webcam in his school-issued laptop. In response, the school district does not deny that it has remotely activated laptop webcams in the past. However, the school professed that it only did so to "locate a laptop in the event it was reported lost, missing or stolen so that the laptop could be returned to the student."

According to the complaint, Robbins learned of the school’s alleged use of the webcam when an assistant principal at Harriton High School, Lindy Matsko, cited evidence taken from the webcam on Robbins’ computer in support of the school’s accusation that he was using drugs. The family claims that the items Matsko perceived as “drugs” were actually candy.

While one would anticipate that the federal claims of the lawsuit would receive similar treatment in the district courts, whether in Pennsylvania or here in Washington, had this case arisen in Washington it would have implicated some interesting aspects of Washington privacy law. Washington’s Privacy Act prohibits all persons from eavesdropping or recording confidential communications. The Act prohibits the interception of “private communication transmitted by telephone . . . or other device,” or “private conversation” without the prior consent of all parties to the communication.