Spy High is a documentary series with four episodes which premiered on US television in April 2025.
The topic of this series is a scandal which happened at a Pennsylvania high school more than ten years ago (2009-2010).
In 2008, shortly before the scandal began, the school had handed out laptops to more than 2,300 students at the high school.
Neither the students nor their parents knew that these laptops were equipped with a special app which allowed IT staff who worked for the school administration to observe the students when they were at home in their room or any other place when they had the laptop with them.
This app was able to take a picture of the student in his or her room. This app was also able to take a screenshot at any moment. The screenshot might capture a part of a chat between students.
The scandal began in November 2009 when one student Blake Robbins was called to the office of the vice principal. His mother had also been called to attend this meeting.
The vice principal said the school suspected that Blake was taking drugs and that he was selling drugs to other students.
Blake denied this accusation. His mother asked the vice principal why the school made this accusation. What was the evidence?
The vice principal said:
We have a picture of Blake sitting in his room holding up a pill which he wants to sell to other students.
Blake asked:
How can you have a picture of me sitting in my room?
The vice principal answered:
I cannot tell you how we got this evidence, but we have it, and this is why we have to take action against you.
Blake and his mother said:
We are going to sue you for violating the privacy of our home.
This is how the scandal began.
Soon it was revealed how the school had been able to take a picture of Blake sitting in his room: the special app on his laptop had been activated!
The Robbins family hired a lawyer who was willing to prepare a lawsuit against the high school.
After a while, it was revealed that Blake Robbins was not the only student who had been targeted.
According to the school, the special app was only activated when a laptop was reported stolen or missing. But this was never the case.
The students who had been targeted had never reported their laptop stolen or missing.
Clearly, the app had been used to observe a student whenever the school administration felt there was a good reason to watch a particular student.
How many pictures had the IT staff taken? According to an investigation, the administration had taken more than 56,000 pictures of different students.
Most students in this high school were white. A minority of students in this school were African Americans. Some of the students targeted were African Americans.
Apparently, a large proportion of the students who were targeted were African Americans. Whenever a student had been chosen for observation, racism seemed to be a relevant factor.
Two African American students decided to sue the school for this violation of their privacy:
** Jalil Hasan
** Keron Williams
In the end, the case did not go to trial.
In the end, it was settled out of court.
Blake Robbins got a settlement of 600,000 dollars, but he did not get the whole amount. He got 175,000 dollars, while his lawyer got 425,000 dollars
Jalil Hasan got 10,000 dollars.
Keron Williams was offered 10,000 dollars, but there was a condition: he had to sign an NDA, meaning he could never reveal any details about his case.
Keron refused to accept to sign an NDA. After a while, the school dropped the demand for an NDA and offered him 13,500 dollars.
Were these settlements fair?
When we look at the three cases and the three amounts, the obvious answer is no.
Why should Blake Robbins get so much more than Jalil and Keron?
According to the school and the lawyers, there was a good reason for this. They said Blake and his family had suffered more than Jalil and Keron, because Blake and his family had been maligned by the media.
This argument has some merit.
But is this enough to explain the huge difference between what Blake got and what the other two students got?
In my opinion, the answer to this question is no.
Ideally, the three students should have received the same settlement, perhaps 100,000 dollars for each student.
If a higher settlement should go to Blake, because he might have suffered more than the others, Blake could get 150,000, while the other two should still get 100,000 each.
In my opinion, the settlements offered were not fair to the students or their families.
What happened to the vice principal and the members of the IT staff who worked for the school administration?
What happened to members of the school board who were ultimately responsible for school policy and practice?
Nothing.
They were not fired.
They were not tried in a court of law.
They did not have to pay a fine or serve time in prison, even though they had violated the privacy of many students; even though they had disturbed the lives of many students and their families.
The special app had been activated against certain students whenever the administration felt they had a reason to suspect that something illegal was happening.
The school did not have any solid evidence against any student. All they had was suspicion and distrust.
What about the evidence they claimed they had against Blake Robbins?
The picture was real. It was Blake Robbins sitting in his room. What was he holding up in front of the screen?
A piece of candy!
This picture did not prove that he was taking drugs. This picture did not prove that he was selling drugs to other students.
It is amazing - almost unbelievable - that a vice principal of a well-known high school was prepared to make such a serious accusation against a student based on a picture which did not prove anything and which was obtained by illegal means.
PS. On IMDb this miniseries has a rating of 65 percent. Five user reviews are posted on this website. The ratings offered run from 30 to 90 percent.
REFERENCE
Clint Worthington
Review of Spy High
Roger Ebert website
07 April 2025
Barry Levitt
“The Unsettling True Story Behind the School Spying Scandal in Spy High,”
Time Magazine
09 April 2025
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment