11th Grader Given Detention For Using Firefox Mouthing Off

Update: Earlier today we posted a story of the Pennsylvania high-schooler who received detention just for using Firefox in lieu of another Internet browser. Looks like this one was a hoax. Apparently the kid actually got in trouble for mouthing off to a teacher after being asked not to surf the Interwebz when he was supposed to be doing a written assignment in Microsoft Word. The supposed faux detention slip is a forgery the kid made after scanning the original.

BoingBoing's Corey Doctorow called the school's principal. Here's what he found:

I just spoke to the principal of the high-school — nice enough fellow. According to him:

  1. The kid altered the document after scanning it
  2. The kid was punished for mouthing off to the teacher, not for using Firefox
  3. The kid had been asked to work in Word on a resume (the assignment) and kept looking at the Web instead (and this was a recurring problem)
  4. The kid has admitted this and will be posting a followup/correction/retraction today

Good work, Corey! As usual, looks like everything on the Internet is not always what it seems.

Source: Wired Blog Network, December 16, 2007



School’s Response to Internet Hoax

Recently, a file was uploaded to the Internet purporting to be a copy of a letter from Big Spring High School to a student regarding a two hour detention. The uploaded letter was an altered version of a detention letter sent to a student. Unfortunately, privacy concerns prevent the School District from giving a full explanation of the nature and source of the letter’s alteration at this time. The Big Spring School District does have confirmation that the discipline letter was altered.

The reports, blogs and other sources on the Internet indicating that a Big Spring student was assigned detention for using the Firefox internet browser instead of Internet Explorer are untrue and were based on the fake letter. Detention is assigned in our schools after appropriate warnings are given. If students continue to engage in non-academic activities or fail to follow a teacher’s directive during class time, discipline can and will be assigned.

Sincerely yours,

John C. Scudder, High School Principal

Source: Big Spring School District Website, December 17, 2007

SURETY'S TAKE ...

High School Flunks Data Integrity Test

An 11th grader with access to a scanner and a computer easily altered an important school record and subjected the school to unwarranted criticism, negative publicity and a firestorm of controversy. The school’s biggest mistake was underestimating the motive and capabilities of its students to alter school records. With the proper data protection and authentication solutions in place, Big Springs would have immediately and irrefutably been able to tell the detention slip was a fake and quash the news about the controversial detention. The school’s delay in noticing the document was a fake prevented a quicker reaction that would have prevented the story from spreading and eliminated the need for a response from the school administration.

Deterrence

With Surety’s AbsoluteProof®, an organization like Big Springs High School can deter potential alteration because would-be wrongdoers know they will be caught. AbsoluteProof’s easy detection allows organizations to identify the problem before it’s too late.

Governance

Schools are charged with the important task of keeping student records safe and confidential. Data tampering like that done at Big Springs High School opens the school up to litigation surrounding its data protection policies and raises questions about the validity of school records.

Litigation Readiness

The fact that an 11th grader could tamper a critical school record like a detention slip does little to instill confidence in the litigation readiness of Big Springs High School. Courts are increasingly requiring that electronic records be authenticated in order to meet the requirements of evidentiary admissibility. Using AbsoluteProof, the school would easily be able to meet this stringent requirement and would have no problem proving that electronic evidence is indeed what it purports to be.

Back to top