Even given that the laptops were "school property" ownership does not grant an exemption to the laws cited in the lawsuit.

With extremely rare exceptions, you do not "own" any of the software installed on your computer. You MUST at the very least click on an "Accept" button to affirm that you have read and accept the terms of a EULA (End User License Agreement) to install almost all programs. Nearly all such EULAs assert (and you agree) that the software belongs to the person or company that provided it.

That alone does not give the owner any legal right to access your computer for any purpose, and specifically not for any of the purposes prohibited by the cited laws.

Even to get updates for protection against malware, you must sign up and affirm an agreement to a separate EULA specifically granting permission for the updater to access your computer for the specific purposes stated in the EULA. Quite a few programs may request that you give them a separate permission to access statistics on how you use their program, but doing so requires that you "sign" a separate EULA giving them permission to do so, and even that access is generally held to be ILLEGAL without your consent.

Some support groups may offer to "remotely control" your computer to fix problems; but each such access requires a separate permission by the user. They cannot legally "come back later" even to see if the fix remains in place.

When you rent a car, the car still belongs to the agency, but you must sign a Rental Agreement that usually includes terms and conditions such as not using it as a taxi for hire, not using it for drag racing, etc. The use you can make of it are limited only by the terms you agree to when you sign the agreement.

The school has admitted that they did not tell students that the webcam could be remotely activated, and did not obtain permission to do so while the the students were in possession of the laptops. No EULA means no agreement, and the access that evidently occured is prohibited by the cited regulations.

If and when a student informs them that a laptop is lost or stolen, a properly recorded notice that the laptop is not in the possession of the person to whom it was assigned might be sufficient to permit them to turn on the webcam remotely for purposes of locating the laptop; but so long as it remains in its proper place the use of the remote webcam function is bound by the regulations cited, modified only by prior agreements made with the one having possesion, and the existence of "informed consent" must be provable.

Most companies providing "locator" functions (that I've seen) consider the webcam a useless - and dangerous - frivolity, and rely on cell tower location (which requires a warrant or a prior recorded permission for the cell provider to release info) and/or GPS chips in the protected laptop. Because of the likelihood of "accidental violation of privacy laws" - as well as to prevent theft of information - the better systems securely lock - or delete - all information on a laptop if locater functions are remotely activated.

John