Julie Amero, a seventh grade teacher in Connecticut is facing
a prison sentence of up to 40 years after being convicted of
"risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a
child" after her class saw pornographic images on her
computer. Her defense was that the computer was out of control.
An expert witness testified that there was a malware infection.
Of course the newspaper story is missing every bit of information
you would need to reach a conclusion. The prosecution apparently
convinced a jury that she'd been visiting the sites in
question during class and somehow didn't bother closing them
when the children noticed. The defense produced an expert
witness, W. Herbert Horner, who said it was a case of porn adware
popups programmed not to be closable.
"You have to physically click on it to get to those
sites", said the prosecutor.
An anonymous comment on the newspaper web sites alleges
Mr. Horner a 40 year computer veteran was not allowed to
present all of his company's research and examination of
the computer hard drive from the school.
The reason: The prosecutor did not see the presentation before
hand. Therefore, the judge did not allow it to be presented.
Yet, the police officer was recalled to counter Mr.
Horner's conclusions. But, the defense was not allowed to
recall Mr. Horner to counter the police officer's claims.
And I got the state name wrong too. Embarrassing. (humor)I must be loosing my mind if I make rediculous errors like those(/humor)
Wonder if there was something, either a ruling by the judge or a failure of imagination, to stop the defense attorney from putting a copy of the drive into a fresh machine and booting it up in court to show it popping up obnoxious material without user intervention. Then tell the jury, "Watch what happens when I try to close one of these windows".
Julie Amero, a seventh grade in Connecticutt is facing a prison sentence of up to 40 years
Is that a seventh grade teacher in Connecticut? Actually, I didn't realise that the state was misspelled (hey, I don't know much about US geography), but the new Firefox spelling checker pointed it out.
Reading the article, it appears that the jury were convinced by a computer crimes investigator, that some of the sites visited, needed to be clicked on to get there. That is particularly misleading, as far as I'm concerned. There is NO site link that needs to be clicked on, if you have malware installed on your system. I'm shocked that the investigator would say something like this.
Even if they were accessed by a link, it could have been something as innocuous as clicking on a "Close Window" image link. Honestly, doesn't the defence hire someone to tell them this stuff?!
two things occured to me, first what is the school's liability going to be for letting the software that is supposed to protect those innocent little darings lapse, and secondly how come pron good enough to get you sent to prison never jumps out of my computer?
When I was in Jr. High, a couple of my ... acquaintances... brought a porn video with them to school, on the day they knew that the Science class was having a substitute teacher. Sub teachers are usually just told to hit play on the VCR; "play this for the students." Said acquaintances were in on 1st period, and switched the videos before class started. It took about 5 minutes before the movie got to "the good part."
A kid that can even begin to hack should be able to do far worse..!
I don't understand why people are not more up-in-arms over this sort of thing. For instance, why wasn't the school on trial as well? They are the ones that allowed their security software to expire. Also, just from the perspective of a mom that has had boys in school (they're all grown and married now). If those in charge of the school's computers were lax in their responsibilities, then they were making it possible for any of the children in the classrooms to easily access bad web sites. If the teacher could do it so easily (and unintentionally, I believe), any of the kids could have too.
And why wasn't Microsoft also named in the law suit? It doesn't take a particularly bright person (and believe me, I'm not one) to understand that the adware and other junk on that school's computer will only work using Windows and Internet Explorer.
These situations, with the 7th grade substitute teacher, and the boy in Phoenix (who is facing up to 90 years in prison, according to one article I read), makes me soooo angry....hmmmph. If no one stands up for these people, it will only get worse. No one using Windows will be safe from becoming a criminal.
OK. I guess that's silly to worry about, since that's been the case for a long time now. But it's been hard to get anyone to believe it. Maybe now people will start to listen. I have grown children that are teachers, and lots of grandkids in school. I'm probably one of a very small number of grandmothers in the world that worrys more about the use of Microsoft products in our schools than I do about drugs in schools. In fact, they're pretty similar as far as I'm concerned.
Use Internet Explorer, go to jail?
Julie Amero, a seventh grade teacher in Connecticut is facing a prison sentence of up to 40 years after being convicted of "risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child" after her class saw pornographic images on her computer. Her defense was that the computer was out of control. An expert witness testified that there was a malware infection.
Of course the newspaper story is missing every bit of information you would need to reach a conclusion. The prosecution apparently convinced a jury that she'd been visiting the sites in question during class and somehow didn't bother closing them when the children noticed. The defense produced an expert witness, W. Herbert Horner, who said it was a case of porn adware popups programmed not to be closable.
"You have to physically click on it to get to those sites", said the prosecutor.
An anonymous comment on the newspaper web sites alleges
Sounds like reasonable doubt to me...