Teacher Found Guilty of Endangering Kids Due to Spyware

nursegirl writes "Norwich, Conn seventh grade teacher, Julie Amero has been convicted of four counts of risk of injury to a minor after her classroom PC displayed pornographic pop-ups in class. While an expert for the defendant said he had discovered spyware on her PC that had been downloaded from a hairstyling site, the local police investigator claimed that the spyware had been downloaded from actively visiting porn sites. Amero testified that she had told four other teachers and the assistant principal about the popups, but received no assistance. The school's internet filtration software was not working because it's license had expired. Amero faces up to forty years in prison."

you know....

Amero testified that she had told four other teachers and the assistant principal about the popups, but received no assistance ... Amero faces up to forty years in prison.

If only we had some... amendment... a "bill of rights" if you will... that ruled out "cruel and unusal" punishments like this.

Nah, that's crazy talk.

Re:you know....

It's not the punishment that's cruel or unusual, it's the charge. "Risk of injury to a minor" can stem from accidental viewing of a porno ad?

Injury? It's not a financial loss. The kids weren't physically harmed. The only potential injury is to the parents plans for educating their children. The children themselves certainly weren't scarred for having seen it. If they're scarred at all, it's because they were raised to take offense to the material.

Re:you know....

The kids weren't physically harmed.

Does anyone know what the sentence would be if she actually attacked one of the kids? I'm guessing even that would be a lot less.

Re:you know....

Attacked?

It'd probably be less than 40 years if she'd have murdered one of them.

Re:you know....

The children themselves certainly weren't scarred for having seen it.

I take it you didn't get the memo.

If they're scarred at all, it's because they were raised to take offense to the material.

There is that, of course, but there is the corallary as well. It is my observation that kids that are scarred by the experience get this scarring from having to deal with all the fucked up grownups around them going completely apeshit about their having seen a little exposed skin.

It's a self fullfilling prophecy that kids are harmed by it if you insure they come to harm yourself.

Yo! People. Under our clothes? We're naked. Get used to the idea, 'k? I'm getting a bit tired of living among psychotics.

KFG

Re:you know....

There's lots and lots of mentally scarring porn out there. Take the goatse man, or tubgirl, as an example.

Hi, my name is Mike, and I was exposed to tubgirl 4 years ago. I have to say that since that night, my life hasn't been the same. Every time I defecate, I have to put duct tape over my mouth first, and then I have to hold my breath. I can't take a bath anymore without crapping. Damn you, tubgirl. I'm so happy about the support I have received in this group, however. You guys are wonderful.

Re:you know....

Is that so? As a kid I once saw a blowjob picture and I found it exceedingly gross. Did I recover? Sure... Even goatse, bestiality and tubgirl do nothing to me anymore. Would I enjoy doing anything of those things? Hell, no! But, hey, other people can do what they want.... Tolerance is something you learn over the years.

You want to know the one thing that scarred me as a kid, which I still remember with disgust to this day? I saw a charred corpse on TV. (I think it was on the news) I had nightmares for months after that. Still today, I ca't stand watching pictures of charred corpses.

Re:you know....

You touch upon that strange thing in western society (or perhaps everywhere, I am not sure). Why is seeing sex considered so harmful to children, compared to quite disgusting violence (that can and will give nightmares, etc)? I have a hard time seeing how seeing sex could really harm a human child... especially such a short exposure such as this. I mean, many children must at least have walked in on their parents having sex at some point... and I think most of those children turn out ok anyway. And I'd wager any healthy boy (and girl more likely than not) have seen some kind of porn at 10 year old (and said "ewwww", too).

I just don't see the reasoning there. Anyone know why or how this "sex is harmful to see for children" came about?

i dont see

how that is teachers fault? Unless the teacher installed the spy-ware intentionaly, which is probably not the case.

Re:i dont see

It is the best news of this week. I am 13 years old and now, I know how to send my teachers in jail.

Yahoo!! Long life to the spywares!!![sardonic laugh]Revenge!

Artemis Fowl

pr0n pop ups a cost cutting measure?

There we go, slash the budget for Personal Health and Development classes. The kids have already gotten all their ill-advised Sex Ed from the friendly people at Backdoorsluts9.com.

Whoooaaaa...

Amero faces up to forty years in prison.

With laws like that... why don't you let the terrorists win?

40 years prison for not installing Firefox...

40 years prison for not installing Firefox... duh!

This is the tip of the iceberg.

It is trivial to write a piece of software that, when installed on a person's computer, will visit web sites of the attacker's choosing. The software could be programmed to do this covertly and with the specific intent of incriminating the victim, e.g., by only visiting illegal/immoral sites at such times when the person was using the computer to browse the Internet. The offending sites would be in the victim's browser history, having been visited at times when he/she was using the computer. The software could be programmed to destroy itself after a duration, with the attacker then providing information to authorities with regard to the victim's illicit surfing habit. Getting the software onto the victim's computer is also trivial, given the number of exploits available, open wireless networks, etc.

I'm expecting this to happen soon, if it has not already. Perhaps even as targetted attacks rather than simply random misanthropy.

A clear case of US double morale?

I get so fed up with the duality of American society where, on the one hand you are so exceptionally uptight when it comes to nudity, tolerance of other peoples sexuality etc - and on the other hand you are the worlds largest producer & market for pornography.

This leads to sad, sad examples like this where Prosecutors need to find a guilty party or person at any cost to pin the blame on for having some kids unintentionally see some porn pop-ups. I feel really, really sorry for the poor teacher for getting caught in this mess.

Its tragicomic for us living outside your country watching this - I sincerely hope you are able to fix these issues in a fundamental way.

Re:A clear case of US double morale?

Agreed. What also makes me wonder is *who the hell got the idea to sue her over this*. Here in Europe, things like this would never, ever, ever go to court. What is with Americans that they need a friggin' court to deal with each and every trivial, minor and major event they don't like?? What happened to the idea of just talking to each other and find a solution all can live with, without destroying someone's life and career? If this teacher gets convicted, even if she only gets 6 months probation, she can kiss her job and any opportunity to get another one in the field goodbye. Years of education wasted, and maybe if she's not that mentally stable she might derange completely, become an alcoholist or even kill herself...

What should've happened is that this 'incident' (yes: incident, it's nothing more than that) should have been reported to the school principal, and dealt with internally. In the *most extreme* case, in which she deliberately visited porn sites and got the spyware from that, she should be fired. In *any* other case (the spyware came from somewhere else, someone else installed it, etc), there should be *no* repercussions. Maybe only a 'warning' to send out the message to the children's parents that someone was blamed and it won't happen again.

How you Americans can even consider something like this to be a crime is beyond me... Also, sex is something natural, it does not hurt children. That's not to say you should show your 10-year olds pornography, but if they ever see it accidentally, that's probably a good thing. It opens opportunities to explain some things about life and actually educate and prepare your children for the real world, instead of teaching them denial, hypocrism and an unhealthy and overprudish attitude towards sexuality.

USA: Get over your problem with sex.

It's high time conservative Americans got over their problem with sex. It's clear these hypocrites have sex, otherwise they wouldn't be breeding the children that need to be "protected" from these images. No-one can be harmed by viewing pornographic images, certainly not grade seven students.

There is nothing wrong with sex. There is nothing wrong with nudity. There is certainly nothing wrong with naked female breasts - those of us in the rest of the world were left laughing our heads of at the utter ridiculousness of the outcry over the Janet Jackson "wardrobe misfunction". In fact, women should be free to walk around topless, as men can, if they so desire. The double-standard is simply mind-boggling.

I wouldn't mind betting that the same children that saw the images on this poor woman's computer also saw a number of acts of mindless violence on television that same evening, and not a soul complained. How's that for stupidity?

Re:The case probably has merit.

They wouldn't bother with this one unless they really did have a case against the teacher.

Nice fantasy you have there. School teachers are public enemy #1, they are seen as more of a threat to America than terrorists. Plus there's the thousands of cases that prosecutors take up every year in which they don't have good cases. And then there's the politicians and police wanting to look "tough on pornography" for the votes and funding.

Re:The case probably has merit.

Well if she was actively looking at porn that changes everything, why a 40 year sentence is too lenient I say!

Re:For the benefit of the vast majority...

How old are we talking about here?

      Around 12-13 years old.

malware can drop child porn , not just reg. pr0n

This dude [go.com] apparently had kiddie porn found on his computer(that most likely got there via virii/trojans) and was facing a sex offender label/jail time for it. The defendent's family hired a computer expert who analyzed the said computer's harddrive, and found many, many backdoor programs that would have allowed hackers into the comp. While the article doesn't exactly give technical details, it does make a good point in that this country's prosecutors/legal system are well behind the times in terms of technology issues.

And, this isn't the only case where this has happened before (2003) [zdnet.co.uk]

Re:The other sad thing.

What sort of medical imaging device is connected to the greater Internet, rather than a secure WLAN
of some sort, if it actually needs networking?

Re:The other sad thing.

i used to work in pathology, and the answer is ALL OF THEM.

Re:Protecting the kids

An important difference between the case and your analogy is that it were not her private pictures.

In my opinion a better offline analogy would be if she was responsible for collecting the school's mail. On the way to the classroom she emptied the school's mailbox and during her lesson some sex advertisement slipped out from that stack of letters.

Suing a teacher for something like that is unbelievable. It ruins your education system in the long term for sure if you have to work in such a climate.

Re:Excessive

I can't see her getting any serious jail time. America is crazy but not that crazy.

      Doesn't matter if she gets ANY jail time. She is now officially a "sex offender", and her life is over.