Teacher Found Guilty of Endangering Kids Due to Spyware 597
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."
The other sad thing. (Score:2, Insightful)
When I service customers' computers, I like to install Spybot, configure it to auto-update, auto-scan, and set its scan priority to "Idle", so it doesn't interfere with the user's activities.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know on average it will probably help. But 'on average' and 'probably' are not good enough as-and-when Spybot makes a medical imaging machine behave in a way other than designed, for example.
Get that permission, and if it's not given then do not put any software on.
Re:The other sad thing. (Score:4, Interesting)
As for undesired behavior...I run a free PC Clinic [grc4.org]. People bring in their desktops and laptops for cleanup and repair, and we send them back the same day. With a good number of volunteers, we've fixed as many as 35 computers in a six-hour period.
Since they're peoples' personal machines, there's not a great deal of risk of adverse behavior from the tools we use.
Re:The other sad thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
of some sort, if it actually needs networking?
Re:The other sad thing. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
--
Evan
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You would be surprised. A lot of imaging in smaller hospitals and clinics are read by radiologists off-site though a service firm and the reports are sent to the doctor via email. It would be insanely expensive for a clinic or small hospital with an Xray and a CAT scan that is used perhaps 3-4 times a day to hire a radiologist.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The system was set up by the radiology group that interprets the image. I talked with one of their techs during the install. They're quite cognizant of the issues facing a remote medical imaging site. The PCs are scanned remotely on a regular basis. The point being that it's not set up by a bunch o
Re:The other sad thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be ridiculous. Anyone who is using a "medical imaging machine" isn't going to hire out to a small shop for IT support. They're going to be part of a hospital or other facility that has their own IT support. And most likely there will be a special department dedicated specifically to support of the medical imaging systems. I know this because supporting PACS systems is been part of what I do for a living.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you want to see penny pinching at it's best, go work in a hospital for awhile.
As I pointed out at the end of my original post, I do work for a hospital, and I do support PACS systems, so I do know what I'm talking about. And for the record, I have never seen a million do
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
malware can drop child porn , not just reg. pr0n (Score:5, Informative)
And, this isn't the only case where this has happened before (2003) [zdnet.co.uk]
Re:malware can drop child porn , not just reg. pr0 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:malware can drop child porn , not just reg. pr0 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have on several occasions tried to give several security tips to average computer users about using WiFi host spots. In two instances, I barely got started before they complained that I was talking way over their head and had used unfamiliar jargon such as browsers, IE, cookies, packet sniffing, encryption and phishing. It was clear that they did not not even want to try to understand what to understand what I was trying to warn them about. They just wanted to access their email and do their on-line ba
Re:malware can drop child porn , not just reg. pr0 (Score:4, Interesting)
Prosecutors, police and lawmakers all seem to be making the assumption that computer owners should be responsible for everything that is sent to and from the Internet. Yet, we have average people with little knowledge of computer security who are using hard to secure Windows computers. A large percentage of all Windows computer have been infected by spyware or browser hijackers or have had back doors placed in them my hackers or the malware itself. A recent New York Times article was titled the Attack of the Zombie Computers Is Growing Threat [nytimes.com]. It says that "botnet programs are present on about 11 percent of the more than 650 million computers attached to the Internet". Most of those zombie computers are probably spewing out spam for porn, pump-and-dump stock schemes, or illegal activities such as phishing schemes that steal peoples charge card numbers or passwords. Should those 70 million Windows computer owners around the world also be arrested and sentenced to years or decades in prison?
Last night on ABC, on TV, I saw a 20/20 segment about "Prison Time For Viewing Porn [go.com]". In that case a teenage boy was facing the possibility of 90 years in prison because several child porn files that were found on the family computer. Police pounded on the door of their Phoenix home at 6:00 a.m. and seized the family computer. The sixteen-year-old boy offered to take a lie detector test and passed the test, but prosecutors continued to press charges. A computer expert later looked at the hard drive and found more than 200 infected files and back doors that allowed hackers to access the family computer from remote locations. Most likely someone else used the insecure Bandy family computer as a place to store the files which they did not dare store it on their own computer.
I have heard that many computer repair people spend much of their time removing spyware from computers belonging to people who complain that computers are running slowly. Prosecutors and police should take into account that these people were not using a more secure operating system such as MAC OS X, Linux or BSD. However, security problems or other misleading circumstances can occur when using Mac, Linux, or BSD. For instance, I use Linux and when I find an interesting website with various interesting Linux, ham radio, solar energy or nutrition related files, I occasionally use the wget command [linux.com] to download most of what is on that web page. I latter frequently am surprised to discover that the wget command also downloaded hundreds of pictures of New England covered bridges or family photos too. I most would most likely not notice if child porn photos had also automatically been downloaded into an obscure subdirectory.
How can law makers, police, prosecutors and child protection supporters seriously suggest holding people accountable for what is found computers without outlawing the use of Windows first? Furthermore, where I live the local cable companies provide their customers with broadband routers which are wide open to being used by nighbors by default. The telephone company where I live provides wireless routers which by default use insecure WEP encryption method. About half of all wireless networks do not have any security enabled and many of the others just use WEP or are still using the defalt SSID and password. Many people also do not use antivirus software, spyware removal software, properly secured firewalls or the latest security updates. Even with Windows security patches installed there are frequently unpatched zero-day exploits out there such as the one for Word documents that Microsoft failed to patch earlier this week on "patch Tuesday." How can police and lawmakers seriously suggest holding people accountable for what is on people computers in these circumstances.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite right-- I have seen this (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know what ever became of it.
Re:malware can drop child porn , not just reg. pr0 (Score:5, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with prosecutors being tech-ignorant.
It has to do with prosecutors seeking to make a name for themselves by jumping on the "child porn" bandwagon - a guaranteed way to get re-election.
It's a career move, nothing more.
It's what you get when "law creates crime".
Look at the "Drug War" sometime. It's a way for the Feds to get money and power while suppressing minorities - nothing more. The Feds regularly arrest people for things that shouldn't be crimes in the first place, threaten them with massive jail time in exchange for ratting out all their relatives and friends with lies, then arresting everybody else and repeating the procedure ad nauseum. This is how they get their 98% conviction rate - and their budget money and career path in the DoJ.
This is why the US has the most incarcerated population in the world.
The entire system has utterly NOTHING to do with the vague abstract term "justice".
Re:malware can drop child porn , not just reg. pr0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Police and prosecutors don't care what really happened because their job is to arrest and convict - that's what we reward them for. We'd be silly to expect anything different.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"PC gets cuffed, led away protesting innocence
Re:malware can drop child porn , not just reg. pr0 (Score:5, Interesting)
If all the material is on the PC, and good searches of the suspect's home or workplace don't find back ups and additional material, it's time to look at the alternatives before rushing to convict. Conversely, local law enforcement ought to be trained that finding a back up cache or other off device child porn is one of the best ways to ensure solid convictions.
The ONLY sad thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
you know.... (Score:5, Funny)
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.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:you know.... (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
obligatory: (Score:5, Funny)
*** Topic in #doghouse is 'Our hearts are extended to the 17 victims of the recent internet fraud'
* Anubis has joined #doghouse
<Anubis> what fraud?
<Kadmium> You haven't heard about it?
<Anubis> no?
<Kadmium> You can read the full story at http://www.tubgirl.com/ [tubgirl.com]
<Anubis> omg wtf!
*** Kadmium changes topic to 'Our hearts are extended to the 18 victims of the recent internet fraud'
from bash [bash.org].
Re:you know.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:you know.... (Score:5, Funny)
A) You're using reason. That's the first sign you're an immoral heathen.
B)Violence is natural. Sex is not. If God wanted us to have sex, we would be born with some kind of genitals which would develop over time, allowing us to perform and desire sexual acts, not the submachines guns babies come with out of the womb.
When I was a young boy (probably around 10), I'd just gotten out of the pool and while walking around, I saw my 5 year-old-cousin drying off. She had her towel open in the front.
That's right: I, a boy as young as 10, saw my first naked girl. So terrible was the sight I went on a killing spree for weeks to calm my troubled mind. And did you know the assassin who killed Archduke Ferdinand, which launched WWI, became an assassin after walking in on his parents having sex?
Seriously, there is no logic. Sex is natural. It's about the most natural thing there is. And plenty of young children, get this, even like to play with their genitals. They may not understand why, but they think it feels good. So, why some people think it's okay to see the aftermath of a carpet bombing but not a pair of breasts I'll never understand.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not a thing in western society. You probably will not be surprised that I live in Europe. Sex isn't as demonized as it is is in the United States. We have commercials that are considered "raunchy" by Americans. Softporn is easy to get on TV and I remember my dad allowed us to watch movies with erotic-but-really-not-much-to-see stuff. He also had his own porn collection which was not well hidden. He damn well knew that we knew where it was.
These days porn probably is mostly digital, and I could
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have been thinking about this too after I saw stupid story about how kids might use their Wiis and PS3s to look at porn on the internet. The mother in the story talked about how her childrens "innocence might be destroyed if they learn something they aren't supposed to know" (I paraphrase) That sure sounds like the garden-of-eden tree-of-knowledge story.
The word innocent is often used to de
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So God made humans have these "urges and desires" all the time, and yet it is wrong if you act upon them before marriage? What a bastard! That's like giving a thirsty man a bottle of water and telling him he cannot drink it. Or a great painter a set of brushes and forbid him to paint.
Re:you know.... (Score:5, Funny)
=Smidge=
Re:you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It'd probably be less than 40 years if she'd have murdered one of them.
Re:you know.... (Score:5, Funny)
American freedom that needs to be shared with the world :)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't a supermarket, they don't do "kill two, get one free" offers...
Re:you know.... (Score:5, Informative)
I frequently see their sentence structure on their file and it is not uncommon to see an inmate with a sentence like:
murder-Life with CC
murder-Life with CC
UDW (use of a deadly weapon enhancement) 48-72 months CS
So, what this would work out to be like is this. The inmate would have the 2 life sentences running at the same time, He gets his parole on both. They were running concurrently so they are both complete. NOW he starts serving the 48-72 month sentence that was consecutive to the initial sentence.
It does not happen this way all the time, but it is quite common.
So, She could conceivably wack the kids and the idiot judge that actually let this go to trial in the first place and serve less than 40 years.
This scenario is extremely unlikely but within the realm of possibility.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
i dont see (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:i dont see (Score:5, Funny)
Yahoo!! Long life to the spywares!!![sardonic laugh]Revenge!
Artemis Fowl
Re: (Score:3)
While I would love to moderate you up, there's no "Deeply disturbing because it's all too true" option.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
pr0n pop ups a cost cutting measure? (Score:5, Funny)
Idiotic at higest levels (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess few people in the US needs to be connected back to reality.
Whoooaaaa... (Score:5, Insightful)
With laws like that... why don't you let the terrorists win?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whoooaaaa... (Score:4, Insightful)
If the popular descriptions of the conditions of US jails are true, I'd prefer stoning over 40 years inside one of those.
40 years ? (Score:3, Interesting)
I know she will not get that much, but even to consider it is laughable.
Re:40 years ? (Score:4, Interesting)
The US seriously needs to prioritize.
Re:40 years ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Frightening .. (Score:2)
It's that this verdict was based on SIX jurors. How is that possible? I thought a jury _had_ to be twelve members (or more)? Something I shall have to research
Hits to freedom come faster and faster these days, and police state USA, fullblown, is just around the corner.
*shudder*
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Short answer: State Constitutions vary. Each state decides how many peers a "jury of your peers" needs to have in it to be fair. Twelve is traditionally the number, and most states observe this, but some use six, and some eight.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure all the states still require a unanimous verdict (all jurors in agreement) to convict.
40 years prison for not installing Firefox... (Score:5, Funny)
This is the tip of the iceberg. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm expecting this to happen soon, if it has not already. Perhaps even as targetted attacks rather than simply random misanthropy.
Protecting the kids (Score:2)
On the other hand, given that most everyone has at one time been inadvertently exposed to unwanted pornography while browsing the internet, I'm surprised at the narrow view taken. Protecting kids is one thing, but destroying a person's life is
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
except it's NOTHING LIKE THAT, it's not her pictures, they were from software installed in secret without her knowledge, and when she discovered what had happened she attempted to get them removed and recieved no assitance. you can not remove the technology from the argument simply because your too dense to understand it, it's intergral to what
Re:Protecting the kids (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Protecting the kids (Score:5, Informative)
The most important distinction, however, is that it's not some hairbrained idiot at the school that decided to levy these charges. Anybody can sue anyone at any time for any reason. No, this charge was levied by the people. By people representing you and me. The real responsibility for this miscarriage of justice rests on the prosecutor that was elected by the people, and who decided to prosecute this case. He or she needs to be held accountable for ruining the life of another human being.
Don't talk about this like it's something that could really suck for this woman. It already does suck. She's already been convicted. Sure, she can appeal, and based on what I know from this case, she stands a chance of winning, but that black mark is on her record forever. Appeals are not based on the merit of the original conviction, but rather on the fact that she had a fair trial. Until you are convicted, you are innocent until proven guilty. Once you are convicted, you are guilty until proven innocent. It's a whole different ballgame.
As someone who regularly uses a computer in front of children as an educational tool, and as an IT professional, this story scares the hell out of me. Although I know how to keep my computer free of spyware, there isn't one person on
Its, not it's (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously...
A clear case of US double morale? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where does the "if" come from here? Her sentencing hearing is set for March 2.
USA: Get over your problem with sex. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually agree with most of what you said, I just find your arrogance astounding. You speak as if your beliefs are the One Self Evident Universal Truth, and that all Americans are fools because some of them disagree with you, even though on a global scale your views are the the minority by a long shot.
Re:USA: Get over your problem with sex. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, his belief actually is part of The One Self Evident Universal Truth. Nipples are not dangerous and people like sex.
I'm not sure you really want to make this into a numbers game though. Africa is for the most part really open about sex, and most Latin Americans have a fairly relaxed attitude to it. Most of Asia seems to not make such a big deal about it either; it's just not an issue. The only countries I've heard of punishments like these are in fact Middle Eastern ones and the US (coincidently, not too far from the list of countries that still allow executions).
Re:USA: Get over your problem with sex. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, sure - if you feel like it. Who's stopping you? You might get stared at, but that's about it (unless you live in some country where religion is still widespread, such as the one being discussed here. So yes, the question is rhetorical).
But why would you want to? Clothes has been used since paleoliticum, not for moral reasons but for practical ones. As for sex, unless you happen to be exhibitionist, why would you want to have sex in public?
The sad thing is (Score:2, Interesting)
We all agree that the prosecution has wronged the teacher in this case,
Ridiculous... (Score:3, Funny)
A good lawyer should be able to clear it up (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure counter claims could be presented such as pulling in case examples, etc, but I get the feeling that there's invariably a lot more going on with the "troubled" kids and that generally healthy kids, while being embarassed at seeing such material, aren't going to launch any rape or 'Columbine' campaigns as a result of pornographic pop-ups.
Now that said, the schools should be suing the HELL out of the companies profiting from this form of advertising and in many respects there are plenty of grounds for other legal action against parties outside of the school. I say they should direct their anger and outrage against the REAL parties responsible.
I don't think much needs to be said about "prevention" though. But I will say this: teaching in school is a presentation. And as such, presentations should be fully prepared in such a way that "unpredictables" are kept to a minimum. Live internet in a classroom at a grade school level is just a bad idea.
Chilling effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
One would think the possibility that the images were the result of spyware would create reasonable doubt, but since it doesn't...
How many idiots for it to go this far? (Score:5, Insightful)
She is most likely not allowed to use work computers for private purpose (although everybody does), and using it for porn is worse as the risk of malware is higher. This is something that would in a sane society be a cause of a "serious talk" at the boss office. So how did this get this far?
1) Someone, either the school principal or a parent, must have decided that watching porn pop-ups constitute injury to the pupils.
2) The prosecutor must have agreed.
3) The jury has agreed.
This point to a society whose norms are seriously sick, not just a few twisted individuals.
I deal in worst case scenarios (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The teacher was viewing porn on her computer, but she intended it for her own eyes only, messed up and the kids has seen that she viewed porn. She lied to the kids covering up the situation...
reasonable reaction:
2. The teacher was viewing porn on her computer and was showing it to kids because of pedophile intent or as an inappropriate sex-ed.
reasonable reaction: teacher fired, putting her on a list that she can't work with kids anymore. I find the sexual offenders list an overkill though. Disclosing the location of people like this teacher, not letting her go near schools or some such restrictions are an overkill, she is just not fit to be a teacher. She's 40 years old, must have been teaching for a long while now, so you just have to dig in her past to check whether something associated with paedophilia turns up. If yeah, hell sentence her criminally, but if not then there isn't a cause for stronger measures than firing her and not allowing her to work as a teacher anymore.
Criminal prosecution should only come if there is actual harm to children, and viewing a couple of porn pictures is not harm, it's just bad conduct on the part of the teacher, so it should mean loss of job.
Personally I think that criminal prosecution in this case is a joke, even more so the 40 year sentence. What's next, execution for giving "the finger"? When I was 12 I was looking for serial keys on astalavista if my memory serves me correct when a porn popup popped up and it displayed a monster cock. The IT teacher walked up behind me and just told me to turn that off and walked away again. Other kids were directly looking at porn when the teacher wasn't looking and noone made a big deal about it. If the teacher's screen would have flooded with porn popups we would have been laughing at it. I'm not from the USA so I don't get the whole obsession with trying to hide sex. I also received proper sexual education from the school, so I can't complain.
Children to be protected (Score:4, Funny)
wrong purp! (Score:3, Interesting)
So, fire the teacher for visiting porn in her off hours, and put the spyware guy in jail.
MadCow
It was running Windows, I assume? (Score:3, Funny)
what to expect next (Score:3, Interesting)
Parents claim they were making a little brother or sister for the youngster.
Court upholds Kids side, claiming parents should lie to underage kids about how
little brothers and sisters are made.
So if you want to get a teacher busted and sent to jail, you now know how to do it.
And only a fool would think kids today don't know about computers.
Remember, santa and the easter bunny exist until you are old enough to be told the
truth. What better way to prepair the next generation for believing the political,
war monging and religious BS.
Is there something to actually do to help her ? (Score:4, Insightful)
I read this story earlier on el reg, and since then I really feel sick for this teacher. Facing 40 years in jail for what appears to the most casual internet user as bad luck is so way out of reality touch it's totaly unbelievable.
Her case desserves the world's attention and help ; I'm wondering wether it couldn't be brought to some NGO attention such as Amnesty international, for it looks like a violation of her human rights. This could help her finding a competent lawyer.
I'm really upset a person's life can be shred to pieces that way, just to fulfill some obvious political ambitions.
No wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the checklist of benefits of becoming a teacher:
-Relatively low wages
-Dealing with spoiled kids
-Dealing with the parents of spoiled kids
-Facing 40 years in prison because your school has an IT department consisting mostly of monkeys
Where do I sign up?!
Re:The case probably has merit. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Indeed they are, here's why: (Score:5, Insightful)
Cynical? yes.
Re:The case probably has merit. (Score:4, Informative)
She's a substitute, which means she was only in that class a day or so. For her to have installed spyware and be duped into clicking on it multiple times may be feasible, but is it likely? Besides when you read TFA, the investigator also points out that the jury viewed a list of sites accessed, many of which could not be reached without actively clicking on the ads:
Hitting one or two could be a mistake, but several? It really sounds more like she was surfing for pr0n in the classroom, and using "teh spyware" as an excuse. And of course, Slashdot fell for it. Again.
Re:The case probably has merit. (Score:5, Funny)
For the benefit of the vast majority... (Score:3)
Re:For the benefit of the vast majority... (Score:5, Informative)
Around 12-13 years old.
Re:For the benefit of the vast majority... (Score:4, Funny)
Gasp! How dare you! Little Johnny doesn't think about sex, and never will, until the day he gets married. Then he will have sex only in the missionary position, and only in order to have children. And he will NOT ENJOY IT.
Re:The case probably has merit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if she intentionally showed porn to children, a more appropriate response would be to fire her. A felony charge for multiple counts of endangerment of children is very far over the top. Forty years in prison, for accidentally exposing some children to dirty pictures is just insane. That's a roughly equivalent to a murder conviction. It this, even if it were intentional, really as bad as murder?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What you're seeing on this article is common sense. Even if she got to work at 4am and browsed hardcore bestiality porn for 4 hours before work there's no reason to put her through this. It's ridiculous, it's Kafka-esque. If she browsed porn at work and it can be proven, simply fire her. See how easy that was?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's going to form the basis for an appeal, "Well, yer Honor, the prosecution's 'expert' is clearly a dipshit that doesn't know what he's talking about..."
Re:Excessive (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't matter if she gets ANY jail time. She is now officially a "sex offender", and her life is over.
Re:Excessive (Score:5, Insightful)
It would, of course, have taken the school/district's IT people 10 minutes to install AVG, Adaware, and and Firefox. And that is their job, while she is busy teaching or making lesson plans... (or surfing for porn, which would be extremely hard to prove, especially if students were on the computer.)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Another thing would be the school policies to consider. She might have gotten in trouble by cleaning the hard drive herself. And as to which sites actually installed scripts to allow porn pop-ups, the sites could be very innocent on the surface but could intentionally have those scripts in the background or they could be sites that they themselves have been infected.
If she isn't a techie type person, she might have been scared to try