p*rn Pop Up Ads Could Send Teacher To Prison For 40 Years

they didnt let the defense set up the computers like that... the forensic compan said that it was an accident but wasnt allowed to prove it or something

 

How did the author arrive at the conclusion that the lady could get 40 years?

Anyway, seems pretty obvious that this lady isn't some sex maniac who gets off on showing p*rn to children on school computers. If anything, she's guilty of not being very computer savvy. Hardly deserving of prison time.

 

why didnt she jus turn the screen off?

oh and i think i got some spyware on my comp. anyone have any ideas/links on what to dl to get rid of it?

 

That is seriously messed up

 

You're right. I take that back. They're BOTH guilty. Whoever downloaded whatever installed the pop-up-sending program is guilty... whoever allowed to install that program is guilty. In essence, tanto peca el que mata a la vaca como el que le agarra la pata - he who holds the cow's leg is as guilty as the one who kills it . Is your first sentence here a statement or a question?

rockbox... stay classy, man.

Sishir Chang, I think that would backfire on the lawyers... what if it shows the opposite? That PC better be in the evidence room untouched.

 

This is horrible.

The jury should get sent to prison themselves for wasting this woman's time.

Maybe she should get fired, yes, but even if my child had seen the pictures, I still would probably argue in the teacher's defense. That is just ridiculous.

I found it funny that the age of the students was never brought up (or at least I didn't see it if it was).

No offense to Madmax and others, but this is why I could never be a lawyer.

 

Her lawyers obviously sucked big time.

 

You are talking nonsense. This woman is not guilty of anything, other than bad computer skills.

 

My point is this:

Not that it has tons to do with the case, but I'm sure a few kids in that class had seen pictures of that stuff. In fifth grade, THE SCHOOL has you watch videos with nudity for sex ed. It's not like this was a foreign thing, and at any rate, these kids aren't gonna be scared for life by seeing naked people. Now, if they were in first grade or something, it's a more serious matter.

What it boils down to is that this is completely ridiculous. The kids were at fault for pulling up the website. On top of that, the teacher says she did everything in her power for them not to see it. I doubt she paraded it in front of the class, which would be a crime.

It's crazy that there weren't more people sticking up for her. If I were a parent of a child in the class, I would be outraged that this happened at the school. Then, I would realize it was an accident and not even the teacher's fault, and then I would come to her defense.


This case shouldn't have even gone to trial.

And yes, her lawyer's should second-guess themselves for losing this case.

 

A more extensive article on the case below:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/01/substitute_teacher_face
s_jail.html?nav=rss_blog

Substitute Teacher Faces Jail Time Over Spyware

A 40-year-old former substitute teacher from Connecticut is facing prison time following her conviction for endangering students by exposing them to pornographic material displayed on a classroom computer.

Local prosecutors charged that the teacher was caught red-handed surfing for p*rn in the presence of seventh graders. The defense claimed the graphic images were pop-up ads generated by spyware already present on the computer prior to the teacher's arrival. The jury sided with the prosecution and convicted her of four counts of endangering a child, a crime that brings a punishment of up to 10 years per count. She is due to be sentenced on March 2.

I had a chance this week to speak with the accused, Windham, Conn., resident Julie Amero. Amero described herself as the kind of person who can hardly find the power button on a computer, saying she often relies on written instructions from her husband explaining how to access e-mail, sign into instant messaging accounts and other relatively simple tasks.

On the morning of Oct 19, 2004, Amero said she reported for duty at a seventh grade classroom at Kelly Middle School in Norwich, Conn. After stepping out into the hall for a moment, Amero returned to find two students hovering over the computer at the teacher's desk. As supported by an analysis of her computer during the court proceedings, the site the children were looking at was a seemingly innocuous hairstyling site called "new-hair-styles.com." Amero said that shortly thereafter, she noticed a series of new Web browser windows opening up displaying pornographic images, and that no matter how quickly she closed each one out, another would pop up in its place.

"I went back to computer and found a bunch of pop-ups," Amero said. "They wouldn't go away. I mean, some of the sites stayed on there no matter how many times I clicked the red X, and others would just pop back up."

Amero said she panicked and ran down the hall to the teacher's lounge to ask for help. "I dared not turn the the computer off. The teacher had asked me not to sign him out" of the computer, she recalled. Amero said none of the teachers in the lounge moved to help her, and that another teacher later told her to ignore the ads, that they were a common annoyance. Later on, prosecutors would ask why she hadn't just thrown a coat or a sweater over monitor. On that day Amero hadn't worn either.

Several children told their parents about the incident, who in turn demanded answers from the school's principal. Three days later, school administrators told Amero she was not welcome back. Not long after that, local police arrested her on charges of risking injury to several students.

The case came to trial this month, and computer expert W. Herbert Horner testified for the defense that the images were the result of incessant pop-up ads served by spyware on the classroom computer. The prosecution's expert, a local police officer, said time-stamped logs on the machine showing adult-themed images and Web pages accessed by the Web browser at the time she was in the classroom proved that someone had intentionally visited the sites by clicking on a link or typing the address into the browser address bar.

An explanation for this is that Web browser logs will keep records of sites accessed whether they were generated by internal pop-up serving software or clicked on by a user. Also, try not to dwell on the fact that the judge in the case barred Horner from presenting technical evidence to back up his claims. Horner on Monday published a summary of the facts he would have presented were he allowed to at trial.

I checked out theInternet Archive's view of the site referenced in this case, and it is clear that the page was a gateway site for the type of products typically promoted by spam -- penis enlargement and hair loss drugs. A review of the site's source code shows that it also uses Javascript to launch at least one pop-up ad promoting various online dating and p*rn sites. When I clicked on one of the sites in that list -- "CoolSexx!" -- my anti-virus program alerted me that it was trying to drop a Trojan horse program on my machine (Trojans are generally used to download malicious software to your PC). The spyware was attempting to load itself onto my computer despite the fact that I was using Internet Explorer 7 and up-to-date anti-virus software.

Try also to ignore that the computer in question was a Microsoft Windows 98 machine running an outdated version of Internet Explorer Web browser (IE 5.0), or that the school's license for its firewall program expired prior to the date of the alleged incident. Likewise, the machine's anti-virus software (Cheyenne Software) was expired and it lacked any anti-spyware tools. In short, the Windows 98 computer was completely exposed to the Internet without any kind of protection.

Then there is the admission by the prosecution that it had failed to conduct even a rudimentary scan of the computer's hard drive with anti-spyware software. Amero's defense said that had it been allowed to present its full testimony, it would have shown the results of spyware software scans on the PC she used, which found two adware programs and at least one Trojan horse program. The logs showed that all of the unwanted programs had been installed weeks prior to the alleged incident, the defense claims.

Spyware and adware has long been the source of objectionable pop-up ads. In February 2006, I wrote about a young man who was earning thousands of dollars each month installing p*rn pop-up ad serving software on computers whose users had failed to equip the machines with security patches or firewall software. The adware this kid installed was a Web browser add-on that barraged victims with endless pop-ads for adult Web sites and services. I managed to track down several of his victims, including a technologically naive pastor in Memphis.

I spoke briefly with Amero's attorney, who said: "I sincerely believe that had we been allowed to present our testimony in full, Julie would not have been convicted. This is a grave miscarriage of justice." With no prior convictions or criminal history, Amero was eligible under state law for "auxiliary rehabilitation," meaning she could have the charges expunged by agreeing to a short probationary period (provided she didn't get arrested again during that period). But, insistent upon her innocence, she chose to fight the charges.

A number of blogs have recently spoken up on Amero's behalf. Also, a former Massachusetts school administrator recently called on the state governor to pardon Amero and expunge the conviction. Even the local paper, firmly convinced of Amero's guilt, called for lenience in her sentencing.

This may not have been an isolated incident in the Connecticut public school system. According to another former teacher in Amero's school, who spoke this week with Security Fix on condition of anonymity, the kids in the school had few restrictions on what sorts of content they could and did view on school computers. "You could look at any history in any computer and chances are you would see the children had [visited] inappropriate sites," the teacher said.

Update, 3:38 p.m. ET: I have corrected two factual errors in the above post, thanks to an eagle-eyed reader from Tennessee who sent me a note. Cheyenne Software was the name of the old anti-virus program (long ago bought up by Symantec), not the firewall software. Also, the weather on the October day of the alleged incident was in the 50s and rainy, so not exactly "balmy."

 

You don't need computer skills to know not to leave your computer unattended. Do you always leave your machine logged in and walk away? I hope not.

Like I said: not for forty years, but she should be held accountable.

 

Do you really believe this deserves a trial, much less jail time?

 

dont kids get exposed to more than this in health class?

 

most people dont log off. especially if they dont have the log in information.

 

No trial. Punishment from the district, yes. You're getting to a much better point. Perhaps I should have said it earlier. No, this doesn't deserve a trial, but the district is being negligent as well. They should take precautions now.

 

I still think this is BS...

 

Yet another side-effect of the recent spate of parents believing that their children are precious little gods and should be treated, by everyone, as such.

 

I would guess that a majority of computer users (at work or teachers) don't log off of their computers everytime they need to use the bathroom or whatever. Do you always log off your computer everytime you get up?

You could argue that she should have known better, but to have a court trial and the possiblity of jail time is ridiculous. The fact that the judge barred tecnhical evidence is BEYOND dumb IMO. If you can prove that adware/spyware was indeed installed on the computer before the sub got there, case closed. If you can prove that there was no adware/spyware, then case closed.