Substitute teacher convicted in school computer porn case

[Kytro]

Substitute teacher convicted in school computer porn case - Boston.com

During the trial, Amero said any inappropriate images on her computer screen were from adware, which can generate pop-up ads and not from sites specifically keyed.

Prosecutor David Smith contended Amero physically clicked onto the graphic Web sites, which included meetlovers.com and femalesexual.com.

What troubles me are comments like:

But Smith countered Horner's testimony with that of Norwich Police Detective Mark Lounsbury, a computer crimes investigator. On a projected image of the list of Web sites visited while Amero was working, Lounsbury pointed out several highlighted links.

"You have to physically click on it to get to those sites," Smith said. "I think the evidence is overwhelming that she did intend to access those Web sites

from Norwich Bulletin - www.norwichbulletin.com - Norwich, Conn.

Links are highlighted if they have ever visted, not just via "clicking"

I'm worried that people don't understand the technology, leading to conviction of people based on misunderstanding.

What do others think?

[kinggovernor]

why didn't she just turn it off

[Kytro]

I was wondering that myself. The reason I can think of is

Some reports indicate the teachers at this school were prohibited by policy from turning off school computers, which would answer the "why didn't she just shut down the PC?" questions. Amero testified that she told four other teachers and the school's assistant principal about the popup problem, and nobody responded with help.

from Boing Boing: Teacher faces 40 years for porn in classroom, blames adware

Another link here SunbeltBLOG: Is this a miscarriage of justice?

[kinggovernor]

I would argue that it is common sense that violating the policy about turning off computers is worth it when you would otherwise be exposing minors to porn

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I would argue that it is common sense that violating the policy about turning off computers is worth it when you would otherwise be exposing minors to porn

I don't disagree. Though the possibility of a harsh sentence is what worries me the most. If she was trying to expose the children, that is one thing - seems like she was just in over head to me.

Personally, I don't think porn is always harmful, but it is a subject matter that requires careful exposure due to way children tend to imitate

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I don't disagree. Though the possibility of a harsh sentence is what worries me the most. If she was trying to expose the children, that is one thing - seems like she was just in over head to me.

Personally, I don't think porn is always harmful, but it is a subject matter that requires careful exposure due to way children tend to imitate

I agree the idea of a 40 year sentence seems a bit extreme, but I seriously doubt that is going to happen. Mitigating factors are always taken into account during sentencing.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I agree the idea of a 40 year sentence seems a bit extreme, but I seriously doubt that is going to happen. Mitigating factors are always taken into account during sentencing.

The other problem she was convicted on the basis that she was intended to expose them to the content - which means they accepted arguments in relation to clicking of links etc as truth.

What worries more about this case than what it is about is the misunderstanding of how technology works.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Kytro

The other problem she was convicted on the basis that she was intended to expose them to the content - which means they accepted arguments in relation to clicking of links etc as truth.

What worries more about this case than what it is about is the misunderstanding of how technology works.

yea maybe there is more to the story. I think it is less about technology and more about her actions after the porn started popping up. Seriously, turning off the monitor should have been enough, but she must have continued to expose the minors to it. There has to be more to the story

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

yea maybe there is more to the story. I think it is less about technology and more about her actions after the porn started popping up. Seriously, turning off the monitor should have been enough, but she must have continued to expose the minors to it. There has to be more to the story

There very well could be more to this particular story - but the reason I brought it up is highlights problems that can arise when people are not particularly computer savvy - especially in law enforcement. There really are not enough details to know what really happened - she way have done it on purpose, or she may have panicked and not understood what to do

[RMNIXON]

Just block the school computers from porn! And give libraries the same choice! It is not a First Amendment violation. You have a right to put your trash on the net. Knowone who has ownership and control of a computer has to be on the receiving end of it. That includes so-called public terminals. The tax payers can say NO! The government is only prohibited from blocking access, they don't have to provide it!

[Diamond Cross]

The probnlem with filters though is that they will block legitamit sites for adult content, not just porn. CFor example, the college I went to had the filters and When I was doing research on the civil war, it blocked several Civil war sites for adult content.

[R-Type]

My experiences in several juror interviews over the years tell me the prosecution picked jurors specifically if they knew nothing about computing and/or they were especially sensitive about porn, because that's how they knew they could 'win' the case. Stupid.. "anything but the truth, your honor" Her computer was (most probably) infected from an outside worm or trojan, either due to her ignorance on browser use, or from one of the kids messing around on it, and now her life is basically over. Even if the sentence is suspended, she'll never be allowed to teach again. ...and all because people are conditioned to get all worked up over sex. Just awful...

It's sad, no one has any clue at all... I've worked in environments like that school where most of the 'computer rules' are based on incorrect assumptions about how they operate. ...and, like congress, law enforcement has no business enforcing anything in areas where it does not understand ALL the implications. Simply having the list of rules in-hand is NOT sufficient to render judgments in ANY situation.. A bunch of ex-highschool jocks who can't even get around the net without AOL making judgments about computer usage is a joke of cosmic proportions. (hey, if prosecutors can stereotype, I can stereotype right back)

Filters don't work. Either they block too much, making the net useless, or they block too little and 'undesirable' content gets through. What's on the net is a reflection of the composition of society. People like sex. Deal with it. If people want to lose weight, they should sign up at a gym (AND GO). Breaking the mirror is pointless because it does not change objective reality. I'm not sure I'd want any kid of mine going to a school that was more concerned with blocking them from seeing the occasional porn image and less concerned with teaching what the internet is really about. The best defense against bad decision making is knowledge, not fear-mongering.

Watching baby boomers regulate and fret over computers, high technology, sex/porn and other media is like watching baboons teach chimps how to speak English. In this case, neither side really understands what the hell they're dealing with because they're mired in the muck of the past. Assuming she's truly innocent (ftm, I believe this), I feel for her. A 40 year prison sentence from a prosecutor who doesn't know how a browser works is a harsh way to go.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Just block the school computers from porn! And give libraries the same choice! It is not a First Amendment violation. You have a right to put your trash on the net. Knowone who has ownership and control of a computer has to be on the receiving end of it. That includes so-called public terminals. The tax payers can say NO! The government is only prohibited from blocking access, they don't have to provide it!

The thing is the school DID have filters in place, but the software had expired

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by R-Type

A 40 year prison sentence from a prosecutor who doesn't know how a browser works is a harsh way to go.

What concerns we also is the way that once they decide to prosecute the case they lose all objectivity. Getting a conviction seems to be, to them, more important than the truth.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Kytro

What concerns we also is the way that once they decide to prosecute the case they lose all objectivity. Getting a conviction seems to be, to them, more important than the truth.

Yup. This scares me. We should be discouraging emotional response in court, not encouraging it.

[Kytro]

ABC News: Prison Time For Viewing Porn? - another case where technology and/or the desire of prosecutors may have ignored evidence.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Kytro

ABC News: Prison Time For Viewing Porn? - another case where technology and/or the desire of prosecutors may have ignored evidence.

Yee haw, the morality police hard at work 'protecting our children' from the evils of little bits and bytes arranged to depict people engaging in sexual intercourse.. watch out! satan works in mysterious ways! :redalert:

The fact the 'predator' branding was even on the table is a perfect example of emotions running rampant over common sense.