KyeU
join:2003-12-31
Canada
4 edits | reply to wehooper
Re: Teacher could get 40 years because of spyware porn pop-ups
Who is liable in this case? I can think that the School Administration is liable for not renewing the content-filtering software, and/or for not spending the necessary resources to secure the school computers (and for not outlining it in guidelines that infected computers are NOT to be used).
quote:
Amero also testified she had told at least four teachers and the assistant principal at the school about the problem, but received no help.
Incompetent administration.
EDIT: And even if she happens to have a "thing" for pornography, the administration can be put to blame for having lax supply teacher entrance evaluations.
EDIT 2:
quote:
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."
OR you can have spyware load those pages, where IE marks them as visited even if you didn't physically click on them (tested this by making a simple HTML page with a link to Yahoo.com, then in a new window, I went to Yahoo.com. I then refreshed the simple HTML page and it shows up as being visited (purple instead of blue)).
The evidence is in fact overwhelming that she did NOT intend to access those Web sites. It's sad that an 18 year old (myself) can poke holes in a Police Detective's accusation. There's no mention of the Police Detective scanning the computer for malware/crapware/spyware.
By reading the articles and having the prosecutor insisting that she had HAD to click on the links is despicable. It seems like malware/crapware/spyware doesn't exist in Connecticut. |
