'Porn Popup' Teacher Gets New Trial > It is not what it seems

quote:

---

Assistant State's Attorney David Smith, who prosecuted the case, acknowledged Wednesday the "erroneous evidence," presented to jurors, based on a follow-up examination of the computer at the state police crime laboratory.

---

quote:

---

Summary
A comprehensive review of the materials in this case, reveals the following:

• The situation described by Amero is consistent with what is called a “porn trap” or “mouse trap.” When this occurs, the browser is no longer under the control of the user and porn images will simply keep popping up until the computer is turned off.

• Amero had been specifically told not to turn off the computer and probably did not know how. So she turned the computer so that students could not see the images. She could not lock the door when she left the room to get help because she did not have a key.

• Amero went to get help at a break and described the pop-up situation. People who are intentionally accessing inappropriate material do not try to get help. She told the
assistant principal after school and described the situation to the principal, Scott Fain, the following day. The school reported the incident to the police just over a week later.
Fain did not tell the investigating officer what he knew of Amero’s activities on that day or her report to him the following day. He withheld information that would have allowed the officer to determine that Amero’s access was not intentional.

• The computer had inadequate security and the browser would not block pop-ups. The district’s content filter license had lapsed due to lack of payment. The technology director, Hartz, did not evaluate whether any malware was on the computer or the pattern of sites that appeared in the history log to determine whether the access was
intentional or accidental. Hartz also did not tell the investigating officer that the content filter license had lapsed.

• The police computer crimes expert also did not determine whether there was any malware on the computer. He also testified in court that Amero had to intentionally access the sites for them to appear on the logs. This is totally inaccurate.

• Amero’s response to this situation was far from reckless. Of the approximately 60 students who were in the classroom only 10 saw anything. Of those, 6 specifically stated
that they tried to look at the computer after being told of the situation by another student. Many students reported that Amero took specific efforts to block their view when she became aware that they were trying to see.

• The situation did not impair the morals of the students. Eight students reported seeing mild erotica. The two students who reported seeing people engaged in sex also reported that there were a bunch of little pictures on the screen. One was a distance from the screen and the other reported that the teacher did not notice him, so he must not have been very close.

• A recent study found that 42% of young people between the ages of 10 and 17 have viewed online pornography, one-third intentionally, two-thirds accidentally. Nine percent
of these incidents reportedly occurred at school. There is no research evidence regarding the impact of such viewing.

---