Security → Teacher could get 40 years because of spyware porn pop-ups

This is really disgusting. A Connecticut teacher has been convicted of exposing middle school students to pornography because the spyware infested classroom computer she used started spewing porn pop-ups. The prosecutor claimed the teacher "must" have clicked on the porn sites. Obviously, the prosecutor hasn't experienced a browser hijacking before. What happened to the teacher would have happened to anyone who used the infected machine. Now, the 40 year old teacher's reputation is shot and she could face up to 40 years in jail. Let's hope this conviction gets overturned. Maybe the anti-spyware community could lend a hand.
»sunbeltblog.blogspot.com ··· ice.html

Prosecutor must use a Mac...

Or Linux...

sounds like more than enough grounds for a re-trial/appeal.

Agreed.
A judge allegedly falling asleep during the proceedings and reports of the jurors discussing the case outside the courts at a local restaurant is compelling enough to call a mistrial.

Or a porn popping spyware infected hardcore jpeg choked Win box.

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.

Don't blame the teacher. It could have been a naughty student(s).

More responsible is the school, more specifically the IT stuff for not doing THEIR JOB, which is blocking the network from accessing pornographic pages.

The public prosecutor must be on drugs. 40 years??? Ridiculous.

Wow...the school doesn't protect their computers and the teacher gets nailed for it? WTF?

Maybe all teachers everywhere should start refusing to use school computers in the classroom....obviously, there's no guarantee the schools even bother with basic security and if it could happen to one teacher, it could happen to any of them.

The article states the teacher opened a webpage about "hairdressing" that started the popups.

Yeah, I should have read the link.

Well, I just finished reading it...and buff! The whole case stinks:

1. The school? (I guess the network) did have content filtering but the license was expired.

2. The Trial Judge, Hillary Strackbein, “was seen falling asleep during proceedings...

3. And made comments to the jury that she wanted the case over by the end of the week...

4. Judge Strackbein attempted to pressure the defense into an unwanted plea deal, in place of a trial...

5. Jurors had discussed the case at a local restaurant.

Bloody funny.

Problem is that the teacher's reputation is in tatters after this.

More like enough grounds to hang the prosecutor from the nearest street lamp.

Prosecutors are granted immunity from 'the law,' not from extra-judicial executions carried out by the people.

Ya' think?

Really, this isn't funny though, this poor woman could go to jail for this.

This should be a wake up call to everyone who works in any place where questionable content could affect your employment status as well as criminal complaints. In any place but your own house (read: your workplace) a string of porn pop-ups could be construed as sexual harassment.

I'd say the defense attorney was incompetent if (s)he failed to file for discovery of all forensic evidence and have that evidence analysed by experts certified in Encase or fo4ensic analysis.

The defense should have called on the prosecution witness to prove that the links could not have been accessed by automated processes, and provided a demonstration of a typical porn popup spyware infested PC.

If what I read in the story is correct and there are no other unreported related facts, there's grounds for a retrial.

As others have said, regardless of the outcome, the accused will still suffer being referred to as "the accused porn peddling teacher".

40 years in jail?

What's the charge for murder? Child Pornography?

Great justice system

Nothing that a retrial and an acquittal wouldn't fix though. There are more than enough people around who understand how things like this can happen even though the judge, jury, prosecutor and "investigator" apparently don't. She might consider hiring a better attorney though.

"Was justice done here?"
Hell no for starters the detective who was in charge of the investigation admits "there was no search made for adware, which can generate pop-up advertisements".
so how was justice served.

Then there is the judge who “was seen falling asleep during proceedings and made comments to the jury that she wanted the case over by the end of the week. It was also reported that Judge Strackbein attempted to pressure the defense into an unwanted plea deal, in place of a trial. The defense attorney for Amero, moved for a mistrial shortly before closing arguments Friday, based on reports that jurors had discussed the case at a local restaurant.” I'd say the judge should be taken off the bench and placed on trial for impersonating a judge.

"A bad spyware infestation can splatter a machine full of porn popups and it’s a bit unnerving to think that a teacher could get hard prison time for something that was likely to have been completely innocent."

Duh!

There are a few things about this story I still don't get.

The local Connecticut newspaper states, "Still, she was accused and convicted of intentionally accessing several pornographic sites -- not pop-up ads or windows, as she suggested. And she did not turn off the computer when the students saw the images."

- How did they prove "intention"?
- How did they prove she was the one who accessed these sites? (The computer was in a room under lock and key that only she had access to?)
- Did any student testify that they saw her click on a link or type in the URL to a pornographic site? Since the students were obviously watching at the time (according to this quote), what exactly did they see her do?
- And finally, not to be too sexist about this, but how many 40 year old women do you know who access porn sites, at school no less, unless there is a more significant underlying problem (e.g. a sexual predator hoping to get a reaction)?

This perhaps shows that a prosecutor wanting to set an example or make a name for himself, a computer-illiterate judge, and a bad defense lawyer can be dangerous to your health.

Just my two cents.

The only person liable is the person who made the spyware.

As for exposing "kids" to porn.. how many haven't seen porn in middle school? If anything the kids are probably getting a kick out of the fact that a big deal, or any deal is being made over this.. I didn't know a single person in middle school who hadn't seen porn before someplace. A good portion of my 7th grade classmates used the computer class to find ways around the stupid filters to look at porn anyway.

That sounds about right to me.

I can hear the IT dept. huddling in the server room, trying to get over the shock of the middle school students easily disabling their "secure" system. Kids are too smart for their own good these days.

There are frivolous lawsuits everyday. This is definitely not one of them. I'd sue someone for all they're worth.

Unless aliens take over the proceedings: she will be found not guilty. "If" she has a good lawyer she will get "paid". All I have to say.

This is nuts... No search for adware? What sort of justice is this? Too bad the jury and the school's IT people can't be put on trial for being idiots.

My experience in school was that the "computer" people there were incompetent and could barely figure out how to plug an ethernet cable into a computer. I bet it is no different at this school, and it's really ridiculous with tools like group policy and on-access virus/malware scanners that they apparently allowed a computer to get owned by adware.

Innocent people do sometimes get faulted, ESPECIALLY when the people making these decisions have no clue as to how technology works. Someone has to be held responsible: the school/bank/institution (unlikely), the kids (not a chance), the user (bingo!).

Before making a ruling on a computer related case, every judge should be forced to (a) pass a basic computer literacy test and (b) spend a week behind an unprotected computer.

After that, there would be a lot less chance for misapplications of justice.

this kind of ridiculous case can only happen in US, every minute thing can exaggerated to lawsuit in court.

»www.norwichbulletin.com/ ··· 2/NEWS17

TEACHER HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY

Voila: Garbage In, Garbage Out

I really feel sad for her and hope that she wins on appeal, but now that she has been found guilty, her career is likely over. Even if she's acquitted on appeal, she'll be known as the teacher that showed porn to her kids. No school district will want to hire her.