Porn-surfing teacher: Spyware made me do it!

my teacher abused me and i

my teacher abused me and i dont know what to do

40 years? Geez! What has

40 years? Geez! What has the justice system become? Michael Vick fights dogs and Michael Jackson rapes children, O.J. Simpson kills his wife and all are free. MONEY. This teacher watches porn with these kids. (she states it was spyware) and faces 40 yrs... sick

For those of you amazed by

For those of you amazed by the rampant stupidity. Consider this article:

http://blogs.pcworld.com/tipsandtweaks/archives/003741.html

which references one of the jurors (who imporperly discussed the case with press), connyankee1951

Here's a page with his picture:

http://www.obesityhelp.com/member/connyankee1951/

take a look at him, read the pcworld article, and tell me you are still still surprised at the verdict, the stupidity, etc.

These are the kinds of people who hold your fate in their hands. Run scared!

Guilty of what? The fact

Guilty of what? The fact that the school system has computers in the room and untrained teachers to handle them is he crime let alone the lack of defense and antimalware software. The teacher did not even know how to turn the darn thing off let alone had been told not to touch "anything." Why is the school system not being brought to trial for such lack of foresight? And what about the school's IT department, just what were they doing when the spyware took over?

Hinicesitemdu hoho

Hinicesitemdu hoho

I work for a major

I work for a major corporation that has some of the most sophisticated anti-malware available. I still see ads for porn sites *all the time* while making legitimate use of the Web. The ads are themselves pornographic. If it were illegal for me to view porn, I would be in prison.

I also don't know whether I would have had the presence of mind to shut off the computer. It's pretty obvious she is not guilty.

So many "facts" in this case

So many "facts" in this case from the accusers are wrong. Read the transcripts.

Mrs. Amero did NOT go to the hairstyle web site nor the inappropriate sites hidden by hairstyle portal(s). She caught students there who refused to identify themselves to her when she entered the room.

And since students had been reportedly "allowed" to use the PC at other times for actual school work and that morning appeared to only be looking at hair styles, what could she as a substitute teacher have accused them of doing?
Looking at hair styles?

She did not know until after the fact where they had really been. It was not until after the two students (she was NEVER allowed to point them out or get their indentiies when she was accused) departed that she saw the havoc ensue.

She called for help, asked for help, went for help, and got no help. If so many people from students to teachers allegedly saw her "all day" and some even reported her at the PC, and since she was clearly asking for help, warning students to stay away, it begs the most obvious question. Why did administrators not respond immediately if they knew students were endangered and only accused her days later or even weeks "after the fact"?

There must be "much more" than meets the eye to this case. It is not just about evil mouse traps which indeed can take over a PC and even take over a keyboard or a logon name and manipulate it from half way across the world. It is also poor management of which PCs student access, as well as why, when and where students were allowed access before Mrs. Amero even entered the room. It begs the question why they "shot the messenger." She was the one reporting the crime not of her making or doing.

We know so little of what can be done to a PC or any computer because the liability for admitting a flaw in terms of lost image, lost revenue, and just the appearance of vulnerability is so high, most banks and even financial groups avoid the issue and negative publicity all together.

So creating ways to block unknown or undefined threats are always a generation behind perpetrators.

The computer world should go back to its origins of protecting people and enhancing lives through greater "transparency," not by joining the dark forces who, as those of the French Revolution did in the 1700s simply yelled "Jai accuse!" and managed to lop off many innocent folks' heads in the name of liberty.

Put cyberworld collective heads together and figure out how this could have happened, why it did happen, create solutions how to prevent another incident, and teach others to apply technology to prevent an innocent person from experiencing this legal nightmare. Speak out against kangaroo justice and juries who were not allowed to hear all facts. Speak loudly, clearly and persuasively to all who will listen that society will not accept scapegoating of an individual who dared say, "The Emperor Has No Clothes!" That is a story every school child knows.

Suppose that book is next on the hit list for those who claim their children might have seen a copy in some school or library? Not for its nudity, but its message that children of all people should have the courage to say what they see when adults dare not.

Not everyone knows what to do in any emergency, much less a shocking one challenging any older teacher's sensibilities. Would it not shock ANY 40-something conservative Christian woman to see that stuff on a screen while simply starting a school day and emailing one's husband?

Panic "not" possible? Then, ask
how many people die when they fail to flee a fire or inhale unseen smoke? More than we admit. So if fire and smoke can make reasonable people panic to run the wrong way or do the wrong thing such as open a window, is it not possible, indeed probable, a novice PC user might just try to "close" a screen rather than go through an exit protocol or even unplug? Wasn't the mantra for years to "never unplug" and isn't fear of being "unplugged" why surge protectors were invented?

How would Mrs. A have known all what to do when it is clearly counter-intuitive to unplug when she was told, "No matter what you do, do not shut down the PC?"

For heaven's sake, where is the logic, common sense and even basic humanity in this case? It is nonsense. Free Mrs. Amero now. Absolve her of these "obscene" charges and baseless convictions. But most of all, more than a few students must know what really happened and they should come forward and explain what they did so that this teacher is not wrongly incarcerated.

Norwich Bulletin NORWICH --

Norwich Bulletin

NORWICH -- Touting Norwich Public Schools' Internet filtering software, the district's technology administrator said a former substitute teacher's ability to access pornographic Web sites in a classroom was a freak occurrence. At Tuesday's school board meeting, Information Services Director Bob Hartz sought to calm the public furor regarding Julie Amero's Jan. 5 conviction for exposing Kelly Middle School students to sexually graphic Web sites in 2004.
Despite the Internet's 4.2 million pornography Web sites, according to familysafemedia.com, Hartz said Norwich's filtering software failed to stop school computer users from accessing inappropriate Web sites just six times since 1998. "It's going to be impossible to block every objectionable Web site out there, but we do a pretty good job," Hartz said. "Since (Norwich switched to a new filtering system) in September of 2005, I haven't heard one report of a person getting to an inappropriate Web site." Hartz said Amero could expose students to Web sites partly because of a technical glitch. Amero faces up to 40 years in prison at her March 2 sentencing for four counts of risk of injury to a minor. From August to October 2004, the district's filtering system didn't regularly add newly discovered pornographic sites to its restricted Web sites database. Hartz said Norwich's filtering software generally worked in 2004, but new offensive sites weren't blocked partly because Symantec, creator of the school's WebNOT computer filter, failed to send him a licensing certificate to activate the software's updates feature. "I don't think we've ever compromised on being able to fund our firewall ... and (other) filtering software," Norwich Superintendent Pam Aubin said. "We're very lucky to fund a full-time information systems director." Merja Lehtinen of Colchester, a Norwich substitute teacher from 2000 to 2005, defended Amero's innocence Tuesday before the board. Lehtinen claimed students set Amero up and she inadvertently accessed pornography left on a school computer by students. "The school is just as liable as Julie, because it was their computer," Lehtinen said. "The school doesn't want parents to sue, so they hung Julie." Parent Kimberly Shahan, reached by phone Tuesday night, said she doesn't know if Amero is innocent, but the school shouldn't be blamed for filter lapses. "I think Norwich schools do as best they can to monitor these kids when it comes to the Internet," Shahan said. "If a child accidentally misspelled something, then something bad can come up and that's nobody's fault."

If anyone is still monitoring this blog, the above is copied from the Norwich newspaper. Please do visit the link at the end of this. It is to a blog site that was set up to help to gather monies for the defense of the poor teacher caught in this situation. I hope that some of the funds gathered would also be made available for civil action against the “Justice” system and school “officials” that grossly violated the teachers’ rights. It appears that she did mostly everything that she should have in the situation. I’m also a bit offended that the governors’ office “passed the buck.” I wonder if Senator Dobb and Lieberman would also have. Whow, just think, a national issue with the presidency at stake.
I think that plenty of comments have been made about how easily it is to be “trapped” into a Spy ware situation that can happen to almost anyone. We won’t get into comments on anyone that professes to be an expert on anything, especially in computer science, or the justice system for that matter. Maybe more Judges should fall to sleep, the Attorney General would not have to fire them.
And I do agree about the comments made about the injustice of our “Justice” system can be. (I just love the comments about having enough money to get the best defense help that is available. Gee, just think about it, they should have tied O.J. for a porn charge).
My own thought on the matter, for what it is worth, that most people did not consider commenting on, is if any REAL harm was ever even done to the actual students. 7th graders are usually in the 13 and 14 year old group. Ask anyone that age if they think that it was “improper” or if they never saw anything like it before. Thinking back to that age time, I just wonder which of the kids was savvy enough to have set the computer up with the hack. I’ll bet that they thought that it was really “kool” at the time, but are a bit sorry now. I don’t imagine that the families of the kids would want to comment on that one.

http://julieamer.blogspot.com/

Mr. Gralla, I see you're the

Mr. Gralla,

I see you're the author of 35 books, and have been writting about technology for twenty-plus years. I assume you research your professional work with some degree of thoroughness; perhaps in the future you might consider using a fraction of those fact finding skills in regard to this case. You've misrepresented the facts presented during trial, as well as shown ignorance of what kind of behavior malware can cause, particularly on an old Windows 98 PC with no operative filtering or anti-virus tools. Shame on you.

The warm and fuzzy basis of

The warm and fuzzy basis of our criminal justice system is "innocent until proven guilty". The sad reality for those without the resources for expensive defense lawyers is "guilty until proven innocent".

The system does not search for truth. It focuses on ritual and rules of conduct. There is no ombundsman in the court system to ask whether all evidence was presented or whether the defense attorney was competent. Certainly the prosecution never questions whether their case is merited. They are politically bound to seek punishment of some degree for every hapless person who falls into the system.

Yes, many are guilty. But enough are probably innocent to at least wonder what Jesus would do in the case.

Amero deserves benefit of doubt. There seems to have been insufficient reason to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.