Slashdot Mirror
Teacher Found Guilty of Endangering Kids Due to Spyware
nursegirl writes "Norwich, Conn seventh grade teacher, Julie Amero has been convicted of four counts of risk of injury to a minor after her classroom PC displayed pornographic pop-ups in class. While an expert for the defendant said he had discovered spyware on her PC that had been downloaded from a hairstyling site, the local police investigator claimed that the spyware had been downloaded from actively visiting porn sites. Amero testified that she had told four other teachers and the assistant principal about the popups, but received no assistance. The school's internet filtration software was not working because it's license had expired. Amero faces up to forty years in prison."
i used to work in pathology, and the answer is ALL OF THEM.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Its license. Its.
Seriously...
She's a substitute, which means she was only in that class a day or so. For her to have installed spyware and be duped into clicking on it multiple times may be feasible, but is it likely? Besides when you read TFA, the investigator also points out that the jury viewed a list of sites accessed, many of which could not be reached without actively clicking on the ads:
Hitting one or two could be a mistake, but several? It really sounds more like she was surfing for pr0n in the classroom, and using "teh spyware" as an excuse. And of course, Slashdot fell for it. Again.
It was a classroom computer. It was, presumably, accessible by many people. Even if there was evidence that the computer had visited pornographic sites, that doesn't prove that was done by any particular person.
Usually, part of a criminal conviction is that someone intends to break the law. I'm sure this teacher didn't intend that the kids saw the popups. For something like criminal negligence, you have to show that someone knew better than to do or not do what they did that led to harm to someone else. If this was the first time the teacher had experienced such popups then it is hard to say that she should have known better.
The story didn't say that the prosecution refuted the defense expert's testiomony that the popups came from a hairstyling site.
I see two possibilities: the reporter was clueless and left out important details or this was a kangaroo court. Anyway, even if they give her no jail time, this is the end of this teacher's career. Even if she wins an appeal, she may never work as a teacher again. Nice going American Justice System.
This kind of rule would primarily have nefarious consequences, not beneficial, as it would assuredly make prosecutors overlook any case that is not a "slam-dunk". Malicious prosecution can already get you disbarred, and the DA in this case did exactly what he was hired to do : trying to get a conviction on behalf of the state. Remember, you weren't at the trial, you don't know exactly what the experts said in their testimony, you haven't examined the evidence, and what the media says about a case and the reality of it are often widely at variance. If there *was* indeed a problem, that's what appeals are for.
How old are we talking about here?
Around 12-13 years old.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
And, this isn't the only case where this has happened before (2003)
Short answer: State Constitutions vary. Each state decides how many peers a "jury of your peers" needs to have in it to be fair. Twelve is traditionally the number, and most states observe this, but some use six, and some eight.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure all the states still require a unanimous verdict (all jurors in agreement) to convict.
Who did what now?
Nice try, but that'll be 10-20 years *per murder*, with multiple murders and murdering children both likely to push the sentence up as far as the judge can take it.
This isn't a supermarket, they don't do "kill two, get one free" offers...
It's official. Most of you are morons.
It's not a thing in western society. You probably will not be surprised that I live in Europe. Sex isn't as demonized as it is is in the United States. We have commercials that are considered "raunchy" by Americans. Softporn is easy to get on TV and I remember my dad allowed us to watch movies with erotic-but-really-not-much-to-see stuff. He also had his own porn collection which was not well hidden. He damn well knew that we knew where it was.
These days porn probably is mostly digital, and I could protect my own children by encrypting all stuff. Most probably, I will not and leave some harmless nudie pics around for them to find. The "harder stuff" (like blowjobs, actual penetration, nothing *really* nasty because I don't have that, etc...) will be encrypted until I find out the search for them on the Internet.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
The most important distinction, however, is that it's not some hairbrained idiot at the school that decided to levy these charges. Anybody can sue anyone at any time for any reason. No, this charge was levied by the people. By people representing you and me. The real responsibility for this miscarriage of justice rests on the prosecutor that was elected by the people, and who decided to prosecute this case. He or she needs to be held accountable for ruining the life of another human being.
Don't talk about this like it's something that could really suck for this woman. It already does suck. She's already been convicted. Sure, she can appeal, and based on what I know from this case, she stands a chance of winning, but that black mark is on her record forever. Appeals are not based on the merit of the original conviction, but rather on the fact that she had a fair trial. Until you are convicted, you are innocent until proven guilty. Once you are convicted, you are guilty until proven innocent. It's a whole different ballgame.
As someone who regularly uses a computer in front of children as an educational tool, and as an IT professional, this story scares the hell out of me. Although I know how to keep my computer free of spyware, there isn't one person on
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
I frequently see their sentence structure on their file and it is not uncommon to see an inmate with a sentence like:
murder-Life with CC
murder-Life with CC
UDW (use of a deadly weapon enhancement) 48-72 months CS
So, what this would work out to be like is this. The inmate would have the 2 life sentences running at the same time, He gets his parole on both. They were running concurrently so they are both complete. NOW he starts serving the 48-72 month sentence that was consecutive to the initial sentence.
It does not happen this way all the time, but it is quite common.
So, She could conceivably wack the kids and the idiot judge that actually let this go to trial in the first place and serve less than 40 years.
This scenario is extremely unlikely but within the realm of possibility.
It's only paranoia if your wrong...
You would be surprised. A lot of imaging in smaller hospitals and clinics are read by radiologists off-site though a service firm and the reports are sent to the doctor via email. It would be insanely expensive for a clinic or small hospital with an Xray and a CAT scan that is used perhaps 3-4 times a day to hire a radiologist.
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan
I mean comeon im sure at least SOME of you have heard of a scripting language program called "AutoIt" and any one that has worked in a school district (on the Tech Admin side) knows that half the teachers/subs dont know how to properly use the computer and a far too many of them should not be allowed access to a computer on the grounds that they are too stupid to use one.
to continue my rant....
on the point of IE vs. FF / M$ vs. Linux vs. MAC. it dosent matter. I can recall 2 instances of having 30+ FF windows opened because of popup loops that were DESIGNED for FF. The districts generally dont have a choice when it comes to the desktop OS. Sure they could move to linux but the tech would be used only 10% of what it was because (as mentioned above) The teaching staff is incompentent when it comes to anything technical. (again im refering to overall averages)
The school's tech department is the only one to blame here for allowing the content filter to expire. if there is no tech dept the pull the school board to the hellfires for not allocating the funds nessary to fix a very weak and broken system.
oh and a side note, just for the record. there are those who dont know that you can turn off a computer by holding the power button. and WONT unplug it because they are petrified they will break a $1000+ machine. Ill say it again most users should not have access to a machine because they are to stubborn to learn how to use it correctly.
>If this teacher gets convicted,
Where does the "if" come from here? Her sentencing hearing is set for March 2.
Just for the record, the statute that she is convicted of violating seems a little vague.
And she would be facing the same punishment if she had bought or sold one of the students for money. The teacher was convicted under subdivision (1), while subdivison (3) covers the sale of children.
Chapter 939 Section 53-21 (2005 Statutes)
In addition, (IANAL) a state court seems to have made a ruling concerning using this statute for cases of sexual misconduct (taken from the 2006 supplement):
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
How can we be sure the defense attorney is so utterly incompetent? The quotation from the article,
seems to indicate adequate competence, at least on the technical side. On the other hand, I think
indicates the prosecution is dishonestly making up "facts" and playing on their credibility as "voice of the authority", and a stupid jury or judge believes the accusation because "the authorities say so".
In court each side has a limited number of opportunities to speak. If the prosecution made this claim in a response to the defense witness, the defense probably (I don't know the actual protocol in this court) had limited opportunity to start a new debate, and find expert witnesses, etc. to counter this statement.
There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
Wake up, most IT is outsourced now and has been for a long time. Most hospitals have million dollar medical equipment connected to outdated and abused PC's that you wouldn't use to operate a toaster much less an MRI imaging program.
If you want to see penny pinching at it's best, go work in a hospital for awhile.
As I pointed out at the end of my original post, I do work for a hospital, and I do support PACS systems, so I do know what I'm talking about. And for the record, I have never seen a million dollar piece of equipment connected to an outdated and abused PC. The worst that I ever saw was an old MRI machine that was purchased third-hand from a hospital (supposedly in China, though more likely Taiwan), who had purchased it second hand from someone in the United States. The control station for it was based around an old SGI Octane workstation, but it was well maintained under contract and we never had a problem with it. And of course the entire thing cost considerably less than a million dollars.
And I don't know where it is that you have been working, but I have yet to work at a business (much less a hospital) that outsourced their entire IT department. Some businesses outsource their call centers, true. In very rare circumstances I have seen a company that outsources their desktop break/fix group, but never the entire IT department (or anywhere close to it).