Was it ever established that the teacher was the one viewing porn on the computer? 7th graders are more than capable of knowing about and looking at internet porn, and bringing it up on the teacher’s computer would be even more daring (just like the kid who put the porn vid in the VCR).
Agreed. Whatever law you are instructed to follow doesn’t excuse you from using your own common sense. Trust your fucking instincts people for christ’s sake!!!
I once innocently got hardcore porn popups all over a computer at work. I was looking for pictures of beauty contests to run in conjunction with an article I was writing about one being held by some city or other. I found a site that seemed to be about beauty contests via Google, clicked on it, and bam! Spamorama popups full of filth. I had to power the fricking machine down to get the stuff to stop. Fortunately, there was no code left on machine to produce further filthy popups, but I can see how this sort of thing happens.
Since it was part of the defense that the teacher first encountered the porn on a re-direct from a cosmetics/hairstyling site, my guess is that the defense is stipulating that she was the first to encounter it on the computer.
OTOH, since she provided an expert that claimed that the re-direct was there, (ostensibly backed by some sort of evidence), I am unclear how the prosecution’s expert witness established that she had to have deliberately chosen to visit the sites. It seems to me that the defense should have requested a vanilla school computer for her to demonstrate how she could have stumbled into the porn nest.
Obviously, she could simply have had an incompetent defense who failed to suggest that the porn nest was a latent trap that had been st up by earlier visits to porn sites by “unknown person or persons.”
(Which says nothing about the fact that the legal action was simply incredibly stupid overkill even if she had deliberately shown the porn to the kids–which no one has claimed.)
Here’s a question: What the fuck is going through the programmer’s head who thinks he can maliciously install invasive pornographic popups on your computer and you’ll think it’s a good idea to click them and then spend your money on the websites they take you to?
Her actions were an affront to all God fearing people. If God meant people to be naked, we would have been born that way.
[Teacher from OP];
Evidently, these thought did NOT go through the teachers head.
Altyernatively, she is sufficiently technophobic (or has had her wrist slapped by various (pseudo)techies), that she is afraid to actually power down the machine without going through the software logout and waiting for the “You may not turn off your machine” screen for fear that she will break the box and get in even more trouble. And since the pop-ups were inhibiting her ability to get to the logout, she was (in her mind) stuck. (And no, she does not sound as though she is the sharpest teacher to ever claim a certificate.)
It was not clear to me that the porn sites were displayed when the kids walked into the room. I was under the impression that they were random pop-ups that interrupted a different session.
I dunno, seems like it would be hard to throw.
Because people do exactly that in droves, which pays so well that the programmer’s income is highly inflated. Malicious? Probably not intentionally, just profitable. Money talks.
Secretly installing random pornographic pop-up windows on your computer without you knowledge or consent when you visit a hair-styling website is not intentionally malicious?
I doubt if the instigator knew or cared where they might pop up. He’s merely trying to sell something. Most malware installs secretly. It’s part of the game plan.
Do I like this shit on my computer? Of course not. Is it sleazy marketing? Sure. Malicious? I guess that depends on what you think the intent was: to screw up the computer or sell something?
Are some viruses/malware malicious as a primary purpose? Sure. But many are just using questionable marketing tactics and they would prefer your computer kept on running so you could get their ads. It sounds like this teacher got caught being an innocent bystander.
Hello McFly, Mal-Ware = Malicious + Software
Maybe. Maybe it is from the French (Latin?) mal-, or bad. It’s also a catchall category of Things We Do Not Like And Have No Better Name For.
What’s bad for the end user might be good for the designer. One man’s ceiling, and all that.
Did the programmer set out to destroy the teacher’s computer as the primary goal? Or just to sell something, ethics be damned? I don’t know, but I suspect the latter.
Wikipedia does indeed use this derivation, although it suggests the term “badware” as an alternate. However, in the same article, it says:
Or she had to show the class something on the computer as part of the curriculum she was bound by and couldn’t magically whip up a malware-free computer out of her own ass?
This opinion article appeared today on the front page of the Hartford Courant today:
A Court Case Doubling As An Obscenity
This whole case is absolutely ridiculous. I couldn’t believe it when I first heard about it. (I live only a few towns away from Norwich.)
I understand the teacher was specifically instructed to not shut down the computers in the school, which is why she “failed to do the obvious - pull the plug on the machine.”
(That being said, would it have been so hard to turn off the monitor? This may have also been beyond her ability–she has been described as a “computer illiterate.” How about throwing a coat over the monitor?)
Nevertheless, this has been a travesty of justice.
Wow. And this people are in the business of education?
Never underestimate the ability of a technophobe to get flustered by a bizarre situation involving the computer. I’ve seen a person pranked with an obnoxious sound file installed as his computer’s system sounds, and he stumbled through the settings trying to turn everything off without ever turning his speakers down. It’s easy to panic and miss the most obvious solution sometimes.
I read about this case. Apparently there was a way she could have plead that might even have got this removed from her record eventually, but she plead not guilty because she never intentionally went to those sites and had faith in the system. Her defense says that he was not allowed to present evidence that would have shown how these image could have gotten there without her doing any thing improper. It seems she was being punished not just for showing porn to kids intentional or not, but also for not taking the deal that they offered her.
I myself on a work computer have gone to such a site by mistyping a website for kinkos. It took me several minutes to shut down the browser and close all the links. I did not turn off the computer as that would have potentially caused data loss. In the case with the teacher, the best thing would have been to shut down the monitor an d disconnect the video output and then report the situation to the IT guy, assuming they have one, so he can diffuse it without a class room of children getting treated to a graphic show, but would be difficult to think rationally if ones computer were showing porn to a bunch of children.
I know of another person who was looking to order a garter for her daughter’s prom and mistyped the url of the website where they could be ordered and had a similar experience. Yet another who had heard about the eat turkey ad campaign website and went to see if there was a similar website for beef and had the computer spew porn at her. Some sites not only spew porn quicker than you can shut down windows, the install malware so that the porn can be triggered afterward without even attempting to go to a malicious site.
It is quite believable that this teacher could have those images pop up without her ever intentionally doing anything innappropriate.