I notice that Mr. Horner does not directly address or rebut the “TypedURLs” registry evidence, which I suspect was the most damning.
It doesn’t matter if it was her or a kid. SOMEBODY clicked a link at a hair styling website which turned out to be a link to a porn website in disguise, and caused a loop of pop-ups.
Even if it was a kid, the teacher was supposed to be supervising them, and thus the teacher has to take responsibility.
Quite honestly, if the teacher was not smart enough to realize that the school had not installed any anti-spyware or pop-up blockers on the computer, and was stupid enough to think a hair style website was safe or to let kids use the computer when she wasn’t looking, then she belongs behind bars. I hope they lock her up and throw away the key.
That’s stupid, or insane. The legislature has not criminalized letting kids use the computer when you’re not looking. What you describe is not a crime.
Stop “helping” my side of the argument, please.
Yes, for god’s sake, if we’re going to send this woman to prison for an essentially victimless crime that she probably didn’t even commit intentionally, let’s make sure we do it by the book.
Let’s be honest here… these weren’t just pictures of “naked people”, they were disgusting sex acts and bodily fluids. Of course the kids were victims.
The only thing that gives me any pause whatsoever about this case is that the authorities admitted that they didn’t check the computer for spyware and adware, and that the computer had been infected with such filth before the substitute teacher even arrived.
However, porn pop-ups are an obvious result of using an adware-infected computer. The defense’s own case hangs the teacher. I’m not saying that allowing kids to use a computer is illegal. I’m saying that using or allowing kids to use a spyware and adware infected computer is negligent, and risks harm to the kids. The teacher was rightfully convicted of doing this. As for the sentence, she will not get 40 years, so put your mind at rest about that.
Please peddle your stupid somewhere else; we’re full up here.
She was not convicted of a specific-intent crime. If the jury is to be believed, her intent was simply the carelessness she exhibited by letting the kids see what she was surfing. She DID, according to the jury, intend to surf those sites.
Now, your point about the victimless nature of the crime is not completely without merit. But the legislature has determined that showing pictures of people fucking to minors is a crime. You may disagree with them, but theirs is not a crazy view to hold.
Perhaps in the future you could exhibit a bit more savvy than your vegetable namesake, and show us more sense than God gave a turnip.
If I missed it I apologize in advance… But what was her sentence in the end?
Your attempt at comic relief is appreciated, but the case still seems like trumped-up horseshit to me. And frankly, I don’t care whether the babes-in-the-woods were treated to a plasma-screen eyeful of the “goatse” guy’s colon, I still don’t think it merits a single day of jail time. Kids that age are not fragile flowers that are stricken with the howling fantods at the sight of dirty pitchers; that crumpling vulnerability is exclusive to their hysterical parents, the “authority figures” who took the reins, and the jury lemmings who brought this ham sandwich of an indictment to its absurd conclusion.
You can rattle off the way all the t’s were crossed and i’s dotted, and maybe that’s the only thing needed for you shrug your shoulders and feel good about it. But there’s legal and there’s right, and sometimes the twain don’t meet.
Actually, if you read Det. Lounsbury’s essay, you will note that he only says that "typed URL"s are one of the pieces of evidence that his software examines and he is rather vague as to whether he actually looked at that registry, personally, and found the specific porn-spawning web site there. (In his defense, I believe he is restricted from discussing specifics of the case until after sentencing.)
In contrast, Mr. Horner did claim to identify the site linked to the porn spawners as one of the hair-styling sites.
The timing of the events reported in the various stories are also not completely reported. How did Det. Lounsbury determine that it was Ms. Amero and not a student who entered the URLs (if, indeed, they were actually typed and not linked as he oddly does not say), or even from the teacher to whom the computer was officially assigned? (I have never seen a date/time stamp associated with the Typed URL registry. There may be one buried beneath a few layers of code I have not explored, but generally the Typed URL is only used to stores the addresses to permit easy recall without actually caring when they were actually used. I have an entry in my Typed URL registry that was an early typo for my then employer’s new e-mail service from four years ago. It has not been used since that first error. In contrast, the SDMB and a couple of reference sites are in my Typed URL registry because I use them daily, but I have not physically typed the URL to any of those locations since I first entered them 7 1/2 - 9 years ago. Barring an actual date/time stamp for “created” and “last used,” and physical evidence that Det. Lounsbury actually found the addresses in the Typed URL registry and not as the result of a multi-registry sweep by some software he does not understand, I am still unpersuaded.)
Sentencing is in March.
You know, this sounds like a case for EFF or ACLU, if you ask me. On the latest This Week in Tech podcast they discussed this and everyone agreed that this was a horrid miscarriage of justice. If the worst thing to every to happen to these kids is that they get to see a few seconds (or minutes) of a porn storm, they’re pretty lucky.
Cite?
Cite that the photos wewre sexually explicit rather than simply provocative poses of nudes?
Cite that the sexually explicit acts (if any) were disgusting?
Or cite that any sexual act might be disgusting?
One might be able to go back to the essay by Mr. Horner to which I linked and dig up the URLs he noted had produced problems in order to see what actually happend.
It would be most unwise to post those links on the SDMB, of course.
Tom,
I forgot to add a 
I was hoping for “disgusting sex acts and bodily fluids” sites.
Look in the mirror.
What?
People in the justice system keep asking for our respect. Then they do stuff like this.
The wife made me take the mirror off the ceiling over our bed 
If Lounsbury (or some other witness) did not testify that the links in question were clicked on directly, then in my view there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law to reach a guilty verdict, because the jury would not be able to conclude that SHE clicked intentionally absent evidence that SOMEONE clicked.
Unfortunately, without either transcripts or some competent reporting, it’s unclear what the specifics of Lounsbury’s testimony were… which is why the claims above that “he must have perjured himself” irritate me so much.
Well this aspect of the topic arose in your Post #67 when you provided the observation and quote
I am presuming that Smith is the prosecutor, in this case.
Lounsbury is not being accused of perjury in Derleth’s post #83. Derleth accused (probably erroneously) the prosecutor of perjury when that would not be the actual offense (if any). However, the statement as posted from your source is a lie. It does not mention anything about typing in a URL. It refers to “clicking” on a site. That claim is refuted by both Mr.Horner’s testimony and my experience (and the overwhelming opinion of the computer industry that has looked at this case).
If Det. Lounsbury testified that he explicitly found a URL in the Typed URL file, then I am still unpersuaded that it could not have been a kid or the original teacher to whom the PC was assigned who typed it. (If he testified that it was in the Typed URL file and it was not there, we are talking serious perjury, but I want evidence of that before i make any accusations.)
If Prosecutor Smith simply took the vague testimony of things that Lounsbury’s ComputerCOP software was capable of dragging up and then conflated what might have been found with what was actually found, then I guess that just good lawyering. But Smith’s quoted text, “You have to physically click on it to get to those sites” is a directly false claim. (my bolding)
Amero sounds like a first class ditz, (and were I to live in that school district, I’d be calling for the firing of the principal and school administrators for mishandling this situation in a classic CYA/pass the buck manner). I have not seen enough actual information regarding the DA and prosecutor’s office (although the charges they brought seem to be a clear violation of DNKGWAS), but Smith’s quoted comment in this post puts him on my list of “win at all costs assholes” list.
Fair correction – Smith is the one whose words were quoted, and of course his words ar enot testimony; they are argument.
Mebbe.
The problem is the lack of detail, which is result of the desultory reporting we have access to thus far. Presumably the transcript would lay out the actual claims clearly.
However, let me offer a scenario by which everything quoted by Smith could be true. It’sd unclear which sites Smith’s comment referred to. We know that the TypedURL registry lists addresses that were actually entered in the address bar.
So if we’re assuming the existance of, say, www.badsite1.com, www.badsite2.com, and www.badsite3.com, then the testimony could prove:
- The user typed in www.badsite1.com
- There was no malware or adware on the computer that could cause any unplanned pop-ups
- The history file and/or the date/time stamp on cookies proves that shortly after badsite1 was accessed, badsite2 and badsite3 were accessed
- There were hyperlinks on badsite1 to badsite2 and badsite3
- There was no Javascript or other applet-type code on badsite1 that would launch badsite2 or badsite3
If those facts were established, then Smith’s “You have to physically click on it to get to those sites” statement could be referring to badsite2 and badsite3.
Now, please don’t get me wrong. I’m not at all of the belief that justice was done here. But I think the criticism should focus on actual flaws. It’s unclear to me that anyone’s testimony is perjured or that the testimony failed to establish the crime.