Virus takes over PC, almost jails worker
August 24, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Employment law, HR Tech, In this week's e-newsletter - Tech
Computer problems cause a lot of workplace headaches. But a missing file is nothing compared to the trouble they brought this employee.
Julie Amero was a substitute teacher in Norwich, Connecticut. In 2004, she was arrested for allegedly exposing children in her class to pornography.
According to Amero, a computer virus was to blame. While teaching, she heard some students giggling and looking at her computer screen. “Inappropriate” Web sites had popped up on their own. Amero closed the windows, but more kept appearing.
Not exactly computer savvy (she says she’d learned how to use e-mail just a few weeks before), Amero didn’t know what to do and ran to tell the vice principal. He told her not to worry about it.
But then, angry parents called the school. In response, Amero was fired. But it turned out that wasn’t her biggest problem.
A few days after the incident, police arrested her. She was taken to court and convicted of four felony counts of endangering minors — facing a sentence of up to 40 years in prison.
The case got national attention, and several computer security professionals rose to Amero’s defense. Led by Sunbelt Software, they assembled a team of lawyers and managed to get the case overturned, setting the stage for a new trial.
The second time around, more details about the school’s computer network emerged. Apparently, the network had no firewall, lacked antivirus software and used an out-dated Web filter that didn’t block new inappropriate content. Eventually, investigators found a virus on the classroom computer that could have caused the sites to pop up.
Amero managed to secure a plea bargain in the second trial. She plead guilty to a disorderly conduct misdemeanor, paid a $100 fine and had her teaching credentials revoked.
Similar situations have cropped up. For example, a child pornography charge against a Massachusetts state government employee was dropped last year when it was discovered a virus had been downloading the content without the employee’s knowledge.
Examples like these should give companies even more of a reason to keep antivirus software and other protections up to date. Also, when employees may have violated computer use policies, HR should investigate in close conjunction with IT to see if malware may be at the root of the problem.
Tags: jail, Julie Amero, malware, pornography, virus
August 25th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Oh, great deal! Instead of 40 years she gets a $100 fine and her ability to work her profession revoked. She had a better deal with the 40 years. She would have at least been able to be clothed, housed, fed, and attained another degree while incarcerated. She would have probably been out in 5 in better shape!
August 25th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Wow, if the facts are correct, I can’t see why this woman ws subjected to this. It appears that the school system itself is to blame and she is just a scapegoat.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:37 am
I agree Rachel. If these facts are correct she has lost her potential livelihood and had her reputation and character greatly injured for something that appears to be the fault of the school. The parents should have been more concerned with the school’s practices – indeed if they are not keeping their computer systems protected what else aren’t they doing?
August 25th, 2009 at 9:39 am
I’m confused. The teacher did not cause the problem–unless she was guilty violating a school policy of operating a computer without full operational knowledge of a computer. Who are the adults–the leaders–in this case? The parents–no, the school board–no, whoever the local prosecutor was–no. The teacher should not have been fined–and lost her teaching credentials as well???? The lack of common sense in this and so many cases is mindboggling.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:48 am
What! This is incredible! What disorderly conduct? She should have been a raging bull. Her teaching credentials revoked??? Exactly what was this person guilty of? If the facts here are correct this woman should sue the school system. This went to trial twice??? Who defended her? Who was the judge? If these facts are correct she should file a few more law suits. Good grief!! What has happened to common sense these days?
August 25th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Ridiculous. The teacher should sue the school and the DA’s office for lost wages, defamation, wrongful prosecution and I’m sure a good attorney could add a few more charges. And the school board’s IT policies should be closely audited — if they have no safeguards built into their system, the data on the kids & their parents could be vulnerable to hackers or worse, pedophiles.
August 25th, 2009 at 10:05 am
There HAS to be more to this story. If she agreed to a plea bargin in her second trial then she agreed to the fine and loss of teaching credentials as well. Why would she do that if she was fully in the right? There has to be something else not mentioned in the article for this to make sense. If she was completely innocent, I think she would have fought the charges a little harder especially since the evidence in this article seems to all be in her favor. I believe there is no way to be sure what is the correct outcome if not all of the story is being presented.
August 25th, 2009 at 10:24 am
I am not at all surprised by this story. It’s typical for the judicial system to demand SOME sort of punishment for the defendant when cases concerning pornography or child endangering are in their courtrooms. Even a good attorney will tell you that the court wants the defendant to “just jump through a hoop” so they can close the case and not just dismiss it, especially after TWO trials! It happened to me and I was innocent, but still had to spend a few months on probation to get “quick release” – even though I was only accused of distributing obscene material and never convicted.
I can only assume that the deal she took – and she did eventually plead guilty in the bargain, so sueing ANYONE is out of the question – was based upon her decision that she didn’t care if she ever taught again. I hope she has a good degree and was only teaching until something better came along – a lot of teachers do. Pornography is such a hot button issue in some areas of this country, you almost cannot win ever if you are accused of some criminal activity related to pornography. Include children in the mix and she is lucky she wasn’t burned at the stake.
August 25th, 2009 at 10:29 am
I fully agree, if she was completely innocent, she should still be teaching. The vice principle should have been reprimanded for blowing her and the whole issue off. I would have sounded a major alarm for all teachers and the IT department right away. There has to be more to the story.
August 25th, 2009 at 10:43 am
While I’m not saying there couldn’t be more to this story, I have to agree with Don. A close personal friend opted for a plea bargain on an arson charge even though she wasn’t even home when the fire started because she was so distraught she failed a lie detecter test. She ended up paying a $10,000 fine and being on probation all because she did not document the fact she had requested her landlord to come check out the electrical problems she was having. The landlord denied knowledge of any problems. The police also insinuated that because she was in the process of moving she wanted to “screw” the landlord. Bad things can happen to innocent people – I don’t think it’s the norm but it can and does happen every day.
August 25th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Let’s not be too harsh about her decision. She may have decided to accept the plea bargain in the second case because she did not want to go through the process again, and could live with the results. According to other web reports, Ms. Amero was hospitalized at least once and has developed a heart condition as a result of being made a pariah in her community. We also don’t know what advice (good or bad) she got from her own attorney. We also have to remember, as far as her possible perspective on her own livelihood, that she was a substitute teacher, not a full-time one.
As to the actions of the prosecutor…shameful. Likely this is an example of an all-too-prevalent “win at any cost” attitude present in many district attorney/county attorney offices, especially in the criminal divisions. The whole notion of the prosecutor as an “officer of the court” has been dying a slow and quiet death in many jurisdiction where it is deemed more important, or even “in the public interest,” to simply defeat the opposition. Combine this attitude with clear (and in my mind willful) ignorance of both the Prosecutor’s Office and the Norwich Police Department on how computers and malware actually work.
While it is true that we likely don’t have all the case facts here (the press almost never bother to do that), the only thing I can think of off the top of my head for why the case went forward other the prosecutorial overzealousness is that she’s responsible because she wasn’t careful enough to control access to her computer terminal in the first place (she allegedly was surfing the Internet and checking her e-mail when she should’ve been teaching as the substitute that day), and that was the proximate cause/failing to exposing minors to inappropriate content.
But in my mind, even that (if true) is a real stretch.
This story leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Shame on New London County State’s Attorney Michael Regan, the prosecutor in the case, and the Norwich Police Department…not to mention the School District and local press that apparently hung her out to dry.
August 25th, 2009 at 10:49 am
It’s absolutely awful that she succumbed to the stresses of public scrutiny and an ongoing trial. The case should have never gone to trial in the first place. The problem lies with organizations cutting corners in Technology Support as well as parents who just don’t understand technology. The Police Force that investigated this should step back and take a look at their policies…granted they have changed in the past five years.
A quick glance of the court documentation also shows a Prosecutor who didn’t understand technology either.
HOWEVER, even after all that the one thing I did notice in the testimony and the one thing I have to scold this substitue on is she should have just pulled the plug on the computer till somebody was able to see what was happening. This fact still should not have cost her her job, her career, or her life.
August 25th, 2009 at 11:17 am
1. Ignorant, rabid, liberal judicial system incapable of understanding the problem, much less assigning accountability.
2. A spineless employer who should have stood by their employee, facing the angry parents instead of caving and mindlessly reacting.
3. The legal and judicial systems are a machine, and GOD HELP YOU if you get caught in “the wheels of justice” (more like sharp, grinding, lethargic gears, but….), because you’re likely to get mangled.
To those of you in law enforcement and the so-called justice system: STOP RUTHLESSLY AND MALICIOUSLY FOLLOWING PROCEDURE, AND REMEMBER TO BE A HUMAN BEING.
This woman did nothing wrong.
August 25th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Wow… We live in a great country. Typical. It will only get worse. So sick of “family values” and “protect the children from predators”. This isn’t the Congo.
I was a child in late 70’s and 80’s and even if we had internet and all the new media where true criminals can do bad things these days, my mother taught me well enough about life that I could process the images and other adult things I may have come in contact with. I was able to be a kid, a safe and happy one at that.
Shame on our judicial system. Witch hunts and fascism…. USA.
August 25th, 2009 at 11:41 am
It is going to get worst unles the people take the power back. That is why the people at the “health care town hall meetings” are so angry. It is not just about health care. Go on the internet for “545 people” and you will know why this country is a mess.
August 25th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
She should be suing the school and crusading against the judicial system.
Obvious that the school AND Law Enforcement know zero about computer technology and how it interfaces in the world we live.
Ditto machines, paper reports, filing cabinets, and DOS Wordperfect are the standards in these fields.
Way to go!
August 25th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I totally agree with almost ALL these replies, espec SS. This is unbelievable! The teacher should SUE the school AND the DA’s office for lost wages, defamation of character, wrongful prosecution, and more !! She needs a good team of attys – how did these people that she used ever let this happen !?! If anyone is at fault, it is the school, then the lawyers she used, and the judicial system itself ! (this assumes of course that there are not hugely contrary facts that we haven’t had the benefit of hearing).
August 25th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
People “cop a plea” because they are exhausted from the legal fight and broke from the legal expenses. Poor Julie probably just did what anyone else would do and take the plea bargain for the closure. BUT because she did plead guilty to the misdemeanor she is now not able to sue anyone, and arguably she may never have been able to successfully RETALIATE with a law suit against anyone anyway for the damages “the virus” caused her, except the author of the virus, which of course, is impossible.
There, but for the grace of the gods, go I.
August 25th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Everyone must realize that it is almost impossible to win a law suit against a school, at least, in TX. This is from personal experience. This year I saw a teacher abusing children and reported it to the Children’s Protective Services. They did nothing and closed the case. School people must be held accountable.
August 25th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I’m just saying: I’m not a computer person, but in my experience with finding those nasty virus bugs on my computer. They all root down to me or my kids or some other person ‘clicking’ on some link, opening a virus email, or vistiting some website. I’ve had to clean my computer a few times. I’ve never found a virus that wasn’t ‘uninvited’ whether inadvertently or not.
Accidents happen, but I’m thinking this sub wasn’t performing her normal job duties when the computer downloaded the virus. (Self uploading viruses didn’t appear until sometime last year). It was simple negligence, although losing her teaching credential seems harsh in this case. Maybe she accepted the plea bargain because she didn’t have a teaching career left to pursue after her reputation was destroyed.
In all fairness, the school should have definitely taken responsibility for their insuficient IT protocol, internet use policy & their lack of appropriate action when the incident occured. The ‘feel good’ administrators in our schools are all about teaching our kids to be victims, giving them false promotions and unearned rewards, and at the same time they don’t take responsibility for the consequences of their actions or lack of. It’s not a surprise why so many young adults feel entitled & refuse to go to work.
On an unrelated rant: It seems like teachers these days care more about covering their own a$$ than the quality of education they’re doling out. They complain about their pay & hours & benefits. How often have you heard about a teacher going out of their way to help a struggling child or encourage an excelling one? I’m hearing ‘It’s not my job’ or ‘I don’t get paid for that’ all over the place – a typical ‘union’ employee response; it’s never enough. It’s all about the paycheck to them.
August 25th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Wow Lilly, I am a computer person and I have no idea what you are talking about.
In 2004 MS Internet Explorer had no pop-up protection and the report states that the websites were popping up. These were probably delayed pop-ups and pop-unders, which were rampant on adult websites in 2004. You could have visited one of these sites to get that frusterating experience of “pop-up hell” or you could have clicked thru a “blind link” in an email message thinking you were going to some other site, only to end up on an adult site and “mouse-trapped”. And a virus can do just about anything, so it can’t be ruled at as a cause either, and viruses were primarily delivered by email and file transfers in 2004, not by web pages. Julie was an email novice, she could have run a virus or clicked a blind link easily – they are very deceptive.
You do hit a nail on the head though: The school used Julie as a scapegoat. If they would have accepted fault for inferior internet security software (in the classroom this should be a priority), then THEY would have been the target of the parents and the prosecutor.
But your rant against teachers is out of line. It’s all about the paycheck for US ALL, not just teachers, and it’s unfortunate that their paychecks are so poor that it gets in the way of being able to focus on the job when people like you and I think they have one of the most important jobs on earth. Praise the teacher, but don’t forget to PAY them if you expect to get any good ones!
August 25th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Lilly, you’ve got a point with regard to the annihilation of Ms. Amero’s reputation in her field, but about most of the rest I’m afraid you are pretty far off base.
I’m a system administrator, and I also do desktop support; I can therefore say from both knowledge and personal experience that it certainly is possible for an “uninvited” virus to pop up on your computer — usually one that spreads across the network from another computer where someone has been, for example, looking at porn. Which never, ever happens in a high school, because no high school kid has ever figured out how to get around Net Nanny. And — “self uploading viruses didn’t appear until sometime last year”? You’re right — you’re *not* a computer person, and I believe you would be very well advised indeed not to try to speak authoritatively on the subject; having one’s abject ignorance recognized as such, after all, often embarrasses.
And if you think teaching is “all about the paycheck”, maybe you need to check and see what teachers in public primary and secondary schools actually get paid. It’s not exactly the high road to riches — they complain about their pay, hours, and benefits because they are almost invariably underpaid, overworked, and treated like garbage both by most parents and by most of the administrative infrastructure of their schools. If you want to see teachers able to take more of an interest in their students, maybe you want to be agitating for teachers to be treated better on average than a McDonald’s line cook.
August 25th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
This is the most absurd thing ever. I wouldnt be surprised if there wasnt anything more to this story. It seems that everyone in the story is at fault, except the teacher! Were the people of the school and judicial system trying to make the masses happy? Is the school really a better place because she is no longer teaching? Amazingly unfair.
August 25th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
As luck would have it, the entire transcript of the first/original trial for Julie Amero happens to be online. I have looked through some of it (just glancing so I am by no means an expert on this) and I believe that based on the fact that children were seeing pornographic images which displayed on the monitor throughout the entire school day and that the substitute teacher by her own admission did not turn off the monitor, did not turn off the computer, continued to use the computer for personal email and left the classroom unattended and the door open during the lunch break that she did not protect 11 and 12 year old children from the images online. Whether or not she opened the porn sites on purpose is one discussion and she may not have been at fault for that but the fact does remain that she did not prevent children from being exposed and it seems that is the issue the school had with her. The state also seemed to feel that even if she did not cause the websites to be on the screen that she did not adequately protect the minors from the exposure. After looking at the transcript, I was more willing to see the side of the school, parents and prosecutor. The damage was done whether intentional or unintentional; the intent is less relevant than the fact that the children were exposed. Try the same arguments in a different situation…what if a student had brought a porn magazine to class. Would she have stood in front of the open centerfold hoping none of the children saw the images or would she have removed the magazine from the classroom? What would you have expected if she had been your 11 year old child’s teacher?
August 25th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Ok – I couldn’t read all of your comments but I noticed that some were asking if there were more to this story. I googled it. What a mess. This computer-unsavvy woman (needing written instructions from husband to retrieve email) is taking the fall for a school system that did not have the adequate security measures in place (no fire-wall; old spyware). If a pervert in a trench coat walked into her classroom and exposed himself and she couldn’t physically stop him, and received NO HELP from anyone in the Teachers Lounge, then would she have been arrested, tried and conviced for endangering children because the school security was poor?
Taking the plea was just her way to make it all go away. After the defense expert witness was not even allowed to testify in the first trial… I’d like to think I’d stick it out, but I can’t blame her for wanting it to go away.
August 25th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Lajeli: Thanks for the due diligence…
There are two things that continue to concern me:
- She immediately escalated the incident, and was told ‘not to worry about it’, so her management structure is culpable.
- She was described as new to computers, having only recently learned to use e-mail. As silly as this sounds, she might have felt unqualified to shut down the computer, or may have even thought that she would be somehow wrong for shutting it down.
I think it’s easy for a DA or even the school (to avoid culpability) to twist the events in to something else, but the reality is that the school IS culpable because they should have immediately taken control of the situation, either directly or through explicit instruction.
I like Bob’s comment about people maliciously following procedure.
That said, I also think it’s appropriate to re-state what I’ve stated in a comment in another post: I don’t want to work at a job where not doing my job correctly could lead to criminal prosecution and possible incarceration. It’s just not worth the risk. So add this to the list of jobs I will simply cross off my list, and so will other people – the point being, that there will be some level of a chilling effect on recruiting and keeping talent.
August 25th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
My guess is that she was surfing the web while in the classroom–during work time or a break–when she picked up the spam/popup/virus on the computer. Though the sites she was visiting were most likely clean, she was probably not completely in the clear as she was using school property for personal use.
August 25th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
The school authorities should have helped her, no doubt but there is a LOT more to this story than the article suggests. I find it very hard to believe that a substitute teacher with a degree in special education, a degree in K-12 and is NAEYC accredited does not know how to turn off a computer monitor. She waited until her lunch break to report the problem to peers in the teacher’s lounge and did not contact the asst principal until school was over for the day and the problem had been going on for hours when she just happened to see the asst principal in the hall as she (Julie) was leaving for the day. She left the classroom door open when she left the room for lunch so any child in that area of the school could have been exposed to the problem.
She continued to check her personal email on the computer while the pop-up porn was going on. (She admits that and the computer usage records show that). She stated that kids from the school were using the computer while she was out of the classroom (before she began teaching for the day) but the first internet site visited was AOL which is where she said she went to check her personal email throughout the day. Many students testified that she ‘pushed’ one student’s face away from the computer to prevent him from seeing what was on the screen.
This teacher is not quite a completely innocent victim; she had accepted a certain amount of responsibility to care for children and then became fairly helpless in what should have been a no-brainer situation (my opinion)
I do believe that the school shares some blame here; they did have a firewall in place on the server as well as having anti-virus software on the individual pcs but there were issues with automatic updates causing the content filtering software on the servers to malfunction which should have been corrected.
However, I would have expected more ’smarts’ from a substitue teacher for seventh graders. Maybe I am just too demanding??
August 25th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Thanks Lajeli. You saved us all the time to look it up.
OK – so, here’s what I think you’ve pointed out:
1. You’ve ruled out ignorance – Why we would accept ignorant and subpar performance in our educators will ever irritate me.
2. You’ve also pointed out that other staff were aware of the issue. Why did so many educators ignore or find amusement in something so damaging; not just to the children, but their fellow teacher, principal & school?
3. I know teachers are checking email. That’s how I stay in touch with my kids’ educators. It’s a good tool. Yet, our school-teachers have an assigned district email address. I don’t know about that school, but AOL wouldn’t count.
4. How would children have access to her computer before school? Lock out codes? That would be the first thing on my mind with an unattended computer around kids.
All that spells negligence to me. A lack of responsibility on so many heads. Did they think someone else was going to take care of it? Not one of them was a ‘leader’. I don’t have anything against teachers. I remember the good ones and the bad ones. What I don’t like is their pay is screwy because of unions. They can’t get rid of the bad ones because they are so well protected. The bad ones stay in and earn the same salary/ benefits as the good ones. I’m sure the good ones know who they are. Any new potentially good educators have less opportunity until by some unnatural cause (like this case), a bad one gets terminated.
Our kids are getting poorer education than they did 20 years ago. If unions weren’t in control of schools, then the good teachers could negotiate for better pay or take their talent to another school. If the admin cares about the school’s performance, they’ll pay attention to retain good teachers. Throwing money at the problem will never solve it. Our kids deserve better.
Don & Aaron, thanks for pointing out my virus BS. I had read an article some time ago about the new wave of viruses that can get through protection and then morph so they can’t be detected. Must’ve been confused – ignorance duly deserved. I hope you realize I was talking about my own experience with my computer and in no way intended to present myself as an authority. I just forgot to mention a little bit of info that my computer did have protection and in any case where it got infected, it was from opening or clicking something – an action by the user.
Just my last thought…: In the case of the porno pop-ups, I think their purpose is to get the user to return to their site or visit a partner site. However annoying they are, I haven’t heard about them being infectious and loading themselves on other networked computers. If they can, then why didn’t the porno pop-ups appear on all the teachers’ computers? I’m just saying..
August 25th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I had found most of the responses here to be very much on target. Then I ran into Bob’s, at 11:17, 25 August, and Josh’s, at 11:29, 25 August.
How in the world does Bob get to the conclusion that it was an “Ignorant, rabid, liberal judicial system” that resulted in these decisions? Quite the contrary! It would seem to me that it was a conservative mindset, hell-bent on pseudo family values, that would have led to these reactionary responses. Bob, like far too many people use the word liberal as a perjorative term to characterize anything with which they disagree. It’s so sad. And then Josh comes along with “This isn’t the Congo.” Just what is that supposed to mean, Josh? Compare the number of gun deaths, the amount of hatred, the number of incarcerated in the U.S. with any other country. You might be surprised how backwards we are compared to Congo and many other places in the world. We need to open our collective eye to injustice, fight it on every level, and leave the name calling to the intellectually-challenged, who may have no other tools at their disposal.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
In light of the info posted here, I’m thinking maybe the sub has some culpability. Regardless, the school should be held responsible for their lack of security.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:55 am
I dont understand, at the first trial she was convicted later on the case was overturn.at the second trial, what was she guilty of. the use of the computer or reporting the pop-up to the vice principal?
Or was it just American Justice Wonder?
August 26th, 2009 at 7:30 am
I agree with everyone. There is no way this teacher should have any fines and most importantly her teaching license revoked. What happend to to the principal who said don’t worry about it? What was the response he/she gave to the parents that called complaining? Why didn’t the attorney point that out or was it even brought up?
August 26th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Well this is absolutely the most redicuous case i have heard lately. The judicial system is totally out of wack! no wonder we don’t have trust in our policitical, legislative and judicial systems. For this women to have to plead quilty, because I am assuming after all she went through they left her no choice, is absurd.
Where has our common sense, and fairness for all gone. The school owes her a lifetime of salary and benefits as far as I am concerned. Unless all the facts are not known, I would expect her to fight for her rights as a citizen. This teacher should not have paid the price or penalty for a school’s system inadequaces. Can you imagine, what would happen to us in corporate America?
August 26th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Yay Thomas! Right on the nose!
Every single case of “the people” vs. the porno has been brought by rabid right-wing conservative groups advocating their so called family values, which is really just their way of “ridding the world of sin and sinners.” I’ve been the accused and I’ve seen the madness in their eyes. The good news is they are a dying breed and won’t last another 25 years.
August 26th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Ok, with the additonal facts we now know (thank you, Lajeli), I think it’s more clear that, because the substitute teacher basically went the WHOLE DAY without effectively dealing with the problem (and by the way, if she knows how to check her own e-mail, I don’t consider it particularly credible that she couldn’t figure out how to turn off the monitor or the computer), there is some degree of negligence on her part, or at least a failure to recognize the significance of allowing children to be exposed to such material on and using school property and with her knowledge.
However, it’s also true that she’s a scapegoat. The school administration, and in particular the vice principal who ignored it, are also culpable, and should’ve also been charged. Being just a substitute teacher, I’m sure that it was decided that she was the easiest target.
I still maintain that the police and prosecutor’s office were overzealous in charging and prosecuting the teacher the first time around. However, in the end, a misdemeanor, $100 fine, and revocation of her ability to be a substitute teacher is probably the right result.
August 26th, 2009 at 10:25 am
What I haven’t seen in these responses is any talk of the fact that this substitute, being not computer savvy, may have been a victim of the person she was subbing for, or for anyone else who had access to the computer since it was originally installed. This school had NO FIREWALL, NO ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE. For God’s sake, people, who are these idiots who have the responsibility of teaching our children??
August 26th, 2009 at 10:39 am
The knee-jerk reaction is to say that the school is at fault for not having adequate protections in place on their computer network, and that is true – they should have made a good faith effort to protect their systems. Many others here have pointed out in detail, that the substitute teacher in question failed miserably to do her own due diligence. She NEGLIGENTLY allowed numerous children to see inappropriate images on that computer screen for several hours, instead of IMMEDIATELY calling for assistance from someone in the office. She should never have left the room with that computer turned on, regardless of the reason.
I am surprised she was able to garner such a light sentence in the end, considering how she wantonly, deliberately, and negligently endangered so many minor children under her care. In my opinion, she most definitely should have lost her teaching credentials AND be banned from obtaining a license which would permit her to be in a position of authority around children – since she so clearly was ill equipped to be in that position. She should also be required to pay a much larger fine, as well spend a few months in county jail for her actions. In my opinion she got off lucky.
On the other hand, the school also got very lucky in that it *appears* that they were not held liable for the ease with which the virus could be downloaded on to the computer. I run a small business, and we have a maintenance agreement/contract with McAfee for all of our systems. I have to know that I can trust what my staff is doing on the PC’s. No anti virus program is perfect, but we have found McAfee’s to be the best so far.
The bottom line, is we who own/operate businesses of any kind (including government run schools) must provide adequate protection for our hardware & software – so WE are not the one being held liable for negligence. It is far too easy these days to find yourself on the wrong end of a lawsuit, unless you make pro-active steps to protect yourself and your company…
August 26th, 2009 at 10:49 am
THE SCHOOL HAD FILTERS ON THE SERVERS AND ANTI-VIRUS SOFTWARE ON THE INDIVIDUAL PCS!! I SEE NUMEROUS POSTS BY PEOPLE WHO DON’T KNOW THIS…PLEASE RESEARCH BEFORE YOU MAKE ASSUMPTIONS!
The teacher saw the images, and did not adequately prevent the pornographic images from being seen by the children.
It’s not about how the porn got on the computer, it’s about why she didn’t separate the children from the porn and for that, she is guilty and probably shouldn’t be teaching.
Any number of things can happen in a classroom full of 11 and 12 year old children.
A teacher needs to be ready to react quickly to protect the children…period.
She had a degree in special education for crying out loud. She should be more prepared to deal with the unexpected.
Read the trail transcript of her testimony. I would not want someone that helpless to be responsible for my children. She didn’t need to go to jail but she did need to lose her ability to teach.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Where are the adults? This incident was blown totally out of proportion to the potential harm that it may have posed. The reaction probably caused more harm to the kids and to all involved. The legal system is where you go if you can’t resolve it at a lower level. That’s why the courts lean towards arbitrators and mediators. They are overwhelmed.
The prosecutor should have ensured that the principal and the school board addressed the issues and closed the case. But that’s not what prosecutor’s do. They bring charges to WIN a case.
Does anyone think that a series of pornographic pictures being flashed before some giggling kids will cause irreparable harm? Get real. Think about the first time you saw something risqué. You can’t watch a TV program or pick up a magazine without being bombarded by risqué images or suggestions. Certainly, the teachers and parents should have talked to the kids to put it into perspective, but it wasn’t child rape. Kids send each other pornoghraphic pictures of each other over their phones. That too should be dealt with by calm adults.
I am amazed that many take a self righteous view of the situation. Many of the points presented are excellent on how to prevent the situation again, but like any feedback, how it is presented has more to do with how it will be applied than how excellent the feedback is. If people fail to take responsibility for what and how they say it, then we are doomed for a judge to tell us what we did wrong and punish us. Judges really aren’t in the business of encouragement and rewards.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:18 am
I think that children being exposed to pornogrophy at school in a 7th grade Language art class is not ok. I would not want it to happen to my child.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:21 am
She should have been able to make better, smarter decisions about what was going on. She is the teacher, the one responsible for what happens in that room. She found herself faced with a situation that she testifies that she believed would be harmful to the children and she panicked and did not handle the situation well. The point is not the porn or the computer. The point is that she didn’t handle the situation very well and therefore might not be qualified to be in that position again in the future.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Certainly exposing a 7th grader to pornography is not something that is acceptable, however errors will be made and in so many areas of life and it is important that when they occur, that the adults (parents, teachers, administrators) address the issues appropriately with the children and implement the lessons learned that everyone seems to know based on this blog. Turning this into a media event and a “right vs. wrong” incident leaves children fearful, disemplowered, and confused.
Certainly the school could have used better IT practices, the substitute teacher could have taken more effective actions to limit the exposure, the administrator could have been more proactive in contacting parents and addressing possible impact on the children. Unfortunately, all those lessons and actions take a back seat over whether the courts treated the sub teacher fairly.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Obviously there is more to this story, because none of this makes sense as it is being presented. I would be interested in hearing a follow-up and some clarification.
August 28th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I hope she sues and gets her teaching credentials returned to her. this is an outrage.
August 28th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
She has NOTHING to sue for! She ACCEPTED the plea bargain, which is an ADMONITION of guilt and prevents her from suing as well. She accepted responsibility for her actions, which is why the case did not go to trial. Had it gone to trial she may have come out even worse than a misdemeanor and loss of her teaching license. I am glad she lost that license, because in my *opinion* she is unfit to be a teacher.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Being the stickler that I am for correct spelling and grammar, I was troubled when I realized I had put an “r” in pejorative where there should not have been one. My apology. Having admitted that, I think I can in good conscience point out to Neal that accepting a plea bargain is not always an admission of guilt, and it certainly is not an ADMONITION of guilt.
Sometimes it is easier to accept a plea bargain than to fight a system that is stacked with corrupt people who have corrupt motives. Unless, as others have suggested, there is more to the story than has been shared, there is no way the teacher should have been punished in this manner. Human beings make mistakes, often innocent mistakes. Furthermore, anyone who has used computers over the years knows how things can pop up that were not asked for, particularly in environments where the firewalls are pathetically weak, as seems to have been the case in this school.
With that said, I will not comment further on this topic.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:05 pm
As I recall, the underlying issue why they would not just drop everything was that she kept the sites up on her computer for a long time. They felt a reasonable person would just turn off the monitor. It think she was told to not turn it off by IT so they could look at it. As an IT person I can attest to the fact that there are people out there that just don’t understand anything about computers. Many think the monitor is the computer and if you ask them to reboot they just turn the monitor off then back on and report it is right back to the original screen. The mistake she made was not being educated enough about the tool sitting on her desk. In this day and age ANYONE who is in a workplace had best know how to turn off the monitor when it is showing inappropriate content. This is especially true if you are a teacher. Having said that I could go on for many pages about where the school is at fault but instead I will simply say they should have foreseen this as an issue and have trained the staff on how to respond.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:08 am
This sounds like an upcoming Lifetime Movie. She could make a fotune!
January 4th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
[...] Virus takes over PC, almost jails worker [...]