Slashdot

I think this guy had to be the prosecutions' "computer expert".... http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/27/ 135221&tid=133 [slashdot.org]

Any attempt at prosecution in this matter is nothing but a total injustice. I fix computers every day. I remove malware. It is incredibly easy to get infected under Windows. Most of this is due to negligence on the part of Microsoft. It is exacerbated by the ignorance of the average user. Virtually any site can be dangerous. Some of this software is incredibly difficult to get rid of while retaining the integrity of the prior install. A substitute school teacher would have no idea how she got infected nor how to remove it once it was infected.

We should not be prosecuting this lady. We should be prosecuting the advertisers and adware distributors. Listen if it wasn't for the advertisers we'd have no malware products. We should also be suing Microsoft for their negligence in their failure to protect the children and the school for not ensuring proper protection to begin with.

Schools should be mandated to use Linux with strict account control. Without a doubt the issues are with Windows, the advertisers, with malware creators, and the school IT people. Someone using a computer for whatever reason should not be held liable because they unwittingly find their way to a malicious site. If they installed Linux on those boxes the accounts would be so compartmentalized there's be little to no adware and no infections that were more difficult to clean than backing up the account data and wiping the account.

The whole idea of holding this poor lady responsible for everyone else's fuck ups is just ludicrous. I know they are saying she did this on purpose and that she was hoping she'd create havoc and harm these children's development and hoped to get fired for doing so. If this hadn't been overturned on this appeal it certainly would have been overturned higher up. This poor woman is being abused by the powers that be and is being used as a scapegoat. This is just sad.

Teachers don't get 4 years for doing it with students.

40 years? For this? Good lord. Aren't there any real criminals we could lock up instead? It's insane.

Don't you know politicans want to look like thier tough on crime? The easiest way to do this is to go after people for non violent "crimes". Send someone who uses marijuana recreationally in their home to gaol for 25 years or another person accused of showing children porn for 40. Of cource they'd then have to release murderers and rapists after just 5 years.

Falcon

I'd consider even 4 minutes at a trial to be too excessive for this. Who in their right mind thought this was something that should even be prosecuted?

The moral of the story: never ever do anything of any kind anywhere near children that are not yours. And, walk on eggshells around your own kids. Never become a teacher for people under 18 because you can end up in jail for doing nothing wrong. Never work at a day care center. Never talk to kids on the street even to ask them the time. You are putting your freedom in another person's hands when doing so.

This sort of prosecution is the exact opposite of helping children. By making teaching a risky job, you're going to drive even more people away from the profession. No sane person would ever become a teacher to kids. The money is low. The aggravation is high. The legal risk is high. You have to really love being around kids to work under those conditions. Heck, one day maybe the only people who would willingly be teachers are pedophiles who can't help themselves. It's the catholic priest principle. (priests aren't allowed to have sex, so only sexually repressed people become priests, and sexually repressed people will sometimes lose control in the worst possible way)

The more we try to protect the children, the worse we make the world for those children.

Do it right or dont do it.

Hadn't you heard? Those who can, do. Those who can't teach.

It's disturbing that the teachers unions did not come to her defense

As a long-time union member, I can assure you that the image of the union (or gains made via concessions by management) almost always trumps the protectionism provided its members. I have personally been "sold down the river" when it became clear that the union stood more to gain from honoring management's wishes that I would just go away rather than defending me (ironic, since I was a union rep with the singular goal of defending my bargaining unit members). I have seen many others treated similarly over the years.

BTW, this really isn't a dig for or against unions; it's just something you accept when you get involved with a union.

It's quite strange isn't it - the American moral police don't seem to have any problem with showing pretty graphic violence (or even torture) but heaven forbid that some see a breast or some pubes.