Sitting in prison for 40 years for letting students watch porn pop-ups

Have you ever encountered a super "stubborn" pop-up? When it was finished, another window had reappeared in less than 1 / 1000th of a second. You reboot, frustrated because the antispyware software is too useless and "crimes are".

It's just a nuisance, and you never think, because of it, you have to go to jail. Julie Amero teacher also thinks so.

Nightmare teacher

On October 19, 2004, Jolie was standing in class instead of a sick colleague at Kelly's Secondary School in Connecticut, when she found some girls looking at the computer screen in the corner of the room, laughing. get together. Jolie quietly approached and spotted the children staring at a pop-up window with a heavy erotic image.

But before the court, prosecutors said that Jolie herself used the computer to visit the previously depraved website. And that she was guilty of "unintentionally hurting the morale and moral of young children" when letting up to 10 grade 7 students see sex content.

The defense defended the matter of course and confirmed that the computer had been infected with spyware, so just opening the browser was a pop-up window that led to the XXX website that would pop out, no way to stop it.

Source: AP Jolie insists she is innocent and refuses to apply for a sentence, even though she is facing a fine of up to 40 years in prison. The final verdict will be issued by the Court on March 2 here.

Reflecting on this event, PC World reporter Steve Bass said he did not have access to court documents, nor was there any evidence of what happened, and could not manually check the hard drive. The aforementioned sin machine. " All I have is a good knowledge of spyware and cleaning up malware-infected PCs ."

Evidence, assumptions and weak defenses

However, Steve Bass approached the advocate's computer expert, who said the PC had no firewall at all. Antivirus software is obsolete, not updated, while the number of active cookie / spyware programs is up to 42.

Most importantly, he said 27 of these 42 spyware were ever accessed before Jolie used the device. " I think it is very clear: Jolie does not use that computer to watch sex content as the prosecution accused ," Bass wrote.

The defense attorney wants the above-mentioned computer expert to reenact the situation inside the classroom right in front of the court, but the prosecution has strongly protested.

" In my opinion, if the judge is to witness the crime scene, Jolie will be innocent, " Bass said.

School or teacher conviction?

The question is who needs to be responsible for this? After reading the article published in Norwich newsletter, a local newspaper and talking to some people who knew the case, Bass drew some conclusions.

The prosecutor pointed the gun at Jolie, just because she did not turn off the computer immediately. However, Bass said that if he had to face such a situation, he might have been very panicked (and so was Jolie) - preventing the children from looking at the screen and dispelling them as far as possible.

" After that, I would sit in front of a strange computer, struggling to turn off the screen, or turn off the computer, or both. However, it seems Jolie was confused by the teacher's advice. she taught instead, that in any case, not turn off the computer , "Bass analyzed.

In addition, according to the information that Bass had, Jolie was just a new and technically incompetent teacher. All she could do was check email on AOL from her husband's home computer. These are also points that the court should consider.

More importantly, if the school has fulfilled their responsibilities in protecting students, all computers should have the latest antivirus and sypware software installed. It wasn't until after the Jolie incident happened that they rolled up their sleeves and installed new software.

The blog community watched the case with great care, although the mainstream media did not keep an eye on it. And most people think that Jolie is just a victim in this case.

Trong Cam