That case is an atrocity. Unfortunately we'll likely be seeing more cases where the investigator/prosecutors' ignorance of the technology involved put innocent people in jail.

Good thing we have Vista now to solve all the spyware/adware/virus problems, right? Right?

WTF...
I wish I could say I was surprised. This is one case where is a legal defense fund is established, I will be donating.

While I have little doubt that adware was the root of the problem, there were other elements of the case that contributed to her prosecution. She allowed the images to remain visable to her students for an extended period of time. One reporter I heard said it was a couple of hours. It's one thing to have the images appear and another to allow them to continue. I realize that she was under orders to not "turn the computer off", but other simple solutions that could have been taken included turning the monitor off or simply throwing a coat/jacket/sweatshirt over the monitor. Also, if that happened to my less-than fully tech savy wife (who's a teacher), I think she'd alert the office of the problem and seek some guidance instead of ignoring the problem.

As for the "UP TO" 40 years... Before trial she was offered a deal that called for a short term of probation and then her record would be cleared. She declined. Again, given the part of the case that dealt with her actions after the problems arose, I think she would have been smart to take it.

Hindsight is 20/20 Gizmo. Sure there were things should orcould have done but she didn't. Does that make her guilty of the crime she is being accused of? She is being charged with exposing children to Pr0n which implies intent. From what I've read the only thing she's really guilty of is not being smarter.

Taking a plea-bargan carries with it an implicit acknowledgement of guilt. If she doesn't think she is guilty then why should she?

The same type of thing happened once to me during a presentation. This sold me on the idea that I needed some 3rd party ad blocker and not depend on a static software employed by the server. They have gotten much better since then, but it is ridiculous that she is getting 40 years for this.

With the pattern of sentencing, she could have been sleeping with some of the students and still gotten only a couple years. Apparently we aren't as upset at teachers who go all the way as we are with teachers who just tease. I'm guessing it's due to some kind of sexual frustrations among the DAs of America.

I agree that this seems like a travesty. If you read the associated links, it seems she did ask for help, and was told by a Vice Principal not to worry about it. My wife has been a substitute teacher, and subs are often more concerned with adhering to regulations than regular teachers. If she was told not to turn off the computer, I'm sure she took it very seriously.

There seems to be no indication that she willingly showed pornographic images to students. At worst, she can be accused of being negligent, or not responding quickly enough to an unexpected incident. This is a felony?

I'm not saying that the teacher was 100% at fault, but I'm disputing that we was 100% innocent and this conviction is 100% an injustice.

Being "stupid" isn't a recognized legal defense. What she did was the equivilent of telling her students to stay in the seats and only look forward if a flasher appeared outside the classroom window... and she then allowed the flasher to remain for hours. There were lots of students that witnessed the images, there's also reports that there was evidence that some of the links on some of the pop-ups were actively followed by a user.

Yes, she told another teacher about it... in the teacher's lounge at lunch!

Yes, she talked to an Asst. Principal about it... after the school day was over!

She wasn't convicted by a hangin' judge, she wasn't convicted by an overzealous prosecutor, she was convicted by the jury that heard both sides of the case and decided that we was negligent in her actions.

This is a travesty! JSchuler nails it. She could have sex in the classroom, in front of some of the children, and received a lesser sentence. Yes, it sounds like she could have done more to remove the images from view, but just because she didn't doesn't mean she should spend 40 years in jail.

Maybe there is more to this then what is being reported, but on first glance I can't imagine this sentence will stand on appeal. Hell, it should never have gotten this far to begin with.

J.R.,

Before protesting it, I'd recommend waiting until she's actually given a sentence. She faces UP TO 40 years, however it's predict if she gets actual time it'll be measured in months, not decades.

Absolutely right Giz, my bad.