A sad case, the question isn't about her ability as a substitue teacher (although there are questions there if she has been 'reprimanded' for failure to teach previously) the question(s) is(are):
why was she not given adequate instruction on the use of the computer and have to resort to running to others for assistance
why were the systems not filtering or blocking the access to porn sites (especially as this is an educational establishment that has a responsibility to its pupils and staff)
had there been previous instances of this happening.
Surely the ultmiate responsibility lies with the school in that it failed to supply its users (staff and pupils alike) with adequate safeguards and intstruction on how to deal with such situations should they arise.
In an ideal world I would think that at the very least switching off the monitor would have been a definite option, however as a last resort I would have considered pulling the power.
The other bone of contention I see lies with the legal 'techniques' for me it is obvious to prove that even visiting what appear to be 'safe' sites can result in popup attacks and ideally being able to demonstrate this in court. The defence seem to have been ill-prepared to deal with such a technical case and certainly whatever the outcome if I were the person involved I would be researching suitable attorneys to appeal any outcome.
(one final question, can we assume that the jury have never had access to a computer or seen such popup attacks themselves? If I sat in such a case I could recount - certainly in the early years - many a case where I was a victim of such a scenario.

In short the case sucks


[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/434/34389#34389