Teacher Accused of Porn
Surfing it...not doing it. (Just thought I'd clarify!)
This article is *definitely* worth a read. It's MSNBC, so it's safe for work.
To sum it up, she checked her email before her (seventh-grade) class (she was a substitute, by the way), left for a moment to the restroom, and came back to find kids surfing on the computer viewing a website on hairstyles. She chased them away, and later during the day the graphic images started popping up on the screen. She tried to click them away, but they kept returning. Furthermore, she had been given strict orders to not turn the computer off.
Furthermore, she claimed to have little knowledge of computers.
The defense claimed that malware caused the images to appear. They furthermore posited that the students had went to what they thought was a hairstyle site, and were redirected to a porn site.
I was going to jump in and defend this woman, as I feel she is likely the victim of some drastic injustice (she faces up to 40 years in prison!).
Then, as I typed and cooled down, I realized that there are other problems here. Make no mistake, her 40 years is the biggest problem here, but that problem came about because of another problem.
But first, let's talk about the article. One of the last comments is "...pop-up blockers that can prevent so-called porn storms are now in wide use."
First off, this sounds like a subtle accusation against the teacher. Second off, it's inaccurate. I have run numerous pop-up blockers, and anti-malware applications and still I occasionally get pop-ups. I'd venture to say that if I were to select a few choice sites, I could still be the victim of a "porn storm". Pop-up blockers and anti-malware tools are reactive, which means that there is generally an exploit or mechanism which comes to light first, then the tool determines how to block it.
Frankly, this case should have been simple to resolve. This brings us to the second problem.
Note: I do not know the people who did the investigative work. I may be missing something here.
HOWEVER, the problem I see is that it seems everyone and thier dog thinks they know how to do computer forensics. Many (many, many) people in IT would leap at the opportunity to perform some PC forensics, and without being properly trained they could screw up something like this.
Let me give you an idea of the things an experienced forensic analyst would have presented to the court:
The exact sites the kids went to
The exact sites the sub went to
The exact site the kids were redirected to (if that's what happened)
The exact times sites were accessed (to help determine who actually went where)
The exact exploit (malware or pop-up) that brought the images forth
Likely the entire web-surfing and file-openning history of that computer
With this kind of information, truly there would be little doubt as to the teacher's innocence if her story is true. If it's not, things get a bit more difficult.
Did they preserve the state of the machine (e.g. did they ensure that nothing was writen to the drive after the "incident"?) If not, they should throw the whole case out. If they *did* preserve it, get someone in there who knows what they are doing.
I will be following this story.
This article is *definitely* worth a read. It's MSNBC, so it's safe for work.
To sum it up, she checked her email before her (seventh-grade) class (she was a substitute, by the way), left for a moment to the restroom, and came back to find kids surfing on the computer viewing a website on hairstyles. She chased them away, and later during the day the graphic images started popping up on the screen. She tried to click them away, but they kept returning. Furthermore, she had been given strict orders to not turn the computer off.
Furthermore, she claimed to have little knowledge of computers.
The defense claimed that malware caused the images to appear. They furthermore posited that the students had went to what they thought was a hairstyle site, and were redirected to a porn site.
I was going to jump in and defend this woman, as I feel she is likely the victim of some drastic injustice (she faces up to 40 years in prison!).
Then, as I typed and cooled down, I realized that there are other problems here. Make no mistake, her 40 years is the biggest problem here, but that problem came about because of another problem.
But first, let's talk about the article. One of the last comments is "...pop-up blockers that can prevent so-called porn storms are now in wide use."
First off, this sounds like a subtle accusation against the teacher. Second off, it's inaccurate. I have run numerous pop-up blockers, and anti-malware applications and still I occasionally get pop-ups. I'd venture to say that if I were to select a few choice sites, I could still be the victim of a "porn storm". Pop-up blockers and anti-malware tools are reactive, which means that there is generally an exploit or mechanism which comes to light first, then the tool determines how to block it.
Frankly, this case should have been simple to resolve. This brings us to the second problem.
HOWEVER, the problem I see is that it seems everyone and thier dog thinks they know how to do computer forensics. Many (many, many) people in IT would leap at the opportunity to perform some PC forensics, and without being properly trained they could screw up something like this.
Let me give you an idea of the things an experienced forensic analyst would have presented to the court:
The exact sites the kids went to
The exact sites the sub went to
The exact site the kids were redirected to (if that's what happened)
The exact times sites were accessed (to help determine who actually went where)
The exact exploit (malware or pop-up) that brought the images forth
Likely the entire web-surfing and file-openning history of that computer
With this kind of information, truly there would be little doubt as to the teacher's innocence if her story is true. If it's not, things get a bit more difficult.
Did they preserve the state of the machine (e.g. did they ensure that nothing was writen to the drive after the "incident"?) If not, they should throw the whole case out. If they *did* preserve it, get someone in there who knows what they are doing.
I will be following this story.
Comments
As a tangential point, if the school district in question was using a Free Software solution (Ubuntu, for instance), I bet this whole situation with the porn pop-ups wouldn't have happened in the first place.