This is from another list that I am on:
>Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:57:34 -0500
>From: EDTECH Editor-Eiffert <edadmin5 MAIL.H-NET.MSU.EDU>
>Reply-To: EDTECH - Educational Technology <EDTECHH-NET.MSU.EDU>
>To: EDTECHH-NET.MSU.EDU
>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edtech
>Subject: Update of Julie Amero and new CSRIU document
>
>From: Nancy Willard <nwillardcsriu.org>
>
>Hi all,
>
>I keep getting private messages thanking me for these
updates, so I will
>continue sending them.
>
>First, I have just posted a new document on my CSRIU
site=
http://csriu.org/.
>In the Amero case, it is clear that the computer was not
adequately
>protected, Amero had not received effective training,
and the investigation
>was thoroughly mismanaged. This document outlines how
school districts can
>limit the potential of such incidents occurring through
technical=
protection
>and education, ensure that students and staff know how
to effectively
>respond, and conduct a responsible investigation.
>
>Please feel free to download and provide this document
to anyone. You all
>know I like to focus on "teachable moments."
This case is a major teachable
>moment for how school districts MUST approach this
concern.
>
>Update on the case. Julie has a new attorney, who has
significant expertise
>in criminal law. The sentencing has been postponed until
March 29. The
>transcript is available on the local newspaper site:
>http://norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs
.dll/article?AID=3D/20070225/NEWS01/702=
250
>334.
>
>Some folks on various lists have asked why she didn't
turn off the=
computer,
>what did she do, how much did the students see and under
what=
circumstances,
>and why was she convicted. I am going to provide some
brief answers to=
this,
>because I think they are very relevant to a better
understanding. More
>in-depth information is available in the other report on
my web site.
>
>Why didn't she turn off the computer? Julie indicated
that she was told not
>to turn off the computer and did not know how. Further,
she testified she
>did not know the difference between the button to turn
off the monitor and
>the buttons on the computer -- she was a true computer
neophyte. She has=
not
>said this, but I know that computer neophytes are very
afraid that if they
>do something wrong, they will break the computer or
erase everything on the
>machine.
>
>What did she do? She turned the screen to the front of
the class away from
>the students and tried to get rid of the images by
clicking off the sites=
as
>they appeared on the monitor. And she did not realize
that this would not
>work. At lunch (after 3 back-to-back classes) she ran to
the faculty room
>and asked for help. No help came. She told the assistant
principal after
>school. She was likely in total panic the entire school
day.
>
>How much did they see? I privately challenged Andy
Carvin because he wrote
>in his blog "students saw a flood of adult
images." This is not true and=
has
>been an unfortunate message communicated by the news
media.
>
>I have read all of the student reports. There were
approximately 60=
students
>in that classroom that day. Of these students, 10
reported seeing something
>online. One other reported that he tried to look. Of
these 10, 8 reportedly
>briefly saw mild erotica. Here are their descriptions in
their words: =B3tw=
o
>women with bathing suits,=B2 a photo of a naked woman,
=B3nude men,=B2 =B3t=
wo naked
>girls,=B2 =B3small boxes which had women in them =8A
naked,=B2 =B3two naked=
women =8A
>they were anime.=B2
>
>The two who described more concerning images both also
reported that there
>were a little pictures on the screen and also reported
that they were far
>enough away that Julie did not notice them. The
description provided by one
>student left no doubt in my mind that he had some prior
exposure. Both of
>these two students also tried to look after being told.
>
>Of the eleven students, 6 specifically indicated that
they tried to look
>after being told by another student about the situation.
(My assumption is
>that by the third class, every student knew even if he
did not report.)=
Here
>are some of the creative ways they tried to look:
>
>Student 8: =B3I heard (Student 3) tell (Student 4) the
teacher was looking=
at
>porn. I turned my head to look at the computer screen
but I couldn=B9t see
>what was on the screen. I wanted to see what was on the
screen so I walked
>toward the teacher to ask her a question.=B2
>
>Student 7: =B3I went over to ask her a question about my
homework. =8A.=
Before I
>went over to the teacher I heard she was looking at porn
on the computer. I
>heard from (Student 2) and (unknown).=B2
>
>Student 2: =B3I had to throw something away in the
garbage, which is right
>next to the teacher=B9s computer. =8A Before I went up
there, Student 3=
told me
>the teacher was looking at porn. I walked up to see what
was on the
>computer. I crumpled a piece of paper and put it in the
trash can next to
>where the teacher was sitting.=B2 ("had to throw
something away"???)
>
>Of the eleven students, five reported that the Amero
took specific actions
>to block their view, one who walked up to the desk
reported specifically
>that the teacher did not notice him, three were sitting
at desks about 15
>feet away (my estimate) and Amero likely did not know
they could see, and
>two students who did walk up to the desk did not report
whether Amero
>noticed them or any protection action, but they only
reported brief views.
>
>WHY was she convicted? One factor is that her attorney
is reportedly an
>older man who has severe MS, which appears to have
really hampered his
>defense. I have read the transcript and although I have
not done anything=
in
>criminal law since 1985 (agh, I am old) I could see
countless places where
>he should have done a better job in making an objection,
making a motion,
>and cross examining witnesses.
>
>The other factor, that I think was really influential,
is that the judge
>allowed the prosecutor to show really big images of the
sites that came up
>on the computer -- NOT the ones that the students saw.
The defense attorney
>did rightly object to the fact that these were
inflammatory, which they
>clearly were. He should have also objected that there
was no foundation=
that
>these were the images that the students actually saw, or
at least similar
>to. I personally think that after seeing these images,
the jurors were=
ready
>to hang Julie, not merely convict her.
>
>The thing that concerns me the most about this case is
revealed in the
>testimony of Scott Fain. His testimony makes it clear
that he knew that
>Julie had tried to get help the day of the incident. And
in looking at the
>police investigative report -- after the district
reported the "crime" to
>the police -- there is no mention that Julie had asked
for help on the day
>of the incident. Also, there is no mention that the
district's filter
>license had lapsed. People who are intentionally trying
to access porn do
>not ask for help.
>
>Whose responsibility was it to make sure substitute
teachers are properly
>informed about what do to? Whose responsibility was it
to make sure the
>computers were as secure as possible? Whose
responsibility was it to review
>the logs to determine if the sites appeared in a random
manner (indicating=
a
>porn trap) or a "linked" manner (indicating
intentional access) and to
>review the computer to determining the presence of any
malware?
>
>I personally think that as parental anger and concern
was mounting and
>firing Julie was not enough, the school officials simply
threw her in front
>of the school bus.
>
>Nancy
>
>
>--
>
>Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D.
>Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use
>http://csriu.org
>http://cyberbully.org
>nwillardcsriu.org
Looking for a group that shares information on computers
and
computer-related items? Check out my new group:=20
http://gro
ups.yahoo.com/group/TechDeals=20
--
<Please delete this line and everything below.>
To unsub or change your email settings:
http://ww
w.freelists.org/webpage/pctechtalk
To access our Archives:
ht
tp://groups.yahoo.com/group/PCTechTalk/messages/
http://
www.freelists.org/archives/pctechtalk/
|
