So ... who's blaming who

I don't own the computer and the IT person is not in the building, but rather responsible for six buildings. Meanwhile, I have a class for a few days and do some relevant searching and pop, pop, pop ... porn ads appear. Now, the prosecution states that the teacher visited sites that enabled the ads to come up. I'll throw in my bit here.

1. Any use of the computer and web searching can be researched, therefore the case was started either with credible evidence that she did indeed use the computer for porn searching or ... the police did not do any investigation on this at all

2. Substitute teachers may not bring in software to "fix" computers for union rules state that persons directed to use computers have that exclusive job and right. This includes anti-spyware and anti-virus software.

3. Typical use of sites may lead to any number of ads that are unsavory, such as DATE1, which may include a butt shot of a woman, lifting a G-string with her high heel shoe. This is a "dating service" that matches people seeking people. Now, this is a banner on some sites, so is that porn or just inappropriate advertising?


I'm normally all for hanging perpetrators, especially child molesters, rapists, those who ellicit children, so on, but here I'm on the side of the sub teacher for the news article has described no such cause either through ignorance, neglect, nor intent to expose children to such material. It was a bad call for the prosecution.

In hindsight though ... if these ads kept coming up, then I would have denied access to internet until the spam and ad issue were fixed by the school's IT person(s).