The PC in the classroom – like many school computers – was running Windows 98 and the browser was Internet Explorer 5. There was no evidence that either browser or OS had been, in any significant degree, updated, and neither the PC nor the network itself apparently had any kind of firewall. Win 98 is no longer even patchable and is not supported by its creator. None of this is unusual. Finally, the PC was reportedly riddled with spyware, much of which predated Julie Amero's use of the computer.
That isn't a sysadmin who has been doing his or her job, that is a lazy incompetent as far as I'm concerned. While it might not be his/her fault if the school or education authority won't buy up to date software, there is no excuse for not running a firewall, given the amount of good freeware ones around. Nor is the any excuse for not patching things as far as possible. To then prosecute the teacher for this farrago of incompetence is just adding insult to injury. Not that I think anyone ought to be prosecuted at all.

Then ther is this, which would seem to be the fault of the education authority:

While the Norwich school's Information Services Director Bob Hartz reportedly told a school board hearing in January 2007 that the school was running Symantec's WebNOT filtering software [Editor's note: SecurityFocus is owned by Symantec Corp], Hartz stated that the automatic update feature was not activated – possibly due to an unpaid invoice. Thus, for at least three months, the system was not blocking many pornographic websites, including the ones seen by the 7th grade class.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02...ie_amero_case/