On the surface the cases would have some basic things in common, a computer issued or put in the care of by a public organization, an elementary school computer in Julie Amero’s case and a Dell computer in Michael Fiola’s issued by the Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents, both got in trouble because pornographic materials showed up on these computers, which they were blamed for personally downloading and both computers appear to have been infected with malicious programs. But is it really the same sort of case? Julie Amero appeared to have experienced a very common event in which she was trapped in a popup loop. Michael Fiola’s case seems rather odd, because according to the forensic claims, crackers put child pornography invisibly into his cache, or that appears to be the claim anyway. Obviously a sizable amount of malware has pornographic bait but to enter a cache, an image has to be downloaded or viewed or accessed in some way. For the whole process to be completely invisible, seems a little hard for me to understand. But that may be my own ignorance.