When porn pop up's can land you in jail...

[GeoffP]

This is madness. Bells, where can we write to support Ms. Amero? Do you have an address or link or something?

Geoff

 

[Prince_James]

The judge refusing evidence from experts is screwing the justice system.

 

[GeoffP]

Yeah that strikes me as bizarre, idiotic and intensely frustrating.

"Look, we have some evidence..."

"Well that's for me to decide."

Bugger that.

Geoff

 

[Bells]

Ya' know, Bells, the more I read about this issue, the less I believe anything about it.

I'm beginning to think that it's perhaps like some of those conspiracy theories where all the evidence is twisted and convoluted until it's not even evidence anymore ....just fuckin' lies, outright lies!

And if you really believe that it's true, can you find us the actual law that spells out the penalty of 40 years in prison for not turning off a computer in time???

Baron Max

That is what everyone is asking themselves here Baron. How can not turning off the computer or shutting down the monitor quickly enough result in a possible 40 year sentence. And yet, this is exactly what has happened. Amazing isn't it?

Is this a conspiracy theory? I wish it were. However this is the sad reality and fact this substitute teacher faces.

This is what the former head of the Justice Department’s computer crime unit thought of the case. It is a very long article, but even he admits that the trial was a farce and that the jury should have been allowed to hear all of the evidence instead of only the testimony from the detective who had no idea what the hell he was doing.http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/434

He was highly critical of her behaviour and her teaching methods which had her browsing the internet and her email when she should have been teaching. However this was not what this case was about. It is an interesting article and one that you should read. Even if you think she is guilty, it basically shows how easily this can happen to anyone at any time and how the law in question is dodgy to say the least. He goes through every aspect of the case and he discusses the faults of all involved.

Even the Connecticut model jury instructions simply say that you are guilty of the crime if you “without legal right or justification” permit a person under sixteen, “to be placed in a situation that . . . was likely to . . . impair his morals.” The jury was also told that "morals" means good morals, living, acting and thinking in accordance with those principles and precepts which are commonly accepted among us as right and decent. So Amero could be convicted even if she didn’t type any URLs or click on any porn sites – in fact, even if (and maybe specifically because) she never even touched the computer! Indeed, she could have been convicted even if there was no porn on any of these sites – all the law appears to have required was that the materials be “indecent” – a four letter word would have supported a decade in the pokey. Perhaps it is the government’s theory that not yanking the plug placed the members of the seventh grade class in a situation that was likely to impair their morals. If that was the case, then why present any forensic testimony? Talk about strict liability! Without individually interviewing each of the jurors, we have, quite frankly no idea what the jury convicted her of. I love the law.

Link

Scary huh?

if you wanted to assert that the defendant deliberately clicked on pornographic websites, and offer expert testimony to that effect, it would be incumbent upon you to eliminate the possibility – indeed, the probability – of the existence of malware. Indeed, the police detective himself suggested that a normal procedure would be to look for malware created before or at the time of the alleged criminal acts.
Link

What a shame for Amero that they failed to follow normal procedure for her case. Then she would have never been arrested, let alone charged and found guilty.

So what does the former head of the Justice Department’s computer crime unit think of the decision to find her guilty? Here is the last paragraph from his long article:

An incomplete forensic examination can lead to the creation of an “airtight” criminal case against the wrong person. Next time it could be a senior corporate executive who could face some jail time. Maybe then we will do something about it.
Link

 

[MetaKron]

After this, any teacher would be within her rights to turn off every computer in the classroom when she teaches.

 

[Bells]

After this, any teacher would be within her rights to turn off every computer in the classroom when she teaches.

And may well have reason to as a form of self protection.

The angry geek gods of the computer world are besieging Norwich, shredding the credibility of a community on the verge of sending an apparently innocent woman to jail.

For this, every teacher in Connecticut should be thankful. Because if a Superior Court verdict in Norwich isn't tossed out and there's a computer with uncertain protection in your classroom, you'd better worry.

If substitute teacher Julie Amero goes to jail, so could you.

-------------------------------------------------------

Filters designed to protect school computers from porn were woefully out of date. Although the assistant state's attorney conclusively told the jury that the porno popups "didn't just happen" and that Amero "purposely accessed these websites," detailed examination of the computer hard drive proves the opposite.

To make his point during the three-day January trial, prosecutor David Smith projected lurid images from the porno websites for the jury to see. These were detailed images that no students saw - and that experts say Amero never "purposely" clicked her mouse on.

The porn storm that took over the computer in the classroom did, in fact, "just happen," enabled by viruses that infected the machine.

"These pornographic sites use these popups that are self-regenerating. You wind up with a popup storm," said Robert Johnston, a certified information systems security professional who has worked for the state's top insurance companies.

"A precedent is being set," said Johnston, who got involved after hearing about the court decision. "This could happen in any school system."
Link

Sadly, it is not just teachers who are in danger. Anyone could find themselves in a similar predicament if this conviction is not tossed out.

 

[GeoffP]

After this, any teacher would be within her rights to turn off every computer in the classroom when she teaches.

Oho! Interesting point. I'm going to mention that to the Prosecutor in my email.

Geoff

 

[MetaKron]

Also, this prosecutor is just a crook, plain and simple.

 

[mountainhare]

Watch out MetaKron... he might sue you for libel.

 

[madanthonywayne]

What a fucked up case. I can not believe that sentence. Even if she had been viewing porn on purpose and the kids happened to see it, forty years in prison!

I've heard of people convicted of murder getting out after eight years! Especially women who kill their children never seem to do much time. So exposing children to porn is worse than killing them?

 

[Bells]

What a fucked up case. I can not believe that sentence. Even if she had been viewing porn on purpose and the kids happened to see it, forty years in prison!

I've heard of people convicted of murder getting out after eight years! Especially women who kill their children never seem to do much time. So exposing children to porn is worse than killing them?

We're talking about a country that had a collective heart attack when a nipple was flashed during the superbowl entertainment. Sad thing is, if she had slept with one of the children, she would have probably gotten less.

Her sentencing is this month however and she could find herself facing 40 years in prison unless her defence team can have the conviction thrown out. They are hopeful because if this sticks, then it leaves the door open for a plethora of cases. Basically, no teacher will be safe if they have a computer in their classroom and the protection on the computer is even a few days out of date or is not updated frequently. It also leaves the door open for prosecution for anyone in their work place or who might need to use the internet in a public area (internet cafe or public library for example).

 

[GeoffP]

I sent a letter to the senator - I recommend everyone else here do the same.

 

[Anti-Flag]

What age of kids are we talking about? It's just that as far as the 40 years goes, do we know exactly what came up on the screen? Some porn pop-ups aren't just natural sex that every kid will encounter, they can be all the more sickening and scarring.

 

[Zakariya04]

I sent a letter to the senator - I recommend everyone else here do the same.

Ok geoff that is a good idea.

have you got a copy of the letter you sent so i can adapt it and email it across.

do you have the seantors email address?

thanks geoff

~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak

 

[GeoffP]

I don't have the letter any more but here's the link:

http://julieamer.blogspot.com/

It has all the relevant addresses on the site.

 

[madanthonywayne]

We're talking about a country that had a collective heart attack when a nipple was flashed during the superbowl entertainment.

That was ridiculous. Big freakin deal if Janet wants to show her nipple.

Sad thing is, if she had slept with one of the children, she would have probably gotten less.

If she's hot, she would have gotten no sentence whatsoever.

 

[Bells]

What age of kids are we talking about? It's just that as far as the 40 years goes, do we know exactly what came up on the screen? Some porn pop-ups aren't just natural sex that every kid will encounter, they can be all the more sickening and scarring.

They were in 7th grade, so probably around 12 - 13 year olds. The type of images that kept popping up across the screen were described by the prosecutor as:

ccording to the prosecuting attorney, David Smith, Amero's computer began displaying images of naked men and women, couples performing sexual acts, and "bodily fluids."
Link

Other reports have indicated the children pretty much saw thumbnail size images.

It's the usual crap that you get when you are infected and the stream of porn starts infecting the computer. And recent studies have indicated that children, especially boys, will have been exposed to more internet pornography during the ages of 12-17 than any other age group. I would be willing to bet that most of them had seen pictures of naked people and pornography on the internet before that day.

But to have her face a possible 40 years in jail for something that was not her fault at all. The computer was infected before she had even gotten to the school to substitute that day and if you've ever had an infected computer, you would know there is no way to stop the stream of pop-up's. The school had not protected its computers at all, they did not even have net nanny installed. No virus protection, no malaware protection, no trojan or worm protection. The school, by their own admission had failed to maintain the payments to protect the computers and had also failed to download any updates for quite a while. She had no idea there was no protection on the computer as she was substituting there for the day. She literally had nothing to do with what happened to that computer that resulted in the porn pop-up's. How she could be held liable is frankly, obscene. And this is a scary prospect as this has set a very dangerous precedent, one that every teacher, librarian, net cafe, anyone at all basically should be very worried about.

 

[Anti-Flag]

I'm aware what it's like, but in truth if you have patience and keep clicking the x, it does close the windows down, there may be quite a few of them but it does end. If it's one without an x then you have to select it on the taskbar and select close(or if all else fails use the task manager to close IE).
Presuming she's just ignorant with computers(which does make me wonder why she's on it) it still isn't really her fault, she shouldn't have been told not to switch it off(I see no reason to be told that) and the school is entirely to blame for not keeping it's computers protected.
I just thought the 40 years they gave this poor scapegoat might be due to the extreme disturbing nature of some popups and the young age of the children that it might scar them for life(If I'd been younger seeing certain popups I dread to think how it could have turned out).
If using a public computer and desiring to avoid embarrassment at what people may assume when seeing these popups; the first course of action is the reset button. I'd hope we all know where it is.
I do completely agree with you however.

 

[MetaKron]

Is anyone beginning to believe my assertion that there are some scary people in power?

 

[Bells]

I'm aware what it's like, but in truth if you have patience and keep clicking the x, it does close the windows down, there may be quite a few of them but it does end. If it's one without an x then you have to select it on the taskbar and select close(or if all else fails use the task manager to close IE).
Presuming she's just ignorant with computers(which does make me wonder why she's on it) it still isn't really her fault, she shouldn't have been told not to switch it off(I see no reason to be told that) and the school is entirely to blame for not keeping it's computers protected.
I just thought the 40 years they gave this poor scapegoat might be due to the extreme disturbing nature of some popups and the young age of the children that it might scar them for life(If I'd been younger seeing certain popups I dread to think how it could have turned out).
If using a public computer and desiring to avoid embarrassment at what people may assume when seeing these popups; the first course of action is the reset button. I'd hope we all know where it is.
I do completely agree with you however.

From what the experts were saying, there was no way she could have closed the windows as it was literally a stream of porn pop-up's.. as in the more she would have closed, the more kept on appearing. There were quite a few trojans and viruses on the computer and they were there quite a while before she ever got to that school.

As for having been told to not turn off the computer, the person who logged her in had ordered her to not turn off the computer as she did not have a login or password to use the computer (she was there only for the day as a substitute). But this has set a very dangerous precedent for every teacher with a computer with internet access in their classroom. What this case and the guilty verdict has ensured is that even if just one child even glimpses at the screen and there is a pornographic image on it, it is enough to have you arrested and charged. Teachers now will have to ensure that the computers in their classrooms are well protected and said protection maintained and updated. And if in doubt, double check if using a computer in a public space, such as a library or net cafe. The school should have been held liable for not having protected their own computers, not a substitute teacher who was there for that day and had done nothing wrong. That computer was badly infected and that could hardly have been her fault.

This whole case is just ridiculous in my opinion. She should never have been charged, let alone tried and convicted. Even if she only gets a suspended sentence, she could end up with a potential sex offenders record and basically her teaching career would be out the window. This case should have never even made it to court. My hope is that the conviction is thrown out and she is found to be innocent. The prosecutor can have the conviction set aside and lets hope he does.. for her sake and for the sake of everyone basically.