So – a 41 year old, pregnant, substitute English teacher shows up for school, and eventually is convicted of 4 counts of corrupting morals of a child and faces 40 years in prison…because pornographic popups appeared on the teacher's desk computer. Ever feel like you were being railroaded and no one would listen that it wasn't your fault?
Ah – the case of Julie Amero never fails to be a beacon of cautionary wonder. The legal system has and will never catch up full to technology. Has never done so throughout history and most probably never will in the future.
The perfect storm of Kafka-esque quality (http://www.amazon.com/Trial-Franz-Kafka/dp/0805209999) it is impossible to even begin to approach this situation without digressing into adjectives of sundry nature.
That said – with our talks of quality sources of information – and the subsequent debate of Wikipedia as a good source or not – I offer a reasonably decent Wikipedia page on a very controversial topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Connecticut_v._Julie_Amero
As we can see, it does provide a brief outline of the case, without coloring too far in any direction with bias to either side. Now – journalism of today does just that. Right or wrong, it is reality and almost impossible to get away from and find a true "impartial" accounting of a story.
Below are a couple of articles and papers that flesh out this story a bit more. I have also included a link to a blog from the police officer who was the sole expert for the prosecution. No certifications, no higher education degrees, not special training, yeah – I mentioned it was a wonderful cautionary tale of how all reason goes out the window when technology hits the courtroom…
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/154768/the_julie_amero_case_a_dangerous_farce.html
http://articles.courant.com/2007-01-30/news/0701300835_1_pop-up-ads-julie-amero-classroom-computer
www.cyberbully.org/onlinedocs/AmeroTragedy.pdf
http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/12/the-prosecution-of-julie-amero
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/434/
From the other side:
http://amero-eckelberry.blogspot.com/
The final result is that after the District Attorney lost re-election, the conviction was vacated. Due to overwhelming pressure and publicity generated, a re-trial was ordered. To avoid further trauma, stress and expense, Amero pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct and required to forfeit her teaching credentials. Her career is ended, and her life ruined. She miss-carried her child, and is bankrupt due to legal fees. The officer in question is still on-duty in Norwich, CT.
It is easy to get flabbergasted at the extent of incomprehensible lack of logic in this entire situation. BUT – for the sake of this blog let's piece together some line items for you to generate thought on.
While it may be an injustice to prosecute an unaware substitute teacher to this extent, we can all agree that having pornographic images of any size or type in a 7th grade classroom is not just bad, but indeed criminal. So if the sub was not to blame – WHO IS? Where is the responsibility in this case? Is it the head of IT who did not properly secure his network? Is it the school board for not approving an extended budget to allow for full security? Is it the original teacher for not reporting the computer was infected? Is it a principal who may not have fostered an atmosphere of diligence and professionalism in his Jr. High School? How about the police officer who admittedly intimidated defense volunteer experts?
So – should someone have been prosecuted? Who? Why? Why Not? What would you have done? Does it change your attitude on security? Antivirus/Anti-malware software? Will you be more likely to keep it up to date?
