Woman Faces 40 Years for Porn-Infected PC (Crazy)

[Mochamom3]

Ok,Now I know the world has gone INSANE!!!!

From PC World:
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:35 PM PT Posted by Steve Bass
Woman Faces 40 Years for Porn-Infected PC (Crazy, but True)


Have you ever faced a pop-up that wouldn't go away? You try clicking it closed and another pops up in less than a nanosecond. You grunt in annoyance and reboot the system, annoyed that your anti-spyware program let something slip through.

That's annoying, sure--but the chances are good that your experience won't land you in jail.

Substitute Teacher's Worst Nightmare

Julie Amero, a substitute teacher in Norwich, Connecticut, has been convicted of impairing the morals of a child and risking injury to a minor by exposing as many as ten seventh-grade students to porn sites.

The story is short: On October, 19, 2004, Amero was a substitute teacher for a seventh-grade language class at Kelly Middle School. A few students were crowded around a PC; some were giggling. She investigated and saw the kids looking at a barrage of graphic, hard-core pornographic pop-ups.

The prosecution contended that she had used the computer to visit porn sites.

The defense said that wasn't true and argued that the machine was infested with spyware and malware, and that opening the browser caused the computer to go into an endless loop of pop-ups leading to porn sites.

Amero maintains her innocence. She refused offers of a plea bargain and now faces an astounding 40 years in prison (her sentencing is on March 2).

Tomorrow: Proof, Speculation, and a Not-Very-Good Defense

[Denise7609]

On our old computer we had graphic porn site that would pop up if you clicked right on the mouse that we couldn't get rid of. It was a pain in the butt! We have no idea how it got there. I feel sorry for this teacher if she is indeed Innocent.

[somenewromantic]

I know!! My first computer, before I knew how to stop it......Good Lord, the first time I got one of those pop-ups I nearly died......

[tammyd2]

You know what? Where's the PROOF of those sites she supposedly visited?

What a Bullshit case.

This world has gone mad.

[RioDuranie]

Thats insane, these kids are 7th graders and that means they are 12 and 13 years old. Let me think really really hard on who went to said sites.

[jenny358098768]

LOL The story said the teacher did but I bet the pop ups just pop up with no intention at all.

[Carina]

The jury convicted her? I can't believe that a sub teacher would be so stupid as to visit porn sites while at the school, so I really doubt that she did it. Plus, she refused a plea bargain, maintaining her innocence.

The defense is probably as technologically challenged as the school system admin, and they didn't set up a proper defense to give reasonable doubt that it *could* happen, or going with Rio Duranie's theory (which is probably more likely), one of the kids did it.

In most schools some poor schmuck is usually put in charge of the systems after they are installed by the school district.

*edit* I wonder if that footnote to the story, "Tomorrow: Proof, Speculation, and a Not-Very-Good Defense" will tell more. Please post the follow-up story tomorrow, if you can.

[ShutterMaze]

How is exposing porn to someone considered "risking injury"?

[Carina]

Take a look at this article:

www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070120/OPINION/701200303/1014

Column: Teacher in porn case victim of own ignorance
By ALEX ECKELBERRY
For the Norwich Bulletin


In response to your editorial "Reason needed in teacher porn case sentencing," I can only say I am shocked and dismayed at what is such a clear miscarriage of justice.

There is no question in my mind, and those of many other experts in the computing community, Julie Amero is innocent of the charges, and should not be imprisoned for one day, much less 40 years.

When I first read of the case, my reaction was how illogical it all sounded: A middle-aged, substitute female teacher accessing porn on a classroom computer, in front of her students on one particular day? It made no sense.

Computer analysis
Then I read on to find out the forensic examination of the computer clearly showed this machine was an old, poorly maintained system, riddled with spyware, without adequate protections in place, and it all became clear. Amero is the victim, not the perpetrator.

Piecing together the evidence, we can get an idea as of what happened that day: Teacher Matthew Napp logged Amero, a substitute for the day, into the classroom computer, and told her not to turn off the computer, as he was leaving for the day. Amero used the computer briefly, and then allowed students to access the computer.

The children went to an innocuous Web site which, unknown to them, loaded a small program (a "script") that showed pornographic popups. Amero immediately stepped in and shielded the children from the images, pushing them away or physically blocking them from seeing the images.

She reported the incident, telling other teachers about the problem, one of whom promised to get the school principal to help (no assistance ever came).

At the end of the day, she reported the problem to the assistant principal, who told her not to worry.

Antiquated system
So, what could have caused these popups to occur? The machine was a haggard old system that was not adequately protected against these types of threats (Windows 98 running Internet Explorer 5 with only middling antivirus protection, no firewall, no antispyware program, no popup blocking and no up-to-date Internet filtering in place). Put a system like that against the Internet, and it has no chance.

The computer was also found to be riddled with spyware -- programs that generate popups and degrade system stability.

Spyware may or may not have played a direct part in this incident, but the fact it was on the system creates additional damning evidence of the state of this computer system. What is extraordinary is the prosecution admitted there was no search made for spyware -- an incredible blunder akin to not checking for fingerprints at a crime scene.

It was only through the expert forensic examination by W. Herbert Horner it became clear the machine was infected. Sadly, further critical and exonerating information was not allowed in court.

Accessing sites
David Smith, the prosecutor, said Amero intended to access the porn sites because she had to "physically click" to "get to those sites."

That is so patently wrong it boggles the mind.

When a popup occurs on a computer, it will get shown as a visited Web site and no "physical click" is necessary. The graphic images in the popup also get stored on the computer.

Was this false statement by Smith why Amero got convicted? No, much of the case apparently came down to the prosecution's self-righteous statement "she should have turned off the computer," which is absurd.

Consider Amero was not computer literate (and not trained on the equipment), working that day as a substitute teacher under orders not to turn off the computer, and was arguably shocked and feeling somewhat helpless by the situation.

She made every attempt to block the children from seeing the offending material and sought assistance from the proper authorities in the matter.

This was not a case of a "teacher surfing porn." This was an accident directly caused by the state of the computer equipment.

What should have happened? First, that version of Windows and Internet Explorer are known to be highly vulnerable to these problems. It would have been helpful if the system had adequate security software.

But what is quite damning is the school didn't have up-to-date content filtering in place.

Even the federal government requires content filtering for schools (that receive federal funding), as mandated by Children's Internet Protection Act.

This case must be thrown out on appeal, and Amero is entirely within her rights to sue for a full resumption of her prior duties with back pay.

Her only "crime" may be computer illiteracy, apparently a crime shared by others in the case. Let's get the teachers back to teaching, not defending themselves from such poorly conceived and baseless lawsuits and witchunts.

Alex Eckelberry is president of Sunbelt Software, a Florida software company that specializes in anti-spyware, firewall and other protection technologies for computers. His e-mail is [e-mail]

[damdemfries]

I sub a lot (at a few different schools). And, the only place I ever have easy access to computers is when I sub in the library.

ETA: Was typing when Carina posted the link... How pathetic that SHE is being blamed.