State v Amero - A Miscarriage of Justice?
http://state-v-amero.mikeconwell.com
State v Amero - A Miscarriage of Justice?
Amero Sentencing Delayed!! [Part 2]
Just in from Connecticut. Sentencing for Julie Amero has once again been postponed. Originally set for March 2nd, it was postponed until this Thursday, March 29th. It's now been bumped to April 26th.
This is good news for just about everybody. But Julie Amero is still living in suspense as to what her fate will be. I just hope that she, being closer to the case than I, can see reasons for being more optimistic.
The publicity and work y'all are doing is really helping out. According to Rick Green's story from the Hartford Courant, prosecutor David Smith menaced Julie saying "you are going to spend 18 years in jail". With all of the pressure generated by you the readers and the press, his recent hints were still for jail time, but substantially less. While in some ways, the internet was responsible for getting Julie Amero into this mess, it's definitely the Internet (read y'all) that is coming to her rescue by coordinating resources and stirring up outrage around the world.
According to the Hartford Courant, a new State's Attorney is working on the case. We don't know yet if the malicious prosecutor David Smith is still involved or not. Whispers are that the State of Connecticut is trying to find the easiest way out of the jam they've gotten themselves into, without too many getting fired (and sued).
Hartford Courant: Norwich Teacher’s Sentencing Delayed
Hey Folks, it's easy! Drop the charges, pay a substantial, but not enormous penalty to Julie and her family and get back to prosecuting real criminals. Any further delay just costs the State of Connecticut more money, and increases the ultimate penalty they will have to pay.
This is good news for just about everybody. But Julie Amero is still living in suspense as to what her fate will be. I just hope that she, being closer to the case than I, can see reasons for being more optimistic.
The publicity and work y'all are doing is really helping out. According to Rick Green's story from the Hartford Courant, prosecutor David Smith menaced Julie saying "you are going to spend 18 years in jail". With all of the pressure generated by you the readers and the press, his recent hints were still for jail time, but substantially less. While in some ways, the internet was responsible for getting Julie Amero into this mess, it's definitely the Internet (read y'all) that is coming to her rescue by coordinating resources and stirring up outrage around the world.
According to the Hartford Courant, a new State's Attorney is working on the case. We don't know yet if the malicious prosecutor David Smith is still involved or not. Whispers are that the State of Connecticut is trying to find the easiest way out of the jam they've gotten themselves into, without too many getting fired (and sued).
Hartford Courant: Norwich Teacher’s Sentencing Delayed
Hey Folks, it's easy! Drop the charges, pay a substantial, but not enormous penalty to Julie and her family and get back to prosecuting real criminals. Any further delay just costs the State of Connecticut more money, and increases the ultimate penalty they will have to pay.
Hartford Courant Ad - An Open Letter to Kevin Kane
3/6/07 The following open letter to Connecticut's Chief State Attorney appears in today's Hartford Courant.
<< MORE >>
<< MORE >>
Tech.Blorge.com: Porn pop-ups could land grade school teacher behind bars
tech.Blorge.com
Tristoni McIntyre
March 2nd, 2007
Read the Full Column Here
Tristoni McIntyre
March 2nd, 2007
In what can be associated with the string of “teacher abuses student” cases in the 90s, the new face of educational abuse has reared its ugly head in the classroom: pornographic pop-ups.
Read the Full Column Here
UK The Times: Internet porn pop-ups cost this teacher her job and her freedom
Internet porn pop-ups cost this teacher her job and her freedom
The Times
The Times
In a case that has become a cause célãbre in the online world, where millions of rogue websites appear unsolicited on computer screens every day, Julie Amero is gathering a network of supporters who claim that she has been wrongly convicted over an incident she says has destroyed her life.
WP: Buggy Justice in Connecticut
Washington Post - Technology
Rob Pegoraro
March 2, 2007
Read the Full Story Here
Rob Pegoraro
March 2, 2007
Ever gone to the wrong Web site by mistake, then thanked the deity of your choice that you were able to back out of there before any coworkers noticed? If you'd done that in a school in Norwich, Conn., you might be facing 40 years in jail.
No joke: Substitute elementary schoolteacher Julia Amero was convicted on Jan. 5 of four counts of "Risk of Injury to a Minor" for exposing a classroom of middle schoolers to pornographic images on her computer on Oct. 19, 2004. She faces a maximum penalty of 40 years in jail and was due to be sentenced today, but on Monday, Superior Court Judge Hillary Strackbein postponed her sentencing to March 29.
Read the Full Story Here
Hartford Courant: IT Pros Say It Ain't So
IT Pros Say It Ain't So
Hartford CourantRick Green
March 2, 2007
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.
Read the Full Story Here:
Australian Coverage: The Sydney Morning Herald
Teacher faces jail over pop-up porn
The Sydney Morning HeraldAsher Moses
March 1, 2007
"The court opted to deny / prevent the defense from presenting evidence to rebut the evidence introduced by the state," Volle said. [Julie's Husband]
"The states assertion of a deliberate attempt to access pornographic web sites can only be deemed as persecution of a political nature."
Volle added that two independent forensic investigations had concluded that malicious code had caused the pop-ups, not a deliberate act by Amero.
In another blog post, the director of technical education at security software maker ESET, Randy Abrams, posed the question: "Can a legal system unversed in technology result in a fair trial."
Read the Full Story Here
NPR Coverage of Julie Amero
NPR featured a story about Julie this morning on Morning Edition (heard by millions across the country). In the meantime, here's the story on their website:
Listen to the NPR article here:
--
Arvin Meyer
Listen to the NPR article here:
--
Arvin Meyer
Good News! Sorta... Sentencing Postponed
According to the Norwich Bulletin article:
Would have liked David Smith or the Judge to drop the charges and throw the case out.
Read the Full Story Here...Her sentencing will take place March 29 in Norwich Superior Court, where she faces 40 years in prison.
Attorney John F. Cocheo, who represented Amero at trial, requested the postponement to allow time for a new attorney and consultant to familiarize themselves with the case.
In his letter to the court, Cocheo said attorney William Dow has become involved in the case, along with sentencing consultant Clinton Roberts....
Would have liked David Smith or the Judge to drop the charges and throw the case out.
Nancy Willard: The Julie Amero Tragedy
The Julie Amero Tragedy
The tragic case of Julie Amero, a substitute teacher who was convicted of "impairing the morals of minor" because pornographic images were visible on a computer in her classroom has riveted the attention of many in the education and computer security community. A new report, written by Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D., Director of the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use, has just been released. This report presents a comprehensive review of the materials related to the case. Among the findings:
* The situation described by Amero is consistent with what is called a "porn trap" or "mouse trap." When this occurs, the browser is no longer under the control of the user and porn images will simply keep popping up until the computer is turned off.
* Amero had been specifically told not to turn off the computer and probably did not know how. So she turned the computer so that students could not see the images. She could not lock the door when she left the room to get help because she did not have a key.
* Amero went to get help at a break and described the pop-up situation.
People who are intentionally accessing inappropriate material do not try to get help. She told the assistant principal after school and described the situation to the principal, Scott Fain, the following day. The school reported the incident to the police just over a week later. Fain did not tell the investigating officer what he knew of Amero¹s activities on that day or her report to him the following day. He withheld information that would have allowed the officer to determine that Amero¹s access was not intentional.
* The computer had inadequate security and the browser would not block pop-ups. The district's content filter license had lapsed due to lack of payment. The technology director, Hartz, did not evaluate whether any malware was on the computer or the pattern of sites that appeared in the history log to determine whether the access was intentional or accidental.
Hartz also did not tell the investigating officer that the content filter license had lapsed.
* The police computer crimes expert also did not determine whether there was any malware on the computer. He also testified in court that Amero had to intentionally access the sites for them to appear on the logs. This is totally inaccurate.
* Amero's response to this situation was far from reckless. Of the approximately 60 students who were in the classroom only10 saw anything. Of those, 6 specifically stated that they tried to look at the computer after being told of the situation by another student. Many students reported that Amero took specific efforts to block their view when she became aware that they were trying to see.
* The situation did not impair the morals of the students. Eight students reported seeing mild erotica. The two students who reported seeing people engaged in sex also reported that there were a bunch of little pictures on the screen. One was a distance from the screen and the other reported that the teacher did not notice him, so he must not have been very close.
* A recent study found that 42% of young people between the ages of 10 and
17 have viewed online pornography, one-third intentionally, two-thirds accidentally. Nine percent of these incidents reportedly occurred at school.
There is no research evidence regarding the impact of such viewing.
The full report is available on the Center for Responsible Internet Use web site at http://csriu.org. Also available on this site are Willard's recent presentation notes addressing cyber-secure schools and cyberbullying. These presentation notes outline the concerns associated with youth online activity and strategies recommended for schools to address such concerns.
Nancy E. Willard has degrees in special education and law. She taught ³at risk² children, practiced computer law, and was an educational technology consultant before focusing her professional attention on issues of youth risk online and effective Internet use management in schools. Nancy frequently conducts workshops for educators. She is expanding her use of Internet technologies to deliver ³virtual² presentations and classes. She is the author of two books: Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Aggression, Threats, and Distress (Research
Press) and Cyber-Safe Kids, Cyber-Savvy Teens: Helping Young People Use the Internet Safety and Responsibly (Jossey-Bass).
For more information contact: Nancy Willard at nwillard (at) csriu.org.
--
Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D.
Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use http://csriu.org http://cyberbully.org nwillard(at)csriu.org
Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Aggression, Threats, and Distress. New edition, published by Research Press.
Cyber-Safe Kids, Cyber-Savvy Teens: Helping Young People Learn to Use the Internet Safely and Responsibly. Jossey-Bass (March 16, 2007)
The tragic case of Julie Amero, a substitute teacher who was convicted of "impairing the morals of minor" because pornographic images were visible on a computer in her classroom has riveted the attention of many in the education and computer security community. A new report, written by Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D., Director of the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use, has just been released. This report presents a comprehensive review of the materials related to the case. Among the findings:
* The situation described by Amero is consistent with what is called a "porn trap" or "mouse trap." When this occurs, the browser is no longer under the control of the user and porn images will simply keep popping up until the computer is turned off.
* Amero had been specifically told not to turn off the computer and probably did not know how. So she turned the computer so that students could not see the images. She could not lock the door when she left the room to get help because she did not have a key.
* Amero went to get help at a break and described the pop-up situation.
People who are intentionally accessing inappropriate material do not try to get help. She told the assistant principal after school and described the situation to the principal, Scott Fain, the following day. The school reported the incident to the police just over a week later. Fain did not tell the investigating officer what he knew of Amero¹s activities on that day or her report to him the following day. He withheld information that would have allowed the officer to determine that Amero¹s access was not intentional.
* The computer had inadequate security and the browser would not block pop-ups. The district's content filter license had lapsed due to lack of payment. The technology director, Hartz, did not evaluate whether any malware was on the computer or the pattern of sites that appeared in the history log to determine whether the access was intentional or accidental.
Hartz also did not tell the investigating officer that the content filter license had lapsed.
* The police computer crimes expert also did not determine whether there was any malware on the computer. He also testified in court that Amero had to intentionally access the sites for them to appear on the logs. This is totally inaccurate.
* Amero's response to this situation was far from reckless. Of the approximately 60 students who were in the classroom only10 saw anything. Of those, 6 specifically stated that they tried to look at the computer after being told of the situation by another student. Many students reported that Amero took specific efforts to block their view when she became aware that they were trying to see.
* The situation did not impair the morals of the students. Eight students reported seeing mild erotica. The two students who reported seeing people engaged in sex also reported that there were a bunch of little pictures on the screen. One was a distance from the screen and the other reported that the teacher did not notice him, so he must not have been very close.
* A recent study found that 42% of young people between the ages of 10 and
17 have viewed online pornography, one-third intentionally, two-thirds accidentally. Nine percent of these incidents reportedly occurred at school.
There is no research evidence regarding the impact of such viewing.
The full report is available on the Center for Responsible Internet Use web site at http://csriu.org. Also available on this site are Willard's recent presentation notes addressing cyber-secure schools and cyberbullying. These presentation notes outline the concerns associated with youth online activity and strategies recommended for schools to address such concerns.
Nancy E. Willard has degrees in special education and law. She taught ³at risk² children, practiced computer law, and was an educational technology consultant before focusing her professional attention on issues of youth risk online and effective Internet use management in schools. Nancy frequently conducts workshops for educators. She is expanding her use of Internet technologies to deliver ³virtual² presentations and classes. She is the author of two books: Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Aggression, Threats, and Distress (Research
Press) and Cyber-Safe Kids, Cyber-Savvy Teens: Helping Young People Use the Internet Safety and Responsibly (Jossey-Bass).
For more information contact: Nancy Willard at nwillard (at) csriu.org.
--
Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D.
Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use http://csriu.org http://cyberbully.org nwillard(at)csriu.org
Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Aggression, Threats, and Distress. New edition, published by Research Press.
Cyber-Safe Kids, Cyber-Savvy Teens: Helping Young People Learn to Use the Internet Safely and Responsibly. Jossey-Bass (March 16, 2007)