The Dean Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 This is a story I've been following pretty closely for the past few months. It serves as a cautionary tale, I think. It also points out how poorly equipped our schools (and our legal system) are when dealing with tech issues. A little basic info: Julie Amero is a middle aged substitute teacher in Connecticut with no previous record or brushes with the law. She now faces up to 40 years in prison (I doubt she'll receive that stern of a sentence) because pornographic pop-ups occurred on the schools computer while she was using the machine in the classroom. She was told not to turn the computer off, so she turned the computer away from the students and attempted to block/prevent them from seeing the images when they approached her desk. A few of the students did see some of the images, however. It should be known the computers content blocking software and virus protection were out of date and ineffective. Computer forensic experts discovered the computer was riddled with spyware and adware responsible for delivering the porn material. My opinion: Everybody is at fault here (including: school, prosecution, police, judge, defense attorney and scumbag malware distributers) EXCEPT Julie Amero. Her lone fault was being a hapless/clueless computer neophyte. Here are a few links to get you started: A good summary Alex Eckelberry's Blog: He's leading the charge of security experts in defense of Amero And Paperghost's Crusade for Amero: Don't get on this dude's bad side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 there has got to be more to it than that.... if there isn't, this is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 11, 2007 Author Share Posted March 11, 2007 there has got to be more to it than that.... if there isn't, this is a joke. I invite you to read the links provided and the links they point to. There is MUCH more to the story...but, the basics are what I laid out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 11, 2007 Author Share Posted March 11, 2007 Here's a crappy little write-up on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Amero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Pirate looks at 37 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 I work (that's a subjective word) as a System administrator and this definately smacks of the school covering thier hineys because they aren't taking due measures to protect their network. Furthermore when expert testimony like Horner's get's ignored or censored it sounds like there's an agenda somewhere. The jury was sold a lemon by the prosecution and they bought the whole fruit stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 11, 2007 Author Share Posted March 11, 2007 I work (that's a subjective word) as a System administrator and this definately smacks of the school covering thier hineys because they aren't taking due measures to protect their network. Furthermore when expert testimony like Horner's get's ignored or censored it sounds like there's an agenda somewhere. The jury was sold a lemon by the prosecution and they bought the whole fruit stand. The judge said she wanted to get the trial done by the end of the week, I think. I agree there may have been an agenda, and there was a LOT of ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 there woman was charged w/ impairing the morals of minors that is beyond rediculous to charge the woman, let alone convict her... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts