Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

Questionable Conviction of Connecticut Teacher in Pop-up Porn Case

By Lindsay Beyerstein, AlterNet. Posted January 19, 2007.


When lax cybersecurity meets anti-porn hysteria, an innocent computer infection can land you in jail. Just ask Julie Amero, a 40-year old substitute teacher who maintains she's a victim of a malicious software infestation that caused her computer to spawn porn uncontrollably.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Julie Amero, a 40-year-old substitute teacher from Connecticut is facing up to 40 years in prison for exposing her seventh grade class to a cascade of pornographic imagery. Amero maintains that she is a victim of a malicious software infestation that caused her computer to spawn porn uncontrollably.

Adware, spyware and other infectious software are known hazards to security and privacy -- and when lax cybersecurity meets anti-porn hysteria, a mailware infection can even land you in jail. Malicious coders are getting more sophisticated all the time, but law enforcement and the criminal justice system aren't keeping up. A criminal conviction can hang on the difference between a deliberate mouse click and an involuntary redirect on an infested computer. Too often, even so-called experts can't tell the difference.

On the morning of Oct. 19, 2004, Julie Amero's life changed forever when pornographic ads flooded her web browser during a class. According to the prosecuting attorney, David Smith, Amero's computer began displaying images of naked men and women, couples performing sexual acts, and "bodily fluids."

Chances are, these kids had seen porn pop-ups before. Family Safe Media estimates that boys 12 to 17 consume more internet porn than any other group. The adults at Kelly Middle School, however, were shocked and scandalized. The next week, the school sent home a notice telling parents why Amero would never teach in the district again. She was arrested shortly thereafter and charged with multiple felonies.

At trial, six of Amero's former students testified that they saw pornographic images on her monitor, either from their seats, or when they came up to her desk. One student told the court that Amero pushed his face away from the screen when she saw him looking at the racy ads.

Millions of PCs worldwide are infected with some form of malicious software. An internal Microsoft report found that four million Windows machines were infected with some form of malicious software ("malware") in mid-2006.

Spyware, adware, worms and viruses are parasitic programs that can hijack web browsers, launch unsolicited pornographic ads, and even report the inner workings of a computer to a remote observer. Users routinely download these programs without realizing they've been infected.

Amero's attorney, John F. Cocheo, argued that malware was responsible for the pornographic images, not his client.

Detective Mark Lounsbury, a computer crimes officer at the Norwich Police Department testified as an expert witness for the prosecution. He maintained that Amero was intentionally surfing for pornography while her seventh grade class busied itself with language arts.

Lounsbury told the court that Amero musts have "physically clicked" on pornographic links during class time in order to unleash the pornographic pictures. However, he admitted under cross-examination that the prosecution never even checked the computer for malware.

Why didn't the police check for malicious software? According to prosecutor David Smith, the police didn't check for malware because the defense didn't raise the possibility of a malware attack during the pretrial phase, as required by law. Defense attorney Cocheo could not be reached for comment as of press time.

Herb Horner, the proprietor of the consulting firm Contemporary Computing Consultants, testified as an expert witness for the defense. His exhaustive independent forensic analysis of Amero's hard drive showed that the machine had been infected with multiple pieces of malicious software before she arrived at the school, and that these hidden programs were responsible for the pornographic deluge.

Horner arrived in court with two laptops filled with the voluminous records of his investigation. However, the judge only let him present two slides. Prosecutor Smith objected because his team hadn't been previously informed about the malware defense.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: justice, cyberporn, computer infections

Lindsay Beyerstein is a New York writer blogging at majikthise.typepad.com

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
As a former high school teacher...
Posted by: Obijuan on Jan 19, 2007 12:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I am horrified by this case. I had a room with four computers on it which I regularly had to clear of all sorts of nonsense the students downloaded (both intentionally and unintentionally). The idea that somehow this teacher had exposed them intentionally with malice is obsurd. We are on our way to hell in a handbasket.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The real headlines... Posted by: andyc
» RE: The real headlines... Posted by: morticia
» RE: The real headlines... Posted by: andyc
» RE: The real headlines... Posted by: morticia
» Futhermore.... Posted by: morticia
That's Windows for you!
Posted by: chomsky on Jan 19, 2007 1:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Windows computer + Internet connection = Disaster!

All computers running Windows 95, 98, or XP and connected to the Internet are in a perilous position. The only way to protect one of these computers is by installing security updates, virus protection, firewall, blacklisting all known bad websites, regular malware scanning, and using an alternative web browser. And even then they still can get infected!

Within seconds of plugging in the Internet cable, an unpatched Windows computer will be infected by the blaster virus. I've seen it happen, in seconds! And since you have to update Windows on the Internet to fix the Blaster security hole, you have a Catch-22.

Defending a Windows computer against malware not only requires IT skills, it requires militaristic strategy! You have to, find and destroy infected files, fortify the OS, know the enemy, anticipate unconventional attacks and learn how to counter them. When battling some pretty nasty infections, I've seen a virus take complete control of Norton Antivirus, effectively turning your alley against you. There is a reason why they use terms like "Trojans" and "attacks." War terms are the only way to describe it.

The best way to avoid all this trouble is to just get a Mac, and put more Macs in schools. Macintosh Computers don't have any virus or malware problems. You can connect a Mac to the Internet without risk of compromising it.

Some Windows advocates say that this is true because Windows is more popular, therefore a better target for malware. This is partially true, but there is a lot more to it. The main reason why Macs are more secure is because they are designed in an incredibly well thought out and secure way. Mac OS 10.3 was never compromised by any sort of virus or malware. Then they released 10.4, adding many more security layers to a system that was already proven impervious. Some might think that's excessive, but that is what you have to do to effectively stop malware before it happens.

Windows security is just lame. Anyone with a bit of Scripting skills can read about an un-patched Windows vulnerability on the web and create malware programs similar to the one that got Amero arrested. The problem isn't just the people writing the malware, it's the fact that they can compromise Windows so easily, with so little effort or.

Macs, like any system created by human beings, can't be perfect. So it is possible that someone might one day create malware that can successfully attack a Mac. It would take truly masterful hacking to overcome all of Mac's masterful security structures. No one has done it yet, although many have tried. Its security is virtually impenetrable.

I switched from Windows to Mac about a year ago, and I'm still amazed at how much time I've saved not having to deal with malware. Since everything works the way it's suppose to, I can spend all my time on the computer being productive or having fun.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: That's Windows for you! Posted by: chomsky
» RE: That's Windows for you! Posted by: Seeker
» FUD & Misinformation Posted by: NoPCZone
» You are Mostly Correct Posted by: sofla100
The school paid for windows.
Posted by: colinmeister on Jan 19, 2007 3:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again, the evil of Bill Gates' products destroy a life. The school in question had bought Microsoft Windows 98, and the unfortunate substitute teacher had no choice but to use it.

There are freely available open source operating systems and web browsers which can be downloaded from the internet, and free applications to make these systems useful in schools. The use of an operating system like Sun's Solaris or one of the many flavours of Linux would have prevented the children from seeing any scatological content, and the good lady would still have her job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why was the computer even turned on?
Posted by: AndyF on Jan 19, 2007 4:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Simple question maybe, but why was the computer even on. She was supposed to be teaching a class, the class wasn't doing computer work, so why did she even have it on. I'm not disputing the fact that school security was non-existant and that she may be innocent, I'm just asking why she felt the need to turn it on. Computers are becoming like TVs and Radios always on even when no one is using them. It appears that she could have done the job she was hired to do, probably more effectively if she had turned off the computer and interacted with her students rather than sitting at her desk while they worked.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» She was a sub... Posted by: supercrisp
This is false, win98 can be made secure with little trouble or money
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jan 19, 2007 4:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Amero was working on a very old Gateway PC running Windows 98, an extremely vulnerable setup."

I use Pentium II's with windows 98 with little to no trouble. BUT, I use 98Lite to remove internet explorer and install Mozilla Firefox. Once internet explorer is removed windows 98 becomes much more stable, and when something crashes it is usually the program itself and not the entire OS. Zone Alarm is an excellent firewall that I would never be without if I was using a windows computer. Plus there are a few decent virus scanners that are inexpensive or free.

It's terrible Amero had the computer on. She must not be the brightest bulb in the batch either. I am always wary when using someone else's computer. That may have been the only thing she did wrong. I can not understand trying to punish her so severely for such an insignificant mistake. I'll bet she will be more careful with computers in the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How do you know Posted by: zedaker
» Mozilla not virus free Posted by: harpy
The reason the NAZI police didn't question the malware companies was
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 19, 2007 5:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they're being fucking bribed day after day. Besides the fact that Corporate America controls their private parts !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A stupid teacher deserves the penalty he gets
Posted by: mat38 on Jan 19, 2007 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think about it, if you had a laptop that you knew was infected with pornography, and that it was subject to an unwelcoming cascade of unwelcomed pronagraphic images, and that it could happen at any time, would you even bring that computer into a school with you? Even if you did would you dare open it in a room full of kids? Never mind that he was sitting at a desk in a classroom with it open. Why didn't he just close the screen down when it began showing the ads?
Sorry, I don't believe for a second it was an accident. I think that guy was sitting in a classroom of children looking at pornopgraphy. I am also a teacher and as such whatever adults do in their adult world when you in a school you are a teacher and mentor of children and their is no place for pornography in the classroom. Any person who owns a computer in 2006 should have better sense than he diplayed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Daily Porn
Posted by: laoma on Jan 19, 2007 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forty years in prison for nudity? Give me a f**king break. The world's public has been subjected to the most massive display of pornography over the past 4 years by the Repugnonazi in DC that the sight of active, energetic nudity should be like....well, the Second Cumming.

It's OK to teach our children to lie, cheat, steal, defraud, manipulate, kill, butcher, rape, torture, , but to expose them to some realistic sex education? Oh, my goodness, how horrible can it get?

Sexual repression is a good indicator of hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Convicted Murder Posted by: AlienSlave
» Human Sexuality Posted by: DataDoc
» RE: Human Sexuality Posted by: Setnakt
NHS
Posted by: nhs on Jan 19, 2007 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The School Administrators should be facing the criminal charges. If the School PC's were directed though a router, which could easily be set up to block access to porn sites, none of this would have happened. As this is the "standard" proceedure these days, why should any teacher, let alone a substitute, be required to suspect the school computer to be infected by malware and have the capacity to access porn sites?

EVEN IF a teacher has the criminal intent to expose children to porn, having the School PC go through a router, which blocks access to porn sites, would offer protection.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problem is with negligent computer users (including her)
Posted by: g on Jan 19, 2007 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The notion that the teacher intentionally exposed the students to pornography is ridiculous. However, it is past time computer owners started taking responsibility for their computers. Car owners and drivers are supposed to take a test and keep up with maintenance-since their car can hurt others. The same way, it is a well known fact that computers infected with viruses and malware can hurt others by sending around more malware as well as tons of spam. It is an owner's responsibility to know this and act. It does not require a major in computer science, just downloading (mostly free) software and keeping it updated. All it requires is that owners abandon their attitude of "why should I bother? It's so complicated." If you don't want to be bothered with computing security, you should not be allowed to go online. I am starting to thing that there should be a mandatory exam, just like the one you take to get your driver's license... And yes I do hold this teacher responsible for her negligence. If she was my kids's teacher, I'd not go easy on her. But intentionally exposing them to porn... give me a break.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Example of the stupidity of the American public.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 19, 2007 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, porn shows natural functions. Our sequestered society does not remember the common living condition of agricultural and early industrial families were nudity and sexual intercourse were open for view in the family.

Second, Americans are to insecure and anxious about little matters. Most feel no control over there lives, so they tend to blow things out of perspective. This case is an example.

Third, this proves the intolerence of American society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why aren't aggressive pornography pushers to blame?
Posted by: anotherday on Jan 19, 2007 8:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't fathom what reasoning the author used to point her finger at "anti-porn hysteria" when people are upset about 12-year-olds seeing Internet pornography. The best I can figure is she thinks 12-17 year-olds are already watching double anal penetration and ass-to-mouth pornography so some more toxic anti-sex imagery popping up in a classroom is no big whoop.

It is a big whoop to parents and to people not so saturated with a steady pornography diet they've become desensitized to the violence and disrespect displayed in mainstream pornography and the power of such evocative images on kids.

Why are pornographers and porn advertisers not responsible for forcing their "adult-only" products on every man, women, and child that comes 10 feet near a computer? I could not hand out beer to 12-year-olds with the excuse that many kids have already used alcohol so it's no big deal, so why can't the porn-pushing abusers of the Internet not be held to existing legal standards for willfully ignoring age restrictions for their aggressively promoted product?

Unfortunately, to get to that point more liberals would have to begin seeing the hands of wealthy corporate pornographers behind such pop up "accidents" where right now they jump into a predictable pornographer-defending stance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Innocent" children, "controversial" subjects
Posted by: godsbedamned on Jan 19, 2007 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with douglashoyt and many other posters. My first thought, when reading the news articles about this, was, Isn't porn part of our social situation? Shouldn't students be discussing this in the classroom? Isn't this a teachable moment?

Also, why do we consider children to be 'innocent' vessels who should not be hear or see any of the problems of the world? When people say, it's the job of parents to introduce 'controversial' topics at home, I always think, gee, isn't that a self-serving way of saying 'I don't want my child exposed to anything that challenges bigotry or fosters critical thinking'? (Case in point: The parents and religious leaders who get up in arms when schools discuss homosexuality as something natural and not deviant? [as if heterosexuality is anything less constructed]).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too bad she didn't have more $$$
Posted by: Raj on Jan 19, 2007 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being a substitute teacher, I'm sure she didn't have the best and the brightest representing her in court. People who can afford great lawyers like O.J. get to buy their way out of trouble, while a teacher faces 40 years?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Too bad she didn't have more $$$ Posted by: counterpoint
If it wasn't for early exposure to porn...
Posted by: Habaro on Jan 19, 2007 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I wouldn't be The World's Greatest Lover.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Children should be obscene and not heard? Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
funny---they don't seem psycho to me
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jan 19, 2007 10:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think that exposure to erotic material or an open attitude to sex leads necessarily to a corrupted life full of anti-social behavior--as so many Americans seem to think. It is other factors that lead to sex crimes, etc.

If that were true, then hundreds of thousands of Africans, Eskimos, and Pacific Islanders who as kids grew up in environments where sex and eroticism were open and tolerated--well I guess they should be alot more psycho then they appear to be today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Miscarriage of Justice
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jan 19, 2007 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being inexpert about computers, I'm more concerned about the blatant miscarriage of justice in this case. The judge & prosecutor knowingly conspired to suppress critical evidence - right there in front of everybody. I don't care what the "rules" were, the judge is there to prevent this sort of thing, not cause it.

The judge also failed to properly instruct the jury, or they would never have voted to convict where there was obvious doubt. I'm afraid prosecutors, in particular, now work to keep intelligent people off juries, in order to make convictions easier. I keep wondering what kind of idiots those jurors were, and not only in this case. I think they're selected for that during pretrial maneuvering. That should not be possible; lawyers should not be able to remove potential jurors except "for cause" - the present system sanctions jury rigging. (The defense also made serious mistakes, according to this report. I'm offended that the judge allowed that to cause a miscarriage of justice. The case should have been dismissed as soon as Horner testified.)

So, yes, they were all idiots about computers and the Internet, but that shouldn't have mattered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who the Hell was the Judge? Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Who the Hell was the Judge? Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Miscarriage of Justice Posted by: AlienSlave
» Not exactly Posted by: mythago
» RE: Miscarriage of Justice Posted by: canttouchthis
She should be the one suing someone
Posted by: moschops on Jan 19, 2007 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This whole thing is ridiculous, if anyone should be suing someone now it should be the teacher for having to use such a porn-pop-up prone system and having her reputation trashed before anyone even did the most basic investigation as to whether the popup storm was her doing or not. No one loads that kind of stuff on their system intentionally, and even if clicking on a link to an actual porn site no one expects to have their computer go bezerk like that. Sure if she had sat there clicking through pages of a porn site while kids watched I'd give her some blame, but that clearly wasn't the case.

She should be suing someone for providing computer software that was prone to pops like that, a network that allowed access to porn content instead of just blocking them (or allowing only access to specific safe sites), and providing a computer to use that was riddled with spyware. What is the point of "Cop" software if it can't block such sites and if no one is paying attention to the problems it detects?

When teaching a computer should be set to give a complete clean and known environment every time you log on, just like in an Internet cafe set up - if you want to save something for beyond the session then save it to a personal USB disk for later use. It doesn't require a Mac or Linux box to acheive this, and software like VMWare can provide a rock solid roll back to known clean environment on every startup.

Schools should use these solutions and not engage in blame fest until they have secure and safe environments for teachers and kids to use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Schools should use these solutions Posted by: dangerouslysane
Sue the school district
Posted by: Seeker on Jan 19, 2007 11:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She should sue the school district for millions. That will get the local officials to rapidly change their attitudes - and maybe install a firewall and anti everything software.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sue the school district Posted by: zoomorph
I'll bet a soaked pajama.....
Posted by: morticia on Jan 19, 2007 11:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... that that old classroom PC got worked over by squads of kids for less-than-wholesome purposes long before that teacher ever got her hands on it. Here's a simple formula, whether we approve of it or not: 12-year-olds+unattended computers=porn. 12-year-olds are horny creatures. When I was 12, I had to get my porn from LADY CHATTERLY'S LOVER, but if there had been a computer for me to get my paws on, I'd have been all over it. Today's kids grew up with computers--they're practically born knowing how to use them. They know how to find porn for free, and they do. It's a fact of life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'll bet a soaked pajama..... Posted by: AlienSlave
think of the children!
Posted by: Jackrabbit on Jan 19, 2007 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What have we become?

Let's say for the sake of argument that the teacher actually was doing what they are accused of. Does anyone in their right mind consider what happened to warrent 6 felonies? Years in jail?

If we give such a shit about kids then why are so many of them uninsured? Why are so many living in poverty? Why are so many undereducated? And why aren't we taking care of the planet they'll inherit when we're gone?

This incident is so absurd as to be laughable. But someones life hangs in the balance because of it. We are being treated like fools. Bullied about by idiots. I'm sick of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: think of the children! Posted by: morticia
» RE: think of the children! Posted by: dewiniaeth
Please make corrections to the article.
Posted by: Realman on Jan 19, 2007 12:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet editors:

I've come across a few glaring mistakes in Alternet articles I've read today. Below are the ones I found in this article. Could you please fix them?

"One piece of spyware had been already been tracking the computer for about a month."

"Amero musts have"

"from readers who accusing them "

"a mailware infection" - may or may not be a mistake; both the term "malware" and "mailware" is used in the article later, but I think "malware" is what was intended in all cases.

I realize pointing this out is somewhat off-topic; but it saddens me that an otherwise good article is marred by a lack of proofreading. Thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why didn't she just turn the monitor off?
Posted by: malika on Jan 19, 2007 12:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a sub myself, mostly at a nearby high school, I am no stranger to the "antics" students enjoy with computers. If I had been in this teacher's position, I would have just turned the monitor off and called security. The article describes her pushing a student away, and other students observing the porn from their desks--so it must have been going on for some time. Was she so astonished or bemused that she sat there watching the show long enough for others to notice? She should have immediately turned the monitor off, or just turned the computer itself off. She could not be blamed for shutting it off, and protecting her class. And, for those of you who assert that these visions of nudity and certain bodily functions are natural--you may be right, but remember that these "natural" scenes are in no circumstance appropriate for a public school classroom. Ever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She's going to own them.
Posted by: mmeetoilenoir on Jan 19, 2007 12:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is going to get thrown out, and she's going to turn around and become a very wealthy woman. I'm really not worried, although I am COMPLETELY appalled that things even went as far as they did as far as her punishment.

I mean, you have a cop that's cowering and hiding from people, saying, "Uh, everyone hates meeeee! Oh, noes! And I didn't check the computer! But that's not important! WAAAAH!" You have obvious procedural screwups. You have people that openly admit to pandering to the parents' bloodlust. In short, she's going to be wealthy. I mean, this article, with the stupid quotes, is enough to make anyone wonder what the hell people were thinking.

And shame on these porn companies for peddling their wares through such shady methods. Come the hell on. It's just getting out of hand if it's costing people their freedom and their jobs! I hope she sues them, too!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: She's going to own them. Posted by: canttouchthis
» It's people like you.... Posted by: morticia
Pathetic
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Jan 19, 2007 1:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The funny thing is, one of those poor innocent little kids probably surfed to a porn site while she wasn't looking, and that's how she got the malware. I mean, really, how many women love to visit sites showing women being sprayed with "bodily fluids"... there might be one or two women out of every thousand who enjoy seeing that kind of thing, but all in all it's a male thing.

I'm sure all you have to do is google any word like "bukakke" and then click on one of the results and your computer, if unprotected, will be infected.

Why don't they throw Bill Gates in jail for making a piece of [censored] software that is so craptastic a 6 year old could make it crash? Jesus, it took them what, 8 friggin years to come up with a popup blocker? W...T...F... and the damn thing still don't work half the time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pathetic Posted by: canttouchthis
Congratulations on your luck ... however, even with
Posted by: shanaza on Jan 19, 2007 2:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
zone alarm and firefox, it is not secure. There are too many security flaws in Windows 98 with no security patches to fix them. Zone Alarm can be identified and hacked, as well as other firewalls. Firefox has its share of problems and is not free of malware.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unlimited Stupidity
Posted by: marid on Jan 19, 2007 2:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of the comments show a complete and utter lack of what and how malware works. Most people should never be allowed to use a computer. Most of the people spouting nonsense are most likely infected themselves. The lady will be filthy rich.

It is my job to protect kids in a school district from such occurances. It is impossible to prevent 100% of this type of crap from reaching our kids, that is a fact Mr. Horton would back up. In most homes that I am familiar with there is little or no effort on the part of the clueless parents to protect their children. When our school district sends out notices, warnings, information, or has informational meetings for parents we are greeted with scorn or ridicule.

Our district is protected at the sender end in Madison, WI where our signal originates. We pay for filtering by the UW Madison and their experts. At the receiving end we bought a firewall and pay for filtering services a second time. We also regularly run anti spyware programs and current virus software. We spend a fair amount of money to keep our kids safe. They deserve it. Despite these efforts, very infequently we have an incident, but they are dealt with instantly and summarlily. OUr staff and Subs are instructed in how to proceed with Turn Off The Monitor as the first defense.

Teachers routinely use systems with students in the classroom. Attendance, Gradechecks, Lunch counts, Email, online curriculum, real time involvement are all part of the normal school day in most districts today. We are not in the 50"s.

I have checked computers in banks, car dealerships, and various other businesses, everyone has been infected to some degree. I have helped them improve their defenses. Usually for free, their my friends and community members. I have not checked a single system in the past few years that did not have some level of infection.

The purveyors of Porn should be held responsible, but it is extremely difficult to do.

States or the Federal Government should attack this problem on a broad base by setting standards, which they do to some extent, and providing, free of charge, the filtering tools to protect all our children. It would be a great step in the right direction.

Parents need to quit using the Internet as a baby sitter, move the system to an open, highly trafficed room and think about installing some of the very effective blocking software available for around $30.

Oh, and Mac people, they are coming for you too. You will find out very soon as has my Mac friend.

After all this I think I will sign off and run one of my spyware checkers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» the price of security Posted by: counterpoint
Incompetent Network Admins, Incompetent Cop
Posted by: grolan on Jan 19, 2007 3:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speaking as someone who runs a public sector IT shop, the real culprits here are the school's IT administrators who let their network firewall lapse, and failed to install any desktop protection. They ought to be fired. If they were hamstrung because the school refused to fund IT sufficiently, then the school administrators should be fired too.

The cops involved should quit pretending they know anything about computer forensics after "an hour of over the phone training" on a package that doesn't even address the problem. With his clueless bumbling around, he probably rendered the machine contaminated as a piece of evidence. That's all we need in a court setting in front of a non-technical jury - some bozo in a police uniform spouting off about technical issues he doesn't understand. The jury looks at the uniform and sees "authority", while the defense expert, who is a genuine forensics expert, is not allowed to show his evidence. I particularly like the cop's comment about how everyone was screaming for aggressive action. What does that have to do with law enforcement? He sounds like the cowardly lone sheriff in an old west town who turns a suspect over to the angry lynch mob rather than seeing justice done.

Plenty of blame to go around here, but none of it belongs with the substitute teacher. Incompetent IT, penny pinching school administrators scared of the PTA, and a bozo in a cop uniform pretending to know computer forensics. Not to mention kids messing with the teacher's p.c., who probably shouldn't be allowed to touch it anyway. And the poor teacher takes the fall. What a joke. God help you if your computer is taken over by a bot and starts spewing porno spam - you're likely to be thrown in jail by the technically clueless masses.

I wonder if she has a defense fund. I'd be happy to contribute to it. This mess should have been declared a mistrial.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Target the perpetrators, not the victim - and sack the defender
Posted by: pieandpeas on Jan 19, 2007 3:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This woman was defended by a moron.

I'm an ordinary computer user. I'm not specially trained, I can't write software. I have no legal training. I do have something in common with this poor woman though, I am a teacher.

15 minutes ago, I decided to see how quickly I could gather salient information which bore on this case, I imposed the time limit of 15 mins and determined that anything I quoted was referenced and would probably be accepted as evidence. (Given my lack of legal experience, on this point I could be wrong.)

The vast bulk of the facts her are the result of a search
here

This is what I discovered.

There are over three hundred products being sold right now as anti-spyware, malware. To convince you to buy, the publishers give you a free trial version which installs a virus, miraculously detects it, then conveniently provides a web address where you can buy it because the tril version can only detect, you must get the paid version to remove it. The policy in the US is to prosecute and a ridiculously small team of people investigate. Their backlog is unmanageable and , when they do prosecute, the charge they usually face is one of "Agressive Marketing" with such a low penalty that it serves no purpose as a deterrant.

Malicious programmers have released a large number of fake anti-spyware programs, and widely distributed Web banner ads now spuriously warn users that their computers have been infected with spyware, directing them to purchase programs which do not actually remove spyware — or worse, may add more spyware of their own

Some other types of spyware (Targetsoft, for example) modify system files so they will be harder to remove. Targetsoft modifies the "Winsock" Windows Sockets files. The deletion of the spyware-infected file "inetadpt.dll" will interrupt normal networking usage. Unlike users of many other operating systems, a typical Windows user has administrative privileges, mostly for convenience. Because of this, any program the user runs (intentionally or not) has unrestricted access to the system.

Some attackers used the Spybot worm to install spyware that put pornographic pop-ups on the infected system's screen. By directing traffic to ads set up to channel funds to the spyware authors, they profit personally.

Unauthorized access to a computer is illegal under computer crime laws, such as the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, However, few spyware developers have been prosecuted, and many operate openly as strictly legitimate businesses, though some have faced lawsuits.

The FTC has filed a complaint against Movieland.com and eleven other defendants, charging them with having "engaged in a nationwide scheme to use deception and coercion to extract payments from consumers." The complaint alleges that the software repeatedly opened oversized pop-up windows that could not be closed or minimized, accompanied by music that lasted nearly a minute, demanding payment of at least $29.95 to end the pop-up cycle; and claiming that consumers had signed up for a three-day free trial but did not cancel their membership before the trial period was over, and were thus obligated to pay.


Draw your own conclusions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Julie, you're not alone!
Posted by: danielgeery on Jan 19, 2007 5:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Visit NAPTA, National Association for Teacher Abuse, and post this story there.

You'll find my story there too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Julie, you're not alone! Posted by: danielgeery
Par for the course in our fascist amerika
Posted by: chief of okeefe on Jan 19, 2007 6:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why should anyone be surprised? The fascist military/police state needs enemies, needs "criminals". That is why it has invaded more countries and imprisons more people per capita than any other country on earth.

Never mind the facts that this was an unguarded computer and the preposterous notion that a 40-yr old woman with no criminal record would be accessing porn right in front of her class. Just get another perp! Just nail another case! Just "protect our children". Get someone, anyone, get more bodies crammed into more and bigger prisons....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You don't need to troll for porn to be infected.
Posted by: rabidLibrarian on Jan 19, 2007 8:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I usually don't post, but some of the comments are downright irritating. My biggest beef is with those who keep insisting that someone at sometime "must" have gone to a porn site in order to download the adware. I've been online since 1996 and in charge of a smallish network of a dozen computers since 2001 and I can tell you from experience, you DO NOT need to visit a questionable website to be infected with adware. Any site that generates even a small amount of income through advertising is liable to foist this junk on your box.

Here's a crash course in how the adware game works: to supplement her retirement income, Aunt Mitty starts up a website dedicated to knitting. For some reason, her site gets wildly popular and her visitors start using more bandwidth than her hosting plan provides for. Mitty's host notifies her that she needs to pony up for more bandwidth or her site will be closed off after she reaches her bandwidth limit. Mitty can't afford to pay all or even part of the extra cost, so she looks for ways to raise money. She comes across an ad promising her money for becoming an "affiliate" of an online marketing company that delivers targeted ads. All she has to do is paste some code into her website that will cause her visitors to download the ad company's software. Next time you visit Mitty's website looking for instructions on how to knit a sweater, the program, which is usually crafted to take advantage of security holes, misconfigured settings, and/or the user's own lack of knowledge, installs itself to your machine, most likely without your knowledge. Once the program is installed, it's apt to make a call to some of the ad company's partners and download their adware, too. So, simply by visiting an innocent site run by a little, old lady on social security, you now have a screen full of difficult-to-close pop-up porn and a ten-year-old with bug eyes.

My second bone of contention is with the school's IT manager, whether in-house or an outside contractor. I mean, Win98??? C'mon!!! Microsoft hasn't released a security update for that OS in years. If cost is such a big issue with these guys, then dump Windows and get one of the free, open-source options. A few years ago, out of curiosity, I put my old Win98 PC (with all the final security updates that were released) on the internet. Within ten minutes, that machine was crawling with malware. Now, there is no shortage of free, user-friendly apps out there designed to remove and even prevent infection by adware. Would it have killed IT to install it and set it up to automatically update? From what I've read here, there's no way this teacher should have been held responsible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You are absolutely right. Posted by: chomsky
browser hijack
Posted by: estrin1959 on Jan 19, 2007 8:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read recent publications in ABC and Fox news about
16 years old boy in Arizona and his criminal case.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=bizarre&id=4935302


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244009,00.html

I send you links to publications about my case.
I was forced to confess to the
possession of internet digital pictures of porn in deleted clusters of
my computer hard drive.

http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~7~page_num~3.html

This is publication in Wired news

http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,63391,00.html


Child porn law was declared unconstitutional in Hennepin County, Minnesota, USA'
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=11750

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Malware in Shrinkwrap too ... and unknowing users
Posted by: dancerkc on Jan 19, 2007 10:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few years ago I tried out some very cheap shrinkwrap stuff on the Office Max shelf when I was looking for in-expensive software for students. It was all labeled "Perfect ... something or other ..." Bad news. It installed tracking software which all but killed my POTS (56kb modem). If I had a faster connection I might not have realized what I had installed. Fortunately it was not all that hard to track down and kill - although I don't think just any user would do it.

A few years later a careless temp in a firm I was working in as a programmer brought in Kazaa to listen to while she typed, not to mention her instant messaging. Her machine was the source malware which shut us down for a day and a half, costing tens of thousands of dollars. Those of us in IT worked around the clock to repair the server damage.

At the same firm, a large national software firm hired to update a major enterprise application had its own problem with zombies just a couple of years prior. They had discovered the reason for a badly slow server. Someone had dropped a porn site into their own server which meant they were unwittingly hosting a porn site.

This stuff can hit anyone, even when you have knowlegable people in network security. Knowlege cuts the damage and protects your but there is always the odd moment, the distracted employee, and more. As my martial arts instructor once told me, it doesn't matter how good you are, even the top fighter can be knocked out by a doofus with a lucky hit. Same for malware and all those computer users.

There is no way you can close all the holes and keep them closed. Sooner or later something may penetrate. And the very idea that Macs are safe is already wrong. Maybe only VMS was really secure - technically - although Mitnik got through - but only with so called "human engineering." A con job, in other words. And there is no dirth of con jobs coming at us.

Worse, as usual, is ignorance in determined action mode. The cops in the account above appear to be as stupid about computers as you can get. A little knowlege being gawdawful damaging - to the innocent. At the very least they need to back off and re-instate that woman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Personal Experience
Posted by: Bilby on Jan 19, 2007 11:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a computing academic at a major (non-US) university. I don't specialis in computer forensics, but one of my fellow academics does. Indeed, he is highly regarded in the computer security field.

Anyway, I received an email fro him one day asking for help. Apparantly his office computer was displaying pronography - exactly as described with the case here. He'd tried removing it with all the standard packages, but nothing worked. Now I guess you could claim that he wasn't as good as we thought, but in this case the reason none of the packages worked was that the particular spyware/adware/malware was so new that the various anti-virus, anti-spyware packages hadn't found it yet. He hadn't been surfing porn sites, and his computer was up-to-date, with all of the latest packages.

Now, I know that there were things he could have done to prevent the problem, but the point is simply that if he could become infected with software that displayed porn on his computer, without his knowledge and without inappropriate actions on his part, then I don't have too much trouble believing that the same could have happened to a school teacher with more limited computer knowledge, working on an unsecure system in an unsecure environment. So while I wouldn't be foolish enough to claim that Ms Amero hadn't been doing anything wrong (as I haven't viewed all the evidence), I'd certainly like to leave open the possibility that she hadn't, and would have liked to have seen that properly explored in court.

Just to clarify a couple of issues raised earlier:

While I would also be inclined to argue that she should have turned off the computer, reports elsewhere suggested that she was told by the school that the computers were not to be turned off.

Turning off the monitor makes sense, and I'm surprised that she didn't do so. But then, she was also probably unaware of what was going on and why.

Other reports suggest that she had raised concerns about the situation with the school.

Telling the difference between deliberate surfing and spyware is tricky, and can't be (as far as I'm aware) automated. It could be analyised in most cases (to the point where you could make a case that spyware may have been involved), but it woud take someone with reasonable knowledge of forensics, and you would need to specifically look for patterns in teh log files.

Anyway, I guess if I hadn't seen this happen to someone I worked with I would have been more sceptical. But I've seen it, and I know it can happen, so I would have to argue that the defense had a solid case that should have been explored.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And we wonder why our best and brightest don't want to teach!
Posted by: CrystalD on Jan 20, 2007 5:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The lesson here - if you value your freedom, DO NOT WORK WITH CHILDREN. Do not teach. Do not be a daycare worker. You are at risk for being sued or worse at the drop of a hat.

Given enough innocent people railroaded into jail just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, no-one is going to want to go into teaching or another "caring" profession and all we'll have left are bottom-feeders and people too stupid or incompetent to get another job. If you keep saying all teachers are perverts, pretty soon only perverts will want to teach.

If this lady had a "pop up incident" at a corporate training session, the VERY worst that might happen is that she'd be fired. More likely, all she'd get was a talking-to about being sure her computer was thoroughly firewalled and virus-proofed. But because we are so hysterical about Protecting Our Chirrun, she's gotten a life sentence. Pathetic. And so sad for her.

Remind me never to go near anyone else's spawn of Satan, er I mean children, no matter what. Kids are not worth going to jail for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People need to relax about porn
Posted by: Bobsays on Jan 21, 2007 12:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kids see porn every day. People need to realise this and need to also realise that they will be okay. We live in a weird world with much that is evil and bad about it. Porn is far down the list behind war, greed, betrayel, bullying and all the other things that are considered 'normal'.

This case is a gross over-reaction and a hideous violation of this person's rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Antiporn Hysteria at its worst
Posted by: ekwhite on Jan 21, 2007 7:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a classic case of railroading - the facts be damned! The fact that an expert witness with convincing evidence that the computer was hijacked was not allowed to testify is a clear travesty of justice. Her life has been ruined because of lax computer security and an overzealous prosecutor. Kafka for the 21st century.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

weird
Posted by: insulaparadigm on Jan 21, 2007 10:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
either she's a very dumb pervert or a victim of a snafu and perhaps a little slow on the draw to turn off the monitor.
what I find funny is how interested these kids are in their own innocence. I'm not arguing that it's good for the kids to see porn at all - but do they really care enough to testify in court etc ? This is just adults fighting other adults with kids as the excuse. Why on earth are middle schoolers so interested in maintaining their own innocence? Do they want to stay children forever?
Middle school in my memory was worse than high school in terms of status seeking, teasing, moronic pack mentality.
oh and spitefulness too - and back then none of us saw a drop of porn. dumb teacher and used students and a waste of taxpayer money when we rank low in math and science scores worldwide. If she really was surfing porn during class she's perhaps not intelligent enough to teach int he first place. :) if so strip her of her license but that really doesn't qualify for jail time. Are we going to have porn free zones around schools now?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I just can't believe this.
Posted by: jnutt on Jan 22, 2007 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am by no means an expert, nor am I the likes of a novice. However, I would like to throw my two cents into this barrel of monkeys. I have been working with unsecured user peripherals for several years now both personally and professionally. Although my experience is dwarfed by the likes of the detective in question, with his one hour training course on a proprietary software, there is no way in hell this lady could possibly be found guilty. This is obscene! Never in my life could I calculate the number of times mal-ware (malicious software) has been responsible for redirecting users to pornographic websites. Without adequate security measures taken a computer can play host to any combination of hackers and the like. Invalid firewall alone should have this case rotting in some gutter. Just absolute crap is what this is... I mean really now

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What if the pop-ups had been weapons ads?
Posted by: Clark Pratt on Jan 23, 2007 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An open letter to the people of Southeastern Connecticut:

I have lived in Denmark for ten years, so I am not always on top of everything that happens in CT. But I was shocked, saddened and angered to learn yesterday that an acquaintance of mine, Julie Amero, faces 40 years in prison for an offense involving Internet pornography and schoolchildren.What if it had been pop-ups of weapons? Or Saddam Hussein’s hanging?
Let me state from the beginning: I am against public uproar where no one gets to the real issue. I am against punishing people for alleged social crimes by sending them to desocialization in prison. And I am against the fear and mistrust Americans (and a growing number of Danes) have for the people who have daily contact with their children.
Let us take the worst case scenario, which I do not think is the case, but … what if Julie Amero was using the Internet’s vast pornography resources to “turn herself on” when she was supposed to be taking care of the education of 7th graders? What if she was doing it to prepare herself to go over more terrible boundaries – showing sexual acts to the children or inviting them to perform sexual acts with her or each other? Then she would need help from caring people to get her own sexuality in perspective, to take her professional life more seriously and to develop a network of friends and colleagues whom she could turn to, if she did not have the resources herself to avoid similar situations. There are probably 100 million people in the USA who fit the description in the last sentence. Who takes them seriously, before they do something stupid? Who forgives them and still loves them, after they do something stupid? The system of judgment and punishment is neither the only tradition in Western Civilization, nor the only way to treat people in a modern society.
I think the real issues are not children, porno and protection. It is too late to protect our children from digital pornography. (And one hundred years ago, we would also try to protect our children from reading many of the books or seeing many of the films, which we buy for them now!) But it is not too late to teach our children that sexuality is one thing (many things?) which we can teach in schools, teach at home, establish an environment where people are not ashamed or embarrassed or afraid of questions and experiences and that pornography is something else. Why is pornography so popular, such a giant industry, when it is based in power relations which are humiliating and financial relations which are so unequal? Well, look at your country folks! Why is America such a giant industry which is based in power relations which are humiliating and financial relations which are so unequal?
As a school teacher, I know that the only way to educate children to make a better world than the one they inherit from us is to nurture their self-respect, their feelings of value for themselves, other people and the planet. When classrooms become places for growth and trust instead of fear and distrust, students will have a chance to really learn some important lessons. The Salem Witch Trials are one of the darkest periods in the history of childhood in the USA. Julie Amero never had a chance in the social environment that prevails in America today. Should teachers never dare to turn on a computer, discuss sexuality with students under 18, go to their colleagues if they suspect they need help with something? Should we not trust a person who has never hurt a child and who says she is innocent? The legal aspects of this trial are not what interest me. It seems that many people are out for blood, because they think their children will have bad lives or turn into sex demons because of what is on the Internet. Children have so much in their hearts, they can survive a lot of pictures and films. But their hearts can’t survive a society that hates so much, it punishes people like Julie Amero.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Almost worse than the case is...
Posted by: boikley on Jan 23, 2007 2:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...how many idiots on here want to blame the teacher!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Typical US posse mentality
Posted by: Cobra on Jan 24, 2007 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine getting convicted on evidence from a cop who has zero training on software being used to get convictions. Malware infections can play havoc, and once started, some of the porn popups will not stop regardless of what the user tries to do. I see stuff like this all of the time in the course of my work in computer servicing. I sit with some for however long I need such that I can inform them how best to stop this stuff. I sympathize with them because they do not fully understand why and how the porn peddlers get by the system.

So, the system on which it was found has zero protection against anything like this, and the investigating cop has zero training. Way to go..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm not a porn afficianado
Posted by: helenwheels on Jan 24, 2007 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I have nothing against it. Just not into it. That being said, I have been spy-wared and ad-wared to death, had to do a lot to clear it, and once I got the same thing!!! Porn was popping up all over! I was annoyed, frustrated and horrified. I wasn't shocked by the content, but I didn't want it on my PC uninvited. I am not the least bit surprised that this could happen to someone - in fact, it's probably happened to many, many people. I just have a techie background so I quickly found software to clean it up. This is a really fucked up case, there are bigger fish to fry. Why would ANY teacher purposely do that? They know they'd be toast...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would be careful on a rush to judgment on this one
Posted by: gbworld on Jan 24, 2007 11:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article suggests that the popup fest was due to a piece of Java malware. While I do not know of every Java class out there, the norm, from a website perspective is the following:

1. Hit site
2. Class downloaded
3. Popup started

While the class may sit on a drive for a long time, it lies dormant until triggered. It is also possible a long sitting spyware app might fire a Java class, it would be extra work to set it up this way. For popups only, it would be a huge amount of work for nothing.

Using forensics and a bit of investigation, you could find the site that triggered (and probably downloaded) the Java class. You could then determine the time it was downloaded from the index file left on the drive. This would show you when it was downloaded and what site. If the site was a porn site, and the only user who could have been surfing at that time was the teacher, you have a fairly open and shut case. Possible appeals:

1. The class was downloaded/triggered when others could have been on the computer.

2. The site that triggered the porn was not a porn site. (If not, it was probably a hacker site or warez site, which she should not have been surfing, but she should get lesser disciplinary actions than jail time).

Forensics can also determine if the teacher had hit these types of sites before this incident.

As for the "bash Microsoft" comments: The guilty party in this one is the malware writer and not Bill Gates. While I acknowledge MS has had numerous problems in the past, and some more recent, they are no more guilty than Smith & Wesson in a murder case. It is the person creating malware who is guilty party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And of course....
Posted by: morticia on Jan 24, 2007 12:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...one of the most effective ways to ignite interest in any topic, especially anything having to do with sex, is to forbid it, censor it, and raise a gigantic fuss over it. The whole terrible retrograde circus of Julie Amero's trial, conviction and public pillorying has, without a doubt, sent waves of kids to the computer looking for slish-slish for the first time (not that I think that's so bad; it's the hypocrisy that stinks). The term "solemn donkeys" comes to mind, uttered by Mark Twain to describe the school officials who went after the pre-teen Helen Keller when they accused her of plagiarism. For these latter-day Inquisitors, I'd add a few choice words: Dangerous damned fool solemn donkeys.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

constipated
Posted by: jaspcru on Jan 25, 2007 1:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
man , when was your last bowel movment ? you sound all backed up

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is the name of the country where this thing happend ?
Posted by: dbx26 on Jan 25, 2007 10:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the name of the country where this thing happend ? Saudi Arabie or Iran ?
Are you still burning witch in your country ? So sad...

Phil
(from France)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

remember how people's cash gets confiscated because of cocaine traces?
Posted by: counterpoint on Jan 25, 2007 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember a Playboy magazine article (the irony) twenty years ago during the initial Reagan "war on drugs". It mentioned that people with large amounts of cash occasionally get it confiscated and never returned because "traces of cocaine" were detected. (Eg someone on his way to a collectors vehicle auction where you have to pay cash got fleeced at the airport). Problem is - that's the parallel to the porn story - traces of cocain are on 95% of all cash, according to experts. Same with porn. Hell, my Mac has some, although, you guessed it, I put it there myself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

frightening: kids' pranks could land any teacher in jail
Posted by: counterpoint on Jan 25, 2007 10:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad I'm not a teacher. Say you have some truly irresponsible kids, or some that simply hate you. All they have to do is hit on a site with porn, bomb making, nazi propaganda etc in an unsupervised moment and then turn around and claim the teacher did it. Ouch.
Worse, the same can happen with colleagues, and I'm certain that many smaller companies don't follow protocol when it comes to internet safety. Often they'll simply have a few computers on ethernet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The cop said
Posted by: Krain61 on Jan 25, 2007 2:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the mothers were bitching so she was made the scape goat..The school should be sued because it didn't put filters and protection of malware and the like.The school put all the blame on her..And our Justice System is not very fare..If there is evidence it should always be allowed but somehow it seems to get suppressed..They use that bull shit line of timely manner or something..It's still evidence!!!!
America!! "Guilty to proven Innocent"

So many people in this country get rail roaded every day but if you have the big bucks you get off..All teachers in the USA should protest and have every computer removed from the classes because of this..Anyone of them could be next!!
It's called covering your Ass..
And we still allow
The Cop should be thrown off the force for dereliction of duty for not following every lead

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What was the Jury thinking?????
Posted by: Krain61 on Jan 25, 2007 2:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reasonable doubt!
Maybe it will come back to haunt them..
Turn abouts far play..
I hope they get what they gave!
Bad part is they set a presidence for others to have it happen to them..
The Freaken Jurors probably never used a computer.
These are most likely the same jury that awarded the lady all that money for being stupid for spilling hot coffee on herself.
Or the guy who bought a RV and set cruise control and then went in the back and when the thing rolled he sued the company and won because it didn't keep control while crusing with him not at the wheel..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What was the Jury thinking????? Posted by: canttouchthis
What's Truly Fucked Up...
Posted by: freeda'all on Jan 25, 2007 10:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is this story;

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/paynter/299371_paynt12.html


I can't believe that people would actually think that a man who exposes himself to women while he's driving is a safe person to leave in charge of children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's Truly Fucked Up... Posted by: grassy-knoll
Mear opinions, Educated opinions, and Facts
Posted by: grassy-knoll on Feb 8, 2007 1:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No one's called or written me to ask for the facts. I have received a deluge of hate email and phone threats. I've returned the emails, offering the facts. I've received no requests for the facts. I've returned calls to those who would leave their number, offering the facts. They just call me names and hang up. The following is my response to a gentleman from French Canada. He had much to say in his initial email but, has not responded to my gesture. I offer the facts (in the form of recovered source code et all) to anyone who would request it. I'm not hard to find.

You have based your opinion, as have so many others, on the disinformation fed to you by the media and by the so called Expert for the defense. As a result, the real victims have been forgotten and I have been the target of ridicule and death threats, bestowed upon me by those I have sworn to protect.

I assure you the verdict reached by a jury of the accused's peers was just. The evidence presented in court was factual and forensically sound. I expressed NO opinion, just the evidence. The "clicked link" storey (taken out of context) has been turned into something other than what it is. (Wouldn't you think the Expert would have rebutted such testimony?)

Once the accused's sentencing is done I intend on presenting the evidence to anyone who wants to know the truth, though I doubt the conspiracy mongers want the truth. Is the TRUTH important to you? I have explained the process of investigating these types of crimes, under the prevailing circumstances, to Network Performance Daily.

linked text

You may also read the tale spun by the Expert on the same site. I assure you that I have the evidence to prove this charlatan is being less than truthful and I would appreciate someone demanding from him the source code containing the malicious active content of which he speaks. As for the trojans, viruses, worms, and adware he spoke of: what were they? when were they created locally? what do they do?? He didn't say. I'd suggest looking at Trojan Dropper.Small.11.V, Elitemedia Pop64, CWS.XPSystem, and Netsetter aka Marketscore. You'll note that they serve particular purposes which I will discuss when I'm at liberty.

linked text

To all those of little faith who believe the Government (aka: BIG Brother) and its minions would conspire to persecute innocent, GOD fearing individuals for entertainment I say GET A GRIP. Peut un dieu me donner la force.

Again, once sentencing is completed I would be very happy to share with you the evidence so that you are better able to form an educated opinion. I would appreciate your demanding from the Expert his data. It saddens me to receive correspondence from a knowledgeable professional, such as yourself which contains insults based on mere conjecture. Your missing 990 pieces of this 1000 piece puzzle.

Attendez jusqu'à ce que ce soit nuit avant de le dire ait été un jour beau.

Mark Lounsbury

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

injustice worse than malware
Posted by: ciscoguru on Feb 13, 2007 10:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one case that should not have been even tried in court. I blame the overzealous prosecutor who is so hungry for a conviction that he will even suppress facts and any consideration for the "reasonable person" standard. I blame the judge who caused such charade to occur in his court room. I blame the incompetent defense who could not defend an obviously innocent person. I guess in Norwich, they leave out the "justice" part in criminal justice system. What a joke..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr Wizard
Posted by: Mr_Wizard on Feb 22, 2007 2:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Put it all in perspective and reduce it to the simplest possible terms: a judge, a prosecutor and 12 jurors with a cumulative IQ of around 140.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]