Julie Amero

[maxximilian]

Just an update....since I know some others have been following this case....her case has been continued until April 26th. But looks like people are finally waking up.

By now you might have heard of Julie Amero, the middle school teacher who has been convicted of four counts of risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child. If you haven’t heard, all of this happened because porn pop-ups appeared on a class room computer. Just about every computer expert has said this was due to spyware and various malware present on the system but according to the courts, it is her fault. Things may be about to change.

The DA’s office has been getting lots of bad press and bad press is not a good thing in politics, maybe they’ll learn a lesson this time. The District attorney has been quoted as saying “things could very well change” between now and Thursday’s hearing. It seems they are reconsidering their approach to the matter.

At one point they were even trying to blame her for not securing the computer. Really? Since when did it become the user’s job to secure their own system (except at home). No, that responsibility lies with the IT department and in this case, they failed. If you want someone to prosecute, grab the Sys Admin and put him/her on trial because that’s who is responsible in this case.

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20...n-pop-up-case/

[usil]

Interesting, although I think they went a bit too far suggesting the sys admin is responsible. We all know that computers are vulnerable, even with a whole bunch of programs protecting your computer. Why not blame Microsoft for making IE vulnerable to such attacks? Or the anti-spyware/AV program for letting something past its defenses?
Why does someone have to come out guilty in this case? The guilty party is the **shole that did these disgusting acts and the other **shole who programed the spyware. Let the authorities go after them, not some poor school teacher who has nothing to do with this all.

[maxximilian]

Yeah...well...it's a blogger, and they tend to run at the mouth when they feel strong about something. I mainly wanted to get that quote from the ditrict attorney posted.

This one is a little more news-like.....

http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/471

[SuperSparks]

Nevertheless, the sysadmin appears to have been sorely negligent in this case, and while prosecution may be over the top, disciplinary action would seem to be in order.

I sometimes despair over whether lawyers and politicians will ever get a clue when it comes to technology. And things are just as bad on this side of the pond

Thanks for the update Maxx

[usil]

Nevertheless, the sysadmin appears to have been sorely negligent in this case, and while prosecution may be over the top, disciplinary action would seem to be in order.

I may be missing certain facts about this case, so I don't understand how anyone of us can blame someone for pop-ups appearing on a computer. We have all witnessed some kind of pop-up some time in our life, even on our own computer, and we all know that there is no way of stopping every kind of pop-up. Like I said in my earlier post, there is no anti-malware solution that will give you 100% protection.
Charging Amero with 4 counts of risking injury to a minor is just as ridiculous, IMO, as charging the sys admin or anyone else for that matter, besides the scum that made that spyware. It looks like they are looking for a scapegoat in order to please the parents of the children who were exposed to the porn.
I service a number of computers in private peoples homes, who get porn pop-ups. Should these people be prosecuted if their kids saw it, or if the pop-ups contained images of under age children? Going a little further, am I considered an accomplice if A. I don't notify the authorities or B. I don't do a good enough job in preventing these pop-ups from showing in the future?

[SuperSparks]

The PC in the classroom – like many school computers – was running Windows 98 and the browser was Internet Explorer 5. There was no evidence that either browser or OS had been, in any significant degree, updated, and neither the PC nor the network itself apparently had any kind of firewall. Win 98 is no longer even patchable and is not supported by its creator. None of this is unusual. Finally, the PC was reportedly riddled with spyware, much of which predated Julie Amero's use of the computer.

That isn't a sysadmin who has been doing his or her job, that is a lazy incompetent as far as I'm concerned. While it might not be his/her fault if the school or education authority won't buy up to date software, there is no excuse for not running a firewall, given the amount of good freeware ones around. Nor is the any excuse for not patching things as far as possible. To then prosecute the teacher for this farrago of incompetence is just adding insult to injury. Not that I think anyone ought to be prosecuted at all.

Then ther is this, which would seem to be the fault of the education authority:

While the Norwich school's Information Services Director Bob Hartz reportedly told a school board hearing in January 2007 that the school was running Symantec's WebNOT filtering software [Editor's note: SecurityFocus is owned by Symantec Corp], Hartz stated that the automatic update feature was not activated – possibly due to an unpaid invoice. Thus, for at least three months, the system was not blocking many pornographic websites, including the ones seen by the 7th grade class.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02...ie_amero_case/

[maxximilian]

I may draw fire for this....but.....

I don't see why anybody should get into any trouble. These kids simply weren't harmed...period. They saw a couple nudie pics, big deal. They scarred for life now? If all it takes in this country to wreck a kid is for them to see a naked body....I would say we are in big trouble.

I know a society is supposed to protect innocents....but gimme a break. You have children being brought up in poverty....going to bed hungry...watching their neighbors and family shoot each other over a bag of drugs. Were these kids really done any harm by briefly seeing those pics?

Now the only reason I can see that this thing has gone as far as it has is loud-mouth parents trying to build a lawsuit on someone else's shoulders. I would love to have a peek at the hard drives in the homes of these supposedly harmed children whose parents are screaming for blood. I bet I find alot worse than what they saw on the school computer.

There was a time when you had to have a victim for there to be a crime....and I just don't see the kids as victims here. Long before computers and the internet and spyware.....the kids on my street at that age were already sneaking peeks at their fathers' Playboy collection. My father didn't have any....so I had to go to my friend's house. His dad was loaded for bear with the stuff.

Anyway....that's my opinion. Kids are wusses today anyway. Bring back lawn darts and let them go to town.

[usil]

I was going to say, that budget may have had something to do with it. I mean, what sys admin in his right mind would still have Win98 if he could have upgraded?

[usil]

Maxx, I totally agree with you. Thats why I said:

Charging Amero with 4 counts of risking injury to a minor is just as ridiculous, IMO, as charging the sys admin or anyone else for that matter, besides the scum that made that spyware. It looks like they are looking for a scapegoat in order to please the parents of the children who were exposed to the porn.

This whole thing is absolutely ridiculous.
I was born in Denmark and there, as you probably know, sex is a much freer subject than in other places. Heck, the most popular weekly magazine had a centerfold girl each time. I grew up on this stuff and I'd consider myself pretty normal. As I said, this whole thing is so unproportional to what really happened and completely ridiculous.

[maxximilian]

Just an extension of my previous rant......something just occured to me....

Why is it that we are scared to death that a child might see naked people having sex.....but we buy them video games where they are armed and the object is to kill as many people as they can? Then....go and buy them paintball guns so they can try out those skills in the real world?

I recall not long agao that some parents group was all upset about computer games having scantily clad female characters in them. They were bothered by this. They weren't bothered by the constant bloodshed in the very same game though....

Way to go America.....you sure have all your ducks in a row now.....

[maxximilian]

Usil....

When it comes to the subject of sex....the USA is still in the dark ages. I am still laughing at anybody who got upset by the brief naked boob shot of Janet Jackson at the superbowl halftime show.

[usil]

LMAO Maxx... that was shown on the 8 o'clock news, uncensored here

[maxximilian]

As it should be...................

[SuperSparks]

I'm in 100% agreement with you Maxx. It made me laugh when there was all that fuss about the Grand Theft Auto hack. Apparently it's perfectly OK for kids to see murder and violence, but they'll be damaged for life by seeing animated characters having a bit of nookie

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/26/games/

[maxximilian]

UPDATE.....

Julie Amero was supposed to be sentenced tomorrow after a postponement requested by the defense. There has been a another postponement....but this time it was requested by the prosecutors.

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/...WS01/704250301

I think this might be a sign that the prosecution is getting worried. I have heard that the defense is already planning an appeal...and maybe the state doesn't want to see another trial that puts their shoddy work on display for the whole world this time.