Julie Amero - A Legal Perspective
- 2
- Add a Comment
- No Related Post
March 2, 2007 is the date for the sentencing of Julie Amero, in a case about pornography and poor computer security. Ms Amero, a substitute teacher, faces a possibility of forty years in prison. Her predicament has been discussed previously on this site. Today seems to be a heavy news day about the Amero matter. The case appears to be generating renewed interest, nationally and internationally.
Mark Rasch, a lawyer who has worked with the Justice Department on computer crime matters, wrote a detailed and thorough article. Mark wrote:
“Whether or not the government thinks that Amero’s crime was not yanking the [power] cord, they asserted in court and out of court that the forensic evidence conclusively demonstrated that she actually typed the URLs – deliberately went to porn sites. And this is clearly not the case.”
link: Mouse-Trapped
Mark did exceptional work with this article.
In another article from Associated Press, “Principal Scott Fain said the computer lacked the latest firewall protection because a vendor’s bill had gone unpaid. “I was shocked to see what made it through,” he said.”
And, if your blood pressure isn’t a bit elevated now, there is this statement:
“But Fain also said Amero was the only one to report such a problem: “We’ve never had a problem with pop-ups before or since.”
link: Teacher’s porn conviction sparks tech debate
It seems that the principal, Scott Fain, was “shocked” and learned a bit about computer security through this debacle. And Julie Amero, who presently is convicted, has a sentencing hearing on March 2.
Catherine Forsythe
Director of Operations
FlyingHamster: http://flyinghamster.com/
[tags]Julie Amero, law, security, pornography, schools, adware, spyware, catherine forsythe[/tags]
2 Comments
Rick Bishop
February 24th, 2007
at 4:24am
I notice that Principal Fain has conveniently forgotten the fact that another teacher in the Teachers Lounge had told Amero that the popups were a common annoyance. Mark Rasch was quite coorect in saying …
“Whether or not the government thinks that Amero’s crime was not yanking the [power] cord, they asserted in court and out of court that the forensic evidence conclusively demonstrated that she actually typed the URLs – deliberately went to porn sites. And this is clearly not the case.”
Most IT experts can tell you that it is not possibe to tell, what was typed and what was a popup by simply looking at the Internet history folder. And how many times have people that know computersm=, seen the sort of panic the Amero described as having gone through? I have read close to a thousand different viewpoints on this case and have concluded for myself that it should never have gone to trial. The most severe punishment Amero should have received was an official reprimand.
Julie Amero - Technology and the Legal System « DogReader
March 25th, 2007
at 11:12am
[...] Julie Amero is scheduled to be sentenced on Thursday, March 29, 2007. This is the sentencing portion of her case. She has been found guilty already. Julie Amero is convicted of impairing the morals of children. The computer in her classroom, where she was a substitute teacher, was displaying pornographic pop-ups. Rick Green did an excellent summary for the Hartford Courant: [...]