When porn pop up's can land you in jail...

Imagine the year is 2004 and this is you...

Imagine you know next to nothing about computers. You're a substitute teacher for a seventh grade class. There's a computer in the classroom and, knowing you're going to be sitting there for a while, you ask a fulltime teacher if you can use it. He logs you in with his password and tells you not to shut it off because you couldn't get back on.

Not that you have a clue about this stuff, but that computer is running Windows 98 and the outdated Internet Explorer 6.02. Its filtering and anti-virus software have expired, and it has no anti-spyware software.

You step out of the classroom for a moment. When you get back the kids are clustered around the computer, checking out hairstyle websites. But one is actually a link to porn sites, and it loads a Trojan onto the unprotected computer.

Suddenly, pop-ups start appearing — X-rated popups.

You start to panic. You're not supposed to shut the machine and you don't realize you can just shut the monitor. You try to block the screen, but — like normal seventh graders — the kids are curious and pushy.

You run to the teacher's lounge for help. Finally you get some and the crisis ends. But the kids have seen the porn. They tell their parents. The parents tell the school.

You tell the school administrators what happened, but they don't bother (or don't know how) to check the computer for the adware you described. Instead they fire you.

And soon you're arrested and charged with four counts of "risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child." You're facing 40 years in prison.
Link
​

Sadly, this is not fiction but reality for Julie Amero, a substitute teacher from Norwich Conneticut. And she has recently been found guilty and faces the possible prospect of 40 years in jail for her crime. Now I would imagine we have all fallen prey to the madness that are pop-up's. You know the type. The more you close, the more keep appearing in a mad stream across the screen. This is what Julie Amero was faced with.

Now the school had failed to protect their computers with up to date spyware and anti-virus protection systems, having not kept up with the payments required to ensure their system was protected. However instead of being held liable for their negligence, the prosecutors have instead argued (successfully it seems) that she Julie Amero was actively looking at pornography sites while teaching the class and they have said that she had just not shut down the computer fast enough. Keeping in mind she had been specifically ordered to not shut off the computer. While she could have simply shut down the screen, this was a woman who had no idea about computers and was using an unknown computer (she was a substitute teacher) and she panicked. Having had a stream of pop-up's happen to me a while back, until it effectively locked up the computer with a screenful of a woman's vagina and a male penis in very close proximity. I could not even shut down the computer. My husband, who thankfully is a programmer, managed to get rid of the viruses and the ridiculous amounts of trojans that had existed on my computer for a while and I had failed to update my spyware and trojan protection for a couple of weeks (something he had kept reminding me about and I had just shrugged off thinking he was paranoid). I had no idea what to do or how to get rid of it. So I can understand how this poor woman would have reacted. I was lucky in that my husband was near (fast asleep in bed early on a Saturday morning) and it seems some of the research into a case that I had been doing set off the crap on the computer. It happens and it happens easily.

However Julie Amero's case is one that shows a complete failure of the justice system. The only "expert" allowed to testify at the trial was a police detective:

Hmmmmmm...

Sadly for Amero, the expert for the defence was not allowed to testify at her trial due to her lawyer having failed to tell the prosecution what they intended to argue. So the prosecution just shut them down.

If this wasn't so damn tragic, it would actually be funny. Like one of those bad movies where a poor soul is being prosecuted and tried by a bunch of bumbling fools in a poorly written comedy. Sadly, this is not the case and Amero now faces a possible 40 years in jail for her supposed crime.

It stands to reason that the "expert" for the prosecution would have looked at the school computer and realised that it had been infected by spyware and trojans. But amazingly enough, they did not. Instead, they came to their conclusion that she had actively sought out the pornography because they appeared in the web browser address and history.

You'd think it was common knowledge. Even I, in my computer zero knowledge capacity, am aware that pop ups do put their addresses in the browser logs. Sadly, had Horner and other experts who actually understood computers been allowed to testify, the jury might have heard that you don't actually have to click on the images for them to appear in your browser logs. Trojans and pop-up's such as these are known to list themselves in the browser logs, even if you are just closing them down. It's what they are meant to do.

Horner, the expert with 40 years experience under his belt lists how the classroom computer had gotten infected. Lets not forget, there was no protection at all on this computer and it was running an outdated software package. The school did not even have any net nanny type of program in operation on their computers:

Amazing isn't it? I thought this was all a joke when I first heard of and read into this story. Her possible 40 year sentence is the result of a technologically illiterate Kelly Middle School, technologically illiterate police, a technologically illiterate prosecutor, and a technologically illiterate jury.

Lets all bow now to justice and its failures... :worship: ...

Hopefully true experts will be allowed to testify when her new lawyers appeal her conviction. Andrew Kantor put it best when he said:

Indeed..

 

Orcot

It was not her computer. She was a substitute teacher (brought in for the day to replace the regular teacher and user of the computer) at a school that had failed to maintain any form of protection for its systems.


The school however have not been found to be negligent in failing to maintain any form of computer protection or to even install software that protects it from pornographic content (eg net nanny which was in existence in 2004). In fact, the school was not even questioned as to why it had failed to provide any form of protection to its computer systems at all... computers that students had access to on a regular basis. And it was a student's search for a hairstyle site when she had stepped out of the room for a few minutes that brought forward the massive amount of spyware and trojans that had already been there before she was even brought into the school to substitute for the day.

I mean what school, with computers in classrooms that have access to the internet, fail to have net nanny, virus and trojan protection updated on a regular basis and what school fails to pay for the registration costs to ensure its systems are protected? And instead of blaming the school for its being slack and down right negligent, they blame the substitute teacher who had only arrived at that school that day.

She is the scapegoat.

 

Google it and see for yourself Baron.

In a case, one would expect that she would also be able to present evidence to back up her case. However the judge refused to let her expert witness present his evidence.

As a person who is fairly computer illiterate, I would probably have convicted her as well. But then when I dug a little deeper, I found out that the judge had literally shut down her defence. Her expert witness was prevented from showing the jury actual evidence that the computer had been infected before she was even brought into the school on that day. If you prevent the jury from hearing all the evidence, they can only make a decision on what they have heard. And what did they hear? A police detective, who's sole training was a 2 week course, who had not even bothered to even check if there were trojans and spyware on the computer that could have resulted in the pop-up's. Pretty lax, don't you think? So he said that because the addresses of all those pop-up's were in the browser log (something pop-up's and trojans tend to do when they start popping up.. they implant themselves in the browser logs), he testified that she must have sat there and searched for and opened up the porn sites herself.

Do you think that sounds plausible Baron?

Ever had a computer infected with spyware, viruses and trojans Baron? Take it from me, it's a bloody nightmare. Because once those pop-up's start, they cannot be stopped. I've had one that had imbedded itself so deeply in my computer that turning off the computer did not get rid of the image it had set as my background on my screen. It had not only shown up in the browser logs, but also on the menu option, on my toolbar, desktop, near the clock.. basically everywhere. Could not delete it. And I had done nothing. Had not even clicked on the site. It came in when I was doing a search on a particular medication and to check to see if it was safe for pregnant women to take. My computer had already been infected, but the search and the site I opened to check the safety of the medication triggered it and that was it.

Now lets look at Amero's actions. She either did one of two things to get those images up on the computer that day:

Hmmmm...

I am not saying public opinion should try this case. What I am saying is that she be given a fair trial and have all evidence presented to the jury. Because if you have a jury who don't know how computers work and you only present them with one side of the evidence, of course they are going to convict, as they have done.

The prosecution, because it was unable to prepare an expert witness with the expertise of that of Amera's expert witness, preferred to suppress Horner's testimony (a man with 40 years experience). At what point does this case simply not stink? The detective who was the only expert witness heard in the case did not have the experience or the expertise to check. Hell, the software he was using to look through her computer could not check to see if she had clicked on it or whether it was pop-up's. The jury never got to hear that either Baron.

I am well aware that the justice system is not perfect, but this case has made a total mockery of the justice system. It has made a mockery of the very notion of justice.

 

Something is "just wrong"? Nooo.. really?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes something is wrong Baron. This whole case is wrong. Read the articles. If you don't like it, google her name and see what turns up. She was an idiot for not turning it off, but she was ordered not to. She did not know she could just turn off the monitor. Moronic, no?

So do you think that deserves a 40 year sentence?

Her defence did not say that there could be trojans in the pre-trial phase. And that is why the judge refused to let her expert testify on her behalf.

Now, lets see, you have a computer in a school and this computer has no protection at all. When this happened, she told them that pop-up's appeared on the screen and she could not stop them. And what do the police do? They don't bother to check to see if there were trojans on the unprotected computer. Not a single check. Ummm.. ok.. ya, I can see why that is her fault.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And should you be outraged? Yes. In fact, you should be afraid as well. Because imagine if you go to use a computer in a public library for example, and that public computer has no protection at all installed or running. People use this public computer and do internet searches on a variety of things. Some look at some dating sites, some look at search sites, some look for jobs.. anything at all. And each time, spyware and trojans are hiding themselves on the computer. So you come along and do a search on anything at all.. lets say something innocent like a hairstyle site (imagine you wish to change your look).. and next thing you know, the computer becomes flooded with pornography pop-ups. You try to close them and they just keep on appearing (and I can assure you, it is annoying and scary when it happens because you have no control). At the same time, each pop-up starts to appear on the system logs as well. Some kids walk up behind you and see what's on the screen. Their parents also realise that there is pornography on the public computer you are using and call the police. You have done nothing wrong except do a simple search. You then get arrested and charged and the police don't check to see if what you say about the pop-up's is true, instead they say you actively searched and sought out the pornography site because the site addresses have also appeared on the system logs. It can happen anywhere on any computer that is not protected. This is why you should be outraged.

This can happen to anyone. This is why computers should always be protected. However some institutions (be it schools or anywhere else for that matter) don't always ensure their systems are protected and the result? Bye bye to your freedom and say hello to Jack your new prison room mate who asks you to bend over to pick up the soap in the shower.

 

I wouldn't wish what happened to this woman on anyone.

Here is the thing though, this could happen to anyone at all. It can happen in any public building that has not updated or maintained its protection software.

Why would they? She was a substitute teacher who was brought in to replace the regular teacher for that day. Even with computer training, she would still have not been able to prevent the stream of pop-up's that appeared. The people who had used the unprotected computer before her had already set everything in motion before she even got there, through no fault of their own, nor hers. An innocent search triggered it all and the pop-up's started streaming across the screen.

The detective who was the only expert who was allowed to testify was severely unqualified and was using a system that could not distinguish or tell if the computer had been infected before hand, nor could it tell if it was in fact pop-up's that had appeared. Instead, he went by the fact that the pop-up's had embedded themselves into the systems logs (which they always do) and claimed that because of that, she must have searched for the porn... never having actually bothered to check if the computer she had been using in that classroom was even infected. That is all the jury got to hear. They were never given any information about whether the computer might have been infected or not.

Indeed. What amazed me however were the calls that she could have just turned the monitor off before she left the room to get help. I have a 17 month old and he knows how to turn the computer monitor on and off. I would imagine the 12 year olds would have known to turn it on after she'd run from the room to get help. She had been ordered to not turn the computer off under any circumstance. The kids were, by their own and even the prosecutor's admission, trying to push her out of the way as she tried to bodily block the screen, to watch the stream of porn on the screen. It would have been funny as hell to be honest if she had not been arrested, charged, found guilty and could now face a sentence of 40 years.

What I wonder is why didn't the school have any form of protection in place on their computer systems, when they knew the children could access the internet from the classrooms?

You want to know how her side of the events might have come about? It is very easy. Just make sure you do it in your own home and not on any public computer as you could find yourself in the same boat as Amero. And make damn sure there are no children anywhere around when you do. Remember, this was not her computer. It was a school computer, at a school she had just been brought in to substitute for one day:

Try it Baron. I dare you.

On second thoughts, try the above in a public library when there are lots of little kids running around. Then you too can experience the leniency she has been given.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You still don't get it?

I don't just disagree with the verdict. I disagree that this farce was even allowed to get to trial. She should never have been tried. She should never have even been arrested.

By all accounts that I have read, internet security experts are basically lining up (to testify) in outrage that this poor woman could have been arrested, found guilty in a trial that was a joke and could now face 40 years in jail. So are lawyers who are experts in the internet security field and they don't even want to be hired, they wish to help her for free. Because anyone with half a brain could recognise that she was innocent and is being tried to appease the anti-porn hysteria that has beset the US and also many parts of the world of late. As even the detective has said:

Interesting don't you think?

The school, which had failed to provide any form of protection to its computers gets off scot free. Why or how could a school be allowed to have computers in their classrooms and not have at the very least, net nanny installed? They had no spyware protection. No virus protection. They had nothing installed to ensure that students who use the computers would not be exposed to pornography. Sadly Amero was tried by a lynchmob who were hell bent on making someone pay and she was the scapegoat.

In short, a computer infection (caused by the school's negligence) has now resulted in this substitute teacher facing a possible 40 years in jail. Had she slept with one of the 12 year old students, she might have gotten a couple of years. How is that for irony.

Exactly.

What should have happened was that someone should have checked if the computer had been infected in the first place. Surely anyone with any common sense would recognise that a computer with no protection at all installed and a report of a stream of pop-up's could have been the result of an infection. That they never even checked is ridiculous and what it does show is an over-zealous idiot of a prosecutor who is only interested in getting a guilty verdict.

I just cannot understand how she was even arrested. And then amazingly brought to trial. Had the jury been allowed to hear all of the expert evidence, there is no way she would have been found guilty. This whole case is a sham. Her arrest is a sham and the trial that followed is akin to a comedy. Sadly it is not a comedy and she now faces the prospect of spending the next 40 years in jail for somethign she did not do and had no control over. And this can happen to anyone at all. Be warned. If you ever have to use a public computer anywhere at all, make damn sure it has all its protection systems in place and up to date because this could happen to anyone at all.