Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1 "zero Tolerance Pc Bites Porn Addicted Teacher In The A*s !" 
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    The Prosecution of Julie Amero

    What the railroading of a teacher by technically inept police and prosecutors reveals about the criminal justice system


    In October 2004, Julie Amero, a substitute teacher in Norwich, Connecticut, was teaching a seventh grade language class. While Amero was using a laptop computer—one accessible to both students and teacher—the computer began spinning off pop-up ads for pornographic websites. Amero concedes she was checking her email and surfing the Internet while she was supposed to be teaching. Perhaps that makes her a bad substitute teacher (though she had taught at the school for a year and a half without incident). But it doesn’t make her a sex offender.

    Yet in January 2007 Amero was convicted on four counts on the ambiguous charge of "risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child." Her ridiculous prosecution is the product of a Puritanical, zero tolerance hysteria; stubborn, obstinate police and prosecutors; and a criminal justice system that hasn’t adequately adapted to modern technology.

    Prosecutors in the case improbably contended that Amero—who had no prior criminal record and was seven months pregnant at the time—intentionally exposed her class of seventh-graders to Internet pornography. She faced up to 40 years in prison.

    Even if Amero had knowingly and willingly exposed her middle school class to pornography, she should at worst have lost her job, and perhaps faced a fine and revocation of her teaching license. That she could have spent most of the rest of her life in prison says she was either over-charged, or was charged with a ridiculously stupid law. Probably both.

    But Amero insists she never intended for her class to be an Internet-abetted lesson in sex education, and there’s plenty of reason to believe her. She says she panicked when a loop of unwanted pop-up ads from porn sites began to appear while she was using the computer in front of her students. The more Amero frantically tried to close the ads, the more they kept springing up—a problem not at all uncommon on computers lacking up-to-date firewalls and virus protection.

    What’s particularly troubling about Amero’s case isn’t necessarily the technical ignorance of the police and prosecutors—though that's troubling enough—but the fact that their ignorance seems almost willful. The state pointed out at trial that the school had put filtering software on its computers. But the school had also let the licenses for that software expire. It would have taken no more than a phone call with the Best Buy "Geek Squad" to learn that if filtering software isn’t updated, it's quickly rendered useless.

    Early last year, after her conviction, Amero’s case caught fire on tech blogs and Internet message boards. Computer security experts across the country quickly recognized what had happened: Amero’s computer had been infected with malware, invasive software that can take control of a computer, often redirecting web browsers to porn sites. Police and prosecutors conceded that they hadn’t even bothered to test the computer for malicious software. Dozens of tech gurus volunteered to help with Amero’s defense. When they were finally able to examine her computer, they found what they suspected—it was infested with malware.

    But it gets worse. The state’s expert witness, a computer crimes investigator with the Norwich Police Department, testified that because the URLs for the offending sites were "highlighted," Amero must have deliberately clicked on them. State’s Attorney David Smith took it a step further. He told jurors that Amero actually would have had to type the URLs in for them to show up in the browser registry. Both assertions are flat wrong. Internet Explorer, the browser Amero was using at the time, requires neither a mouse click nor a typed URL to show that a link has been visited. Any address loaded by the browser will show up as "visited," even those uploaded in a pop-up window. Many of the porn addresses were hidden behind innocuous-sounding URLs, some disguised as hair styling sites. Amero would had to have been pretty determined in her mission to expose seventh graders to porn to memorize and deliberately key in sites like http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com, one of the offending porn sites.

    None of this mattered to cops, prosecutors, or the media. Children had seen adult naughty bits, and someone had to pay. Amero was made a pariah. Local newspaper the Norwich Bulletin ran an editorial lauding Amero’s conviction, declaring that her “intent was apparent” and "her deeds were disgusting."

    But just in case Amero's lawyers did make a convincing case she didn't mean to upload the porn sites, Amero’s prosecutors had a fall-back plan: They argued that Amero should have taken measures to block students from seeing the computer once the images started loading.

    Once computer experts proved the existence of malware, however, and showed the registry testimony to be flat wrong, the “well, she should have done something” defense was all the state had left, and it's the case they pushed in the media. Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly made that argument when he took up the case on his show, insisting that Amero should have turned off the computer. The Norwich Bulletin ran another editorial saying Amero should have "taped some paper over the screen." Prosecutors said at trial that Amero should have thrown a sweater over the screen.

    http://reason.com/news/printer/130527.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    See they have these policies - they CLAIM - to protect the kids from sexual predators - which is pure bullshit. Every teacher in America is presumed a child molester until proven innocent.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    This is a very maddening case... everyone involved in her sham of a prosecution should be forced to contribute to some sort of restitution...

    Even with the charges dropped, the outcome is unacceptable.

    It wasn’t until earlier this month, four years after the incident, that the state of Connecticut finally dropped the four felony counts against Julie Amero. But it’s something of a Pyrrhic victory. In exchange for dropping the felony charges, Amero still had to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, pay a $100 fine, and forgo her teaching license in Connecticut. It’s hard to blame her for taking the deal, even if she’s innocent. The last four years have taken a toll on her health. Amero has been hospitalized from stress and a heart condition brought on by her case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    This is a very maddening case... everyone involved in her sham of a prosecution should be forced to contribute to some sort of restitution...

    Even with the charges dropped, the outcome is unacceptable.
    Put's the shoe on the other foot for a change don't you think Wilber ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    Put's the shoe on the other foot for a change don't you think Wilber ?
    How so?

    This issue isnt PC run amuck... if anything it was an example of an irrational minded form of conservatism... one that imagines if a kid sees an inappropriate naked person clearly on accident, that the child is damaged for life and possibly in the afterlife... so that a life-destroying punishment for the offender isnt punishment enough... the witch-hunt that ensued was a direct product of such a mentality that has more in common with the religious right than the left PC agenda I'm afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    How so?

    This issue isnt PC run amuck... if anything it was an example of an irrational minded form of conservatism... one that imagines if a kid sees an inappropriate naked person clearly on accident, that the child is damaged for life and possibly in the afterlife... so that a life-destroying punishment for the offender isnt punishment enough... the witch-hunt that ensued was a direct product of such a mentality that has more in common with the religious right than the left PC agenda I'm afraid.
    You are full of shit as a Christmas turkey with your religious right wing crap. This is the state of CT with it's left wing liberal anti-religious loons at the helm. Commonly called wacky wackos. Where was your favorite organization like the ACLU during this fiasco in one of the most liberal blue states in the country?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    This is a very maddening case... everyone involved in her sham of a prosecution should be forced to contribute to some sort of restitution...

    Even with the charges dropped, the outcome is unacceptable.
    And what about the thousands of dollars every year that teachers are required by law to spend proving that they are not child molesters? You know in the state of PA with the clearances that are required - a teacher has to spend over $70 just to apply for a job. Each school wants original copies of the clearances the state requires just to consider you for employment - photo copies are not good enough. THEN every year you have to resubmit proof that that you have not yet been caught molesting a child in the last year in order to keep your job. The claim is that this forms keep the kids safe which is a bold face lie. At BEST all it can do it protect kids from known molesters who should never released from state custody in the first place.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    How so?

    This issue isnt PC run amuck... if anything it was an example of an irrational minded form of conservatism... one that imagines if a kid sees an inappropriate naked person clearly on accident, that the child is damaged for life and possibly in the afterlife... so that a life-destroying punishment for the offender isnt punishment enough... the witch-hunt that ensued was a direct product of such a mentality that has more in common with the religious right than the left PC agenda I'm afraid.
    actually - no. Sorry. It's not the right pushing these laws. It's the government in general. The whole point of these laws is to protect the schools and the government from law suits.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    The important part of this story is how freaking clueless the administration, police, courts, and "journalists" are about malware.

    I'm not interested in showing children porn but anyone who has ever dealt with malware knows just how fast these attacks happen. A lot of times you can't "just shut the computer off". You have to physically pull the plug which is not something most people would remember when being bombarded with pics of "Anal Annie" in front of school children.

    Zero tolerance is necessarily mindless and destructive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    The important part of this story is how freaking clueless the administration, police, courts, and "journalists" are about malware.

    I'm not interested in showing children porn but anyone who has ever dealt with malware knows just how fast these attacks happen. A lot of times you can't "just shut the computer off". You have to physically pull the plug which is not something most people would remember when being bombarded with pics of "Anal Annie" in front of school children.

    Zero tolerance is necessarily mindless and destructive.

    Zero tolerance is the same as zero common sense and mental activity .It Usually takes someone on the computer to go to an 'x rated site and look around or someone sending you an 'x' rated sites executable address by email.

    If the website captures your address it is able to bombard/flood your address with 'x' rated spam .Your only recourse is to power down and reboot up offline and destroy any records of the traffic starting with the toxic email including any cookies left behind.

    It's easy to make someone look like an sex fiend or pedophile and guilty if you are 'up to speed' with a computer
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •