Kangaroo Court: IT staff failure could cost a teacher forty years in prison

Tech News

By Steve Ragan Feb 19, 2007, 16:15 GMT

Kangaroo Court: (n) A Court characterized by dishonesty or incompetence. [Answers.com] Kangaroo Court is the only way to call the railroading of Julie Amero, a substitute teacher in Norwich Connecticut. In January, Julie Amero was convicted of four counts of ‘risking injury to a child’ and will face up to forty years in prison when she is sentenced in March. The conviction was handed down in the Norwich Superior Court. The story behind this and the facts used to convict her have many in the IT world gaping in shock.The story behind the case starts in 2004. Amero was using a computer in a seventh grade class to email her husband. Before she sent the email, she left to use the restroom and came back into the classroom, finding students watching a hairstyle ad on the PC. This is where the trouble starts. Attempting to close the pop-up ad for the hairstyle promotion she was suddenly bombarded with an endless stream of pop-up ads for pornography related services and websites.The computer and the pop-up ads continued to run all day long according to court reports and news interviews. Amero, a self-described ‘technophobe’ (someone who is afraid of or does not know how to use current technology) did not attempt to turn off the computer, or unplug it for two reasons. The first, she claims was because she did not know how to turn off the computer. The second is she was trained never to touch anything in another teacher’s classroom. She had only asked to send and email, and in her opinion, disabling the computer or unplugging it would have not been within the scope of what she was allowed to do.She attempted to seek help, leaving the classroom to head to the teachers lounge. Later, because she failed to close and lock the classroom when she went to the lounge, this was added as proof of her irresponsible actions. In all, four children were exposed to the ads and images. During the trial, it was suggested that she spent too much time looking at the internet and that she intentionally surfed pornographic websites. If she is a ‘technophobe’ as claimed, it is likely sending email, is the only thing she knows how to do on a computer. Anything else and she would shy away from it. Her husband also confirmed that she is a ‘technophobe’ both at trial and in interviews.What makes this case a farce, and earns it the title of Kangaroo Court are first the charges. Charging her with ‘risking injury to a child’ implies that she knowingly or with full knowledge or intent sought to harm or expose children to pornography. How could she? She did not know what she was looking at, only that the images disturbed her. She attempted to block access to the screen and kept the children away to the best of her ability. Something two children at trial testified too. The second is the testimony of a computer expert who had most of his findings stripped because they were not given to the prosecution before the start of the trial.The third, and in this reporters opinion the largest, most damning fact in the trial, the fact that the network administrator, knew that the security policies in place were outdated, and that he knew the firewall filters were also not functioning. Starting with the network administrator for the school, Robert Hartz, he told the New York Times, “…the computer’s filters that would have blocked such ads were not fully operational, since they had lacked the proper updated information for several weeks.”The lack up updates for the filters and other security programs stems from a mistyped email address; Mr. Hartz ordered an upgrade, but in the same New York Times article the Superintendent of the Norwich Schools, Pam Aubin, said he never got them from the supplier because they used an ‘B’ for Bob instead of an ‘R’ for Robert. How could that happen?The mistyped email is something that can happen to anyone. For the person who is in charge of the network security for the school, to not follow-up when updates are not received within a short period, is a serious dereliction of duty. He knew when he requested the updates, and he knew when they did not arrive. Is Mr. Hartz the only person responsible for keeping track of updates? If not, how did any of the other people on the IT staff fail to notice software, and other security applications were outdated?The computer expert, who had most of his report stricken from the record, because it was not given to the prosecution before the trial, posted his findings online. In his posting, Herbert Horner, a computer forensic expert with close to forty years experience, detailed his conclusion that the computer and hard drive were infected with malicious software. From his report posted online at Network Performance Daily, Herbert Horner told a different story than what the prosecution did.“hair-styles.org was accessed at 8:14:24 A.M., based upon the hair style images uploaded to the PC we were led to believe that there were students using the computer to search out hair styles...The user continued accessing the original hair site and was directed to new-hair-styles.com. This site had pornographic links; pop-ups were then initiated by pagead2.googlesyndication.com. There were additional pop-ups by realmedia.com, cnentrport.net, and by 9:20:00 A.M., several java, aspx's and html scripts were uploaded. A click on the curlyhairstyles.htm icon on the new-hair-styles.com site led to the execution of the curly hairstyle script along with others that contained pornographic links and pop-ups. Once the aforementioned started, it would be very difficult even for an experienced user to extricate themselves from this situation of porn pop-ups and loops.”Later in his report, he gave the following conclusion.“This was one of the most frustrating experiences of my career, knowing full well that the person is innocent and not being allowed to provide logical proof. If there is an appeal and the defense is allowed to show the entire results of the forensic examination in front of experienced computer people, including a computer literate judge and prosecutor, Julie Amero will walk out the courtroom as a free person. Let this experience stand as a warning to all that use computers in an environment where minors are present. The aforementioned situation can happen to anyone without fail and without notice if there is no adequate firewall, Anti-Spyware, Anti-Adware and Anti-Virus protection. That was not provided by the school administration where Julie Amero taught.”Amero said on trial that at one point she had four teachers, and the assistant principal aware of the problem. Was each of them as much as a ‘technophobe’ as she was? They asked her why she did not turn off the monitor, or disable the PC. Why did the other staff members who were aware of this incident fail to act? The assistant principal, as senior administrator of staff, present at the time should have taken action. Instead, a teacher who did not know what to do, after asking for help, will now face forty years in prison.This is not her fault. If there was more she should have done, it would have been to unplug the PC regardless of what she was trained to do. However, it should have never come down to that. The schools IT people should have paid attention, they should have properly maintained their systems. If they had, this would not be a news story, and this would not make the US Courts look like a complete joke.Across the web, IT people, and users alike agree. This is a joke. This is a complete waist of taxpayer money. Why are they going after her, when they have evidence that the school system was partially at fault? Why are the people who created the spyware not being hunted? What about the person in charge of network security, Mr. Hartz, he came off squeaky clean. Why was that? Julie Amero will appeal. Her lawyers are taking over the appeal free of charge. They have a strong case. Julie Amero could have taken a plea-bargain allowing her the option of no jail time. Julie Amero refused the plea-bargain agreement, and after a trial was convicted. One hopes that he appeal is heard, and conviction is overturned.

Your Talkback on this Story

Note posts made on our older Talkback system will still show below. However, new posts can only be made via the new system (above). We will export the old comments to the new shortly. You can still comment as a guest on the new system but it also allows you to login using various social network and other accounts.

Other features coming soon.

Talkback

page: 1

Reggie CravenFeb 19th, 2007 - 17:24:30

So this is what our judicial system is doing? We pay tax dollars so schools can fail to keep up with their internet vendors, get lax about online security, and when it blows up in their faces they manipulate the judical system to make a scapegoat out of an innocent substitute teacher? I applaud our unwavering ability to establish a person guilty until proven innocent.

Sure she could have thrown a coat over the screen, but would it have mattered? The kids saw it and there was no going back. I've had to unplug a computer to do a hard shut down and that is very damaging to the system as many of us know. She didn't, but it was probably better for the computer that she didn't.

Those idiots merely want someone to blame because they screwed up. The fact that this went to court and that she was convicted is not only an infringement upon human decency, it demonstrates that security is always difficult. They used her and took her freedom away and when those bastards mess with freedom, they're letting the terrorists win.

Report this comment

BrianFeb 19th, 2007 - 21:18:45

This is what Dan Axelrod, 'education' writer for the local paper -- The Norwich Bulletin -- wrote in his blog regarding the Julie Amero case.

Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Enough. Enough e-mails, phone calls and letters to the editor defending Julie Amero. I’m sick of them. The worst part of all is that people jump to these conclusions without viewing any of the evidence or police documents. Here are the facts: Amero showed graphic pornography to up to 10 children in a Kelly Middle School class, according to a police investigation.

There was no magic, mysterious conspiracy to arrest and convict this woman. No group of students said, “We hate this teacher and now we’re going to ruin her life.” There were no bungling school district administrators or evil police. Computer filters can’t stop every one of the millions of pornography Web sites from slipping through. Blaming the school, the police or anyone else for what Amero did is like blaming a rape victim for being raped. It’s sick, it’s wrong, it’s ignorant and it’s moronic. The school didn’t even bring charges up against Amero. The police did.

According to a Norwich police affidavit, “the pornographic sites were almost continuously viewed from approximately 9:24 a.m. to approximately 11:11 a.m.” No one accidentally clicks on pornographic pop-ups advertisements for nearly two hours continuously. According to the affidavit, at least one of the Web sites required the person viewing the images to click on a box agreeing to terms of disclosure beforehand.

Here’s the kicker: AMERO WAS NOT CONVICTED OF LOOKING AT PORNOGRAPHY ON A SCHOOL COMPUTER. She was convicted of four counts of “Risk of Injury to a Minor.” That means she was convicted of NOT DOING ENOUGH TO PREVENT CHILDREN FROM SEEING PORNOGRAPHY ON THE COMPUTER. Now, does she deserve 40 years in jail, of course not. She was offered probationary time, which would lead to her not having a criminal record, and she turned it down, according to her attorney. Now, she’s been convicted and she’ll face her sentence in March. I’m sure the judge will use prudence.

So even if you give Amero the benefit of the doubt, and you say the pornography was on the computer to begin with (and she simply found it there), then she should have covered the computer, unplugged it or forced the students to stand in the back of the room far away from the computer. Don’t let multiple children, all were younger than 16, see people performing sexual acts upon each other on a school computer screen. That’s just wrong.

posted by Daniel Axelrod at 3:36 PM 15 comments

Report this comment

Mike MaxwellFeb 27th, 2007 - 16:57:28

I have to go with throwing a coat over it. Or turning the monitor off; or turning the monitor around or turning the monitor face down. OK, so startled folks don't generally have their wits about them.

My biggest problem is with the defense attorney. It sounds like he did not provide the prosecution with his expert's (Herbert Horner's) reports far enough in advance of the trial. So Julie was punished for that attorney mistake by having some of the evidence excluded. Could it have helped? Who knows.

Report this comment

Emiliano PussymasterFeb 28th, 2007 - 09:34:08

and this technophobe is there teaching to children? No wonder ya're all stupid

Report this comment

WilliamJun 17th, 2007 - 20:21:42

What is it with americans and sex?
A)No one at the trial seems to really understand the concepts of spamware and how, even if you're technically competent at the basics of computer operation it can find its way on to your system. A lot of people I know who can easily operate desktop computers and software packages still have no virus, spyware or adware defences running because they never thought they'd need them. You dont need to view pornography to get them - you can visit a legitimate website that has been hacked, you can install a sony product, you can go to a wrong address (Ever so slightly - miss a letter or a space and chances are you end up on a mirror site filled with spam links and ready to infect your system). If you're technically illiterate with PC's and software operation then its even worse.
B) Its people having sex. Its not letting them watch ten seconds of Saw, in which a man rips himself to death on barbed wire to get out of a cage a serial killer has trapped him in. Its not Rambo in which Stallone kills dozens of vietnamese with his bare hands. It's not drug abuse, its not rape, its not death murder dismemberment or even more petty offences such as theft, light assault or breaking and entering. Its sex. As much as you wish to shield your children from such things, punishing someone for a mistake - a mistake which is not even their fault, but that of the admin if anything (spamware doesnt last on my computer, and I dont get paid to maintain it) and our own system which makes such a taboo subject so very profitable ultimately - is just warped. It may have been fairly obscene but lets be honest, its nothing worse than they saw when those kids from connecticut wandered into the marital chambers due to the boogeyman and earned their first repressed memories.
She didnt do anything on purpose, she deserves absolutely no punishment and frankly its completely wrong that any body would even say so. I find it amazing that the human race carries on when such idiocy is perpetuated so dilligently and (even worse) through official bodies, and no question of context, intent and actual damage is taken into account. Technophobes may need to overcome their fears (computers really arent that complicated from a user viewpoint - your car is more obtuse than a desktop pc, which tends to explicitly say what the user can do and should do.) and this particular part of the connecticut police need to justify their existence.

Report this comment

page: 1

Tech

Kangaroo Court: IT staff failure could cost a teacher forty years in prison

Tech News

Your Talkback on this Story

Talkback

Latest Headlines in Tech

From Sites We Like

Latest PopEater News

Latest Cinema Blend News

Latest Tech Herald News

In Monsters and Critics

Corporate

The Fine Print