Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Malware victim faces jailtime; Write Connecticut's Governor
downloadsquad.com — I've written Governor Rell, asking that she speak independently with any number of the available experts and then use that information to make the right decision; Issue a pardon of Julie Amero. Now it's your turn. Take 5 minutes out of your day and do what you can to keep Julie Amero from serving jail-time for falling victim to malware!
kuroaisu- 1219 diggs
- digg it
- sergiopereira, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32Digg this, folks. This is just insane and insulting.
- geodescent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+29I wish there was a law that made it a crime to pass-the-buck on responsibility.
- MahmoudIRAN, on 10/12/2007, -49/+1Already wrote a letter to governor...
http://digg.com/videos_comedy/Shake_what_yo_momma_gave_ya - gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+34You guys are all being very generous and all, but issuing a pardon involves the victim admitting to a sense of guilt (which is precisely why some people reject pardons). A wiser thing to do would be to write to the governor and encourage some sort of judicial coercion during the appeal process in order to get the thing thrown out. Public figures (and overall public attention) help a lot when it comes to pushing the judicial view in a certain direction. Just look at Russia.
- JeremyBanks, on 10/12/2007, -29/+4Congrats, you just got your story and your comment burried as spam.
- VaporBro, on 10/26/2007, -2/+31@hilldu:
...? Deserves to go to jail? Please shut the hell up and run into my fist. Thank you. - jimbojim, on 10/12/2007, -29/+4Of course. I'm infected with spyware every time I get caught looking at porn, too.
Oh, and whats the best way to get infected with spyware? That's right, looking at porn.
I don't know if he deserves jail time, but asking for a full pardon is ridiculous. - TheRealToma, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22Wont somebody please think of the children!?
I bet the majority of the class just said "Cool."
Also...
"Later on, prosecutors would ask why she hadn't just thrown a coat or a sweater over monitor. On that day Amero hadn't worn either."
Lets humor this.. If she took off her top to cover the monitor, would that be protecting the children from porn, or exposing them to softcore porn?
Yet another reason not to run Windows :) - Pfhreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23jimbojim,
Julie Amero was a substitute teacher using the regular teacher's computer. It was an old Windows 98 machine, and the school had allowed the license on the antivirus to lapse. She didn't look at any porn and is now facing up to 40 years in prison.
Just to back up gcnaddict: accepting a pardon does indeed represent an admission of guilt. - Pseudorious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A pardon is NOT the way to go as the posters above have indicated. She would admit guilt and be stigmatized.
The appeals process is the correct avenue and she would most likely win. If we wish to write, it should be to whomever chose to prosecute this case initially and would fight the appeal.
- djjinksy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18terrible, terrible. spread the word people.
- superpixel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30this really is nuts. aggressive legal stupidity at its worst, and completely without regard to logic. yes, Justice must be blind-- but not stupid. if your tires are defective and they cause you to crash into a building are you the driver held liable? no. you had a reasonable expectation that the tires would work as intended. same with computers. Pity the DA and rest of CT's govt can't grasp basic computing concepts. Although I'm sure their home PC's are malware free, RIGHT?
This is insane.- prelude, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1It's time for her to take responsibility for her actions. If you don't maintain a fire exit and people die, you're responsible. This is exactly the same, think of the lives she ruined!
- XISUPERMANIX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32Sometimes I wonder how the ***** these politicians graduated high school.
- schmons, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16It's because they graduated in the 50's.
- stisev, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9dugg! Happy to help out!
Let's rally the TWIT army! - coltrane68, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Unfortunately, Governor Rell is ineffectual at best, and simple at worst. As a Connecticut resident, I have no faith that she has the capacity to understand how absurd the State's position is on this issue.
- edm1950, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1edit
- stisev, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Come on, people. Digg this and spread the word! Contact the governor! His email is : Governor.Rell@po.state.ct.us
- vern01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Even the article says do NOT contact the Gov. to contact the board of pardons and paroles
QUOTE
"In the State of Connecticut, the Governor does not have the authority to grant a pardon as this authority is given to the Board of Pardon and Paroles, if you have any questions regarding the pardon process in the State of Connecticut, I would suggest you contact this agency directly at (203) 805-6605."
Connecticut Board of Pardon and Parole
(203) 805-6605 - edm1950, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0Hey this digg was put together by substitute diggers, whadda they know. You people are so unfair.
- vern01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Even the article says do NOT contact the Gov. to contact the board of pardons and paroles
- broomett, on 10/12/2007, -30/+3Stop telling people what to do.
- zephc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Oh, sweet irony.
- SabbathXXL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16That was remarkable. I love the ignorance displayed here.
- CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11OK, but only because you told me not to.
- dlbear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Broomett, you have a notable talent for getting dugg down, I really can't remember the last time I've seen you above my viewing threshold. My hat's off to you sir, you have apparently drawn your line in the sand.
- worthawholebean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10She hasn't exactly done much (except for campaign and public finance reform) in her tenure as governor so far an dI don't really expect she'll act on this.
- dave2112, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1On the plus side, at least she's better than Rowland......
- Jimmyinnz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3I am not intentionally being a "spanner in the works" but this is not the complete story that I read a week or so ago. In that story the 'history' of the browser showed that in some of the pages visited, the URLs had been typed in rather than being forwarded or re-directed from another website.
If I am wrong I sincerely apologize, maybe someone else read the same story. I believe it was the summing up to the jury by the prosecutor that contained that information.- Speed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I might be wrong, having siables history a long time ago, but last I checked, browser history doesn't say whether the link was typed in or clicked onto (or popped up)
- Agret, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"typed in" just means they showup when you hit the drop down box. If malware had redirected where she went when she typed a URL maybe IE has just saved the follow address in the url history rather than what she actually typed. Seeing how i've not had spyware nor used IE in a number of years (gee, funny how that works out) I can't say for sure though. Anyone care to comment?
- Rokr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14This county's stupidity is on par with Boston and their terrorism scare. These are our elected officials? Honestly where do I apply for those positions? *runs and looks*
- bcreavis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8One of us should figure out how to give the governor non-malicious malware (I guess "non-malicious" and "malware" are a bit contradictory, but you get my point) to do the same thing to him as what happened to Julie. That might sway his position a smidgen.
*goes off to investigate*
All in all, this is really a sad story. I feel very bad for the poor woman.
Dugg. - TheIguana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10This is fracking despicable, what kind of idiot is the district attorney in Connecticut? And why the hell has the judge in the case refuse to admit the defenses technical evidence. I just cannot believe this utter *****.
- CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Maybe the DA hired Ted Stevens as an expert witess?
- SabbathXXL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I love the "impairing the morals of a child" part because everybody knows that a kid watching porn is the most unspeakable and downright despicable thing known to man. Surely her students will now become sex fiends and offenders. Those kids must be in such emotional distress over this. How dare her for not making sure the networking adviser installed proper security. How dare her.
- pikpikcarrotmon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0"Impairing of morals" actually means that when the kids got home and told their parents what they'd learned in class, they got smacked.
- spiritd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Man! This is so unfair. I hope to see the day when the government finally begins to get a grasp on the internet.
Ridiculous. - edm1950, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1I also remember that the consensus was that not knowing how to switch off the monitor was a pretty lame defense. It''s also somewhat criminal that a teacher in 2007 would not know how to use a computer. Since it is her first offense she will probably not get jail time but more than likely get probation or public service and be kept out of the classroom from now on. Considering the circumstances that is not a bad thing.
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5She's a substitute. You don't need to know squat to be a substitute. I live in this area, and I know people who have subbed for extra cash. In a district 2 towns over, the pay is $11/hr. I'm sure it's no different in Norwich.
Given the requirements to be a substitute (the ability to read and speak in English) in this area, your comment makes about as much sense as saying "why didn't a burger flipper know not to turn the monitor off?" - Speed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10She was under strict orders not to turn the computers off. It's possible she thought that turning off the monitor turned off the computer.
- edm1950, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1In that case how did the burger flipper know how to send email to her husband. Your argument doesn't wash.
- edm1950, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1In any event if the case is as shoddy as most of you make it out to be, then her lawyer must have been as well trained as the alleged teacher. The case should be easily over turned on appeal.
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5She's a substitute. You don't need to know squat to be a substitute. I live in this area, and I know people who have subbed for extra cash. In a district 2 towns over, the pay is $11/hr. I'm sure it's no different in Norwich.
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10This is happening in my hometown. This is the town of Benedict Arnold, of racists chasing away the founder of Dartmouth College for teaching Indians how to read, of closing down every institute of higher learning because they didn't pay taxes. We are the place where Indians (and one of the tribes is a fake one) have more power than anyone else. This place is backwards...
If they give her any jail time at all my opinion of this town will sink even lower.- CTRaider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hey another Diggite in the Norwich area. Woohoo.
- drilldown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+75 Minutes of my night to be exact.
I've said before, put one goddamn technically literate person on that jury. - el_taco, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I thought schools used macs.
- pixelpowered, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Well I am playing WOW, intoxicated, and angry looking at this news article that I expected to disappear months ago after seeing it. Now I will spend the 5min (plus comment time) to compile a notification to the governor asking what I can do for this unfortunate person as an IT professional. I work for a disreputably noted company in the Northwest that works with Microsoft, Sun Micro systems, Dell, HP, etc. I have seen this happen to WinXP (SP2+) systems fail horridly to this this the top and lowest security features enabled. Hearing this story makes me want to find the DA's IP and do unspeakable things to his legacy ports, only for a passing moment though. Instead I plan to see if I can influence the gov like a respected citizen. Do not ask for a pardon, that is silly and not respectful of what the law can endorse. Simply state facts that any knowledgeable person using the Windows family product + Internet knows: 1. Win98 (even SE ed) is no longer supported by Microsoft themselves, even in 2004 when this incident happened. 2. Even with a firewall, anti-virus, anti-spy ware, anti - anything else you can think of, is ineffective in Win98 (lets dream you could load all of those things too) with the noted back doors to its ports. 3. Ask the Jury or the ignorant DA to stop "Spam" in a nanosecond on a Win98 system.
Enough of stating the obvious, email the gov with understanding and not hate.... before I level my shaman.- scilec, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Before you level your shaman, please send him on one final journey through the great expanse of the internets to venture through one of the DA's legacy ports (which will look even better after you have another beer) so that he can find President Bush and convince him to pardon her... at least twice.
- skunkman62, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"Well I am playing WOW, intoxicated, ... IT professional."
i bet you're popular with the ladies.
- wiremonkeymommy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5this is so horribly wrong and those in our legal system are so inexcusably ignorant, people's lives are at stake, wtf?!? Her case needs all the attention it deserves in tech circles (and beyond) until she's freed.
/the irony here is that if she was on a jury, she could have been easily been persuaded to convict some hapless computer user such as herself, she knows so little- Mizman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2legal system is amazing...its the lawyers who pfuk it up
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2mizman:
My father's a lawyer. Yes, some lawyers are assholes (prosecutors and John Edwards type ambulance chasers), but the biggest problem is the legislature and the people who vote them in. They are, after all, the people who create these idiotic laws.
- Imus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Letter sent.
This is the first time I've ever sent a letter to a government official because of an online plea. The circumstances surrounding everything I've read about this case leads me to believe that this woman has been unjustly convicted.
The governor's email address is: Governor.Rell@po.state.ct.us - kualla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10SHE'S GUILTY.... guilty for using a computer with windows 98 on it! Regardless of the OS she used though, the porn pop-ups(or adult images) most likely could have still happened, it is the schools IT departments fault for not installing filters. Adult material should be blocked well before it ever reaches any teachers computers, it should be stopped at the routers/switches/hubs/etc.
- randomgeek, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Wait. You're contradicting yourself. First you say "She's guilty" then you go on to say it's the school's IT departments fault. So which is it? The substitute who had never used that machine before, or the school? Your answer could keep a woman out of jail.
- noriko, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2????
u sir are a retard!
read the fscking comment.
'SHE'S GUILTY ... for using a computer with windows 98 on it' ;;
now now class, that quote means,
She's guilty, but not of the crime at hand, but for ... anybody? no? SHE'S GUILTY.... guilty for using a computer with windows 98 on it!
now you wanna explain how any of that contradicts anything.
please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction
-------------------------------------------------------
ps, sorry for signing up just to say that, but you were begging for it when you made it clear you either didn't read the comment properly before replying or the answer i'm going for, you simply can't read.
- BillDoE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Dugg and sent to Kieth Olbermann. Maybe some of the people can make the next Worse Person list ;)
- Imus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Great idea. Another letter sent.
KOlbermann@msnbc.com
- Imus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Great idea. Another letter sent.
- wowbagger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Serves the idiot right, she needs to stay in jail.
- MacintoshSauce, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Some of you people are absolutely ***** amazing...
If the poor woman did not know how to use Windows 98 on the computer, surely that is not her fault. Also, I will almost bet you that some of the students in that class were surfing for porn on that computer when the teacher was out of the class. I have been a computer expert for many years, and I can vouch that any Windows-based OS is pure utter crap when it comes to computer security. This is why I only use Mac OS X or Linux for critical things. Windows XP is only good for gaming and that is it.
This woman should not be prosecuted IMO. Ultimately, the fault lies witht the school administration for allowing computers like that to be hooked up to the Internet. That is only inviting trouble... Now the poor woman is out of a job. How would some of you like this to happen to you? I don't think you'd be singing the same tune, you ***** cowards. - noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Was I the only one who read the title as "Malware writer faces jailtime; Writes Connecticut's Governor"?
Probably. - Aves, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I haven't seen any mainstream coverage of this story. You can use this link to submit a story idea to NPR.
Maybe with enough coverage something will change here.
http://www.npr.org/about/pitch/story.html - bob369963, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ditto, I sent to both Kieth and NPR. Thanks for the links to those. I just can't believe they are sending her to jail for this. Unbelievable the tech knowledge of some people.
- nxusername, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here is the letter I wrote:
Dear Chairman Gregory Everett and Governor M. Jodi Rell,
As an information technology expert I feel compelled to write you in the matter of the case of Julie Amero. I can speak to the fact of how easily a computer can become infected with a virus that would cause adult images to begin appearing on a computer. A simple typo in the Internet Explorer address bar can set of a chain of events that would easily cause this situation.
The real people at fault here are either the Norwich Connecticut School District system administrators for having improper security to prevent this type of virus and/or Microsoft for creating a product with so many easily exploitable security vulnerabilities. It will be a tragedy if Julie Amero is the one who suffers for this.
Please consider issuing a pardon to Julie Amero. Thank you for your time. - formido, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I thought that at one point that having some social voting mechanism would expose the truth about topics, but based on digg, this is not how it works. I guess truth is still the province of solitary minds thinking hard about things.
Almost every post here automatically assume the teacher is guiltless. You have zero basis for this. Countless times I read digg stories, read the reactions which become one sided to a certain view, and then it turns out certain crucial information was withheld or not in the article which changes everything entirely.
If you seriously think that this case was adjudicated without the aid of technical experts, you are morons. As was mentioned in earlier articles about this case, it was shown in court that at least some of the links were ones the defendant entered herself.
In general, malware that pops up porn sites comes from first going to porn sites. I'm sure there are exceptions, but this has been my experience and I'm pretty sure it's typical. I would get malware on my PC all the time on Win98, but the only time it became hosed from porn popup was when my brother would come over and browse porn while I was away.
It is extremely likely that people involved in this case actually did know what they were doing.
On a completely separate note, being prosecuted for this is utterly ridiculous to me. Yes, I can make moral distinctions about one issue. This is unlike a lot of people here who will vote the truth down because they don't like its consequences. A lot of diggers need to try a little subtlety of thought sometimes, instead of being such a bunch of sheep.- pixelpowered, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Formido,
I like your observation about the digg community. If you have read my comments (even in the heat of passion) you could consider my perception bias in knowing how the interface she was using and what she was prosecuted with make little, to no logical sense. I usually try to keep an open mind myself when people lie to me in my face on how the type of content managed to get onto their PC.
Reading the facts from the logs created from the computer leads me to believe it was out of her control, but in the original teachers (and the schools technology departments budget) control. Alright lets also consider the role for a moment of Julie's reaction to the content that occurred. Do guilty or scared people go for help to remedy a situation out of their control? Maybe to you if something like this turning off the monitor would be the quickest way to solve this. My job allows me to meet a lot of people from all sorts of avenues of life. I can confirm there are 40+ year old people that don't even know to turn on/off a computer. Julie's testimony was of a person that did not know how to operate the terminal and also of a person in panic that obviously she didn't want the children to look at such content.
With also the comments of user phisolo you can see even in accordance with the law which I emailed to the gov that it is not just a one-side viewpoint, its a landslide. When other stories spawn that take the same scrutiny I hope you will be there to question it to along with me.
- pixelpowered, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Formido,
- thelordofcheese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here's mine. Tell me if it needs anything changed. Also, should I send this to all involved (as CC or BCC)? Should I send it using my SN or personal e-mail address?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, I'd like to say that your police investigate simple matters as well as those in any other state. This is sad, and it is the major reason why so many people are exonerated each year. Flimsy cases built on a lack of evidence somehow boggle the impressionable idiots chosen for jury duty. I propose juries are composed of experts in the field of the evidence and events, but that is for another letter.
As a web designer - I've been doing it since high school and have been interviewing for a position in the field lately, as I left my job in hardware - I find the guilty verdict given (given, since it was not based on facts) to Julie Amero deplorable. If anyone should be convicted it should be those responsible for the actions of the IT department. Their failure to install and update adequate anti-malware and anti-viral programs as well as regularly run tests and update the hosts file is the reason pornographic pop-ups appeared. This type of computer hijacking is even common knowledge to the general public, since computers are more prevalent today then they were over 10 years ago. Why the computer forensic department of the police department didn't check for malware during the case is beyond me. I am willing to say that they did check, but the state attorney wanted a conviction so they either ignored it or removed it, as it is quite easy to remove with free programs or, if you have the knowledge, editing the computer's registry file (which you can do with a program as well, one being Hijack This!).
And, hey, those kids probably look at porn at home all of the time, but we can't prove that. So I guess with the excellent team of state attorneys in your state we can convict them of "impairing the morals of a child" with themselves as both the victim and the perpetrator, as is the style in current times when dealing with those under the age of 18 who experience sexuality (strange, since they in general have been experiencing sexuality since 12 because of, you know, puberty). Your state's action of punishing a victim, and don't make a mistake by saying Ms. Amero isn't a victim at the hands of computer criminals, is deplorable.
I would suggest that you make sure this woman gets an appeal, and that the case is dropped upon appeal. I will be investigating whether the ACLU has been aiding this person. If a conviction sticks I'm sure a nice punitive damage decision will come in a civil lawsuit. But it really isn't as if the state was using that money to actually investigate the evidence during a criminal trial.- twertyto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bad idea, Posting your letter means others might copy and paste this for their own letter. You letter won't be taken as seriously if several are found to be the same.
- thelordofcheese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While i agree on your point, I can, may and will add a personal touch after I have it reviewed by like-minded peers who are knowledgeable of the subject. I appreciate your concern, but I think the flood of well-written letters may make people take notice. People send form letters all of the time. Have you ever been accepted to college?
- twertyto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Have I been accepted to college? Yes. I have a graduate degree and I teach in college. What is your point other than being rude?
Have you heard of the AFA? Their letters are not taken seriously for this same reason. I'm not taking about form letters that several different people read. I'm taking about copy-and-paste.
- KyferEz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here's my letter:
It is unacceptable that an innocent person has once again been railroaded by the prosecution in the USA, the supposed land of the free.
It is NOT HER FAULT that spyware/adware caused pornographic material to appear on a PC she was told to LEAVE LOGGED ON. It is not her fault she knows nothing about the security of a PC or that she panicked when the popups continued out of her control. It is however the fault of the school system for having out-of-date virus protection, firewall, and operating systems in use. This just as easily could have happened to the regular teacher. In my opinion, the state and the school board should be liable for damages against Ms. Amero because this unfortunate incident, which was out of her control, was blown out of proportion and has ruined her career. As a parent, I am appalled that Ms. Amero is being used as a SCAPEGOAT; the fault lies entirely at the feet of the school system's inadequate security.
I urge you to grant Ms. Amero a pardon. Your state is being shamed by the online community as we openly see how our legal system is failing and an innocent person is paying the price as a scapegoat. You don't even have any real expert witness on the PC (a Cop, even if well versed in PC security, has at the very least a conflict of interest posing as an expert witness). Please consult an independent 3rd party, or if too busy to devote any real time to the railroading of Ms. Amero, read this article by a Harvard expert: http://www.benedelman.org/news/062206-1.html
I hope the legal system will do right by Ms. Amero - our legal system needs to restore some of it's integrity and pardoning Ms. Amero will certainly be a step in the right direction.
I already sent it before seeing the comment about how a pardon is an admission of guilt... Oh well, my other points should stand out. - pmccall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0While I fear it may do little good, here is what I sent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir:
I write you to request that you please strongly consider offering a pardon to Julie Amero.
I spent the first 10 years of my professional career training adults in the use of computers. I can tell you unabashedly and with all candor that a poorly protected computer attached to the internet is easy pickings for the sorts of malware that can and will display material inappropriate for children.
I'm no expert in court proceedings; perhaps it was wholly appropriate to exclude the kinds of testimony that were excluded. I can only speak to the justice of the verdict, and it is decidedly unjust to put a poorly protected computer connected to the internet into a classroom and then blame the teacher of the class for what happens next.
At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, if someone had placed a time bomb in her classroom, would we send her to jail for failing to defuse it, or would we instead seek justice against the person who placed the bomb in her classroom? While exposure to inapropriate material is not as consequential as a bomb explosion, the situations are otherwise parallel: the schoolteacher did not put the poorly protected computer connected to the internet in the classroom, nor should she be faulted for lacking the technical knowledge required to "defuse" the computer once its malware went off.
At worst, she reacted poorly when confronted with a crisis. A person more levelheaded in a crisis might simply have unplugged the computer and/or monitor, or escorted the children out of the classroom. But, surely, a less-than-ideal reaction in a crisis is not something we should put people in jail for. She did recover well enough to get help as soon as possible, and it seems a travesty to require more of her.
I'm certain others more eloquent and detailed than I are making similar appeals to you. Nevertheless, I hope that this letter will help you to reconcile your personal concience with your sense of duty. The very reason we have an ability to pardon codified within our legal systems is because sometimes it is wholly and utterly appropriate to use that capability. Sometimes the legal system, even when it works perfectly, produces injustices that must be reversed.
This is one of those times.
Sincerely,
[pmccall] - NoobieDoobieDo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I love Amerika.
- videoCT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Write to Bill Gates to remind him of the crappy products he makes which are so easily tampered with.
Also, Jodi Rell became governor initially because her old boss John Rowland went to jail for corruption. - Dave2KStang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'm a Microsoft employee and my job involves malware.
I wrote in. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. - expatriot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0There's obviously an information gap here. These "old" people barely even know what a computer and internet is, much less how these things work. It's like trying to tell someone who gets their news from television that the internet is a better source, that is, until the damned elitists take control of it. Anyway, for the mean time, the people at least have the internet at their disposal and information has escaped. What if the internet didn't exist? Would we know the truth about 9/11 and the nwo? I'm pretty sure a lot less would know about it. Who knows how long this information owuld last? Google is already putting limitations, and laws aer being passed to limit internet access.
- Phisolo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Cminors'sthe letter I wrote: (feel free to use any portion of it, and/or to correct any spelling/grammar errors)
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to express my dismay at the lack of expertise shown in the case of Julie Amero. I am a computer and network consultant. I see the problems faced by this teacher on a daily basis. This is not something that the average computer user knows how to deal with, much less an untrained substitute teacher.
Poor computer and network maintenance is at fault in this case. Julie Amero cannot be held accountable for poor network and computer security. Her job was to teach children, not to be the school's computer expert. Julie Amero was a substitute teacher using the regular teacher's computer. She had no prior contact with the computer in question. It was an old Windows 98 machine, and the school had allowed the license on the antivirus to lapse. She did not have the technical training to know how to deal with a computer that was malfunctioning at this level.
According to the federal law, CIPA, the school and school district are mandated to prevent what happened. This law even provides the funding for this technology via a program called E-Rate.
From the FCC's website:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html
"The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is a federal law enacted by Congress in December 2000 to address concerns about access to offensive content over the Internet on school and library computers." "[The] Internet safety policy must include technology protection measures to block or filter Internet access to pictures that: (a) are obscene, (b) are child pornography, or (c) are harmful to minors, for computers that are accessed by minors." "Schools and libraries... are required to adopt and implement a policy addressing: (a) access by minors to inappropriate matter on the Internet; (b) the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic communications; (c) unauthorized access, including so-called “hacking,” and other unlawful activities by minorson-linee; (d) unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal information regarding minors; and (e) restricting minors’ access to materials harmful to them."
There was inadequate expertise at this trial, and there was inadequate maintenance by the school, the school district, and/or the teacher who's computer she was using.
This poor woman's life is going to be ruined because she was placed into an environment that she had no control over and was improperly trained to deal with the consequences.
Yes the things that children were exposed to were lamentable, and every effort should be taken to prevent this from happening again. The facts of the matter are that these efforts were not taken prior to Julie Amero entering this classroom. This is not her fault. She could not have known what would happen. The school district should have had network controls in place that deal with this issue. - Phisolo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'll try this again, since the first one got mangled
Here is the leter I wrote, feel free to use it in any way shape or form:
I am writing to express my dismay at the lack of understanding shown in the case of Julie Amero. I am a computer and network consultant. I see the problems faced by this teacher on a daily basis. This is not something that the average computer user knows how to deal with, much less an untrained substitute teacher who was working on an unfamiliar computer.
Poor computer and network maintenance is at fault in this case. Julie Amero cannot be held accountable for poor network and computer security. Her job was to teach children, not to be the school's computer expert. Julie Amero was a substitute teacher using the regular teacher's computer. She had no prior contact with the computer in question. It was an old Windows 98 machine, and the school had allowed the license on the antivirus to lapse. She did not have the technical training to know how to deal with a computer that was malfunctioning at this level.
According to the federal law, CIPA, the school and school district are mandated to prevent what happened. This law even provides the funding for this technology via a program called E-Rate.
From the FCC's website:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html
"The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is a federal law enacted by Congress in December 2000 to address concerns about access to offensive content over the Internet on school and library computers." "[The] Internet safety policy must include technology protection measures to block or filter Internet access to pictures that: (a) are obscene, (b) are child pornography, or (c) are harmful to minors, for computers that are accessed by minors." "Schools and libraries... are required to adopt and implement a policy addressing: (a) access by minors to inappropriate matter on the Internet; (b) the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic communications; (c) unauthorized access, including so-called “hacking,” and other unlawful activities by minorson-linee; (d) unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal information regarding minors; and (e) restricting minors’ access to materials harmful to them."
There was inadequate expertise at this trial, and there was inadequate maintenance by the school, the school district, and/or the teacher who's computer she was using.
This poor woman's life is going to be ruined because she was placed into an environment that she had no control over and was improperly trained to deal with the consequences.
Yes the things that these children were exposed to was lamentable, and every effort should be taken to prevent this from happening again. The facts of the matter are that these efforts were not taken prior to Julie Amero entering this classroom. This is not her fault. She could not have known what would happen. The school district should have had network controls in place that deal with this issue. - Phisolo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here is the leter I wrote, feel free to use it in any way shape or form:
I am writing to express my dismay at the lack of understanding shown in the case of Julie Amero. I am a computer and network consultant. I see the problems faced by this teacher on a daily basis. This is not something that the average computer user knows how to deal with, much less an untrained substitute teacher who was working on an unfamiliar computer.
Poor computer and network maintenance is at fault in this case. Julie Amero cannot be held accountable for poor network and computer security. Her job was to teach children, not to be the school's computer expert. Julie Amero was a substitute teacher using the regular teacher's computer. She had no prior contact with the computer in question. It was an old Windows 98 machine, and the school had allowed the license on the antivirus to lapse. She did not have the technical training to know how to deal with a computer that was malfunctioning at this level.
According to the federal law, CIPA, the school and school district are mandated to prevent what happened. This law even provides the funding for this technology via a program called E-Rate.
From the FCC's website:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html
"The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is a federal law enacted by Congress in December 2000 to address concerns about access to offensive content over the Internet on school and library computers." "[The] Internet safety policy must include technology protection measures to block or filter Internet access to pictures that: (a) are obscene, (b) are child pornography, or (c) are harmful to minors, for computers that are accessed by minors." "Schools and libraries... are required to adopt and implement a policy addressing: (a) access by minors to inappropriate matter on the Internet; (b) the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic communications; (c) unauthorized access, including so-called “hacking,” and other unlawful activities by minorson-linee; (d) unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal information regarding minors; and (e) restricting minors’ access to materials harmful to them."
There was inadequate expertise at this trial, and there was inadequate maintenance by the school, the school district, and/or the teacher who's computer she was using.
This poor woman's life is going to be ruined because she was placed into an environment that she had no control over and was improperly trained to deal with the consequences.
Yes the things that these children were exposed to was lamentable, and every effort should be taken to prevent this from happening again. The facts of the matter are that these efforts were not taken prior to Julie Amero entering this classroom. This is not her fault. She could not have known what would happen. The school district should have had network controls in place that deal with this issue. - timpon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1quit using digg as a personal soap box, douche. get a web page with seizure-inducing graphics like everyone else.
- bgold, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i think a lack of a spyware search on the computer is clear grounds for a mistrial.
since the governor can't do pardons directly, an appeal might be quicker than the bureaucracy of this Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles. - Nuknuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There are a lot of people that need to be punished in this case..certainly not Julie Amero. She is the victim. Her life wont be the same after this. Why would this thing happen at this time and age. Lots of incompetence and arrogance involve here.
- yakoff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1First, I am a critic of the criminal justice system and the bias it has to convict people rather than find the truth. Second, the hysteria surrounding "sex crimes" against children, puts the accused in the position of having to prove their innocence, rather than requiring the state to prove their guilt.
That being said, cases like this are never as black and white as those who advocate a point of view would like us to believe.
For instance, the perceptions are that there was no spyware search of the computer, there was no expert to testify for the defendant, the defendant did nothing to cause the images to appear on the computer and finally that it happened so fast, she could not stop it.
In reality, there was a spyware search and she had an expert. He testified that there was a link that led to a mousetrapping porn site that could not be escaped from. The other evidence showed that there were sites visited that required clicks from the user to go to them. In addition, the images appeared on the computer for 2 hours - not a few seconds. Apparently the defense tried the theory that the students activated the sites. Later, the out of control adware defense came into play.
I am not commenting on the defendant's guilt or innocence, just pointing out that there is conflicting evidence. Before you get too wound up about this, you should check out the facts and make a reasoned decision.
Here are two articles that report on the case and have more details. For local press they are remarkably non-judgmental.
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070103/NEWS01/701030330/1002
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070106/NEWS01/701060312/1002/NEWS17 - ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's easy to donate $5, $10, or even $20 bucks to her legal fund. We decent humans have to stand by each other when the ***** up legal system goes ***** on one of our own. $5 spent to take a stand and show solidarity is a bargain.
- RAFthe3rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I completely agree, i just sent her $20. I can't do much, but thats the least I can do.
- RAFthe3rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This Reference List was posted by Julie's Husband at the Julie Amero Defense Fund Web Site - http://julieamer.blogspot.com/ - You may want to voice your opinion to some of those involved.
Kelly Middle School
Principal Scott Fain
860-823-4211
Superintendent Norwich Public Schools - Pam Aubin
pwaubin@norwicpublicschools.org
Note: This address is no longer valid
Prosecutor
SMITH, David J. Criminal Justice, Division Of
(860) 889-5284 david.smith@po.state.ct.us
Hillary B. Strackbein Superior Court Judge JD and GA Matters
Superior Court G.A. 10112 Broad StreetNew London, CT 06320
Tel (860) 443-8343; Fax (860) 437-1168
Superior CourtJudicial District & G.A.
211 Courthouse SquareNorwich, CT 06360
Tel (860) 886-0144; Fax (860) 823-1019
Detective Mark Lounsbury Norwich Police
Tel: (860) 886-5561 ext 153 Fax: (860) 886-4552
CT State governor M. Jodi Rell
Mailing Address
Governor M. Jodi Rell
Executive Office of the Governor
State Capitol 210 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
Telephone Greater Hartford Area:
860-566-4840
Toll Free: 800-406-1527
TDD: 860-524-7397
E-Mail
Governor.Rell@po.state.ct.us
Joseph Courtney United States Representative
Washington D.C. Office
215 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515
Phone:(202) 225-2076Fax:(202) 225-4977
District Office
2 Courthouse Square, 5th FloorNorwich, CT 06360
Phone:(860) 886-0139Fax:(860) 886-2974
Senator Edith Praque
E-mail:
Prague@senatedems.ct.gov
Phone:
1-800-842-1420
Address:
Legislative Office BuildingRoom
3800Hartford, CT 06106-1591
State Representative
Jack Malone Deputy Majority Whip
Serving the 47th Assembly DistrictCanterbury, Norwich, Scotland & Sprague
At the Capitol:Legislative Office Building,
Room 4013Hartford, CT 06106-1591
(860) 240-85851-800-842-8267
Jack.Malone@cga.ct.gov
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by