Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Porn pop-up teacher gets new attorney, PC World outs juror
Julie Amero, substitute teacher and convicted porn-pop up purveyor, has finally gotten a tiny break in her favor. Connecticut criminal defense lawyer William Dow has stepped in and offered help to Julie Amero. The Norwich Bulletin -- the same paper that did such a terrible job of covering the case up to this point, convicting Julie Amero in print and circulating its uneducated drivel to a technophobic and Internet illiterate readership -- reports that Dow has offered pro-bono assistance to Mrs. Amero and will likely file a formal request for postponement of her March 3rd sentencing in order to review the facts of the case. Dow is a well respected criminal defense attorney who, according to Amero's lead attorney John Cocheo, has joined the team because, "he sees it as an injustice that this happened. I think it's a moral issue for him."Speaking of moral issues; PC World's Steve Bass made a bit of a miscalculation and outted the partial identity of Fred F. a juror in the Amero trial. The email interview in which the juror's screenname was released was initiated by Fred F. who failed to follow Lincoln's famous rule, "It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool; Rather than open it and remove all doubt." I'll let Fred F.'s own words and lack of punctuation speak the volumes that I dare not say.
"she was pronounced guilty because she made no effort to hide or stop the porno, not just because she loaded the porno onto the machine. Going to the history pages it was obvious that the paged were clicked on they were not the result of pop-ups."
That statement is in direct conflict with the testimony on record. Amero did everything short of turning off the computer, which she was instructed by a superior not to do. The children from her class testified -- right in front of this juror -- that she did make every effort to hide what was being displayed. He also seems to have picked up the same in-depth knowledge of Internet Explorer possessed by the Norwich police computer expert, which could be defined as; little to none.
Fred's obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed but, can you blame him? After all, he's a product of the same Connecticut school system that's teaching kids it's OK to send an innocent woman to jail in order to cover your own incompetence.
USAToday writer Andrew Kantor went one step further, releasing pictures of a portly Fred F. on his personal blog after publishing a scathing piece condemning the school system and the Norwich police department. For certain, this case has gotten ugly. In some instances, it's even become deeply personal. Fred F. has reportedly been berated by an angry public, and been the subject of ridicule for his former 435 pound plus frame, since the public outing.
Amero's husband has set up a blog and is asking for your help covering his wife's legal fees, reportedly in-excess of $20,000 (easily more than a Connecticut substitute teacher makes in a year). He writes, "To think that it is possible for the average layperson to understand all the ins and outs of how a computer works is just not reasonable. What's worse, our employer's don't know any more than we do, and they rely on us to identify problems when they happen. If you are lucky, your employer will know what to do when a crisis happens with your system. If not you'll end up like Julie arrested, ridiculed, demeaned and left with useless teacher's degree in special education."
I don't agree with his statement that it's "not reasonable" to expect the layperson to have some basic understanding of Internet threats and staying safe online however, massaging a lack of knowledge into a felony conviction is more than prosecution; It's persecution.
Amero's husband is also offering up the phone numbers and email addresses for Principal Scott Fain and Superintendent Pam Aubin, who should both be charged with criminal negligence for allowing the Kelly Middle School's lack of Internet-security to ruin the life of an innocent woman. Also on the list is Norwich police "Detective" Mark Lounsbury, the department's not-so-expert computer expert who testified under oath that there was no question Amero had visited the porn pop-up websites on purpose, and offered no information to the jury about malware or spyware being in any way culpable. Unfortunately, it's a bit late to give Lounsbury a lesson in computer security or forensics, at least where Julie Amero is concerned.
Comments
29
Subscribe to commentsjoelpurvisFeb 24th 2007 1:33AM
This case has nothing to do with Mac vs. PC. We get it, Macs are awesome & Steve Jobs is the second coming. For god's sake give it a rest.
Victor Agreda, Jr.Feb 24th 2007 4:40PM
Well, Dell's rock-bottom prices are a tough sell in most bottom-line school districts. Most mean well. In this case, the total lack of WILLINGNESS to even consider other arguments is shocking in its legal implications. So... defense attorneys aren't allowed to examine the evidence? How did they prove intent? Why weren't experts allowed to testify. What's going on here?
spetzFeb 24th 2007 3:13PM
Um is it not the schools responsibility to prevent access to such sites so something like this does not happen. When i went to school the blocked everything and a bit even google images. Hopefully they can help the teacher out.
ej00807Feb 24th 2007 5:16PM
Personally, I blame the popup ad creators. They should be 100% accountable. Its like doing a porno mass mailing (spaming) to an unknown target audience.
Andrew FongFeb 24th 2007 8:47PM
Switching to Macs wouldn't solve this. Some of the Macs at my old high school actually managed to get bogged down with crap as well. The problem was the school didn't renew anti-virus subscriptions, take advantage of regular updates, or take much care to prevent this. If I left an old computer, whether it be an OS 9 iMac or a Windows ME PC out in the public and it ended up with junk because I don't regularly maintain it, that's my fault, not Apple or Microsoft.
JexxieFeb 27th 2007 9:05AM
Mac or PC? Why not take everything away? No electricity so there's no chance of electrical fires. No gas for heating so there's no chance of gas fires or explosions. No food so kids won't be able break into the cafeteria/kitchen and get knives. No buildings so earthquakes won't knock them over and fall on your kids. No structures of any kind so 9/11 suicide pilots have no targets to fly into.
Everyone will just sit on the grass or the dirt. No pencils or pens because those things are kind of sharp! Papers will give them paper cuts! Lets all go back to the stoneage.
Now I ask you, Mac or PC?
JakeFeb 26th 2007 4:49PM
MS is not responsible. That OS isn't even supported anymore, and why would malware (software specifically designed for harm at the benefit of others) be something MS should legally be forced to prevent. If someone steals your car, are you going to sue the car manufacturer because it's possible to break into and steal? No. That's rediculous, so Mike, you are an idiot. That has now been established.
Secondly, no one cares about Macs. Macs aren't secure because the OS is programmed so much more securely. They are more secure because no one bothers to write malware for them. Because no one cares. If Macs were the standard, they would be just as infested as PC's.
This issue is due to an technologically unedecuated institution on top of another technologically uneducated institution and both institution's inability to admit where they are wrong.
R. AllenFeb 26th 2007 8:45PM
Dear gods, what is wrong with these people? It of course -HAS- to be her fault, if the school took any responsibility for its own lapse in security it would look horrible, and then they would lose state funds. Instead let us pin it all on a temporary employee that nobody really knows about....the mysterious ones are the best scapegoats. This case makes me sick, I work Intrusion Detection for the USAF, and believe it or not even our billion dollar waste of money networks get problems like that on occasion. I seriously doubt that a school using outdated software can say that it should never have happened when I have to deal with on a daily basis.
Andrew KantorMar 1st 2007 8:47AM
Just a minor correction -- I specifically didn't publish the picture of Fred F. when he was fat. I used the "after" shot he had on his blog, when he's clearly lost a lot of weight.
Andrew Kantor