Sunbeltblog comments
To be honest it's not the spyware angle that gets my attention; that one could potentially face up to 40 years in prison for showing porn to kids is frightening.
I think the message is clear:
If you are going to commit a crime it better be rape or murder; because who wants to spend 40 years in prison for showing porn to kids when you can get only 5 to 10 for rape or murder? In fact, if she did get tagged with the 40 years she might as well go ahead and kill the prosecutor; what's another 5 years on top of 40? At least then she would get some satisfaction...
Does anyone know anything about W. Herbert Horne[r], the defense's expert witness? I've been googling all day, and I can't find independent confirmation of the man's existence, let alone his expertise.
I am seriously wondering if Ms. Amero got an adequate defense. According to the Norwich Bulletin, Horner wasn't even allowed to give his full testimony because the defense attorney didn't bring up the spyware issue with the prosecution in advance, as he was supposed to do under the rules of CT criminal procedure.
If it didn't occur to the defense or the prosecution to bring up the spyware angle before the trial, I have to wonder whether either side was really up to the task. I mean, justice is supposed to be blind, but that's not the same as a blind vs. blind deathmatch.
Since I have family living in Norwich, this situation is extremely frightening. Every member of my family owns a computer, and every one of us has encountered unwanted pop-ups, porn advertising, spyware, adware, etc.
That someone could be held criminally liable for being victimized by these malicious advertising programs is unconscionable. That they could spend the rest of their lives in jail (the woman is 40, so a 40-year sentence may as well be life imprisonment) for it is so beyond logic, reason, or justice that it is incomprehensible.
I sincerely hope that she is able to appeal this verdict, and allowed to remain free while she appeals. But how can she afford the legal costs? She is a teacher by trade, and one currently convicted of a sex-related crime. Therefore, she can no longer teach, even as a substitute. Without income, how can she afford the thousands of dollars of legal fees to appeal her conviction - let alone even support herself?
Can your organization work with her defense attorneys and perhaps the teacher's union or any other official agency to set up a legal defense fund for her? I would contribute to one if it existed, and was run by legitimate banking and civic leaders who could be trusted.
Generally speaking, the trial court determines the facts, and the appellate court decides whether there were any errors of law. If the lower court determined that she clicked on those sites, it may be possible that the appellate court cannot change that finding of fact.
This is a depressing case.
Christ, what a mess.
How did they determine she "clicked" on anything? Why would a teacher, substitue at that, surf porn with kids watching? That makes no sense. I don't understand why she would be surfing a hair website either, however, its not a porn site. Why would a teacher who intended to show porn to kids, try to keep them from seeing it?
Obviously this is a case where neither Judge nor Jury nor Prosecution nor Defense nor Police knew anything about computers. No expert should have been needed. My 15 year old cousin could have told you what happened. It happens in every company and gov't every day.
While the sites may not always be the one you should be surfing (gaming sites, gambling, even hair styling sites, web email), the porn is unintentional and in no such case should you be convicted of anything. Any negligence would be on the School.
Even then the school system can take measures to keep it from happening and it will still occur, I promise you.
This woman should not only be set free but given a vacation (if not loads of money) for all the pain/suffering/damages/lost wages that this, in my opinion, complete and utter farce of a case has caused. The prosecution and judge should also be held liable for this mess.
THIS WOMAN CAN NOT GO TO JAIL!!
What are you in for? Popups.
That's a conversation that just cannot ever occur.
Nothing will happen unless she has competent counsel on her appeal, and if the trial is any indication her lawyer is incompetent.
School and school district are liable, not the teacher! Thay are mandated by law to prevent this from being possible.
"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.... Schools and libraries subject to CIPA 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 minors online; (d) unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal information regarding minors; and (e) restricting minors’ access to materials harmful to them."
From the FCC's website:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerf...facts/
cipa.html
This a miscarriage of justice. How many times have you or someone you know told you about a popup on a computer that would not go away? At least once, I bet. Imagine this: You're a teacher visiting an innocent web site, when "poof", a pop up occurs. It is a porn related popup. You are in class at the time and the kids see it. What would your first reaction be as a non-technical, substitute teacher? Click the "X" to close the window as fast as possible or turn off the display? 90% of folks would click the "X". Unfortunately, many of these popups have on exit commands to open another popup page. And guess what? That one is probably porn related as well.
That's just one scenario, but a likely one. The teacher is a teacher, not a desktop support person. Sounds like the difficult part of actually busting the popup causing party is tossed out the door. Why not? They can just blame the poor sub teacher - that's easy to do. Sounds like a lazy ass judge - again. MISTRIAL!!!
And if ANYONE should be tried for anything, it might be a stretch to put the IT person on trial who didn't keep the machine up to date, the person who did not keep the purchased software license up to date, and also question all the others who were logged on at one time or another. This woman has been dang near railroaded by a justice system that has no technical clue and a judge that seems to be too tired to care. Maybe someone should hack her computer and plant some spyware and popups and see how she likes it when it won't go away... but I would not condone that...
I repair computers & was asked by a doctor friend of mine a couple of years ago to stop hard core porn popping up on his office computer. I asked him why not tell the surgery manager who controls tec support to sort it. he replied that he may not be believed that he did not access the site on purpose,& even as he did not somebody who did not like him may cause trouble.better to be safe than sorry. Only judges with computer degrees should be allowed to try this sort of case to prevent miscarriages of justice. as is happening in this case.
Commenting by HaloScan
