In all likelihood, if you are reading this you are a computer user who has a basic familiarity with the Internet and using computers, and that knowledge may serve you well as you read this. This is a story about a 40-year old substitute teacher from Norwich, Connecticut, who apparently through ignorance of computers, is facing 40 years in jail, because of porn pop-ups on a classroom computer.
Having visited porn sites, I know full well that once you have one open, it's often quite difficult to get rid of it. What happens is when you click the close box, either a bit of JavaScript or a piece of malware traps the “OnClose” event and opens a new porn page for you. Close that one and it happens again. And usually you have to close many such windows before they stop coming back. This is standard operating procedure for most porn sites. Usually porn sites are part of a “family” of sites all owned by the same distributor. Thus when you click the close box on one site the next site in the family will pop up, unbidden. And it is quite possible for this to happen even with standard IE-pop-up blocking turned on.
You can make this not-happen if you have a very good pop-up blocker, but such blockers are not reliable in my experience… they catch some pop-ups but not all. There are other tricks (I'm told) that you can use if you are a real computer expert. But the victims in this case were not computer experts. They were a substitute teacher covering a computer class, and her 11 to 13 year old students.
According to Ms. Amero, in October of 2004, she entered the classroom to find some students at the teacher's computer, accessing a site about hair care. One of them didn't belong in that classroom and the other did. Being a substitute, Ms. Amero was not familiar with any of the students. Shortly thereafter porn pop-ups began appearing on the machine. Ms. Amero sought to get rid of them in a fashion typical of an average user. She clicked the close box.
“The pop-ups never went away. It was one after another,” she testified. “They were continuous. Every time I clicked the box in the corner, the red box, the red X, more were generated.”
The school for its part, did what most schools do when parents overreact to something that could have happened to anyone. They fired Ms. Amero. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Amero was arrested–charged with four felony charges of risk of injury to a minor, a sub-clause of that violation specifically with respect to the morals of a minor.
Ms. Amero lost her court battle. The prosecutor maintained that there is no way to get porn sites to pop up without deliberately clicking a link to open them–which is twaddle, and anyone with a passing knowledge of web surfing knows it. Further he claimed that since Ms. Amero didn't simply pull the plug or throw a jacket over the monitor until the problem could be dealt with, then she must have intended to view those sites in the presence of children.
Ms. Amero claimed that substitutes are not supposed to disturb or touch anything in a teacher's classroom, and therefore believed that she could not shut the computer off.
I've seen inexperienced computer users when faced with an unexpected behavior–in college I worked for the school's computing services department, and one of my jobs was assisting people using computers. Many of those people were computer illiterate, and let me tell you, the obvious solution isn't the first thing they try. Many computer illiterate people are afraid they are going to “break the computer” and are therefore unwilling to try anything unusual. It doesn't surprise me in the least that this substitute teacher would simply try closing the pop-ups ad nauseum.
I have read the entire record of testimony from the case, and see a number of problems here. In my opinion this is a mistrial, and the case would need to be heard again.
With respect to the evidence, a number of the expert witnesses made claims that I know for a fact are false. Whether or not they know they are false, I can't say, but I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that there are gaps in their expert knowledge. The information services manager for Norwich Public Schools testified under oath that is was not possible to get into an “endless loop of pornography”. That's flat out wrong. He was also asked under oath if spyware or ad-ware could generate pornography, and testified that they could not. This man does not know what he is talking about.
The detective on the case is clearly very knowledgeable about computer crime. And yet, at one point in the case he testified that if you click a link to a page, when you next view the link on a web page the link has changed color, but this does not happen if the page in question opened as a pop-up. That's completely incorrect. Your browser tracks URLs that were visited, not how they were visited. Links to pop-up pages will turn purple just like links you clicked manually. The reason it is important is it has direct bearing on whether Ms. Amero deliberately chose to view a porn page, or if that page appeared as a pop-up through the action of ad-ware or hokey JavaScript or whatnot.
The other, immensely huge problem with the case is the defense attorney. The defense attorney is a self-professed computer illiterate, and should have had a computer consultant with him at all times so that when other witnesses are offering incorrect testimony as expert opinion, he could consult with his own expert and get him up there on the stand. But the defense attorney appeared to be completely unprepared most of the time. When the state rested the defense attorney wasn't ready to present his case, to the consternation and bewilderment of the judge. “I wasn't expecting the state to rest right now.”
The defense's first witness was a computer expert who intended to give a presentation in court regarding ad-ware and spyware he found on the machine, a presentation that would have explained the difference between clicking a link and being redirected, and which would have demonstrated how Ms. Amero could have gotten stuck in a loop of porn pop-ups without necessarily clicking on anything suspect. He was not allowed to give his presentation (which I got the impression included slides, and ad-ware/spyware reports from the hard drive in question) because the defense attorney hadn't seen fit to give the reports and slides to the prosecution ahead of time. If you don't disclose evidence to the other side, it can't be presented in court. The only thing I could conclude is it was taking the defense expert time right up to the day before to get the presentation ready.
The defense expert was also dreadful. Having only prepared to give a presentation, his responses to question-and-answer type testimony were confusing and ultimately probably seemed evasive to the jury. I understood what he was trying to get at, having built web applications myself, but even I found myself saying “why in the hell would he choose to phrase it that way?” He was also a little combative at times because he couldn't understand why he was not allowed to discuss his findings with respect to ad-ware and spyware on the box in question–mainly because the defense attorney wasn't doing his job.
Of course one of the big questions is, was the teacher deliberately viewing porn on the computer at her desk while class was in session? Prosecution says yes, defense says no. People who have been following the story have checked the haircare site in question and have discovered that it can indeed lead to a cycle of porn pop-ups (Associated Content 2/26/2007).
The other big question is, did the teacher do enough to prevent the students from seeing the porn? From the testimony given, it seems that when students came up to the desk, the teacher tried to block the screen or otherwise shoo the students away. But it is clear from the testimony of the students, a couple of them managed to catch a glimpse of pornographic material. And from her own testimony, the teacher attempted to close the offending windows which kept popping up, and also at two points during the day told other teachers and the vice-principal she was having trouble with pop-ups. She said she felt she was not allowed to shut the computer off, and upon being questioned about turning off the monitor only, said she wouldn't know how.
Contrary to the detective's claims, links recolor themselves when a URL is loaded in any fashion, and apart from redirects, it's not really possible to tell from looking at temporary Internet files whether someone visited links deliberately or though the action of spyware or some other agent. The detective continues to say that he stands by the evidence and that people can't claim spyware or ad-ware was responsible without producing the spyware or ad-ware in question. Which is rather convenient since the defense expert wasn't allowed to present such evidence in court due to the apparent ineptitude of the defense attorney.
The substitute teacher was in charge of the class, and it was definitely her responsibility to get rid of the porn, and if she didn't know how she should have called up to the office and explained immediately that there was a problem. So it seems a little incongruous that she would wait until lunch to tell someone she was having a problem (while not bothering to mention that the pop-ups were pornographic in nature.) I assume she simply made an unwise decision to try and solve the problem herself based on her own limited knowledge. Therefore at present I can't say that this was a “willful” act (i.e. she was deliberately trying to endanger these children). Then again, I doubt a 12 or 13 year old catching a glimpse of a nude woman is going to be impaired for life, but that's a topic for another day.
Assuming she is guilty, it seems to me that locking up a 40 year old woman (with no prior convictions) for 40 years because some kids glanced over her shoulder and caught a momentary glimpse of porn on her computer screen is a little extreme. I think what would be more appropriate is something on the order of 4 months of community service and you can't teach anymore. There are female teachers who have had sexual relations with their students who've spent no more than a few years in jail. So something in this case is way out of whack with respect to the punishment fitting the crime.
What do you think?
Sources:
- Reality Out of Focus: Julie Amero's Raging Internet Porn Addiction (Associated Content 2/26/2007)
- Case against Julie Amero needs to be deleted (USA Today 3/16/2007)
- Inaction sank Amero; read the full trial transcript (Norwich Bulletin 2/25/2007)
- Experts rebuke Amero ruling (Norwich Bulletin 3/9/2007)
- Julie Amero's Blog
- Teacher Faces Prison for Pop-Up Infested PC (PC World 2/7/2007)
EDIT: spelling issues, and modified final paragraph to be less flippant.
Wow, talk about complete and utter overreaction. 40 years in jail? How can the prosecutor even say that with a straight face? Even if the woman grabbed an 11 year old student, put him in the chair, tied him down and forced him to watch porn on the computer it wouldn't warrrant 40 years in jail.
It's comforting to know that there are not only prosecutors out there ridding the world of computer illiterate substitute teachers, but defense attorneys who should be lit on fire as well.
I like your decision Chuck, some community service is more than enough, the woman simply made a mistake by trying to “handle the situation” herself instead of calling for some help right away. Other than that, this is a waste of time.
Tom
What do I think?
I feel like I'm reading a case from the 1600s before they knew about fingerprinting and they just seemed to guess about who was guilty of what. And there were many miscarriages of justice.
Simply put, this is freaking unbelievable. They do not have evidence that is clear and convincing (never mind beyond a reasonable doubt) for anyone who knows anything about the interweb. And when 40 years in prison is on the line, that defense attorney ought to be strung up for the incompetent defense he put forward.
It looks like a team of computer forensics experts have determined that they have a preponderance of evidence to show that pop-ups were happening. That alone raises a reasonable doubt, doesn't it?
Ugh.
This is ridiculous and very depressing, and I don't have anything to add on the nature of how upsetting it is that this woman didn't have decent defense.
However, I disagree with you about the damaging nature of the pop-ups. I've seen pornographic sites and it's not “boobies.” I would never object to my children or any children seeing a naked male or female body (although other parents might, and in our school system, parents are given the option of having their children receive “family life” education). When they are older, I would not object to them seeing a clinical depiction of sex acts, and when they are much, much older, they may view what they choose.
What I have seen on the internet is quite degrading to women and portrays acts (I don't care if things are boxed out, you can still tell what's going on) that most 11 year olds are not aware of yet. I think that every image I've seen has had a woman in a subservient position and a man in a dominant position, either being acted upon or acting in a way to please himself, not her. Now I am not an expert, but I've seen some, and I've never seen anything that is the other way — woman being acted upon for her pleasure. I'm sure such a thing exists, but I'm assuming that what came up in the classroom was probably more like what I've seen — I think that's the predominant kind of pornography. Back to the kids, by 13, I'm not sure what they're aware of — definitely some are aware of pretty much every act by then, but I can tell you for certain that there's a good portion of 12-year-olds who are still giggling and won't use the word “sex,” and they are not ready to see women having male anatomy jammed in their face or some of the worse things I've seen — again, in a degrading fashion. I can't emphasize that enough. I don't think anybody is looking at pornography and thinking that these are natural and loving positions for males and females to be in together (or males and females and females and females — you get the idea), and girls and boys these days have insufficient respect for females. This is the last thing they need to see. This is not prudishenss. Children should not be exposed to unhealthy adult relationships.
But again, this poor woman. This is ridiculous, it feels like a witch-hunt.
With regard to the popups and their content, the testimony of the kids themselves indicate that the content was not hardcore in any sense of the word.
But I disagree with your conclusion that she should serve even community service in this case. She should not have been convicted at all. There was NO intent proven (one of the elements needed to convict), there was no evidence that harm would result from a 1-2 second glimpse at thumbnails on the screen, and there was no evidence presented at trial by anyone that Julie Amero was the one who accessed the site that triggered the malware.
In fact, the malware had been resident on the machine for weeks before she ever entered the classroom.
More fundamentally, the responsibility for blocking objectionable content was solely that of the IT department, who allowed the subscription to their firewall to lapse and left every machine in the district vulnerable.
Why didn't they go after him? My theory is that Julie Amero was the easy target, because she didn't have union backing. As a substitute, she wasn't a member of the union and wasn't entitled to have their resources at her disposal. Prosecuting Robert Hartz would have been a different story (even if he also wasn't represented by the union), because it would have placed the school district at risk for lawsuits.
By hammering Julie Amero, they found a victim who was vulnerable and least likely to be able to defend herself. In my state, that's called predatory behavior. In Connecticut, they call it law and order.
I have a collection of links and blog posts here
With respect, Karoli, I said “assuming she is guilty” before suggesting community service. I have read the entire court testimony, but I haven't inspected the computer in question myself.
Reasonable doubt leads me to think she is innocent, but even if she weren't the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
Regarding the porn in question, of the students who testified in the case, only one claimed to catch a glimpse of men and women engaged in a sex act. The others claimed to have seen female models posing in lingerie or topless.
The majority of porn is degrading to women, but not all porn (IMHO). Porn for couples, for example, can be erotic without being degrading.
Either way, no argument that it is not appropriate in a 7th grade classroom!
What I've seen so far of the level of questioning confirms only that it was at least inappropriate for a 7th grade classroom. I'm not at all confident reading that transcript and concluding that there wasn't hardcore porn on that screen. Especially since there seems to have been some revision in the kids' descriptions as time has passed. And one of the students did describe intercourse. The statement: “the content was not hardcore in any sense of the word” is not supported by the testimony.
I would like to be clear that again, it sounds like this woman was treated unfairly, and it is terrifying and disgusting.
But the statement about a kid seeing “boobies on her screen” weakens the rest of your argument because it's exaggeration. The fact that you can find “couples porn” that isn't degrading to women doesn't mean that the majority of porn isn't degrading to women and/or completely inappropriate in a 7th grade classroom.
I don't allow my children to type in URLs and I don't allow them to do searches on google, for example — I search first and filter the results, because sometimes I've had some surprising results, and sometimes websites (such as Keri's, for example), are replaced by porn sites.
I think you have to admit that the children might have seen something disgusting, inappropriate, and degrading to women. That's a completely separate argument from whether it was shown intentionally or maliciously.
I readily admit that these students may have caught a momentary glimpse of something disgusting, inappropriate, and degrading to women. We don't really have to wonder about it because the students testified as to what they did see. One student claimed to see two topless women standing next to each other and posing for the camera, that was where my expression “boobies on the screen” came from. Another claimed to see men and women engaged in sex acts. Another student testified to seeing a woman posing in lingerie. No other students testified to having seen anything to my recollection. The point is that none of the students were “watching porn with 'teach'”. This was 3 students (out of 7 in class) catching a momentary glimpse of what was on the teacher's monitor (in their own words). At no point did I intend to imply that what the students saw was not inappropriate, and I think I said as much.
That said, I don't think that a momentary glimpse at a pornographic image is so harmful to a 12 year old kid that it necessitates the responsible adult spend 10 years in jail. I'm not saying it is appropriate for an 11 year old to catch even a glimpse of porn, I'm recognizing the difference between the seriousness of what these kids claim happened, and 'exposing children to porn' which could mean anything.
Her attorney should be reprimanded if not disbarred. That's ridiculous.
Speaking on the recoloring of links, In the body tag of an HTML document you can set the colors of both visited and non-visited links with hexidecimal code. Something like this:
[body bground="blah.jpg" link="b0ac00" vlink="b0ac00"]
That may not be totally accurate (aside from replacing “[]” with”<>“), but I know for a fact that it can be done.
Yes that's true… you could modify the colors of visited and unvisited links in HTML, and also you can adjusst browser settings to the colors of your choice regardless of the HTML. Presumably the investigator would have taken that into account. I *have* to believe that a guy who's been investigating computer crime for 10 years knows his stuff, and thus I assume his mis-statement about recolored links is merely a gap in his knowledge.
I was critiquing this statement:
Assuming she is guilty, it seems to me that locking up a 40 year old woman (with no prior convictions) for 40 years because a kid glanced over her shoulder and saw boobies on her computer screen is a little extreme.
because it dishonestly summarizes what was seen. Your post is well-researched and well-written. To conclude with dishonesty bothers me, because it weakens your argument.
The extreme unfairness of this case is obvious and doesn't need embellishment. That was my only critique. If I went off a bit on the difference between porn and a picture of “boobies,” it's because there *is* a difference (else there wouldn't be porn, people would be satisfied with the lingerie sections of the Sunday fliers and women's health books), and I wanted to make it clear, since you blurred that distinction.
It's a fair cop. I was trying to be flippant. I editted the last paragraph to be less flippant and more accurate.
I think this does indeed make the argument stronger. Thanks for the critique.
BTW — it was 4 counts, I forgot one kid claimed to catch a glimpse of “two cartoon women” on the teacher's monitor.
I know — it was flippant, I do the same thing myself. Boy, I've sure learned my lesson.
I'm glad you changed it.
Overturned
Thank goodness! And thank you James for the update.