Connecticut v. Amero: Difference between revisions
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v1.2.7.1) |
Rescuing 2 sources and tagging 1 as dead. #IABot (v1.2.7.1) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
On June 6, 2007, a New London superior court judge threw out the conviction of Amero, she was granted a new trial and entered a plea of not guilty. |
On June 6, 2007, a New London superior court judge threw out the conviction of Amero, she was granted a new trial and entered a plea of not guilty. |
||
On November 21, 2008, Julie Amero pleaded guilty to a single charge of disorderly conduct before Superior Court Judge Robert E. Young in Norwich.,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-julie1122.artnov22,0,5838504.story?track=rss|title=Amero pleads guilty |
On November 21, 2008, Julie Amero pleaded guilty to a single charge of disorderly conduct before Superior Court Judge Robert E. Young in Norwich.,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-julie1122.artnov22,0,5838504.story?track=rss |title=Amero pleads guilty |publisher=[[Hartford Courant]] |date=2008-11-22 |accessdate=2008-11-22 }}{{dead link|date=January 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> paying a US$100 charge and forfeiting her teaching credentials.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9121218&intsrc=news_ts_head |title=Spyware case finally closed for teacher Julie Amero |agency=IDG |author=Robert McMillan |publisher=[[Computer World]] |date=Nov 21, 2008 |accessdate=Nov 9, 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090116040313/http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9121218&intsrc=news_ts_head |archivedate=January 16, 2009 }}</ref> |
||
==Controversy== |
==Controversy== |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
A paper in the 2007 Virus Bulletin Conference<ref name="analysis" /><ref>{{cite web | title = The Strange Case of Julie Amero | url = http://www.virusbtn.com/conference/vb2007/abstracts/Shipp.xml | publisher = Virus Bulletin| date=2007-09-21 }}</ref> highlighted many other blunders. Amongst the most noteworthy, Detective Lounsbury stated in the trial that a red link proved that Amero had deliberately clicked on the link to visit a particular pornographic page. Huge blown up pictures were shown to the jury. In fact, forensic investigation showed that the link visited color for the browser was olive green. The link was colored red because there was a font tag on the page turning the link red. Further analysis of the cache on the machine and also of independent firewall logs showed that the page had never even been visited, let alone deliberately visited. Thus, one of the key pieces of prosecution evidence was actually completely technically incorrect. |
A paper in the 2007 Virus Bulletin Conference<ref name="analysis" /><ref>{{cite web | title = The Strange Case of Julie Amero | url = http://www.virusbtn.com/conference/vb2007/abstracts/Shipp.xml | publisher = Virus Bulletin| date=2007-09-21 }}</ref> highlighted many other blunders. Amongst the most noteworthy, Detective Lounsbury stated in the trial that a red link proved that Amero had deliberately clicked on the link to visit a particular pornographic page. Huge blown up pictures were shown to the jury. In fact, forensic investigation showed that the link visited color for the browser was olive green. The link was colored red because there was a font tag on the page turning the link red. Further analysis of the cache on the machine and also of independent firewall logs showed that the page had never even been visited, let alone deliberately visited. Thus, one of the key pieces of prosecution evidence was actually completely technically incorrect. |
||
An essay on the case by Nancy Willard (J.D.) at CSRIU<ref>{{cite web |
An essay on the case by Nancy Willard (J.D.) at CSRIU<ref>{{cite web|title=The Julie Amero Tragedy |url=http://csriu.org/onlinedocs/AmeroTragedy.pdf |publisher=Network Performance Daily |date=2007-02-00 |accessdate=2008-11-22 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080705102738/http://csriu.org/onlinedocs/AmeroTragedy.pdf |archivedate=2008-07-05 |df= }}</ref> describes Amero going for help when she was unable to prevent images popping up. At the original trial Detective Mark Lounsbury for the prosecution testified that the computer was never checked for the presence of malware.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.faithandthecity.org/issues/education/articles/Questionable-conviction.shtml |title=Amero convicted |publisher=[[Computer World]] |date=2007-11-21 |accessdate=2007-11-21 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20071030013735/http://www.faithandthecity.org/issues/education/articles/Questionable-conviction.shtml |archivedate=2007-10-30 |df= }}</ref> The case gained national attention when [[Alex Eckelberry]], then president of Sunbelt Software, championed the case on his blog and led a team of forensic researchers to examine the trial testimony and the contents of the school computer's hard drive. |
||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Revision as of 17:51, 1 January 2017
| State of Connecticut v. Julie Amero | |
|---|---|
| Court | Norwich Superior Court New London superior court |
| Full case name | State of Connecticut v. Julie Amero |
| Transcript | Julie Amero Trial Transcript |
State of Connecticut v. Julie Amero is a court case in the 2000s concerning Internet privacy and DNS hijacking (specifically involving New.net). The defendant in the case, Julie Amero (born 1967), a substitute teacher, was previously convicted of four counts of risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child, as the result of a computer that was infected with spyware and DNS hijacking software; the conviction was vacated on appeal.
Timeline
On October 19, 2004, Julie Amero was substituting for a seventh-grade language class at Kelly Middle School in Norwich, Connecticut. The teacher's computer was accessed by pupils while the regular teacher, Matthew Napp, was out of the room. When Amero took charge, the computer started showing pornographic images.
On January 5, 2007, Amero was convicted in Norwich Superior Court on four counts of risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child. Her sentencing was delayed four times after her conviction, with both the prosecution and judge not satisfied that all aspects of the case had been assessed.[1] The felony charges for which she was originally convicted carry a maximum prison sentence of 40 years.[2]
On June 6, 2007, a New London superior court judge threw out the conviction of Amero, she was granted a new trial and entered a plea of not guilty.
On November 21, 2008, Julie Amero pleaded guilty to a single charge of disorderly conduct before Superior Court Judge Robert E. Young in Norwich.,[3] paying a US$100 charge and forfeiting her teaching credentials.[4]
Controversy
The old computer, along with the school network, lacked up-to-date firewall or anti-spyware protection to prevent inappropriate pop-ups. The school used the Symantec WebNOT filter; however, it was not licensed for software updates and so did not block newly discovered pornographic websites.[5]
Computer experts believe that spyware and malware programs hijacked the machine’s browser so that it visited pornography sites without prompting and created the computer logs that helped convict Amero.[5] According to the defense's expert witness, W. Herbert Horner, the defense at the first trial was not permitted to present prepared evidence in support of this theory.[6] On March 6, 2007, a $2,400 advertisement appeared in the Hartford Courant signed by 28 computer science professors who said that they think that Amero could not have controlled the pornographic pop-ups.[7][8] It was eventually discovered that the uncontrollable pop-ups were spawned by a Spyware program named NewDotNet which had been installed on October 14, 2004, 5 days prior to the alleged crime.[9]
Norwich Police Detective Mark Lounsbury is the "computer forensics expert" who was used by the prosecution to help convict her. Lounsbury testified that he solely relied on ComputerCop Professional for his forensic analysis. By the company’s own admission, the program is incapable of determining whether a site was visited intentionally or accidentally.[10]
A paper in the 2007 Virus Bulletin Conference[9][11] highlighted many other blunders. Amongst the most noteworthy, Detective Lounsbury stated in the trial that a red link proved that Amero had deliberately clicked on the link to visit a particular pornographic page. Huge blown up pictures were shown to the jury. In fact, forensic investigation showed that the link visited color for the browser was olive green. The link was colored red because there was a font tag on the page turning the link red. Further analysis of the cache on the machine and also of independent firewall logs showed that the page had never even been visited, let alone deliberately visited. Thus, one of the key pieces of prosecution evidence was actually completely technically incorrect.
An essay on the case by Nancy Willard (J.D.) at CSRIU[12] describes Amero going for help when she was unable to prevent images popping up. At the original trial Detective Mark Lounsbury for the prosecution testified that the computer was never checked for the presence of malware.[13] The case gained national attention when Alex Eckelberry, then president of Sunbelt Software, championed the case on his blog and led a team of forensic researchers to examine the trial testimony and the contents of the school computer's hard drive.
References
- ^ "Amero case gets longer look". Norwich Bulletin. 2007-04-25. Retrieved 2007-04-25.
- ^ "Does Sentencing Delay Mean a Possible Reprieve for Julie Amero?". PBS. 2007-04-25. Retrieved 2007-06-07.
- ^ "Amero pleads guilty". Hartford Courant. 2008-11-22. Retrieved 2008-11-22.[permanent dead link]
- ^ Robert McMillan (Nov 21, 2008). "Spyware case finally closed for teacher Julie Amero". Computer World. IDG. Archived from the original on January 16, 2009. Retrieved Nov 9, 2011.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|deadurl=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) - ^ a b Axelrod, Daniel (January 24, 2007). "Norwich porn a fluke, expert says". Norwich Bulletin. Retrieved June 7, 2007. [dead link]
- ^ "The Strange Case of Ms. Julie Amero: Commentary by Mr. Herb Horner". Network Performance Daily. 2007-01-22. Retrieved 2007-07-21.
- ^ "Professors Defend Teacher Accused Of Exposing Students To Pornography". NBC30. 2007-03-07. Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2007-03-07.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|deadurl=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) - ^ State v Amero - A Miscarriage of Justice? Accessed: 2008-11-17. Archived by WebCite
- ^ a b Eckelberry, A; Dardick, G.; Folkerts, J.; Shipp, A.; Sites, E.; Stewart, J.; Stuart, R. (March 21, 2007). "Technical review of the Trial Testimony - State of Connecticut vs. Julie Amero" (PDF). p. 4. Retrieved 26 January 2010.
- ^ The Julie Amero case, part II: May the farce be with you InfoWorld, December 2, 2008
- ^ "The Strange Case of Julie Amero". Virus Bulletin. 2007-09-21.
- ^ "The Julie Amero Tragedy" (PDF). Network Performance Daily. 2007-02-00. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-07-05. Retrieved 2008-11-22.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Unknown parameter|deadurl=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) - ^ "Amero convicted". Computer World. 2007-11-21. Archived from the original on 2007-10-30. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|deadurl=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help)
External links
- Julie Amero's blog
- Rick Green, A Court Case Doubling As An Obscenity, Hartford Courant
- Crime and punishment and technology
- Julie Amero Trial Transcript - "intended to be a significant improvement over the Norwich Bulletin version"
- Mouse-Trapped - A forensic and legal overview of the Julie Amero trial
- Radley Balko, The Prosecution of Julie Amero, Reason Magazine