Attack of the Porn Pop-Ups

Last month jedi jawa had a post about the dangers that lurk on the Net if you misspell a URL. If you're lucky, such a slight mistake might make you laugh, blush, or curse. If you're a 40-year-old substitute teacher from Connecticut, it could mean 40 years in prison.

This article at MSNBC tells the basic story of Julie Amero. One day, while substitute teaching in a Connecticut middle school, Amero had another full-time teacher log her onto the classroom computer so she could check her Email. After doing that, Amero left the room. When she returned, several kids were clustered around the PC, which was displaying a host of pop up ads, many for porn websites. Amero had been told not to unplug the computer and, as an unskilled PC user, didn't know how to deal with the pop ups. She shooed the kids away and sought help from other teachers, who provided none.

Eventually, parents found about what happened and raised a stink, leading to a prosecution of Amero for "injury or risk of injury to, or impairing morals of, children." Amero turned down a plea bargain that would have led to probation, partly because expert analysis found the cause of the pop ups - the machine was infested with spyware, adware, and cookies. That's not surprising, since the defenses on the machine were outdated, at best. Going to trial proved to be a mistake - Amero was convicted on four counts, with a possible punishment of 40 years in prison (although it's unlikely she'll get anywhere near that much).

The case is percolating through the blogosphere, particularly the techie sites. The experts have contributed dueling posts to one blog, for instance. Another online tech site provides this breakdown of the case, which is less positive of Alero's case. He raises a good point which is troubling me:

Julie Amero logged in to look at her AOL mail and, about six minutes later, either she or one of the students visited various websites about hair products or hair styles. Now one can reasonably ask why Julie was checking e-mail, or for that matter surfing the web while she was supposed to be teaching. In fact, she spent most of the day logged on to the Internet – not just logged on, but actively surfing. And why were her students allowed to be surfing Internet websites about hair styles? In fact, Julie Amero had been reprimanded for not paying enough attention to the students and instead just web browsing while in class.

It's hard to get a full picture of the case. Amero's supporters make a convincing case that she's been railroaded, probably to cover up the lax IT department of the school. They also take shots at her attorney. But it's unclear exactly what went on at trial. The MSNBC article represents that Amero's expert testified about the spyware and such, but other reports suggest that procedural issues prevented the expert from testifying fully. How much deference do we have to give to the 6-person jury that heard the evidence (whatever was presented) and convicted this woman?

Regardless, the Amero case is an object less in the dangers of the wild that is the Internet.