- What does Cisco have against Quebec?
- Attrition.org nails another nitwit
- Diary of a deliberately spammed housewife
- Seven cloud-computing security risks
- 20 great Windows open source projects
News | Newsletters | Podcasts | Chats | Opinions | RSS Feeds | This Week In Print | IT Careers | Community | Reports | Downloads | Slideshows | New Data Center
Partner Sites:App Performance | On Demand Security | Networking Solution | SOA | Value of WDS
"His object all sublime / He will achieve in time - / To let the punishment fit the crime." from The Mikado by W.S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan.
What is the average sentence for kidnapping? Seventy-five years? Nope. Sixty years? No, if you forcibly abduct someone, on average, you'll get a fraction more than 18 years in the slammer.
How about murder? Got to be a lot longer, wouldn't you think? Fifty years perhaps? Nope. The average sentence for murder is just less than 21 years.
So let's see, if murder gets you 20 years and kidnapping 18 years, then what can a combination of ignorance and naiveté get you? Let's be clear, no one in the following tale got killed or even hurt, no property was stolen, no nuclear secrets leaked. So, go on, what's your guess? Give up? How about 40 years?
The story goes like this: A computer in an eighth-grade classroom in Norwich, Conn., displayed pornographic images, and the substitute teacher in charge that day, 40-year-old Julie Amero, who had hardly any computer experience, faces up to 40 years in prison after she was convicted of child endangerment by exposing them to pornography.
The oddities in this case include the fact that the Internet link to the PC was not filtered or monitored, the school had a policy of never turning computers off and had no way of controlling access to the device, and after the event the machine was not surveyed, as far as anyone can tell, for adware or spyware that would drive pop-ups. None of that apparently mattered to the court.
What is even more bizarre, the forensic analysis of the computer's content -- which shows that someone, presumably a student, was looking at a Web site about hairstyles and followed a link to another site that had pornographic links which initiated pop-ups -- was not admitted in the case, much to the disgust of the defense's consultant (See here.)
The most questionable thing about Amero's actions is why she didn't turn off the computer when the pornographic images started appearing. But even though that would seem an obvious thing to do, I can understand how someone without computer experience could get extremely flustered when faced with an out-of-control situation they didn't understand.
So, while kidnappers normally get 18 years and murders get 20, Amero is facing as many as 40 years in jail for being found responsible for a few 13- and 14-year old kids seeing some nasty naked people,.
and there is always a but... firebug doesnt work :(- Anonymous
Comments (5)
On the deckBy Rodney Pieper on May 31, 2007, 11:21 pmWhen this problem moves to -- (Hypothetically) I have a home WiFi network that I don't secure, my neighbor also does. As a normal user -- when I go out to my deck...
Reply | Read entire comment
Both the prosecutor and theBy Anonymous on May 31, 2007, 9:52 pmBoth the prosecutor and the judge in this case have already been promoted within the system and the victim will never be able to clear her name. Until dirtbags in...
Reply | Read entire comment
This case should not be a matter for the courtsBy Bob Havey on March 26, 2007, 3:48 pmThere is plenty to be outraged about in the Amero case: What is the prosecutor trying to accomplish by making a mountain out of a molehill?Why does the court...
Reply | Read entire comment
Substitute teacher found guiltyBy kb on March 15, 2007, 9:22 amSurely this can't be the end of it?! First of all, they tried the wrong person. And second, the punishment is so far out of line. What a travesty.
Reply | Read entire comment
This Week in Backspin: Crime and Punishment and TechnologyBy Mark Gibbs on March 12, 2007, 11:45 amIn Backspin this week I discuss the case of a substitute teacher who has been found guilty of “child endangerment” through (it is alledged) exposing them to on-line...
Reply | Read entire comment
View all comments