Computer “crimes” of a different class
By Charles Miller, March 9 2007

From time to time I exchange interesting news articles with my brother who is an attorney. We do this when we read items of interest to the other.

One subject that has come up several times is overzealous criminal prosecutors who sometimes get so caught up in their work that they lose perspective. There is a case now in the courts that both of us feel takes this to the level of absolute insanity.

I really wish that I were exaggerating about this, but I am not. I urge Atención readers to go online and read some of the New York Times articles about this case.

On October 19, 2004, substitute schoolteacher Julie Amero entered her classroom at Kelly Middle School in Norwich, Connecticut. Amero has been described as not being terribly technically savvy when it comes to computers. She is said to understand basic computer functions, but not much more. Her classroom was equipped with an old computer and it was connected to the internet.

The technical elements of this case are of the most interest to me. What I have read in news accounts of this case are the following.

The classroom computer Amero was given to use was not properly maintained by the school district technical staff. The antivirus software had been expired for several months before she arrived. On top of that, the antivirus software was only a trial version already discontinued by the manufacturer.

The computer in question was running Windows 98 which is now known to be an insecure operating system. The computer had no anti-spyware software installed.

Moreover, based on what happened, it would appear that the computer network to which this computer was connected did not have adequate or up-to-date filtering software to block access to inappropriate web sites.

To a technical person like me, this is a picture of an accident waiting to happen.

When Amero arrived in her classroom, someone else had to log into the computer because substitute teachers do not have their own accounts or passwords. She arrived to find some students using the computer to surf the internet.

Forensic experts who have examined that computer now confirm it had been infected with spyware before Amero ever touched it. The spyware or adware forced the computer to connect to an adult web site. When Julie tried to close down Internet Explorer, she got a flood of pornographic pop-up ads.

She turned the computer monitor away from the students and tried unsuccessfully to get rid of the pornographic ads. Remember, Amero is no computer expert. The school system policy for computer usage says that substitute teachers may not log on or off the computers, and so Amero was following that policy by not shutting down the computer.

At the first opportunity, she left the classroom to go find technical help but could not find anyone available to come help her. Someone supposedly told her to “not worry about it.” Methinks she should have worried.

Somebody called the Gestapo and had poor Amero hauled off to jail to face charges of “child endangerment.” She was tried and convicted of the charge that carried a prison sentence of up to forty years.

So is Julie Amero, convicted felon now awaiting sentencing, someone who intended to expose children to pornography or an innocent victim? Who knows? Armchair jurisprudence like mine almost never gets whole story.

Charles Miller is a freelance computer consultant, a frequent visitor to San Miguel since 1981 and now practically a full-time resident. He may be contacted at 044-415-101-8528 or email FAQ@SMAguru.com.