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.
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]
Controversyedit
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.
Referencesedit
^"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.
^"Plea in teacher porn case". Telegram & Gazette. November 22, 2008. Retrieved November 28, 2022.
^Robert McMillan (Nov 21, 2008). . Computer World. IDG. Archived from the original on January 16, 2009. Retrieved Nov 9, 2011.
^ abAxelrod, Daniel (January 24, 2007). "Norwich porn a fluke, expert says". Norwich Bulletin. Archived from the original on December 30, 2022. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
^"The Strange Case of Ms. Julie Amero: Commentary by Mr. Herb Horner". Network Performance Daily. 2007-01-22. Retrieved 2007-07-21.
^. NBC30. 2007-03-07. Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2007-03-07.
^State v Amero - A Miscarriage of Justice? 2009-02-02 at the Wayback Machine Accessed: 2008-11-17.
^ abEckelberry, A; Dardick, G.; Folkerts, J.; Shipp, A.; Sites, E.; Stewart, J.; Stuart, R. (March 21, 2007). (PDF). p. 4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 January 2009. 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.
^(PDF). Network Performance Daily. 2007-02-01. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-07-05. Retrieved 2008-11-22.
^. Computer World. 2007-11-21. Archived from the original on 2007-10-30. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
External linksedit
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
October 27, 2023
connecticut, amero, state, connecticut, julie, amero, court, case, 2000s, concerning, internet, privacy, hijacking, specifically, involving, defendant, case, julie, amero, born, 1967, substitute, teacher, previously, convicted, four, counts, risk, injury, mino. 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 State of Connecticut v Julie AmeroCourtNorwich Superior CourtNew London superior courtFull case nameState of Connecticut v Julie AmeroTranscript s Julie Amero Trial Transcript Contents 1 Timeline 2 Controversy 3 References 4 External linksTimeline editOn 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 editThe 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 edit 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 Plea in teacher porn case Telegram amp Gazette November 22 2008 Retrieved November 28 2022 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 a b Axelrod Daniel January 24 2007 Norwich porn a fluke expert says Norwich Bulletin Archived from the original on December 30 2022 Retrieved June 7 2007 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 State v Amero A Miscarriage of Justice Archived 2009 02 02 at the Wayback Machine Accessed 2008 11 17 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 Archived from the original PDF on 24 January 2009 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 01 Archived from the original PDF on 2008 07 05 Retrieved 2008 11 22 Amero convicted Computer World 2007 11 21 Archived from the original on 2007 10 30 Retrieved 2007 11 21 External links editJulie 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 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Connecticut v Amero amp oldid 1177662877, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
