Journalist Rick Green wrote an excellent feature article for the Hartford Courant yesterday. He walks the reader through events outlined in court testimony in narrative form in a fair and balanced way. The most interesting and newsy part is at the end, where he writes:

But Kane, Smith and others connected to the case have been deluged - and widely ridiculed - by computer security experts who say critical evidence was not considered and officials are now searching for ways to avoid Thursday’s sentencing. The state’s attorney’s office in Norwich is reconsidering its aggressive prosecution of Amero, sources close to the case say.

Smith, whose persuasive arguments convinced the jury of Amero’s guilt, would say only that before next Thursday, things “could very well change.”

To Kane, Smith and others: There is a way to avoid Thursday’s sentencing. Simply go into court and tell the judge that you were wrong. Tell the judge that you’ve received new information that proves Amero innocent and request that the verdict be vacated. Do the right thing.

Meanwhile, Nancy Willard has updated her report (PDF) on the Amero case to reflect the court transcripts and testimony published by the Norwich Bulletin.

Finally, commenter lilaw is calling for anyone who can to show up at the courthouse on March 29th in support of Julie Amero.

Most of mainstream America gets its information from television and the print media. And that media publicizes the news that sells commercial airtime or print advertisements. Let’s provide them with something to publicize. At least, let’s let Norwich know that we are watching. (I think that peaceful protest and freedom of assembly and association are still permitted there.) Let’s let Julie know that we support her. I do not live in Connecticut. It will take me at least three hours to get there, but I will be in Norwich on Julie’s sentencing date, now scheduled for March 29, 2007. Please get up from your computer and join me. You computer geeks (a term I use with respect) who are far more blog-savvy than I, please get the word out. While I would like to be in the courtroom to observe the proceedings on March 29th, nothing would please me more than to find that the place is so crowded with Julie’s supporters that I can’t get in. By the way, I am not some left-wing radical. I am now a moderate, middle-aged part of mainstream America. I am outraged. I am also an attorney. I am alarmed. And ashamed.

I wish I could be there with you, lilaw. It’s just on the wrong coast for me to make it. But I’m there in spirit and with full-tilt blogging mode turned on. If any of you are on the east coast and can join lilaw to stand for what’s right (assuming that there isn’t some sort of resolution that brings this to an end to Julie’s benefit), please do.

Here’s an aside to Stowe Boyd: The links in this post prove that local newspapers are NOT dead, cannot die, and should not be allowed to die. Mathew Ingram said it best: The news is not dying. I do, however, agree with Robert Scoble about America’s fixation with celebrity non-news, which should be permitted to die a graceless and rapid death.

On the other hand, having Rumsfeld as a guest editor for the LA Times would have been a travesty. Glad to see that one nipped in the bud before it blossomed.

Technorati Tags: hartford courant, newspapers, local news, journalism

Yesterday the Norwich Bulletin published an editorial about the Amero case. In a backhanded way they called for some responsibility to fall on Robert Hartz’ shoulders (Robert Hartz was the district IT administrator):

However, Amero is not the only one to blame. Pornographic sites should never have been able to appear on that school computer. The fact the school’s protection against these sites was outdated falls firmly in the lap of the school district. Whoever did not do their job to ensure the proper fees were paid and the licensing was up-to-date deserves to be fired.

However, the gist of their editorial is that Julie Amero, and Julie Amero alone should bear the criminal responsibility for the appearance of porn on the computer. The double standard in that stance is the first river of dishonesty, but it doesn’t end there. Obviously the authors of the editorial didn’t bother to read the transcripts they published for the benefit of all to read, because they say this:

She even discussed the problem with students. Amero never went to the main office and did not discuss the issue with the principal until the next day, when she was questioned.

River of Lies #1: There was no testimony that Amero discussed this with students (beyond booting 2 of them off the computer before the popups appeared), but there WAS testimony that she had: a) gone to the teacher’s lounge to seek help; b) reported the incident to the vice principal the very same day it happened; and c) discussed it with the principal the following day.

Then there is this interesting spin on the case, offered with no facts to support the contention:

It’s an unlikely sentence, even though children were exposed to six hours of Internet pornography under Amero’s watch.

River of Lies #2: By wording this to suggest that the children ‘were exposed to six hours’ of porn, the Bulletin twists the facts and ignores Amero’s efforts to physically place herself between the students and the monitor, her efforts to close the windows, etc. This single statement proves the ingrained bias of the editorial board. My first instinct when reading this was that this was an editorial written by the prosecutor! I was amazed to discover that the editorial board of the Norwich Bulletin authored it.

As if that spin weren’t enough, they offer this indictment of the experts who have risen to Amero’s defense:

Amero has many supporters, which should not sway the court, as most of them have formed opinions based on limited knowledge of the facts of the case, or simple hearsay. At the heart of this international debate is whether Amero was responsible for causing the pornography to be on the computer screen for an entire school day…

River of Lies #3: The experts and supporters of Julie Amero have read the transcripts (evidently much more thoroughly than the NB did), examined a mirror copy of the hard drive of the computer in question, and donated their time and talent to Julie Amero because the verdict is just wrong. The ones operating on simple hearsay with no facts before them are the editorial board of the Norwich Bulletin.

Now, newspapers are entitled to print editorials as pure opinion, but it’s a pretty sad day when the opinion isn’t based upon the facts of the case. In a day and age where we are fortunate enough to have primary source documents available via electronic access, there is no excuse for the PUBLISHER of those documents to ignore them and spin the facts to support their opinion with no foundation or effort at intellectual honesty.

As I mulled over what possible reason they’d have for revving up the tar-and-feather engine 2 weeks ahead of sentencing again, it occurred to me that perhaps their page views had fallen off since they published the transcripts and they viewed this as a way to bump traffic and revenue again.
The Norwich Bulletin advertisers should seriously consider whether advertising on this site works to their benefit. I’m seriously tempted to suggest an advertiser boycott for this incredible excuse for a rag of a newspaper.

Alex Kantor has some more enlightenment for them on his blog, too.

My suggestion to Connecticut newspaper subscribers: Switch to the Hartford Courant. At least their reporters make the time to actually check their facts with primary sources.

Technorati Tags: Norwich Bulletin, journalism, reporting, editorials, ethics, law

Andrew Kantor notes that the Norwich Bulletin appears to be removing content related to Julie Amero. I’ve been able to get to every article I’ve linked to here, so I’m not sure what they may have removed or sent to archives, but I did notice that their search results only yield 2 articles and there is no archives link that I can see — if there’s one on the page, it’s buried.

When this story began to spread and real experts started showing how wrong he was, Norwich Bulletin education beat reporter Dan Axelrod removed his horrendous blog entry comparing anyone who blamed the school district or anyone other than Amero the same as blaming a rape victim. That entry was incredibly ignorant, arrogant, and beyond the pale, but it was his opinion. The only problem is that since he is paid to actually REPORT the news for the newspaper, he’s not supposed to form an opinion without at least investigating the facts, which he obviously never did.

If Kantor is right and content is being removed (particularly editorials written by the newspaper that support the guilty verdict), the Norwich Bulletin is not worthy of being considered a reliable or primary source for anything. Norwich citizens, beware.

Frank Krasicki has some interesting analysis posted of the students’ testimony, including the testimony that the sites were all pornographic, which they were not. Interesting and detailed analysis and reading.

Julie Amero’s sentencing is in 12 days. Experts are working hard on her behalf, and have called for the State Attorney General to intervene. According to Gideon, there’s not much chance of the judge intervening to acquit her, so it will have to go to appeals. It’s really abhorent to me that she has to live with this veil of conviction over her head for so long. There should be a better way to right obvious wrongs.

Technorati Tags: Andrew Kantor, Norwich Bulletin, law, justice, journalism

Andrew Kantor says the case against Julie Amero needs to be deleted.

After reading the full transcript, Kantor makes the case for why this case should be dropped (and an immediate and profuse apology made to Amero, in my opinion). He hits hard on the so-called experts who testified in the case and has demos to prove them wrong. I loved this comment about Mark Lounsbury’s claim that he would unmask ‘the truth’ after sentencing by providing ’source code’:

It’s fake geek-speak designed to impress those who think it means something, and it’s evidence that Lounsbury doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Meanwhile, over on Julie Amero’s blog, her husband Wes has posted an email he received from a 23-year old supporter:

I don’t want thanks for this, there’s no amount of thanks that will make up for the fact that this nation, it’s government, it’s “justice system” and the vast majority of it’s people are so far behind the learning curve that innocent people are being hurt, innocent lives destroyed, and innocent productive members of society are threatened with removal from that society while true criminals continue to terrorize the populace. My “consumerist dollars” are yours this pay period. My consumerist dollars are also no longer for this country. I have friends and family in Canada, and I’ve become so disgusted with this nation over your case that I will be saving up until I can leave.

This nation is no longer the democracy it fought so hard to try to become. As such, this citizen is ashamed because someone who holds the highest position a human can hold, the same position that is the most undervalued and under-respected profession in this country, has been treated like a criminal by people who aren’t worthy enough to be called one of her students. Your treatment is the direct result of catering to the lowest common denominator.

Do any legal eagles out there know if the judge could reverse the verdict at sentencing, or does it have to go to appeal for that to happen?

Technorati Tags: law, justice, technology

Liz Ditz left this for me as a comment on another post. (Warning: Please be sure you are not drinking any liquids when you read this or you may choke on them) Via EdWonks, this article from WTHR in Indianapolis:

…during school hours in a classroom with an experienced teacher present, two sixth graders completed the act of intercourse…at least ten students were witnesses. No disciplinary actions were taken against the teacher… All teachers were told to keep quiet.”

Middle school students having sex in a busy classroom while a teacher is present? Warren Township Associate Superintendent Jeff Swensson confirmed it’s true. It’s been kept under wraps since November.

So…let’s see if I have this right. Teacher is distracted during lab class; sixth graders have sex in the classroom with students watching and keeping a lookout.

According to an associate superintendent, the teacher didn’t realize what was happening because:

…another student acted as a “look-out.” But once the teacher discovered the behavior, immediate action was taken. Swensson says the students involved were recommended for expulsion. But he did not say whether the board followed that recommendation.

No police report was filed and no consequences fell on the teacher.

Now let’s think about this for a minute. A substitute teacher in Connecticut is the victim of malware and faces 40 years in prison. A ‘teacher’ (I’m assuming it was a full-time regular teacher) in Indiana loses control of his/her classroom, two 12-year olds have sex, and full intercourse at that DURING THE CLASS and the teacher has no consequences.

At the very least, that deserves some sort of write-up for a lack of control over his/her classroom.

In the course of the Julie Amero discussions here and elsewhere, the question of why the union didn’t step up for Amero has arisen. Of course, as a substitute she was likely not a union member and couldn’t benefit from the union’s resources. However, if the Indiana teacher is a union member, I wonder if they intervened or were poised to intervene on this teacher’s part if responsibility for the incident had fallen on them.

As a parent, I would be much more disturbed by the idea of my kid witnessing and/or co-opting two peers having sex in the middle of a classroom than I would be at the idea of images on a computer screen. Even so, I wouldn’t be calling for the teacher’s head as much as I would the heads of the parents of those two kids.

Bonus Link: (State v Amero blog) An Open Letter to Kevin Kane (AG of Connecticut), signed by some very heavy hitters at Yale, Hartford, Trinity and others.

Technorati Tags: schools, students, misbehavior, middle school, teachers unions

I’m really glad someone has highlighted the horrendous reporting done by the Norwich Bulletin in the Julie Amero case. John C. Sharp highlights the degree of accountability that bloggers have brought into the case. Had the public relied upon the reports of their local newspaper only, they’d be convinced forever more that a 40-year old pregnant teacher was whiling away her hours in the classroom hunting down porn.

Before the Julie Amero case came along, and “reporters” Daniel Axelrod and Greg Smith misread the blood-flow of the local populace and started writing pro-state articles about how much this 40 year old, married, pregnant substitute teacher deserved to go to jail, the Norwich Bulletin was on the same downhill slide many other carbon-based media entities are themselves confronting.

I disagree with him about the value of having the Bulletin disappear and bloggers taking its place, however. I believe that there is a place for both — the newspaper should be held accountable for displayed bias in reporting by the bloggers who offer various points of view. I wouldn’t want to see newspapers disappear, but I would like for them to abide by professional best practice standards of objectivity.

Technorati Tags: Norwich Bulletin, reporting, media, citizen journalism

I’ve been swamped getting ready to go on vacation later this week, but there were some interesting posts around the web today that I wanted to link up before getting off to bed.

From Crime & Federalism:

W. Herbert Horner, a defense witness and computer expert, was
prepared to testify that the images appeared on the screen as a result
of the acts of others. However, the trial court judge, Hillary
Strackbein, did not permit him to offer his opinion. Why? He was not
disclosed as an expert in a timely fashion.

Judge Strackbein’s ruling may well be an abuse of discretion.
Ordinarily, the defense need not disclose witnesses prior to trial.
Indeed, in one recent case regarding the late disclosure of an alibi,
the Appellate Court ruled it was an abuse of discretion to refuse to
permit the witness to testify.

BoingBoing has an opinion about the juror who spoke out last week claiming that “it was obvious that the pages were clicked on they were not the result of pop-ups”.

That statement is in direct conflict with the testimony on record. Amero
did everything short of turning off the computer, which she was
instructed by a superior not to do. The children from her class
testified — right in front of this juror — that she did make every
effort to hide what was being displayed. He also seems to have
picked up the same in-depth knowledge of Internet Explorer possessed by
the Norwich police computer expert, which could be defined as; little
to none.

Fred’s obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed but, can you
blame him? After all, he’s a product of the same Connecticut school
system that’s teaching kids it’s OK to send an innocent woman to jail
in order to cover your own incompetence.

Bingo.

downloadsquad.com links up to the Steve Bass’s column quoting Norwich Detective Mark Lounsbury, the Norwich Police Department’s very own IT expert.  He says:

Dear Mr. Bass, Unfortunately the truth in this matter is
yet to be told to all those who were not located in the courtroom
during the trial. Those in the courtroom saw and heard the truth. Once
sentencing is done the truth CAN BE presented to the world IF they want
it. I’m thinking the world doesn’t want to hear the truth. IGNORANCE IS
BLISS. The lies are exciting, bringing up STRONG emotions. OMG, that
poor person, victimized by the Evil Government and its minions.

It continues to amaze me how people can base their opinion on what is fed
to them. Did anyone ask the Expert for the evidence he recovered which
would support his claims? The “curlyhairstye script”, those
pornographic googlesyndication.com generated pop ups? BUNK also known
as errors of commission. Would you like to know the truth? Once
sentencing is over I’d be more than happy to let you see the source
code, scripts, etc.

I’ve received allot of calls and emails regarding this. All from people interested
only in TELLING me their opinions or TELLING me they’re going to get
me. Not once has anyone called or written me to ASK me a question. They
apparently have what they want. I work hard every day for the victims
of crime. I search for the truth not for me but for them. If what the
newspaper reported about my testimony was my actual testimony, taken in
context, don’t you think there would have been some consequences, a
rebuttal, something.

Feel free to write if you wish.

Mark Lounsbury

When Steve Bass took him up on his invitation and sent back a list of questions, he received this reply:

Dear Mr. Bass, Once the sentencing phase for this case is
done I can answer all your questions. I have all the information you
seek. My opinion is not important but I am fleshing out a theory
concerning site blocking software which was in place and how to
circumvent it. I can provide you w/ the source code showing all the
.htm and javascripting for each web page, images from those pages,
date/time of creation, MD5 hashes, etc. I will contact you after
sentencing. Thank you,

Mark Lounsbury

Okay, I’m no expert in the area of “source code showing all the .htm and javascripting for each web page, images, etc.” and I’m especially not an expert in the area of MD5 hashes (though I’ve read that they tell exactly nothing), so if anyone wants to weigh in with a deeper explanation of what Det. Lounsbury expects to prove with this evidence, bring it on in the comments.

But one thing does keep coming back to  me over and over.  The jury never really saw what Julie Amero saw.  They never got a sense of the rapidity of the popups.  Anyone who’s ever been in a mousetrap or porn storm knows that those windows just flood — they popup fast and furious.  The jury really never got a sense of what it must have been like to be minding a classroom full of smartass seventh graders while being confronted with a screen full of unwanted and likely illegal popups, unable to leave the room and believing that she couldn’t turn off the computer.

Here’s something else:  That computer was used for attendance for each class.  If she had turned it off, what would have become of the attendance reports? She knows she has to stay logged on, doesn’t realize that turning off the monitor won’t turn off the computer (that’s something that surprised my mother not too long ago, too, and she’s been using computers for years), so she does the only thing she can do — she places herself physically between the kids and the screen.

One other thought on this and then I’ll move on — One of the kids said she was “scrolling up and down” on the window.  That supports the mousetrap/porn storm because the windows cascade.  So as she closes one, there’s cascading popups down the screen, which from a distance, would give the impression of “scrolling up and down”.  I sure wish that they’d actually tested what these kids could see from a distance, too.  It was just taken as a given that they could view the detail on the screen as well as they did without any challenge.  I’m not advocating verbal lashings on cross-examination, but I don’t take the word of a teenager at face value without at least testing it against reality.  Yet it went unchallenged that they could actually see the detail they saw (like they couldn’t have gone and figured it out later or hadn’t seen it before…)

Didn’t Julie Amero have the right to a reasonable expectation that the filters the school had put in place were operational?  So imagine being her, sitting at the teacher’s desk confronted with window after window after window, some horrible, some not so bad, and wondering what the heck was happening to a computer that was supposedly protected and thinking she had no clue what she did to trigger it or how to stop it.  It’s appalling to think that there wasn’t much more emphasis placed on the failure of Robert Hartz to get that filter updated or else disconnect the computers from the Internet until it was.  Yet the transcripts are clear that he didn’t even realize it wasn’t working until they went to investigate the complaints.

Technorati Tags: law, justice, courts

Nancy Willard is the executive director of the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use and the publisher of the report I referred to in earlier posts. She has written an article for Education World entitled Malware and Porn Traps: What Schools Can Do.

From the article:

While discussing the Amero case in online forums, I have gotten many e-mails from teachers stating, “That could have been me” — an entirely accurate statement.

But it’s also important to note that it could happen to any of your students as well.

And this:

The following point must be made absolutely clear to all school administrators and police officers: There are various forms of “malware” (malicious software) or Web sites with “porn traps” or “mouse traps” (a Web site feature that essentially takes control of the browser and causes pornographic sites to pop up when the user tries to exit). Malware and porn traps are lurking on the Internet, just waiting for someone to make a mistake that will result in the display of objectionable material. [Emphasis Added]

The article goes on to list three essential steps for all schools to take. It’s an excellent article and should be required reading by every teacher and IT administrators for school districts in this country.

Not just the schools

It’s not just school districts who need to beware. Just tonight, this article popped up in my feeds via 9o1am about a new trojan out in the wild that started spreading yesterday via email attachment OR by visiting an infected site, a new way of spreading the malware. From F-Secure:

It may use any of the following strings as its Subject:

• 230 dead as storm batters Europe.
• A killer at 11, he’s free at 21 and…
• British Muslims Genocide
• Naked teens attack home director.
• U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has kicked German Chancellor Angela Merkel

Attachments may be any of the following filenames:

• Full Clip.exe
• Full Story.exe
• Read More.exe
• Video.exe

More variants and explanation can be found on the F-Secure blog.  As an aside, I’m a lot annoyed that Trend Micro doesn’t have any alerts up on their website about it, so I’ve subscribed to F-Secure’s blog and will be watching it for any updates that should be shouted out.  If the system is infected, a rootkit is installed that allows your system to be taken over by a botnet that then goes out and posts more infected files.

The thing that’s different about this is that it’s being posted in blog comments and message board postings.  Make sure you’ve got up-to-date virus protection, your firewall is turned on, and of course don’t click links or open attachments when you aren’t sure of their source and haven’t scanned them specifically.

Technorati Tags: storm worm, security, virus, malware, f-secure, nancy willard, csriu.org