Amero: A Case of Conspiracy?
According to Alex Eckelberry (CEO of Sunbelt Software), it's not a case of law vs. adware, but rather a case of misguided justice and old-fashioned conspiracy. It's a case of a prosecutor determined to get a conviction, and a school system that resorted to possible witness tampering to railroad an innocent teacher.
Eckelberry claims it's a case of possible discrimination against an attorney with a debilitating medical condition, a semi-sleeping judge who allegedly ridiculed the attorney's symptoms, an improperly instructioned jury who acted upon what they were told, never realizing that what they were told may have been tainted. And it's a case of a negligent and manipulative school administration, whom Eckelberry claims are the real culprits behind the events that led to Amero's downfall that fateful day.
If Eckelberry is correct, it's the stuff over which lives are destroyed and Hollywood movies are created. And - if true - it provides a gruesome reminder of what could happen to any one of us when justice turns a blind eye to the truth.
Update 02/25/07: The Norwich Bulletin published downloable copies of the trial transcripts. Based on those transcripts, it looks like the conspiracy theory is pretty weak.
Conspiracy? No! Self-serving interests? Yes!!
After over 35 years of working with people and computers I know beyond any doubt that the typical “computer literate” user is frightened by computers. People like Amero are almost paralyzed. Her story is classic to the many occurrences I have seen where the user thinks the computer is broken. They immediately blame themselves and are paralyzed from taking basic measures because they are afraid of doing more damage. She was told not to shut it off. Once the adware cascade started and “closing” windows failed – she was toast. Shutting it off was not an option. I’ve seen that behavior – repeatedly. Sad but sorely true.
As to the teachers and school admins, I have a lot of both in my family. Sadly, schools demotivate teachers. I’m not surprised that she couldn’t get quick help. And as to the admins, they are paid to squeeze quarters and make problems go away. Was the school working against her? No, they were saving money by not updating. After the incident they immediately acted to shed any blame from the school.
As to the prosecuter, he is paid to convict anyone charged with a crime. It’s part of his evaluation. Further, getting anyone harming a child is politically helpful. He has no incentive to find the truth or help the innocent.
Judges typically have more ties to the prosecution than the defense. They also are some of the most technophobic people I have ever met. This last shouldn’t be too surprising considering they avoided anything resembling a technical career.
So what we have is nothing more than people acting in their own self-interests. Hollywood isn’t interested. There’s not a conspiracy nor any horribly evil person involved.
Hmmm. Where I live turning the computer, pushing children’s faces away from it, and putting my body between the computer and the children is considered action, not inaction.
Two other points from the transcripts worth a mention. Perhaps you missed them.
Robert Hartz, the IT Admin for the school, testified under oath that he had never seen nor heard of popups filling a screen. Do you really believe that in 2007 that’s true?
Also, on the 20th of October, when Julie Amero was nowhere near the computer, there is testimony that 2 of the sites were accessed. Assuming that the principal’s testimony is true; that is, that he clicked into them while looking at the computer with teacher Napp, who oh so carefully avoided actually loading those sites by doing a date search of files changed on the 19th, aren’t you even a little bit curious about who was in the classroom when the files were accessed?
See, I think the transcripts prove beyond any reasonable doubt that she did not receive a fair trial, nor did she act with willful or unlawful intent. In fact, I think there’s evidence that she did not act at all to load the sites, but that she took action to keep the children away from them, including putting herself between the kids and the computer.
Finally, those transcripts also reveal a defense attorney who did not know what details to put the jury’s focus on to win this case.
The failure to protect the children was the district’s, for not updating their firewall and allowing the license to lapse. Plain and simple.
Conspiracy? Perhaps one of ignorance. As a friend of mine says, she rolled snake eyes when it came to this trial, and the only question is whether some of the damage can be undone on appeal.
The most I can say from the transcripts is that perhaps Julie Amero should have been fired, but a felony conviction? Please. The jails would be overrun if this is the standard for criminal behavior.
What a joke…
A small bit of history, the code that is used in this case I am sure, is an offshoot of the Hong Kong spammer. This was created when Netscape made it’s claim (version 4 I think) that they had the unhackable browser. A group of students from Cal within hours cracked the code, however they had unknown consequences when a group of less scrupulous programmers (from Hong Kong) got ahold of their thesis. The result, is our current state of affairs when it comes to spam and adware…
Then to the comment…
Robert Hartz, the IT Admin for the school, testified under oath that he had never seen nor heard of popups filling a screen. Do you really believe that in 2007 that’s true?
I believe that could happen, he lied or is brain dead…(either way, very far from true, just let me just send you a link, bet you’ll never do it again, and you’ll be able to throw your computer away too.)…I’d assume that more that 90% of the IT field that’s worth it’s salt works in private industry, most I’ve met in the education industry can’t code their way outta a wet paper bag let alone know what their doing. So this doesn’t surprise me.
In short, there is tons of code out there for doing just this. And what’s sad, this poor woman goes to jail or get’s a record because the justice system in this case is more fit for the stone age then today. Shame on that Judge, the school and the prosecutor…they convicted an innocent woman.