Another Thanksgiving Day is upon us and before my wife and I head off to stuff ourselves at an Extended Family gathering, I'm taking a few moments to reflect on the things I'm thankful for.
I'm thankful for my lovely wife, for one thing. Also for our 130-year-old home, even if it is continually in rahab. I'm thankful that my 88-year-old mom can still drive up to our place to join us for dinner. And, of course, I'm really thankful that I don't live in Norwich, Connecticut.
That last one needs a bit of explaining.
Norwich is the small town where, four years ago, substitute teacher Julie Amero was charged with (and eventually convicted on) four counts of “four counts of risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child”. Her crime? Between the time the regular teacher, Matthew Napp, left the classroom and the time Ms. Amero entered, one or more of the pupils got to Napp's computer. When Amero entered the room, the PC was displaying pornographic images. Her attempts to close the web browser only resulted in more porn being spewed across the screen. In desperation, she turned the screen away from the class and, during the class break, tried (without luck) to get assistance from other teachers.
Never mind that the computer was directly connected to the Internet without a firewall, that it lacked any anti-spyware software, or that the Symantec software that was installed had never been updated.
Never mind that, at the trial, Detective Mark Lounsbury testified that the computer had never been checked for malware.
Never mind that, as noted by Nancy Willard (M.S., J.D.) of the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use, the situation Amero had clearly run into a “porn trap” in which trying to close one browser window spawns others at the same site and effective takes control of that browser.
Never mind that Amero had been specifically instructed not to turn the computer off and apparently didn't know how in any case.
No, somebody had to take the fall and a substitute teacher was clearly a more convenient victim than (say) Mr. Hartz, the school's technology director. Could that be why he didn't bother to tell the cops about the lack of a firewall or outdated software?
Indeed, the fact that Amero's lawyer was not permitted to present evidence about the computer's lack of proper security, coupled with testimony from a police expert that the images could only have appeared if Amero intentionally accessed the sites (testimony which Willard, in masterpiece of understatement, labels “totally inaccurate”), inevitably suggest to me that a backroom deal was made somewhere to prevent Hartz and his superiors from facing the consequences of their own gross negligence and incompetence.
Computer security professionals were understandably outraged at this travesty of justice. Articles were written and lots of cyber-hell was raised. The case was appealed and the original conviction thrown out by a superior court judge (superior in more ways than one, in my view) in New London. The whole sorry mess finally came to an end on November 21st when Amero, obviously worn down by five years of repugnant legal harassment, pled guilty to a disorderly conduct charge (a misdemeanor, as opposed to the original outrageous felony charges), paid a $100 fine and, in a final disgusting act of injustice, had her Connecticut teaching credentials revoked.
So, yes, I'm thankful that I don't live in a town and state in which being the innocent victim of official ineptitude malware malice is a felony. I wish only the best of Ms. Amero and her family and hope she's able to get on which her life. She might want to start by moving to a city and state where truth gets a little more respect than it does in Norwich, Connecticut.
