40 years in prison for this?

[Skeba]

I'd say something about "only in America" but this is just sad...


http://reason.com/blog/show/117947.html

Apropos of Jacob's post below, here's another case of prosecutors gone wild:

A substitute teacher in Norwich, Connecticut with no prior criminal record could get 40 years in prison for exposing a middle school class to pornography. She apparently was using the computer in front of students when a loop of pop-up ads for porn sites began to appear. The loops only intensified as she tried to close out the ads. The woman made the plausible defense that some sort of adware or malware on her computer caused the pop-up ads to appear. She also testified that she notified several teachers and administrators of the problem, and got no assistance.

Over at Boing Boing , several tech-savvy experts weigh in, mostly in the woman's defense. They point to this passage from the local Norwich paper:

Computer expert W. Herbert Horner, testifying in Amero's defense, said he found spyware on the computer and an innocent hair styling Web site "that led to this pornographic loop that was out of control."

"If you try to get out of it, you're trapped," Horner said.

But Smith countered Horner's testimony with that of Norwich Police Detective Mark Lounsbury, a computer crimes investigator. On a projected image of the list of Web sites visited while Amero was working, Lounsbury pointed out several highlighted links.

"You have to physically click on it to get to those sites," Smith said. "I think the evidence is overwhelming that she did intend to access those Web sites."

Strange that local authorities refuse to give the woman the benefit of the doubt (see also the laughable editorial from the same Norwich paper). Seems unlikely that a 40-year-old woman with no prior record would knowingly subject school children to porn -- not to mention the absurdity of the charge itself (is your average middle schooler today really going to be traumatized for life after exposure to pop-up porn?) and the ridiculous possible sentence. I would presume (but I'm not certain) that the conviction would also qualify the woman as a sex offender. Meaning that her life is about to become damn-near unlivable.

Even more troubling, one Boing Boing commenter notes that the prosecution's witness clearly has no idea what the hell he's talking about:

I'm not sure if you noticed this: the Norwich Bulletin article had a VERY troubling quote on it -- the prosecution used an expert witness that said a highlighted link was proof that the accused had clicked on the URLs.
That is simply not true. The expert witness is either lying or a fucking idiot. Visited links are highlighted if a browser had ever loaded a URL-- I've yet to find a browser that highlights visited links on a "source | destination" basis -- every one i've ever encountered highlights links on "destination" alone.
I made a quick demo over here to illustrate my point: Link.

Other commenters note that the school itself could be in trouble for allowing the licenses on its content filters to expire, a bit of information that also suggests the school probably wasn't particularly vigilant about keeping its computers free of malware and spyware, either.

In fact, the same police expert quoted above apparently admitted on the stand that the computer wasn't even inspected for spyware.

Tech geeks at Slashdot also weigh in, overwhelmingly in the woman's defense.

[BlowUpYourVideo]

Murderers these days don't get 40 years.

[Skeba]

Yeah, maybe. But she showed porn to innocent children. It's worse.

[Jim]

I'm lost. Who's losing out? Lucky bastards.

[Genesis]

That is simply not true. The expert witness is either lying or a fucking idiot. Visited links are highlighted if a browser had ever loaded a URL-- I've yet to find a browser that highlights visited links on a "source | destination" basis -- every one i've ever encountered highlights links on "destination" alone.
I made a quick demo over here to illustrate my point: Link.

I think what the article meant is that the links were highlighted on the projected image used in court. Not highligted browser links.

[Skeba]

If you wish to get a better picture of the article, do read it at the source where it's edited a bit better and you can see what is written by the blogger and what is quoted.

[EFISH]

Yeah, maybe. But she showed porn to innocent children. It's worse.

Showing naked pictures to kids (even if it was on purpose) is worse than killing someone? 

[D]

Yeah and a bastard in Vermont molested a 4 year old 10 times and served 0 days in jail.

[Skeba]

Showing naked pictures to kids (even if it was on purpose) is worse than killing someone? 

The minds of the children are corrputed with filth now and are very likely to become sex offenders as they crave for more and more from such an early age. Killing a person ends a life, but showing those pictures ruined many, many more.

[EFISH]

Showing naked pictures to kids (even if it was on purpose) is worse than killing someone? 

The minds of the children are corrputed with filth now and are very likely to become sex offenders as they crave for more and more from such an early age. Killing a person ends a life, but showing those pictures ruined many, many more.

Well killing someone is the worst crime, you just ended a life and saddened many more.
Showing a middle school class some boobs isnt nearly as bad. In middle school they teach sex ed anyway, and 80 percent of the kids have already seen porn at that age. They're not going to become sex offenders because they saw some tits when they were 13. You seem intelligent, but I don't understand that logic so if you can maybe explain.

[Skeba]

Yeah... Okay.

What if I put some smileys at the end of every sentence? Would that underline the seriousness of my previous posts enough?

[EFISH]

Yeah... Okay.

What if I put some smileys at the end of every sentence? Would that underline the seriousness of my previous posts enough?

So you were joking? 

[Izzy]

well obviosuly she'll walk free and then sue the school and make a load of money in the process

The prosecution dont have any kind of case

..and over here its 20 years for Murder.....

[bazgnr]

Doesn't intent have a large role to play in all of this?

I know that many schools have some heavy-duty filter systems built into their networks...anything that is even *remotely* questionable is blockedout, which unfortunately includes many legit educational sites, including ones recommended by the district itself.  It's extremely frustrating for teachers who are asked or required to incorporate technology into their lessons.  Especially when, after all the legitimate sites that are blocked, students can still find places that they should not be accessing.

Clearly, this story shows the opposite side of that...how one link (along with a very active pop-up system) can quickly lead to serious trouble for teachers using technology.  Training should have factored in at some point, and most teachers these days should simply know what to stay away from, but still, this seems ridiculous in every sense. 

[GNRreunioneventually]

c'mon people its porn not crack they're not gonna crave for it the rest of there life and those kids aren't gonna becomes sex ofenders there just gonna know about the birds and the bees a lil early, thats it.

besides how old where the kids that saw it?

[Axlfreek]

These kids were in middle. Odds are that most of them already have discovered porn and knew what they were watching.

[SLCPUNK]

There are endless stories of over zealous prosecutors who often ignore common sense, or even regard for the law, in order to hand out the stiffest (ignore the pun please) sentences possible. Worse yet is the "plea deal" that this poor woman will probably end up facing. Under the threat of a 40 year sentence she will fold and take a 10 yr probation from the state instead. If she refuses the probation, then if and when she is found guilty the judge will absolutely slam her-giving her the maximum sentence law allows. This will make an example out of her, and teach the others to either take deals "given" by the state or face the consequences. A complete and utter farce, and for little more than political gain for prosecutors who will use their "tough on crime" stats as a motto when they run for office one day. Believe it. 

[mrlee]

well obviosuly she'll walk free and then sue the school and make a load of money in the process

The prosecution dont have any kind of case

..and over here its 20 years for Murder.....

Minus the time they dont serve for whatever crappy reason.

[GNRreunioneventually]

These kids were in middle. Odds are that most of them already have discovered porn and knew what they were watching.

there ya go. seriously i dont think that they will be worse people because they saw a women flashing her beaver. Just a lil eye candy

 

[MadmanDan]

Excuse me, am I too tired and not reading well? A woman might get 40 (fourty!!) years in prison for accidentally showing kids porn?

 ?I refuse to believe this!! Something must be wong in the article...40 years?? give me a break!