Every time I read the case of Julie Amero, I’m reminded that the answer is absolutely, completely “No!” Julie Amero is the Connecticut teacher who faces up to 40 years in jail for four counts of risk of injury to a minor due to a stream of pornographic popups on the computer. The prosecution’s expert testimony was presented by a Norwich police officer. The sick part of this is that his qualifications for being an expert were this:
Detective Lounsbury has completed two two-week FBI training seminars on computer security and other continuing education programs. He is also a certified user of the computer monitoring software ComputerCOP Pro.
Allison Whitney, ComputerCOP’s director of communications, explained how her company certifies police officers to use the software:
“They get a full hour of training, and then they’re tested,” Whitney said. “A lot of these people don’t have any kind of training. Their [superior] officers may give them some kind of low-level training. Most of the time we do the training over the phone.”
The expert for the defense had over 40 years experience as a software engineer and computer consultant. The fact that the cop has any credibility in the face of this expert on technical matters is an insult to everyone. It’s ridiculous. He shouldn’t have credibility if I were on the stand opposite him, let alone a man with 40 years in the industry.
More insulting is that the police didn’t actually do a proper investigation. The computer was not checked for spyware. Again, regardless of how she reacted, no matter what the ComputerCOP Pro software said, that’s a gross error. It’s akin to not checking for fingerprints at a murder scene. It’s gross negligence of the first order for a case hinging on pornography popups.
A number of computer experts in Connecticut have taken up a public campaign to ask the prosecutor to come to his senses. At the very least, even if he couldn’t take a chance at trial to look at the defense expert’s full evidence (he objected because he hadn’t had a chance to examine the evidence), the prosecutor should’ve talked to the expert and counsel outside of the trial. After all, the point isn’t to prosecute Julie Amero, it’s to seek out the truth and defend the public’s interest. I don’t understand what the public gains by a poorly run investigation and a prosecutor bent on winning.
Here’s the local news on the case with a report on this (which also happens to demonstrate some computer illiteracy):
This whole thing bugs the crap out of me. I actually am offended by this case. Local police should not have computer crime officers. They should have forensic scientists doing work like this, not detectives.
And the jurors… wow, this is also unbelievable. PC World was able to get a juror’s comments on the case after the trial. Here’s part of what he said:
“The fact that a teacher in a public scol system did absolutly nothing to keep it away from the children is what was wrong. Yes we were told that she was given no permissions to turn off the computer, she also said she was not allowed to use any other school equipment.
“If a 40 year old school teacher does not have the sense to turn off or is not smart enough to figure it out, would you or any other person wanting her teaching your child or grandchild?”
Yeah, see, the issue isn’t whether she’s a good teacher but whether she’s a felon or not. Being stupid or inexperienced around computers is not the same as being a criminal.
For a deeper look at the trial, check out the Norwich Bulletin which carried a list of the points upon which the jury convicted Amero. Some other details from the case are covered on a blog called Region 19 BOE Gazette. While a little overexcited about “perjury” and “misconduct,” points out some interesting gaps in other coverage. Was there a homeroom teacher that used the computer prior to her classes? Whose account was logged in?
More coverage here, including a look at the judge’s actions in the case.
(via MLN)
March 8th, 2007 at 7:22 am
While I too am appalled at the verdict in the Amero case, I see the issue of “computer crime” departments in police departments a bit differently. As society moves towards more virtualization of property, and by that I mean data, police will become more involved in investigating crimes.
A simple example, if a theft occurs in your house that includes your computer, is the value of the theft limited to the physical costs of the computer eg. the hardware? Or should it include the software and data on it?
Right now, Police Departments can’t answer that question, and they should. Just like the question of whether someone using an unsecured WIFI connection is not “stealing” service, as a recent case in Florida concluded the other way. More information technology training would help, not less.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:12 am
I think I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think detectives are the ones responsible for identifying the value of the data. When my apartment was broken into in Boston, the cops didn’t ask nor did they care whether my laptop contained all of the IP for a million dollar idea or a bunch of video games. For my video camera, they didn’t ask if I was a professional film maker. All they did was ask me about the value of the items stolen. I gave them the retail value, and I’m sure I could’ve made it larger if the data was considerably more valuable.
I look at this as the same way as ballistics work and DNA testing. Not all labs have the equipment, and not all labs should be doing that type of testing in house. I agree that they should be familiar with the role and value of computers in crime and in criminal cases. That’s ideal for continuing education courses and week long seminars.
What they shouldn’t do is consider a cop in a local department to be an expert based on this type of training. That’s all.
Honestly, I put the title up because when I first starting reading through the chains, my attention was focused on the detective. After looking at even more of the documents and links above, this case represents a failure at multiple levels. The prosecutors, the judge, and the detective all took what they got from the computerCop software and this detectives response to angry parents and failed to take basic steps. It seems very likely that the prosecutor didn’t do any additional checking, simply taking the word of a non-expert “expert” to build a case around. They decided she was guilty and they did whatever they could to prove it, because they were “working hard for the victims.” They should be working hard for the truth…
It’s a tough problem, and I don’t know how to fix it, but I think there’s an obligation to get the basic investigation right. Checking for spyware/adware seems pretty basic and no expert would’ve missed that.