When the Ignorance of Technology Can Go Very Wrong
April 5, 2008
So how could the ignorance of technology cause a problem? Here is a clip taken from the Julie Amero page on Wikipedia.
On October 19, 2004 Julie Amero was substituting for a seventh-grade language class at Kelly Middle School in Norwich, Connecticut. The teacher’s computer was accessed by pupils while the regular teacher, Matthew Napp, was out of the room. When Julie took charge, the computer started showing pornographic images.
On January 5, 2007 Amero was convicted in Norwich Superior Court on four counts of risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child. Her sentencing was delayed four times after her conviction, with both the prosecution and judge not satisfied that all aspects of the case had been assessed. The felony charges for which she was originally convicted carry a maximum prison sentence of 40 years.
On June 6, 2007, a New London superior court judge threw out the conviction of Amero, she was granted a new trial and entered a plea of not guilty. The new trial date has not yet been set; it is unclear at this time if the State’s Attorney of Connecticut will pursue a second trial.
Since I too am a school teacher, this really got my attention. I could see this scenario playing out in many other situations. Imagine if malware popped up a porn advertisement in the middle of a presentation and a female from the audience wanted to make it a case of sexual harassment?
Leo Laporte provided some on-the-air commentary about this case during his “The Tech Guy” radio show. A clip of that is included below.
Leo Laporte On Julie Amero’s Case
Comments
2 Responses to “When the Ignorance of Technology Can Go Very Wrong”
Got something to say?
I heard this got thrown out of court. I sure hope so, this is not a good thing!
Based on this information on Wikipedia, it looks like the case hs basically been thrown out of court.
“On January 5, 2007, Amero was convicted in Norwich Superior Court on four counts of risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child. Her sentencing was delayed four times after her conviction, with both the prosecution and judge not satisfied that all aspects of the case had been assessed. The felony charges for which she was originally convicted carry a maximum prison sentence of 40 years.
On June 6, 2007, a New London superior court judge threw out the conviction of Amero, she was granted a new trial and entered a plea of not guilty. The new trial date has not yet been set; it is unclear at this time if the State’s Attorney of Connecticut will pursue a second trial.”
You can read the entire post at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Amero