Steve Bass at PC World has a good blog entry about the ridiculous conviction of Julie Amero, a substitute teacher who was arrested when a OC computer riddled with pop-up adware began displaying pornographic photos in front of junior high school students.

I’ve been privy to private conversations with a dozen security experts (you’d immediately recognize many names), forensic examiners, and an attorney (one that I’d choose for my defense if ever I needed one).

Unfortunately, there’s lots I can’t repeat. However, what I can say is the consensus is that Amero is getting a bad rap for a lot of reasons. High on the list was a poor defense, a not-very-PC-savvy judge, and a school district that won’t take responsibility of having no current protection on the computer in the classroom. For instance, one forensic investigator examined an image of the PCs hard drive said the anti-virus program was ancient and the last time it was updated was in “August 2004,” and, he said, “hopelessly out of date.”

Right after my newsletter was posted, many of you asked what you could do. You can check the Julie Amero blog and consider helping by way of the Julie Amero Defense Fund.

Steve also urges readers to take action by emailing the people who have the power to drop the obviously bogus charges against this woman:

The State’s Attorney responsible for supervision of David Smith, the prosecutor in the Amero case, is Michael L. Regan. You might want to write him and strongly urge he help Smith file a motion to vacate the conviction. An e-mail to the Chief State’s Attorneys of Connecticut Kevin T. Kane and Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell can’t hurt, either. (There are more e-mail links on the Julie Amero site.)

If you write, however tempting, try not to go on a rant. Use your computing expertise — and a civil argument — and you’ll likely get better results.

The case has the public’s attention and it’s taken on an energy that won’t be stopped. Stay tuned.

Related posts

• There’s a Reason it’s NSFW. (3)
• Sex Workers’ Art on Display (0)
• Potential Security Problem with Google Mail (7)
• links for 2008-06-04 (1)