Getting Popped for Pop-Up Adverts

On 19 Oct 2004, Julie Amero was working as a substitute teacher at Kelly Middle School in Norwich CT. The regular classroom teacher had been there earlier that morning to log on to the computer for Julie, who didn't have her own account. Julie, a computer-phobe, scarcely needed the instructions that she was given to not log off of or shut down the computer; she didn't know how. Julie briefly left the room before class began; when she returned, the regular teacher was gone and the children were browsing the Web on the computer. Pop-up adverts featuring adult products had begun appearing. When Julie tried to close the pop-ups, more appeared. Julie did the only thing that she knew how to do to prevent the children from seeing the offensive adverts -- she turned the monitor aside and didn't allow the children to approach her desk and come within view of the computer.

Julie didn't know that adware had infected the computer days before she arrived on the job. Nor did she know that this had happened because the school had allowed its computer security contract to lapse over six months earlier and that the computer had not received an update of its security software in over three months. She DID know that she needed to get rid of the pop-up adverts, so she went for help during a break. No one would come back to the classroom with her to see about the problem and she was told to not worry about the situation. Nevertheless, Julie was worried.

Her concern was well-founded. Days later, she was arrested for child endangerment. Law enforcement examined the computer's hard drive and, predictably, found that the Web browser's history was full of URLs that led to pornographic and adult-oriented Web sites. The information that the prosecution presented did NOT reveal who was sitting in front of the computer when the Web sites were on-screen; browser histories do not log whether a user typed in a Web address or clicked a link to access a Web site or whether an automated script caused a Web page to appear on its own without any user intervention. Most incredibly, in its examination of the computer, the prosecution did not check whether the computer was infected with adware, the sort of software that would've caused unwanted pop-up adverts to appear. This is the technological equivalent of arresting someone who happened to be standing in the parking lot of a bank that had been robbed without examining the building for signs of forced entry or dusting for fingerprints!

Based partly on this evidence, Julie was convicted of four felony counts of risk of injury to a minor or impairing the morals of a child and faces sentencing on 26 April of up to forty (yes, 40, 4-0) years in prison.

I cannot find the words to describe this turn of events. Travesty, perversion of justice, sham, outrageous -- none of them seem to be the bon mot that captures the depth of outrage and disbelief that I feel. How could the prosecution have been so careless or so malicious? What were her defense attorneys thinking? How did the prosecution get away with what appears to be such a sloppy and incomplete investigation? I am reminded of Tom Robinson's trial in To Kill a Mockingbird and I have to wonder -- where is Julie's Atticus Finch? :J

References...

• Windows Secrets, 22 Feb 2007 - This is where I first learned of this case; includes some discussion of the botched investigation.
• Julie Amero in Wikipedia
• The Julie Amero Defese Fund Blog
Teacher Faces Jail Over Pornography on Class Computer, The New York Times, 14 Feb 2007 - Has a detailed synopsis of events.

Knoxed Out

First, forgive the pun. More on that in a second.

Second, I received yesterday a letter from the College of Law at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville (UTK) in which they wrote that they were unable to offer to me a spot in this fall's entering class. Oh, well; c'est la vie.

UTK wasn't on my original short list of law schools, but they became a contender when I spoke with Karen Britton, the school's Director of Admissions, Financial Aid, and Career Services, at the law school expo at WFU back in November. My friend, Kim, did her PhD work in industrial psychology at UTK and was awarded a sweet assistantship during her time there that included a tuition waiver as well as a stipend, so I was interested to find out that the College of Law has a similar program. UTK's application fee is bargain-basement cheap (only $15!), so I figured that I had little to lose and much to gain.

When I opened my mailbox and found the very thin envelope, I did feel a bit of disappointment, but I'm far from crushed. If enrollment management at Tennessee's public universities works anything like it does at North Carolina's, then quotas mean that out-of-state students must have significantly better qualifications than in-state students for admission to the same programs. So, while my LSAT score was right around UTK's median, it's the average for all students and I suspect that the out-of-state median is quite a bit higher than the in-state median.

So, the title... yea. I wanted to come up with something fun based on the state song like I did when I received my decision letter from UVa. For that entry, I used the title of the former commonwealth song. Interestingly, Virginia currently has no official commonwealth song. By contrast, Tennessee has seven official state songs (appropriate since its capital is known as Music City), none of which lent themselves to a quick literary perversion. Zut alors ! :J

Our Rights

Earlier today, I happened across an opinion piece on the Web site of The Huntsville Item newspaper in Huntsville TX entitled Our country gives us the right to voice our views. I did read the article and found interesting and appropriate its discussion of common misconceptions of how judges must interpret and apply the law. (Indeed, a rant-worthy topic, but for another time. Don't get me started on the politically-biased misnomer "activist judges".)

However, it's the title of the article, rather than its content, that inspired me to write about a topic that has been on my mind lately and about which my thoughts have become more focused with my decision to study law -- our rights. Principally, I take issue with the article's glib statement that our country (our government, by semantic extension) gives us any right. It does not. We, as sentient beings, are bestowed with rights and burdened with their accompanying responsibilities at birth.

Some of our greatest rights are the freedom to hold and express opinions and beliefs (be they religious, political, or what have you) and the right to associate (or not) with others. Responsibilities in light of these rights include informing ourselves about ourselves and about the world around us, as well as acting in a way that doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

I don't intend this essay to be a comprehensive treatise on the nature of law, civil society, free will, or the responsibilities and limits of government. I just wanted to shed some light on a distinction that I find important but that seems to go unnoticed. If a government convinces the people that it bestows rights, then the people are liable to be duped into believing that the government can take those rights away. It can't.

Freedoms bestowed by a government are called privileges, not rights. The government that grants privileges can also revoke them. No government can grant rights, but every government must recognize our rights and protect them if it desires legitimacy and the support and protection of the people. :J

Carry Me Back to Old Virginny -- Not

My letter from the law school at UVa did arrive today and it seems that I was not meant to be a Cavalier, as they wrote that they regrettably could not offer me a place in their Fall 2007 entering class.

And that's fine. I always knew that UVa was a far reach for me and figured that if any school rejected me, that'd be the one. Though the thought of attending one of the country's top ten law schools was an amazing prospect, I had begun to wonder during the past week whether UVa really would be the best place for me. The most obvious concern was the cost; my tuition as an out-of-commonwealth student would've been upwards of $35,000 per year, nearly twice the annual limit for federal student aid loans. A secondary consideration was the orientation of the curriculum at such an elite school. Would it be too theoretical for my tastes and needs? Would I be able to acquire the practical skills necessary to practice law? Of course, all of that is a moot point now.

So, one more piece of the puzzle is complete. Hopefully, letters from UNC Chapel Hill and Wake Forest U will arrive in my mail box shortly and I will have occasion to shout "Yahoo!" instead of "Wahoo!" :J

The Reality Check is in the Mail

A couple of months ago, after sending my application to the University of Virginia School of Law, I received an e-mail with information on how to log in to their AdmitWeb system to check the status of my application, which I did occasionally at first and more frequently of late. AdmitWeb faithfully reported as my documents and credentials arrived. For the last several weeks, I've glared at the last line as it mutely reported Decision Mailed: Not Yet.

This evening, I received an e-mail message reporting that the status of my application had changed. I let out a little gasp and virtually rushed on over, logged in, and fumbled a bit as I spun the mouse wheel and read the following.

As of 3/2/07, a decision has been made on your application for admission to the University of Virginia School of Law. To protect the confidentiality of your decision, we will not release decision information over the phone. If you have not received your decision within 10 days of this date, please feel free to call the Admissions Office so that we can verify your contact information. If this does not represent a final decision on your application for admission, you will be notified when further decisions are posted on the status monitor later this season.

The decision is on its way. It might just be a notice that I've been put on a waiting list, but it could very well be a no. Or a yes. Who knows? :J