Search This Blog

A Word About Our Blog Entries

The Julie Group shares a professional interest in the area of digital and emerging technology and law. As professionals there is a rich and deep appreciation for the differences of opinion that can appear in this space. You must never assume that opinion, where it is introduced is universally shared and endorsed by all our volunteers. Nor are they necessarily the very best snapshot of a given issue.

Readers are expected to think about the issues, question everything worth discussing, and add value to the conversation by correcting what's here or broadening the understanding of the subject. This is part of the educational process between us all. Our hope is that this exercise results in better law, law enforcement, and citizen participation in forging sophisticated social understandings of the technological forces changing our lives.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Julie Amero: 432 Days, No Resolution. Still

We're just going to re-post today's blog piece by Karoli Kuns:

Julie Amero: 432 Days, No Resolution. Still

Or, as Rick Green said so well today, Julie Amero is held hostage for 432 days.

I’m waiting for the state to admit that this poor substitute teacher should never have been arrested, tried and convicted. I’m waiting for prosecutors in Norwich to do something: come up with some real evidence and try her — or drop the charges. Amero’s supporters, who include Internet security experts from around the country, have a petition urging Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane to drop all charges.

Perhaps the citizens of Norwich should tie yellow ribbons around their trees. It might even be more effective for them to ask their law enforcement officials to focus on real criminals and let the innocent be.

Please sign the petition. It’s time for Julie Amero to be freed from the chains she’s worn for 432 days.

And thank you, Rick Green, for being a responsible voice for justice.

--Chip Neville (quoting Karoli Kuns blog piece from today in its entirety)

The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and should not be interpreted as an official position of The Julie Group.

1 comment:

Craig said...

I've been reading up on this today from an ars story regarding it. [ ]

Absolutely sickened by the court's approach to this; that an innocent person would suffer so much because of a misunderstanding of something which really should be common knowledge to anyone involved in a computer-orientated case... urgh... and they parade under the pretence that they stand for justice?!

I'm a tech consultant for a small company over in the United Kingdom, so malware and spyware is a fairly common sight to me, but surely the United States legal system has some sort of definition or explanation as to what exactly the various types of computer infection are capable of?

Computers dominate the modern world - people who get to decide who goes to jail and who doesn't over such cases should at least take the time out to acquire a basic understanding of how such work, instead of relying on random people who clearly don't have a f**king clue what they're talking about.

Not too sure if much of the above rant makes sense, I've been coming back to it between work, so it may be a bit jumbled. If such is the case, I can only apologise. :)