|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok. It has been nearly six months, just short of a few days, since my last post. Things have been hectic for Julie. It was late on a Friday afternoon, November 21st, 2008 that Julie's agony came to an end.
On that day, almost within the cloak of darkness, her case was closed. To accomplish this, Julie agreed to a $100 fine, surrendered her teaching license and plead to a single count of disorderly conduct, a major reduction in charges from the 10 counts of risk of injury to a minor with the potential for 100 years in prison; 10 years for each offense. Her plea was under the "Alfred Doctrine", a Connecticut law which allows an individual to plead to charges without admitting guilt.
At this point I could write forever...however, others have preceded me and I defer to their literary skills. I suggest that you start by reading Rick Green's column on November 25th, 2008 and then conduct your own search for more detail:
http://www.courant.com/news/local/columnists/hc-rgreen1125.artnov25,0,2946078,print.column or
http://tinyurl.com/98lu2a
More than likely this will be my last entry here regarding Julie. You see, I am taking most, if not all, of my blog posts to a new venue sponsored by (ISC)²®, the premier certification body for information security professionals. If you are interested in Julie Amero or information security, if you prefer computer security, I suggest that you become familiar with this newer forum. I am familiar with many of the bloggers there and am proud to be in their midst. You can find the most current entry on their blog at http://blog.isc2.org/isc2_blog/.
I suggest that you take the time to examine the categories and well as the biographies of those who are making current posts. As of January 3rd, 2008 I have made only one post which is a lead in for the professional relative to digital forensics and the Julie Amero case. I have already started the next article which will likely post sometime next week. I look forward to seeing you there. Should you prefer, you can find all of my entries at http://blog.isc2.org/isc2_blog/johnston/.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"How to Protect Computer Data", published in The Hartford Courant on September 19, 2007, discusses the failure of the State of Connecticut to adequately protect personal information
entrusted to its custody and measures it could have taken to have significantly reduced the impact of the loss of a notebook computer containing personal information regarding more than 100,000 of
its citizens.
Sufficient care must be taken by both the private and public sectors to protect all information with which they are entrusted. The solutions offered in "How to Protect Computer Data" are not
meant to be the end all solution but are ... |
|
|
|
|
|
On 6/21/2007 we wrote that the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals is likely in an
interesting quandary given the recent decision of the 6th US Circuit
Court of Appeals decision regarding eMail
privacy
which has concluded that it is protected under the 4th Amendment.
Clearly past precedent has been set relative to inspections at border
crossings which would appear to permit them to continue without
limitation, more commonly referred to as border searches.
However, such precedent has never been heretofore presented with the
issue of notebook computers, DVDs, thumb drives, etcetera containing information that is protected
under the 4th Amendment.
Briefs ... |
|
|
|
|
|
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals is likely in an interesting quandary given the recent decision of the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals decision |
|
|
|
|
|
Many of us say, "It is about time." We continuously warn all eMail users that it is not a secure medium and you should not put anything in eMail that you do not want published. This ruling by the US Court of Appeals could be the first step towards correcting that caveat.
As stated in the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) press release, "Over the last 20 years, the government has routinely used the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA) to secretly obtain ... |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, she has been granted a new trial...so what's the fuss about. After all, we all know that she was caught in a porn pop-up storm likely induced by others; how can she be at risk? Simply stated, she was, and still is charged with 4 counts of "risk of injury to a minor". The State still has the option of trying her again without using the digital forensic evidence and asking the jury whether she did enough to protect the children (7th graders) from the porn pop-up storm, whatever the cause.
There is enough about this case on the Internet ... |
|
|
|
|
|
| Once again, for the fourth time, the saga of Julie Amero has been continued. Who knows why? Only the States Attorney. And, when it is finally heard, at this point no one can be really sure but currently the date is June 6th, it will not be heard in the court of conviction, Norwich Superior Court, but at the New London Judicial District court, the supervising headquarters of the Norwich Superior Court. I was looking forward to attending the hearing in Norwich today and meeting many of the persons who I have discussed this case with. Unfortunately, I may not ... |
|
|
|
|
|
| I hope that you have been following this case through other vehicles. Simply stated, my activities relative to Julie, college and clients has me going in overdrive and now that Spring has arrived, finally in New England, I have a lot of outside duties to tend to as well. A lot has transpired since my last post, the most significant of which is the delay of the sentencing. First of all in February until March 26th at the request of defense with the addition of skilled defense/appeal attornies and then March until April 26th at the State's request. Now, ... |
|
|
|
|
|
| Through the efforst of several individuals, a searchable version of the transcript is now available that can be published on the Internet. Actually, it has been available for several days. However, I wanted to clean it up and found the challenge greater than the amount of spare time that I have to complete such a task. Thus, while this transcript is "good", you will find that it changes font and appearance on many occasions. It also has errors in that this is an automated OCR conversion of the original images appearing in the non-searchable version.Thus, when ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright 2006 http://BLOG.E-COMPUTER-SECURITY.INFO. All rights reserved. |
|
