Computer Crimes
My life can best be describe as “tech-nasty.” I eat, sleep, and breath technology. You know how some people enjoy the new car smell? I enjoy fresh silicon smell, the kind of smell that always comes with juicy new gadget or piece of hardware. And software, don’t even get me started. If I could I would print off all the source code in the world and make a giant bed out of it. Clearly if you read my blog even a little you’ll notice a “slight” tendancy toward the nerdlicious. (That’s my own neologism, feel free to use it.) Why am I telling you this? Because I want to frame what I say next with the understanding that I am first and foremost a pro-tech. guy. (For christ’s sake I’m a software engineer by trade.)
Technology isn’t always a good thing. Technology is, by and large, still highly misunderstood by the masses. The unfortunate part to all of this is that the law and the people who uphold the law (police and prosecution) can’t keep up. So what happens? What happens is an innocent woman looses 4 years of her life, her health, her teaching license, her community standing, and her child all because assumptions were made that couldn’t be backed up.
Actually I mispoke. The assumptions were backed up. Unfortunately they were backed up by a moron with just enough knowledge to be a threat but not enough to be effective. If you read the link above you’ll know that a police forensics “expert” supplied falsehoods that damned this poor woman to 4 years of legal hell. Example: Browser history doesn’t store redirects. Give me a fucking break. Of course it stores redirects, I’m pretty sure it has since the days of IE fucking 1. As Alex Eckelberry correctly points out:
It caught the media’s attention and the attention of forensic experts across the country because they all KNEW that typical behavior of a PC infected with malware is exactly what happened to Julie Amero in that classroom on that day.
Typical behavior. Anyone who has ever dealt with malware knows what it generally does and what happens to an infected PC.
It took the collective might of numerous technology experts around the country to finally provide evidence that this woman was a victim of piss poor IT. Even after that evidence was made public the prosecutor and police “expert” still believe they were in the right and that she is still guilty. Are they ignorant or are their egos too big to admit a failure to act with due diligence? Guilty until proven innocent, that’s sadly the new American way.
And at the end of it all this woman still doesn’t get her license back and she has to pay a fine. Of course she’s just happy that this is all over. That is a class act. This is one of the few times I think someone has a real reason to countersue. At the very least she is owed a public apology, 4 years of backpay, and her teaching license reinstated.
So here is the problem: Technology forensics should not have a grey area. Either you are an expert or you aren’t. Would you make someone an forensic pathologist if the only course they took was anatomy? Our legal system needs some streamlining or technology will continue to outpace the law by leaps and bounds. The same goes for so called police “experts.” It’s unfortunate that in this case the “expert” wasn’t even up to 1990 standards.
I love technology. I truly believe it enhances our lives and adds value to our society. Our generation is perhaps one of the most blessed in that we’ve been a part of one of the fastest moving renaissances ever. But as Uncle Ben from Spiderman says “With great power comes great responsibility.” We have a duty to make sure our experts are current and that laws at least try to keep up.