Schoolteacher convicted on bogus charges due to malware

Connecticut substitute teacher Julie Amero faces up to 40 years in prison for "risk of injury to a minor or impairing the morals of a child" because a seventh-grade classroom computer was infected with malware. While browsing the web for information about hair styles, the browser hit a website that caused pop-ups ads for pornographic sites to pop up.

Because Amero's attorney failed to raise the issue of malware, most of a defense expert witness's testimony was excluded from presentation to the jury, which unanimously voted for conviction.

There are so many things wrong here:

* The school district had let its filtering software expire, so the machine didn't have adequate protection (and was likely unpatched for major vulnerabilities).

* The police did an incompetent investigation, failing to check for malware.

* The police testified, falsely, that Amero would have had to physically click on a pornographic link to get those sites to pop up.

* Amero's attorney did an incompetent job of defending her, by failing to bring up the critically important issue of malware.

* And the law itself is absurd--Amero shouldn't get 40 years in prison even if she had intentionally shown pornography to seventh graders.

Lindsay Beyerstein has a good summary of the case at the Huffington Post, including links to the expert testimony that shows conclusively that malware, not Amero, was at fault. P.Z. Myers criticizes the "insane anti-porn hysteria" aspect of the case at Pharyngula.

UPDATE (June 7, 2007): Julie Amero has been granted a retrial! She will get a new trial sometime in 2007.

UPDATE (November 26, 2008): The state of Connecticut has finally decided to drop the charges against Amero.

UPDATE (December 4, 2008): But Amero still loses her teacher's license!

Hoax devices and infernal machines

Wired looks at the law under which Peter Beredovsky was charged regarding the Boston Mooninite lights:

Whoever possesses, transports, uses or places or causes another to knowingly or unknowingly possess, transport, use or place any hoax device or hoax substance with the intent to cause anxiety, unrest, fear or personal discomfort to any person or group of persons shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Note the requirement of intent, which should be impossible to prove--it's clear the intent was to promote the Aqua Teen Hunger Force movie, not to cause panic. But this law also requires that the object being planted be a "hoax device," which is defined as:

For the purposes of this section, the term “hoax device” shall mean any device that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such device is an infernal machine. For the purposes of this section, the term “infernal machine” shall mean any device for endangering life or doing unusual damage to property, or both, by fire or explosion, whether or not contrived to ignite or explode automatically. For the purposes of this section, the words “hoax substance” shall mean any substance that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such substance is a harmful chemical or biological agent, a poison, a harmful radioactive substance or any other substance for causing serious bodily injury, endangering life or doing unusual damage to property, or both.

That's a nice term, "infernal machine"--it sounds like something demonic, perhaps appropriate for a state that still has blasphemy laws on the books. Here again, the law is clearly in Beredovsky's favor. There is no way that a person would reasonably believe that the magnetic lights depicting Mooninite characters were "infernal machines"--devices designed to ignite or explode.

I predict the authorities will drop the charges rather than go through the further embarrassment of a trial.

Belief, behavior, and bumper sticker religion

I've occasionally remarked that I don't care so much what people believe as I do how they act. The people I enjoy spending time with are not always those who share my beliefs, but are those who demonstrate integrity, respect, honesty, and other virtues. These virtues are associated with not just holding beliefs in the sense of a mere tendency to agree with a statement, but a deeper belief that actually has consequences for one's behavior. When I was a born-again Christian, I heard many sermons to the effect that many Christians were Christian in name only, paying only lip service to the doctrines while not living their lives in accordance with them. Clearly, there are a lot of such people out there.

(Read the rest, where I recycle an argument I originally wrote in a pamphlet called "Three Reductio Ad Absurdum Arguments Against Evangelical Christianity," at the Secular Outpost.)

More comments on Boston lite brite fiasco

Bruce Schneier has commented on the Aqua Teen Hunger Force nonsense in Boston:

Now the police look stupid, but they're trying really not hard not to act humiliated:

Governor Deval Patrick told the Associated Press: "It's a hoax -- and it's not funny."

Unfortunately, it is funny. What isn't funny is now the Boston government is trying to prosecute the artist and the network instead of owning up to their own stupidity. The police now claim that they were "hoax" explosive devices. I don't think you can claim they are hoax explosive devices unless they were intended to look like explosive devices, which merely a cursory look at any of them shows that they weren't.

But it's much easier to blame others than to admit that you were wrong:

"It is outrageous, in a post 9/11 world, that a company would use this type of marketing scheme," Mayor Thomas Menino said. "I am prepared to take any and all legal action against Turner Broadcasting and its affiliates for any and all expenses incurred."

And:

Rep. Ed Markey, a Boston-area congressman, said, "Whoever thought this up needs to find another job."

"Scaring an entire region, tying up the T and major roadways, and forcing first responders to spend 12 hours chasing down trinkets instead of terrorists is marketing run amok," Markey, a Democrat, said in a written statement. "It would be hard to dream up a more appalling publicity stunt."

And:

"It had a very sinister appearance," [Massachusetts Attorney General Martha] Coakley told reporters. "It had a battery behind it, and wires."

For heavens sake, don't let her inside a Radio Shack.

And so has Tim Lee at the Technology Liberation Front:

Oh my God! Wires! And a battery! My question is: doesn't the city of Boston have any bomb experts on staff? I mean, it's not crazy for a layman to see an unidentified electronic device and imagine it could be a bomb. But wouldn't the first step be to call in a bomb squad to examine the device? And wouldn't it be obvious to anyone that knew anything about electronics that it's highly unlikely that a terrorist would put dozens of gratuitous LEDs on the front of a bomb?

Terrorism is a serious problem, and we should take prudent steps to to deal with it. But we also have to remember that terrorists' goal is to produce terror and get attention. When we're this panicky, we do the terrorists' job for them. Yesterday Osama bin Laden succeeded in snarling traffic and producing an avalanche of news coverage without lifting a finger.

Agreed.

Minimum wage increase: how to make the poor poorer

Rather than increase the Earned Income Tax Credit or reduce payroll taxes, Congress is moving forward with an increase in the minimum wage. Gary Becker and Richard Posner have written a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "How To Make the Poor Poorer" which describes the likely consequences of this feel-good legislation:

Although some workers benefit -- those who were paid the old minimum wage but are worth the new one to the employers -- others are pushed into unemployment, the underground economy or crime:

• The losers are therefore likely to lose more than the gainers gain; they are also likely to be poorer people.
• And poor families are disproportionately hurt by the rise in the price of fast foods and other goods produced with low-skilled labor because these families spend a relatively large fraction of their incomes on such goods.

Because most increases in the minimum wage have been slight, their effects are difficult to disentangle from other factors that affect employment:

• But a 40 percent increase would be too large to have no employment effect; about a tenth of the work force makes less than $7.25 an hour.
• Even defenders of minimum-wage laws must believe that beyond some point a higher minimum would cause unemployment, otherwise why don't they propose $10, or $15, or an even higher figure?

Good intentions don't make for good legislation.

UPDATE (February 9, 2007): Glen Whitman writes about how the minimum wage debate is largely symbolic on both sides, though this time it could be different.

UPDATE (September 6, 2007): I just came across this interesting post at the Coyote Blog about how minimum wage changes affect his specific business.

UPDATE (October 10, 2007): Here's a nice summary of U.S. minimum wage worker statistics, including:

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the median annual income of a U.S. worker is $32,140. Federal minimum wage is currently $5.85 an hour, or about $11,500 per year — just above the poverty line. Of the 76.5 million people paid by the hour in the United States in 2006, 2.2% make minimum wage or less. Here are some generalizations we can make about minimum wage workers:

• Most minimum wage earners are young. While 2.2% of all hourly workers earn minimum wage or less, just 1.4% of workers over the age of 25 are paid at or below the Federal minimum wage. More than half (51.2%) of minimum wage workers are between 16 and 24 years old. Another 21.2% are between 25 and 34.
• Most minimum wage earners work in food service. Nearly two-thirds of those paid minimum wage (or less) are food service workers. Many of these people receive supplemental income in the form of tips, which the government does not track.
• Most minimum wage earners never attended college. Just 1.2% of college graduates are paid the minimum wage. If you only have a high school degree, you’re more likely (1.9%) to be paid minimum wage. Those without a high school degree are nearly three times as likely (3.7%) to earn minimum wage. 59.8% of all minimum wage workers have no advanced education.
• Finally, as you might expect, part-time workers are five times more likely to be paid the minimum wage than full-time workers.

UPDATE (November 25, 2012): There has been an accumulation of evidence that a moderate minimum wage is a net benefit, improving both wages and employment in some cases (reference to The Economist, Nov. 24, 2012, p. 82, "Free exchange: The argument in the floor").

National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq that had its release postponed until after the election is now out, and it seems to indicate that Bush's plan for a surge is doomed to failure:

...even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the time frame of this Estimate.

The NIE also says that Iran and Syria are "not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics."

More at TPM Muckraker.

Nice takedown of Dinesh D'Souza

Dinesh D'Souza, who blames liberals for exercising their freedom in ways that cause Muslim radicals to hate and attack the U.S., gets a nice takedown at World-o-Crap.

Also see Ed Brayton's commentaries on D'Souza from last year:

"The Inanity of Dinesh D'Souza" (September 2006)
"Walcott on D'Souza's New Book" (October 2006)
"More on D'Souza's Ridiculous Book" (October 2006)

David Paszkiewicz on global warming; Kearny High School bans recording

Last week in class David Paszkiewicz was discussing Adolf Hitler and the "Big Lie" propaganda technique. His example of a "Big Lie" being spread today: global warming. In Paszkiewicz's backwards world, it's not global warming denial that's a big lie, it's the scientific evidence supporting it.

Kearny High School has taken action regarding Paszkiewicz's continuing embarrassment of the school--by banning classroom taping without permission of the instructor. (They have also planned mandatory training for teachers on "how to interpret the Constitution’s separation of church and state and how it should apply to classroom discussions," as I reported last month.)

The New York Times has the story.

Boston completely losing it on Aqua Teen marketing campaign

Boston authorities have now escalated their response to the "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" movie publicity campaign, by arresting two of the men who put up magnetic lights showing the Mooninite characters Ignignokt and Err, on charges of "placing a hoax device in a way that results in panic."

But this is absurd--it wasn't a "hoax device"--they were lighted pictures of characters from a movie. It was not designed to look like anything remotely dangerous.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said, "It had a very sinister appearance. ... It had a battery behind it, and wires." So anything with a battery and wires (like, say, an iPod) is now a threatening, sinister appearing device?

Massachusetts is trying to cover its stupidity with more stupidity. Nine other cities didn't find this remotely threatening, and nobody saw the ones in Boston as threatening for the first 2-3 weeks they were up.

(For photos and my initial report, see here.)

Karen Johnson trying to become America's dumbest legislator

Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson (R, District 18-Mesa) is no stranger to stupidity. She was one of a number of legislators who got in bed with the Church of Scientology last year, accepting invitations to Scientology events and sponsoring anti-psychiatric legislation pushed by Scientology's Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) front organization.

Now she's behind SCR 1026, a proposal to amend the Arizona Constitution to prevent courts from the ability to address violations of the separation of church and state:

Her proposal, SCR 1026, would specifically bar courts from being able to grant any injunctions or other legal relief if the question involves "the acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government." And that bar would remain in place whether the action were brought against the government as a whole or any state or local official.

She goes on to demonstrate that she doesn't understand the First Amendment's Establishment Clause:

Johnson said she is unhappy that judges in other states have ruled that the words "under God" have to come out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and that a monument of the Ten Commandments had to be removed from an Alabama courthouse.

"We don't want that," she said.

Johnson said she believes her measure would also bar challenges to prayer in school.

and:

Johnson said it is not the function of the courts to decide when government officials have crossed the line between church and state. In fact, she said, there is no law separating the two.

"In the (federal) Constitution, what it means is that there is to be no state religion," she said.

"But we're supposed to have religion in everything -- the opportunity to have religion in everything," Johnson continued. "I want religion in government, I want my government to have a faith-based perspective."

"The courts do their own thing," Johnson said. "They're making up law out of how they feel about things. They're not following the Constitution."

It's not clear whether she even understands that she has no ability or authority to affect federal courts on this issue, though she could affect state courts. All of her comments are about federal issues, and she doesn't appear to be cognizant of Article 2, Section 12 in the Arizona Constitution, which contains even stricter constraints on separation of church and state than in the U.S. Constitution:

The liberty of conscience secured by the provisions of this constitution shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or to the support of any religious establishment. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned touching his religious belief in any court of justice to affect the weight of his testimony.

(Hat tip to Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)

UPDATE: The Zelph blog, an Arizona blog which focuses on Mormons and their influence on the state legislature, has an interview with Karen Johnson from New Times in 2005, and observes that she is such a big supporter of marriage that she's been married five times.