The prosecution of Julie Amero, which was summarized in today’s NYT, shows that Luddism can get you in real trouble.Â Amero is a substitute schoolteacher who apparently knows so little about computers and the Internet that when her classroom machine started spewing uncontrollable pornographic popups, she either didn’t know how to power off the monitor or was afraid to, or both.Â And for this a local prosecutor pursued her for injuring the children in her care, and a jury convicted her.
Amero sounds witless, not venal, and her ignorance shouldn’t be a crime.Â But if there areÂ Luddites in this messÂ — people who have little interest in the workings of new technology — they seem to be the prosecutors and the jurors, and perhaps the judge andÂ even some school administrators, who apparently all but ignored credible testimony regarding pop-ups, pop-unders, and spyware and may have been indifferent to the condition of school computers.
The lesson here, beyond the obvious injustice of a criminal conviction, is how quickly we forget or, perhaps, how little many people care.Â The Internet has gone from being an amazing, other-worldlyÂ technology only ten years ago to being so of-this-world and ordinary that a prosecutor can convince aÂ jury that it is a criminal act not to understand how to deal with it.Â As always, we take technology for granted at our peril.
Jennifer Chandler is working on a very interesting paper documenting courts’ frequent habit of forcing people to adopt or get used to new technology, even if it is invasive. Her Technoprudence course also addresses this phenomenon.
Pingback: How to Read a URL at madisonian.net: a weblog about law, technology, and society