Slashdot Mirror
Alabama IT Whistleblower Fired For Spyware
chalker writes "Vernon Blake, an IT sysadmin for the Alabama Department Of Transportation, wanted to get evidence that his boss spent the majority of his time playing solitaire on his computer. Since emails to higher up supervisors were ignored, he installed Win-Spy, which grabbed screenshots several times per day over a period of 7 months. 70% of the resulting screenshots showed an active game of solitaire, and another 20% showed his boss checking the stock market. When he reported this to superiors, he was fired, even though he had 21 years of service in the position. His boss got a reprimand to 'stop playing games'. He is appealing his termination in court since he claims it was part of his job description to 'confirm and document' computer misuse for ALDOT. His complete story is here."
Employers spy on employees, not the other way around!
Should we ask what the other 10% consisted of?
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
delete solitary from his boss's computer?
They couldn't fix my brakes, so they made my horn louder.
For spending 70% of his time worrying about what his boss was doing. Give me break! We've all worked with people like this before- they're sooo worried about what everone else is doing. These are the same people who used to remind the teacher about the homework assignment.
I'm not saying its right to spend all day playing solitare, but it sounds like this weasel went to extremes to "tell on" someone.
[FromTheMorning]
They have computers in Alabama? When did this happen?
Was the bosses machine his primary source of doing work? If you're the boss you're in meetings all day and out telling people what to do, not sitting in your office typing away. Also, I've left a game of freecell going during a 2 hour meeting before or during lunch. That doesn't mean I'm derilict in my duties.
Please. This guy installed Spyware on his bosses computer, and his wife's. for seven months, probably looking for porn surfing but all he got was solitaire.
This guy was just an asshole, the kind of person who thinks because he's a sys-admin who has admin access on the computers that he ought to be the computer morality person as well. Or in this case, the productivity nazi.
The supervisor in this story has gotten good reports, maybe playing solitaire is the way he 'thinks'. Who knows?
The person who setup these screen grabs (seven months of them) deserved exactly what he got.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Surprising thing was none of the screenshots were of solitaire crashing
Granted, most people here hate boss-types, but its only fair to ask for the boss's side of the story. For example: perhaps his job consists of minimal computer usage. When I was in college, part of my financial aid package involved doing work for the school - I got put to work answering phones and calling alumns to shake them up for money. I had a computer, and there was a solitaire game or something similar on it all the time - it was mindless enough I could do it while talking to somebody, and it kept me sane between calls. The boss could be in a similar situation if he spends most of his time on the phone or otherwise _talking_ to employees. He just wouldn't be constantly playing the game. Most people here equate working with time spent active on the computer doesn't mean that it always is.
I'm not saying this is the case, but its worth considering that the boss could have a radically different story, and the article did present a very one sided view.
Do not make your boss look bad and expect to retain your job.
1 wrong resulted in two wrongs. Unfortunately the lesser wrong was fired.
2 wrongs made a CLE (Career Limiting Event)
He wasn't abusing his power. He was doing exactly what he was paid to do: stop computer misuse. His boss was misusing the computer. The only reason he got fired is because he did this to his boss, rather than to some underling.
I wonder how the guy was caught. Oh, and there's a picture of a spy in the lower right hand corner.
Just gathering from what they've done, both the boss and the employee should be fired. Just firing the boss would open the door to people spying on one another all the time, but just firing the employee, well, there's your standard business-type hypocrisy.
... for using Windows. Bet if he was using Linux and playing games (games on Linux are better anyway) he would have been fine. I'm pretty sure the only reason why I haven't been fired yet is because I use Linux. ctrl+tab moves me to my other desktop, which conviently is running vi with the latest version of our app, and I am sure that I have no spyware installed.
Arthur - If you're reading this -- just kidding! Otherwise, I am completely serious.
bash: rtfm: command not found
Not-so-mean-BOFH vs. PHB. Let's get ready to rumble!!!
I read that as:
And I thought AC deserved a medal.If you ask me, the more interesting question is: To what extent should an employer have a right to decide what their employees do on company time.
Should it matter if you're spending half your time playing Solitare if you still manage to do the job you're supposed to do?
This boss's managers don't seem to want to get rid of him. One conclusion you could draw from that is that perhaps the boss actually is getting what he's supposed to be doing done. (Maybe most of his work isn't even done on the computer?)
In that case, who cares if he's playing solitare? Perhaps he's thinking things through and making decisions while doing it?
Personally, I've got a job where nobody tells me what to do with my time, as long as I get the job done.
And that's the way it should be, if you ask me.
By my definition, a job is performing a task for money.
Your post makes no sense at all.
This guy was doing exactly what he was hired to do. If he'd found a lowbie employee playing games, he'd have been given a pat on the back for his work.
His only "misdimeaner" was finding his boss guilty of this waste of tax dollars, instead of a minor minion. Bosses never think that rules apply to them.
...where money has always been and will always be more important than justice.
That would be the best course of action, because then the lazy bastard would have to ask somebody to put Solitaire back on the computer. Or he would go and download his own little games and fuck up Windows with spyware.
Firing him was most certainly NOT appropriate.
The guy knew his boss fucked around on the computer all day instead of doing his job and this was known to the employee who got fired.
He reported this to higher ups and they ignored it. The first mistake here is they should've listened. Since they didn't, the only other option was to take matters into his own hands.
Even if he wasn't an IT manager of sorts, he did the right thing in proving to higher-ups that his boss is doing nothing but wasting the company's money by playing solitaire and looking at stock market crap instead of working.
I'm sure there are tons of people out there who are looking for a job and would be more than happy to fill his position and actually do some work.
They should've fired the boss and gave the IT manager that position (provided it paid more).
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
is to the office staff what leaning on one's shovel is to the DOT road crews. It is a privilege of the senior employees. Yes, you could be fired for not working all day. Obviously, it is not going to happen to this supervisor any time soon. The fact is that this guy is not good guy whistle blower. He is just an idiot with an unproductive boss.
Installing unauthorized software on a state government computer WILL get you fired. Raise the bar, and install spyware on a state government computer and you could be facing criminal charges. It does not matter that the software install was for alleged "white hat" purposes.
Have you Meta Moderated t
If you haven't figured it out yet, IT and the people in it are just a resource to be used and abused. If you're not connected up in the food chain then tread carefully. Just a worker bee here.
I had this same sort of problem at work. But instead of trying to prove that the employee was spending innordinate amounts of time playing solitare we would just go in and change all the windows shortcuts to point random places. My favorite was to have it open mspaint with a screenshot of a new game of solitaire.
He has a toolbarcounter on his whine page
This should be fun to watch...
Counter Hits Summary
Total Months Counter Hits / 12200
Average Number Of Counter Hits Per Day / 394
Oh, and I imagine this will look different in a few hours as well
Top 5 Browsers by Visits
(Browsers / Visits)
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.x / 6498
FireFox / 1447
Unknown / 922
Safari / 598
Netscape 7 / 437
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
Why, exactly, was his "only other option" to spy on his boss? Why not write the letters to the editor that are now being written for him? Why not put up a website that talks about the issues he's facing, without mentioning names? Why is the next step to spy on his boss?
Was his boss' conduct reprehensible? Yes. Was it his job to spy on him? Short of a policy expressly giving him permission to spy on his boss (or *anyone* else in the office), his behavior was wrong. And no, " 'to confirm and document' such misuse" is *not* sufficient authorization for spying on *any* user in the office, especially his boss.
You can get in trouble doing such things, including prosecution under federal wiretapping laws. This is *not* an area where you want to screw around with.
Linux IT Consulting and Domino Development in Michigan
Yeah, never underestimate the buddy system in management.
During bad times I took a soul killing job at a charity. Like many charities, this one was run to keep buddies employed. I was doing the number two position in our branch office, moving our inefficient paper around. Number one sat in her glass-walled office and read romance novels all day, being a buddy of the big chief at head office.
Desperate for brain stimulation, I figured out how we could exchange our photocopier lease for a computer system lease (our charter did not allow us to own equipment), and how to set it all up to handle our paperwork. I figured a month to install, another to make absolutely sure it worked perfectly, and then they could fire me as redundant. Excellent efficiency. Wrote it up and delivered to my manager. Got turned down. I bugged for why. It was eventually admitted that it would also eliminate the number two at head office, who was of course another buddy of the big chief.
But I got out soon enough. There was an inspection coming up and I was informed I'd have to be demoted because romance-reader needed to cover up that I'd been doing all the work; branches weren't supposed to have a number two.
You might think of that next time you're phoned to donate clothing to be resold by a charity. Give it directly to the poor instead and write a cheque to a real cause.
Lock down the computer. Remove admin rights and give him only stuff he justifiably needs to do.
Block access to certain websites.
If the boss raises these restrictions up, talk to him about how that would be conflicting with official policies. Ask for confirmation in an email if he still objects and want things changed.
If you work in government these are all things that set the trail for accountablitity and responsiblity (and yes that scares the crap out of people).
Spying in the workplace, unless its 100% cleared from above, is immoral.
Could I, as a janitor, put cameras in the woman's washroom because I wanted to prove that too much time was being spent there?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
That, sir, is crap. His employer hired him to perform the mystical art of sysadmining. as far as the employer is concerned, its a black box situation. Much like when a lawyer goes to trial for you. You may know what his strategy is, buy you do not have the experience or knowledge to dictate which laws or previous cases will be referenced. It's not your area of expertise. If his job description included dectecting and reporting computer misuse, then he was fired for doing his job. Frankly, everyone involved in firing him should be fired, because whistleblowers must be protected from this, ESPECIALLY in the government.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
...but the screen capture utility didn't capture that for some reason.
Any government computers I have ever heard of require you to give consent to be monitored BEFORE you are authorized to use them. It's usually part of the IT policy which must be signed as part of employee indoctrination. Under normal circumstances, I would agree with you, but not for a government position.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
Anyone who lives in Alabama ought to be writting a letter to their state representatives asking what is up there. Reports that someone is missusing their computer shouldn't have been ignored in the first place. The state of Alabama needs to completely change that department. Start with replacing the cabinet person responsible for transportation. (I'm guessing this is a cabinet level position, but I don't know how that state government works)
Then do a massive layoff, since most of the upper management obviously needs to go.
We can argue the ethics of what this guy did, but I'm having problems finding anyone ethical in this story. Not the supervistor who ignored the report (if it wasn't ignored either the behavior would have stopped, or the boss would have been fired before this guy finished 6 months of screen grabbing). Not the boss playing solitare instead of the job he should do. Even if he can do his job in 1 hour a week, it is unethical to not find other work that needs to be done for the other 49. This guy is perhaps most ethical, as a admin his job is to watch the state's computers. (but perhaps because I don't know that state) This isn't a private machine he was spying on.
If the supervisors were doing their job, this would have never got this far, because they would have repramanded the boss right away. Then either the boss would have changed so nothing would need to be done, or he wouldn't and they would know to fire him. Most people I know have done something stupid like this at work (including a number of you reading this at work), but when it becomes a problem the boss is supposed to notice and tell you to change before it becomes time to fire you.
Every government makes it very clear that your computer can and will be monitored (even though the sys-admins are usualy not up to the task of actually figuring out how to effectively monitor it). i.e. the sys-admin had every right to do this and was acting according to what someone way way higher up would say was good practices to the cammeras.
that said, I've been around the block enough time that there are four possible real issue here that got him fired.
I can see both sides, but you have to remember, most companies can fire you for any reason or no reason, so this would just set yourself up for being distrustful, regardless of your 'white hat' sales pitch.
...on the other hand, that was his job...ok, then he should have gotten permission up front for his task, that should have covered it.
if it were me, I'd look at something like bitch-slap, you know, the old bluescreen inducing network app? from the screenies it looks like it may work on that old system. just randomly crash the computer, but be sure to cover your tracks, that would be enough to keep me entertained. you can only worry about what the next guy is getting away with for so long, plus, it's only a job.
CB
free ipod and free gmail!
Being the sysadmin does not grant you the right to spy on another employee even if that employee is your boss. There is a certain amount of trust that an employer has to grant a sysadmin but when that trust is taken advantage of as in this case it becomes abuse.
Proper channels should have been followed. If his employer was unwilling to take action he should have left it alone. We all work with people who are lazy and unjustly promoted. But that doesn't give us the right to spy on them.
As a sysadmin I find this guy's behavior pathetic. It's an abuse of his position. I would have fired him, too.
Even if he wasn't an IT manager of sorts, he did the right thing in proving to higher-ups that his boss is doing nothing but wasting the company's money by playing solitaire and looking at stock market crap instead of working.
He proved nothing except that his boss leaves solitaire open on his computer. If his boss was getting his job done and pleasing his employer, who cares how he did it?
Sounds like the government is functioning perfectly!
Crap or not. He abused his position because he became obsessed by his boss' loafing. If his job description included secretly installing spyware without having to follow company policy then he might have a case but I doubt it.
Companies don't need Lone Ranger admins. They promote a Big Brother atmosphere in which they cannot be trusted by those they support nor by those with whom they are employed.
What right does this person have to dictate what his boss should do? If he doesn't feel his boss is performing his job correctly, he should report it to the higher-ups, which he did. The higher-ups didn't care. This should have been a big fucking hint. Perhaps his boss can do his job and play Solitaire at the same time. Maybe that's why he ended up as Boss.
Here on Slashdot, many people post and read articles from work. This is claimed as "Okay," because we're getting our jobs done regardless, right? But when it comes to somebody in a position of power, suddenly playing a mindless cardgame is such a horrible violation that a sysadmin must "blow the whistle?" I call bullshit.
This idiot overstepped his boundaries. What makes it worse is that he was a government employee and demonstrated an intent to use his position as system administrator to spy on other government employees. This is completely unacceptable, and it was entirely appropriate to fire his dipshit ass.
"this guy got shafted. Canned for doing your job?"
I'm just going to be up front and tell you I haven't RTFA yet. (in a bit of a hurry, headed to dinner...) So I'm just gonna talk in a general sense here. In other words, this isn't necessarily a direct rebuttal to what you're saying.
I'm not a manager. In fact, I had a job very similar to what this guy was doing to a much lesser extent. I read what he did and a couple of things bothered me.
1.) He notified the management, they chose not to act on it. He should have just left it there. It's important to let the big wigs make the decision, as opposed to becoming a virtual vigilante.
2.) Spyware on somebody above him? Man, that is a MAJOR no-no. When you're a sysadmin, you have access to all sorts of sensitive data. To actively capture it and use it zealously nail your boss, well I tell you what, that'd scare the hell out of me. The whole reason Slashdot isn't a big fan of things like video cameras at every street corner is that anything can be captured to make somebody look like they're doing something illegal. It's discomforting.
Understanding that I am taking the summary of the article at face value, and that I haven't gotten to the details of the article yet, this is what I think: This guy took it too far. Way too far. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the people above him thought "Geez, what if he caught a screen grab of me looking at porn? I get a bunch of that shit in my email all the time. Was he going to go McBain on me, too?"
Maybe he was doing his job, but he should have had a little more faith in the higher-ups. Even if it was 'wrong', they're still the ones in charge. He should have just let it drop at the emails. Instead, it appears he took it so far that nobody could really trust him. I mean, if his boss still had a job, how do we know he wasn't getting it done? Maybe he had solitaire open because he was on the phone a lot, and wanted something to keep his hands active? Playing Solitaire may not be the most productive use of time, but it's a stretch to call it abuse until somebody's not doing their job. In this particular case, maybe he wasn't doing a damn thing, but in a general sense, what this guy wasn't so smart.
"Derp de derp."
He should sue the state into bankruptcy.
If this gets before a jury he has the case won. His lawyer just needs to show how he was "looking out for you, the taxpayers and his bosses those 'upper management types' didn't like it".
If his lawyer does his job properly, he'll never have to work again; unless he chooses to.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
" The article said the program took in to account idle times and took no screenshots during periods of inactivity."
True, but it also doesn't say *how often* the boss was using his computer. If he spent six hours at his computer every day that was 70% solitaire/20% stock checking, then it looks pretty bad. On the other hand, if every day he spent 7 minutes playing solitaire, 2 minutes checking his stocks, and 1 minute switching between the two, then it would be pretty trivial.
Alabama is an "at will" employment state. This means that an employee can be disciplined or terminated for any reason (or for no reason at all) as long as the termination does not violate federal or state laws. I do not know state law in Alabama, but he wasn't fired for being black and he wasn't fired for not sleeping with his boss, so I think he is screwed. Perhaps there is some whistleblower law floating around that will save him. Otherwise he should be getting his resume ready.
Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=
I'd just like to point out the other position was a Civil Engineering Administrators position and requires a number of years of Civil Engineering experience. So he really couldn't be given that position.
This is not to try and pick fault at what you are saying I agree with it (just not that little part). Plus by drawing attention to it, I'm hoping to quell peoples ideas that "employee just wanted boss's job" type threads.
Look - the way the world works is this. There is the way things are supposed to run, and there is the way they actually run. We geeks do have a hard time with this concept, as to us, a spade is a spade.
Its like for example, I posted a comment about Google and search engines recently, which I posted intending it to be funny. The mods obviously agreed, and it's presently rated +5 Funny. HOWEVER, two guys still replied "correcting" my "claim" that searching Google for "search engine" took me to the home page. The fact is, whether my "claim" is accurate or not is irrelevant - it's funny to think that someone searched Google to find out what a "search engine" is and was taken back to the Google homepage and thinks Google is broken (get it??) What the joke is implying is that Google is so good, for many people it is the only way to search the web and has in fact become a verb - "Googling" for something rendering the "search engine" phrase obsolete.
In a similar fashion, if you are employed as a sysadmin and part of your job role is to "identify misuse of the net" or company hardware, this does not mean you have carte blanche to spy on the boss, (or worse, their superiors). If you want to lose your job, sure - go right ahead but people do not hire you to spy on them. You will very rarely see any of these "unwritten rules" formalised - it's just "the done thing", and the very fact the phrase "unwritten rule" exists should tell you something.
It's the geek syndrome - taking things literally. It's why we are traditionally so bad with the feminine mind set (I'm not being sexist here, men (typically gay men) can exhibit the feminine mind set too) until we understand the rules; and there are rules - for example if the average woman asks you "does her arse look big in this" she is most definitely NOT looking for an honest answer, she is looking for a compliment.
Learning to read between the lines is a useful skill. A wise person once said something along the lines of "often rather than what you do say, it's what you don't say that can be the difference between a sucessful career and an unsucessful one".
I agree, it sucks, however it's the way things are and the people who can adapt to this are sucessful.
The people he reported this too were probably doing excatly what he reported. Think about it: You are a manager - and are presnted with evidence that an employee has the power to track what you are doing... who do you fire?
M@
Krispy Cream is people
Oh nevermind.
Personally, if the activities of a user isn't impacting the network or my application, I could really care less what they do when waiting for work to do. As a sysadmin, I do alot of waiting....on support calls from companies, waiting for user specs, waiting for users to frickin get of the system.....if I did not have Firefox open with something interesting to read, then I would go stir crazy. I usually don't stream anything during the day and when I do get sidetracked on the web, I start to think of things comeing up and start working on them. But have you ever had a day where you only had an hour or two left and you had to stay for support but in that hour or two you really did not have enough time to get anything started? That's the perfect time ot get caught up on industry websites and other items that may not pertain directly to your job, but are nice to know anyway because they MAY pertain to your job someday. Case in point, if you own a Mac and are an it person, you may browse Mac web sites for a a fe wminutes at work. That additional knowledge may pop up in a meeting...Hey so and so....didn't you say that Mac's do blah blah blah....
Solitare can work your brain. I think excess is one thing, but the occasional game is not going to do anything. If this guy just came to work and played solitare all day well then I could see that as excess. But if he cooled down from a meeting by firing off a few hands, then I doin't have an issue with that.
Gorkman
The utility only captured input during periods of user activity. If there was none, the utility would remain inactive. So you posters saying "I leave Freecell open during meetings" are missing the point.
It also only captured during randomly set intervals at 30 minutes a minimum. Basically, it was set up so that it was a completely random sample that the sysadmin was unable to knowingly control in order to make the guy look bad.
While most of us would find this guys actions appropriate, he obviously did not understand the attitude of the management he worked for, and THAT is what determines whether his actions were right or wrong, not what you or I or even he thought. When it became obvious that upper management didn't give a shit, his job as IT narc was done. At that point, his actions should have been regulated to gathering evidence for that day when things came crashing down (and they would have eventially) to cover his ass. If your bosses have expressed a distinct disinterest in how that posisition was managed, YOU are in the wrong for going any further, as much as it pains me to say it. At that point, you may be stepping on good ol' boy toes or some other crap, and while you have the right to do it, your an idiot for doing so.
It really surprises me that after 21 years of supposed service, this guy gets canned for the expose, which leads me to believe there is something(s) we're all not being told. 21 years and this guy still doesn't have a sensible grasp of the environment that would can him as sooner than praise him? 21 years and this guy is worth less than a solitair playing spider monkey? Normally that only happens when they're just dying for an excuse to get rid of you, normally after you've done something to piss them off.
Sorry, but thing aren't adding up here for the righteous IT guy here. I'm betting he screwed the pooch way before this incident.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I live in Alabama, and I've heard a good bit more about this case than you probably have.
- This guy had complained to his superior's superiors. They apparently didn't care. So this guy's crusade basically ends right there. He did what he should have done, and when those higher ups don't care, you can get pissed all you want, but you don't take matters into your own hands.
- This guy seems to have a personal beef with his boss.
- Most people down here (including people that work in IT) think this guy is an assclown.
This man was doing this to his BOSS. You don't take policy into your own hands against your superiors and expect to keep your job, even for the government. And furthermore, his superior's job didn't involve much computer work. He was basically an admin type that mostly used his comp for email.
But it doesn't matter. This was his BOSS. You stay in official channels when dealing with any personel problem, and you ESPECIALLY do this when a superior is involved. It's lamentable that an Alabama state employee is wasting time on a computer, but that doesn't excuse the sysadmin's actions.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
His job, he says was to find computer misuse. The boss wasn't misusing the computer, he was possibly misusing his time. If he had been playing solitaire with a deck of cards, would that be misuse of his desk? Of the cards?
No, misuse of the computer, if you ask me, would involve installing spyware and trojans on other people's computer, looking at their files, flooding the network, running a porn site.
This sysadmin scares me, if he doesn't think you are doing your job properly, then even after he has told your boss about it he thinks he can install spyware on your computer and watch you. What other thing that bothers him would make him feel justified in doing crap like this?
I would fire him on the spot, possibly consider pressing charges. While employers do own their computers and thus you don't have as much privacy from your employer as you should have, this guy was not authorized by the employer, and what he did is possibly illegal.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
-
Understanding that I am taking the summary of the article at face value, and that I haven't gotten to the details of the article yet, this is what I think: This guy took it too far. Way too far. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the people above him thought "Geez, what if he caught a screen grab of me looking at porn? I get a bunch of that shit in my email all the time. Was he going to go McBain on me, too?"
Once you read the whole article (and particularly his site) you'll understand why. The boss playing cards constantly was becoming a major issue within his division. Discipline was becoming impossible because the boss was, well, he was doing everything they weren't supposed to. He has two examples of jokes posted around the place about the boss's game playing by employees in fact.Maybe he was doing his job, but he should have had a little more faith in the higher-ups.
He did what he did because the issue had gone way beyond just a "I think the boss isn't doing his job" to a "the boss isn't doing his job and it's so obvious no one else wants to do theres." Higher-ups had continued to ignore it and wouldn't solve the situation. Something had to be done. Even though he was fired the situation was finally solved, it's a crying shame for Alabama taxpayers that it had to reach such a point. The boss should have long since been reprimanded for his behaviour, if not fired.
Frankly if I lived in Alabama I'd be livid. The taxpayers were paying this guy's boss to do nothing buy play card all day. The sheer quantity of the screenshots showing him playing games pretty much tosses out the "Maybe he had solitaire open because he was on the phone a lot, and wanted something to keep his hands active?" idea that you presented. He was simply being paid to, well, not work.
One thing I thought of since I've dealt with environments where games shouldn't be played (University computer labs) is why didn't he just change the permissions on them? It sounds like they were in an NT or Active Directory domain, it's pretty unlikely the boss had administrator access since this guy was the designated support person for his division (he has the policy on support personnel up too, it says one person in each division/dept. will be granted administrator access for their part of the domain tree). He could have avoided this mess and forced the issue with the higher-ups by simply changing the permissions on solitaire to be administrator only or even nobody. It's likely the boss wouldn't have pushed the issue too hard as it would make him look bad trying to get access to a game restored. The guy could have also locked access to solitaire on all computers in his division to make it a policy issue, not a direct confrontation of his boss.
Still the whole situation shows there's some serious waste going on in ALDOT. Alabama taxpayers should raise hell with them on that at least.
Did he? How do you know he did not take 2,000 screenshots and cull them? Always beware when an interested party hands you "random" samples. It would have been better if he tied the screenshots to time logs of applications. If his boss really played solitare all day, a log of applications would show it and the percentage time it was active. Even still, it would be difficult for him to prove as he could manipulate the logs manually.
What's called for is institutionalized watchdoging. There should have been someone who this man could have asked for help in doing his job. An IT person under another boss would be good. This institutional failure should as a basis for a transfer, not a firing.
I can imagine the state trying to slip out of the bind by saying that the boss was not abusing his computer or network time. It can always be argued that playing the boss was accomplishing his job description and what he did with his spare time was his business. Managerial positions can be that way.
A conscientious manager will roll up their sleeves and help get work done when they run out of planning, reports and all that boring crap. It helps to keep your feet on the ground.
A slob will sit around and turn into a moron. A slob that's drooling 90% of the time soon finds few topics for reports and might get axed. A dangerous slob is one that got themselves promoted to hide incompetence. They have a tendency to screw up and blame their underlings. I've had one of those and I think this one did too. Typically, those they leave in charge for an extended leave will say things like, "I did my job and his job with ease. My job usually takes all of my time. I wonder what the boss does all day."
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Testimony alleged that as a result of Blake downloading the software, a computer hacker at an unknown location in Australia breached the Alabama Department of Transportation's computer firewall in 2003.
also,
Blake also testified Monday that he installed the program on two other computers in the department, that of the state Right of Way Engineer Paul Bowlin, who heads the division, and Right of Way Secretary Jana Trafford Blake. Jana Blake is married to Vernon Blake.
So he spies on his wife, his boss, and HIS boss. It's also possible that his actions led to a breach in the firewall at the office as well (that's disputed and may not be the case). With those facts in play, that changes my view of events.
1.) He notified the management, they chose not to act on it. He should have just left it there. It's important to let the big wigs make the decision, as opposed to becoming a virtual vigilante.
His notifications to upper management was nothing more than standard, vapid comments about ineffective management (such that virtually every drone makes regularly). There was virtually nothing actionable, and his attempts to fall back on that as a defense are weak and transparent.
When you're a sysadmin, you have access to all sorts of sensitive data. To actively capture it and use it zealously nail your boss, well I tell you what, that'd scare the hell out of me.
Indeed. His boss could very well have been evaluating division salaries, writing a bonus recommendation letter for Vernon (the overzealous sysadmin), or a wide range of other private matters. Sysadmins have a sad case of god complex (I have been in several positions where I consulted on infrastructure to contain the power of the sysadmin -- one they knew the sysadmin was going through the payroll files, for instance, based upon "in the know" comments he made to other employees).
The whole reason Slashdot isn't a big fan of things like video cameras at every street corner is that anything can be captured to make somebody look like they're doing something illegal. It's discomforting.
Humorously many of the visitors to Slashdot are doing so on paid hours, and some of them probably have an overzealous sysadmin on a crusade, carefully logging all of the details in hopes to prove that regardless of output, clearly the employee is ineffective because they read that story on Star Wars III. The problem with this is that just because we're not doing something visually productive, it doesn't mean that we're not mentally preparing or ruminating over some piece of mental data -- ultimately our productivity can be measure in the solutions and projects we provide in a given period of time, not whether we have vi or solitaire on our screens. Indeed, given that the person being monitored was a manager, it is entirely conceivable that he was doing the best thing that he could do at times - assessing the situation and deciding that his intervention wasn't currently needed, and retiring to a game of solitaire. Big fucking deal. Ultimately his higher ups rank him based upon the results of his division, not whether he was a busybody filling his day with make work, carefully micromanaging his charges.
This sysadmin, Vernon, sounds like a sad, pathetic, jealous prick that has no comprehension of boundaries, and feels that he's on some sort of personal crusade to save us all. I find it unbelievable that he releases the information that he has (illegally released information - the guy is basically spreading proprietary internal state information publicly. I'll be surprized if he doesn't end up going to jail for this) and truly believes that he's in the right - this wanker won't get a job administering anything more advanced than a toilet plunger in the future.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Why didn't he advocate eliminating games from the workstations? That way the wasted productivity is gone and no one gets singled out. Where is the real AUP? And no matter what he says items g and j do not give him the right to install spyware without approval.
I guess they forgot m. Use common sense.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
-
Being the sysadmin does not grant you the right to spy on another employee even if that employee is your boss. There is a certain amount of trust that an employer has to grant a sysadmin but when that trust is taken advantage of as in this case it becomes abuse.
Actually most workplace computer policies permit exactly what this guy did. Perhaps you should read yours more thoroughly, I know I haven't worked anywhere that doesn't in fact include a clause similar to this one, take from the ALDOT's Computer Usage Policy (posted on the guy's site[emphasis added by him]):-
Any individual who utilizes any ALDOT computer resource consents by that use to the
potential monitoring of such use.
I won't post it all here but you should look at the documents on his site, the same one contains the definitions of System Administrator. He didn't break any rules. Also I should note that this is standard for non-classified government work. Because of open secrets laws every detail of what a government employee does, including their personnel files, are public records. Government employees effectively have no privacy at their jobs, it's something fairly unique to the job sector.Because the Internet services are to be used only for government business, all records in these systems are hereby considered government records. As such, these records are subject to the provisions of state laws regarding their maintenance, access, and disposition. Employees using these services do not enjoy any right of personal privacy.
A user who utilizes ALDOT computer resources for any purposes other than for official ALDOT purposes, is guilty of theft or misuse of state resources and may be subject to both ALDOT personnel action and appropriate criminal prosecution.
-
Proper channels should have been followed. If his employer was unwilling to take action he should have left it alone. We all work with people who are lazy and unjustly promoted. But that doesn't give us the right to spy on them.
Proper channels were followed, he documents it all on his site, shows the policies, tells each step he took. There's even this statement: "On my part, no laws were broken, ALDOT's own policies and procedures were followed in letter and spirit, and actions taken were in ALDOT's and the taxpayer's best interest."He explains he took the action he did because the boss's game playing was causing problems within the division of employee moral and supervision. Another quote: "Not only was this behavior wasteful, it impeded my ability to effectively supervise subordinates, including my ability to discipline employees for wasteful behavior of any type. The situation deteriorated to the point where cartoons were being distributed that mocked my supervisor's behavior." He includes two examples of those cartoons.
So I have to ask you, how much did you read about this issue before you passed judgement? And while I understand you aversion to "spying" on users (having done sysadmin work for quite a while myself) I find it odd that you don't realize that sometimes it is not only necessary but required. If someone if using company resources to violate laws the company will require proof before they can act to protect themselves from future prosecution (and defend themselves if such prosecution occurs). Even if they're not breaking laws but violating company computer usage policy often monitoring to gather proof will be required before they can be disciplined and/or fired.
-
As a sysadmin I find this guy's behavior pathetic. It's an abuse of his position. I would have fired him, too.
Well frankly I must say I'm glad you don't work for my organization. Protecting user privacy is important but also is understanding that monitoring must occur sometimes, no matter how much we find it distasteful. Also he didn't abuse his position, if you read all the info presented you'll find he followed their polices and procedures properly and did his job. If that's a fireable offense, well I suppose we'd all better start playing card games at work all day instead of working.Because the Internet services are to be used only for government business, all records in these systems are hereby considered government records. As such, these records are subject to the provisions of state laws regarding their maintenance, access, and disposition. Employees using these services do not enjoy any right of personal privacy.
A user who utilizes ALDOT computer resources for any purposes other than for official ALDOT purposes, is guilty of theft or misuse of state resources and may be subject to both ALDOT personnel action and appropriate criminal prosecution.
Man, I can't believe I'm reading such drivel from otherwise intelligent people. Maybe you missed it -- it's a government office, not a company/business subject to competition and market forces that will kill it in due time if it's too wasteful!
It's government here -- you know, that thing that produces nothing yet can perpetuate itself by just spending enough to get another 20x-too-big budget the next year, no matter how worthless 80% of the employees are?
Proper channels should have been followed. If his employer was unwilling to take action he should have left it alone.
Hey -- "his employer" is us! (If you live in the US, particularly Alabama.) So, if the (possibly also solitaire-playing usless leech) boss of the boss in question chooses to do nothing we should all just suck it up? What the fuck are you saying, that government isn't accountable to the people, and shouldn't be? No protection should be afforded to whistleblowers who expose the wholesale robbery of everyone?
Wow. Just wow.
everything in moderation
I think one thing that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread, is that not only is this guy an employee, but also a taxpayer. It seems to me that while he held a position of trust, he also was in a position to stop a waste of tax money. His tax money, as well as the community as a whole. While his methods are questionable, the fact that the government didn't care about the boss's waste of time and money is horrible. Seems like paying someone to play solitaire is a BIG waste of money.
Perhaps someone can clarify where the line is drawn between a concerned citizen and a disinterested employee.
Someone had mentioned , "what if he see's his fellow employee's salary?"
Well, if this is a government position, isn't that info already public knowledge? As well as layoffs or any other such issues?
In a public office there really shouldn't be any secrets right?
If he thought somebody was running a web server or downloading pornography, or gambling online, that is one thing. But to take it upon himself to perform his own performance evaluation of his superior, was a bit bold and he was rightfully fired.
His focus should have been on the machines and the network, not carrying out retribution for a personal grudge.
AZspot
Thirdly, no one likes a snitch.
When it comes to my otherwise paying the salary of a leech, I love a snitch.
everything in moderation
There is absolutely no expectation of privacy when using computer provided to you by your place of work. Anyone who seriously expects privacy might want to reconsider sending those e-mails about how much they hate their boss.
I have worked in an semi-administrative position in IT for quite some time and often see users get quite flustered by the information that we can gather on the users. I have even heard of instances where they have complained to their bosses only to be told that IT was well within their rights.
The simple fact is that this guys boss should not have been spending so much time with non-work related materials. I know that where I work now this would never fly but I suppose that is the difference between private industry and civil service.
But I do hope this guy gets off. There was no spying or spyware involved. He was performing his job which was monitoring company run resources and making sure that they were being used for work and not for pleasure. At one point we had and ISA server for the IT department that allowed us to avoid the proxy that blocked certain websites. Because of our boss's lack of productivity the server "broke" and never did get repaired.
In the world of IT the sysadmin truly has more control than just about anyone within a company or organization. I think sysadmins should do this more often because in the end the money wasted from lack of productivity is coming from someones pocket and I am sure they would love to know. In this case the man gets shafted because the money wasn't coming from the higher ups pockets but from the tax payers. Times like this I hate government.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Please keep in mind that this guy's boss is not an ordinary employee -- there are no free-market checks in place on this organization becoming wasteful. Instead, he is employeed by the taxpayers of Alabama. If 70% of his time is spent playing solitaire, and 20% checking the stock market, and 90% of his pay is being wasted, I'd say that the citizens of Alabama have a right to be a bit irritated.
I agree that the use of monitoring software makes me uncomfortable. However, as far as I can tell, no laws or policies were broken. I don't know whether the sysadmin should be allowed to keep his job, but I find it appalling that the guy's *boss*, the time-waster, is still porking on the taxpayer's dime.
May we never see th
Get it. Because the sysadmin didn't work within the system and went off to install spyware on his own he completely fubared what could be done to discipline his supervisor.
And how could you discipline the supervisor anyway besides a written warning for the first offense? How did the sysadmin know that nothing had been done? What? Did he install spyware in the HR office so he could see the supervisor's personel file? This guy dropped a nuke when he should have been using a flyswatter.
And why did he have to install spyware in the first place? What? Can't poll the PC and find out that sol.exe is up all day? Again, why did he need screenshots of everything the guy was doing and why wasn't someone from HR making sure that data wasn't misused. Hell he shouldn't have those screenshots to begin with! Wow, his boss spends 80% of his time playing solitaire and he spends 50% of his time going over screenshots.
No. Just because this is "gubbermint" doesn't mean what this guy did was right technically or ethically.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
I find it interesting that no-one is talking about the sad state of the boss. If you're spending 70+% of your time playing solitaire, there's something really wrong with your life. I simply can't imagine that level of inertness, that level of boredom. I'm saddened. Genuinely saddened.
grib.
maybe
Yes, if part of my job as a sysadmin is to monitor and report abuse then most certainly installing software designed to do just that is apropriate. Near me a city IT employee was cleaning a departments computer which was not functioning correctly, in the course of investigating the problem he ran across spyware and found out that it had been installed by a porn site that was in the browser history. The result of the insuing investigation was that the fire chief and several of his employees were fired for abuse of city resources in violation of written policy. When you are abusing the publics trust by goofing off on the job despite it being a violation of policy which you undoubtedly signed you should be fired, not the guy doing his job and catching you.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
This guy should have been fired. He blew the wistle on some guy being lazy and when he couldn't get anyone to acknowledge it, he installed invasive spyware on someones work computer. This douche doesn't have that authority. Is he the Lazy Police? No! He's a fucking admin.
What this shows his employer is that he's willing to completely violate someones privacy for his own gain (in this case, recognition of weeding out lazy shitheads) and that he can't be trusted (not even by his superiors!!).
This guy is a complete shithead.
In the spirit of true Windows development, you need to set up a scheduled task to continually re-delete sol.exe. ;-)
Ironically, it appears that his biggest flaw was too much company loyalty. Normally company loyalty is a good thing, but being loyal to a company that has bad internal policies and practices isn't going to get you very far, as this story indicates.
Another possibility would have been to ask permission to install the spy software on company computers to facilitate documenting evidence of wasteful activity (this request being made entirely outside of and temporally distant from any discussion regarding his boss's activities so that a connection between the two would not be obvious). There is no reason why any computer on the network that the sysadmin is trying to prevent abuse on should be excluded from possible monitoring, but the exact policies that would be followed by the software and the adminstrator would need be laid out in writing to ensure accountability for how the software is used to the senior management, and to ensure to their satisfaction that it is not abused. Once permission had been obtained and after a few months, once the evidence is gathered, he could not have been justly fired for installing this "unauthorized software" after presenting the evidence to the higher ups, since he in fact would have HAD authorization to install exactly that software. If they chose to fire him anyways for that reason, it would be an open and shut wrongful dismissal case.
Of course, then we probably wouldn't be arguing about it on slashdot... and heaven knows what a crime that would be.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Yes, govenment employees should be held responsible as we are paying the tab. But, that thing that produces nothing? It may seem that the government produces nothing, until you start thinking about roads and police and fire fighters and the court system, not to mention the military and missiles and covert operations and other really expensive things.
Hah.
You really think those things take up a significant part of the budget?
They are a drop in a $2 trillion sea of cash.
I'd love it if that were all the government did.
Total budget 2003, $2158 billion.
Defense: $365.3 billion
Homeland security: $22 billion
Justice: $19 billion
Transportation: $13.5 billion
Judicial: $14.6 billion
Thats about 26% of the budget.
Social Security/medicare/medicare/etc. takes about 55%.
The rest goes to things like Agriculture or Health and human services.
All those things you spoke of barely make up 26% of the budget.
And even then, are you sure we're not being made to pay too much for these services?
An organization that has time to spend play solitair all day is a waste of our money and we aren't getting anything in return for that money.
You want one command? Done. Run this as a local admin:Or perhaps you'd like to nuke all the games at once? You could of course run the Uninstall section for each game. But since we're so fixed on the "one command" notion, we'll need a file c:\nogames.txt with the following contents (disregard the spaces added by slashcode):Once we have that, run this command to blow away all the games at once. (Add
Just because YOU don't know how to administer a Windows network doesn't mean it's not possible.
Results are what matter. If someone can get their required work done with 10% of their time, no one should really care about the use of the other 90%. Sorry...gov't or not. That's what happens in companies who are concerned about the bottom line. You get your shit done, you have a job. You don't, you're fired. If higher ups thought he was getting work done, Solitaire is not an offense. If he's slacking, Solitaire becomes an offense. That simple. Dunno why there's 200+ posts debating this.
A more entertaining solution to the "whistleblower"'s problem would have been to replace his bosses version of Solitaire with one that looks identical, but only deals non-winnable hands.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
The IT depts. of public institutions are eroding from within.
My boss makes twice as much as me, yet he needs help using the insert key. God forbid he should try to make a new folder on the network.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
OH NOES (http://www.ohnoes.org)
It seems like the parent to this post just told all these morons who don't like the idea that someone can and will monitor their computer at work if they fuck around. You can talk a lot of shit about sysadmins having a "god complex" but a whole lot more network users, bosses or workers, have a "fuck around on the internet complex." If you want to argue that it isn't "right" for the admin to invade their privacy, that all depends on whether the company or agency's use policy explicitly grants the admin the power to monitor, but I submit to you that the individual who is dicking around on company time is a worthless deadweight bastard who either: (a) is useless and should probably have their position eliminated or new responsibilities assigned, or (b) is wasting time because they know that other employees are going to pick up the work load they're slacking on. Often in business, there isn't any direct way to measure productivity in numbers, so it's hard for upper management to find those slackers and bring them in line.
Again back to the beautiful parent post which hands all of you naysayers a big cup of shut-the-fuck-up, I suggest you READ your company's computer use policy. Any company I've admined for has had the same policy describing the right and responsibility of the admin to monitor the network for people wasting our time and resources. And as a stockholder in my company, I certainly have an interest in doing so. I have presented evidence in two different companies to have a total of five people terminated for recreational use of computer resources, each and every time having warned the individual and reiterated the company policy AND informing them that I am monitoring their computer.
You fuck around, you get caught. Don't blame the admin for catching you fucking around, unless you're going to blame the security guard for catching theives too.
You know if that damned security guard hadn't been invading my privacy by watching those damned security cameras...
And just becuse it's possible doesn't mean it's not awful. As your post amply demonstrates.
-josh
The tool he used to spy on his boss showed that 70% of the time he was using the computer was playing solitaire. So what? 0% of the shots showed him to be using the computer for work. All this tells me is his job doesn't require him to be using the computer.
The spy software shut itself off when the computer was in-active, so it's hard to gage from this data how much of the guys day at work was spent playing games. Maybe he used his computer for 15 minutes a day while drinking a cup of coffee everyday and played some games during that time. Maybe he goofed off all day. We don't know. It's impossible to tell from the data given.
I also have to question this guy's motives, did he really want to fix the problem or was it more personal. At no point did it seem like he confronted the supervisor about his "problem". Instead he immediately tried to leapfrog him and get him fired.
Assuming Vernon (the sysadmin) was actually doing his job, and not spending all of his time on this vendetta, I hope he wins the wrongful termination suit. Firing him over this seems to have been overkill. He should have been reprimanded and warned like they did with the game playing supervisor.
I'm sorry to repeat what others have said to similar comments such as yours from others who failed to RTFA, but this wasn't a company, it was a branch of government. If you pay taxes, then you're paying the bills and, more or less, signing the pay checks.
In this case, it's the people of Alabama that are paying the salaries of all involved.
So, I guess maybe the worst part is that you feel the need to comment on things you might have informed yourself about but didn't. What is it that they call people who have opinions about things of which they are willfully ignorant? I forget, but I think it was a combination of opinionated and clown.
I guess what makes your comment even more pathetic is that you've used this as an opportunity to put forth some sort of pro-business/anti-government rant. There are times and places for such arguments, but your using it here shows you to be a knee jerk ideologue.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Maybe they meant to mention this link to another product called Win-spy?
The worst part is that you didn't RTFA
> Government has precisely ZERO place involving itself.
Except, of course, that this was a GOVERNMENT JOB. So I think the government DOES have a place involving itself.
Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
Installing spyware on your boss's computer is tantamount to secretly videotaping what goes on in his office.
This guy's assertion that his job included looking for computer abuse doesn't cut it. Did his job description specifically give him the right o use software to monitor the computer activities of any employee or manager? If not, he's toast.
(And, yes, employers do it all the time, but most make it agreement to that a condition of employment.)
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
So what have we learned here today...
Half the state employees are playing Solitaire or the stock market, and the other half are screwing around spying on their coworkers ?
Tax dollars at work
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
The diversity of opinions here goes to show how controversial the guy's actions were. Employers are naturally conservative, so if the guy's actions were this close to "the line," it's no wonder he got fired.
Right, it seems this link (an actual news story on the issue rather than just the one guy's point of view) has already been posted here more than once.
It stuns me that despite ~50 +5 replies, no one has bothered to point out that the program this guy installed HAD A BACKDOOR.
Yes, that's right people. That's why they're calling this spyware. Because it is.
Read this:
Bobby Mitchell, an employee contracted to DOT to do computer network support and computer programming, told the hearing officer that DOT's computer firewall crashed in January 2003 and had to be rebuilt.
Mitchell said he found WinSpy on Dobbs' computer when transferring material and programs in his computer to a new one and at that time saw that the program had an "imbedded address" that allowed someone outside the department to have access to DOT's computer system. The imbedded address was traced to Australia.
So, who still actually believes he should get his job back? He was so focused on proving his boss was in the wrong that he compromised the security of the network he was a sysadmin for.
Stuff.
"Screengrabs are excessively invasive"
According to what policy? What type of monitoring wouldn't be excessively invasive? Monitoring typically means remote viewing of the screen of the user, in addition to HTTP logs and other resources. Most netadmins I know use Dameware NT Utilities, which allows for remote viewing without user notification if you roll your own INI file and force it on the user when you silently remotely install.
Your comment implies they know exactly what they're doing.
I've held a few peon IT positions, I've had different attitudes during them. My starting job, I was opinionated and high profile, and just got myself in a world of crap. I soon learned that the less you're heard from, the less unneeded attention comes your way. Now theres a danger that your job can get too cushy and you can goof off too much and get in trouble, but a steady application of self motivation can help you steer clear of trouble.
Instead of arguing about upper level decisions, "advise and persuade", and if ever a decision of yours proves it would have been better instead of the way management actually went, do not rub it in!. If a decision recommended by you is subsequently championed by someone else without acknowledgement of its origion, congratulate them on their creativity. I once walked in on my boss snoozing on his desk, I told him he should take it easier, he was wearing himself out. (Good boss tho, plus a new father so 3 am feedings were taking a toll.)
Its a wonderful thing, these periodic paychecks, and even better if you get to hack in an airconditioned environment to get them. Pragmatism goes a long way.
Let's face it this was not a security audit, this was a vendetta.
The sad and ironic thing is that the sysadmin got himself fired from a job where it's probably impossible to get fired for incompetence (civil service) by violating a privacy law. I've worked in the government, it's got a good chunk of lazy sacks of shit; I'm sure that his boss is one of them. Too bad, he'll be the one with a nice pension after thirty years service.
And in the end, all you have is your integrity.
I have mine, and I was a consultant (which is saying something). Heheh. I never AFIAK told a client something they wanted to hear in order to get a job. I never failed to mention an existing or potential problem. I told them, "You can disagree with what I recommend, but you DO pay me for my knowledge, expertise, and experience."
Anything less than that is negligence, which may not be what you are suggesting, but pragmatism is akin to being practical. So is letting your boss get away with making bad decisions practical? What if that decision causes a few people to lose "these periodic paychecks"?
My boss is human. I argue with him every day. It's part of the job. They watch you so you don't make mistakes, and you watch then to do the same. As long as you act as a team, then things work well. As soon as people start worrying about looking good, then things get messy. I constantly argue with my boss about that point exactly. I tell him that I am interested in making the company run well from an IT standpoint, and that the company makes money to pay me. If everyone worries about looking good, then they make decisions that they think will be popular rather than decisions that are right for the business.
Ummm, Jon, aren't you supposed to be dead...? - Otter(3800)