Slashdot Mirror
Worker Fired For Running SETI On State-Owned PCs
Formica writes "A programmer working for the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services was fired for running SETI software on a state server. As quoted in this article,
department head Tom Hayes says, 'I think that people can be comfortable that security has beamed this man out of our building.' More articles from Google."
"I understand his desire to search for intelligent life in outer space, because obviously he doesn't find it in the mirror in the morning," Hayes said. "I think that people can be comfortable that security has beamed this man out of our building."
What an ass Tom Hayes is! Come on now, there is no need for personal attacks, especially because this statement was publicly released in a news interview and they have already fired this guy. I am half tempted to find Tom's email address and tell him just that.
So the issue is: Was there a policy that prohibited use of those systems for that purpose? Granted, since the machines were taxpayer funded, this should have raised some red-flags for Charles Smith (the fired employee), however...... immediate termination rather than a warning seems a bit harsh. Any time you are using publicly funded resources for personal use, there should be extreme caution, and my bias is to never, ever go there in the first place unless there is a prior agreement for reimbursement.
Of course we do not know all the circumstances, but Tom Hayes is still an ass for publicly attempting to humiliate this guy. Tom, whats wrong with you? I suspect you are a former high school football player turned college frat boy who has to put people down to make yourself feel better. Ass!
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I have to agree with Hayes' decision (though not his commentary).
Wasting cycles looking for ET = wasting tax dollars.
BLING BLING. Meet the architecture that's changing everything.
Because SETI@Home is such a security risk.
My mother works for the County Gov't, and I've seen some of the spyware infested cesspools that they call computers, and they fire this guy for doing what? Wasting clock cycles?
"Unauthorized software" means just that. Just because he was in the IT department doesn't give him free reign to do what he wants to with a production server.
Remember: Those servers, routers, switches, and workstations aren't yours, they belong to your employer. You're paid to do what your employer wants to them, and not do what said employer doesn't want. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you're stupid (yes, STUPID) enough to flaunt the rules because you think they don't apply to you, you deserve what you get.
It's stupid to fire someone for running this on company/institutional computers (whatever happened to warnings?), but it's also stupid to just decide to run it on the assumption that your boss isn't stupid.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If I worked for the state and used say a government car for personal use they wouldn't just fire me. They would arrest me for misuse of public funds and materials. This theft just the same.
Running SETI costs tax payers money if the form of the electric bill and ware and tear on the equipment. I am running on my personal system GRID.org to fight cancer and my electric bill went up $20 a month for just 3 computers. This shit adds up, fast!
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
I wonder what the reason actually was. Sounds like he has a history.
Not a simple computer, a server (as stated in the article). Furthermore, he ran a CPU (energy) intensive (and useless, in my opinion) program on a computer he didn't own, consuming power. Imagine all state employees start doing the same thing. A simple warning would have been enough; he served as an example. Sad in a way...
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
The chick in HR who's downloaded the "kitty-cat screen saver" spam zombie is doing just fine.
What about if someone only runs said program while they are logged on? This really then only affects their own computing, and they are technically using all the electricity anyway. I agree though, servers are a totally different thing.
I hope you're joking.
I hope you don't surf the web from your office, because you are wasting your employer's dollars!
PS: I do detect your sarcasm
It's pretty clear you've never worked in a corporate IT department. So the issue is: Was there a policy that prohibited use of those systems for that purpose?
Any employer worth his or her salt has an item in the employee handbook that prohibits employees from installing stuff on systems without permission.
Furthermore, and I have to point this out to users ALL the time- the computer they use is not theirs. It belongs to the company, as does the telephone, the power that PC uses, and its internet connection.
Granted, since the machines were taxpayer funded, this should have raised some red-flags for Charles Smith (the fired employee)
That would be an understatement.
, however...... immediate termination rather than a warning seems a bit harsh.
Not if the employee handbook says that's the consequence. Not if Smith was doing other things deserving of termination. Not if his actions endangered adherence to security protocols, placed sensitive data at risk of disclosure, or caused a department to loose certification. As a professional system admin, the mere fact that he considered it appropriate to install stuff like that on government systems shows his judgment is impaired.
Any time you are using publicly funded resources for personal use, there should be extreme caution
I've been a sysadmin for years, and it's pretty much common sense, as in the "don't walk off building tops" kind of common sense, that you do not use your employer's systems for anything you haven't specifically sought authorization for. Reasons, off the top of my head:
I can hear the kids yelling "but commercial software could be insecure too!" Well, that's right- but the difference is that if you're running something the IT department said was OK and the company gets h@x0r3d, they're the ones who take the heat. If it's because you were running some clownish search-for-ET thing or a program that puts a dancing ape on your desktop, well, then you get your ass canned so fast your head spins, and possibly get slapped with a lawsuit for damages as well.
Maybe the IT department has picked that official program because it's more secure, or has been certified by another government agency. Or they've actually tested/explored its security, or an outside consultant says it's more secure, or the maker of the software has signed agreements that their application meets security requirements of the government agency using the software.
Please help metamoderate.
We fired someone over the summer for running Folding@Home on multiple computers. It wasn't because of what he was doing, but because he had installed and run software that was not approved by the university, and therefore considered a security breach.
I don't necessarily agree with the firing, but if the rules state explicitly that you can't do it, then don't.
There are, in fact, lots of different kinds of "unauthorized sofware".
There is the kind that introduces viruses, the kind that is used for trading porn, the kind used for trading Windows source code, the kind for sharing MP3's with a million of your closest friends, and the kind that people use for running a side business.
And then there is the kind that people use to contribute to a not-for-profit scientific effort at a public university for no financial gain, software that only uses idle cycles and is known not to interfere with anybody's applications.
Unauthorized use of sofware of those different kinds demands different kinds of responses. The use of the latter kind of software use warrants at most a warning.
I did the same... I also note that the website has virtually NO email communication points. I find this epecially entertaining considering they have a whole page devoted to the Communication Office and Media Center office... and yet NOT ONE email contact point.
Says reams about the state of mind at this place.
I suspect they're going to have a LOT of trouble attracting any technical talent for a while with this kind of anti-intellectual arrogant jerk management.
That said, the firing was probably justified IF they had a strong policy against unauthorized software... but Tom's remarks were completely out of line and probably actionable.
One - the guy was fired, and he's 63; many organizations attempt to get rid of people before retirement, because then the person doesn't get the full package. They were probably looking for a reason, and this was it.
Two - When media says "computer server", it doesn't have to be a "server" in the sense that slashdotters think. Media doesn't know; this could've been a sparc 10 used to generate a report or something.
this isn't a sig. i type this (including the two dashes), every time i post, just to make it look like a sig.
Firing this guy is severe and unwarranted. A simple warning should have been enough.
Since he's a state employee, I hope his union takes up the case and files a grievance.
Also note that some places may pay more for electricity than you do. Here in Austin, TX, the first 500 kW/month is relatively cheap, then the next 1000 kW/month is about twice as much, and the rest is even more. My average price per kWh works out to about $0.10, but using more power costs me more like $0.12 per kWh. (Also, the electric company shows a nice profit, which goes into the city coffers to pay for libraries and such. It's like another tax.)
As a general rule of thumb, when you try to use real world numbers and math to show that somebody else's estimate is way off, it's a good idea to use figures that don't agree with theirs quite so closely :)
Assuming that a single person owns three desktop computers, and is a pretty typical user, and leaves them all on 24/7, I'll bet their cpus are idle over 95% of the time, unless he runs something like a fancy screensaver or Seti. So `completely idle' is pretty close to the truth. Actually, it's also possible they were all (or maybe two) turned off when not used, but now are left on to run GRID, and that'll increase the power usage greatly. And if he lives somewhere hot, the extra heat generated will require more air conditioning to keep cool. Sounds like he got off cheap at $20/month, doesn't it?"His tenure at ODJFS has demonstrated once again that he knows how to bring the best of his employees out."
Most state government employees can easily file a grievance to challenge any termination. No lawyers or representation is usually necessary, but just to be safe he might want some.
If this firing were challenged in my state, especially considering the derogatory and defamatory comments issued by this employees boss, a grievance committee would almost certainly give his job back.
I suspect this employee was given no warnings about the conduct for which he was fired. In addition, he probably wasn't violating any direct orders or specific policies. Sure, he was in violation of general policies regarding personal use of computers. But when his boss publically accused him of being crazy, he almost certainly overrode any minor policy violations by the employee.
In my state, the comments made by his boss would have violated any number of state regulations and policies regarding correct termination procedures. And considering that this employee could sue for defamation, I wouldn't be surprised to see his boss actually fired over this.
One might ask why he would want his job back? Certainly he wouldn't want to work for this jerk again. Because state governments are large, and he could immediately apply for a transfer to another agency. One where he would no longer have to work for the ignorant fool that is Tom Hayes.
there are jobs in ohio?
Once upon a time, somebody put the seti@home screensaver on a box that was being used as a server to host a little web app. The client started getting customer complaints about timeouts, so I made a trip to their site because nothing funky showed up on pc-anywhere.
It turned out that when the seti screen server kicked in it starved out IIS. Maybe there are settings to say "run in nice mode" and so forth, but I was less than amused at the time.
Personal hardware, fine - knock yourself out. Server hardware, not such a good idea (unless it is _your_ server hardware).
Maybe the man was a border-line screw-up and this was the last straw. Or maybe he was too close to retirement, lost the political infighting, hit on the manager's wife, who knows.
It does seem, however, that the manager's ignorant attitude towards the SETI project had a strong influence on his firing decision. To be expected from a PHB.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
But every employer I've worked for has made it very clear that using their resources for non job-related business is a no-no.
I suspect Buddy had already pissed off el jefe. After doing that, running SETI on el jefe's computer was just plain stupid. Buddy needed to be fired for stupidity.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Unauthorised software on servers ?
Supervise him clearing his desk and get him escorted out of the building.
Dear Mr. Dachannein,
Regardless of how respected the SETI@Home project may be, those servers were purchased for a reason and running SETI@Home was not it. We find that the employee was vioating policy and his termination was appropriate.
Dear Governor Taft,
I am a taxpayer in your state and, therefore, partially responsible for the funding of this computer. I would rather this computer be used to its fullest potential, and I feel that whenever it sits unused, it is wasting tax-bought resources.
It is common knowledge that computers typically become obsolete before they actually stop working. Therefore, getting as much use out of them as possible before they become obsolete is important. It is the same principle as using any product to its fullest potential before its life cycle is ended. I would assume that, for example, your state cars are not retired while they are still in good shape.
SETI@Home, and other distributed applications, are a good method of using computers when they would otherwise sit unused. The applications are designed to benefit the public (ie, taxpayers), and is therefore a method where the taxpayer dollars are directly beneficial to the taxpayer. In my opinion, running such applications on tax-bought machines should be required.
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
Mr. Hayes demonstrates not only a lack of knowledge on the subject, but also an unwillingness to learn about things he doesn't already know about.
(cue Quentin Tarantino)
Do you see a sign over Mr's Hayes' desk that reads: SETI Scientist? No? Do you know why you don't see that sign? Because being a SETI scientist aint his fucking business.
Seriously though, your letter is well written and such, but every geek has to respect the fact that they like control over what goes on their system. This guy (Hayes) is the head geek in that particular flock, and he said "no". Granted, I don't agree with him being a dick about it, especially in a media outlet, but regardless, it's not his job to "learn about" or become "enlightened to" the concept of SETI@home software. He's put put in charge of a fleet of servers, his bottom line is the integrity of said servers.
Does the presence of SETI software compromize the secutity of those machines? No, probably not. But Charles HAD TO ASK PERMISSON TO PUT IT ON or risk the consequenses. He risked them and got bitten. Bummer.
These are points that I believe and that I have expressed in my email:
1-Publicly insulting someone without any reason was unacceptable.
2-Tom Hayes is a public servant and it makes is act much more critical because he receive is pay from taxpayers.
3-Charles E. Smith is 63 and I think that we should have much more respect for our seniors.
4-I support the SETI project as many other million people and because Tom Hayes as a lack of culture, education and sight, that doesn't give him the right to insult is ex employee and at the same time all supporters of SETI project.
5-They should have give Charles E. Smith a warning; it's not like if he did something with malign intentions. Installing Internet Explorer is probably much more dangerous than installing SETI@home.
6-Tom Hayes should be sacked for is lack of judgement.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
"On some level, every networked computer is a server."
In what way? In most places, workstations are prohibited from sharing disks, they're prohibited from running anything except what management has approved.
What exactly are they "serving" that makes them a server?
To Ohio DJFS:s sf?/base/news/1097228025306530.xml) for one, I am more than a little shocked that a Department Head in the State of Ohio would slander an employee in such a manner. If the quote "I understand his desire to search for intelligent life in outer space, because obviously he doesn't find it in the mirror in the morning" is correct, it is my fondest wish that Mr. Hayes be publicly reprimanded by Governor Taft and removed from his position. Even assuming that Mr. Smith's termination was somehow justified (and unless there is a long history of similar offences, I suspect that it is not) there can be no justification for such remarks to be made, and most CERTAINLY not in public.
Shame on you Mr. Hayes for the discredit you bring to yourself, the employees of DJFS and the office of the governor. Shame.
If there is a more direct way for me to contact Mr. Hayes, I would be glad to use it, but I'm unable to locate it on your web site. With regards to the recent termination of Charles Smith, as publicized in several news articles (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.
Office of the Governor:
Governor Taft,
I am sure you are already aware - or soon will be - of the shameful actions of Tom Hayes, the director of ODJFS with regards to the termination of Charles Smith, a computer programmer on the DJFS staff as chronicled in several news articles (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.s sf?/base/news/1097228025306530.xml), for one. Whether or not Mr. Smith's dismissal is justified (and on the surface it certainly does not appear to be so) the remark attributed to Mr. Hayes following Smith's termination leaves me shocked and aghast. If Mr. Hayes was correctly quoted "I understand his desire to search for intelligent life in outer space, because obviously he doesn't find it in the mirror in the morning" is correct, it is my fondest wish that Mr. Hayes be publicly reprimanded by your office and removed from his position. There can be no justification for such remarks to be made, and most CERTAINLY not in public.
I believe - and certainly hope - that you will hear from the technical and scientific communities, both loudly and publicly, about Mr. Hayes' appalling action. I see no possible way for someone so callous, unthinking and uncaring as Mr. Hayes to serve successfully as the director of an agency like DJFS.
And no, I am not related to Mr. Smith of Ohio...
This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
True dat. My dad works for the State of California, and there is a significant difference in benefits if you retire at the age of 60 instead of 65. Actually the only benefit of working for the State is the benefits; the private sector consistently pays more. Benefits in CA are awesome; 50-90% of your pay for the rest of your LIFE! This guy should definitely sue for age discriminination.
Disclaimer IAADP
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If installing SETI@Home is all he did wrong, I wouldn't have fired him either. I would most certainly have disciplined him and reviewed his permissions/other boxes he's touched. However, I would not have fired him for just that. He made a mistake; point it out to him, admonish him for it, and move on. If he did it again, then I'd send him packing.
Treat those who work for you with respect, especially when you're disciplining them, and yes - even when you're firing them. They're people, goddamn it - treat them like you'd like to be treated.
I'd just like to point out that expecting a salaried employee to work 10+ hours a day and not use the phone/email/web for personal use is immoral.
And there's a difference between a sysadmin who "gets it" and one that's a "fucking ass". If your sysadmin cannot gain the respect of the rest of your employees - to the point where they ignore him and he must constantly harangue them - then it's time to get a new sysadmin. There are plenty out there, and not all are total dicks.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Bah. Half the time the "spec" is merely what the current sysadmin happened to hear about what other people are doing, regardless of need or whether it fixes any supposed problem. Last few times I dared inquire why some weird new IT rule came down from above (in a small company yet), an *explanation* that made little sense was the response.
WHY can't we receive attachments from people? We get application updates that way. Reason....because we could get viruses with them! Ah, but don't we have a required virus scanner checking emails both on the email server AND on the client machines, where we get fired if we don't run the updates as required? Irrelevent. NO ATTACHMENTS! In reality, no reason for it other than the sysadmin got scared.
And the same sysadmins have no compunction about installing and running the same apps that they say no one else is allowed to run. The only difference is that they don't have anyone watching THEM.