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.
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
The chick in HR who's downloaded the "kitty-cat screen saver" spam zombie is doing just fine.
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.
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.
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.
Not if the employee handbook says that's the consequence.
That's just ridiculous. I've seen "employee handbooks" before and they're not the final word on anything. A book means nothing, it's all about what the people in charge are saying.
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.
Sure, but we have no evidence of that whatsover. That only exists in your imagination to justify the harsh treatment of this guy. Please stick to the facts and not what you imagine to be the case.
And yes, I _am_ a sysadmin. He shouldn't have been running the program, but based on what we know firing him and making assholish statements about him in print is going way to far.
AccountKiller
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.