Slashdot Mirror
SF Admin Gives Up Keys To Hijacked City Network
snydeq writes "Jailed IT admin Terry Childs relinquished his hold over San Francisco's multimillion-dollar FiberWAN, handing his administrative passwords over to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who was 'the only person he felt he could trust.' Childs is still being held on $5 million bail for his lockout of the city's FiberWAN, a case that has been called into question since an insider came forward with details about both the network and Childs himself. The case hinges on No Service Password Recovery commands Childs allegedly configured onto several Cisco devices, as well as dial-up and DSL modems the SFPD has discovered that would allow unauthorized connections to the FiberWAN. Childs intends to 'expose the utter mismanagement, negligence, and corruption at DTIS, which if left unchecked, will in fact place the City of San Francisco in danger,' according to his motion. The Department of Telecom and IS has cut 200 of its 350 IT positions since 2000 — pressure that may have contributed to Childs' actions, according to interviews with current and former DTIS staffers. Newsom secured the passwords without first telling the DTIS that he was meeting with Childs."
From my viewpoint, it appears that Mr. Childs wasn't so much a malevolent person as much as he was paranoid and protective. We've all met this admin before. He won't give you any rights that you may need to do your job because you could screw "his computers". I'm not saying what he did was right or legal but he may not be the white cat stroking, maniacally-laughing villain that the initial news reports made him to be.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I guess Newsom is an MCSE/CCNA and therefore is trusted.
This story has a real obvious 'bad guy' in Childs.
Arrogant, supposedly unstable, egotistical.
But there are odd, contrary, little pieces of this tale that intrigue me.
I'd like to see some comprehensive treatment of this tragicomedy written a year from now, when the dust has settled, and Childs' side of the story can be heard as well.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Did anyone else wonder why a SourceForge administrator had the keys to a city's network.
I will not mourn that which I never had to lose. - Unknown
He was just too embarrassed by the password - ibonkedmymom.
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
"Childs intends to 'expose the utter mismanagement, negligence, and corruption at DTIS, which if left unchecked, will in fact place the City of San Francisco in danger,' according to his motion."
The fact that one employee had complete control over the network should be enough of a sign. Of course this is management, so they're all likely still confused on what's going on and need to have another meeting.
Sounds like you have experience with this.
What was the point of holding back for so long now. Now he just lost the last hope for his negotiation.
So Childs pursues the one course of action that is guaranteed to lead to his never being allowed to look after so much as a toaster, never mind his beloved network. Not very smart.
If he believes that the Mayor is going to be reconfiguring the routers he certainly is a nutjob!
simon
The case hinges on No Service Password Recovery commands Childs allegedly configured onto several Cisco devices, as well as dial-up and DSL modems the SFPD has discovered that would allow unauthorized connections to the FiberWAN.
Mr. Paranoid Admin with a God complex had big freakin' huge vulnerabilities on his precious network?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
At least, the guy didn't go to work on his last day of work with a gun, shoot the people and kill himself... He does have some stability issues, but he still has some morale.
I just love the way people judge others they will never meet from tabloid tidbits.
I'm not saying I agree with his methods but we have no idea what really went on here
and if we're talking about 200 IT jobs lost in the last eight years and security
being a joke this guy might end up a hero...and for any of you young goofballs out there
with ass cherry jokes, your pot smoking will more likely get you there...this guy will
be playing tennis and knitting at the very worse...
I just wish we could have proof of age on the Net so we didn't have to tolerate
the "anonymous effect".
Cheers.
End of Line.
Childs in this case acted like most network admins act: just being paranoid and not allowing other people to replace them. It is completly fair that he goes to jail.
If a paranoid monomaniacal prima donna sysadmin holding the network hostage won't do that...
Best Slashdot Co
So...I certainly don't know if this guy is crazy or not, but there are a few things that I am surprised the /. crowd really hasn't bothered with.
1. The problems between IT and Management are so bad across the board that there is a famous cartoon relating these problems. This famous cartoon spawned the "PHB" reference. So...to listen to an IT guy complain of incompetent management shouldn't be a surprise at all. Please everyone, raise your hand if you have been handed complete and utter bullshit requirements or policies that some "PHB" without a technical clue has demanded that you implement. Now...raise your hand if you were stupid enough to EVER give them administrative rights over ANYTHING.
2. The media has a fucking field day with "evil hackers". This is so bad that the world "hacker" now means criminal and hordes of geeks wimpering and moaning about how the media stole the word. So...the media reporting on yet another "evil hacker holding city hostage" should be taken with a grain of salt. Sensationalist crap reported by people that have less than 0 IT understanding to the masses who also have less than 0 IT understanding. Million to one odds says that if they actually reported the more technical facts of this case the ratings would be near 0 and this story would have never gotten to be so high profile.
3. He did give the password to the person at the top of the chain of responsibility for this. Which to me sounds like the most appropriate thing to do. If you are so concerned that everyone is an incompetent fool then your only option is to go straight to the top. Imagine how much trouble this guy would be in if he gave out these passwords to a bunch of corrupt and incompetent folks who did bring the city down? At least this way everything continued functioning.
Finally...and most concerning to me is a quote from the article.
But without access to either Childs' passwords or the backup configuration files, administrators would have to essentially re-configure their entire network, an error-prone and time-consuming possibility, Chase said. "It's basically like playing 3D chess," he said. "In that situation, you're stuck interviewing everybody at every site getting anecdotal stories of who's connected to what. And then you're guaranteed to miss something."
Really...so basically these people didn't document ANYTHING. Because config files or not, rebulding your network if you bothered to document things isn't all that hard, it's just time consuming. But straight from their man there they would be stuck interviewing people for anecdotal stories becaues they were too incompetent to bother documenting the network. Nevermind that they seem to have cut their IT staff from 350 to 100 over the last few years. So it sounds like their IT staff was just the favored bucket to take money from, which is hardly new thinking these days. It amuses me to no end when companies/governments treat their IT staff like overpaid housekeeping, largely unneccessary drains on budgets, and an unimportant support function and then scream bloody murder when the shit hits the fan.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Dont they know the password is "GOD" or "Sex"
Reading a lot of comments about him being a nut job. My question is - what if he isn't? Is it possible that as a administrator of a SAN/Network, he saw some significant security issues, and when he presented them to his supervisors was slammed for reporting the problem -- including being fired? I know from experience the feeling: Management does not like to know that they've screwed up, and will fight kicking and screaming rather that admit that they've done something wrong. For me -- most recently this includes bogus Business Requirements, and critical Business Requirements that are not being met. I've found significant security holes in the where I currently work. Presented the problems to management. The response - don't call use, we'll call you.
It'd be interesting to know the length and characters involved in the passwords. And if it would have been possible to brute force them (within reasonable time)or use rainbow tables. I'm guessing maybe not.
"Save the network. Save the world."
...Couldn't the guy have just MARRIED the computer system, then claimed that it couldn't testify against him under Spousal Privilege?
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Adter all, "ILoveGoATSex100Times@nighT"... well... what can he say?
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
There appears to be a very fine line between a ransoming malcontent and a fanatical whistleblower. I wonder with which brush he will be painted with when all the dust has settled.
If he trusts a mayor that has no problems violating state laws when it suits his purpose, he has a lot to learn...
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
You take an extremely intelligent(genius level eccentric?) and over work them. Their work ethic is an issue in and of itself as they take ownership and pride to a fault. You combine that with maybe some social skill deficit and a bad temper. What you get is a time-bomb in any respect. You add in that his management created a catalyst with the lack of competent support to bleed off some of the stress and BOOM ! I think the city should take some of the blame. Their audit and procedures were also to blame for this breach of continuity. There are a lot of situations in government where the entire chain of command would be canned, especially in the military.
The more I read about this story, the more it reminds me of "The Fountainhead". This lone, brilliant man fighting the mediocrity of committees and less achieved managers. The government is NO place for a person like this. He'd be much better off running his own company with no bosses.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
If he's going to go to prison anyway (which is a sure thing after what he did) then why not be able to sit there with a little grin on your face knowing that you really screwed them over.
now he's going to prison and he didn't even get much out of it.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I would love to learn the word(s) that held SF hostage.
Sourceforge was held hostage? GAAAAAAAAAAAH! *Jumps out the window*
you really can't claim the his knowledge of the password as property of the city and access to the network was never blocked (only to changing his configurations). City could have rebooted an used a new configuration at any time.
lets face it there really is no precedent for charging someone for not giving up a password.
That's my guess.
Afer all until 5 minutes ago, it served me well on Slashdot for >10 years (or hgowever long I have had this account).
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Political_Correctness ?
will in fact place the City of San Francisco in danger
Well, there's already enough danger thanks to Mayor Gavin Newsom's policies.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/21/BA5C11SK2S.DTL&type=printable
It never occurred to this brain dead megabozo that when you say "Come one come all to our sanctuary. We'll hide you!" that there will be bad people to take advantage of that? A complete and utter tool.
An anonymous source is worthless without independent, named source verification.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
As if we don't already know the city of SF is horribly mismanaged and grossly out of touch with the rest of the planet.
I swear I didn't know it was loaded...
So he gave the key to the city to the mayor.
Epic lulz
in b4 rickroll
"Although Childs was not the head architect for the city's FiberWAN network, he is the one."
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
What was the password?
I'm guessing it was password. Or if not password, then 12345.
This space unintentionally left blank.
They fired 200 IT staff?
And I bet they expected everything to keep on running just the same.
He did the right thing. He gave the passwords to the guy at the top. The one who has the least chance of being a dimwitted middle-management mediocrity whose only purpose in life is to keep his job and cover his or her rear end.
If the recipient of said passwords has any sense, he'll look past the nuttiness of this guy and get an independent assessment of the IT department, with particular emphasis on who made these decisions and why.
Cheers!
Why does Childs remind me of Mordac: Denier of IT Services from the Dilbert cartoon?
I suppose it took that much time to bring some specialist from Russia ;)
If only the City had watched this movie, they would know how dangerous it is to ignore someone's complaints about lack of security, then firing them and not doing anything about the lack of security your former security expert brought to your attention (the former security expert you fired, who knows all about your security vulnerabilities and how to exploit them, and who now has lots of free time, since, you know, you fired them).
I'm not saying this guy was justified in attacking the city. I'm just saying you have to protect yourself, because making something illegal doesn't protect you from it, it just means the person who does it will be held responsible after the fact. Doesn't bring back your car stereo or un-murder your loved one, and it shouldn't have brought-back the passwords.
Eggs
Milk
Bread
Cat Litter
Soda
this may be like Stephen Heller the Diebold Whistle blower where they charged him with a felony for being a Whistle blower.
This may be like that the IT guy finds out about some thing the PHB find out and try to can him and then when they do that tell him to work for free to give up the network passwords and config.
Let's try this one instead:
You're responsible for maintaining a nuclear reactor. Your manager, who has no idea how to actually runs the reactor comes in and demands to be given all of the necessary keys and passwords to the reactor. The reactor is currently working flawlessly, and there is no obvious reason for your manager to need access to the system.
Do you:
A. realize that this could be very bad for the company, and protect the company by refusing to turn over access to an unqualified person?
B. turn over access to the access to an unqualified person, and just hope that they don't do anything which results in anyone's death, or your working 16hr shifts for the next 3 months straight.
I would argue that choosing "B" could be criminally negligent, and that A is the better choice, however, he should also immediately go to HR and explain why he's violating the order.
In this particular case, he might've saved the city of San Francisco millions of dollars in lost productivity from someone getting access who had no clue what they were doing.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
unconstitutional state law.
We should be able to work this out. Maybe we can just agree that you get to keep your handguns and I get to get married.
# (/.);;
- : float -> float -> float =
1....2....3....4....5.
there is a difference between breaking the law by, say, snorting coke on your desk, and breaking the law by opposing an unconstitutional law.
Knowing how many government IT departments act (blame EVERY failure on the guy that was just fired or left) - his actions could be considered a protective act, of not just the network, but his reputation. As odd as it sounds, he just guaranteed his exit interview was with the mayor, not some HR peeon that has no clue what means when the network fails. In doing so he has protected his network (which ran flawlessly without other folks getting in), his reputation will have to wait until his day in court. The city of SF may wish to avoid that . . .
cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
To have someone ELSE give the "key to the city" to the mayor?
First off, the "case called into question since an insider came forward" bit is bunk. I read the insider's article - there was NOTHING in there that justified what Childs did. Hell, quotes from the article include "Ultimately he has no one to blame but himself" and "As for Terry's character, I can imagine this happening. He takes great personal and professional pride in his work -- to a fault. He can be very defensive if someone suggests there's something wrong with the way his network is set up, and that's been a problem for us (as his customer) a couple of times. Terry has a bad temper."
Second, this man is in no way justified in what he did. Threatening the infrastructure of a city (especially one as large as SF) is inexcusable. If you have problems with the management, you go to a newspaper. If you think the management is criminal, you call the local prosecutor's office. You don't hold up critical government functions. Yes, the management should have taken steps before now to ensure Childs wasn't the only one with access to the network. Childs' response was that of a spoiled, immature brat who doesn't comprehend that administration != ownership. He deserves jailtime - and if you don't think so, ask any SF government employee who might not have gotten a paycheck, or any courthouse that might have had to postpone hearings.
I agree completely, I mean who in their right mind would object to anyone snorting coke on their desk?
How many laws have you violated when it suited your purpose? I'd be willing to bet you do it a lot more often than a public person like a Mayor.
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
And for the management types who are reading this, start rotating your admins among different projects, at least annually. Take the Linux expert and put him in charge of Active Directory; take the Windows expert and put him in charge of the SAN; take the SAN guy and put him in charge of the Cisco and Foundry routers. Shake things up, force people to work outside of their comfort zones. Not only will it encourage your staff to constantly learn (which is a good thing with geeks, we like learning), ...
I think I worked at your company. The trained Linux admins hated the AD infrastructure, the Windows guys couldn't log into the *nix boxes, and some quack kept making small *minor* changes to the Cisco boxes that took down the whole network. (hmmm - we probably don't need this option - "Emulate ???? bug" - now off - hey why did I lose access to the EU office?)
Rotating Admins is a novel idea, but a better idea is to keep them closer to their areas of expertise.
Man this story is getting interesting. This guy could potentially be spun into a hero; last of a dying breed; a lone man against the corrupt machine. Someone secure the movie rights. It could be like Office Space meets Serpico.
I guess Newsom is an MCSE/CCNA and therefore is trusted.
It's actually Newsom's perfect hair that generates a trust enhancement field. Terry Childs saw through this, but recognized the hair as a superintelligent alien symbiont that is on our planet to save us from ourselves, so he gave the passwords directly to the hair.
This sounds like a project that Michael Bay could sufficiently butcher (much like he did to Transformers). I say hire him and ride on his coattails so that it has a $50 Million budget and releases to 2,000 screens nationwide in 2010.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
Putting your standard Windows expert in charge of a SAN? Bad fucking idea. Do you have any idea how little most server admins/desktop support guys know about networking? If you're lucky, they'll be at the level of a CCNA, but this is not the norm.
Maybe he agreed with what the mayor did in that case? Just because you think he was wrong doesn't mean everyone else does. Rose Parks broke the law, too. Good luck finding anyone reputable to agree that she did the wrong thing.
Martin Luther King once said, "An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."
It was also a law that the California Supreme Court later declared unconstitutional, so it seems like in retrospect it was a pretty good call.
The trained Linux admins hated the AD infrastructure
Professionals don't let their emotions dictate their responses to a given platform.
Windows guys couldn't log into the *nix boxes
Professionals know how to look up the answers, or get them from subject matter experts, to even the simplest of problems.
ome quack kept making small *minor* changes to the Cisco boxes that took down the whole network. (hmmm - we probably don't need this option - "Emulate ???? bug" - now off - hey why did I lose access to the EU office?)
Professionals don't toy with production to find out what does what, they set up a lab for that purpose.
Rotating Admins is a novel idea, but a better idea is to keep them closer to their areas of expertise.
Then why is the military able to do it without suffering outages? Guess they have more professionals than most IT shops.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Your rememberance reminds me of another scene, but from "Atlas Shrugged". When John Galt is being tortured with shocks from an electronic device, and it breaks down. Galt is the only one capable of fixing it, and calmly proceeds to explain (to those torturing him) how to fix it.
Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe the computer became self aware? And because of this it started think and reason. Then it started try to take over and all this poor guy did was try to play Tic-Tack-Toe? I mean, that could happen, right?
--
My parents went to Slashdot and all I got was this lousy sig.
Rose Parks broke the law, too.
I think you meant Rosa Parks, unless of course you were actually referring to the Outkast song, and in that case my mistake.
Scientists now say the future will be far more futuristic than originally believed
I *am* the boss, you ignorant clod! ;-)
Don't think much of yourself, do you ?
If I was working on designing and building a network, and I had it all up and running perfectly, should I destroy it because my boss tells me he has a better way ? What if I was a db admin who had already implemented a whole organisations internet requirements using (my|postgre)sql when a retarded buzzword compliant boss decided I should use access instead ? Should I delete everything and re-implement using access, or should I keep what I've done and start again separately with the access, so that when it all falls to shit I haven't lost anything ?
It's hard to implement two network designs concurrently, so it becomes one or the other. Why suffer the complete waste of time involved by starting again for the sake of a damn fool manager ? Better to hold out for as long as you can, so that there is a chance of getting the correct solution adopted. If they want to sack you for NOT doing something detrimental to the system, then that's their own stupid fault. If you do it their way and get fired anyway (because their way doesn't work), what have you gained ?
This guy wasn't holding anybody to ransom, making extortionate demands of his employers, or killing fluffy kittens. All he has done is refuse to give the keys to someone else's Ferrari (which he is ultimately responsible for) to a 14 year old crackhead joyrider.
This seems to me to highlight the difference between good employees and time wasters. A good employee will always have the interests of the employer at heart, and will assume ownership of problems using those interests as a basis for operation. A time waster turns up every day, does their "job" to the letter, no more, but frequently less. They don't care about the end product or the delivery of such. They just do the hours and take the money.
I know which camp I fall into, as I am used to being an employer and an employee. If I give someone a job, I would prefer they did it intelligently to achieve the best result as outlined in the requirements, not just do what I tell them, because if I have to tell you what is required for every little nuance, then I may as well have done the job myself.
Would you really just hand over the keys to a system that you spent years building, to someone who outranks you but has no idea of the power contained in having access to those keys ? For all you know they might leave the passwords on a post-it note on their monitor.
Final point - the civilian sector is NOT the army. You don't HAVE to comply with idiots above you, grow a pair and stand up for what's right. If you ARE right, then nothing too bad will happen. If you bend over for anybody with a title then you might get a title in the future, but at the cost of having any respect, self or otherwise. While it is only a movie, Crimson Tide demonstrates the principle quite well.
Yes, Rosa Parks... 'twas a typo.
Maybe we can just agree that you get to keep your handguns and I get to get married.
I don't get the connection. Are you suggesting that people who are pro-gun are automatically anti-gay?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The very problem this psycho was railing against, he was a cause and symptom. Ironic.
Bearded Dragon
I mean who in their right mind would object to anyone snorting coke on their desk?
I would. Everybody knows that the best way to snort coke is off a hookers ass. Didn't you learn anything in college? ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Bingo! You stay out my life, I stay out yours. And more specifically, I don't understand why this type of compromise is not discussed more. It seems like the most rational and intelligent way to solve the impasse.... Oh wait, that's why.... :-)
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
Another chapter in a very cautionary tale regarding workplace politics. This is how playing a good political game from the bottom always ends badly. Very, very badly.
SFPD .... that would allow unauthorized connections to the FiberWAN ...
This factoid, bereft of any detail whatsoever permanently casts the Admin as the Black Hat. He manages a WAN so of course there will be undocumented, but approved (by someone somewhere) devices accessing the WAN. But the admin has no method of getting his case heard by the court of public opinion. None.
It fact has yet to be established that the WAN was being held ransom or otherwise. The admin has yet to be heard from!
I'm not arguing for this Admin, because it seems like he committed quite a few wrongs along the way. But this is how fragile one's system admin career actually is.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I agree with many others that point out the gaps in the headlines. The so called "rest" of the story. This circumstance didn't just develop in a week. This case is a classic story of I/T service immaturity - which could be caused by dastardly BOFH's or equally by incompetent management failing to initiate/fund a proper plan. Or both.
Once you strip away the glorius certifications and acronyms that give you credibility, all that's left is your integrity. Terry Childs has gone to jail to keep his intact. So he's either really stupid or really right.
Within the linked article is a link to the original InfoWorld "scoop" that contains copy from a confidential source. That copy contains statements that back Childs as having proposed and promoted an I/T security policy, which would be a first step toward process maturity (having a process in the first place).
My guess is when the dust settles, the story will be as follows:
I think you think too highly of yourself.
If I was working on designing and building a network, and I had it all up and running perfectly, should I destroy it because my boss tells me he has a better way?
You should take the steps I outlined above:
1: Document your objections.
2: Get your boss to acknowledge those objections, then document that acknowledgment.
3: Do what you're told. When things blow up, use your documentation to cover your butt (and fry your boss's).
How hard is that to comprehend?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
He should have written up his side of the story and handed it over to the local papers.
Then, offer to hand the admin passwords over to the city as a position code based upon the text of his story as printed.
Have gnu, will travel.
It's the folks inland that think that how other people get married is going to effect their own marriage. It's how the unconstitutional law was voted on and passed.
How often do married couples end up in divorced in this state, like 2/3rd the time? Seems like the institution of marriage was damaged long before the gays got interested in the idea.
Of course people can go through the more complex process of amending the California constitution and make gay marriage illegal for real. The anti-gay lobbyists just got lazy and took a short cut, which proved to ultimately be a waste of time and money. They probably should have gone for an amendment first thing.
I'm not anti-gay or pro-gun, I'm just anti-gavin (and anti SF politics, that city is screwed up)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Actually Newsome was practicing social hacking, which geek Childs, in his technical arrogance, never expected.
My brain is overly lubricated
Hello!!!
This guy is a criminal. Straight up. He is a hostage taking criminal. This is a person who cannot separate "job" from "life". As has been alluded to, I would not be surprised at all if he does have mental health issues. A sane person would have just switched jobs and moved on.
This is a municipal network owned by a government organization, it is not his private property. And while he may have a sense of pride and ownership in his work product, he misses the point entirely - he is an EMPLOYEE. He is compensated for work product by someone who owns and has the rights to the complete and sum total of his work output. This is *not* his network. Repeat - this is not his network. Period.
I am glad they got the keys from him, he will either be going to jail or a mental hospital, but no business in their right mind should ever hire this person to do anything that requires trust.
He should, and I predict he will do jail time for this.
Right, while we are at it lets have help desk staff do the architecture and programming! Some of them must have used at least VB before.
Its idiots like you that get promoted into management and ruin a business, if only we could rotate management into janitorial duties.
One of his precious illegal aliens that he gives sanctuary to just murdered a man and his two sons because their car was in his way. Fuck Newsom. Fuck him to hell.
This is ridiculous. Yes, the cops screwed up by letting a violent criminal go. But that has nothing to do with a good sanctuary policy, which improves public safety.
The main thing cops need is information. What crimes are happening. Who's committing them. Where to find them. If people are afraid to talk to the cops, then cops don't get the information they need. If you want to fight crime among illegal aliens, and especially if you want to go after gangs like MS-13, you need the illegal aliens to be willing to talk to the cops.
As a San Francisco resident, I know there are a variety of illegal aliens here, and that nothing the city government does will change that. I want those people to feel safe taking their kids to the doctor. I want them to feel safe letting their kids go to school. And I especially want them to feel safe calling the cops. The immigrant gangs spend most of their time around other immigrants, legal and illegal.
Only if immigrants feel comfortable talking to the police without fear that they or their friends will get deported will we have a chance of beating the gangs.
He'll still have problems taking his job back from jail. While they may have wrongfully terminated him, his actions post termination are criminal. So a civil court (or the HR department) might determine he needs to be given his job back, but he'll be too busy in a jail cell to be able to get it.
Regardless of anything else, you don't have a right to lock your employer out of their systems. Goes double when you work in the public sector and you are ultimately screwing over the whole public. You aren't obligated to help them in any way after you leave, but you can't lock the computers down and refuse to give them the password.
Same sort of deal with keys to the building, or the like. When you leave your employment you are under no obligation to tell your employer what keys go to what doors, where things are stored or the like (though it's a good idea if you want any kind of reference from them). However you are not welcome to refuse to hand over the keys, especially if they are the only set.
More or less you don't have to help your employer, but you can't do something to try and harm them and yes, locking down computers and not handing over the password is harming them. Remember the systems belong to them, not you.
Second, this man is in no way justified in what he did. Threatening the infrastructure of a city (especially one as large as SF) is inexcusable.
You're missing an important word here. It's not "this man is in no way justified in what he did", it's "this man would be in no way justified in what he is alleged to have done". There are two completely different stories being promulgated here. In one story, Childs set up boobytraps and backdoors in the system and threatened the infrastructure of the city. In the other story, Childs made an error in judgement in the configuration of the routers, and refused to give the password to people he was not sure were authorized to have it.
Where the truth is between these extremes, I don't know, but at this point he is only alleged to have threatened the infrastructure of the city... and after what happened in Intel vs. Randal Schwartz I think it's important to keep that word in mind.
You're right. Snorting coke on your desk doesn't effect anybody else. That's an unconstitutional law.
Keeping a network that you don't own hostage is serious, and impacts other people.
I don't respond to AC's.
It wasn't unconstitutional when he handed out the marriage licenses, thus he was breaking the law. Why they didn't throw his ass in jail for giving out illegal government documents is beyond me. What if the mayor of some city decided to hand out 'slave licenses' and try to pass them off as real government documents?
BTW, I actually have no problem with gay marriage, I just hate the way Mayor Newsom and the courts have basically told the voters of California that their votes and wishes don't mean squat to them.
some people would say that drug laws are unconstitutional. But let's consider medical marijuana. California (and other states) have declared it legal. The federal government has declared it illegal. If you take a doctor approved bong hit, are you opposing an unconstitutional law?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
You can't be a dragonslayer (a hero) if there are no dragons to slay.
1) Make your city a 'sanctuary city' for criminals
2) Release a violent gang member (here illegally) so he can shoot a dad and two sons
3) ???
4) Swoop in like Batman, retrieve the codes, Hero!!!!
Now we know what step 3 is, to demonize some competant IT employee.
Lock Terry Childs up, charge him with 4 fellony counts, and a 5 million dollar bail!!!
What is the threat here, that he'll roam the streets and garot children with the white cord from his iPod???
Hero indeed.
0. Quit and get a REAL job.
Honestly, who would want to go to the trouble of fighting his or her immediate supervisors in the presence of some higher-up who really doesn't give a shit? Any low level worker will simply be fired out of hand if things break the way you describe. It's expensive and time consuming to sue for wrongful termination.
"Cemeteries are filled with people who thought they were indispensable."
That's one of my favorite quotes from the Nine Princes of Amber series.
I often recall it when I see certain types of techies.
"I challenge anyone to invest so much in any project and then happily see it messed up by people who are less competent."
Come on, this is just silly. Lawyers invest untold hours of time in deals that blow up. Doctors perform near-miraculous surgeries on patients who immediately revert to the damaging behaviors that created the need for surgery in the first place. Teachers bang their heads against the wall trying to teach students who don't care a whit about learning . . .
Maybe the guy needs psychological help badly. If that's the case, I hope he gets it--even though the psychologist's work on him may all turn out to be in vain . . .. If he's half-normal, though, he should start acting like a professional and not like a baby.
Are you suggesting that people who are pro-gun are automatically anti-gay?
Seems to work that way. However the reality is that a large number of you'all, seem willing to write off other people's freedoms (both those that are and those that should be) just to be able to protect yourself if the government decides to start treating you the way that you allow it to treat others.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
The system works, so he didn't break it.
While they can certainly fire him for insubordination, I'm not exactly sure what he could really be charged with.
.
This has the flavor of a Geek defense.
Too clever by half, I suspect.
I am not sure exactly sure where it all goes wrong. I am pretty sure that it does go all wrong.
Because clearly not divulging the admin password to a network that continues to operate normally is exactly equivalent to premeditated murder. How blind of us not to see that.
It was unconstitutional when he handed out the licenses, it just hadn't been ruled that way by a court yet.
i definitely don't agree with criminal charges against Childs. and I think some of the negative commenters against Childs still don't get the real story. He didn't hijack anything, or cause anyone to be locked out from using their resources, in fact he made steps to ensure the reliablity of that resource to his customers, which in fact is the residents of the city of san francisco. Since critical systems were using his network, lives in fact could be lost by network down time by any mistakes of other engineers. 911 systems police communications and other critical city services were utilizing this network structure. This is not exactly comparable to a corporate environment. So yes i could agree with his choice not to allow access even at managers request, until the necessary policies and trained personnel were in place. The situation as a whole is just as much his managers fault as his, and it seems like he made some efforts with management to get policies put into place which were rebuffed. Its almost like a police officer getting arrested for pulling over the mayor of his city for drunk driving.
Yeah, it's like he thinks he has some kind of obligation to stand up against something that is morally wrong. It's like when voters agreed slavery was OK, but assholes, public servant assholes even, went around illegally freeing slaves.
I hate douchebags like that.
IANYL, IANAL, TINLA, IANAMD, IANAP,
My GOD! Thats the same combination I use on my luggage!
Professionals don't let their emotions dictate their responses to a given platform.
True. Professionals also don't tell professionals from other fields how to do their jobs.
Professionals know how to look up the answers, or get them from subject matter experts, to even the simplest of problems.
This is circular. The professionals referenced in this thread ARE the subject matter experts - you've just moved them to areas where they have no expertise.
Professionals don't toy with production to find out what does what, they set up a lab for that purpose.
Good point. I presume this includes "professional" managers who wouldn't dream of toying with production staffing without testing its effects in a controlled environment.
Then why is the military able to do it without suffering outages? Guess they have more professionals than most IT shops.
You obviously haven't served, so let me tell you how it really works. Most specialist positions are contracted out. Multiple "specialists" in different MOSs, AFSCs, etc are needed to build/maintain systems in deployed environments, and most systems that are designed for deployment are preconfigured to "plug and play" in comparison with civilian systems that don't always have to work the first time every time.
He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson
From what I get, this network is not your d-link to a bunch of PCs.
He knew it was VERY complex, VERY critical, it worked and was secure; and would be unmanageble or worse for others unskilled to access without good oversight (which from the article, seems to be no one but him). So he did what he could do. Lock it down.
I don't know if he tried to get assistance... I'm feeling either there was a personality conflict with management or they kept playing the no/low budget card when he asked.
Either way I think he was feeling kind of trapped, and would get the blame when something was messed up by someone else, by giving the 'keys' to the mayor (and probably stating his position) at least he knows he is OK now if anyone starts pointing fingers when/if they mess it up.
Stottlemeyer called Monk in and he solved the case.
Did anyone else think this when they read the article?
reboot the router
press break during boot
confreg 2142
put in new password or nuke the startup
confreg 2102
reload router
What am I missing? It's easy to root a Cisco router if you have physical access to it.
Sometimes the votes and wishes of people really don't mean squat. It's not that they don't mean squat to "them" (the mayor and the courts), it's that they don't mean squat, period. When they don't mean squat, it's probably best that someone tell the people, just generally because information flow is good. To go along with your "slave license" idea (hey, that new coat looks great on Godwin's Law!) the people of California could vote on a ballot initiative instating slavery, and it would get shot down just as surely as the mayor's slave licenses.
Actually, more than in slavery itself, you could find plenty of parallels to this sort of thing in the history of 20th century American racial discrimination and the civil rights movement. A lot of leaders and courts made decisions that had nothing to do with majority wishes. Now we basically all agree that segregation was wrong; the leaders led.
True. Professionals also don't tell professionals from other fields how to do their jobs.
What other field? These are all IT jobs, I'm not talking about putting the accountants in charge of the firewalls. I'm not even suggesting you rotate the programmers and the admins, those are distinct fields. But if a Linux expert can't get up to speed on managing AD, or a Windows expert can't get up to speed on running Cisco firewalls, then they're both entirely too specialized to be truly useful to an organization.
You obviously haven't served
12 year veteran of the USNR. Served in both Gulf Wars. Left as an IT1 (Information Systems Technician 1st Class). When I was a Leading Petty Officer for my division, I would routinely rotate guys from one workcenter to another, to make sure they knew the systems in each one. Additionally, to be promoted in the Navy, you have to be certified that you know how all of the systems on your ship/unit/station work together. So I don't know which branch you were in, but in the Navy at least cross training is taken very seriously.
To reiterate: just because something is hard to do, doesn't mean it's not worthwhile.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
... and the super secret password was "password".
He should have kept them out forever. As for trusting Newsom, thats hilarious. If you read th enews you would know that Newsom is one of the few people you should absolutely not trust.
And for the management types who are reading this, start rotating your admins among different projects, at least annually. Take the Linux expert and put him in charge of Active Directory; take the Windows expert and put him in charge of the SAN; take the SAN guy and put him in charge of the Cisco and Foundry routers.
That's one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time. The only thing that's going to accomplish is to let you spend more time interviewing new employees, because sorry, no, I'm NOT an AD guy, I don't WANT to be an AD guy, you HAVE an AD guy, and I don't want that job. That's why I took _this_ job. Rotating people into something unrelated to their specialty is just going to generate thrash, and your smart ones will leave, leaving you with the ones who are too dumb or lazy to take the effort to find a better boss.
Shake things up, force people to work outside of their comfort zones. Not only will it encourage your staff to constantly learn (which is a good thing with geeks, we like learning), it will make sure your documentation is top notch since everyone knows they're going to depend on that documentation to do their jobs.
ROFL. You can't really be serious. Documentation always lags in admin jobs. If you're overworking your techs, they won't write docs because they're going from one fire to another, and may have the best intentions of going back to document what they did, but, by that time, they're on to the fire after that, and never do. And I really can't even imagine how forcing me to change what job I'm doing, would inspire me to be _better_ about writing documentation.
All of you young admins out there: learn from his mistakes, and don't repeat them.
That much is true. You don't own the hardware, but it's good that you care about it as if you do - when appropriate. Do I refer to them as "my servers"? Hell yes. My pager goes off, I am accountable for them, so they're mine. And at 5:00 PM I hand them over to second shift, and they become their servers. If I leave, I care enough about them that I'll leave good handoff notes, for the servers formerly known as mine.
As far as your forced job rotation plan and your thoughts that it'd make for happier people and better documentation, sorry, but that just isn't going to work. The geek mindset is "Here's something interesting, I want to work on that", not "Boss is forcing me to do something entirely outside of my area of interest, woo-hoo!"
Trying to make yourself "indispensable" does NOT increase your job security... now get out there and document your cryptic code!
I think you could find a correlation is some parts of this country, yes.
I think he is saying both are protected under the constitution and we should quite trying to change it to suit our beliefs.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
or when the courts thought that abortion should be legal?
oh, that's right, only the liberals get to play the moral superiority card, the other side is always wrong no matter how disgusting the practice.
abortion = slavery
Managers telling admins (not techs, but WAN admins) to rotate annually is a case of one professional telling another. Cross training to improve skills is one thing, but even in the Navy when the crap hit the fan I'm sure you put the best person for the job on the project. Also, there were no contractor specialists on your ships? Your sailors designed, installed, and maintained the network from the ground up? Cross training at a low level is far simpler than at a high one. Just a guess, but I'm thinking your computer systems officer or whatever you had wasn't rotated annually to the radio shop to expand his horizons. The roles and expectations of a sailor, soldier, or airman (4 yrs active, 4 reserve btw) is very different than a sysadmin responsible for a citywide WAN. I see the point you're trying to make and concede the argument, but I don't think it's quite as black & white as you seem to be implying.
He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson
sure it effects everyone else. There's a large infrastructure supporting the illegal coke industry from slavers in the source countries, to drug runners to dealers and junkies in the destination countries. It causes murder, loss of liberty, loss of property and all sorts of terrible things.
Or are you one of those people that thinks that coke isn't addictive and won't ruin your life?
Now if you grew your own leaves, extracted the product in your barn and snorted it with friends at a party, then sweet. And you also won't have anyone else to blame if it causes problems.
Stop using bad analogies. No one running any nuclear reactor in the US could be applied to your analogy.
It is only another mental grain of salt on the anti-nuclear ignorance pile; which is big enough, thank you very much.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Alright who forgot to cavity search the guy? Oh you think because he's a geek he doesn't pose a physical threat right? Well that's profiling and it's wrong! Sure it was an iPhone this time but it could just as easily have been a gun! You damn well better check all the crevices, holes, folds and facial hair on the next geek that goes to prison!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I'm not a guy-who's-paid-to-figure-these-things-out, but I think that if two nuke capable nations started a conflict today it's doubtful anyone would launch an all-out retaliation that would result in mutually assured destruction. That would just be silly.
I'm wondering about your sig. What exactly is your problem with people electing their senators directly as opposed to the state legislature doing so? Now if you were talking about the 16th Ammendment, I would probably be all for it.
I mean who in their right mind would object to anyone snorting coke on their desk?
I would. Everybody knows that the best way to snort coke is off a hookers ass. Didn't you learn anything in college? ;)
It brings new meaning to the phrase, ``Just say no to crack.'' Somehow I think it wouldn't be as successful of a campaign with all the pr0n and ass licking in the adult film industry.
I fail to see the connection between forced uncompensated labor and ending a pregnancy.
Or is it that all things you don't like are equal?
if so, asparagus = arrogant douchebags = Windows assinging drive letters to removable storage that have already been assighed to network shares.
Or, IOW, Windows tastes like asparagus.
0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
Just a guess, but I'm thinking your computer systems officer or whatever you had wasn't rotated annually to the radio shop to expand his horizons.
Um, the Commo WAS my division officer. My work centers included LAN support, WAN support, satellite comms, crypto, radio comms, desktop support, and myriad other C4I systems. So not only were the computer guys also the radio guys, the jobs were considered to be interchangeable and everyone was expected to fill all of those roles, as needed. Sure, we had guys who were better at some jobs than others, and when we went to GQ the best guys were at their assigned stations. But short of that, everyone was expected to work in different work centers on a regular basis.
Not to mention that the officers were rotated in their jobs even more often than the enlisted, and much more drastically. My first division officer started working with us as an ensign; by the time he made lieutenant, he had served as the ship's legal officer, the damage control officer, and the assistant navigator. He managed to learn all of those roles just fine.
And no, there were no civilian contractors working with us, except for rarely training on new systems. The Navy doesn't get the luxury of the Air Force in contracting out all of their jobs to the lowest bidder, sailors are expected to work for a living.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
There's a measure on the November ballot to add a state constitutional amendment. While a year ago it would have stood a very good chance of passing, many observers think that it's now doomed to fail, seeing as how gays are getting married and the state hasn't yet fallen into the Pacific.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I've always encouraged my people to remind themselves that it's not THEIR network, it's THE COMPANY'S network. When you start losing sight of this, you also lose sight of your larger goal (serving the company, not your own ego).
Not long ago, I encountered an engineer from another company who kept referring to "my network" when he talked about his company's network. He was a pain in the ass to work with and most employees at his company hated him (because he had become so protective of something he regarded as his baby). His protectiveness got in the way of his company's much larger goals and needs. I would have never tolerated someone like him on my team. But apparently his boss was too weak or afraid to come down on him.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
If the courts hadn't ruled it unconstitutional yet, the how was it unconstitutional at the time?
By your logic, I can declare ANYTHING unconstitutional right now, since, you know, some court in the future MIGHT rule it unconstitutional.
I'm not sure how screwed up it is compared to other large cities - I'd argue that L.A. is much more fucked in the head, considering its traffic problems and refusal to implement significant public transportation.
Except you forgot the part about "willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment". The SF Mayor did NOT accept any penalty.
I never said anything about liberal vs. conservative. What I did say is this:
slavery = voters voting to take away the legal rights and protections of a group of people based on their skin color.
"protection of marriage" = voters voting to take away the legal rights and protections of a group of people based on their sexual orientation.
This country affords married couples tax breaks and significant legal rights and protections. What "protection of marriage" is basically saying is: "you are different and we don't like you: therefore you do not get the same perks we get."
In fact, it is the conservatives that should be fighting AGAINST "protection of marriage." You know: KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES! Isn't that what a true conservative believes?
Obviously slavery is much more extreme than "protection of marriage," but the premise is the same. I just used slavery as an example because superdave80 did...and it fit my point much better than it fit his.
IANYL, IANAL, TINLA, IANAMD, IANAP,
illegal
If you examine closely my quote of you above you will find an embedded clue to point you in the direction of the primary reason why the product you mention has so much blood surrounding it.
Back when we put it in popular fizzy drinks, no one was motivated to slaughter for it. No more than any other legitimate business anyway. And there wasn't enough profit after tax to fund entire armies.
But now there is.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
You work there? I work elsewhere, but it sounds the same. Exactly the same ... maybe this is an Enterprise Virus spreading and infecting all around the globe!
That's nice, he got to pick whether he was punished or not? I don't think that's how punishment works...
jfp51: "You must be too young to rememember when Reagan fired all the striking ATC's in the late 80's. Too bad no one doesn't have the balls to stick it to the unions like he did these days..."
So Unions are ebil and corporations are good blah blah blah, fill_in_the_right_wing_bullsh*t_reference.
In truth Reagan should have let the ATC's go on strike. All that bullsh*t about the economy was just that, bullsh*t. The same goes for police and firefighters and teachers and anything else. Everyone can go on strike, yippee! Of course there is the danger of being replaced...
For being a "free-marketeer" Reagan interfered in the market quite a bit. I mean, what's the market worth if employer and employee cannot each use the leverage they have to bargain against each other? Reagan replacing all of the ATC's due to the threatened strike took away the one BIG card they had to bargain with: "We don't think this is fair and we'd rather not work, and not be paid, than work for what you're offering."
All the free-marketeers I've ever met, aren't very free market when it's the workers using their power against the corporation. They bemoan the ebil gubbermint interFEARence, unless it's benefiting them. When it benefits them, all of a sudden government is "being responsible", et al.
This guy was fired right? Perchance was the city have been dumb enough to fire him BEFORE getting the passwords? Should that be the case, he should be under no LEGAL obligation to turn them over. THEY fired him. His job ended when they terminated him, and all responsibilities to it ended as well.
Of course he's still a nut, but I won't condemn him without the whole story. I seriously doubt we're getting the whole story.
People say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Why? Is there any shortage of bad ones?
By the way, I respect the opinion that abortion is morally wrong. I do not agree with it, but, hey, that's life. But, abortion had nothing to do with the argument at hand.
Plus, it's hard to see how people were playing the moral superiority card when they were running around blowing up clinics, and severely beating doctors and clinic staff. That's escalating civil disobedience into terrorism. And that goes for liberal groups like ALF too.
IANYL, IANAL, TINLA, IANAMD, IANAP,
The law was wrong. By breaking the law, Newsom was doing the right thing.
Democracy is the absolute worst way to guarantee individual rights, and the sooner it goes away, the better. Democracy is a collectivist system, just like communism. Neither are suited towards individualism.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
Look at the comments from Dana Hom (former COO of DTIS) on this Wired story. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/former-san-fran.html He adds some insight into how the SF government operates and convinces me that this guy is getting railroaded. It reminds me of a fired sysadmin that we had to investigate for "hacking" when all he was doing was changing permissions on his folder structure. Suddenly the PHB didn't have access to other users folders on the network and assumed there was something malicious going on.
High level employees don't withold vital information from their bosses. I would fire this guy in a second. Who cares if he's awesome at his job? He certainly doesn't deserve a long jail sentence or the ridiculous $5 million bail, but get real everyone who is defending him. This guy locked everyone out of a system that doesn't even belong to him. IT'S NOT HIS PROPERTY. HE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT.
Reapman: You can't just say "no flying" and expect the world to move on even remotely close to normal.
Seems like a good chunk of leverage for the employee to use. Market forces at work and all that. Oh wait, unless it's a corporation generating it, it's not a market force. Nope when it's a union it's "blackmail."
People say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Why? Is there any shortage of bad ones?
The password was "password".
I would suggest decaf fom now on...
How new is the FiberWAN? how many people have current knowledge on how to administer it? its easy to admin a system thats been running for years, or create a new system based on old(er) tech. But another thing entirely to create and admin a newer system, where there isnt alot of information floating on the net if you run into problems.
also, am i the only one who thinks its a GOOD thing the cisco techs were unable to crack the network? that is what IT security is for, right?
The same way that torture was just thrown out in the Gitmo Osama's driver's case. It's unconstitutional. It didn't stand up to scrutiny. Just saying that it was constitutional didn't change that. Saying that something is unconstitutional will not make it so either. The law did not fit within the confines of the state constitution and thus was unconstitutional. The ruling by the state supreme court just makes it "official".
The USA is not a democracy. It's a republic.
http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html
Flamebait? The mods are politically-correct dumbfucks.
Trolling is a art,
"...a white cat-stroking schemer bent on world domination"
Brain, is that you?
-Pinky
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
How often do married couples end up in divorced in this state, like 2/3rd the time? Seems like the institution of marriage was damaged long before the gays got interested in the idea.
Around here (.ca) the divorce rate is about 50%. Out of the other 50%, how many are truly happy in their relationships? Marriage is just fucked up, few people take it seriously. Hey, if gay/lesbian/bi/whatever want to get in on marriage and divorce court let them (it is legal here). No skin off my ass.
Trolling is a art,
I've often been told that if I had enough money that I was just one white cat of a James Bond super villain
--
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
I work in a real-live DOD lab with Classified stuff. I keep telling people that the barriers to communication between the Classified and the Unclassified are not where they are supposed to be. Significant numbers of people who should care don't and I have had to have the "I am not telling you this" conversation with the information security people so that they can understand.
I havn't had to pull the big red emergency handle (metaphor) because I know that no actual information is as yet flowing into bad places, but it is imminent, In My Humble Opinion.
So we are morally okay, but technically in violation, and there are just criminal and civil penalties involved.
So yea, you can be in a position where you sound paranoid just because you are the only one who has decided to look behind the curtain. It happens all the time.
As a thought experiment suspend belief for a few minutes if necessary and consider the following,
Given the amount of comments in this and many other threads about IT staff feeling extremely frustrated with incompetency of business practices or, more to the point, their management what SHOULD one do when faced with a situation where they actually are right and they're outnumbered by incompetency which is what happens when you have several levels of incompetency hiring, managing and validating other incompetent people?
For the sake of this thought experiment let's assume that the network going down actually can harm human life (ie: 911), assume that the individual has done everything in their power to handle this professionally and has done their best to try and work within the flawed system to try and (pointlessly) train their incompetent co-workers who, through no fault of their own, the incompetent management hired. Assume they, very professionally, tried to alert the business starting at their management and then worked their way all the way to the head of HR trying to get the issues resolved with their doable, simple solutions where even the head of HR agrees with them but is also mired in idiocy so sadly proclaims that although the admin is right it's the company's decision to make mistakes if they choose (assume it's a large publicly traded company so supposedly in the business of making money). Let's also assume this admin has been around for a long, long time and actually used to look forward to coming to work until slowly but surely more and more managers were added (if something's wrong just hire another manager, that'll fix it right?) and things got even worse. Let's assume they're not mentally deranged, their co-workers share their pain but have decided on apathy (which management misinterprets as validation) versus the risk of losing a paycheque. Assume that the company is in such a growth phase due to new services and a willing customer base that the incompetency won't be noticed fully by leaders and finance because reporting is slightly skewed due to the limited timeframe and/or a misinterpretation of the basics of economy ("Hey we're doing great, look at our stock" ... "Actually that just appears great because it's a new service and our customer base doesn't really have any choice yet so you're not properly forecasting"). All in all assume that while it looks like a god complex it's actually not...the admin just appears to be a paranoid maniac as he is the guy running around interrupting dinner on the Titanic trying to tell them it's sinking.
Now what? Should these valuable employees be consistently chased away from their beloved careers which, in the longrun, causes pain not only for the company but for the employee? Should the employee just walk away and maybe watch all their hard work be crushed by unnecessary incompetence which not only hurts their sensibilities but also hurts future employment since prior experience is usually a factor in hiring - "Oh you're the guy that ran THAT network, that network is an abomination and ended up in the press for security breaches" .... "But but, it was incompetent management, I tried to tell them" .... "Hmm, not only a shitty admin but now you're blaming it on other people eh, screw you I'm not hiring you". Should the employee goto the public as a whistleblower and possibly give themselves a blackball for life? Should the employee just become apathetic and press the buttons they KNOW are wrong just because someone with title X says so and hope that the explosion is viewable by someone who can actually grasp what's occurring and can actually change things? Should they risk their savings and financial security to start their own business in a market that likely doesn't foster such entrepreneurs? Should they wholesale leave their beloved career they worked so hard on and risk financial security by starting all over in another field? Should they bury their resentment of incompetency and swallo
You've stolen my sunny outlook, my joie de vivre, my je ne sais quoi, and my groove. I am filing charges against you for Grand Theft Funk.
This all would have been firmly tongue-in-cheek ten years ago, but today, watching someone get thrown in the slammer until they return something that never existed seems a very real possibility. Kafka would be smug.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
I never said anything about liberal vs. conservative. What I did say is this:
"protection of marriage" = voters voting to take away the legal rights and protections of a group of people based on their sexual orientation.
In fact, it is the conservatives that should be fighting AGAINST "protection of marriage." You know: KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES! Isn't that what a true conservative believes?
No. Conservatives do not think that way at all. They think that God should rule every thing that we do and that this country was founded on religious values. It was really founded by people running from the government and a religion that they didn't believe.
Except you forgot the part about "willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment". The SF Mayor did NOT accept any penalty.
Sorry, I guess I gave you too much credit for the ability to think beyond the literal meaning.
Yes, he never went to prison. However, that doesn't change the meat of MLK's point: refusal to follow (or in Newsom's case, enforce) an unjust law in order to promote reform isn't a sign of contempt for the law; it's a sign of respect. If he had done in in the face of a prison threat, that might make him braver, but it wouldn't make him any more right.
Uhm no. The law saying we can have guns IS the constitution.
Yo do know that gay marriages has a MUCH higher divorce rate then conventional marriages right?
The REASON why marriage is debated at all is because GOVERNMENT GOT INVOLVED IN IT. If it was just a ceremony then nobody would care. In fact even in states that disallow gay marriage you can have the ceremony. That part is not illegal. It is just that the GOVERNMENT will not recognize it. You are free to do what you want till and the Government endorses what is right.
A little point to consider.
He was fired.
At that point in time, all deals are off.
You fire me, effective immediately, I am not telling you shit.
Why? Because I no longer have contractual obligations to you.
Why? Because you are no longer paying me.
What do people expect ?
You wear the uniform and stay loyal, *until* you are gone.
From that moment onwards, there is nothing to bind or hold you.
You leave and look ahead to the next one.
That seems to be what he did.
He felt he should no longer have to supply them with ANY information,
post employment.
And I think him right.
In an American, Red Blooded Capitalist way.
No Services without Payment.
To suggest otherwise is to create a new sub-class of citizen,
with limited rights, who can be arrested for NO LEGAL REASON.
Who can be 'ordered' by a court to fix someone's problems,
without compensation or consideration.
Just a Techie.
Consider Childs. Held on what charge? For 5M BAIL? Fuck off!
Of course he should have been asked for the password long before.
And documentation.
And mentoring of the "PFY" assistant which they seem not to have given him.
But the Management involved here have already shown their complete "fantasy"
cost reduction mindset.
How?
Because they had a single guy, was on his OWN, running an entire
cities network. And they were too incompetent to create effective
controls or to maintain a business relationship with him.
In short, tough shit to the probably politically appointed chumps
who treated their own people so badly.
Fuckem.
(R)ule in Hell or (S)erve in Heaven [R]?
Let me diagram my post for you.
The D.C. law said you couldn't have handguns. The courts said this law violated the constitution. The constitution wins, you get guns.
The California law said gay people couldn't get married. The courts said this violated the constitution. The constitution wins, I get to get married.
I'm just pointing out that we could just stop being bitter and enjoy our freedoms. Really, it was kind of a light and frothy post.
# (/.);;
- : float -> float -> float =
Quick Followup:
"Childs is being held on $5 million bail, as the authorities fear he could unleash a wave of attacks on the FiberWAN system Childs built. It controls the city's e-mails, payroll, law enforcement records and other data."
"Could Unleash"
In America, people are being held in preventative custody for actions
they could "potentially" perform.
Without evidence.
You get the government you deserve.
(R)ule in Hell or (S)erve in Heaven [R]?
If someone is essential for a project, replace him as soon as you can.
Replace them? No. Distribute their responsibilities and knowledge? Yes. You still want the brainchild around to give input and support; it's just that you need backup in case ...
Replacing them is considered better management (unless his indispensability was involuntary - imposed by administrative foulups or externalities such as an inability to hire additional experts or candidates for training).
The reasoning is: If he has worked his way into becoming indispensable now, he will work his way into becoming MORE indispensable later. The longer you keep him, the greater the hit when he finally burns out, dies, or leaves. So take the hit while it's small.
(I have spent most of my career trying to stay replaceable so I could stay upwardly mobile. And one of the downsides to my current situation is that I have for the last couple years become a rare expert in a niche that is keeping me stuck in an "indispensible" role for a critical (but boring to me) class of issues when both I and my management would like me to move on to other, potentially more valuable and innovative, work.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
No, he's a nutjob because the person he believes is the only one he can trust in the whole city is a politician. What's Newsom going to do? Allow Network Admins to adopt their FiberWANs?
He's an overworked, underappreciated guy who is flipping out in the style that only Network and Sys Admins can. He believed that his domain was more than just some routers and lit-up fiber to service a bunch of people who won't even think about what it does for them.
So, he has the enable password and now he's made them sweat it. Truth be told, they deserve it, but he should have taken his ass and gotten it out of working for the government a long time ago. Nothing more masochistic than working directly for a government if you actually want to feel you are going to make any sort of difference whatsoever.
He's suffering from delusions of being a savior, but what is he saving - the Network from the evil managers? So who the hell cares if the network breaks? He can get them to rehire him as an overpaid consultant at 150 bucks an hour to fix it. He was supposedly well-regarded in the department, so he'd probably have a lot of traction to make that kind of move.
That's how you show them, by making them pay and pay and pay for being idiots. And if he really cares about the city, he can make a donation or something from his newfound riches. Eventually, they will hire some cost-cutter who will tell them that they can outsource to India, but first they need to learn to write documentation and generate backups. And they will listen, because consultants always have credibility, because why else would you be paying them millions?
All he's doing is fucking up his own life and it won't make a bit of difference one way or another. He might be a superb admin, but he's just as dumb as his managers otherwise.
[quote]slavery = voters voting to take away the legal rights and protections of a group of people based on their skin color.[/quote] Does this mean if I take away the legal rights and protections of a group of people based on their religion then it is not slavery as it has nothing to do with "skin color"?
I think I have to retract any negative comments I might have made about him-- if this is true that he had NOT attacked nor held hostage the network over job security...
I too loathe giving out my passwords. WhenEVER any admins need/want to work on my computer in my absence, I log out and have them do their thing in admin role. My password operates under MY fingers, and in my presence. Granted, there are users who can't get some "thingy" (bookmarks, contacts, etc...) to work right and simply have to turn the machine over to an IT or admin type in the name of quicker ticket resolution.... But...
Besides, whenever I'm to be away from my desk more than a few minutes (we're a small office, and hardly anyone goes onto another machine under another user's profile) I lock my desktop. Why? There could be an emergency or i might be away for lunch, etc. The fewer chances any visitor or or any unauthorized user gets onto MY machine, the less likely that i will be associated to anything weird.
An employer of mine in the late 90s had the same policy, since fire drills, emergency evacuation and so forth (including the problem of tailgaters...) introduced opportunities for unauthorized use. Not even firefighters nor police had any real reason to be on our machines outside the scope of a legal investigation. So, we were to lock the desktop when going away from the desk out of sight of the computer, or away from our cluster of cubicles.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
First of all I will ignore your pathetic comment about hoping he will rot in jail. But really, how large an organisation do you run? I've worked in tech companies of up to 1,500 people and nowhere have we ever rotated skills in the manner you've suggested. In fact it would be insane. People are hired on exorbitant salaries based on the skill they have so rotating them to skills they know nothing about would be throwing obscene amounts of money down the dustbin. In fact the more I read this post the more I find it is one of the worst I have ever read. Sure... all you young admins out there taking expensive certification exams at your own expense... don't bother as they will be worthless. Why pay for certification as we expect your to learn from the "X for Dummies" series of books. Please ignore the above post, it is complete nonsense from start to finish.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Maybe Newsome will issue a retraining order for... Ummm RESTRAINING order AGAINST him, too?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/27/MNGP8OBRL41.DTL
http://www.examiner.com/a-606664~Man_boasts_he_had_sex_with_mayor.html
When bad press like this happens.... you read about stuff like this:
"Prior to the incident at the mayor's building, Shin -- who has written several books on spirituality -- attended a town hall meeting Newsom held in the Bayview neighborhood on Feb. 10. Shin sat in the front row and appeared to be taking pictures of the lower half of the mayor's body, according to a declaration by Franco Fleming, a police officer assigned to the mayor's security detail.
At one point, Newsom's jacket fell off a chair and Shin picked it up, wiped it off in a caressing manner and then held it on his lap, according to Fleming's declaration. He proceeded to attempt to get Newsom's attention in a flirtatious manner. Afterward, he grabbed the mayor and prevented him from closing his car door till a police officer intervened.
Two days later, at an event commemorating the same-sex marriages at City Hall, Shin stood just feet from the mayor, taking pictures as he spoke. At one point, he grabbed the mayor's arm, wearing a purple latex glove."
THIS is the stuff which makes San FranCISCO San FranSIDESHOW...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
T'would appear that there are a lot of people who presume that he SHOULD have given passwords to anyone else that authenticate HIM, and are confused about the difference between authentication and authorization. A new "Director of Information Security" asking for his passwords SHOULD be a responsibility test. If the request was refused, it is a test he passed. Not all the world is a simple *N?X box with one root password, nor a windows box on the bedside table with a single admin login. Inadequate established policies is a good reason to not implement centralized controls.
If that high-end of a communication system cannot be properly configured for discrete authentication and authorization, there are a LOT of people who should be fired, and perhaps also be sitting in jail. If that is the case, the entire system was under-engineered for security, perhaps for the sake of "managerial expediency", or because somebody "bought a solution" without even understanding minimal proper requirements.
At least one report indicates that the equipment in question is vulnerable to physical access attacks, when the configuration and authorizations are committed to flash -- not at all a surprise. The subverting of some of the sensitive systems mentioned, such as a packet tee insertion, would be perhaps worse than a given node going dark -- certainly harder to detect. A reasonable judgement call, if reports are as accurate as they seem in that regard.
If there was no backup access policy implemented (and audited) in case Terry was hit by a bus, some heads should roll, but probably not his, for such an aggregious lack of responsible management.
As more information comes out, the descriptions of incompetence alleged by Terry in his own defense, (or by his lawyer, depending upon the account you read) look more and more factual, rather than bigoted and paranoid. There is an old adage: just because you are paranoid doesn't mean nobody is after you. When dealing with a system that supports a large city infrastructure, including emergency services, probably alarm systems, and police, that may be true in spades!
You are very wise and rational. Stringing people up to a tree when you disagree with (and don't understand) their actions is the right way to solve a problem. /sarcasm
It is the job of the judiciary to uphold the laws, not the will of the people. That's the job of the legislative branch. It doesn't matter how the law came into existence, whether by referendum or not. It didn't agree with the State of California's constitution so the court struck it down. That's their job, the constitution supersedes any law..
An intelligent recourse, since this seems to concern you so much, would be for the state to pass a constitutional amendment.
what an a-hole. he just ruined it for the rest of us who act with integrity with respect to our gratuitous amount of network authority.
i can just see prying eyes all over people who have anything > lame-an rights on the network and strategies upon strategies to prevent against the ubiquitous network hostage crisis.
eff him and eff stupid newsome too. if he runs for mayor i'm going to move to canada.
The California constitution is an "actual" constitution as well. At least we Californians like to think so.
Our legal system doesn't work on a majority rules basis. If the majority of Californians voted that you, Bryansix, weren't allowed to get married, you'd still be able to say, hey, that's not a valid law, because it discriminates against me specifically, and we have constitutional protections that say people are equal under the law.
And just because something wasn't permitted in the past isn't a good indication that we should keep it that way: As recently as 1967 there were state laws banning marriage of white and non-white people.
The "activist" judge overseeing Loving v. Virginia found that this wasn't consistent with our concept of equality under the law and overturned it. Mildred and Richard Loving's rights were protected even though many people at the time undoubtedly found their relationship distasteful.
And now three republican and one democratic California Supreme Court justices have ruled that preventing gay couples from marrying violates their civil rights. I have no doubt that in forty years we'll look back on this case in a similar way.
What I'm saying here is... this is legit. This is the judicial system doing what the judicial system is there to do.
So, stop with the whining already and suck it up. :)
# (/.);;
- : float -> float -> float =
What do you think that big lightning storm was that kicked off all those fires? God was warning us to change our evil ways. (but execution is still okay, he hasn't warned us to stop doing that yet).
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
i don't use punctuation or grammar properly because computers cant help me correct that
i make one line statements to make me look insightful
i suck a lot of cock to get there i am circletimessquare
my posts are flame bait it's because its easier to just post than think
i will make some long comment in the middle of my post "laced with insults so that i appear to be a lot smarter" than i actually am because anger is so much better than reason and i like to blather on
see another one line comment with no full stop
shift key whats that
if you don't agree with me you are obviously stupid
I Haven't Finished Making A Low Budget Horror Film In NYC
Good point. I forgot about those. We're not burning yet in SoCal, so we don't really care. :)
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I for one welcome our new bastard operator from hell... uhh, SF.
$> cd
$> more beer
Are you suggesting we outlaw divorce?
>>It was also a law that the California Supreme Court later declared unconstitutional, so it seems like in retrospect it was a pretty good call.
I am finally comfortable with the government here in California now that we have the courts handling all judicial, executive, and legislative functions.
It's neat that not only can they declare a law unconstitutional, but they can write their own as well ("the law now says gays can marry!", and order the local governments to execute it!
Judges always give fair rulings, right?
>>I guess Newsom is an MCSE/CCNA and therefore is trusted.
Nah, he's just in Childs' .hosts file.
... I felt when i read the title as "SourceForge admin gives up keys to hijacked city network".
It's neat that not only can they declare a law unconstitutional, but they can write their own as well ("the law now says gays can marry!", and order the local governments to execute it!
What would you propose happen otherwise?
The law limiting marriage to heterosexuals was declared unconstitutional. Either they say, "Everybody can marry," or they say, "Nobody can marry until a new law is passed." The first one seems much more sensible to me.
It's important to note that they explicitly did not want to set policy:
As far as I can tell, that's what they did.
Well, labour is usually the end of pregnancy ;->
And if it's a baby you don't actually want and the laws haven't allowed you to make a choice over what happens to your own body then it would qualify as forced uncompensated labour...
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
Of course there's dial-up and/or DSL connections.. it's called "out of band management". I would be worried if a network of that size didn't have some form of OOB!
Close, I think we should ban marriage for everybody. That's fair right?
This whole thing was just a test to see if he was doing his job. I've been asked to give passwords to people other than the business owner before and I did not do it. Of course he gave them to the mayor. That's what he was supposed to do. He was not supposed to give them to anyone else... NO MATTER WHAT THEY TOLD HIM. OK the test is over now. You can let me go now.... Ok guys really.. this was a test right ??
But only because the Mayor has a chauffeur...
Every BOFH should have his/her own PFY.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
Still, Hi-jacking something like that's gotta be a few points on the 'ol e-penis.
Jail and criminal charges just don't seem appropriate here. Everything he's done suggests a psychological problem rather than criminal intent. Jail and criminal charges are probably the least constructive possible move here (short of just having him killed that is).
At the very least, he was Waaaaaay too emotionally invested in the network.
I can well understand how he felt about others having the password, but not the magnitude of his reaction. I have on multiple occasions felt the same way about others having key passwords, but turned them over with the understanding that I accept no responsibility for the likely screw-ups to follow. I made certain that I had the request for the passwords AND my protest in writing, but I did turn them over. (and yes, the predicted problems did come up).
You are not understanding the problem AT ALL! So the court struck down the law? So what! I'm not taking issue with that per se. It's that the Status Quo was not to allow Gay Marriage which is what it should have gone back to but without a law disallowing it. INSTEAD somehow after the case was decided it somehow did NOT go back to the Status Quo and instead went to now ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE. How Judges did this is beyond me. This is why I think that violence is called for. Who polices the judges? Who Judges the Judges? I guess God does right?
Nobody stopped anybody from marrying. All the law stopped is the State from recognizing it.
No but I DO suggest that we go back to the old way of allowing divorce. That is get rid of the "Irreconcilable differences" clause and only allow divorce for abuse, infidelity and abandonment.
Do you realize that you (and your spouse) are free to stay married and never get a divorce? The freedom of others to get a divorce doesn't take away your freedom to stay married.
If a law that makes a particular something illegal is struck down, then it seems logical that that particular something would then become legal.
When the supreme court strikes down a law, it sets a precedent that affects any other similar laws and applies equally to prop 22 in 2000 and to the prior 1977 enactment.
It doesn't matter. You might argue that I shouldn't care what other people do. Well do you care if OTHER people get hurt? Because I do care if other people get hurt. You know who gets hurt in divorce? The CHILDREN. I know, it is a THINKOFTHECHILDREN post and so cliche but it's true. Divorce hurts children. Plus it wastes the courts time and the publics money funding those courts.
It never happens. Name the last time a judge was impeached? Point and case.
Okay... did you really start off by arguing that gay marriage is bad because there's more divorces (I don't believe that, but whatever) and now you're saying the reason divorce is bad because it hurts children? I don't have to explain that gay sex doesn't result in children do I? Do you realize that doesn't make sense?
Anyway, on the subject of children in divorce, are you okay with divorce for "Irreconcilable differences" if they don't have any children?
Divorce Rates...
http://www.narth.com/docs/sweden.html
Also a major part of Gay Marriage is also the right to adopt so many times there ARE children involved. Even when there are no children involved, Divorce still wastes the government's money. I'd like the "Irreconcilable differences" reason thrown out completely for Divorce.
How much exactly are divorce cases based on "Irreconcilable differences" costing taxpayers? How much is that figure as a percentage of all government expenditures? Would it be good if people seeking divorce for such reasons were forced to pay the expenses themselves -- thus saving taxpayers the bill?
Of course they should pay the bill since it's their mistake. Really marriages should just be reconciled. That's what the marriage contract is all about. Shit, you think I get along with my wife all the time? But I don't divorce her on the first whim.
It's nearly impossible to get along with anyone all of the time and I agree that getting a divorce on a whim is a bad idea -- that should only be done over some kind of irreconcilable differences. Marriage is something that should be taken seriously, but that's entirely up to the two people involved and some people seem to take it more seriously than others. Really, marriage is just a symbol of a special relationship. If that relationship fades away, then the marriage becomes an empty symbol. At that point, divorce is a symbolic acknowledgment that the relationship has ended. Forcing a couple to keep an empty symbolic marriage after their relationship has ended wouldn't be sensible, plus that kind of marriage would devalue real marriages.
Anyway, now I'm back to my original point. It's good you understand marriage is a give and take which requires work sometimes. You're free to stay married for as long as you like, and the freedom of others to get a divorce won't take that away from you. In fact, your marriage lasting while others end in divorce only makes your marriage more meaningful.
So, while the GP was being a smart-arse, he has a valid point.
And so we will.
Yeah, I popped your mom's ass cherry. She was a little scared, being "surprise sex" and all, but I think she enjoyed it.
Dude, you got pwn3d. Bet you will think twice the next time you try to be a smartass.
Yo do know that gay marriages has a MUCH higher divorce rate then conventional marriages right?
Pretty sh1ty experience I bet.
Given that the tax breaks and protections tend to carry with them the assumption of children sometime in the relationship, there's a rather good argument for keeping it Male/Female only. Really a better solution would be to remove marriage from the equation entirely and just award the breaks and protections to those that have/adopt children, but that would be entirely too sensible and so will never happen.
To the right wing, gay marriage would be like, well, the KKK suddenly decided that they wanted to lobby for, well, a Malcom X day. Marriage is a lifelong commitment grounded in a religious ritual and gay activism has never been either in favor of commitment or religion. You would have to always wonder what the punchline is. So it has to be, in their mind, an assault on their values, sorta in the same way that gay people dressing up as sailors in that Tom Hanks movie is sorta read as an assault on the military.
This is my sig.
They think that God should rule every thing that we do and that this country was founded on religious values It was really founded by people running from the government and a religion that they didn't believe.
It's a pretty simple historical fact, actually. The country was founded by religious people leaving Europe for both money and because they were actually more religious than the people they left behind. Do read about the Puritans and the like. They were hard core religious people.
These days, Puritanism abounds in both the left and right in the USA. Sure, the right wing has its goofy Baptist crap, but the left wing is downright puritanical when it comes to the environment. Like, a more moderate position would be, so what if a species goes extinct every now and then any more than who cares about who is sleeping with whom. So, be it god or not, puritanism is engrained in our culture, and, generally speaking, Americans tend to judge the strength of other cultures based on how puritanical they are.
This is my sig.
Have any of San Francisco's residents been notified that their personal information which was crossing the city's FiberWAN network has been accessed by unauthorized persons?
CIVIL CODE SECTION 1798.25-1798.29
1798.29. (a) Any agency that owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal information shall disclose any breach of the security of the system following discovery or notification of the breach in the security of the data to any resident of California whose unencrypted personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person. The disclosure shall be made in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, consistent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement, as provided in subdivision (c), or any measures necessary to determine the scope of the breach and restore the reasonable integrity of the data system.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/civ/1798.25-1798.29.html