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."
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
No, instead, he's a paranoid monomaniacal prima donna. If it is was me, I'd rather be a white cat-stroking schemer bent on world domination, because the former demonstrates a sick mind.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"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.
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'd say the guy is probably suffering from mental illness.
there are a lot of people who simply never get diagnosed, because they seem to be able to function normally without medication... myself i've had lesser symptoms dating all the way to childhood, but until i had a 'severe' hospitalization requireing symptoms people just didn't think that i was bad off enough.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Mr. Paranoid Admin with a God complex had big freakin' huge vulnerabilities on his precious network?
Attaching old-fashioned modems to the console ports of routers and switches is sometimes done in order to allow the administrator to remotely access the equipment during a major network failure.
It's not an egregious "vulnerability", assuming the console it password protected. That statement was spun to make it sound like they were back doors, when in reality this was likely done for no other reason than to facilitate emergency maintenance.
Please note I am not defending Childs generally. I'm just saying that the way they've minced words in some of these allegations gives me pause.
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.
I think sometimes people need to see the bigger picture. In my youth, I thought that becoming indispensable meant I was a valuable employee, and I had job security. But I had an epiphany at 2am one morning when I was fixing a problem. I COULD be the only one to fix this problem and be stuck fixing these problems forever. Or I could trust someone else and train them to fix these problems. Could my company find it easier to replace me? Sure, but it's just a job; I'll get other ones. The lost time I could have spent at 2am doing other things (like at home with my family) was worth the compromise. Any of you who missed out on anything because you were at work know what I mean.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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 they get hit by a bus (or paralyzing delusions of grandeur).
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
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.
Hey dreamchaser, this is your boss. I need write access to the email archives. The SEC has been poking around and, well, you know how it goes.
PS - get back to work.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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...
Hypothetical situation. My job is to keep an eye on a nuclear reactor. It begins to meltdown, and my manager (who isn't trained with the system) instructs me to cool it down. I refuse for [insert reason here].
That's one of many "not doing your job = crime" situations.
He was basically blackmailing / extorting the city of San Francisco - keep me on board or you lose access to the server completely.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Although I find your delivery crude, I agree with your message.
I would not be surprised in even the slightest if the now-branded "paranoid" admin is hailed as a hero in the future for exposing precisely what he has set out to expose.
200 people in eight years?
Enough security risks to compel him to likely ruin his life for what he believes is a good cause?
Why is it so silly to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who, up until his last action, has been trusted with some of the most valuable information the city has to offer?
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.
Hmmm...under what Statutes?
While employed he was authorized to access those systems. He didn't access them after his employment was terminated, so it isn't Computer Tresspass or anything similar.
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.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Your right. It is no different from my console servers with modem attached. If I cannot get in because of network problems then I can dial in and get to my servers. It is called out of band management and it is used all over the place.
I wholeheartedly agree. The gist of many of the other posts on this story is that the only ethical and moral answers to this problem are "A" "B" and "C". He chose "D" - none of the above. The problem with moral and ethical debates is that no matter what you think, the person making the desicion is going to make it on the basis of their morals and values. Unless, its illegal - but sometimes you don't have a legitimate choice.
Some are calling him disgrunteled, deranged, mentally ill here. I'm sure some of you are at the point of (or have been) burnout. 100+ hour weeks being the norm in IT. Its easy to make irrational desicions if you want to paint them as such under these conditions. Its also probably important to protect your hard work. Short-staffed and not taking much credit for the work and missing out on family time for a "stupid" network - who wouldn't lock someone out of ruining all your hard work? Assuming he did the work properly.
Its ironic too that many "ethical hackers" on Slashdot regularly say that if/when they find a bug, exploit in code or a website, they notify the admin before telling others so they can fix the problem. In this case, if the admin is right, I don't see why using same argument, that locking everyone out of the system except himself (only one person knows the password) isn't a bad idea until the *proper* staff and resources are available to fix the problem.
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!
>While they can certainly fire him for insubordination, I'm not exactly sure what he could really be charged with.
This is City Hall...
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 =
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.
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.
Being indispensable in one role will prevent you from being promoted. I was up for a coveted project but it was assigned to a less qualified person because I was too indispensable in my current project. Lest you think management was just letting me down softly, they had me train the person who was assigned the coveted project. That's right. They had me train the person who took the good job, and had me stay on my less-good project because I was really good at my current project.
I'm now trying to become a manager on the other project. They'll probably say that I don't have any experience in the field and promote the person who has it now, but we'll see.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
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.
Even more so when it's one's job to make sure it runs correctly. IOW, if he does provide access to others, and they screw up, it's his fault.
While paranoia may have something to do with it, I've found that a reasonable dose of it is healthy. I think, however, that it's more of a case of normal admin paranoia (which is a good thing), coupled with "damned if you do, damned if you don't" workplace policy (e.g. "give him access and you will suffer if he screws up"), that likely led to this paranoia growing to the degree it has.
Sane, logical, people are often driven "crazy" when forced to work in an illogical environment (where no matter what one does, one is "wrong", and the "correct" choice is the one which has the lowest product of "consequences" multiplied by "likelihood of discovery").
I recently took the "high road", and paid a hefty price for it: I had been hired to be subcontracted to a large "three letter" telecom firm. The project manager at this firm wanted my SSN. They had no legitimate reason for it: I was being paid (and had SS withholdings taken) by my employer, not them. The manager claimed that it was necessary for me to get an access badge. I responded that I didn't mind signing in every day and getting a temp badge. The manager then claimed it was necessary for a "background check". I responded that I would happily provide my SSN and any other identifying data (date of birth, drivers' license, etc.) to any reputable, well known, background-checking company of their choice. I was reported as "difficult" and reqested that I be removed. While my employer strongly defended my position, in the end, it was not reasonable that I be paid to be idle, we parted ways amicably, and I quicky found (much better!) work elsewhere.
Turns out the manager in question was allegedly driving those working "for" her as slaves and threatening them with derogatory credit reports from bogus lenders if they did not comply, using one instance of prior theft to justify such "background checks" requiring the SSN.
It was easy, (though expensive), to walk away from that job. But, in this case, lives may very well hang in the balance no matter what choice Childs makes: refusing raises the possibility of the network "going down". Complying, where he has reasonable belief that others will have a good chance of making the network go down, causing havoc in the city, could border on criminal negligence. As far as criminal charges, what could stick? "Theft?" (of access codes).
Should he be fired? Perhaps, for insubordination. But, if the management of the city is so bad that backup systems aren't in place, and properly trained IT staff to run networks, this might be the only way to raise awareness of the problem that could really impact lives of the city's residence. He may have very well done a very good deed -- as the story unfolds we'll know more. At this point, like with all accused, he should receive the benefit of the doubt.
But, regardless of whether he did the "right thing": No good deed goes unpunished, and he should realize this.
In Liberty, Rene
Holy WHOOSH batman!
I thought that becoming indispensable meant I was a valuable employee, and I had job security.
When I was similarly obsessed with handling every problem myself, a friend said to me, "The graveyards are full of indispensable people."
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:
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
Let me reply -- I've been there, done that. Not all that, but a little of that.
Back in 1992, I had a urethane or polyester exposure (I'm not sure which). That gave me hyper allergies, so the doctor put me on prednisone, which in 1/10 cases, causes psychosis.
He forgot to mention the possible side effects. But that didn't stop me from getting paranoia.
In my case, I was afraid that someone was putting something in my food to control me. Retrospectively, I think that my brain was essentially diagnosing its own problems, and trying to get me to modify my diet (ummm, could us neurons have a little more of that prednisone please? Or maybe we don't want it after all...)
Now, my mom just tried to keep me eating good food, and eventually the symptoms went away as the withdrawal effects went away. But it alerted me to the facts that (1) people of high IQ and high-stress jobs are highly likely to get a mental illness (2) I am susceptible, at the very least.
But my uncle, who works in psychology, mentioned that if you find yourself susceptible to mental illness, it is advantageous to get a lower-stress, more physical job. If need be, take up running (not all out, just 1/2 to 1 hr a day), gardening (pulling weeds is very therapeutic, I find), or a more physical job, or become a high school gym teacher. Also, avoid those situations that tend to make you more paranoid -- give yourself a break; and avoid those habits which you rationally know are insane. He calls this good mental hygiene.
Based on experience, I think he's right.
I'm right now an aerospace/ocean engineer by training, and a layout tech for a prestress concrete company by trade. I don't keep a computer or a TV at home, and use the computer minimally aside from that. If I absolutely need web access outside of my work computer, I go to a library.
I also cultivate a strong relationship with my wife, with my kids, and with Christ, praying as most Christians do. Although my prayers do get answers, I mean that in the sense that most strong Christians do, as well. When I've not been sure what to do, and I've prayed for God to close all the doors except the one he wants me doing, I've trusted him for that, and He's done it (as my wife, who is quite mentally stable, can affirm).
Last of all, needless to say, I'd say give up any weapons, and any hope of defending yourself against anything even through other means. Pray, and ask Christ to defend you. But as a potentially mentally ill person, if you're going to defend yourself, you're in trouble anyhow. So give that one up, and put your trust in God as your defender: "You who dwell in the shelter of the Lord, who abide in His shadow for Life; say to the Lord 'my refuge, my rock in whom I trust'. And he will raise you up on eagle's wings, bear you on the breath of dawn, and make you to shine like the sun, and hold you in the palm of His hand."
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Your scenario is a false dichotomy. The best way to deal with a manager asking you to do something dangerous is to immediately go over his head and get his superiors involved. If you make it all the way to the top and you're still being asked to do the same thing, then chances are it's you that's the problem.
Of course, if your convictions are so strong that you're willing to ignore everyone else, you'll probably still feel a need to do something about the problem. In which case, your best option is to resign loudly and publicly, and then immediately try to catch the interest of the media and/or any relevant regulatory bodies for your industry. No matter what though, just about the worst possible option is to break the law. If it turns out you were wrong, you're on your own, and even if it turns out you're right, you still get fucked for going about it the wrong way.
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.
Fixed that for you.
Well, I've got two comments on that:
1. I very much doubt that you're a mental-health professional, so I'll ask you to refrain from making uninformed guesses.
2. The idea that a nuclear war cannot be won seems to be rather pervasive in modern culture, without ever having been proven.
I mean, yeah, ok, I saw Wargames too, and thought it was a fun film. And granted, you were probably at a very impressionable age when that movie came out, so I can't blame you for basing your whole view of nuclear warfare on it. But it's been more than 20 years since then! Grow up already!
"You who dwell in the shelter of the Lord, who abide in His shadow for Life; say to the Lord 'my refuge, my rock in whom I trust'. And he will raise you up on eagle's wings, bear you on the breath of dawn, and make you to shine like the sun, and hold you in the palm of His hand."
And that, I am afraid, is not something that sounds sane at all.. but each to his own.
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.
That's a ridiculous example, have you ever worked in a nuclear plant, infact have you ever worked anywhere? Do you think individuals get to make these sort of decisions? What role do you think systems, policies, guidelines, regulations and governance mechanisms play. Large systems and companies do not depend on individual will, there are rules and well defined processes on how to go about doing things. Even the CEO has to follow rules and is accountable to the board and shareholders and the people he works with. Anyone who pulls a stunt will find themselves out of work very soon.
The empowered sysadmin who does his own thing is a myth that only has play here. A sysadmin doesn't decide policy, he may be consulted but these decisions are not taken in isolation. People have to work within a system that doesn't depend on them. You can bully your juniors and people who depend on you for help untill you rub some one higher than you up the wrong way and see whatever little arbitrary rights you may have vanish swiftly. But then sysadmins know how far they can push their power games, this fellow is clearly off his rocker and needs help.
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.
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.
It's just about the most decisive win in history. Doesn't get much better than that!
Oh, wait, you were trying to be sarcastic, right? Gotcha. In that case, I hope you get moded "+5 funny".
Ding ding ding! We have a winnar!
After over a decade of being the guy with all the keys, alarm codes, passwords, security alarm response duty, etc., 10+ hours a week of overtime on average, occasional extended pushes with weeks (once over a month of 80 hour weeks!!!) without a day off, I now work M-F 9-6. Period. In the last two years, I've worked 1 hour of required overtime. Well, not really. I was told I should come in late that day because our maintenance project was scheduled a couple weeks in advance. So I came in 2 hours late and our job only took one hour of overtime due to thorough planning and coordination. Technically, I guess that "overtime" day was an hour short.
The main difference is having a boss who doesn't work 12 hour days. And his boss doesn't, either. I've had them walk past my office at 6:05 and ask, "What the heck are you still doing here?" with honestly puzzled looks on their faces. It took me over a year to accept that whatever I'm working on at the end of the day will still be there tomorrow.
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
It looks to me like they had no security policy, then a new security guy came on, wrote a security policy, and then found things in the network (like ways for an admin to remotely access and do his job) that violated the newly written security policy.
Boom, instant "unauthorized access". The security policy says it's not supposed to be there, hence it is unauthorized, even though it was put in place before the security policy was written, and he had permission from somebody at the time he put it in place.
Code or be coded.
This assumes that people actually want to be promoted. Personally, as an embedded software engineer, I have no desire to ever go higher than I currently am (which is basically "peon"). Now, I'd certainly like to work on more interesting projects, and leave less interesting ones to less-experienced people, but when you say the word "promotion", that basically means moving "up" into management. I'll pass on that.
If I were in your position, getting stuck with crappy projects while underexperienced people get the better projects, the answer is simple: find a new job. I've found in my 10-year career that the way to progress is to simply change jobs when things get too boring, or the pay too low. You get a huge pay increase (since companies typically don't give very generous raises to loyal employees), you get to pick from several positions at different places, and you get a nice change of scenery and coworkers. Promotions are for losers who want to become managers, thereby losing all their marketable technical skills, and only being valuable to their current company. They can't easily bail out, move to another company and get the same or better pay, like I can. And instead of interesting work, they have to waste all their time in boring meetings. If I wanted to do horribly boring work that I hated, I could have picked an entirely different profession like law and made far more money than any manager at these tech companies I've work at.
That's nice, he got to pick whether he was punished or not? I don't think that's how punishment works...
Are you that dense, or just pretending not to understand the point? Different people have different definitions of win. For instance, if we are playing chess, and I shoot you in the head, have I won? A sociopath might think so, but most people wouldn't.
Similarly, we might have won the war by bombing Japan, but many people still count that as a loss for humanity in general. We might have won a nuclear war against the Soviet Union, but it would have involved general, planet wide devastation, thus putting it in the 'loss' column for most people.
I have to ask, does might always make right in your world view?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So if you had an accountant who managed your accounts and kept all the records, numbers, and access information for you, and you decided to fire him, he could destroy or even just refuse to give you the needed information leaving you unable to access your money, or even know exactly where it is, and that would not be illegal because you had already fired him, right?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
He stopped providing his services when he was fired. He no longer had an obligation to maintain availability to the systems. He couldn't however do something to cause the system access to be unavailable. Had he refused to provide passwords while an employee, it's a different story.
Otherwise the power company is preventing me "authorized access" to my computer if they turn off my power.
If refusing to provide information to a former employer is a crime, they can save a lot of money firing people and compelling them to continue to work since it would prevent authorized access for them to stop.
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."
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]?
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 =
Perhaps, but the "secret" story on this is that he was the guy (as in the only person) who rolled out and administered the city's network.
I've seen Municipal IT depts and the majority are full of fuckup "political appointees". Competency is not required to keep getting their paychecks and mediocrity is not punished.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf