Slashdot Mirror
Accused Rogue Admin Terry Childs Makes His Case
angry tapir writes "He's been in jail for seven months now, but former San Francisco network administrator Terry Childs says he's going to keep fighting to prove he's innocent of computer crime charges. Childs was arrested on July 12, charged with disrupting the City of San Francisco's Wide Area Network during a tense standoff with management. Infoworld has also conducted an interview with Childs."
"He's been in jail for seven months now,...
I love our entire "Innocent until proven guilty" thing. Unless you are on the wrong side of the celebrity wagon. I bet Paris would be out by now...
Not going to comment on Child's innocence or guilt, but I have to wonder whether his lawyer is giving him good advice. I mean, giving an interview to the press which you discuss some case specifics doesn't seem like a very wise thing to do. Even though TFA was just a summary of the interview and did not contain a transcript of it, I'm guessing that the San Francisco prosecutor could subpoena the reporter to turn over a transcript, or recordings and any notes the reporter took to use against Childs.
Giving an interview to the press really screwed over UK hacker Gary McKinnon, who's currently fighting an extradition order to be brought to the US to face charges breaking in to Pentagon computers. His interview by the BBC shortly after he was arrested basically was a full confession of everything he had done and left no wiggle room to create a case for reasonable doubt. The US prosecutor could base his case just on the BBC article alone and probably get a conviction. Of, McKinnon gave the interview before the US filed charges, I think, so he may have thought he was in the clear when the British authorities didn't file their own charges.
Anyway, it just not a smart idea to give interviews to the press while facing criminal charges, and I'm surprised his lawyer let him do it.
he's going to keep fighting to prove he's innocent of computer crime charges.
Well, good luck with that...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I'd say it's more like blowing away the presumption of functional law enforcement where IT is concerned.
This article gives better reasons for those modems being on the network than previous stories. Doesn't seem so rogue now, does it?
Did it ever seem rogue to people with actual technical experience?
What it seemed to me was stupid. If people above you in the chain of command want to break the network and destroy your security, you have to let them. The only recourse you really have is to demand such things in writing and run them all through your boss. The worst they can do in such a situation is fire you. But your job is to do as you are told, and if they tell you to fuck it all up, then you can either quit or capitulate.
It seems to me like Childs was trying to obey the letter of his job description, without fully considering the ramifications. Certainly he wasn't trying to take over the network - however dumb he might be, I certainly don't believe he's crazy enough to forget about cops and prisons. He surely didn't think that they would be wielded against him for these particular actions, but that was just dumb. Now the city is trying to do everything they can to justify their actions, so they're trotting out bullshit arguments against him (like allegedly holding information he shouldn't, or installing back doors - which frankly are not a bad idea if they are secure back doors. someone 0wns your network, it's nice to be able to get in!)
Odds are, most of us will never know the truth. The only one who knows the full truth of Childs' intentions is himself, and most people aren't all that in-touch with themselves anyway. However, he's had a lot of time to sit and think about it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Only if 100% of what Childs says is true. I'm not so sure I'm ready to believe him -- the circumstances of his confrontation with management suggests there may be layers to this story that aren't making it into the media.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
As an employer, I'll let you in on something:
The reason that punishment has been laid so strongly and swiftly down on Childs is directly because of the power of the position he held. He's being made an example in order to make sure that no other network admins get any bright ideas about exposing their feelings of real ownership and territory that every good network engineer has about their responsibilities (and equipment for that matter).
As an employer, I hope the steps being taken against this man, no matter what his motivations were, are entirely unsuccessful. The world needs fearless and ballsy geeks a lot more than it needs spineless jellyfish who happily do whatever they're told *despite the ethics of it*. There's something deeply disturbing about so many giant brains have willfully given up control of (and responsibility for) their own actions and are all too ready to claim they were "just doing my job".
Pardon my revulsion, but there are those of us who remember where that sort of outlook takes the species.
Can someone even explain what he's charged with and what his specific actions were?
Refusing to do your job and inform management of passwords is not illegal. (It's pretty strange behavior, but not illegal.)
The only thing I can glean from reading both links is 'three modems', one of this was a DSL one he didn't set up for testing and whatnot, one of them was to operate his pager, and one of them was to link the city's network in emergencies. None of them even vaguely look like backdoors, but, more important, none of them were used as backdoors to a system he had access to anyway. (You don't install secret backdoors in cabinets in your office.)
I know Childs can't talk because his lawyers says not to, but there's a fucking document called a 'arrest report' that actually lays out charges against him and the specific actions he took that were in violation of the law. What are they?
Googling throws a lot of nonsense around, including the fact they've charged him with supposedly planning to use a planned power outage to do something bad, when said power outage wouldn't have affected those system. (And what 'something bad' is very vague.)
And, also, when the police search his house, they found weapons ammo. This is presumably relevant somehow.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
What law says "you must hand out a password to your boss when he requests it or you will be prosecuted as a felon"?
The lawyer in the referenced articles has stated "The response to suspend him was arguably legal. The response to prosecute him is not." That means, if you don't give up a password, you can be suspended or fired, as you could be in any job, but that doesn't mean you can be prosecuted. If you use those passwords for nefarious means after you are fired, then yes you can, but so far the articles don't point to anything Child's did. There have been some wild claims, but InfoWorld has a special report page with articles that seem to call into question the accusations that are being leveled at Childs.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Courts are. Seems many people on Slashdot misunderstand the whole "Guilty until proven innocent," thing. What that is, is a simple way of stating how burden of proof works in our court system. In US courts, the defense isn't required to prove anything. The defense can present no case at all and the defendant can still go free. The reason is they have no burden. The burden of proof is on the state, the prosecution. They have to prove that the defendant is guilty. So they can't just walk in and say "We accuse the defendant of doing X," and leave it at that. They have to present evidence to prove their case. Thus by design a defendant in court is presumed innocent. Proof of guilt must be offered because a not guilty verdict the the default in absence of proof.
That's all it means. It is just a simple way of summing up our court system. It is NOT a command to the population at large. Individuals are free to believe what they wish, and use whatever standard for evidence they wish. People aren't required to view everyone as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. They are welcome o hold opinions as they see fit.
So please, but the crap with this. If you think the guy is innocent, or wish to reserve judgment until later, that's wonderful. If others don't, that's also fine.
People always need to remember you don't own the stuff at work, the company does. Thus it isn't up to you to decide what goes on with it, it is the company's. That means if they wish to make a bad decision, they can. If the owner decides that the root password should be "password" and further that it should be posted on the wall, well that's his decision. You can and should tell him why that's a bad idea but if he says "I don't care, do it," then it over. You can't tell him no, because it isn't your stuff, it's his stuff. You can, of course, quit (and I probably would in that situation), but you can't just refuse and say "It's for your own good."
Now in the scheme of a large company where you don't deal directly with the owner, it is still the same thing. Whoever their designated representative is, makes the decisions. So if you are given a stupid order you tell your boss it's a bad idea. He says do it anyways you go up to whatever level is appropriate (IT supervisor maybe, CEO maybe) and make your concerns known, but you do your job. If they want to be dumb, they can be dumb. Not your place to tell them they can't, and indeed it can be illegal.
It also stems from the fact that we don't lock up innocent people in the western world.
Thanks. I just sprayed coffee all over my keyboard. Let me try this in a dialect you might understand.
Son, not only do we lock up innocent people here in the US but, Hell, in Texas we've condemned men to die when their defense attorney didn't even show up in one case, or showed up too drunk to stand straight in another. Up there in Yankeeland, they just caught a judge getting commissions from the prison for sending kids to jail.
Pound for pound, we lock up more people than the Russkies and the Chicoms COMBINED ever did. What, you think they're all guilty? You think Americans are just that much more sinful than all them godless heathens combined?
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."
These articles imply that it's not "good practice" to give passwords out. If that's really his defense, it's specious and deceptive. If your boss demands a password, you have to give it, by law.
What law? In this case, the State's trying t'use "disrupting computer services", which is a California-specific law. From a look at the text, it looks like you only must give the password to your boss if he or she is "authorized" to have it. I'm assuming the charges are based on:
(5) Knowingly and without permission ... causes the denial of computer services to an
authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network.
The question is whether his bosses were "authorized". If they -aren't-, it's criminal to give them the passwords, under the same section. Tricky. This is a government network in question, so the matter of authorization may not be clear. I have trouble with the scenario in which the police CIO, a military information defense worker, a couple of engineers, and especially a human resources rep would have authorization for administrative control of the city's network without a city policy-level decision being made at the mayoral or legislative level.
Even in a business environment, the question of authorization can be sticky, and again is best-handled by a top-level policy decision.
Other states have different laws; check your local listings. There's no universal law I'm aware of that says your boss has the right to any passwords. Quite the opposite, in California; if you give it up to your boss on demand when he shouldn't have it, and hijinks ensue, you could theoretically be prosecuted. I've trouble picturing that actually happening, but it clearly is not the case that you have to hand it over on request.
As a layman, it looks to me as though Childs was correct in refusing to give out the passwords (although I'm not familiar with any relevant city policies granting authorization, again I'm pretty darned sure the HR guy isn't supposed to have 'em). Giving out incorrect passwords was a bad move, but easily attributed to the pressure of the surprise party.
In the U.S., less than five percent of cases go to trial. That means that less than five percent of people ever test the presumption of innocence. Why? Maybe because they're guilty . . .
A little research will uncover the answer. Say the police break down your door one early morning, shoot your dog, and cuff you and your family. They have an informant that says you're involved in the meth trade. They take it to the DA, who can see it's bullshit, but DA's are measured in pleas and convictions, so he offers you a plea. You can cop to some minor class-D felony and three months in county. Or you can take it to court and put yourself at the mercy of 12 random citizens and/or a judge. Win or lose, you're out your job, your house, quite possibly your spouse, and your life savings. (Not to mention other details not suitable for this family publication.)
If you've got any sense at all, you take the plea. Why? Maybe "because you're guilty...".
That's how the presumption of innocence really works.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
...against plea-bargaining.
In the U.S., less than five percent of cases go to trial. That means that less than five percent of people ever test the presumption of innocence. Why? Maybe because they're guilty . . .
Amazing. You just asserted that presumption of innocence is a reality, and in the same breath insinuated all people who go to trial are guilty. If Einstein was right, and genius is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in your head at the same time, then your mental acuity is astonishing indeed.
The whole point of plea bargaining is to reduce the number of cases that go to trial. Plea bargaining works because you can't predict the jury's decision with certainty. If you look at the possible outcomes of plea-bargaining, it guarantees innocent men will end up in prison.
Suppose you're innocent. Suppose you're innocent, but unlucky, and the circumstances make you look guilty. Suppose you're an unpopular minority. Suppose you pray to the wrong god. Suppose you're just ugly. Suppose you just look like "that type." Suppose you don't come from around here. Suppose you've never caught a break in your life. Suppose there are any one of a million reasons why twelve random people off the street could drop you in a hole without any good reason and not lose any sleep over it.
Suppose you have children. Suppose you have family who depend on you. Suppose The Authorities come to you and tell you, "Boy, you don't push us on this, and we'll let you out in a couple of years. But if you make us go all the way, we'll make sure you don't ever see the light of day again, and when we put you in jail, we'll make sure Bubba is waiting for you with a dress."
Take a random sample of a thousand innocent men, and sure, some of those men will have the moral courage and fortitude to tell you to go to Hell and take me to trial. Some of those men will lack that courage, and take your bargain out of fear. Most of those men will run a quick and dirty risk/reward calculation in their head, and realize that the best option is to take the deal -- because that's how you arranged it.
Plea bargaining is a foul and filthy practice that guarantees a miscarriage of Justice in a certain percentage of cases. That's why not every Western nation allows it.
But your arguments have nothing to do with the facts -- they have to do with your fears. It's terrifying to live in a world where innocent men can routinely go to prison. It's terrifying to live in a world where going to prison means a good chance of rape and brutality. It's terrifying to live in a world where the authorities actually use that threat of rape against you without conscience. It's terrifying to live in a world where any random mouth-breathing high-school-droput with a badge can destroy your life with trumped-up evidence. It's terrifying to live in a world where you can hear cops threaten to club children, where you hear cops threaten to plant fake drug evidence against teenagers, where you see cops shoot prone and begging men in the back...
It's terrifying to live in a world where simply browsing YouTube can give you video evidence of all of this.
So, your cognitive dissonance blasts away at full force, and you tell yourself innocent people don't go to jail because anyone who goes to jail is not innocent. You pillow your head on that circular logic, and while you dream you live in a pretty and just world you make it that much harder for the rest of us to fix the problems...
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."
No, they're morons if they're positive he's guilty. Thinking he's guilty is a reasonable conclusion based on what evidence they've seen... so long as they remain open to revising they're view as more is learned.
People aren't courts of law, and we would not be able to function if we were held to legal standards of proof in all our beliefs and decisions.