Slashdot Mirror
Judge Won't Lower $5M Bail For Jailed SF IT Admin
snydeq writes "San Francisco County Judge Charles Haines has denied Terry Childs' motion to reduce his $5 million bail, alluding to 'public security concerns,' according to Richard Shikman, who is representing Childs in court. The ruling comes in the wake of a recent decision to drop three of the four changes that have been levied against Childs, who has spent the past 14 months in jail. The fourth charge — that Childs violated a California statute regarding illegal denial of service for the San Francisco FiberWAN — has been called into question by those closely monitoring the case. As a point of comparison, the San Francisco Felony Bail Schedule lists a $1 million bail for the most serious crimes, such as sexual assault of a child, aggravated arson, or kidnapping for ransom. Prosecutors have argued that the bail is appropriate because, if released, Childs could cause damage to San Francisco's network."
He's a danger to their network only if no one has yet changed the passwords on the routers and other equipment.
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
Anybody who knows about computers has to be kept away from them, else they might cast spells on the rest of us.
> Prosecutors have argued that the bail is appropriate because, if released, Childs could cause damage to San Francisco's network.
It sounds like they have zero confidence in whoever is now in charge of securing their network.
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
The incompetence of the legal system has no lower bound.
Since I can't mod you down, I'll just note that they've now had over a year to change the passwords and otherwise secure the allegedly compromised LAN.
I don't think the judge understands the nature of network security, which is understandable since he isn't an IT guy......but no doubt the prosecuting attorney was pushing to distort the issue to make him look as dangerous as possible. What if he is not guilty, are they still going to keep him in jail because he might be dangerous? Furthermore, if he DOES damage the network, can't they just charge him for that crime at that time? It's not like he can cause irreparable damage, as murdering someone might.
One thing I don't understand is why this guy doesn't exercise his right to a speedy trial. He's already been punished enough considering all the evidence I've seen suggests he is innocent. Maybe he is getting some kind of zen experience living in jail and he actually likes it or something. From what I've heard from some sysadmins, living in jail can't be much worse than that job.
Qxe4
You are right, any nutso can get a sniper rifle, case full of ammo, and take out half a campus from the church tower. It's the really dangerous folk, like the ones who haven't had access to your network in the past year (which you somehow haven't secured on your own because you are too fucking stupid) that are the real danger to society at large.
Here's a tip for the Judge, if there is still something out there on SF's network that Childs actually could manipulate with greater access or affect than a normal citizen, then the folk who should be in jail are the ones who cleaned up the mess.
Prosecutors have argued that the bail is appropriate because, if released, Childs could cause damage to San Francisco's network.
So if the 4th charge is dropped and he is freed, can they keep him jailed? He could, at that point, still cause the same damage that he can now.
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
I think the problem is they know he's not going to be convicted of anything in the end. So the judge is trying to send a message to people who might be inclined to do the same thing.
"We can get you. We don't need to actually convict you, either. We can get you anyway."
Prosecutors have argued that the bail is appropriate because, if released, Childs could cause damage to San Francisco's network.
Yeah, so can anyone who's competent with networking.
Just admit that he was presumed guilty before a trial you incompetent fools. You all are making yourselves look more and more like idiots, and the Childs is laughing his ass off in jail.
Oops shouldn't have said that out loud, I might be labeled a terrorist.
I'm pretty sure he isn't laughing his ass off while sitting in jail after 14 months. Although there's a good chance he will be once this is done, and he's won his lawsuit against the city and gotten the DA disbarred.
When I was a corporate IT guy (about 3 years in the middle of about 16 years as a consultant), I took responsibility over a large part of the network in a multi facility health care business. This wasn't life or death stuff, but network outages did cause problems with appointments and general "face" of the corporation. When I came on board, the network was down a lot. No change control, no "chief" in charge of the network, and about 9 people mucking with stuff constantly.
I put my job on the line, in exchange for FULL control of that system (It was a 85 server Netware + Groupwise environment). The first thing I did was take *everyone's* admin away, removed "admin" from supervisory rights to the tree. I then doled out the appropriate levels of access to the security team (read new users, password resetters), put in a hidden OU with a tree supervisor in it and then wrote the "master" admin/login information down. Lightly, in pencil. Folded it up, put it in an envelope with a tamper seal, that went into another tamper evident envelope and that went into the safe. Every month or two I changed the password and replaced the envelope.
That was in case I died, they could easily get in. That is what Terry should have done. Then it wouldn't have come to this - he might have gotten sacked, and/or lost control over what he considered to be his "creation" -- but he wouldn't be rotting in jail....
= Grow a brain...
Nahh, it's grandstanding or penis waving. Nothing more.
The judge is biased, the prosecutors are trying to show the world that they really dont have 1" long penises and cat get it up in bed.
Nothing more is happening than that. Too bad the USA legal system is horribly corrupt to allow such abuses go without having recourse. The procecuters shoul be disbarred and forced to never work in law again if found to be abusing the system. The judge should be simply shot for being stupid and a danger to freedom and the american way.
You actually think that laws to protect you from the government actually apply to you?
Wow, Let me guess, you also think we run by a Innocent until proven guilty system as well.
If you enter the legal system you are FUCKED. They play by their rules and will PUNISH YOU for trying to exercize any of your rights. you are a piece of shit and everyone in the system knows you are guilty.
Honestly, you have a better chance at running and hiding out than getting justice through the legal system. It really is that fucked up.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
or, more importantly, since the prosecution doesn't want him out of jail during the trial, and the judge clearly subscribes to that view, why doesn't he just drop the whole charade of offering him bail that he'll never be able to meet?
FGD 135
Punishment prior to conviction has become all too common, it's only one tactic in an unscroupulous prosecutor's bag of tricks. They try to make you look guilty by keeping you in jail before trail. They will duplicitously paint you as a flight risk even if you've never been beyond 20 miles from the courthouse. The judge will almost always do as the prosecutor recommends. It's said a sitting federal judge with full contempt powers is the most powerful position in government. But I think a local municiple prosecutor is pretty damn powerful too, considering his sway over local judges before a jury returns a verdict.
The Admin and the Engineer
it's not at all inconceivable that Childs could cause damage to that network if he chose to do so.
You are correct, of course. Childs should be immediately lobotomized, or if the procedure appears to be unreliable then he should be just killed. He knows too much and can never be released. His possible future crime must be prevented at any cost. Same applies to all future sysadmins of SF - once they learn the network (a few weeks on the job, perhaps) they will have to be destroyed.
this is preposterous. basically they're condemning him for being arrogant while competent. he always stated that he was only refusing to hand out the passwords because he didn't trust the competence of the people that were still working there.
what harm could he now do to the city network? he was fired, the password has already been disclosed to the mayor about a year ago... or have they forgotten to change the passwords?
and if he did have backdoors, it's already time they had them fixed. if he uses them, then, yeah, he's provoking the wrath of law, but... 5 million?
each year he spends on the jail probably means about 10 years he looses from his lifespan from physical and emotional distress. fsck the fscking judges and DAs.
Robin Williams said it right:
"You know, I heard scientists are now using lawyers instead of mice for experiments, for two reasons: one, scientists grow less attached to lawyers and two, there are somethings that even mice won't do."
add "judges" to that, will you?
Onda Technology Institute
I believe that this is less about malicious intent of those participating in the system (poilice, lawyers, judges, lawmakers), and more about Perceived Effectiveness. It's not that they don't want justice, but they need measurable numbers. They need to show that they're Being Effective at deterring crimes, stopping pedophiles, stopping hackers, winning the war on drugs, etc.
Police are there to make arrests and get the DA a case good enough to go to trial. It's not about "justice", or even your guilt: If something you say can be interpreted as implication, you're dealing with a DA.
DA's care about looking good to constituents (and/bosses). They can't NOT prosecute cases that the police give them. (Perhaps they CAN, but it looks bad, so I doubt it happens unless they feel they can't win it ... and even then they'll try to plea bargain you out.)
Judges care about ... who knows what. :) They don't like to have things overturned, as that makes them look bad, but at the same time they tend to be very keen on interpreting the letter of the law. It's generally the higher appeals courts that seem to care about the "spirit" of the law, and even then the letter's pretty strong.
Prosecutors have argued that the bail is appropriate because, if released, Childs could cause damage to San Francisco's network.
This oddly sounds like crap that brought up in Kevin Mitnick's trial.
My guess is the DA knows he's fscked and is grasping at straws. I wouldn't be surprised once the last charge is dropped, Childs counter sues for being charged, arrested, and in jail.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Judge needs to be removed and disbarred.
it's not at all inconceivable that Childs could cause damage to that network if he chose to do so.
It's not at all inconceivable that the average slashdot reader could damage the network if he chose to do so (with some basic research + social engineering, to gather some general info).
You actually think that laws to protect you from the government actually apply to you?
Well, speaking as a relatively wealthy white guy with a few political connections and at least a basic understanding legal procedures, I'd say yes. If I were, say, poor, black, or less connected, I'd probably be very very screwed if I were accused of something.
I am officially gone from
House arrest, and GPS monitor. Any damage to their network can easily be traced to an IP address, which if he can't move with freedom, makes it pretty easy to identify if it came from his computer. (I'm assuming they can't restrict his access to computer.) If he does, charge him with another crime. If he were to attack the network under such conditions, he'd be demonstrating his utter desire for being raped in prison, as I can't think of any other sane reason why he'd do it. Only reason bond should be denied is flight risk or a risk to further harm against a human victim/witness.
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
That's what you get when state prosecutes are chosen at the whim of the vindictive masses instead of by careful selection based on merit and principle.
May the Maths Be with you!
10 days is hardly enough time to mount a defence.
Especially when you need to convince a bunch of hicks, who don't know what a computer is that you could not have done it.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
no it shouldn't. The whole thing could have been fixed with a simple contempt of court charge and sweat him till he tells, that was their legal option and they chose not to do that.
Beyond that all the attempts of the management to "hack in" were unnecessary and not relevant to the criminal case. (like breaking the windows out of YOUR car because somebody stole it) HE did not do any damage after he was fired... the trouble was that he was fired TWICE... the first time the manager didn't write him up per union policy for being a dick and he got his job back. So he was refusing to turn his password over to the people that GOT him fired and weren't qualified to properly manage the network... they broke it because they didn't call a certified person FIRST. Also, they had already accused him of wrongdoing when he hadn't done anything....how do you prove you DIDN'T attempt to commit a crime?
If your business can be taken out of action by an administrator leaving, then you have serious business process problems.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
no, it was a network that had him as the "caretaker". Despite the methods, from what has been said, what he was doing was trying to protect the network. As a "caretaker", it's his job to do what he must to protect the network.
Actually, all of his authority with respect to this network come from his supervisor/manager. He only has the authority to "do what's best for the network" as long as it's still granted to him by his supervisor. As soon as his supervisor revokes that authority, he no longer has the privilege of deciding what is best for the network.
After all that, he was just being a dick, and it's stupid to be a dick to people who can have you locked up in jail. This may be United States, but it's not the United States you were (probably) taught about in grade school.
he could even claim he's still an employee and due back wages. The original fight was because he was an ass to a new woman manager and she walked to her boss and claimed "sex harassment". The manager tried to fire him without following city process in the first place... and didn't follow legal process to get the passwords in the second place... he could probably go back to the city worker's union and actually win his job back for managerial misconduct if charges don't stick!!!! After all he hasn't even had 3 officially written strikes yet!!!
He may be an ass, but he's been smart enough to follow the City's work rules to the letter.... it's the management that's skipping steps in the written HR process.
how do you prove you DIDN'T attempt to commit a crime
Theoretically, you shouldn't have to, it should be up to the state to prove that you did actually commit a crime.
Theoretically.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
His duty to help them by giving them passwords and other confidential information ALSO ended when his employment contract ended. That's what the law says. In fact, legally, he should have destroyed all confidential information in his possession, and as such, suing because he wouldn't turn over confidential passwords that he was not obligated or even allowed to retain is a new level of absurd.
When this is over, $5 million is likely to seem like peanuts compared with the settlement that San Francisco will end up paying out.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
All you have to do to not break something, generally speaking, is to not touch it. By a similar standard, I haven't shocked myself on the flyback transformer on a CRT in almost two decades. The fact that I haven't cracked open a CRT in nearly that long might have something to do with that.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
An idiot with a backhoe could damage the network. Justice is neither being done nor being seen to be done.
When ordinary citizens break the law, they get punished, often going to jail. When officers of the state violate citizen's constitutional rights, violations that have a much more resounding effect on society, the violations go largely ignored, rarely resulting in penalties, and even rarer that those officers will see any jail time. It is unfair and fucked up, the kind of system the founders wanted to prevent. IMO, if a civil servant (from the bottom to the top) blatantly violates the constitutional rights of a citizen, it should be prosecuted. Of course that will never happen, but one can dream.
On one charge? This looks _very_ fishy. Conditions on bail would certainly include no computer use. I suspect the real motive for the DA is to use incarceration as pressure for some sort of plea bargain. Any bargain, because their case is weak / non-existant. Highly corrupt.
The DA has to pressure, because if he does NOT cave, they're facing a multi-million $ lawsuit for wrongful (or even malicious where less would be protected by privilige) prosecution. This will ruin careers. As it should.
then why isn't he forced to hold him with bail that he can reasonably meet? What happens when Childs get $5m together? Does the prosecutor just go and ask for it to be raised to $10m?
I suppose my question is what, functionally, is the difference between being held without bail, and being held with bail deliberately constructed to be so high as to be unmeetable? And if there's no difference, why have the distinction?
FGD 135
After all that, he was just being a dick, and it's stupid to be a dick to people who can have you locked up in jail.
14 months and a $5M bail for being a dick? There are a lot of slashdotters that should be concerned right now...
I don't see why this is still up. If most of the IT community with any sense of self respect boycotted the entire city, the problem would evaporate within two weeks. Any professional with even an ounce of self respect should be refusing to service any aspect which receives funding, or inherits legal obligations from any portion of the city. They've already demonstrated they're willing to prosecute someone for doing their job and following policy.
I don't care if the guys supervisor told him to hand over the password--his supervisor was not in a position of authority to make such a demand. And even if he *was*, the charges and accusations they leveled demonstrated that they behaved with a callous lack of professional ethics, and abuse of power intended to crush the will of this man, instead of simply punishing him according to the rule of law. The charges were clearly trumped up--so such an extent that even the biased judge had no choice but to throw them out.
Refuse to consult or provide services to anyone associated with the city until they repay Childs and punish those responsible for this abuse of authority. They've already engaged in miscarriage of justice, and it's already painfully clear neither the DA nor the judge will be held accountable.
Bail appeals (using "appeal" loosely) are usually reserved for the very rich, because they are usually a big waste of time. They are a waste of time because the trial judge is invested with a very large dollop of discretion in matters of bail. Here, the big bail doesn't seem to have too much to do with the charge that the defendant is being detained on. It's kind of like holding me on thirty gazillion dollars bail for a driving while license suspended charge because the judge is concerned that I am going to vandalize my neighbor's Rolls Royce.
This case sucks because the poor bastard has to rot in jail while his lawyers are preparing his defense. If he had money, his experts would be done by now and the State would have, long ago, had its back against the wall scrambling to try to put their bullshit case together.
I bet that the County Attorney depended on the City's experts (rather than his own, independent, experts) when he filed charges. That's reasonable, but you'd hope they'd have their own independent experts on board by now. Too bad nobody's Groklawing for the defendant.
Most that I have delt with would fall into the "serious business practice problems" category. A company I worked with years ago had a lead admin that was completely paranoid, he was the only one in the company with root access, he supposedly kept the password in a safe that only he, the ceo and the cfo had access to. The lesser admins (thats actually how they referred to us in the department procedures) were the ones who were stuck with being on call and had to call up the lead any time there was a problem...all would be fine if it weren't for the fact that he was very cranky in the middle of the night and would yell at us if we actually called the hesitantly give us temporary access and tell us to figure it out and not bother him. Sometimes outages would go on for hours because we couldnt reach him.
I could only take about 6 months...shortest job I have ever held. I can handle alot of crap, dont trust me with root fine...but at least give me pseudo or at minimum dont bitch when your underlings have to call because you set it up that way.
what harm could he now do to the city network? he was fired, the password has already been disclosed to the mayor about a year ago... or have they forgotten to change the passwords?
Likely none, and they realize this. But they've imprisoned a man - a competent, intelligent man - for over a year now. They've ruined his ability to do what he evidently got a great deal of satisfaction from (noted due to his level of competency). They've smeared his good name, lied about him, and ruined his life.
I suspect they're quite worried about him getting out. On the outside, he'd be able to sue the life out of them and/or the city - and if the city gets sued, then those who invoked the lawsuit will face scrutiny.
Oh yeah, and again, the "smart, competent" bit. What was it about the mental stability of IT workers, nurses, and postal workers and our propensity to go off the deep and which is so wantonly stereotyped in the media? Oh, right. They're probably at least a little concerned that the guy would kill them all in their sleep. I don't doubt he's thought about it, wistfully (there's likely not much else for him to do).
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
What skilled, knowledgable, trained network administrator would work for them at this point?
Some may be willing to take a crappy job to put food on their kids table... but one that's likely to put you in jail for following their own proceedures?... I wouldn't do that to my kids.
"accused city hacker" instead of "the guy who built and maintained san francisco's networks for several years"?
"essentially commandeered the system" instead of "yeah, that was his JOB"?
with the city still trying to politically assassinate this guy, the judicial system still eager to help, and the press still spewing this ignorant garbage to the general public, why isn't the entire IT community out on the streets protesting for this guy?
I understand it completely.
It doesn't change the fact that, of two people accused of committing similar crimes, the one who can raise sufficient money gets to leave jail. The one who can't, stays in jail until the trial is complete. I can think of no moral or ethical reason that should be allowed.
You probably can't write an employment contract that requires me to keep working after you've stopped paying me. Even if you could, a violation of such a contract would be purely a civil matter, unless there was some actual crime underlying the breach.
Deliberate damage is one thing but just losing the admin shouldn't cause this much damage, what if the guy was killed in a car accident?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Actually, all of his authority with respect to this network come from his supervisor/manager. He only has the authority to "do what's best for the network" as long as it's still granted to him by his supervisor. As soon as his supervisor revokes that authority, he no longer has the privilege of deciding what is best for the network.
Yes. The issue is, however, that none of the people who informed he had been fired and demanded he handed over the passwords _were actually his supervisor_. AIUI, a subordinate had been promoted over him, and he hadn't been notified of this.
Look at it this way: you're in charge of a network and have the passwords that can be used to do just about anything with it. One day your assistant comes to you and says, "I've just been promoted to your job, and you've been fired. Hand over the passwords." Wouldn't you think maybe you were in some kind of social engineering attack, and want to confirm it with somebody you knew to be your superior? That's all Childs did.
It is incredible that the people responsible for the network today cannot secure the network well enough to keep Childs out and they are allowed to keep their jobs. If they can keep Childs away from the physical equipment, passwords are all that is necessary to lock things down. Do the people in charge have any dignity? It is about time we start publishing the names of the people who are now responsible who cannot secure this network. The fact that he seems to be needed to be kept in jail for the safety of the network proves every word he said about the incompetent people involved. This situation is so bizarre that it is even stranger than my first wife, and that is saying something.
And that's why they can't just let him go and drop the charges. How much would you have to be paid to willingly give up your career, have your name smeared, and be put in jail with criminals for over a year. That is at least what this man is owed, in addition to punitive damages.
While he is awaiting trial and 'not innocent' it is hard to counter-sue. In that interim those involved may have moved to different positions, retire, lose their election, etc. Even if he wins a multi-million dollar countersuit, do you think anyone will be held personally responsible? What needs to happen but won't is that every single person involved in prosecuting him needs to be disbarred, removed from their employ, and after being put in jail for a similar period and slapped with a criminal record, be unable to get a job running the city's street sweepers.
Lock up one network admin, and you can get another to do his job. Lock up every dick on slashdot, and email will be downgraded to pony express within a week.
On the other hand, the signal-to-noise ratio would get a lot better around here.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
I was let go from an ISP in arizona and less than a week later the network supervisor showed up at my door to pick up the modem owned by the company. He also told me that they needed the password to my workstation, which was encrypted using truecrypt. He said that if I didn't, they'd have a police officer come and ask me for it. Well, I gave it to him mainly because there was nothing on it I was worried about. However, I asked an attorney friend of mine who lives in CA about that and he stated that I was obligated to give them the password because the password is their property, even it if isn't a physical object. I don't know how it would have went down if I said that the password was written on a postit which was on my desk when I left, that they must have disposed of and that I never memorized the password, since my computer was never shut off so I rarely had to use this password, as it was only applicable if the computer was booting up.
all of his authority with respect to this network come from his supervisor/manager. He only has the authority to "do what's best for the network" as long as it's still granted to him by his supervisor. As soon as his supervisor revokes that authority, he no longer has the privilege of deciding what is best for the network.
And as soon as his employment is terminated, his obligations to that supervisor end, including the divulging of passwords.
Sorry, that's pure BS. Even if he's not employed, he's obligated by law to turn over control of the company's property. Think of it this way. I just got fired and they wanted the keys to the company truck back. I told them to go to hell because "I don't have to listen to you anymore."
Now, what would your next move be as the employer? Probably the same as everyone; call the cops.
Bullish Machine Tzar
No he shouldn't have to spend 14 months in jail, awaiting trial -- the constitution demands the right to a speedy trial. However he and his lawyer(s) have chosen not to exercise this right. I do think the $5 million bail is excessive, but bail is warranted nonetheless.
And to everyone who thinks he going to cash in in some lawsuit against the city, keep dreaming... A civil jury of San Franciscans is not going to take too kindly to having had their city held hostage for weeks, requiring the mayor to make a jailhouse visit etc. Just because he was delegated some responsibility doesn't mean he has some legal right to deny the revocation of that responsibility.
And now pesky infantile moderators, go ahead and mod me down: -1 strenuously disagree without logical basis...