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.
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
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...
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.
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).
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!
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.
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.
An idiot with a backhoe could damage the network. Justice is neither being done nor being seen to be done.
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.
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.
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.