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.
> 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.
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."
You're right, and you're wrong.
The Judge doesn't understand, he is not paid to understand.
What the Judge does understand is that letting this guy out of jail on BOND is dangerous to SF political types running the city. This is far more dangerous, in their mind, than a child rapist, mass murderer or other heinous criminal, hence the steep bail.
And the city wonders why nobody wants to visit there any more.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
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.
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
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Judge needs to be removed and disbarred.
Your reasoning is very short sighted. Yes the "in case of bus" envelope is important, but if you've ever actually been a sysadmin, you know you're the blame guy. There are always idiots up the corporate chain that will blame you for anything technical even if the problem stems directly from them not following your instructions, or otherwise doing something stupid.
That aside, this isn't about you. I know it's hard to imagine, but try to bear with me. It goes like this:
Maybe he's a dick, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that WHAT HE DID WAS CORRECT! You do NOT give the "bus envelope", password or whatever, to some guy, the janitor, the mail boy or whoever, you give it to one of a small number of people only. It may be handled by a secretary or other assistant, but opening said envelope would be grounds for immediate dismissal, as would revealing that same password info to any of the afore mentioned individuals without appropriate "clearance" or what have you.
So here's the situation, your boss, who may or may not have the right to know the password, with some people in the room who DEFINITELY aren't on the access list demands the password.
Situation #1:
You refuse to divulge sensitive info in front of inappropriate individuals because 1) it's actually your job, and 2) if you do so, you can be held liable for any damage done as a result. You are arrested immediately. Happy fun.
Situation #2:
You give up the password immediately, someone brings the system to a crashing halt by incompetence, and you are arrested immediately because it's obviously something you did. Happy fun.
Sure, an envelope is a good idea, but there wasn't one, and that's not his fault, that's a management oversight. Even if this guy's difficult, or abrasive or whatever, he didn't break anything, and was willing to go forward with relinquishing the password, just on very specific terms. If that's a reason to spend over a year in jail, then we better start handing out life sentences for J walking, because unlike not giving up a password, J walking could actually harm someone.
--Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
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).
It doesn't matter. He messed with the man. That is where he messed up. Legal or not he will eventually get his day in court and if he hasn't done anything illegal he will be exonerated. He will never get the last fourteen plus months of his life back. He will never have not gone to jail. The point I was trying to make is that if someone wants to make a point and mess with the government, they need to be ready to deal with how ugly it will get. That's the unfortunate reality of the country that we live in.
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.
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.