Judge Orders Former San Francisco Admin Terry Childs To Pay $1.5M

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Orders Former San Francisco Admin Terry Childs To Pay $1.5M

Posted by timothy on Wednesday May 18, 2011 @12:09AM from the rough-justice dept.

0WaitState writes "A judge Tuesday ordered a former city worker who locked San Francisco out of its main computer network for 12 days in 2008 to pay nearly $1.5 million in restitution, prosecutors said.' Keep in mind the network never went down and no user services were denied, and given that Terry Childs was the only one who had admin access (for years prior) it is difficult to understand how they came up in $1.5 million in costs, unless they're billing Terry Childs for the City's own failure to set up division of responsibility and standby emergency access procedures?"

488 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Perhaps.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:12 · Score: 0

This is an example that drives home the fact that people might actually give a crap about network meddling.
1. Re:Perhaps.... by conspirator57 · 2011-05-18 01:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  An IT guy on a power trip acted like a prick and that resulted in serious consequences. Let's see what the slashdot community thinks. ;)
  This might as well be a story about getting arrested for living in mom's basement.
  he's paying the price for embarrassing the powerful?
  
  --
  "If still these truths be held to be
  Self evident."
  -Edna St. Vincent Millay
2. Re:Perhaps.... by stanlyb · 2011-05-18 01:44 · Score: 2
  
  He is paying the price of trying to be a decent sysadmin. Next time he will not try to be the nice guy, and then there will be a real disruption of service, and no one to blame of course.
3. Re:Perhaps.... by MBGMorden · 2011-05-18 01:50 · Score: 2
  
  He is paying the price of trying to be a decent sysadmin. Next time he will not try to be the nice guy,
  No. He, once his employment was terminated, WAS NO LONGER A SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR. As much as you might feel like the network and servers are your "baby", you don't own them. You work for the owner. You cannot legally lock them out of it.
  As to "next time", trust me - this guy has made himself unemployable in the IT sector for life. The worse anyone has to worry about for a "next time" from him is whether or not he spits on the burgers.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
4. Re:Perhaps.... by stanlyb · 2011-05-18 02:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You are missing the point, next time, he, or any other sysadmin, when he faces the termination letter, he/she will follow the law to the letter. Which could mean that he could "forget" to inform you about some tricky passwords, terminals, systems, etc., and when YOUR system crashes, you could blame only YOURSELF, not the already terminated sysadmin that gave you "all the passwords", and who did not try to protect the public. You understand me? The difference between protecting yourself and the public? If not, go find this article about the hacked PSN hundreds of millions of stolen accounts.
5. Re:Perhaps.... by tnk1 · 2011-05-18 02:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The solution to that is to:
  a) have more than one admin with access to passwords
  b) not to act like a jerk to the admins you currently have
  c) put a firm stop to people who try and take complete control of a system "for its own good"
  Make no mistake, the City of SF is responsible for their own issues.
  Still, Childs was just plain stupid. He should have:
  a) not admitted to having passwords, since he could have easily said that he forgot them since he no longer works there
  b) failing that, immediately given any and all passwords up
  c) written a letter to the city or a newspaper, if he wanted to complain about the city, like any other citizen, instead of trying to be a martyr.
  $1.5m is a little steep, I was leaning more towards a month or two in jail for being a dumbass, which would be time served. It annoys me when certain admins feel that they are freedom fighters when operating their boxes, makes them incredibly annoying to work with.
6. Re:Perhaps.... by Midnight+Thunder · 2011-05-18 02:35 · Score: 2
  
  Why is he not simply given jail time? I could understand being charged this amount if he stole something or benefited financially from this, but the only crime he committed was possibly being arrogant and holding the network hostage. If the state wants to punish him, then they should put him behind bars for a few months and possibly get some of the politicians to join him.
  
  --
  Jumpstart the tartan drive.
7. Re:Perhaps.... by milkmage · 2011-05-18 02:42 · Score: 2
  
  call it whatever you want, but I believe hismotive for holding the pwd was reasonable: he was protecting the integrity of the system because he was surrounded by incompetence. case in point:
  in April, during a fire, emergency system crashed. they couldn't bring it back up because nobody had the password. 50 people lost their apartments.
  http://my.firefighternation.com/forum/topics/review-finds-san-franciscos
  emergency services responds with: "That's what we have pencils and paper for."
  Childs didn't have the same password, but he's obvioulsy surrounded by incompetence - all systems are managed by the same IT dept. Childs had the pwd to the mainframe.. that kind of access should be guarded, but the password they needed for emergency services was for the god damn internet - that one should be written down in the "how to bring the system back up" documentation.
  so slashdotters... what would your CIO say if you respond with "that's what we have pencils and paper for" when a mission critical system crashes and you can't restore service because you don't know what to type after your ID?
8. Re:Perhaps.... by stanlyb · 2011-05-18 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly what i said, anyway i do agree with your comment. The fact is that he was punished for his social skills, which is simply not fair.
9. Re:Perhaps.... by suso · 2011-05-18 02:54 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It annoys me when certain admins feel that they are freedom fighters when operating their boxes, makes them incredibly annoying to work with.
  That's ok, you're equally annoying to work with because you don't take security seriously enough. There are some other people that I know of that didn't take security serious enough, who was that? Oh yeah, the security folk at Boston Logan International.
  And how about this guy from last month:
  http://www.geek.com/articles/news/man-wrongly-accused-of-child-porn-learns-to-password-protect-wifi-the-hard-way-20110426/
  I bet he takes network security a lot more seriously now. Sysadmins that take security seriously are important because most other people aren't, except the malicious hackers.
10. Re:Perhaps.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 03:06 · Score: 0
  
  No more so than Charles Manson was punished "for his social skills" or Bernie Madoff was punished "for his social skills," or any other number of people who break the law have been "punished for their social skills."
11. Re:Perhaps.... by Americano · 2011-05-18 03:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  he was surrounded by incompetence
  Oh bullshit. He was part of the incompetence . At what point do we admit that Mr. Childs was just as irresponsible for neglecting to create an appropriate backup and contingency plan for outages, disaster recovery, etc. that allowed for someone else to get access to the passwords?
  Where I'm sitting, any sysadmin with half a brain knows that a single point of failure is a no-no. Let's not pretend he was some white knight, if there were no adequate plans for password access in place, then he's just as incompetent as his managers were. Only difference is, he was incompetent, and broke the law in the process, by refusing to turn over the password to his management chain when he was reassigned and holding the network he was "protecting" hostage.
12. Re:Perhaps.... by milkmage · 2011-05-18 03:24 · Score: 2
  
  part of it? how?
  he's in fucking jail yet the administrators still can't login to the web?
  SPOF? what if he was the only person QUALIFIED to run the system.. ?
  http://news.oreilly.com/2008/07/coverage-of-terry-childs.html
13. Re:Perhaps.... by tnk1 · 2011-05-18 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  What part of making equipment completely inaccessible to your *authorized* colleagues is a good security practice? By that reasoning, I could make all planes safe from terrorism by never letting anyone but the pilot on the plane.
  His issue wasn't security, it was control. He didn't want his FiberWAN blemished by the incompetents that he worked with, so he effected a denial of access to critical maintenance controls. Sure, he locked out the block heads, but he also locked out everyone else too. I don't care what his skills were, I wouldn't have this guy work for me for free.
  If he wanted to build a perfect little dollhouse for himself, he should have done it with his own equipment on his own time. He made himself into an irreplaceable single point of failure, which is pretty much the worst thing you can do to make your network safe in the long run. Sure, it may run perfectly, until you get hit by a bus, or get fired for completely lacking in social skills. Then, no one can run it without ripping out most of your configurations so they can do simple maintenance.
  The only disturbing thing I am getting from this whole fiasco is that there are people who believe that holding a network hostage is the best way to achieve their goals. If you are employed to operate equipment, it is your job to operate the equipment, not to effect a coup.
14. Re:Perhaps.... by powerlord · 2011-05-18 03:53 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Part of the problem is that the level of Security or a System is inverse to its level of Accessibility.
  The more people can access systems and the more they can do with them, the less secure they can become.
  The trick is finding the balance people are willing to live with (short of unplugging the computer, which makes it REAL secure BTW), and finding ways to mitigate/lessen the threat left by vectors where you find yourself.
  I think the real problem is that too many non-security people don't view Computer Security as a serious issue, and too many security people view it as the major issue. This means when they both sit down at a table and try to find the balance point, neither side is happy and both sides feel the other one doesn't understand where they are coming from (which is often true).
  
  --
  This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
15. Re:Perhaps.... by powerlord · 2011-05-18 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  Once his Management asks him for the Passwords, even if he is the "only one QUALIFIED to run the system", then he needed to turn those passwords over.
  He can do it "under protest", he can ask them to provide a signed request for them, but what he can't do is say "No, You don't know what your doing so I'll protect you" EVEN IF HE'S RIGHT.
  His job in that situation is to make them aware of the risks, and then to do what they want done.
  Their job is to hear his issues, and then make a decision to either listen to his requests/warnings, hire outside help, or just plunge ahead and deal with the consequences later.
  
  --
  This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
16. Re:Perhaps.... by Americano · 2011-05-18 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  part of it? how?
  By neglecting to build a failsafe into the systems he administered, allowing other people to gain access in case he were sacked or incapacitated. The old "hit by a bus" rule. He had EVERY responsibility, obligation, and freedom to set up such a system, and he opted not to. That makes him, at best, an incompetent admin, no matter how gifted he is with configuring and troubleshooting the boxes.
  
  SPOF? what if he was the only person QUALIFIED to run the system.. ?
  Then you implement a failsafe so that if you are incapacitated, or terminate your employment, your employer is not fucked, and can hire another admin to come in and take over using the carefully & securely documented passwords & critical information you've written down to start from. This is EVEN MORE important if you are a SPOF. People have heart attacks. People get in car accidents. People get laid off, outsourced, or simply get fed up and decide to quit their job. If you are a competent professional, you plan for these things and don't take your systems hostage. If you are incompetent, you keep it all in your head and try to ransom access when you feel slighted.
  He had nothing to do with the issue detailed in the link you provided, and I never said he was the ONLY incompetent in the city's employ. I said he was PART of the incompetence, and he was. I'm a SPOF in my role; I did two things when I realized this:
  1) Spent a week documenting critical processes, passwords, and systems; Handed the ~20 pages of documentation to my boss in a sealed envelope, and told him, "In case you fire me, or I get hit by a bus, this is the critical information somebody would need to keep things running here. Please lock it up in one of your filing cabinets for safekeeping." I also provide him with an updated printout (new passwords, system config changes, hardware changes, etc) at the beginning of each month, and ask him to destroy the old one and replace it with the new. It's not ideal, but it provides some level of coverage.
  2) Spent a couple months badgering every manager in my division to identify people who they would agree to let me cross-train so they could do at least the basics of my role while they found a replacement for me if I ever left / was incapacitated. I now have two guys trained in the simple "day to day" stuff, which means I can also take a goddamned vacation without having to be plugged into the network constantly.
  This "I'm the only one QUALIFIED" to run the system is nonsense, and you know it. He's not the only guy who could possibly hope to understand his network config, and sooner or later, he'll quit, retire, get laid off or fired, or move on - and somebody will need to replace him. Part of his job while he's there is to think to the future and document things clearly in light of that fact.
17. Re:Perhaps.... by wmbetts · 2011-05-18 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because what he did was exactly the same as killing people or stealing from half the country.
  
  --
  "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
18. Re:Perhaps.... by milkmage · 2011-05-18 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  "By neglecting to build a failsafe into the systems he administered, allowing other people to gain access in case he were sacked or incapacitated. The old "hit by a bus" rule. He had EVERY responsibility, obligation, and freedom to set up such a system, and he opted not to. That makes him, at best, an incompetent admin, no matter how gifted he is with configuring and troubleshooting the boxes." ..and THREE YEARS LATER, they still have a SPOF - that fire was LAST MONTH. nobody fixed the problem.. one would think that after an incident like this, they would have modified procedures - incompetence persits.
19. Re:Perhaps.... by Aighearach · 2011-05-18 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  If he was "no longer a system[s] administrator" then there was no business talking to him about passwords, etc. In fact, it was an additional sysadmin duty that was being requested of him: to work with them in a way they directed regarding password maintenance.
  It is that refusal to engage in additional duties, due to a belief that they were professionally inappropriate, that he is being accused and found guilty of.
  I consider what he did to be at least half correct, though he handled in an impolite way. In any case it is clearly within the normal range of views that sysadmins have, that such passwords would never be given out and that a new sysadmin would be issued a new password.
20. Re:Perhaps.... by Aighearach · 2011-05-18 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  If they're not already authorized enough to have passwords, and you no longer work there, how can you have any formal belief that they are in fact authorized?
21. Re:Perhaps.... by Americano · 2011-05-18 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  And... what's your point? The two are completely unrelated situations, aside from happening "in the same city." That they replaced one incompetent admin with another incompetent admin doesn't mean that the first incompetent admin is somehow innocent of attempting to hold the city's infrastructure hostage.
  Your assertion was that somehow withholding the password was a sign of his competence, such that he was refusing to turn it over to incompetent people. Yet the fact that he built no failsafe indicates that he is - at best - incompetent, and at worse downright malicious. He was not a white knight. He fucked up, and then he made the situation worse by digging in his heels, instead of simply pointing them to his failsafe and saying, "Go ahead and use the passwords, they're clearly documented."
22. Re:Perhaps.... by ediron2 · 2011-05-18 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  level of Security or a System is inverse to its level of Accessibility.
  Not really.
  Using ftp smells like using scp/sftp, but the level of security is increased by encrypting traffic. Calling that diminished accessibility implies that a regular user *needed* to sniff traffic to use FTP in it's intended fashion, which is absurd.
  Ditto (by degrees) randomization of packet counter increments, antispoofing, switched networks vs hubs, dedicated encrypted tunnels for untrusted-network communication, logging, log-monitoring, IPS/IDS, SIEM, SSL, proxies, scanning, pentests, smart cards, active directory, SSO, group policy, disabling unused services and nearly every other security best practice. Some diminish accessibility, but seldom significantly. Some stop nonwork activity, which is unpopular but prudent. And *many* are transparent or irrelevant to the user's work-related needs.
  As for TFA, I've avoided researching the issue, but am I right that neither side seems to believe Childs had criminal intent? That'd make me think he hardly deserves a million-dollar penalty.
23. Re:Perhaps.... by tnk1 · 2011-05-18 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  A call to the HR department to verify their position? Failing that, when the cops showed up at the door, he would have realized that they were authorized.
  The only reason they were not "authorized" enough to have the passwords is that he built the configurations, with the passwords, and didn't give them to anyone else, even when requested.
24. Re:Perhaps.... by Aighearach · 2011-05-18 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  The police aren't even part of the same department! How would they even know? And how would they certify it? There is no mechanism.
  And in fact they did NOT hire somebody authorized, as you imply he could have been verifying. He was refusing to give it to an unqualified manager. The sort of person who might post it on a sticky note. And if he doesn't work there anymore, why should he spend time to make phone calls for free and verify stuff that doesn't matter to him anymore anyways? When they fire him he doesn't revert to some sort of indentured status... oh wait, he's in jail, he did!
25. Re:Perhaps.... by dave87656 · 2011-05-19 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  He was actually following the terms of his contract to the letter. AFAIK he was required to not give the admin passwords to anyone, even his boss. I think there's some grey area but it was clear that his acts were not simply malignant or illegal. IANAL, but isn't that reasonable double?
26. Re:Perhaps.... by dave87656 · 2011-05-19 17:31 · Score: 1
  
  Oops, that should have read reasonable doubt.
  Here's an interesting article on the case which sheds more light on why they convicted him.
  http://www.pcworld.com/article/195198/terry_childs_juror_explains_why_he_voted_to_convict.html
Take that Terry Childs by seeker_1us · 2011-05-18 00:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

We will make an example out of you, who cares about justice?
1. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Moryath · 2011-05-18 00:21 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It's probably billing him for the temerity to actually take his case to trial.
  You know, exercising his constitutional rights. That's something the "justice" system has to punish at all costs.
  Here's some info for you.
  Here's more.
  Or, to put it in a more sinister way: You get a heavier sentence if you insist on asserting your constitutional rights to a trial, to confront your accusers, to privacy from searches without probable cause, to avoid incriminating yourself, etc.
2. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Richard_at_work · 2011-05-18 00:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Some of us do and some of us do consider Childs to be guilty. He acted like a prick and suffered for it, but imho he was guilty of what he was found guilty of.
3. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  He sure as hell isn't guilty of causing them $1.5 million in damages. As stated above, this is punisment for daring to challenge his accusers -- one of the most serious offences in authoritarian law.
4. Re:Take that Terry Childs by JoeMerchant · 2011-05-18 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  He caused no damage in the "real world," but he tied up the courts and the city's lawyers, and you know, at $500 per billable hour, 1.5M is only 3000 man hours, or 3 lawyers for 6 months, plus expenses.
  Essentially, the judge has handed him a bankruptcy sentence - something he may not have been far from anyway.
5. Re:Take that Terry Childs by scubamage · 2011-05-18 00:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Not really, just a financial ruin sentence. You can't get out of legal penalties by declaring bankruptcy :(
6. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:54 · Score: 0
  
  "pay nearly $1.5 million in restitution", it doesn't sound like "legal penalty" but like restitution.
7. Re:Take that Terry Childs by sgt+scrub · 2011-05-18 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  It's probably billing him for the temerity to actually take his case to trial.
  Exactly! It is for letting the public know just how stupid the people working for the gooberment are. Including himself.
  
  --
  Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
8. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Richard_at_work · 2011-05-18 01:11 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  How much is a full review of the network, from the bare bones upward, including reflashing all firmware, and checking all servers going to cost in a city wide network?
  $1.5m would be cheap for that.
9. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  That's a bit disingenuous. It's not for taking his case to trial - it's for doing something illegal, not admitting it, and wasting everyone's time and money over it.
  There's nothing wrong with legal fees as a part of a guilty sentence. You seem to imply that this is the cost of defending yourself; it's clearly not. If he were innocent, he'd pay nothing.
10. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Dcnjoe60 · 2011-05-18 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  It's probably billing him for the temerity to actually take his case to trial.
  You know, exercising his constitutional rights. That's something the "justice" system has to punish at all costs.
  Here's some info for you.
  Here's more.
  Or, to put it in a more sinister way: You get a heavier sentence if you insist on asserting your constitutional rights to a trial, to confront your accusers, to privacy from searches without probable cause, to avoid incriminating yourself, etc.
  He had no constitutional right to do what he did. Free speech does not apply in the workplace. Well, it does, you are free to exercise it, but there is nothing that precludes the employer for terminating you for do so. Most employees think they have all of these "rights," but they should quit relying on TV shows. In all states, save Oregon (I think), all employees are at will employees and can be let go for no reason whatsoever. The only "rights" that employees have are those actually outlined by law and free speech, as it applies to an employee does not exist, unless it is with regards to certain other protected things (ie. speaking out against illegal discrimination). Union workers may have something in their contracts to preclude this, but otherwise that is the real world situation.
11. Re:Take that Terry Childs by flibbidyfloo · 2011-05-18 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  You have it backwards. If you insist on going to trial for something then you risk losing and getting hit with the full weight of the current law. If you make a deal first, then you can often get a reduced penalty. You aren't being "penalized" for going to trial, you're getting a "bonus" for saving the system time and effort. Remember, if you insist on exercising your rights you might also go free.
12. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Errol+backfiring · 2011-05-18 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you only hire one admin to do it.
  
  --
  Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
13. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  So given that there is room to argue over the amount what they're claiming is that they're billing him to cover the 12 day effort to regain control of the systems followed by the longer effort to do analysis to determine if he left behind any surprises. While the city certainly deserves plenty of blame and was negligent in the way it managed a piece of public infrastructure this guy was a flake: according to articles I read he refused to give his bosses access claiming they couldn't be trusted, and he demanded to meet the mayor to give him the passwords. This lasted for a couple of weeks before the mayor received the passwords in a jail cell visit. I'd want to do some analysis on my system as well after this nut job had been in charge for years especially if I had been negligent about how I ran things and had given him and him alone full admin/root rights. I don't know how much it actually cost them versus what they claimed but a payout to cover the costs doesn't seem unreasonable.
14. Re:Take that Terry Childs by GooberToo · 2011-05-18 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Using you're logic, that's something they would be forced to do every time there is admin turnover. That's uninformed to say the least. He was not charged for compromising the network. He simply refused to hand over passwords, to which he was lawfully empowered, because his contract had very specific stipulations. The problem came in that the city attempted (non-legally binding which still kept him liable) to wave those stipulations and he became a dick attempting to hold them to it.
  He was convicted and seemingly, rightfully so. His handling of the situation was stupid and purposely inflammatory. It appears to be a valid prosecution. The $1.5 million, by far, seems very excessive, especially if he has to do any jail time.
15. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Cwix · 2011-05-18 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  The point is you cant get rid of the judgment with a bankruptcy.
  He will be paying that off for the rest of his life. (I haven't paid enough attention to decide if he should or shouldn't be held responsible.)
  
  --
  You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
16. Re:Take that Terry Childs by nomadic · 2011-05-18 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Eh, you can't garnish every single penny someone has. He'll have this over his head for the rest of his life but doesn't necessarily mean he'll be homeless.
17. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Nickodeimus · 2011-05-18 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  He'll only have to pay this until he moves out of that state. They can't pursue you for this kind of penalty across state lines unless its for child support.
18. Re:Take that Terry Childs by moronoxyd · 2011-05-18 01:46 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Using you're logic, that's something they would be forced to do every time there is admin turnover.
  Quite the opposite: They (may have) had to do it because Childs behaved the way he did.
  The way he was acting, they had to make sure there are no more backdoors for him.
  If an admin leaves on good terms, gives his superior all the relevant information, keys et. al., then it's most probably not necessary to check the network.
  Childs, on the other hand, made sure that he was the only one who could keep the network running and nobody else could take over for him.
  That's paranoid at the best and malicious at the worst.
19. Re:Take that Terry Childs by nomadic · 2011-05-18 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  It depends, you can actually get a judgment enforced in another state but you typically have to bring a new action to enforce that judgment in the state he moves to. Alternately, if he's working for a national organization with offices in California, the city can serve the writ of garnishment on the California hq.
20. Re:Take that Terry Childs by stanlyb · 2011-05-18 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Then he must go in Canada. At the end of day, the black slaves did it, and were welcomed in Canada, the soldiers that did not want to fight stupid wars did it too, and many other americans did it too...... Btw, is Canada becoming the country of the decent people? Just asking.
21. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Rob+the+Bold · 2011-05-18 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Or, to put it in a more sinister way: You get a heavier sentence if you insist on asserting your constitutional rights to a trial, to confront your accusers, to privacy from searches without probable cause, to avoid incriminating yourself, etc.
  I think it's even simpler than that. You get a heavier sentence if you say you're not guilty instead of confessing and acting contrite. Everyone loves a contrite sinner more than one who shows no remorse. Even if they aren't actually guilty.
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
22. Re:Take that Terry Childs by dr2chase · 2011-05-18 01:53 · Score: 2
  
  This is the same logic that has the TSA harassing people who complain too much about their crotch feel and nudie photos -- because everyone knows, that's how we catch all the terrorists.
  Rule #1: be sure to leave your job (apparently) graciously, if you leave any backdoors for later (am)use.
23. Re:Take that Terry Childs by stanlyb · 2011-05-18 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it is true about "no reason" termination, but it is not true if there is actually a "reason". To put it other way, if your employee did something wrong, and you have a reason, you better fire him "without reason", or will face a discrimination case otherwise.
24. Re:Take that Terry Childs by stanlyb · 2011-05-18 01:59 · Score: 2
  
  He is apparently a decent sysadmin, but is also apparently a geek, without the slightest idea how the politics are thinking and working. He was punished for his lack of social instincts, but hey, at the end of day, he is just a sysadmin, not senator, right?
25. Re:Take that Terry Childs by eleuthero · 2011-05-18 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  By your own description, Canada is the country for those who (in a good way--escaping slaves or a bad one--deserters [there was the route of conscientious objection, but many who fled to Canada did so because it wasn't a matter of 'no war' but a matter of 'this war'] or a neutral one--general political/other dissidents) left the U.S. This is, of course, over simplifying things.
26. Re:Take that Terry Childs by JD770 · 2011-05-18 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  Could he (fly/drive/hitch-hike) down to Bolivia (or some such) and start over in I.T. & beyond the reach of the US's wage-garnishment jurisduiction?
27. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Sarius64 · 2011-05-18 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Are you that dense?
  He had one law staring him in the face saying that handing over the information insecurely would place him in jail. He had (basically) someone's political bitch telling him to subvert the law. Then a jury is ordered to ignore the law to convict him.
  You'd better hope you never end up in that situation. Essentially, the court is impressing that they can and will subvert State law in order to support a process they evidently do not understand.
  If anything, organizations like the ACLU should be screaming for this fight.
28. Re:Take that Terry Childs by eleuthero · 2011-05-18 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  To put it other way, if your employee did something wrong, and you have a reason, you better fire him "without reason", or will face a discrimination case otherwise.
  Good documentation is important. Firing with cause does happen and should, unfortunately, happen in some cases. Letting someone go for repeatedly making inappropriate remarks to clients or for repeatedly playing costly pranks on other staff (depending on the business and the work environment), among others, are reasons that, if you have documentation of individual events, firing with cause happens. General laziness could also be a cause, provided there were concrete examples of failing to fulfill a job description.
  
  Why would a company bother? Unemployment benefits come out of a "tax" paid by the individual company--when the unemployment benefit account for a company is depleted when someone is let go without cause, they have to pay into it again. If someone needs to be fired, firing him or her with cause is the best way to ensure the financial stability of the company IF you have documentation.
29. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Golddess · 2011-05-18 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Is that like saying Blizzard doesn't punish users who play for extended periods with reduced EXP, they actually reward users who play little with extra EXP?
  
  --
  "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
30. Re:Take that Terry Childs by jimrthy · 2011-05-18 02:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Along the same lines, this is why so many innocent people wind up striking plea bargains.
  A friend of a friend is currently serving the second year of a one year sentence (!) for a crime he didn't commit. He didn't take it to trial, because the prosecutor threatened him with 10 years, and his lawyer convinced him that it just wasn't worth the risk.
  I'm not claiming he's an innocent man. Just that he didn't commit the particular crime he's actually serving time for. It's a "Sleep with the dogs and pick up their fleas" sort of thing.
31. Re:Take that Terry Childs by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2011-05-18 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  "He will be paying that off for the rest of his life."
  Another option: he can seek asylum in a Chinese or Mexican embassy, claiming political persecution by the city of San Francisco.
  
  --
  New Economic Perspectives
32. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, a life-long holiday reward. Indeed, why continue working if every single cent that he ever will earn will go towards the payment of this debt anyways?
  Better leech off welfare, and enjoy a quiet life.
33. Re:Take that Terry Childs by stanlyb · 2011-05-18 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  And i am just joking of course.
34. Re:Take that Terry Childs by cgenman · 2011-05-18 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  He was guilty of being a prick, and not releasing passwords when asked. It's pretty thin to call that "network tampering" through inaction, though it's definitely at minimum contract violation.
  But they're explicitly billing him for money the city spent searching the network for any vulnerabilities they were afraid he may have added when he left. Not back doors that he did add, but things they were afraid he might have added because they parted on bad circumstances. That's not a precedent I'd like set. If you're afraid an employee might have done something, and they didn't, that should be your fiscal responsibility.
  Being guilty of something isn't the same as being guilty of everything.
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
35. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Ossifer · 2011-05-18 03:15 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Justice served.
36. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  A better punishment would be to have him write up a review of procedures before his arrest, and suggestions for improvement. It'd be something he could pay, and would benefit the city much better.
37. Re:Take that Terry Childs by IICV · 2011-05-18 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  Some of us do and some of us do consider Childs to be guilty. He acted like a prick and suffered for it, but imho he was guilty of what he was found guilty of.
  Okay; but was he "fuck your life over" guilty? After his trial turned into a media debacle, he's going to have a hard time getting a job anywhere in technology - which means that he's going to have to pay this 1.5 million dollar judgement with whatever remains of his life savings, and then with whatever he can make flipping burgers (if he's lucky).
  Even if you consider him to be guilty, were his actions commensurate with this judgement?
38. Re:Take that Terry Childs by zippthorne · 2011-05-18 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Unless the crime is a traffic violation. Then your "court fees" are going to be bigger than the original fine even if you win...
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
39. Re:Take that Terry Childs by nomadic · 2011-05-18 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  You can get garnishment orders enforced in Canada, too.
40. Re:Take that Terry Childs by nomadic · 2011-05-18 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  He had one law staring him in the face saying that handing over the information insecurely would place him in jail.
  
  Please provide a citation to this mythical law.
41. Re:Take that Terry Childs by MarkvW · 2011-05-18 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, the government was stupid, but not for the reason you think. The government was stupid for trusting Terry Childs.
  The City was in emergency mode. They spent tons of money trying to get access back to their system. The restitution order is an attempt to remedy the city for those expenses.
  I don't understand why this whack job gets sympathy for so many people. He got a little too much time, in my opinion, but that's the only sympathy that rogue admin gets from me.
42. Re:Take that Terry Childs by flex941 · 2011-05-18 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Now you forget he could've been just run over by schoolbus on the way home. What then?
43. Re:Take that Terry Childs by flex941 · 2011-05-18 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Are you kidding?
44. Re:Take that Terry Childs by stanlyb · 2011-05-18 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Then Colombia. I heard that the girls are pretty there...
45. Re:Take that Terry Childs by said213 · 2011-05-18 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  a contempt of court warrant is enforceable on a national level. if he left the state, he would eventually be picked up on a contempt warrant and extradited.
  
  --
  help me fix this "Terrible" karma, please!
46. Re:Take that Terry Childs by nomadic · 2011-05-18 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. Why would I be?
47. Re:Take that Terry Childs by nomadic · 2011-05-18 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  Gorgeous. Not sure if Colombian courts will enforce the judgment.
48. Re:Take that Terry Childs by eleuthero · 2011-05-18 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  :) - which apparently can't go by itself in a response because it isn't sufficient to past the "cat got your tongue?" filter.
49. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  Yes you can. If you have a judgment, you can declare bankruptcy and have it stopped.
50. Re:Take that Terry Childs by GooberToo · 2011-05-18 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  I honestly don't know which is scarier; your non-rational, self deluding thought or the fact someone moderated your post up.
  Holy shit - slashdot has fallen.
51. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Lumpy · 2011-05-18 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Shhh! Next you will be telling people about all canadians holding a secret box to be opened in a Canadian emergency!
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
52. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Lumpy · 2011-05-18 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  ACLU dont care... he's a white middle class man.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
53. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Technician · 2011-05-18 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  I'm thinking it is to pay for the 4 years in the state hotel system they run. Somebody has to pay for that. Add in the lost income from him not paying taxes for 4 years and the 1.5 Million is pretty cheap.
  It is likely that after 4 years he is judgment proof.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_proof
  
  --
  The truth shall set you free!
54. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · 2011-05-18 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Or he'll get a book deal (either about his experiences or about network administration best practices) and pay it off with the royalties.
55. Re:Take that Terry Childs by HornWumpus · 2011-05-18 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Lorena Bobbit was Colombian. Watch yourselves.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
56. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  Note you ignore the inconvenient fact that you only get sentenced if you are found guilty. In any case this is the half empty - half full argument, if you plead guilty you are offered a lesser penalty than you really warrant.
57. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Grishnakh · 2011-05-18 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  If nothing else, he deserves sympathy for being victim of a totally screwed-up justice system. People way back in Biblical times understood the concept that justice had to be fair, and that's why they came up with the term "an eye for an eye", meaning that the punishment should never be grossly disproportionate to the crime. Apparently, cultures who came before them didn't understand this, and wanted excessive retribution, so if someone committed some minor crime, he was punished with something far worse, such as torture and execution for stealing a loaf of bread or something.
  Apparently, we're going back to that mentality. Whatever Childs did, it certainly isn't worth $1.5 million in retribution, a couple years in jail, etc. Instead, he should be getting paid $1.5 million for being put through such a ridiculous trial and so much publicity that he'll never have a real job again. He didn't do anything to deserve this, and at most deserved a slap on the wrist for being a pain in the ass. Did he kill anyone? Rape anyone? Even greatly inconvenience anyone (except the morons in the city government)? No. So why is the "justice system" spending more effort and giving him a harsher punishment than people who do far worse crimes, maiming and killing people? There's people who kill others and get out in 4 years.
  The most this guy deserved for his actions were a $1000 fine (maybe) and a black mark on his employment record. After all, who's going to want to hire him after a bad performance like that?
  As for "whack job", this guy isn't any more of a whack job than most of the people walking the streets and voting in elections these days. There's tons of people around with borderline personality disorders, and there's tons of people working in government jobs who are on power trips. There's tons of nutballs teaching our kids in school; anyone who's been through public school should know this. We don't throw them in jail for years and slap them with giant fines, instead we put up with their idiosyncracies and weirdness, or if it's too much to take, we shuffle them off to other jobs and let them become someone else's problem. If we threw everyone in jail who was as much of a "whack job" as this guy, we'd have about 50% of our population in prison.
58. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Stan92057 · 2011-05-18 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  I got to say,yes. And he can probably get a security job considering they have a history of hiring criminals lol. Some call it restitution i call it punishment well deserved.
  
  --
  Jack of all trades,master of none
59. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Grishnakh · 2011-05-18 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  So I guess you believe in punishments that far exceed the severity of the crimes, right? "Eye for an eye" is too nice for you? You'd be right at home with some of the primitive pre-Biblical civilizations.
  Hopefully, the next time you're caught speeding just 1mph over the speed limit, the cop will pull you out of the car, shoot you in the nuts and the stomach, and let you slowly bleed to death while he pulls your fingernails out with pliers, because you surely deserve that punishment for that crime.
60. Re:Take that Terry Childs by nomadic · 2011-05-18 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Thought she was filipina?
61. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  Holy shit - slashdot has fallen.
  Looks like things really started going downhill when UIDs hit 5 digits.
62. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Aighearach · 2011-05-18 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Even the judge admitted they did not in fact spend a bunch of money or incur expenses.
63. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Aighearach · 2011-05-18 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  When you're told a friend of a friend is serving the second year of a one year sentence, somebody isn't telling somebody the truth.
64. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Blindman · 2011-05-18 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that he acted like a prick. However, I think it is much harder to claim that he denied service, which is what he was convicted of. At the time he created the passwords, he was clearly acting within the scope of his job so that wasn't a crime. When he was fired, he refused to turn over those passwords to his former superiors. Why is this different than refusing to work once he was fired? Technically speaking, he didn't do anything. At one point, he did give his former superiors bogus passwords. However, lying is a different offense, if it is criminal at all.
  
  --
  I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
65. Re:Take that Terry Childs by marnues · 2011-05-18 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Or justice was served. The ACLU understands that better than anyone on this site.
66. Re:Take that Terry Childs by jedidiah · 2011-05-18 06:30 · Score: 2
  
  It's really quite bizzare. People don't seem to grasp that standards of this kind can be turned and used against them any time the state decides to. They live in this sort of disconnected fantasy land where actions and consequences only ever happen to "other people" and the stupid things they tolerate or even clamour for can never be used against them. ...almost pathological to go in the DSM-IV.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
67. Re:Take that Terry Childs by delcielo · 2011-05-18 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. Both sides of the debate are doing a good bit of quibbling about how things are being represented, but the truth is that he refused to give the owners of the system the information they needed to run it, information they owned and were entitled to. The result of that action (or inaction, however you wish to represent it) is that a lot of time was spent by a lot of people dealing with the situation, whether they were 3rd party consultants doing the technical work, or city staff who gave reports, depositions, investigated his employment history, argued the case in court, etc.
  
  We can argue about calling it "damages", but the costs are real. And Terry is nobody to hang your hat on. Having a jerk for a boss is no excuse for what he did. Every boss is a jerk in someone's eyes.
  
  --
  Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
68. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Dcnjoe60 · 2011-05-18 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Are you that dense?
  He had one law staring him in the face saying that handing over the information insecurely would place him in jail. He had (basically) someone's political bitch telling him to subvert the law. Then a jury is ordered to ignore the law to convict him.
  You'd better hope you never end up in that situation. Essentially, the court is impressing that they can and will subvert State law in order to support a process they evidently do not understand.
  If anything, organizations like the ACLU should be screaming for this fight.
  I don't have any information to accept or doubt what you post. However, I don't see the relevance with regard to the original poster claiming he was exercising his constitutional right. That is what I was responding to. Did you mis-post to the wrong thread? Regardless, if what you post is true, it goes to show that the employee did not have any right to do what he did.
  Assuming your information is accurate, you seem to feel he only had the two choices you mention. I can thing of two additional options he could have exercised. First, nobody can be compelled legally to perform an illegal act. If he was being forced to break the law by releasing the information, he could have refused and been terminated. Upon which time, if he had chosen that option, he could have sued. Option two, assuming he didn't want to go that route, would have been to resign/quit. In short, if he had chosen either of these two options, both legal, he would not have been charged with a crime. He might be unemployed, but that would seem a lot better than his current situation.
69. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  If we threw everyone in jail who was as much of a "whack job" as this guy, we'd have about 50% of our population in prison.
  Well, maybe we should.
70. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=google+news
71. Re:Take that Terry Childs by AK+Marc · 2011-05-18 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  They had no access to the network for the two years prior to this incident, so that wasn't an issue. They ended up demanding slavery (that he work for free after being fired) and when their idiocy was pointed out, they arrested him and convicted him because his employer also owns the police, prosecutors, and courts.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
72. Re:Take that Terry Childs by AK+Marc · 2011-05-18 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Wasn't the final charge/conviction for hacking the network? He locked up the network while he was employed (and thus did have authorization to do it). And he took no action that interrupted service, and there was never anything that indicated he intended to interrupt service (the statements were always "what if the power went out" not "what if he hacked it."
  
  Looking at the law he was charged with, I can't see how any jury could possibly convict him of it. Well, unless he judge instructed the jury on legal matters that indicate that you can convict someone of hacking who didn't actually hack someone...
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
73. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Grishnakh · 2011-05-18 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, how much do you think it's going to cost to hold 1/2 the population in prison, giving them free meals 3 times a day, free medical care, free TV, free exercise equipment, etc., while employing armed guards to watch over them?
  Then, who do you think is going to do all the crap jobs, like cleaning the toilets, paving the roads, building houses, doing trades work like plumbing, etc.? You think all those people are mentally well-balanced? Here in Phoenix, most of the tradespeople are on meth.
  Finally, why shouldn't you be locked up with them? Are you mentally well-balanced? Have you ever visited a counselor or psychologist? Ever had any kind of mental problem, such as family problems, or marital problems? Do you have codependency issues? Have you ever suffered from depression? Do you have socialization problems, perhaps? (After all, you're here on Slashdot instead of hanging out at a sports bar with other guys.) How do I know that you're not some kind of whack job? Ever get angry when someone cuts you off in traffic? I think that makes you a whack job, and deserving of lifelong imprisonment. After all, mentally well-balanced people would never get angry about anything, ever. Disagree? Then your definition of whack job is different from mine. Whose definition is the government going to use?
  Plus, what about all the people in government? Just look at the people in Congress and the White House. Most of them are egomaniacs or sociopaths (or both). Definitely whack jobs.
74. Re:Take that Terry Childs by hodet · 2011-05-18 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  The punishment is harsh but I don't feel sorry for him. Back in the 90's and early 2000's I was a network admin as well and had the "keys to the kingdom". Sometimes my boss was a prick and the job was thankless. But you know what I did? I copied all the passwords to all important systems on paper, put them in a sealed envelope under lock and key, and gave the trusted admin assistant directions on how to get the info should I get hit by a bus so that business could go on. I did it because I was a professional. My bet is that a good chunk of people here would or probably did do something similar. It's called having a little respect, not so much for your employer, but for yourself.
75. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  Meanwhile.....
  http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/
  Police officers molest and rape children and get LESS TIME IN JAIL.
  Some in the same district.
  And for everyone who will go off on what a jerk this guy was...
  Remember. he was fired.. THEN asked for passwords.
  It's city's own fault.
  Also, being a Grade A Asshole is not illegal.
  If I get fired and later they call me and ask for passwords or how something is setup, or the like.
  What will happen is that I will say "Fuck You" and hang up the phone.
  If they persist maybe I will help them out. At a rate of $500 a hour, 10 hour minimum.
76. Re:Take that Terry Childs by jimrthy · 2011-05-19 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Or someone (could very well be me) along the story-telling chain doesn't really have a clue. I suspect there was something along the lines of jail time followed by a reported probation violation. But that's just a guess.
77. Re:Take that Terry Childs by pugugly · 2011-05-19 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Let's put it this way.
  People with absolutely no formal authority to require him to give the admin passwords attempted to force him to do so.
  He refused.
  He was jailed. In jail he surrended to admin account info to the senior person in the company.
  He has now been fined 1.5 million dollars for enforcing information security.
  Next week, someone about to be fired from San Franscisco City Hall will inform his replacement that he wants the admin passwords to the network. Since Terry Childs was found guilty and held to a massive fine for not surrendering those passwords, his replacement will sensibly give this person admin access to the SF network.
  When the replacement maliciously destroys the network in revenge for being fired - is the new administrator also responsible for the damage caused?
  Please show your work.
  Pug
  
  --
  An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
78. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Aighearach · 2011-05-21 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  A probation violation is a new charge, not part of the old sentence.
79. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 14:05 · Score: 0
  
  That's fine. Do you think under half a month amounts to $1.5 MILLION???
  Oh, right, you didn't address that and got modded +5 insightful. Wonderful.
80. Re:Take that Terry Childs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-26 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  He may or may not have been guilty. The issue really is that SF allowed the administrative password not to be distributed so items just like the offense he is accused of would NOT happen. So how much should SF be fined for not doing their job?
How much will the morons in administration by unity100 · 2011-05-18 00:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

... who had had exposed hundreds of LIVE login/passwords to city administration system as 'proof', endangering the public system and the private information of citizens and even more, will pay ?

nothing ? i guessed as much. its all ok if you are a moron at the helm of a company or a public office. no really - i am much more polite and eloquent than what wordage you read here, but, i am at a loss to find any word other than moron for publicly exposing hundreds of live login/passwords in a public court. really. morons.

it appears terry childs was right.

--
Read radical news here
1. Re:How much will the morons in administration by fifedrum · 2011-05-18 01:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It blows my mind that the guy spent any time at all in jail for this, especially after the city lied about the access (they had access several days before he tuned over the passwords). It's worse when the city again lied, time and time again, in fact, in painting his actions and configurations as nefarious when they're all common practice. The sniffer thing, the modem stuff, the paging issue. Those lies the city told should have been a get out of jail free card for him by painting the city as the scumbags they are. He did one thing wrong to his bosses, his bosses (via lawyer proxy, I assume) then turn around and lie in court, which is the real crime.
2. Re:How much will the morons in administration by Stan92057 · 2011-05-18 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  All that lieing and still 12 totally strange people said he was guilty. I guess they were payed off as well.
  
  --
  Jack of all trades,master of none
3. Re:How much will the morons in administration by guruevi · 2011-05-18 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Strange people can't make a man guilty. I have strange people walking around in the street saying we're all guilty and God is going to kill us all for it. The judge (and sometimes a jury) makes a man guilty but even then they're wrong sometimes. The defendant was being tried on breaking an unconstitutional law in the first place (laws against encryption and/or not disclosing your personal passwords is both an infringement of the first and fifth amendment).
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
4. Re:How much will the morons in administration by fifedrum · 2011-05-18 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  guilty of what?!? I know, I read the blogs and heard the arguments about what the jury found him guilty of something. When you can make anything a crime, everything can be a crime. Remember that the next time you help out a friend and they tell you their password. He withheld passwords. That's the long and short of it.
5. Re:How much will the morons in administration by Firehed · 2011-05-18 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  A judge can make someone convicted. Only that person can make himself guilty.
  
  --
  How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
6. Re:How much will the morons in administration by Stan92057 · 2011-05-20 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  It wasnt HIS password, it belonged to the city.
  
  --
  Jack of all trades,master of none
That explains it... by gman003 · 2011-05-18 00:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

That explains why American culture is so obsessed with vigilante justice - the actual judicial system is fucking retarded .
1. Re:That explains it... by MickyTheIdiot · 2011-05-18 00:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  it's run by simpletons just like everything else in the U.S. right now...
2. Re:That explains it... by smelch · 2011-05-18 00:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, also sometimes the only way to get real justice is as a vigilante, and nobody wants to admit that they would go too far with it. Americans tend to view things in absolutes. There is true justice, true good and true evil independent of what society says, thinks or does. If somebody rapes your child it would be true justice to remove that guy's balls and feed them to him, but no court would ever allow that to happen.
  
  --
  If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
3. Re:That explains it... by sco08y · 2011-05-18 00:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Any actual evidence that Americans are "obsessed" with vigilante justice? I'm trying to recall the last time I heard of any notorious vigilante actions, and I'm drawing a blank. Even when the WBC crowd protested military funerals, the worst anyone did was slash their tires.
4. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  The first rule of vigilante justice is that we don't talk about vigilante justice...
5. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  Haven't you heard of comics?
6. Re:That explains it... by gman003 · 2011-05-18 00:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Sure, Americans are too lazy to actually do anything themselves, but that doesn't mean we're not obsessed with fictional vigilantes. Pretty much every superhero comic/movie/game/whatever. Most Westerns. The entire "loose-cannon cop on the edge" genre (Dirty Harry, etc) differs from vigilante justice only on a technicality. And look at the way (certain) Americans look at foreign policy: "Someone needs to do something about $COUNTRY, so we'll do it, even though we've got no justification and no permission for intervening." America just wants to be Batman in country form.
7. Re:That explains it... by swalve · 2011-05-18 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  We prefer it when we can get someone else to do the wet work for us.
8. Re:That explains it... by travdaddy · 2011-05-18 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  I'm trying to recall the last time I heard of any notorious vigilante actions, and I'm drawing a blank.
  
  You've never heard of Batman?!?!
  
  --
  Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
9. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  So who's running your Slashdot account?
10. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  You nailed it.
11. Re:That explains it... by EvilStein · 2011-05-18 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  "Even when the WBC crowd protested military funerals, the worst anyone did was slash their tires."
  That's because the WBC is full of lawyers that love to sue everyone they can. If the WBC was full of non-legal types, they would probably have all been beaten to a retarded pulp by now.
12. Re:That explains it... by Goboxer · 2011-05-18 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  America just wants to be Batman in country form.
  Who the hell wouldn't?
13. Re:That explains it... by SQLGuru · 2011-05-18 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  Just last week. There was the reclaimation of a laptop by a group of vigilantes.....at least that's how it was sensationalized in the headlines.
  The actual story was that a guy found his laptop through tracking software. A group went to the bar where it was and asked for it back. The guy who had it let them take it back.
14. Re:That explains it... by nomadic · 2011-05-18 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  What? Someone on SLASHDOT made a completely unsupportable generalization? Impossible.
15. Re:That explains it... by Dhalka226 · 2011-05-18 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  look at the way (certain) Americans look at foreign policy: "Someone needs to do something about $COUNTRY, so we'll do it, even though we've got no justification and no permission for intervening."
  Contrast that with the majority of the rest of the world's foreign policy: "Someone needs to do something about $COUNTRY, so we'll twiddle our thumbs until America steps in."
  I'd respect "leave other countries alone" as a foreign policy, but it rarely exists. The real contrast (among those on the same side of the argument) is those who want to do something and those who want to issue sternly-worded press releases and resolutions and sit back and see how it goes.
  America can't, and shouldn't, be the world's policeman. But once we agree that something needs to be done, I'd prefer to be among those who think the best course of action is to do something. That something will vary on the situation at hand, of course.
16. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:41 · Score: 0
  
  Right now?
  Are you new to this planet?
17. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  I'm trying to recall the last time I heard of any notorious vigilante actions, and I'm drawing a blank.
  You've never heard of Batman?!?!
  Yeah, you know that's a fictional character, right? Christ, as stupid as Americans are, at least we've got Europeans and Canadians to make us look like fucking geniuses.
18. Re:That explains it... by houghi · 2011-05-18 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  I would say they are obsessed with it, but also are too lazy to do it themselves. The reason for vigilante justice is pure and simple revenge AND convict people for a crime.
  The result is people voted as judges who represent those ideas and the final result is the highest percentage of people in jail in any country for crimes where in other countries they would at most write a ticket, if anything.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
19. Re:That explains it... by cavreader · 2011-05-18 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  Americans are lazy, stupid, and all around losers but somehow they are sitting on the top of the food chain. What does that say about everyone else? All I see are people jumping up and down while screaming "that's not fair!" and looking for "do overs" to compensate for some earlier idiotic decision they made that didn't quite work out the way they had planned. And for those who say it won't last you may be correct but remember how they got to the top in the first place. It wasn't by kow towing to the incoherent ramblings of the international community or minions of the "Progressive" political community. The international community spends so much time laying all the problems in the world on the US that they don't have anytime left to make any meaningful contribution to actually addressing and fixing the problems. It's more important for them to make sure the US is blamed for all the worlds problems so they can unburden themselves of any responsibility. As far as foreign policy goes I anxiously await the day when Americas foreign policy consists of nothing more than maintaining reasonable trade policies combined with a hearty "fuck off" whenever someone comes looking for a hand out or support of any kind.
20. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  Contrast that with the majority of the rest of the world's foreign policy: "Someone needs to do something about $COUNTRY, so we'll twiddle our thumbs until America steps in."
  In other words, they have learned the economically sound principle of "let someone else pay for it." As an American taxpayer (but thankfully too old to ever be drafted), I too, want my free foreign policy lunch.
21. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  Any actual evidence that Americans are "obsessed" with vigilante justice? I'm trying to recall the last time I heard of any notorious vigilante actions, and I'm drawing a blank. Even when the WBC crowd protested military funerals, the worst anyone did was slash their tires.
  Er, assassination of Osama bin Laden ...
22. Re:That explains it... by TheRaven64 · 2011-05-18 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  The US didn't used to be run by idiots, it used to be run by vested interests. Now it's run by idiots on behalf of vested interests.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
23. Re:That explains it... by panikfan · 2011-05-18 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  the judicial system is one big revenue stream, thanks mostly to the ridiculous war on drugs. it's big business to fight 'criminals' and it's even bigger business to lock them up.
24. Re:That explains it... by silanea · 2011-05-18 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  That was simply good old Bible-style revenge, not vigilante justice. Especially considering that the U.S. Navy SEALs do not exactly qualify for vigilante status.
  
  --
  Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
25. Re:That explains it... by torgis · 2011-05-18 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  "Even when the WBC crowd protested military funerals, the worst anyone did was slash their tires."
  That's because the WBC is full of lawyers that love to sue everyone they can. If the WBC was full of non-legal types, they would probably have all been beaten to a retarded pulp by now.
  I've never heard of a bloodthirsty mob holding themselves in check due to the possible legal ramifications of their actions. And I'm pretty sure there's a clause in the law somewhere that make it not only legal, but beneficial, to beat lawyers. I might be wrong though.
26. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  Meh, revenge and vigilante-ism are leaves that grow from the same branch of the poisoned tree.
  The SEALS were the tools, the higher-ups would be the vigilantes.
27. Re:That explains it... by lymond01 · 2011-05-18 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking more along the lines of vigilante justices when he wrote that. Judges that come up with their own out-of-bounds penalty for a situation. $1.5 million to what? Fix their own network security? For pain and suffering? Terry Childs deserves jail time, not an unaffordable fine.
28. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.
29. Re:That explains it... by TheGratefulNet · 2011-05-18 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  I honestly and sincerely don't think we'd notice the diff between lynchings from the old wild wild west and today's form of 'justice' by trial.
  flip a coin. neither one is really better than the other one, given the results.
  I have a vote of 'no confidence' in our legal system. bye bye 'american values' that we all were taught in grade school. the real america is something you don't want to fark with. too much risk in getting hurt along the way.
  being innocent or eve not-guilty is not enough. when the corrupt US justice system gets involved, nothing good will come of it.
  keep it up, america; but don't start wondering why vigilantes start to make a come-back.
  when the system starts to police itself, then the V's can go back home. until then, I have no problem with V's going around to settle things on their own. yes, the world has come to that, sadly to say.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
30. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  Why U mad tho? You probably want to know where we get our wonderful toys.
31. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  how bout the golden sachs employee who stole code and got 10 years in the slammer?
  what did gs execs get for ripping us off?
32. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  Osama Bin Fucking Ladin.
33. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  Evidence?
  Batman, Spiderman, Dirty Harry.
  It's an obsession, not an actual pastime.
34. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  The new stream of superhero movies....
  Let's see.......movies releasing this year/next: Green Hornet, Thor, Green Lantern Cpt. America, Avengers, X-men 1st class, Transformers 3, new Spiderman.
  At this rate, Aquaman will find his movie soon.
35. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  Dog The Bounty Hunter
36. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  prison rape
37. Re:That explains it... by jellomizer · 2011-05-18 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  I think it is more to the point on the Self-Importants that city governments place on themselves. If this were a private company I could see a fine of $500,000 max. But because it was a government agency somehow it was that much more important.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
38. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  That explains why American culture is so obsessed with vigilante justice - the actual judicial system is fucking retarded .
  You're just racist, and can't stand the idea of America having an African-American president.
39. Re:That explains it... by Aighearach · 2011-05-18 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Those are big sellers all over the world, not just or even moreso here. They're made in America to the extent that such media in general is made in America.
40. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  Here are some examples of "American vigilante tradition":
  In 1851 and 1856, San Francisco Vigilance Movement was an example of secret groups of vigilantes who cleaned up city streets of crime with a segment focused against immigrants like the Sydney Ducks.[6]
  Los Angeles and the surrounding counties had outbursts of vigilantism from the early 1850s as many of the criminals driven out of San Francisco and the Gold Country came into the less populated Southern California making the city and surrounding countryside a dangerous place for many years.[7]
  In 1858 San Luis Obispo vigilantes ended the murderous reign of the bandit gang of Pío Linares on El Camino Real between San Luis and Santa Barbara.
  From late December 1863 to 1864 the Montana Vigilantes were formed by citizens of Bannack, Virginia City and nearby Nevada City to fight lawlessness in the gold mining region of Montana. Over the next month, 21 men were hanged, including, on January 10, 1864, Henry Plummer the sheriff of Bannack. The last man hanged by the vigilantes may have done nothing more than express an opinion that several of those hanged previously had been innocent.
  In 1868 between 60 and 70 vigilantes broke into the New Albany, Indiana jail and lynched three Reno Brothers.
  Active in 1883–1889, the Bald Knobbers (or "Baldknobbers") were masked men who retaliated against invading marauders and drove out outlaws in Taney County.
  In the early 20th century, the White Finns founded the Suojeluskunta (Protection Corps) as a paramilitary vigilante organisation in Finland. It formed the nucleus of the White Army in the Finnish Civil War.
  In the 1920s, the Big Sword Society of China protected life and property in a state of anarchy.
  In 1954, the Thai Border Police formed the Volunteer Defense Corps (also called the Village Scouts Thai: ) to provide law and order and emergency or natural disaster response. In 1974 it was expanded by the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) to urban areas to fight left-wing political activism. The Village Scouts were subsequently involved in the Thammasat University massacre of 1976. Their 21st century Internet censorship vigilance groups are called or cyber scouts.[8]
  Formed in 1977, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has been increasingly active against whaling and fishing vessels which they see as violating international laws, regulations and treaties, particularly where whaling is concerned. It endorses an active policy of scuttling fishing and whaling vessels while in harbor, and ramming and sinking vessels engaged in the killing of whales.
  During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the Provisional Irish Republican Army were known to administer punishment beating to petty criminals and drug dealers in order to deter crime.
  Recognized since the 1980s, Sombra Negra or "Black Shadow" of El Salvador is a group of mostly retired police officers and military personnel whose sole duty is to cleanse the country of "impure" social elements by killing criminals and gang members. Along with several other organizations, Sombra Negra are a remnant of the death squads from the civil war of the 1970s and 1980s.[9]
  In 1981, a resident of the rural town Skidmore, Missouri fatally shot town bully Ken McElroy in broad daylight after years of crimes without any punishment. Forty five people witnessed the shooting, but everybody kept quiet when it came time to identify the shooter.
  In 1984, Bernhard Goetz was approached on a New York City subway train by four men intent on mugging him. He shot all four and fled, earning him the media appellation
41. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  The *culture* (hollywood films; hiphop music; story about the alamo; quips about pound-me-in-the-ass federal jail) emphasises vengeance over legal justice.
  Hopefully the *people* themselves are not as bad as that, and the culture is lapped up by overseas consumers anyway.
  Have you never watched a Hollywood film? The archetypal police officer is a "maverick who doesn't play by the rules". (I do have a soft spot for Colombo though). The bad guy gets conveniently shot at the end so he doesn't have to face trial (Lethal Weapon -> "has been revoked" -> (life imitating art) -> Osama bin Laden (no trial unlike Saddam Hussein* or Slobadan Milosovic)). Superheroes tend to be vigilantes. Western films (mostly) mete out rough justice.
  * Shock horror does that mean that Bush did something less wild west than Obama for one example? Would he have captured Osama alive?
42. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  Just like the ones on Slashdot.
43. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  Well, readers of superhero comics are, at least. Even if they don't actually do anything.
44. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  You kidding? Batman, Superman, Ironman, all those people walking around with handguns to "protect" themselves... There are laws in Texas that say it's okay to shoot someone just for taking your stuff. We love us some vigilantes. You're drawing a blank on real executed actions because reality doesn't work like it does in comic books, but that doesn't mean that we don't obsess.
45. Re:That explains it... by fnj · 2011-05-18 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, because excrement floats to the top.
46. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  It is present, although sponsored by the media and other groups. It tends to work alongside the "justice" system in many cases. The justice system screws you and then the real world screws you some more. Innocent or guilty it doesn't matter. The legal system should not be able to give shorter sentences to someone. They should be able to drop charges. They should not be able to threaten someone to testify against another or be charged/get a more lenient sentence. This fosters unfair trials. Who knows how many untold individuals have settled because the police have said "joe says you are guilty- we have a solid case against you." and it wasn't true. The cops lie. They also coerce others into testifying and lying against others in order to get off.
47. Re:That explains it... by sco08y · 2011-05-18 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's a sign of the end times.
48. Re:That explains it... by sco08y · 2011-05-18 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.
  Holy shit! You're one of them!
  But seriously, "We are Legion" is pretty much "we are not vigilantes." Anonymous is a left-wing hate group, like Earth First, Weather Underground, Black Panthers, etc., but with a more cleverly decentralized approach, and with less actual violence.
49. Re:That explains it... by sco08y · 2011-05-18 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  how bout the golden sachs employee who stole code and got 10 years in the slammer?
  what did gs execs get for ripping us off?
  Nothing, that's what being the number two donor to President Obama gets you.
50. Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 12:26 · Score: 0
  
  OBL killing celebrations.
51. Re:That explains it... by pugugly · 2011-05-19 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I wanna be Batman in "Bruce Wayne: Billionaire Playboy" Form.
  
  --
  An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
52. Re:That explains it... by jimnorcal · 2011-05-19 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  But that Charles Bronson guy! I heard he did some vigilante stuff! Oh .. and Clyde Shelton. Let's not forget him!
53. Re:That explains it... by theaceoffire · 2011-05-19 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  Good point, of COURSE Americans are not obsessed with Vigilante justice.
  Now excuse me, I must go watch Thor and Priest (And we have reruns of Ironman 1 and 2, and I must check my tivo for Chuck and 24 to see if those are ready, and how long has it been since Batman, etc etc etc).
  
  --
  I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:15 · Score: 1

That is the high price of caring about security.
1. Re:Cost by erroneus · 2011-05-18 00:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  He did not care about security other than his own job security. He was one of 'those' types of IT people. You know the ones I mean -- they think "job security" means keeping all the secrets locked away so that only he can fix things when they are broken. Furthermore, they tend to behave as if they own the networks and servers they maintain and they tend to hide their limitations of knowledge and experience from others as well as being unwilling to share what little knowledge they actually have. There might have been a time when that was common enough to be acceptable, but today's business and government leaders see through this.
  Good riddance to bad rubbish. "Vendor lock-in" is evil regardless of who practices it.
2. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:48 · Score: 0
  
  Know the ones? Most IT admins on here are the same. They were bullied in high school and now they run the IT department. It gives them a huge, undeserved, ego boost and ability "get back" at the bullies.
  Grow up asshats.
3. Re:Cost by erroneus · 2011-05-18 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  No, those people are in the minority now -- I rarely run into those any longer. Sounds like you have been bullied by one of these former victims in the past. Still stings?
4. Re:Cost by satch89450 · 2011-05-18 01:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'd be curious how may CCIE (Cisco Certified Internetwork Engineers) you know. Now, my company helps network engineers around the world win their certifications, so I've had to deal with a lot of both CCIEs and wanna-bes. Also, the CCIE community was very, Very, VERY interested in this whole affair, because -- of the ones I talked with -- they thought that Mr. Childs did the right thing by keeping the keys to the network close to the vest. You may be right, erroneus, that Mr. Childs acted out of selfish motivations. From the views expressed by others more knowledgable than myself, though, by keeping everything tight he avoid any untoward and destabalizing meddling.
  Could he have done better? Sure he could. For example, if he properly backed up all configuration files from the routers and Etherswitches in a separate computer, he could have given the security auditor those configs and the other guy could have worked from those. You don't need direct access to the vast majority of the equipment to perform a security audit. Mr. Childs could also have provided logs, logs he should have been keeping anyway, for the auditor to examine. From that review, the auditor could then suggest improvements, and Mr. Childs could have made those improvements.
  No, it wasn't because there was a "problem"...other than a problem with a control freak who valued personal power over what was good for the City of San Francisco. Unfortunately, that attitude is rampant with our alledged "public servents", which is why things escalated the way they did.
  Put more bluntly, mistakes were made on both sides of the argument. Terry Childs has to pay not only for his mistakes, but the mistakes of others. Mistakes that were worse than those made by Mr. Childs. And more costly.
5. Re:Cost by dilvish_the_damned · 2011-05-18 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Your thinking of Randal Schwartz. The only thing this guy Childs tried to prove was that he is a dick that can't be trusted. At least he makes a fairly compelling argument for birth control.
  
  --
  I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
6. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  You noticed that, too? Are all the ones you run into speaking Farci, reeking of Curry, and can't figure out how to turn on the UID LED without a 12-page written proceedure?.
  Thank heavens, I thought I was just seeing things...
7. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  You let some Indian guy push you around? How pathetic.
8. Re:Cost by nomadic · 2011-05-18 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Tell those CCIEs that if they think that it's proper for a single admin to have complete control of passwords with no oversight then they need better training. The CCIE on the jury seemed to think he broke the law.
9. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  I love it when nerds try to sound like they're much smarter than their "LOLDUMBASS" Indian colleagues, and make themselves look like clueless twats in the process.
  Since "Farci" is a french cooking term for "stuffed" (esp. with a finely ground meat), I don't think that anybody's "speaking Farci."
  If you're talking about the language widely spoken in Iran and a few other Middle Eastern countries, then the name of that language is "Farsi".
  Now, perhaps you work with mostly Iranian co-workers, but I think if you want to generalize, you probably want to generalize that it's Indians who are taking over the IT field. And most of them speak the language known as "Hindi".
  And since you don't know french cooking terms, and you don't apparently like the smell or taste of curry, I can only presume you're an unwashed, stinking neckbeard swilling your mountain dew and mashing cheeto crumbs into a fine orange sludge evenly coating your Model M keyboard with special Dvorak layout. Believe me, your Indian colleagues hold you in lower esteem than you hold them, and can't wait for management to fire your obnoxious self-aggrandizing ass.
  But thanks for playing, fatbody - enjoy your unemployment.
10. Re:Cost by Kenja · 2011-05-18 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Childs and it sounds like others would fail the "what happens when you get hit by a buss" question. A large computer network should never be dependent on a specific person being around to do their job.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
11. Re:Cost by Lumpy · 2011-05-18 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  ", so I've had to deal with a lot of both CCIEs and wanna-bes. Also, the CCIE community was very, Very, VERY interested in this whole affair,"
  but not interested enough to donate a lot of cash to make sure he got a competent lawyer.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
12. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  Well, I'm not a "nerd", nor am I so deperate for a debate that I'll dedicate three sentences over the misplacement of an "s" verses a "c" after what must have been a tiring bout of Googling on your part. Most of my UAE-based "co-workers" hail from an out-sourcing company, and they speak Farsi, Hindi, and a few other languages.
  My main problem with them is that they;
  a) Have little to no grasp of the English Language (Yes, I understand how difficult it is to learn the language)
  b) Do not understand the levels of complexity of the systems they are attempting to manage.
  c) Up to this point in their "career", they have only remotely "worked" on systems. By "work" I mean pull-lever, hit-button, call-out-if-it-breaks.
  Besides the fact that I've spoken Farsi to some degree since childhood (where it was spelled "Farci"), I personally am concerned that we're basically handing-over critical systems that manager little things, like your stocks/bonds and retirement/college/trust funds to what amounts to high-schoolers.
  They've been here for a little more than a year. Remember the stock "glitch" around this time last year? Yeah.
  By the way, I shower daily, shave regularly, drink Monster Java, perfer smoking to Cheetos (that's two E's, you cunt), use a backlit Logitech keyboard in the QWERTY layout, dress professionally, and audit banks for a living. On a side note, I have been meaning to lose more weight, so that's a point in your corner.
13. Re:Cost by jedidiah · 2011-05-18 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  ...and after having read that article, the CCIE's remarks sound like a bad episode of Law & Order.
  It sound pretty clear that the prosecution was trying to stretch legal definitions in the law in order to cast a far wider net than what the law was intended for.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
14. Re:Cost by Xaositecte · 2011-05-18 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  I was siding with Terry Childs on the issue until I read that article, and it completely changed my mind.
  - Since there's no definition of an "Authorized User" to give the password to, and Terry Childs had sent an E-mail with a different password to the person he said wasn't authorized a week earlier, that part of Childs defense falls flat.
  - The implicit accusation with the trial is that Childs was attempting to use the effective lockout from the system to strongarm the city into giving him his job back. This makes his criminal trial and conviction a LOT more reasonable.
  - The $1.5 million fine, on the other hand, is an effective "Lifetime poverty" sentence. This is totally out of line with the crime committed.
Restitution more fair than the jail time... by mseeger · 2011-05-18 00:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Terry Childs did some mistakes. I think the restitution for damages is more justified than the criminal punishment he got.
CU, Martin
1. Re:Restitution more fair than the jail time... by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2011-05-18 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  Even the restitution is out of hand, what are the chances that he can ever repay that?
2. Re:Restitution more fair than the jail time... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:38 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  How is it out of hand? It's been reported that the spent $900,000 trying to regain control of the network. The amount that he is being asked to pay is not particularly excessive. Would you prefer that $900,000 gets billed to taxpayers?
3. Re:Restitution more fair than the jail time... by 91degrees · 2011-05-18 00:40 · Score: 1, Redundant
  
  It's not like they're actually going to get the money from him.
4. Re:Restitution more fair than the jail time... by mseeger · 2011-05-18 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  None, but this is not the issue of the court. The court has to determine the damage caused and award restitution accordingly.
5. Re:Restitution more fair than the jail time... by satch89450 · 2011-05-18 01:33 · Score: 2
  
  No, I'd rather the $900,000 be billed to the person who approved the expense. Personally. This was a power play, pure and simple. Witness the original article: "If the power had failed, we would have lost the network." BULLSHIT. That's what flash memory in Cisco equipment is for. The network would have come back up, and worked perfectly, if Mr. Childs did the job that a CCIE is expected to do, if Mr. Childs had backup of all configuration information so that flash failures could be fixed quickly (assuming he wasn't in jail). The amount of misinformation that the City of San Francisco is spewing absolutely amazes me.
  "Sips of knowledge intoxicates the mind, while deeper drinking sobers it again." This is so true of this situation from day one.
6. Re:Restitution more fair than the jail time... by Dcnjoe60 · 2011-05-18 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Even the restitution is out of hand, what are the chances that he can ever repay that?
  If the fine is for restitution of costs the city had to pay with regards to figure out and correct what he did, then it truly is his problem to figure out how to pay it back. Why should city taxpayers foot that bill? On the other hand, if these are punitive damages, then a) they do seem excessive and b) why would they be paid to the technology department?
7. Re:Restitution more fair than the jail time... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  You'd think the court could say, determine the percentage of responsibility for the damage. If your management style is to set up a giant house of cards while pissing on the cards that support the infrastructure - I would say that it might be more the responsibility of the creators of the house of cards. I mean, say Terry Childs just up and had a stroke. The situation would be the same, except all they could do is blame a corpse.
8. Re:Restitution more fair than the jail time... by Sarius64 · 2011-05-18 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  I call bullshit. Let's see the public bill for $900,000 for 12 days of work. Who is the incompetent political hack that billed that out to their nephew? For $900,000 I could grab some sodium pentathol and have the passwords in an hour or so.
  The whole thing is just so much bullshit. Please make sure you SF supporters put GOVERNMENT STOOGE on future resumes so I do not hire you.
9. Re:Restitution more fair than the jail time... by Bobfrankly1 · 2011-05-18 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  None, but this is not the issue of the court. The court has to determine the damage caused and award restitution accordingly.
  
  No city services were ever affected, but officials said they could have been crippled if power had somehow been shut off.
  They're not not compensating for damages here, as there were no damages. They're penalizing based on IF. IF this had happened we would have damages. IF that had happened we would have been screwed.
  
  "IF" didn't happen, and they have the passwords. Why isn't the city being held responsible for not obtaining the passwords long ago? Any organization that allows a single employee to hold the only access (be it key, password, whatever) to a mission critical device is just begging for trouble.
10. Re:Restitution more fair than the jail time... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  How is it out of hand? It's been reported that the spent $900,000 trying to regain control of the network. The amount that he is being asked to pay is not particularly excessive. Would you prefer that $900,000 gets billed to taxpayers?
  Taxpayers are going to pay the bill anyway because Terry Childs will never have $1.5 million to pay the judgement. He's going to be dragged into court every year for the rest of his life, and a lot of his salary will go to paying a lawyer to defend him.
11. Re:Restitution more fair than the jail time... by mseeger · 2011-05-18 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is not, what you consider a damage, but what the law determines to be a damage. Assessment of the damage differs always depending on which side (damaging, damaged) you would rather see yourself ;-). Guess you a rather a sysadmin than a city mayor (probably not much of them on /.).
  Since being in business for 20 years now, i have seen several lawsuits concerning IT-related damages. Concerning the circumstances i wouldn't have been surprised if the damage were assessed to be ten times as much. And i live in Germany where damages are awarded a lot more conservative compared to the US.
  CU, Martin
12. Re:Restitution more fair than the jail time... by Lumpy · 2011-05-18 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  So can I start suing everyone I drive with on the highway based on IF they hit me?
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
13. Re:Restitution more fair than the jail time... by Skapare · 2011-05-18 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  The need to expend that money to regain control of the network was because of their own stupidity, not because of Terry Childs. If I were a taxpayer in San Francisco, of course I would not want to be paying for that. I would want the culprit(s) to pay. And Terry Childs is NOT the culprit. Some political bosses higher up were. Bill the $900,000 to them, personally and make this right.
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
14. Re:Restitution more fair than the jail time... by Skapare · 2011-05-18 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Right, of course not. But the politicos that were really responsible for this still needed to make sure they were not seen by the general public to be at blame for this. They needed a scapegoat and got one. And today the city network is at much greater risk than it would have been had the proper culprit been identified, and Mr. Childs remained as the network administrator. Mr. Child's mistake was working for an organization with people that will stab people in the back.
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Queue the dude who was on the jury by L4t3r4lu5 · 2011-05-18 00:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

I forget a lot of what he said, but one of the points which stuck out for me was that Terry kept the keys / passwords out of the key management system, which was against policy. He kept the Keys to the Kingdom in his head, which is just bad IT policy. He also cleaned the backup configs on switches so that any reboots would essentially wipe them clean.

Like I said, a /. poster was on the jury. He'll chip in with better information than anyone else. As for the fine... Well, if he doesn't have that money, he'll default like everyone else would and live off welfare. Shows the system works, eh?

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
1. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by Syberz · 2011-05-18 00:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Although I do agree that Terry was in the wrong, so was the City for its bad procedures. I just don't think that the wrongness he did is worth 1.5 million dollars.
  Guy locks out everyone from the City network after losing his job due to his perceived moral implications: gets a 1.5 million dollar fine.
  Guys cause Worldwide economical downturn, massive job loss, massive wealth reduction to the middle and lower classes: get multi-million dollar government jobs.
  Wait, what?
  
  --
  ~Syberz
2. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:53 · Score: 0
  
  Although I do agree that Terry was in the wrong
  Wrong! Terry can't have done anything wrong! He's a nerd that was just being oppressed by the evil normies in the city and punished by the "idiots" on the jury! He was just suffering the same fate as the innocent Hans Reiser... oh wait.
3. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:01 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  He also cleaned the backup configs on switches so that any reboots would essentially wipe them clean.
  When I was fresh out of school, the first man who hired me turned into a total nightmare of an asshat after about 3 months (not just to me, essentially to all his new hires who were proving themselves to be more capable than himself - apparently, until this point in his life, he had always been the boy genius...) So, being barely 20 years old (read: immature) my response was to encrypt all my backups and create a wipe script for the work I had done, such that a 2 letter command would erase all my work for Sr. Asshat, and only execution of another two letter command plus password would restore it.
  It was not a professional or productive reaction, it was a human one, one that was brought out of me by serious injustices, i.e. being jerked around by an idiot in an attempt to make himself feel powerful. I never issued the kill command, in point of fact, Sr. Asshat's boss protected me from him and eventually gave me his job, but not everyone is so lucky.
  20 years later, a similar circumstance arose, except in the latter case I had absolutely no desire to hurt the larger organization and would never have created a kill script - even if the junior toad who was tasked with easing me out the door deserved it for the way he handled the situation, half a dozen other people in the organization, and all the potential future beneficiaries of the tech I "productized" over the last year, didn't.
  If society continues to depend on people who they marginalize and mistreat, there will be more Terry Childs in the future, and the potential for spectacular damages far in excess of $1.5M of court costs exists.
4. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by chemicaldave · 2011-05-18 01:10 · Score: 1
  You mean this interview? Yeah, it has some interesting points. Such as:
  
  If Terry Childs didn't think his boss's boss wasn't an authorized user, why did he CC him in emails containing user IDs and passwords for the same network?
  If his job is to maintain the network, and he's told he is being reassigned, why would he hand over the network with no way for the city to maintain it?
  It seems that Terry Childs made some mistakes, thought he was being fired, and dug himself into a hole.\
  
  IDG News: Going back, what was the one step he could have done to avoid prison? Chilton: If he would have simply said, "I will create you an account and you can go in and you can remove my access if you want." If he had created access for someone else, I think that would have resolved it. If he had not decided to leave and go to Nevada a few days later and withdraw US$10,000 in cash, [Childs did this the day before his arrest, while under police surveillance] I think the police may have let it continue on as an employment issue and not a criminal matter. IDGNS: Do you think Terry Childs deserves another chance? Chilton: Yes I do. He has a lot of knowledge and he has the ability to learn this stuff on his own. I think with what's happened, he's probably not going to get himself hired by an AT&T or a Bank of America, but he could probably do stuff on his own. Because he definitely has the knowledge. IDGNS: Do you think he's a trustworthy person? Chilton: I think for the most part, yes. If he's given clearly defined rules, he could be. I think he's also very stubborn and a little egotistical.
5. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by DrgnDancer · 2011-05-18 01:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The problem often comes in determining at what point "marginal and mistreated" ends and "sociopathic desire to hurt anyone who slights me" begins. For every anecdote like yours, there's another about a geek who was simply paranoid or antisocial enough to *feel* victimized by the normal churn of the day. A guy (or girl) who wrote your kill script, or something worse, with the full intention of using it. It's not even hard to imagine such a person (your old boss seems the type). Which is more common? Really hard to say, ask employees and they'll probably say your situation, ask managers, they'll probably say the opposite. Most people can't point to more than a handful of examples of either situation though.
  Businesses and governments clearly need to watch out for and prepare for either situation. Ironically, your anecdote shows that at least in the first of your two cases, your company was doing exactly that. Someone did notice your boss' bad behavior and did something about it. Management isn't *always* incompetent or out to get you. In this case their actions both protected the marginalized and mistreated workers, and hopefully avoided a future Terry Childs situation on the form of your obviously immature and potentially dangerous boss.
  In the case of Child's himself, there's a significant disconnect as to whether he was a marginalized victim, or a childish asshat lashing out at perceived injustice. To hear him talk sometimes, he was the former. Other times, he seems a lot more like the latter (obviously management thought he was the latter). I'm inclined to believe that, while he probably doesn't deserve the level of punishment he's gotten, his actions were blameworthy.
  
  --
  I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
6. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by Chris+Pimlott · 2011-05-18 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  You mean "cue the dude". Your wording suggesting putting him in a line.
7. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  The word you are lookig for is "cue" not "queue". Still, I am surprised you got the spelling right as it's obvious you don't know the meaning of the word.
8. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think he was 'lookig' for anything, idiot. If you plan on posting to point out a minor mistake and decide you also want to act like a smug prick about it, you should probably proof read your post.
9. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by Americano · 2011-05-18 03:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Although I do agree that Terry was in the wrong, so was the City for its bad procedures.
  Mr. Childs was in a position to implement better procedures, and in fact, had a professional obligation to improve the bad procedures which you point out. He did not do this. At a bare minimum, he could have simply done this: "Hey boss, since I'm a single point of failure, if I'm ever hit by a bus, here's a sealed envelope with passwords and critical access information for all of the systems I work with. I'll update this once a month, and make sure you receive a new copy. I'll also do the same with $some_guy_who_covers_for_me_when_im_on_vacation, and if you like, a third manager who you deem appropriate." This is cheap and easy to implement, and requires absolutely no "new policies" or politicking. He's simply setting up a failsafe in case he's incapacitated or turfed out - the sort of failsafe any sysadmin should implement ASAP in any new job where they find that they're the only person who knows the appropriate access passwords to critical systems.
  He failed to do anything like this, and elected to keep everything in his head. We can only conclude from this that he was just as incompetent as the rest of the people implementing "bad procedures" on behalf of the city, or he was deliberately trying to set up a chokehold on city infrastructure. Either way, I have very little sympathy with him for obstructing access to the systems under the guise of "caring so deeply" about them. If he cared so deeply about the systems, he never would have set himself up as a single point of failure.
10. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by Syberz · 2011-05-18 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Gotta agree with you. However 1.5 million still is excessive.
  
  --
  ~Syberz
11. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  Anent this: "Management isn't *always* incompetent or out to get you." -- to quote Ring Lardner in another context: "... but that's the way to bet".
12. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by Americano · 2011-05-18 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  I'd certainly want to see an itemized breakdown if I were on his legal team, but I'm not so sure it's excessive.
  Given that the article reports, "Prosecutors had sought the money from Terry Childs, a former Department of Technology network engineer, to repay The City for its efforts in trying to regain control over the FiberWAN network and later test it for vulnerabilities." Judging by the budgets for the projects my company is regularly launching, 1.5 million dollars isn't a particularly large project for vulnerability testing across an infrastructure the size of SF's city government infrastructure.
13. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by sjames · 2011-05-18 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  It has to go a bit further when you have ham fisted managers who think they are capable. It has to be clear that if the seal on the envelope is tampered with, then any harm to the network is on the manager's head, not the admin. Alas, the admin cannot unilaterally make that a matter of policy.
  I have no doubt that he was obsessive, a control freak, and probably fairly abrasive as well, but that's not a crime and there's no way it did 1.5 million in damage.
14. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by Americano · 2011-05-19 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the admin can very much do that by applying a very large, very bold warning to both sides of the envelope: "Critical sensitive information. Use of the information contained in this envelope by someone unfamiliar with the network systems could cause widespread disruption and server outages of mission critical city government services. Open ONLY in case of emergency, and share ONLY with authorized system administrators."
  It gets pretty hard to reasonably argue that it's "the sysadmins fault" that a clueless manager read that, opened the document, fucked around with servers, and broke stuff.
  
  but that's not a crime and there's no way it did 1.5 million in damage.
  Indeed, it's not a crime to have a lousy personality. That's not what he's being fined for, though.
  The 1.5 million is restitution for expenses incurred (probably loss of service to some people who were left twiddling their thumbs because nobody could add an account to the systems), and also for an audit of the city infrastructure to make sure there were no further vulnerabilities left by this "obsessive abrasive control freak." He already demonstrated that he was willing to hold the systems hostage - should they take the chance that he embedded other backdoors and time bombs in the network infrastructure?
15. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by JustSomeProgrammer · 2011-05-19 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed it seems excessive to a single person, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that this is the exact cost his shenanigans cost the city.
16. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by sjames · 2011-05-19 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  He managed the network, not user authentication. Nobody was twiddling their thumbs for any length of time. No services went down. The audit would have to happen any time an employee left under less than friendly terms. That audit is quick and simple if they have appropriate policies that don't leave all eggs in one basket. It's part of the "cost of doing business". You don't get to fine an employee for the paperwork cost of preparing their termination papers. If they spend 1.5 million on that, it's their own paranoid fantasies driving the cost. Did they include testing the manager's tea for poisons as well? (just ion case he was a criminal mastermind who broke out of jail, poisoned the tea and then slipped back into his cell before anyone noticed, of course)
  More likely, they left design and management of a city-wide network in the hands of a single individual who would not or could not work with others for YEARS and then it bit them on the ass. Do you see NO fault in management anywhere in that? Had he died suddenly, were they planning to bill his estate? What did they plan to do if one day he just stopped showing up?
  Now, as for the amount, are you really telling me you believe they had to dedicate 10-15 man years to the cleanup? (more like 30 since clearly negligent management was at least 50% at fault)
17. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by Americano · 2011-05-19 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Management certainly did a poor job of managing him; alas, being incompetent at your work is not a crime.
  Given that he was creating and emailing around user passwords (to the person who requested his passwords, no less - read the coverage), it's entirely likely that new hires and people moving into new roles were unable to get access to the systems they were supposed to have access to on their hire date. That's not "service down," but it does cause a fair amount of disruption when you look at the number of new hires & role changes that probably happen all the time in a large city government.
  He configured switches to basically self-destruct on reboot, wiping their current configuration. Do you want to find that he's done that in half a dozen other systems only after you've rebooted or crashed and wiped the entire configuration? The audit was entirely appropriate. And 10-15 man years? 1.5 million is more like 6 man-years for network engineers. And why would you think that a team of 10-12 people taking 6 months to conduct a full audit & correct issues uncovered is some sort of exorbitantly costly project?
  
  Do you see NO fault in management anywhere in that?
  I never said management was blameless in their handling of Mr. Childs - I said they were not criminally or civilly liable for the costs incurred by Mr. Childs' unprofessional behavior. These two concepts are not mutually incompatible. One can be a terrible manager to an incompetent engineer without being liable for the misdeeds of that engineer.
18. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by sjames · 2011-05-19 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  But I would say they were at least as liable as Childs, which typically means he and they split the penalty 50/50.
  And yes, I would say that 6-10 people taking 6 months to perform a security audit is too long, particularly since they DID have the passwords by then.
  I notice you completely ignored that the same thing would have had to happen even if they said "you're fired" and he said "well then, here's the admin passwords".
  He is not the only admin out there who firmly believes the working config should be volatile to make sure a password recovery attempt sets off every alarm on the network. I'm not a fan of that practice, but it's not something only done nefariously.
  How many man hours did it cost when some dumbbell made all of their VPN passwords a matter of public record and how much was he fined?
19. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by Americano · 2011-05-19 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  And you're welcome to your opinion of how liable management is. Unfortunately, the courts did not agree with you, and Mr. Childs has been held liable - not for his incompetence, not for his abrasive manner, but for his violation of the law.
  
  I notice you completely ignored that the same thing would have had to happen even if they said "you're fired" and he said "well then, here's the admin passwords".
  I notice you've assumed that this would have happened if this situation had unfolded differently. In my experience, it wouldn't have. If he had been fired or laid off, he would have likely had his access terminated shortly before (or during) the action, and his replacement would have simply looked over the systems as part of taking charge of the systems. Given the behavior & actions of Mr. Childs after his transfer (not firing - he was being transferred to a new role initially, he was only fired after he refused to turn over access to city systems to city officials), there was plenty of reason to fear that he had other back-doors and time bombs hidden around the network - and thus plenty of reason to conclude that a thorough investigation was necessary, and not just a cursory "look things over, kick the tires, and see if there's any reason to be worried."
  
  He is not the only admin out there who firmly believes the working config should be volatile to make sure a password recovery attempt sets off every alarm on the network. I'm not a fan of that practice, but it's not something only done nefariously.
  But he is an admin who refused to turn over access to systems owned and operated by the city, to city officials. He did not offer to give the passwords out, but only in writing, or only to a specific person (or people), he flat-out refused. Then gave incorrect passwords. Then claimed he had forgotten them, and been locked out. Then made it look like he was going to skip town by withdrawing a large amount of money and appearing to have decided to leave town. Given the totality of his behavior, and his repeated stonewalling of city officials asking for access, it's not an unreasonable conclusion that he had set up these systems to provide himself with a stranglehold on the city if he wanted to.
  
  How many man hours did it cost when some dumbbell made all of their VPN passwords a matter of public record and how much was he fined?
  Did that person violate a law? The only reference I'm aware of was the introduction of a list of VPN Passwords & usernames found at Mr. Childs' home, which was unredacted, and thus entered into the public record during the Childs case. If that's what you're referring to, I'm sure it cost the city a fair bit of time and effort to change all the usernames & passwords. But that's not what's at issue here. What's at issue is whether or not exposing those passwords was the result of a criminal act - and it doesn't appear it was. What Childs did was - say it with me now - intentional, and - if not completely malicious, certainly against the best interests of the clients he should have been supporting as a professional. If he had legitimately forgotten the passwords, or simply forgot to mention about the fact that he had set up the routers to wipe on reboot... he would probably be a free man without a 1.5 million dollar judgement against him today. But that's not how it happened.
20. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by sjames · 2011-05-19 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  You're confusing what I said with an argument that he shouldn't suffer any consequences. That's not what I said at all. He spent 2 years in jail and has 2 more to go. I'm saying that a 1.5 million fine (supposedly a restitution) is way too much, even if their audit was fully necessary. Restitution is essentially payment of a civil liability that results from a criminal action. Since it is essentially a civil liability, he should not be required to pay costs associated with the incompetence of others.
  The reason other places can just kick the tires and give things a cursory looking over is that they have more competent management that makes sure more than one single person holds the keys to the kingdom and knows how the network is set up.
  Even if the full audit is necessary and network engineers out there really do make a quarter million a year, they shouldn't need 6 man years.
21. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by Americano · 2011-05-19 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  he should not be required to pay costs associated with the incompetence of others.
  The judge would not issue the judgement against him if the law didn't allow for imprisonment & monetary fines. This is pretty standard legalese, I'm not sure why you'd think that paying restitutionary damages to the city is somehow unwarranted. If you want to claim that he's not liable, you really need to show how you arrive at that conclusion, considering he's been declared guilty by a jury.
  
  The reason other places can just kick the tires and give things a cursory looking over is that they have more competent management that makes sure more than one single person holds the keys to the kingdom and knows how the network is set up.
  Yes... and? Again, I've never said management was perfect, or blameless in allowing this situation to get to the point it did. But the action was entirely Mr. Childs'. He could have handed over the passwords, or offered a compromise solution where he would deliver the passwords to certain people in writing, rather than out loud over a phone in a conference room surrounded by people he didn't feel could be trusted. He tried to hold the network hostage, and he lost - as he should have. If I'm an idiot and leave my door unlocked, that doesn't give you the right to walk in and make yourself at home, or change my locks and lock me out of my apartment - your actions, your liability.
  
  Even if the full audit is necessary and network engineers out there really do make a quarter million a year, they shouldn't need 6 man years.
  Network engineers will probably make 100-150k, especially in the SF Bay area. It is typical for salary to constitute about 1/2 of the "total cost" of an employee per year - benefits, hiring, support, hardware, facilities, all of these cost money above and beyond salary. A team of 10 or so people to audit a network of the size and complexity of an entire (very large) city & county government? I don't think 10 or 12 people x 6 months is particularly outrageous. I'm curious what you estimate a full audit would require, in terms of manpower and time?
  Let's also not forget the fact that, if they didn't hire new people to do this, *existing projects* would also be delayed and disrupted, which could have easily cost the city extra time and money. As an example of how schedule disruptions cost money: I have a friend working for another division of my company who was telling me that if they don't meet their Sybase decommission deadline, they're going to owe Sybase approximately 7 million dollars to re-up their licenses for next year. That project has half a dozen engineers, 3 DBAs, and another half a dozen QA/OPS people working on it. And it's considered a fairly small project, budget-wise.
22. Re:Queue the dude who was on the jury by sjames · 2011-05-19 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  The judge would not issue the judgement against him if the law didn't allow for imprisonment & monetary fines. This is pretty standard legalese, I'm not sure why you'd think that paying restitutionary damages to the city is somehow unwarranted. If you want to claim that he's not liable, you really need to show how you arrive at that conclusion, considering he's been declared guilty by a jury.
  And judges are infallible, have a perfect understanding of network engineering best practices and never fumble when it comes to technology! YOU BETCHA!
  Since we can discount any James Bond level tech on the network, surely 6-12 man months is enough to give a quick review to each config and verify the checksums on the firmware. I'm not allowing the cost of changing the password since that is a natural consequence of any resignation or termination. Really only part of the review should be allowed since some review by his replacement is necessary anyway in order to be familiar with the network.
  Note that if management had followed best practices, none of this would have even been an issue. Worst case, his replacement would have opened the hit by a bus envelope and changed the passwords one evening and he would come in in the morning to find out he was locked out.
  As an analogy, if I cut a tree down and it nicks a corner of your roof, I will owe you for some repairs. However, if you have ignored any and all repairs for years such that the termite riddled deathtrap collapses into a heap when the tree nicks the corner of the roof, I won't be required to buy you a new house. Your negligence will be found to have contributed over 90% to the damage and I'll have to fork over the rest (and get the tree off your property)
  As for schedule disruptions, if someone injures your friend, does that person have to cough up the 7 million or just pay the medical bills?
Repay city? by rackeer · 2011-05-18 00:18 · Score: 3, Informative

I just RTFA. It says the money is to
repay the city for its efforts in trying to regain control over the FiberWAN network and later test it for vulnerabilities. City officials had been worried that Childs, who helped set up the network but clashed with his supervisors, might try to sabotage it.
Mind, he already spent 2 years in custody and was convicted to 4 years of jail.
1. Re:Repay city? by Moryath · 2011-05-18 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  If they weren't already testing for vulnerabilities, they're bigger idiots than we thought.
  Someone explain why he should, merely for having the temerity to assert his right to a trial, have to pay for something they should already have been doing?
2. Re:Repay city? by nomadic · 2011-05-18 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  If they weren't already testing for vulnerabilities, they're bigger idiots than we thought.
  
  You really think that an organization shouldn't do anything more than their usual vulnerability testing after a former admin takes over the network? Presumably you also think banks shouldn't do anything different with security after they've been robbed?
3. Re:Repay city? by bws111 · 2011-05-18 02:05 · Score: 2
  
  Gee, I wonder whose job it would have been to test for vulnerabilities? The guy had root access and has already demonstrated he couldn't be trusted, therefore EVERYTHING he touched must be considered suspect. For example, how did they know he didn't install any rootkits which would make normal vulnerability testing invalid?
4. Re:Repay city? by Aighearach · 2011-05-18 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Presumably you also think banks shouldn't do anything different with security after they've been robbed?
  They don't try to do things differently, they have long-standing policies that they maintain.
5. Re:Repay city? by nomadic · 2011-05-18 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Trust me, if a bank manager opens the bank vault in the morning and all the money's gone, they will go above and beyond their "long-standing policies."
6. Re:Repay city? by Aighearach · 2011-05-18 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  Trust me, if a bank manager opens the bank vault in the morning and all the money's gone
  I don't think bank robberies have worked quite like that... for 100 years.
Let the guy come here... by joaommp · 2011-05-18 00:21 · Score: 0, Flamebait

... I'll hire him.

--
Onda Technology Institute
1. Re:Let the guy come here... by nedlohs · 2011-05-18 00:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That scratching sound is onda technology getting added to the "don't use" list all around the world.
2. Re:Let the guy come here... by ammorais · 2011-05-18 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  ... I'll hire him.
  Never mind him. Hire me, I can hold your passwords for as long as you want.
3. Re:Let the guy come here... by JoeMerchant · 2011-05-18 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  Might want to wait seven years before you pay him... until then all his earnings will be garnished.
4. Re:Let the guy come here... by joaommp · 2011-05-18 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  I was aiming for a "Funny" moderation, but hey, the network he set up kept running even with him away from it...
  
  --
  Onda Technology Institute
5. Re:Let the guy come here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:52 · Score: 0
  
  Might want to wait seven years before you pay him... until then all his earnings will be garnished.
  I've always wondered how they manage to put that little sprig of parsley on top of your paycheck now it's all done electronically.
6. Re:Let the guy come here... by tifkap · 2011-05-18 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  I would fire him. There is no excuse for what he did. This guy willingly bypassed password management which is partly there to make sure that no person is indispensable. What if he was hit by a car? This guy was more then irresponsible, he was malicieus (since he refused to hand over the passwd's).
7. Re:Let the guy come here... by powerlord · 2011-05-18 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  That scratching sound is onda technology getting added to the "don't use" list all around the world.
  +1 insightful
  Wether he was right or wrong in being the only person with admin access, and wether that was a situation he created, or was thrust upon him, I am APPALLED by the fact that he attempted to hold the system for ransom.
  There should be a System Admin "Code of Ethics". The closest is the IEEE "Code of Ethics", or the ACM "Code of Conduct" if they happen to have joined.
  The first is "bite sized", the second is probably more relevant but way more wordy, but how many people even bother joining either?
  We are unorganized as a group at large, and the lack of standards to adhere to is part of the problem that we, as a Profession; including Admins, Programmers/Developers, Support Techs; need to address somehow.
  (/rant) :)
  
  --
  This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
8. Re:Let the guy come here... by shentino · 2011-05-18 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  Tell me who you are so I can add you to my shitlist.
  Guilt by association, isn't it lovely?
  Don't take it personally, it just means I don't trust the judgement of someone who would trust an asshole like that.
9. Re:Let the guy come here... by The+Moof · 2011-05-18 01:26 · Score: 2
  
  the network he set up kept running even with him away from it
  Actually, it wouldn't. It was specifically designed to fail if he wasn't around any *anything* went wrong. The configs all wiped themselves on boot, and he had the only encrypted backups of them. He also was the only person with the admin passwords and refused to relinquish them to anyone.
10. Re:Let the guy come here... by Cwix · 2011-05-18 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  The large hole you find in your bank account is usually notice enough.
  
  --
  You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
11. Re:Let the guy come here... by nomadic · 2011-05-18 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Garnishment orders are sent to the payor, so it doesn't matter whether you pay electronically, by paper check, or sack of cash down by the railroad tracks at midnight, the payor still has to send the garnishor's cut to them.
12. Re:Let the guy come here... by pnutjam · 2011-05-18 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  There is one, http://www.sage.org/ethics/
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
13. Re:Let the guy come here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  System admin code of Ethics...
  http://www.sage.org/ethics/ethics_horiz.pdf
  Nathan
14. Re:Let the guy come here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  Well then, just give him room, board, a fully-stocked fridge, and a company credit card for food and supplies. Salary: minimum wage. Sounds like a good deal for an employer. He'd probably take it just to screw with them. It's not legal to garnish one's wages beyond a certain amount.
15. Re:Let the guy come here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  We are legion.
16. Re:Let the guy come here... by Ossifer · 2011-05-18 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't hire you, or use your company's services. Anyone who thinks hiring a violent felon who committed a crime while on duty shows a total lack of judgement.
  I'm sure this two-time loser will be back in jail a third time...
17. Re:Let the guy come here... by joaommp · 2011-05-18 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  Seems you are unfamiliar with the concept of sarcasm.
  
  --
  Onda Technology Institute
18. Re:Let the guy come here... by joaommp · 2011-05-18 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  As said before, you guys really should learn about the concept of sarcasm.
  
  --
  Onda Technology Institute
19. Re:Let the guy come here... by joaommp · 2011-05-18 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  GEEEZ! SARCASM, ANYONE? Remember that concept? I think it still appears in a dictionary!
  
  --
  Onda Technology Institute
20. Re:Let the guy come here... by Aighearach · 2011-05-18 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Online sarcasm was deprecated in 1987.
21. Re:Let the guy come here... by Sarius64 · 2011-05-18 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  So, management had no responsibility to follow any government procedures in place? Don't even try that shit with me. If I interfaced with his manager and found out any of the issues were going on I would have the manager fired for negligence. But, of course, managers who have ONE NETWORK ADMIN for the WHOLE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO aren't apparently culpable.
Not difficult at all by imamac · 2011-05-18 00:21 · Score: 2

"it is difficult to understand how they came up in $1.5 million in costs" If you read the article..."Prosecutors had sought the money from Terry Childs, a former Department of Technology network engineer, to repay The City for its efforts in trying to regain control over the FiberWAN network and later test it for vulnerabilities."
1. Re:Not difficult at all by cdrudge · 2011-05-18 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  Shouldn't "testing it for vulnerabilities" be part of their normal operating costs anyways? If my company gets hit by a virus, is part of the economic damages the cost to install antivirus on all the computers?
2. Re:Not difficult at all by DMiax · 2011-05-18 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  I guess they mean testing from the ground up i.e. assuming the system is compromised and previous audits are void. That may be a lot more work than just testing against new/newly discovered attacks.
3. Re:Not difficult at all by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:51 · Score: 0
  
  Contributory Negligence.
  I doubt they were paying a hacker $100,000 per day over 12 days. And they never did 'regain control'
  because they never had it under control in the first place. I have no idea how audit and disaster recovery did not pick this up earlier. And it is wrong to pay for testing something that had never been tested, especially when it is
  'Check password and login combo ' in safe works. And the City saved 'heaps' by having no succession plan.
  Hah - I would have awarded 12 days of admin salary * 10 - about a third of a years wages would have been right.
4. Re:Not difficult at all by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:55 · Score: 0
  
  Shouldn't "testing it for vulnerabilities" be part of their normal operating costs anyways? If my company gets hit by a virus, is part of the economic damages the cost to install antivirus on all the computers?
  He isn't a virus. If your company found out that a trusted insider wanted to deny control of your system to anyone but himself, they would do a bit more testing and auditing configurations than usual.
5. Re:Not difficult at all by Bill_the_Engineer · 2011-05-18 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  I think they meant testing for any vulnerabilities (eg. backdoors, time bombs) left by Terry Childs. Being system admin, Terry Childs could have left exploits behind that would not be detectable in log files, etc. You'd pretty much would have to manually inspect each configuration, since you couldn't trust the audit software since the checksums being compared could be checksums of configuration files that were already compromised in the previous audit.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
6. Re:Not difficult at all by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:25 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds like fining a babysitter for the cost of testing the whole house for mercury contamination. Why test the house? Because the babysitter could in theory have brought a small vial of mercury and spread the content in one of the rooms! Meh.
7. Re:Not difficult at all by Raumkraut · 2011-05-18 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  I have no idea how audit and disaster recovery did not pick this up earlier.
  I'll give you three guesses as to who was most likely responsible for running those audits...
8. Re:Not difficult at all by shentino · 2011-05-18 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Yup.
  When you have a malicious actor with the capability to sabotage the system, you really do have to do a deep audit to make sure they didn't plant any logic bombs.
  Not to mention that since the actions were willful and malicious, the case may qualify for punitive damages.
9. Re:Not difficult at all by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  Just a guess, but perhaps the "testing for vulnerabilities" would be better listed as "Looking for back doors and logic bombs left by Mr. Childs".
10. Re:Not difficult at all by Ossifer · 2011-05-18 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Testing it for vulnerabilities HE INTRODUCED.
11. Re:Not difficult at all by mcmonkey · 2011-05-18 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Shouldn't "testing it for vulnerabilities" be part of their normal operating costs anyways? If my company gets hit by a virus, is part of the economic damages the cost to install antivirus on all the computers?
  Yes, if it turns out the virus was introduced by the previous antivirus program. Testing for vulnerabilities introduced by a rouge admin are generally not part of normal operating costs.
12. Re:Not difficult at all by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  There is no justice in America, none at all.
  The forth amendment is gone, police can now enter your home if they want to and arrest you, no warrant needed.
  The bankers who defrauded the public giving out liar loans and profiting from it, and from the resulting bailout make millions in bonuses. No prosecution of any of them. Goldman Sacks who sold AAA securities to people and then was shorting them at the same time as they knew they were worthless get away without even a wrist slap. Bankers to sold securities which were 80% or more below underwriting standards are not even investigated. The resulting trillions of dollar loss is passed on to you and me by means of inflation (rising gas and food prices currently).
  Meanwhile if you download a song it cost you $65,000 per song (think that was what the judgment was).
  Anyone expecting justice from the legal system is sadly mistaken.
Difficult to understand? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:23 · Score: 0

it is difficult to understand how they came up in $1.5 million in costs, unless they're billing Terry Childs for the City's own failure to set up division of responsibility and standby emergency access procedures?"
Maybe you should read the decision; I'm sure it's all explained in there. Once you've done so, you can discuss the reasoning given by the court and agree or disagree with it, but until then, everything is just idle speculation.
1. Re:Difficult to understand? by Desler · 2011-05-18 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  In case you don't realize most Slashtards have a bias in which Terry Childs could have done no wrong. It's no different to the years of people on here trying to claim that Hans Reiser was innocent and was just being arrested for being awkward. His boss and the "normies" on the jury were clearly just idiots who couldn't possibly see that he was just doing all sorts of amazing things by locking everyone but himself out of being able to admin the network, holding the keys in his head, etc.
2. Re:Difficult to understand? by fast+turtle · 2011-05-18 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  this is /. and we don't rtfa as it's anathema to our preconcieved notions of truth, mom's cooking and the Nerd Way
  
  --
  Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
3. Re:Difficult to understand? by david_thornley · 2011-05-18 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's interesting in a sociological way. The evidence I knew of for Reiser was insufficient to show that a murder had been committed, let alone that he did it. Presumably, there was more evidence at the trial. Since then, I seem to remember a bargain for better treatment in exchange for locating his wife's body. With Childs, what came out at first seemed to show he was a victim, not a criminal. More recently, a Slashdotter who was on the trial and knew his stuff explained what really went on. Currently, Julian Assange is accused of rape. He may or may not be guilty, but the facts given on Slashdot are not entirely consistent with the treatment he's been getting. In all these cases (well, not Assange yet), there were a sizable number of Slashdot comments that went with the early, incomplete, and slanted version of the facts only.
  Possibly more interesting is the case of the test iPhone 4. The "journalist" quite clearly paid $5K for property that didn't belong to the seller, which is a felony under California law, and then blogged about it. Police investigation of a felony that was not only self-proclaimed but known all over was attributed to Apple influencing the law enforcement system to their own ends. Many commenters blithely assumed that the blog post that described the felony in detail was entirely truthful in other ways, such as how the iPhone 4 was left at the bar.
  There is no group mind on Slashdot, but a lot of Slashdotters seem to twist facts and assumptions to point to what they want to believe. I wouldn't want them debugging or testing software.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
4. Re:Difficult to understand? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2011-05-18 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  The evidence I knew of for Reiser was insufficient to show that a murder had been committed, let alone that he did it.
  Really? He was the last to see her alive. Conveniently after she disappeared his seat goes missing, he's washing out his car and blood stains are found inside her car. He was also found to have recently purchased a book about how to get away with murder. That's an awful lot of coincidences to ignore. Contrast this to the wild conspiracy theories involving the Russian Mafia, trying to pin it on other people who were found to be unable to have committed the crime and just generally trying to smear Nina in order to get himself out of paying for his crime. I'm sorry, but the only ones who had "insufficient evidence" where the Reiser team and his legions of nerd defenders.
  
  Since then, I seem to remember a bargain for better treatment in exchange for locating his wife's body.
  
  Yes, the defense made the bargain after he was already convicted on the first degree murder charge. In exchange for showing where the body was the prosecution was willing to let him plea to 2nd degree murder instead of the first degree murder charge he was convicted. This bargain didn't come about because the prosecution was losing the case because they had already achieved the conviction. It was done purely to stave off the possibility of receiving the death penalty due to the first degree murder conviction.
  
  There is no group mind on Slashdot, but a lot of Slashdotters seem to twist facts and assumptions to point to what they want to believe.
  Yes and it was disgusting. I remember reading about people calling Nina a whore and badmouthing her to no end and even after her body was found their were still nerds who were claiming she deserved it, etc. And all the woman did was have the "audacity" to leave the marriage she had with an emotionally abusive asshole.
Oh thank god.. by whois · 2011-05-18 00:23 · Score: 5, Funny

At first I thought the citizens were going to have to pay for the cleanup and fixing of all the problems, along with the trial and all that. Now that I know this criminal with no job prospects will be paying the $1.5M I can sleep better at night.
My personal ideas about job integrity end at or a little before the threat of getting arrested so I could argue I don't think what he did was wise (I would've made the guy wanting the passwords put it in writing and then quietly laughed when they broke things), but I don't think the punishment fits the crime at all. Why is there never a middle ground in the justice system between ruining someones life and letting them go free?
And why can't the city just let this one go? They won a long time ago.. back when he was fired, jailed, etc and he surrendered the passwords without the network ever going down.
1. Re:Oh thank god.. by Bill_the_Engineer · 2011-05-18 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  And why can't the city just let this one go? They won a long time ago..
  
  It's not the city's fault that the justice systems moves slowly. Everybody has to wait for their day in court.
  You could have easily said "Why didn't the city just force him to pay $1.5 million dollars after his arrest?" Who needs courts?
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
2. Re:Oh thank god.. by Myopic · 2011-05-18 02:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Why is there never a middle ground in the justice system between ruining someones life and letting them go free?
  Just to be clear, there is a middle ground, and the middle ground is used in the vast majority of prosecutions. It's called a plea bargain. Most people charged with crimes are guilty, and most guilt can be demonstrated at trial. So, everyone can save a lot of trouble with a guilty plea, and a negotiated punishment. That's the middle ground.
  Some people are guilty and yet won't bargain. In this case, prosecutors will generally take a big sigh and go to trial, demonstrate guilt, and try to get the maximum punishment. That's NOT the middle ground, because the middle ground was already passed by.
  There is plenty of room for legitimate criticism of the system, but there are sliding scales in the different dimensions of justice.
3. Re:Oh thank god.. by DalgiteBandicoot · 2011-05-18 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  "And why can't the city just let this one go?" Simple, really. Governments are run and administered by no-talent, unskilled, unmotivated individuals, afraid to compete in the REAL world of business and life. They seek only shelter from work, and are content to suck at the public teat for their steady COLA pay, safe in their publicly funded pensions and healthcare and union memberships, never giving a thought to any long term or big picture detrimental effects of their actions. Those who thrive in this environment would be kind of personality that would also exhibit vengeful, never let it go, petty, totally disproportionate and destructive behavior towards any perceived minor slight. Public humiliation qualifies as a death-penalty-worthy offense to any "public servant" seeking invisibility and disproportionately high pay for his skills, ergo the ridiculous sentence handed down by one "public servant" in support of another. Love your country, distrust and fear your government.
4. Re:Oh thank god.. by PoopJuggler · 2011-05-18 04:22 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  And why can't the city just let this one go?
  
  Because people are punitive vindictive little trolls for the most part, especially when it comes to someone challenging their authority. It's the same reason why cops beat speeders, same reason why parents spank their kids. "How dare you challenge me?" is what their brain says. People think that doling out harsh punishments will somehow free them of their anger inside. Anger derived from a sense of loss-of-power, because their identity is based on power. To me, that's not true power at all. True power would be to rise above all that and act compassionately. You're powerful because you can inflict harm on another person? Nope, you're powerful if you can overcome yourself....
5. Re:Oh thank god.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  This post is so full of garbage it makes me sick, most of the free world makes plea bargains illegal because they allow the state to abuse peoples' rights so easily. Plea bargains are sick and the fact that you think they are great is deplorable (though you are in great company in the US). Even "obviously guilty" people have the right to face their accusers and to a fair trial. And people are often not so guilty as you'd like to think, but hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, right?
6. Re:Oh thank god.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 04:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Which is why so many people who are innocent of crimes plead guilty. Often the thought of the "maximum" sentence and the fear that your defense will not pay out are enough to make someone choose guilty. This is generally true for those who can't afford a defense. Prosecutors don't care about innocence or guilt, they will work to scare you into a bargain so they get an easy win. Public defenders don't care much either, a bargain is less work and doesn't look as bad as a loss.
7. Re:Oh thank god.. by nomadic · 2011-05-18 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Huh? People don't lose the right to face their accusers and to a fair trial just because the OPTION of plea bargaining is there.
8. Re:Oh thank god.. by jedidiah · 2011-05-18 06:38 · Score: 2
  
  You're joking.
  A plea bargain is no "middle ground".
  A plea bargain is simply some poor schmuck trying to play the prisoner's dilemma because he knows there's no real justice.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
9. Re:Oh thank god.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  At one time that probably was the middle ground even though I doubt it. Now if you fart too loud and someone - police/justice/whatever - doesn't like it they will arrest you and sue and offer a plea bargain of 5 years in jail. If you decide to go on with the trial, there is always a possibility of conviction and in this case you will get 30 years. The way things are, a plea bargain is not a middle ground.
10. Re:Oh thank god.. by fnj · 2011-05-18 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  You describe a corrupt system: a system which tries to coerce/threaten/bully the accused into voluntarily giving up their right to defense in court by implicitly threatening, once they are found guilty, to punish them not only for their crime, but for having the temerity to defend themselves in court. If the prisons were not full of hapless victims who HARMED NO ONE (victimless "crimes," such as drug offenses), I admit the system you describe would have some practical merit to weigh against the inherent corruption, on the grounds of economy if nothing else.
  No one could be blamed for suspecting that the system of plea bargains as presently implemented "off the record" has a distinct odor of violating the spirit of the fifth amendment.
  There is a not-so-subtle difference between saying "son, it would be better for society if you just pled guilty, and you would be highly unlikely to escape conviction if you do not," and "it would be a shame, Mr. Smith, if you put us to a lot of extra trouble and things were to go harder for you because we couldn't help you."
11. Re:Oh thank god.. by sjames · 2011-05-18 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  Plea bargains are actually the opposite of the middle ground in practice. It consists of pressing charges much more serious than the actual crime and then under the threat of the maximum sentence for that, the alleged perp (who may very well be innocent) pleads guilty to the actually appropriate charge.
  One thing you never see is the justice system recognizing that the combination of the natural consequences plus being arrested and held for trial is sometimes punishment enough.
12. Re:Oh thank god.. by Myopic · 2011-05-19 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  One thing you never see is the justice system recognizing that the combination of the natural consequences plus being arrested and held for trial is sometimes punishment enough.
  Isn't that called "time served"?
  I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I thought it worked.
13. Re:Oh thank god.. by Myopic · 2011-05-19 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, okay, thanks for explaining. What would be middle ground, then?
14. Re:Oh thank god.. by sjames · 2011-05-19 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  That is what it''s called, but how often is the phrase used for anything above a $20 misdemeanor?
15. Re:Oh thank god.. by Myopic · 2011-05-20 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know. Do you?
16. Re:Oh thank god.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-20 07:59 · Score: 0
  No ability to order prosecution costs against an unsuccessful defendant
  Right to full funding of defence counsel of similar calibre to prosecution
  Barrier to appeal based entirely upon merits
  Right to introduce new evidence on appeal
  Jurors to be informed of duty to judge law
  Removal of ability to use answers to police questioning against defendant
  Clear guidance that maxmimum sentences are not to be treated as average
  Concurrent sentences in most circumstances (or some other mechanism to prevent 500 year sentences being totted up)
  Right to compensation for failed prosecution, and any actions taken in preparation for this, such as deprivation of property as evidence, or holding accused in custody awaiting trial
  Right to additonal compensation for wrongful conviction/imprisonment, including in appropriate circumstances the ability to bring claims directly against judge or jurors
  Abolition of ability to sieze goods from their owners by suing the goods
  Enough of a start?
17. Re:Oh thank god.. by Myopic · 2011-05-20 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah I like some of those ideas. Some, not. But I don't think they apply to the "middle ground" we seek, which was: ...a middle ground in the justice system between ruining someones life and letting them go free. The only thing on your list that applies to that is Clear guidance that maxmimum sentences are not to be treated as average, which I think is a great idea, although I can't exactly think of how it would work in law or in practice. Still, though, if you could make it work that would be "middle ground" in this context.
  The one I wonder about most is this: Removal of ability to use answers to police questioning against defendant. Do you mean what that seems to mean?
Network was down? by erroneus · 2011-05-18 00:26 · Score: 0

No... It was not down. It was just not administrable. There is a huge difference.
I think his jail time served and permanent damage to his career is more than sufficient. He is still dumbass of the year, but to fine him more money than he will ever make is too much.
1. Re:Network was down? by JoeMerchant · 2011-05-18 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  to fine him more money than he will ever make is too much.
  Sure, the city already won when they got the passwords, but they wanted to make the point that they can run up the score. It probably makes little to no difference in Terry Childs life whether he was released or fined $1.5M at this point in time, either way he's not going to get more than subsistence pay for the next seven years.
  But... just incase there's somebody with more means (read: more to lose) than Terry in the future, they're hoping for a deterrent effect.
  I'd like to remind the audience about the effectiveness of public hanging of pickpockets...
2. Re:Network was down? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  Deterrent effect? Or an incentive to do MUCH worse? If you know you're screwed, anyways, and things are so bad where you feel obligated to take action, now you have an incentive for a policy of "scorched Earth". "If I'm going down, I'll make sure I take your sorry tails with me, for keeps!" kind of thinking. What Mr. Childs did was stupid, but the City was no less so, and this kind of vindictiveness on the part of the City will only spawn increasing vindictiveness, rage, and a berserker mentality among those mentally unstable enough to seek out vigilante justice for whatever reasons, right or wrong.
  Institutional brinksmanship like this, while it deters some, tends to create terrorists out of others.
thats wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:26 · Score: 0

this is like suing a guy who used to work at a steel making joint, because they didnt know how to stop the furnace.
1. Re:thats wrong by tifkap · 2011-05-18 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  They couldn't stop the furnace because the last guy who used to operate it ran of with the control-panel is a more accurate description.
Inflammatory summary, anyone? by jimicus · 2011-05-18 00:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

From TFS:

"it is difficult to understand how they came up in $1.5 million in costs, unless they're billing Terry Childs for the City's own failure to set up division of responsibility and standby emergency access procedures?"
Come on, we shouldn't be defending this guy otherwise we're no better than the corrupt politicians that occasionally crop up on /. stories.
We all know he was in charge of much of the city's network infrastructure and that ultimately the city dealt with him and his role rather badly - that's not particularly unusual in the public sector anywhere in the world. What's important is how he reacted to it. From what I've heard, his reaction was to say "Fine, if that's going to be your attitude I'll take the passwords to my network and go home!" like a petulant child. But it wasn't his network to take - and I don't believe the arguments that to hand over access to someone unqualified would have put him in greater trouble than refusal to. Faced with an enemy with so much more resources, the sensible thing to do would be to negotiate a way out of any possible repercussions instead of throwing a tantrum.
1. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  Incompetence on the part of his superiors meant that it really WAS his network to take, what he did was wrong but it shined a light on an absolutely inept administration which continues to screw the pooch without consequence. He should be punished but not ruined, and his superiors should be beaten with a hose at best.
2. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by SJHillman · 2011-05-18 00:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The problem isn't that we're defending him. Most people on Slashdot think he's an idiot and a criminal. The problem is the $1.5 million fine. That's around 20 years of his salary (at a comfortable $75k/yr). It's not a matter of whether or not he's guilty or deserves punishment, it's a matter of letting the punishment fit the crime. That pesky eighth amendment that mentions no excessive fines.
3. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by Desler · 2011-05-18 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  Most people on Slashdot think he's an idiot and a criminal.
  
  You must be new here or haven't really followed the stories of this guy much. Overwhelmingly most people think he did no wrong. It mirrored all the people who were going to such ridiculous lengths and creating conspiracy theories to defend Hans Reiser.
4. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by tifkap · 2011-05-18 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  No matter how incompetent his supervisers are, it's not *his* network, nor has it ever been. If the administration screws up then it's up to the voters to punish them. The right thing to do would be to hand over the passwd's and complain to the mayor / write a letter to a local newspaper, etc.
5. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:08 · Score: 0
  
  $1.5 million fine. That's around 20 years of his salary
  
  Just imagine how much Sony will have to pay for letting the PSN network go down! 20 years of profits?!
6. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by tifkap · 2011-05-18 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  We shouldn't defend him. We should spit him out, and say that he's a shame to the profession. Everybody has had her/his fair share of mismanagement, but it's not up to us the determine what good or bad management is.
7. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  Why should a person's salary limit their restitution for damages they cause? If I burn down a $20 million building, should I be limited to only having to pay back a portion of my salary? That does not make sense to me.
  He cause the city to spent insane money as a result of his criminal actions. He should have to pay it back.
8. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by nomadic · 2011-05-18 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  I know you just hired me as your chauffeur to drive your car, but I really don't think you take proper care of it, so I'm just going to take it for myself.
9. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by dwandy · 2011-05-18 01:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  yes, withhold passwords on a network resulting in no measurable loss, get 20yrs of income as fine. Damage and destroy an ecosystem causing loss of animal life and depressing an entire area economically; get fines that amount to about 7~mos of income. That's called justice.
  
  --
  If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
10. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:35 · Score: 0
  
  Sensible, yes. New figures out of a study in South Korea peg 1/38 people as demonstrating "ASD traits." I have two ASD children, aged 8 and 10, and no matter how sensible it would be for them to not throw tantrums, the tantrums still come, despite all the best therapy, parent training, research and intervention that the world has to offer.
  The U.S. already "throws away" nearly 1% of society in prisons, over 3% when you include people on parole and probation. Are we ready to go for an additional 3% with the new tantrum throwers?
  We need other solutions besides "trashing people" when they don't conform to "sensible expectations."
11. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  You really should worry if you can be locked out of your network by a petulant child.
  I don't think people are defending Childs' actions, but we don't like his punishment either.
  Maybe his managers should be on the hook for some of the costs of taking back their network too?
12. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by jimicus · 2011-05-18 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. IIRC his counter-argument was "Nobody I could hand passwords over to is competent to manage the systems, and because it's public sector there are actual laws complete with prison sentences associated with giving access to someone incompetent".
  I don't buy that for a minute. Those laws are there to stop staff doing something stupid, not to allow rogue staff to hold the government to ransom. If it's that big a deal, I can think of a few simple ways around that issue straight off the top of my head - hand over details in a sealed envelope to be passed to someone competent in exchange for a letter confirming that no further action will be taken? - which would probably have made the whole lot go away in the space of a few hours. Instead, he refused to hand over the information to anyone under any circumstances.
  That is not the behaviour of a competent IT professional. It's the behaviour of a five year old in the body of an adult.
13. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by conspirator57 · 2011-05-18 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  We shouldn't defend him. We should spit him out, and say that he's a shame to the profession.
  Everybody has had her/his fair share of mismanagement, but it's not up to us the determine what good or bad management is.
  really? but you yourself just said:
  
  The right thing to do would be to hand over the passwd's and complain to the mayor / write a letter to a local newspaper, etc..
  so which is it? sounds like you have an axe to grind here.
  
  --
  "If still these truths be held to be
  Self evident."
  -Edna St. Vincent Millay
14. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by DarthVain · 2011-05-18 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  He should just be glad when they gained control of the network again that they didn't find his secret stash of mp3's! The RIAA would have sued him for 100x that!
15. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by conspirator57 · 2011-05-18 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  that which cannot be paid back, won't be. you should be more up front in your call for debtors prisons.
  
  --
  "If still these truths be held to be
  Self evident."
  -Edna St. Vincent Millay
16. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by totallygeek · 2011-05-18 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  In San Francisco, 75k is not a very comfortable salary.
  
  --
  Click here or here.
17. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by betterunixthanunix · 2011-05-18 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  They threw the guy in prison for what he did. What the hell is the point of demanding millions of dollars from him?
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
18. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  Whether or not you agree with the amount of restitution, it is still just that, restitution. A fine is imposed as a punishment on a person. Restitution is imposed to make the victim whole. This is more than just a semantic difference; there is a logically and legally valid difference between a fine and restitution. For the same criminal count, a convicted person may be subject to both a fine and a payment of restitution. Only the fine would fall under the Eighth Admendment:
  Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
  If you hypothesize a scenario where the city had established $1,000 in damages, and the sentencing judge imposed a million dollar fine plus $1,000 in restitution, there might be a legitimate claim that the million dollar fine is unconstitutionally excessive because it is so out-of-line with the actual damages found. But that isn't the case described in this /. post.
19. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by mounthood · 2011-05-18 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  He should have dumped oil in San Fransisco Bay: no arrest or imprisonment, and payouts aren't made by individuals.
  
  --
  tomorrow who's gonna fuss
20. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by catmistake · 2011-05-18 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC, Child's was fired before they asked him to relinquish the keys. I don't understand how he was in any way obligated, or how he could legally be compelled, to give any response after his position was terminated. I think Child's has a rather small labor case against the city for forcing him to work without compensation after he was no longer employed.
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
21. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by mcmonkey · 2011-05-18 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  They threw the guy in prison for what he did. What the hell is the point of demanding millions of dollars from him?
  Should bank robbers should get to keep the money if they do time in prison? Ok, this guy didn't steal anything.
  Someone sets your house on fire. The direct fire damage is small, but the water damage from putting out the fire destroys the house. The arsonists is caught, convicted, and sent to prison.
  If presented the option of pursuing damages, would reaction be, what's the point?
22. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  I know you just hired me as your chauffeur to drive your car, but I really don't think you take proper care of it, so I'm just going to take it for myself.
  Wrong. It's more like;
  
  We both know I'm an experienced, certified chauffeur that has been in your employ for many years,, but unless you have the proper license, I'm not legally permitted to let you drive this vehicle yourself.
  Then getting pissy and throwing the guy in jail, sentenced to several years in jail, then getting him stuffed with the bill for detailing your car. Hell, even the mob has simpler ways of dealing with people.
23. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by nomadic · 2011-05-18 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  We both know I'm an experienced, certified chauffeur that has been in your employ for many years,, but unless you have the proper license, I'm not legally permitted to let you drive this vehicle yourself.
  
  Exactly! And unless you are a police officer acting pursuant to rights given him or her by the law, you have absolutely no right to prevent me from driving the car. Chauffeur does not equal law enforcement officer; it's my car, get the hell out and give me the keys. What I do after that is none of your damn business. That's what Childs and you don't understand.
24. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by Skapare · 2011-05-18 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  I can see you have no experience with the kinds of political power plays that can happen in government offices. Mr. Childs' big mistake was not recognizing how seriously bad it can be in city government. At least Mr. Childs recognized all the means by which people could take over the network and put in efforts to ensure it would be tightly secure, even from those with physical access. Who would be to blame if someone screwed up the network and let hackers in?
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
25. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  But what if through his actions he actually cost the city the equivalent of 20 years of his salary? Wouldn't the punishment then fit the crime? You'd have to argue that the costs incurred by the city were not actually due to his criminal behavior (the city didn't actually need to spend the money).
  I think I get what people are concerned about here. What if I'm a construction worker, misread a blueprint, use the wrong bolt or something, and cause a $20M building or bridge to collapse? Would it be fitting that I repay the full cost of the damage? A construction worker's salary could never ever repay that.
  The issue here is that small mistakes (or crimes that seem somewhat petty) can have significant financial ramifications. Who picks up the tab? What's reasonable here? Commenters here seem to think Childs' crime is not worth ruining his life over, and that's probably what a $1.5M fine will do.
26. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by jedidiah · 2011-05-18 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  We should stand up for principles regardless of who they are being applied to.
  The ban against "cruel and unusual punishment" is one of those.
  People tend to forget that all of this "criminal coddling" stuff isn't just some crazy new idea cooked up by pinko liberals. It is THE LAW. Not only is it THE LAW but it is the SUPREME law and is supposed to have supremacy over everything else. ...it's not just a good/bad idea, it's the law.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
27. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2011-05-18 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  There is nothing cruel and unusual. He probably cost the city and the court system far more than the $1.5 million fine that he received by creating this whole fiasco to begin with. The guy should honestly be charged more.
28. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by ImprovOmega · 2011-05-18 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but it's an absurd judgement. You may as well fine him eleventy hojillion dollars because you're not going to see it either way. Kind of like that RIAA case where they got a judgement of $2 million dollars. To what end? It can't be paid by these people.
29. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by fnj · 2011-05-18 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Based on that hypothetical $75k/yr salary, it's more like at least 60-80 years of his disposable post-tax income even after cutting his expenses and standard of living to the bone.
30. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by Aighearach · 2011-05-18 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  He wasn't asking for a ransom, he was asking that they hire a new admin and he give the passwords to that person.
31. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by Mitreya · 2011-05-18 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  So many moderations are no more...
  
  The problem is the $1.5 million fine. That's around 20 years of his salary (at a comfortable $75k/yr).
  
  Not even close. Unless the legal fines are tax-exempt, to pay get $75K/year disposable income he'd have to make 130K-140K. I assume you we also expect him to eat from time to time?
  At 75K/year, he'd be lucky to free up 30-40K, assuming he lives at the poverty line for those 45 years... Scratch that, assuming he lives and works for 45 more years.
32. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by sjames · 2011-05-18 18:08 · Score: 1
  
  We shouldn't be in a position where we must defend someone we believe was in the wrong because of an over the top penalty, yet here we are.
  I am absolutely sure Childs handled things badly. I'm not so sure that what he did even rose to the level of criminality. I'm absolutely sure what he did wasn't 4 years and 1.5 million dollars worth of criminality.
  Justice doesn't stop at not punishing the innocent. It also includes making sure the punishment fits the crime.
33. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by Narcogen · 2011-05-18 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC, Child's was fired before they asked him to relinquish the keys. I don't understand how he was in any way obligated, or how he could legally be compelled, to give any response after his position was terminated. I think Child's has a rather small labor case against the city for forcing him to work without compensation after he was no longer employed.
  Because his ordinary obligation to turn over to the owners any property (real, intellectual, or ordinary) he had on his person probalby survives the termination of his employment contract (written or verbal, implied or explicit).
  Let's say you have a babysitter. Against your instructions, she takes the kids to an amusement park. You find out, call her, and tell her that for disobeying your instructions, she is fired.
  Does she get to keep your children?
  Let's say you have a chauffeur. While driving you and your family to the airport in a car you own, he drives recklessly and nearly gets in an accident. You fire him on the spot. He's still in the driver's seat, with the keys in his possession-- keys which you freely gave to him. Does he have to get out and walk-- or do you?
  There are lots of contract provisions that can survive the termination of an agreement like an employment agreement, as illustrated above. The passwords didn't belong to Childs any more than the routers did. He was not free to do with them as he pleased, either before his termination or afterwards. It would be no more legitimate to refuse to hand them over to his former employers justified only by his termination than it would be to post them publicly for anyone to see and use, as maintaining network security was no longer his obligation. It's not, but his obligation not to misuse his employer's intellectual property-- the passwords-- survives the termination of the employment agreement. Getting fired isn't an "all bets are off" button.
  That said, my understanding of his defense was that there were policies in place that restricted to whom, and how, he could turn over passwords. My recollection is unsure as to the degree to which that turned out to be accurate or relevant. However, it's likely that those policies, if they did exist, would also have survived the termination of his employment contract.
  IANAL.
34. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by AK+Marc · 2011-05-18 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  Why did the city choose to spend the $1.5 million to pursue it? That's like blaming Osama bin Laden for spending $6 trillion extra of US money on our military in the past 10 years. We didn't have to, but we did. So, is it because of Osama, or because we decided to spend that?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
35. Re:Inflammatory summary, anyone? by catmistake · 2011-05-19 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  I like the metaphors you use, and without understanding precisely what the reasoning behind Childs prosecution was, I'd like to examine your metaphors. In the first metaphor, Childs is the baby sitter, and the network is your kids. After you fired your babysitter, would s/he be required to tell you how s/he got your kids to behave so well? In the second metaphor, the chauffeur is Childs and the car is the network. After you fired your chauffeur, would he be required to teach you to drive?
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
How is Childs being treated unfairly? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

Certainly the management of San Francisco has some responsibility for what happened.
However, I disagree with the assessment that Terry Childs is without blame, as is implied in the article summary. If I hold hostages and demand ransom but later release the hostages, does that mean I did nothing wrong? While Childs didn't literally take hostages, figuratively that's exactly what he did.
The justification for making Childs pay restitution is that the city of San Francisco attempted other means of gaining control of the systems while Childs refused to cooperate. Those attempts cost some money, and that's money that would otherwise be billed to taxpayers.
Why should I feel that Childs is being treated unfairly? He had to know that if he fought those in power, they would find a way to take him down.
1. Re:How is Childs being treated unfairly? by hesiod · 2011-05-18 01:12 · Score: 2
  
  He had to know that if he fought those in power, they would find a way to take him down.
  So, "stop struggling, and take it up the ass like a good little victim" is your approach to government oppression?
  (Note that I'm not saying he IS a victim, but that your reasoning there is morally offensive)
2. Re:How is Childs being treated unfairly? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  Holding a person hostage is a clearly criminal act and would require a criminal mind to occur. Holding the keys to a network was not at the time clearly a criminal act. Your analogy falls flat on its face as he could not know himself if he was acting criminally. The actions taken by the city means that any person is at risk or jail and fine for not complying with the cities demands for information after they have stopped working for the city. How is that fair. Everyone would comply out of fear of retribution. If anything the court should have only decided if the employee needs to give up that information or defined what was considered government property.
3. Re:How is Childs being treated unfairly? by Skapare · 2011-05-18 06:07 · Score: 2
  
  Mr. Childs demanded no ransom. He demanded the network be kept solidly secure. Management (not sure which parts in particular) has ALL of the responsibility for this. But just like any political aspiring person, they will never, ever, admit to it. And I bet you are one of those types.
  There was nothing wrong with the network. Mr. Childs planted no bombs in it. I didn't create any backdoors that were there for any purpose besides proper management. It is entirely unjustified to assume he did anything bad to the network. The costs of management trying to play games with the network should be billed to those management people, personally, not Mr. Childs. Its is they who were taking these steps just for appearance, and to make themselves look more powerful.
  Of course, he did make one big mistake ... he worked for asswipe political people (I still think you are one of those types). He should have moved on earlier. But where? Sony Entertainment? I bet those managers would have cared even less.
  The answer is, if you work in security (and networking or system administration is a security job these days), you damn well better be working for someone who actually cares about the security and respects the processes and people that work it. At least some in the management of the City of San Francisco certainly don't give a damn about security at all.
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
4. Re:How is Childs being treated unfairly? by ScentCone · 2011-05-18 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  your reasoning there is morally offensive
  In what way? He said what he said in the (real!) context of Terry Childs being actually guilty of exactly what they said he was guilty of doing. Despite being caught betraying the public (for whom he chose to work) with his ridiculous, delusional power play, he continued to obstruct the people trying to make sure that the city could have control over the taxpayer-owned infrastructure he was treating like his own. As the GP said, if he chose to continue to fight against his employers and the taxpayers of the city, despite being shown to be a total jerk, then yes: he should have expected and understood that he was going to come down a lot harder than he otherwise would have. The only moral offense in this case was his.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
5. Re:How is Childs being treated unfairly? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2011-05-18 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Mr. Childs demanded no ransom. He demanded the network be kept solidly secure.
  Yes, and he did so in a manner that did not follow the rules. He locked anyone and everyone else out and then kept all the passwords in his head when the policy was to keep them in a secured central repository.
  
  Management (not sure which parts in particular) has ALL of the responsibility for this. But just like any political aspiring person, they will never, ever, admit to it. And I bet you are one of those types.
  Deliciously "ironic" considering that you are basically doing the same thing in reverse.
  
  The answer is, if you work in security (and networking or system administration is a security job these days), you damn well better be working for someone who actually cares about the security and respects the processes and people that work it. At least some in the management of the City of San Francisco certainly don't give a damn about security at all.
  So then you better not hire Terry Childs because what he did wasn't respecting the processes of his job. He basically did the complete opposite and set up a system that did nothing but help keep himself in power and to be able to block anyone else from taking his job.
6. Re:How is Childs being treated unfairly? by Sarius64 · 2011-05-18 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  A much fairer assessment. You missed the part where the new person politically appointed walks in a demands network information with no credentials.
  http://ca.tech.yahoo.com/news/infoworld/article/453
  "Sources have stated that not only was Childs the only admin, he was always on call, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. As the only admin with the knowledge and access to the FiberWAN, he had no help. During the past few years, the DTIS staff has been significantly reduced due to budget cuts, keeping the city dependent on a sole admin for its core network."
  "The confrontation that started the standoff
  On Friday, June 20, there was an altercation between Childs and Jeana Pieralde, the new DTIS security manager at the 1 Market Street datacenter in San Francisco. Until her promotion, she had been a city network engineer who worked with Childs. The city's court filings claimed that Childs harassed Pieralde, confronted her, and took photos of her with his cell phone. Fearing for her safety, Pieralde retreated to a room in the building, locked herself in, and called the DTIS CIO for help. The DTIS CIO then called Childs and the two had words. Childs subsequently left the premises. Why was Childs so upset? According to the city, no one had told him or others that Pieralde was auditing his network, and he perceived it as a threat or intrusion.
  Childs disputed this interpretation of events, claiming in court documents that Pieralde was conducting clandestine searches of DTIS employee workspaces and had removed a hard drive from an office when he confronted her. He also denied taking photos of Pieralde.
  What occurred over the next two weeks remains a mystery, but at some point, DTIS officials demanded that Childs relinquish the usernames and passwords used to access the FiberWAN network devices, and Childs refused to do so. He was suspended for insubordination on July 9."
  ----
  Clearly he was no longer employed with the city. Clearly he had no obligation to the city in any form. Clearly nothing he did was illegal. Clearly the city is the one that scapegoated a citizen. Clearly! Any audit of the city's security and management procedures was at the very least, negligent.
  Childs could be the biggest ass in the world and he still was not the one that did not follow procedures.
  ----
  ---- http://rixstep.com/1/20100428,01.shtml
  Paul Venezia reports on a leak to Slashdot from one of the jurors.
  'This case should have never come to be. Management in the city's IT organisation was terrible. There were no adopted security policies or procedures in place. This was a situation that management allowed to develop until it came to this unfortunate point. They did everything wrong that they possibly could have to create this situation.'
  Venezia picks up the ball.
  'Shouldn't the letter of the law be applied to other 'denial of service' problems caused by the city while they pursued this case? In particular, the person or persons who released hundreds passwords in public court filings in 2008 be tried for causing a denial of service for the city's widespread VPN services? After all, once the story broke that a large list of usernames and passwords had been released to the public, the city had to take down its VPN services for days while they reset every password and communicated those changes to the users. And the kicker is that the VPN password debacle had immediate and widespread negative effects on the users and clearly caused a service outage, while Childs' actions did not effect users in any way.'
  The difference of course is that Childs wasn't 'connected', wasn't political, and Robinson, at the head of the notorious city IT organisation described by a juror as 'terrible', was.
  'If the letter of the law is what convicted Terry Childs, then the law is simply wrong', concl
I thought the exact same thing by way2trivial · 2011-05-18 00:33 · Score: 3, Informative

so I looked myself and found this article
http://sfappeal.com/news/2011/05/sf-network-engineer-convicted-of-witholding-passwords-ordered-to-pay-15-million-restitution.php
"No city services were ever affected, but officials said they could have been crippled if power had somehow been shut off.
A jury convicted Childs in April 2010 of a computer tampering-related charge, and today San Francisco Superior Court Judge Teri Jackson ordered him to pay $1,485,791 in restitution to the Department of Technology,"
he's paying it to the department of technology, not justice.. so... no...

--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
1. Re:I thought the exact same thing by hesiod · 2011-05-18 00:58 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  he's paying it to the department of technology, not justice
  Just because it's not a court-ordered bribe doesn't mean it's definitely not a punishment verdict.
2. Re:I thought the exact same thing by clang_jangle · 2011-05-18 01:19 · Score: 2
  
  he's paying it to the department of technology, not justice.. so... no...
  Do you have any idea how much money you can burn through in just one day of providing network services to an entire city's government? Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the SF Dept of Technology spent that much or more trying to deal with the "rogue admin who absconded with all the data/access". The taxpayers *do* need to be reimbursed for that. This might actually be an example of the system working properly, though I do not know enough detail to say for sure.
  
  --
  Caveat Utilitor
3. Re:I thought the exact same thing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  That makes it much better. He's paying to this public bureaucracy instead of that public bureaucracy
4. Re:I thought the exact same thing by cgenman · 2011-05-18 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  He actually absconded with the passwords for administrating, not the ones for data. So the money spent was spent, essentially, trying to break into their own admin system, not network itself. It's reassuring that they couldn't.
  Presuming they brought in some solid guns being paid $200 an hour, that's 7,500 hours of work, or 750 work days. With 12 physical days with which to make this happen, that's 60+ people.
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
5. Re:I thought the exact same thing by the_B0fh · 2011-05-18 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  are you a mucking foron? Did you even follow the case?
6. Re:I thought the exact same thing by MeateaW · 2011-05-18 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  200 dollars an hour?
  
  You do realise how much experienced network technicians cost from a large firm don't you?
  
  If you *have* to break into (sake of the argument) Cisco network yesterday because your admin buggered off with the passwords, you would get Cisco in.
  Cisco doesn't send you a complete moron, they send you one of their well paid engineers that spend 90% of their time doing nothing. And Cisco doesn't charge you the cost of his time (maybe he's paid $40 an hour?) they charge you 10 times the cost of his time.
  
  $400 per hour per expert is not unreasonable.
  
  After my dad retired, he did part time work for one of the very large accounting firms here (possibly international accounting firm, never checked). He was paid $70 an hour as an IT security consultant. He was charged out at $700 an hour for the hours he worked on the firms clients.
  
  My work had a single specialist in to look at our equipment during a failure. $250 dollars an hour. And this guy wasn't even very good. I shudder to think what they would charge if we wanted an actually useful specialist.
7. Re:I thought the exact same thing by sjames · 2011-05-18 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  The only way it would cost that much would be if they were the world's least competent IT department (admittedly, that seems possible given what happened).
  At the least, they should have had a "hit by a bus" envelope containing all of the passwords as a matter of policy, or at least a policy requiring all passwords to be recoverable with physical access.
8. Re:I thought the exact same thing by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · 2011-05-19 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Reading is not your forte, is it?
  
  --
  This guy is way out there
it's a malpractice insurance BONANZA! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:38 · Score: 0

Sick of making a stinkin $60K/annum for 365/24/7 service? Well now you're a member of a ruling elite, concomitantly liable for millions in damages!
Now that you need a multimillion dollar bond, doesn't that make you feel underpaid?
This sends a much needed message. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:42 · Score: 0

That dereliction of duty, and violation of the public trust is not OK just because nothing bad happened. By that logic, these morons who fly passenger jetliners after imbibing should not be punished because they managed to get the plane down OK and didn't kill anyone.

This is yet another example of how public sector workers think that they are beyond reproach, and do not have to work to the same standards that the public sector does. He needs to understand his place and apparently he didn't, and now will have to pay.

Hopefully this serves as an example to other people who don't understand their position and think just because they have the keys to the office or the password to the server that they own the place. They are fungible and will be held accountable.
1. Re:This sends a much needed message. by Stormthirst · 2011-05-18 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  This is yet another example of how public sector workers think that they are beyond reproach, and do not have to work to the same standards that the private sector does.
  FTFY
  Incidentally, I've worked for both the public and private sectors. Granted I've never worked in the States - the people in the public sector there may have a different attitude. But certainly in the UK, people working in the public sector are considerably less greedy and far more conscientious than the private sector workers. To add to that they have a layer of bureaucracy above them that "holds them accountable if they screw up" (read: because some politician somewhere will fire them as a scapegoat) - certainly more than in the private sector.
Let it go? by way2trivial · 2011-05-18 00:43 · Score: 0

"And why can't the city just let this one go? They won a long time ago.. back when he was fired, jailed, etc and he surrendered the passwords without the network ever going down."
how indelibly burned into your psyche is the concept
"I will not be crossing that line!" because of the example they have made, and continue to make, of this individual.
taking another unredeemable swing at him at this later date? serves the same purpose as the electric chair-- a warning to others......
Lets use another example entirely- considering what happened to the poor carpenter from Nazareth, would you consider claiming to be him?

--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
1. Re:Let it go? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:55 · Score: 0
  
  Jesus! What carpenter from Nazareth? i missed that. Have you got a link - KY, TX or MI?
2. Re:Let it go? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  Jesus! What carpenter from Nazareth? i missed that. Have you got a link - KY, TX or MI?
  From the band of the same name.
3. Re:Let it go? by drinkypoo · 2011-05-18 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  how indelibly burned into your psyche is the concept
  "I will not be crossing that line!" because of the example they have made, and continue to make, of this individual.
  That's true. They have proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that working for them is fucking stupid.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Never give any one admin that much power by digitaldc · 2011-05-18 00:44 · Score: 2

Lesson learned?

A better punishment would have been to make him perform community service where he has to work for free for a certain number of hours fixing people's networks and eliminating THEIR downtime. That might have been a better solution.

--
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
1. Re:Never give any one admin that much power by Bieeanda · 2011-05-18 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno, being forced to do tech support for random people seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me.
2. Re:Never give any one admin that much power by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  No. No. A thousand times no.
  Fixing people's networks means giving him control over those networks. What if he thinks that they're "too stupid" to really run those networks, and does the same thing to their network that he did to San Francisco?
3. Re:Never give any one admin that much power by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 04:46 · Score: 0
  
  You want to trust him loose on your network, go ahead; it'll be a cold day in hell before I let him on mine, though.
4. Re:Never give any one admin that much power by mcmonkey · 2011-05-18 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  A better punishment would have been to make him perform community service where he has to work for free for a certain number of hours fixing people's networks and eliminating THEIR downtime. That might have been a better solution.
  Really? Do you think bank robbers should made to perform community service as bank tellers?
  Perhaps pedophiles should do their time by volunteering at day care.
  I think this guy has shown, while he has the technical knowledge, he should not be trusted to work on other people's networks.
5. Re:Never give any one admin that much power by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  Would you let this joker access to your network? No way. Not for free, not if he paid me for the privilege.
6. Re:Never give any one admin that much power by Sarius64 · 2011-05-18 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  I can imagine the arguments in your house if you inflate shit like this.
  So, I'll bite. How is being ordered to the point of violence to work for free after you have been fired equivalent to bank robbers or pedos?
7. Re:Never give any one admin that much power by mcmonkey · 2011-05-18 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  I can imagine the arguments in your house if you inflate shit like this.
  So, I'll bite. How is being ordered to the point of violence to work for free after you have been fired equivalent to bank robbers or pedos?
  It's the fox guarding the hen house. It's not that having him do networking support for free is like robbing a bank. It's that having this criminal do networking for free is like letting/making a bank robber work at a bank.
1.5 Million? by Xacid · 2011-05-18 00:47 · Score: 2

"it is difficult to understand how they came up in $1.5 million in costs"
Asshole tax?
1. Re:1.5 Million? by bdparsley · 2011-05-18 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sending that idea to my congressperson. An asshole tax might be enough to plug the federal deficit.
2. Re:1.5 Million? by Xacid · 2011-05-18 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  It'll never pass.
  Why?
  Because they don't like passing laws that would affect them too.
Two entirely separate issues by goldspider · 2011-05-18 00:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

"...unless they're billing Terry Childs for the City's own failure to set up division of responsibility and standby emergency access procedures?"
What exactly is being insinuated here? That it's the City's fault that Childs decided to commit a crime?
Sorry, pal, it doesn't work that way. Yes, the city has a lot of work to do to clean up its IT policies, but that has no bearing whatsoever on Childs' decision to commit a criminal act.

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
1. Re:Two entirely separate issues by next_ghost · 2011-05-18 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the city has a lot of work to do to clean up its IT policies, but that has no bearing whatsoever on Childs' decision to commit a criminal act.
  Excuse me but since when is not giving full admin access to somebody not qualified to administer the network a criminal act? If I was in Terry Childs' place, I'd give the passwords to my unqualified superiors only against a written disclaimer saying that I no longer have any responsibility for any downtime or damage to the network.
2. Re:Two entirely separate issues by jaymz666 · 2011-05-18 01:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If he had been hit by a bus and killed the city would have been even more screwed, so yes, the city is partially to blame for not having a backup plan to begin with.
3. Re:Two entirely separate issues by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  "But Sir, the network was badly secured! They were basically begging me to fuck them over!".
  Glad that guy isn't my lawyer.
4. Re:Two entirely separate issues by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  If he had been hit by a bus and killed the city would have been even more screwed
  And why is that? Because he chose not to follow existing policies and store passwords in the central repository, and because he chose to deny anyone else access, and he chose to booby trap the system and carry the only backup on a disk in his pocket.
5. Re:Two entirely separate issues by brainzach · 2011-05-18 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  The whole issue could be resolved by him giving the password to someone who he thought was qualified to run the system.
  The issue wasn't about denying one supervisor admin rights, it is about holding the IT infrastructure hostage which is a far greater security risk. Terry Childs was apparently the one who was unqualified to administrator the network.
6. Re:Two entirely separate issues by Blakey+Rat · 2011-05-18 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking the same thing:
  unless they're billing Terry Childs for the City's own failure to set up division of responsibility and standby emergency access procedures?
  Wasn't that HIS JOB?
  I know Slashdot loves this guy, but the contortions you're going through to make him look like an innocent victim... just ain't convincing me.
  
  --
  Comment of the year
7. Re:Two entirely separate issues by Qzukk · 2011-05-18 03:01 · Score: 2
  
  The whole issue could be resolved by him giving the password to someone who he thought was qualified to run the system.
  The issue was that he thought he was the only person who was qualified.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
8. Re:Two entirely separate issues by next_ghost · 2011-05-18 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  The issue was that he thought he was the only person who was qualified.
  And it seems to me from the reports that he was right. Even if they had somebody around who knows the technology inside out, it'd still take a few weeks to get him up to speed on system configuration. Until his training is finished, it's better not to give the new admin full system access because he might accidentally nuke the network because he didn't get to some important configuration detail in his training yet.
9. Re:Two entirely separate issues by brainzach · 2011-05-18 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  He was the only one qualified because he prevented any other person from learning the system and kept the keys to himself. The only thing that he is securing is his own job.
  When you are fired from your job and threatened with jail time, you give up the password. All this mess could have easily prevented right there.
  It is no longer your responsibility after that point. If your supervisor messes up the network, it is would be their ass that gets in trouble.
10. Re:Two entirely separate issues by catmistake · 2011-05-18 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Childs decided to commit a crime
  I am still unclear on exactly what act he did that was a crime. My understanding is he was kind of uptight and not well liked, there was some power struggle in the city's IT group, and he was fired. After he was fired, they realized he held all the network keys... and when they demanded he relinquish the keys, he refused. I'm just unsure of exactly when he committed the crime.
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
11. Re:Two entirely separate issues by ScentCone · 2011-05-18 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  the city is partially to blame for not having a backup plan to begin with
  Which has nothing whatsoever to do with his criminal culpability.
  
  He'd be just as guilty of arson if he attempted to burn a city building with good sprinklers as he'd be if he chose to burn down a building without them.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
12. Re:Two entirely separate issues by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  And whose responsibility was it to set up a backup plan? How about the head of IT?
13. Re:Two entirely separate issues by next_ghost · 2011-05-18 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  He was the only one qualified because he prevented any other person from learning the system and kept the keys to himself. The only thing that he is securing is his own job.
  Was it really Childs keeping everybody out of the system, or was it his bosses' decision to save money by having only one admin for the whole network up until the incident? From what I've read about the case so far, I get the feeling that the latter was the case.
  
  It is no longer your responsibility after that point. If your supervisor messes up the network, it is would be their ass that gets in trouble.
  Sorry, I don't buy that. In the real world, I could easily get into trouble for actually letting the unqualified supervisor anywhere near the system configuration. It's a really awful choice: Keep the passwords to myself and face legal charges for not handing them over, or hand them over and face legal charges for somebody else's screw up that I was supposed to prevent in the first place by keeping those passwords secret.
14. Re:Two entirely separate issues by slashqwerty · 2011-05-18 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  Except in this case it would be more like he had a habit of smoking someplace that repeatedly set off the smoke detectors and refused to change his habits. So he was prosecuted and charged for the cost of checking all the smoke detectors and installing a new sprinkler system that wasn't there before.
  
  According to the article, the restitution was to
  
  repay The City for its efforts in trying to regain control over the FiberWAN network and later test it for vulnerabilities
  
  They should routinely test for vulnerabilities anyway; and to regain control of the network all they had to do was use the password which he eventually handed over. Child's was in charge of the network. If they didn't like the way he set it up, reconfiguring the systems is a responsibility they should be taking on themselves.
15. Re:Two entirely separate issues by AK+Marc · 2011-05-18 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  That it's the City's fault that Childs decided to commit a crime?
  
  What crime? He was convicted of "tampering" by not giving up a password. That's like being convicted of arson by not surrendering matches when commanded to do so, despite the fact that you started no fires.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
A fine example of American justice by seniorcoder · 2011-05-18 00:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

Terry Childs was clearly on an excessive one-man power trip. I don't think too many on /. think that deserves jail time though. A firing for unprofessional conduct: sure. A $1.5M fine? This just adds to the farce. I'm sure the head of the IMF will get a fair trial. He has already been convicted (by the media) and is in jail. ... now all we need to do is to get most of Wall Street in jail. They have been tried in the media but not put in jail.
1. Re:A fine example of American justice by Stormthirst · 2011-05-18 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  The head of the IMF was arrested on a plane. He's in jail (as opposed to being out on bail) because it was suggested he might be a flight risk.
2. Re:A fine example of American justice by Rary · 2011-05-18 02:08 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  I don't think too many on /. think that deserves jail time though. A firing for unprofessional conduct: sure.
  As I understand it, what transformed his case from an employment issue to a criminal issue was when he decided to try to flee the state while still in possession of the passwords and configuration backups that he was keeping from everyone else. If he had just stuck around and worked with his employer to resolve the issue, he likely wouldn't ever have seen the inside of a jail cell.
  
  --
  "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
3. Re:A fine example of American justice by Ossifer · 2011-05-18 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  The only farce here is that some of you continue to blindly believe his lame ass defense argument that everything he did was for the good of the city/network.
4. Re:A fine example of American justice by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  Restitution isn't a fine. Fines are punishment, and they're forfeited to the government. Restitution is to make the victim whole, and goes to the victim (who, in this case, is a department of the government, but that's a coincidence--if it were a private organization, the money would go to that organization). The purpose of restitution is to repair the damage caused by the offender.
  In this case, Mr. Childs caused the victim (the city) to incur costs to gain access, and quite a bit more cost to verify the integrity of the network and make sure he hadn't done anything else to the network. The $1.5m isn't a punishment, it's restoring the victim to the position it held before Mr. Childs acted like, well, a child. He created the situation himself through his own willful actions; he can't whine about having to fix what he caused.
  To the poster who mentioned the Eight Amendment: this isn't an Eighth Amendment issue. There's no constitutional bar to making somebody pay for the actual harm he causes.
5. Re:A fine example of American justice by catmistake · 2011-05-18 05:08 · Score: 2
  
  If he had just stuck around and worked with his employer to resolve the issue, he likely wouldn't ever have seen the inside of a jail cell.
  
  I think I am missing something... once Childs was fired, he was no longer employed. Under what obligation was he under to continue to work with a former employer to resolve any issue?
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
6. Re:A fine example of American justice by Rary · 2011-05-18 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  I think I am missing something... once Childs was fired, he was no longer employed. Under what obligation was he under to continue to work with a former employer to resolve any issue?
  The problems with Childs span a two-year period, during which time he was employed. Lots of people seem to think that the issue involves the company asking for passwords, Childs refusing, and the company firing him. But that's not what happened. Technically, he never even got fired. He was on administrative leave at the time that he decided to flee the State, but so much had already gone wrong by then, that grabbing his $10,000 in cash and running off to Nevada was just the straw that broke the legal camel's back. And that's precisely why he was arrested. He already had a meeting scheduled with the CTO for the following week to attempt to resolve the issue. But he decided to flee instead. Dumb.
  
  --
  "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
7. Re:A fine example of American justice by Sarius64 · 2011-05-18 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry. Can you point to the place where it is illegal to take a vacation to Vegas and spend $10,000? Court order? What? I have friends right now that spent $10,000 last weekend at a casino? You're a shitty excuse for a thought police.
  Apparently you can read minds too so maybe you should be applying for one of the great management positions in San Francisco.
8. Re:A fine example of American justice by Rary · 2011-05-18 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry. Can you point to the place where it is illegal to take a vacation to Vegas and spend $10,000?
  Oh, FFS, you're not honestly that stupid. That isn't even remotely what I stated. Go back to school and learn to read and comprehend.
  
  --
  "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
what really happened? by doperative · 2011-05-18 00:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

Mr. Childs clashed with the new Security Manager on the subject of authentication and control, which led to poor formal review.
Sorting out fact from fiction in the Terry Childs case
1. Re:what really happened? by Gribflex · 2011-05-18 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  That Yahoo article was a nice summary. Thanks for the link.
2. Re:what really happened? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  In simpler terms:
  They trusted him, he broke the trust, and they fucked him for it.
3. Re:what really happened? by Ossifer · 2011-05-18 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  This is old news long before the true facts came out.
  Dig up the facts posted here on slashdot from an actual juror that convicted him.
4. Re:what really happened? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 14:00 · Score: 0
  
  "You'll note the papers have referred to the new information security manager. It's only been a month or so since the City even had an information security policy, and even that is a bare, unmodified template from CCISDA that's awaiting discussion and alteration by a committee that hasn't been formed yet. (When I asked Terry if we could get a copy of the City's network security policy some months ago, he told me, "I've been trying to get them to approve one for years. I've written ones up and submitted them, but they don't want to do it, because they don't want to be held to it.")"
  Anonymous source inside SF city government.
How not to make friends by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 00:54 · Score: 0

Honestly, hasn't this poor guy been strung out long enough? Why can't they give him some peace.
www.awkwardengineer.com
Only on slashdot by Overunderrated · 2011-05-18 00:55 · Score: 0

can you be guaranteed that illegal and full-on crazy actions by a sysadmin be ignored in place of ranting against his employer.
Disgrace to the profession by SoothingMist · 2011-05-18 01:01 · Score: 0

In my personal opinion, it is a mistake for our profession to defend the likes of a person who carries out such an act. While the restitution is clearly beyond his means, his actions are just as clearly unconscionable. I have been in this profession for 35 years and still work at the technical level. We need to act with integrity and disassociate ourselves from such malpractitioners. Otherwise, our profession will fall under deep suspicion and eventually die.
1. Re:Disgrace to the profession by Ossifer · 2011-05-18 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  You sir, (or madam, however unlikely), would be a strong candidate to work on my team.
  In fact, I'm going to add Terry Childs questions to my IT interviewing process...
nt by shentino · 2011-05-18 01:14 · Score: 1

He's already been crucified.
They're just casting lots for his robes.
Guilty of not having a competent lawyer by spectro · 2011-05-18 01:14 · Score: 1

I can't figure out how this guy got convicted. He was an asshole and lacked common sense but 4 years in jail?, 1.5M? talk about "cruel or unusual punishment", 8th amendment anyone?
Are they appealing this case?, why is the EFF not involved?, this is the kind of case they should be looking at. This case sets the scary precedent that admins are criminally liable for the network they maintain.

--
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
1. Re:Guilty of not having a competent lawyer by fast+turtle · 2011-05-18 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  first off, as someone posted earlier Child's violated the policy for Key/Password management, which was grounds for immediate firing. Hell all he'd had to do was slip and fall while taking a shower and nocked himself senseless and they'd have been in the same position because he violated proceedure. He then upped the violation by configuring the network to created a D.o.S condition upon any power failure and if I was in a position to hire someone with his skill set, his application/resume would immediately go to /dev/null as he's already proven his untrustworthiness and lack of professionalism.
  
  --
  Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
2. Re:Guilty of not having a competent lawyer by spectro · 2011-05-18 02:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The punishment for not doing your job or doing it wrong by violating procedures or otherwise is getting fired. He was fired, that's plenty of punishment.
  Anything else they are adding on top of it is a violation of his 8th amendment protections, any competent lawyer should get these extra penalties overturned.
  
  --
  HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
3. Re:Guilty of not having a competent lawyer by demonlapin · 2011-05-18 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  violating procedures
  Depending on where you work, violating procedures may in fact be a violation of the law. I know that's the case in health care and finance, where federal laws require you to adhere to all workplace policies.
4. Re:Guilty of not having a competent lawyer by PhxBlue · 2011-05-18 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  This case sets the scary precedent that admins are criminally liable for the network they maintain.
  Only if they're criminally negligent in their failure to properly maintain it.
  
  --
  !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
5. Re:Guilty of not having a competent lawyer by mcmonkey · 2011-05-18 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  This case sets the scary precedent that admins are criminally liable for the network they maintain.
  Why the that scary? What's wrong with being held accountable for your actions? The White-Knighting this guy is getting only makes sense if it's an accident.
  If this case was a result of a lack of skill or simple oversight, I'd agree he shouldn't go to prison or pay damages. If he didn't think to store passwords anywhere other than his head, and then left the company or forgot some key piece of information, I'd say no criminal liability.
  But this guy took overt steps. Why shouldn't he be responsible for his actions?
6. Re:Guilty of not having a competent lawyer by AK+Marc · 2011-05-18 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  What's wrong with being held accountable for your actions?
  
  Because the accountants, CEOs, sales people and everyone else in the office aren't held criminally liable for acting in good faith (even if they were wrong). It's only system admins that are held criminally liable for acting in good faith when they are wrong.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
7. Re:Guilty of not having a competent lawyer by mcmonkey · 2011-05-19 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  What's wrong with being held accountable for your actions?
  Because the accountants, CEOs, sales people and everyone else in the office aren't held criminally liable for acting in good faith (even if they were wrong). It's only system admins that are held criminally liable for acting in good faith when they are wrong.
  Really? So you think this guy acted in good faith?
8. Re:Guilty of not having a competent lawyer by AK+Marc · 2011-05-19 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Just because someone doesn't choose the path you'd take doesn't mean they must be doing so in bad faith. He was consistent in his statements that he wanted to protect the network from incompetent management. If true, that's good faith. And he never made any statement contradictory to that. Do you have any information that he believed he was acting in bad faith?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
9. Re:Guilty of not having a competent lawyer by mcmonkey · 2011-05-19 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  He was the only one who had access. Single point of failure. Bad management. He didn't protect the network from himself.
  Q.E.D.
10. Re:Guilty of not having a competent lawyer by AK+Marc · 2011-05-19 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  You are asserting that anything you don't like is necessarily bad faith. You have only proven you can use initials of things you don't understand and don't understand complex ideas like tautologies. Next time actually try proving your point before asserting that you've proven your point.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Justice... has been served? by tekrat · 2011-05-18 01:16 · Score: 0

Meanwhile the former Governator admits that he fathered a child out of wedlock while on the payroll of the state. This is *while* he was railing against Gay Marriage because it would harm the "sanctity" of marriage.
Good job there dude. And will any charges be brought against him? Nope. It won't even affect his attempt at restarting his movie career. Just another day in Hollywoodland.
Meanwhile, Terry Childs is fined $1.5 mill for acting like a douche AND is spending 4 years in jail.
How much you want to bet that if he was a rich and famous dude, he wouldn't be spending one day in jail? Why is it that we live in a "free" and "equal" country where there's one set of laws for the wealthy and powerful, and another set of laws for the commoners?

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
1. Re:Justice... has been served? by nomadic · 2011-05-18 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Having an affair isn't a crime. What Childs did, is.
2. Re:Justice... has been served? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  Meanwhile the former Governator admits that he fathered a child out of wedlock while on the payroll of the state. This is *while* he was railing against Gay Marriage because it would harm the "sanctity" of marriage.
  Good job there dude. And will any charges be brought against him? Nope. It won't even affect his attempt at restarting his movie career. Just another day in Hollywoodland.
  Meanwhile, Terry Childs is fined $1.5 mill for acting like a douche AND is spending 4 years in jail.
  How much you want to bet that if he was a rich and famous dude, he wouldn't be spending one day in jail? Why is it that we live in a "free" and "equal" country where there's one set of laws for the wealthy and powerful, and another set of laws for the commoners?
  You idiot. He fathered the child 10yrs ago. How is that while he was on the states payroll? You liberal morons love to spew lies more than republicans. In any case, how is fathering a child out of wedlock a crime?
3. Re:Justice... has been served? by tekrat · 2011-05-18 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  How is fathering a child out of welock a crime? Maybe it needs to be -- after all, we have weirder laws on the books.
  However; here's some REAL CRIME that no one is interested in prosecuting:
  With a gun you can rob a bank, with a bank you can rob the world. When a person robs a bank, they should go to jail, but what about when the banks rob people?
  - Joseph Cassano â" the former head of AIGâ(TM)s financial products unit. Under his watch the company amassed massive amounts of risk that lead to the biggest bailout in U.S. history. Thereâ(TM)s very little chance of Cassano facing time, however; Federal prosecutors recently dropped their investigation against him.
  - Dick Fuld & Joe Gregory â" Lehman Brothers CEO and COO who watched their house of cards come tumbling down, bringing the global financial system to the edge of the collapse.
  - Angelo Mozilo â" The Countrywide CEO helped fuel the subprime madness. His companyâ(TM)s lack of due diligence is a prime reason for the foreclosure problem. Mozilo also co-founded IndyMac, the large California bank that was seized by the FDIC in July 2008.
  - Stanley Oâ(TM)Neal â" the former Merrill Lynch CEO pushed the firm to aggressively market and trade CDOs. O'Neal left with the firm on the brink of collapse before Bank of America purchased it. For all his good work, Oâ(TM)Neal was fired but left with a golden parachute and options valued at $161.5 million at the time.
  - Fabrice âoeFabulous Fabâ Tourre & John Paulson â" the banker and hedge fund manager at the center of the SECâ(TM)s criminal fraud complaint against Goldman Sachs. People need to know the Goldmanâ(TM)s of the world donâ(TM)t have politicians in their pockets and that the American markets are a safe place to put your money.
  - The C level executives from the rating companies Moodyâ(TM)s, S&P and Fitch that gave the highest ratings, investment grade - triple A, to all the worthless sub-prime CDOâ(TM)s, SIVâ(TM)s, MBSâ(TM)s. It was their ratings of these worthless pieces of paper that encouraged investors to purchase them and subsequently lose everything. This is out and out fraud!
  During the S&L scandal of the 1980s over 1,000 people went to jail. To date only Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin, two Bear Stearns hedge fund managers, have even gone on trial. Both were acquitted. I urge all Americans to write their Senator and ask them why these miscreants have not been charged. They did just as much damage to the American economy as the Taliban and the Mafia, its time they are put on trial!
  Nothing done about banks, nothing done about oil spill, nothing done to withdraw troops, nothing done to reduce deficit, so far nothing done to reduce healthcare. Man I see a whole lot of nothing getting done in D.C.
  But this dude has to pay 1.5 Million and spend 4 years in jail over a few passwords? Give me a break, obviously, when you OWN the country, as the rich do, you can get away with anything - heel, you can bankrupt the country, set it on fire, and we'll give you MORE money rather than throw you in jail.
  What a crock. There's no real justice here.
  
  --
  If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Typical IT attitude - makes all of us look bad by ErichTheRed · 2011-05-18 01:23 · Score: 1

Disclaimer: I'm a systems engineer who spent many years as an admin. I don't do as much daily firefighting as I used to, but I sure have tons of experience in that department.
How many of you (good natured) IT folk looked at the Terry Childs case and said, "Hey, that sounds like X, the total jerk I used to work with!" I know I did... We had a guy like this who (a) did the passive-aggressive thing when asked to take care of something, (b) kept all the secrets in his head so that it would be hard for anyone to take over, and (c) got fired because management/staff had finally had enough of him and decided it would be worth it to just get a consultant in to put everything right.
Stories like this, and unfortunate stereotypes, are what keep IT work "in the basement" and prevent us from being recognized as professionals, IMO. We don't get respect from the MBA crowd because we can't justify our existence...but I think we could change that by changing the typical attitude.
Obviously, most IT people aren't like Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons, but those who are sure make it hard for the rest of us.
Now that computers are totally pervasive, maybe it's time to set some standards and get the various branches of IT work (development, network admin, systems admin, etc.) recognized as professions. At least there would be some kind of code of conduct and minimum education standard so employers would be sure of what they're getting.
1. Re:Typical IT attitude - makes all of us look bad by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  Now that computers are totally pervasive, maybe it's time to set some standards and get the various branches of IT work (development, network admin, systems admin, etc.) recognized as professions. At least there would be some kind of code of conduct and minimum education standard so employers would be sure of what they're getting.
  Althought I don't agree with how Terry Childs handled this situation, I also don't agree with the way the City of San Francisco handled the situation.
  On the one hand, an employee of the city acted like an egotistical better-than-thou jerk.
  On the other; the city had him detained for years, and now has basically condemned him to finanacial ruin (after clearly destroying his IT career).
  Assuming Childs has 30 years left till he's eligible for retirement, the City of San Francisco will have to pull over $1,500 from every paycheck in order to receive (most) of their monetary restitution.
  I'm hoping there's some sort of "Not to exceed X percentage per paycheck" law somewhere on the books (doubtful), otherwise this is another unemployed IT worker (note the lack of the word "Professional") that will be eating catfood till he's almost 70.
  Who's the bully now?
2. Re:Typical IT attitude - makes all of us look bad by wiedzmin · 2011-05-18 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Now that computers are totally pervasive, maybe it's time to set some standards and get the various branches of IT work (development, network admin, systems admin, etc.) recognized as professions. At least there would be some kind of code of conduct and minimum education standard so employers would be sure of what they're getting.
  And perhaps get the management to understand information security best practices (like job rotation and separation of duties), so they stop crucifying IT staff for trying to enforce them and then blaming the same IT staff when failure to enforce those practices leads to something like this. Also, overtime pay.
  
  --
  Bow before me, for I am root.
Good luck by Charliemopps · 2011-05-18 01:24 · Score: 1

I'm sure they'll have a real easy time finding a talented individual to replace him. There's nothing like the threat of imprisonment, humiliation and millions in fines to attract IT staff.
1. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  When have you ever seen talented IT staff working for a government/city agency? Short hours, overtime pay and overinflated budgets attract different kinds of specialists to work in IT there.
Nonsense by Errol+backfiring · 2011-05-18 01:25 · Score: 1

That is part of a job for a sys admin. If they were happy with one admin and no backup, the damage is at most a part of his salary for the amount of time that it would normally have cost him.

--
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
"Restitution" Isn't A Fine by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:31 · Score: 0

Restitution: paid to crime victim(s) to make them whole. If you light a display in Target on fire, you owe Target the cost of the merchandise plus the cost of cleanup plus the money they spent rebuilding.
Fine: paid to the state as punishment. You will ALSO have to pay a fine to the state as punishment, completely separate from restitution.
A judge sentences you to pay a fine. Then the judge holds a restitution hearing where he hears from witnesses about what the amount (if any) of restitution should be.
Bah by benjfowler · 2011-05-18 01:32 · Score: 2

Being a geek is no license to behave like an egotistical, entitled little princess or a common criminal. Too many geeks thinks because they work with teh technology, that normal rules and niceties don't apply to them.
What this guy did was criminal damage, and by rights, he probably should have served time. I've seen people getting done for much less.
1. Re:Bah by benjfowler · 2011-05-18 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, my bad -- he IS serving time. Not that he doesn't deserve to, for what is an open-and-shut case of common criminality.
2. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  I don't really believe the punishment in this case fits the crime. I do feel that he is being punished to this extent not for his blunders and piss poor attitude necessarily, but for resisting. The system loves to throw the book at those who attempt to fight back. Time and time again I read and hear anecdotes about prosecutors forcing plea bargains onto defendants with the implied or openly-expressed threat of harsh retribution should the bargain be rejected. I don't care what someone's crime is, I'll never support or "feel good" about the system's bullying and intimidation, and its zero-tolerance policy for injuring the egos of prosecutors and judges.
  That all said, I work in an environment where a similar situation could occur. Incompetence is omnipresent and unrelenting. But, it's not my network. If my employer decides to yank the reigns out of my hands, fine, have at it. I wouldn't even dream of trying to lock them out. I can't imagine why someone would. Whether I get to do things my way, or end up having to clean up their mess, I get a paycheck either way. If I don't like the environment I'm free to move on, and will if it comes to that. How Childs justified his behavior inside his own mind I'll never know. I guess no one ever taught him to pick his battles?
3. Re:Bah by furry_marmot · 2011-05-18 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  No, there was no damage. He just locked out the administrative functions for a while.
4. Re:Bah by catmistake · 2011-05-18 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  What this guy did was criminal damage
  So he's a criminal because he did his job incorrectly? Assuming he willfully violated city policy, I still don't see the line drawn between violating policy and breaking the law. When exactly did he commit the criminal act, and what exactly was it?
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
5. Re:Bah by sjames · 2011-05-18 18:19 · Score: 1
  
  He spent a few YEARS in jail. What should have happened is that after he turned over the passwords, he should have been fired, told he would be better off not listing his time there on a resume and sent on his way with time served.
  I'm not sure how you figure criminal damage since nothing was damaged and there was no downtime.
Except that isn't what happened. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:40 · Score: 1

Except that isn't what happened. A "rogue admin who absconded with all the data/access" is what the prosecution made up out of cloth to ensure a guilty verdict.
What ACTUALLY happened is that someone who couldn't demand the passwords asked for them, asked over an insecure medium (telephone call) and was sacked because the admin said "no".
When the person who COULD demand the passwords asked in a secure manner (a room with no other bystanders not allowed to know the passwords), the passwords were handed over, DESPITE this being after he was no longer employed therefore had NO responsibility to hand over the passwords.
Note also that a hardware toggle allows the passwords to be reset, so at the VERY WORST they would have had to get someone to pop over to each Cisco rack and reset the passwords to blank.
this hardly costs $1.5M.
1. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by clang_jangle · 2011-05-18 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  The Gavin Nuisance had to go visitc Child in jail. Surely he expects at least $100K for that... But I digress, obviously. :) If the version you give is true, then Childs was wrongly convicted and should have ample grounds for an appeal. I suspect though that the details of the situation may not be quite what you think they are, or there'd be at least one high profile lawyer courting that case.
  
  --
  Caveat Utilitor
2. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by stanlyb · 2011-05-18 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  And what about the fact that the whole network was put at risk just because of some password???? Why i dont see heads falling down like house prices for example!!! Such a lack of policy at such a scale, it simply amazes me that no one actually bother to solve the bigger issue, and focus on such a little inconvenience of retrieving some password.
3. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by dougmc · 2011-05-18 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Note also that a hardware toggle allows the passwords to be reset, so at the VERY WORST they would have had to get someone to pop over to each Cisco rack and reset the passwords to blank.
  I'm not familiar with the exact hardware in question, but the Cisco routers I've used in the past had no documented "hardware toggle" that merely reset passwords -- you could clear the configuration easily enough, but if you did that, the router had to be totally reconfigured -- it wouldn't work until it was.
  Now, the configurations should be available somewhere and so this should be easily done, but that assumes that one knows where it is ... and I imagine only Terry did.
  Now, perhaps Cisco themselves knew how to do more, perhaps reset the passwords only ... or maybe not.
4. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by Predius · 2011-05-18 01:55 · Score: 2
  
  That hardware toggle wouldn't work in this case. The confs weren't saved to nvram. To use that toggle you have to reload first, which would toss the conf as you don't have access to write mem first.
5. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by satch89450 · 2011-05-18 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  I suggest you use Google to find the Cisco documentation on "password recovery". I do this all the time with a whole room-ful of Cisco equipment used by people learning enough about the gear to earn Cisco Certified Internetwork Expert certificates from the company. Any CCIE should know how to password-recover any Cisco device covered by their certification.
  Now, if Mr. Childs was nasty enough to disable password recovery (there is a "service" command in routers, for example, to do this) then Mr. Childs was very, very nasty indeed, and deserves the punishment he gets.
6. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by Conare · 2011-05-18 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  FTFA:
  
  "Childs claimed he never intended any harm, but did not trust his superiors with the passwords. He eventually gave the passwords to then-Mayor Gavin Newsom in a jail cell visit"
  1.5 million to teach them how to type "joshua"? Seems exhorbitant.
  
  --
  Stop Continental Drift! Reunite Gondwanaland!
7. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by speculatrix · 2011-05-18 02:51 · Score: 2
  
  it is possible to make password recovery much harder if not impossible on cisco devices, it is advised against of course in all but the most security paranoid installations where physical access may be a problem.
8. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by nomadic · 2011-05-18 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  What ACTUALLY happened is that someone who couldn't demand the passwords asked for them,
  
  No, what actually happened is a supervisor Childs unilaterally decided (a decision outside his pay grade) wasn't entitled to passwords asked for them. I do not understand the mindset that believes implicitly whatever a criminal defendant says in his defense.
9. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by Lumpy · 2011-05-18 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  What dipshit does not save the configurations to NVRAM?
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
10. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by bws111 · 2011-05-18 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  The kind who wants to be able to hold the city hostage, which is exactly what this guy did. He set up the systems so that any attempt to reboot or power cycle the routers required loading the configuration from a file he had encrypted on his laptop.
  A lot of people on here are claiming he did this stuff only for security, but in fact he did it for no reason but to make himself indispensable. It didn't work, and cost the city a lot of money trying to recover from it.
11. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  First /. comment to make me chuckle in WEEKS! thx
12. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by jedidiah · 2011-05-18 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Beats the mindset that blindly believes whatever lies the prosecution comes up with.
  You see, we have this little rule about presuming that a guy like Childs is innocent. Of course a guy like you doesn't really care about the rules at all.
  This is what this conflict ultimately boils down to.
  Of course those of us that have been there find Childs' claims very plausible. Many of us have been put in similar situations.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
13. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by nomadic · 2011-05-18 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, whoosh, you have no clue what's going on, do you? The jury already found him guilty. I no longer have to presume he is innocent (which I certainly was doing before he was found guilty). The jury (which included a CCIE) clearly knows more about the case than you or I, considered the arguments of both parties, had the law shown to them by the parties and the judge, and came to a decision.
14. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by Fnord666 · 2011-05-18 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  he jury (which included a CCIE) clearly knows more about the case than you or I,...
  Don't be too sure. The jury only knows what the lawyers present and the judge allows. This is usually a small subset of the facts that are known about a case.
  
  --
  'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
15. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by Coren22 · 2011-05-18 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Except it was quite well detailed in the SF password policy that his boss was not entitled to the password, and surely the HR director on the other end of the phone, as well as the police officers they called are not privy to the password.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
16. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by nomadic · 2011-05-18 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  The Department Head WAS entitled to the password though, but Childs refused to give it to him or anyone else except the mayor.
17. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by nomadic · 2011-05-18 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  By the way, when a law conflicts with a policy, guess which one you're required to follow?
18. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by Coren22 · 2011-05-19 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  What law? Do you have a link?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
19. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by nomadic · 2011-05-19 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  California Penal Code section 502.
20. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by Coren22 · 2011-05-19 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 502(c)
  "COMPREHENSIVE COMPUTER DATA ACCESS AND FRAUD ACT"
  (1) Knowingly accesses and without permission alters, damages,
  deletes, destroys, or otherwise uses any data, computer, computer
  system, or computer network in order to either (A) devise or execute
  any scheme or artifice to defraud, deceive, or extort, or (B)
  wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or data.
  Nope
  
  (2) Knowingly accesses and without permission takes, copies, or
  makes use of any data from a computer, computer system, or computer
  network, or takes or copies any supporting documentation, whether
  existing or residing internal or external to a computer, computer
  system, or computer network.
  Nope
  
  (3) Knowingly and without permission uses or causes to be used
  computer services.
  Nope
  
  (4) Knowingly accesses and without permission adds, alters,
  damages, deletes, or destroys any data, computer software, or
  computer programs which reside or exist internal or external to a
  computer, computer system, or computer network.
  Nope
  
  (5) Knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the
  disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of
  computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer
  system, or computer network.
  Authorized user? Who is authorized, who authorizes. Wouldn't giving out the password to numerous people in the room not authorized to have it break this part?
  
  (6) Knowingly and without permission provides or assists in
  providing a means of accessing a computer, computer system, or
  computer network in violation of this section.
  He would have broken this clause had he provided the passwords over the phone with people in attendance who did not belong having the password, as they tried to force him to do.
  
  (7) Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be
  accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network.
  Nope
  
  (8) Knowingly introduces any computer contaminant into any
  computer, computer system, or computer network.
  Nope
  
  (9) Knowingly and without permission uses the Internet domain name
  of another individual, corporation, or entity in connection with the
  sending of one or more electronic mail messages, and thereby damages
  or causes damage to a computer, computer system, or computer
  network.
  Nope
  Ok, what did he break again? Nowhere in there does it say he is required to provide passwords to systems at an office he has already been let go from. If they didn't get the passwords before firing him, tough shit.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
21. Re:Except that isn't what happened. by nomadic · 2011-05-19 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  (5) Knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network. Authorized user? Who is authorized, who authorizes. Wouldn't giving out the password to numerous people in the room not authorized to have it break this part?
  
  The head of his department was an authorized user under both the law and the policy. He refused to give the password to him. Your position has been tested in court and it lost. Don't be a sore loser.
how is 1.5 million an excessive fine? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:43 · Score: 0

Excessive fines mentions one instance, some person took $357,144 of his own money outside the united states, but failed to report it, so they fined him the entire amount -- that is excessive
All that RIAA/MPAA calculations for copying some bits, clearly excessive.
Without knowing how the judge decided on 1.5million, you can't say its excessive
cpsr.org by conspirator57 · 2011-05-18 01:48 · Score: 1

There should be a System Admin "Code of Ethics". The closest is the IEEE "Code of Ethics", or the ACM "Code of Conduct" if they happen to have joined.
The first is "bite sized", the second is probably more relevant but way more wordy, but how many people even bother joining either?
We are unorganized as a group at large, and the lack of standards to adhere to is part of the problem that we, as a Profession; including Admins, Programmers/Developers, Support Techs; need to address somehow.
(/rant) :)
computer professionals for social responsibility
cpsr.org
http://cpsr.org/issues/ethics/index.html
FTFY

--
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Pity you didn't look in the case by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 01:49 · Score: 0

Pity you didn't look in the case before shutting it.
Childs would have done a crime if he'd passed the passwords on to someone who didn't have clearance.
Or is it OK to pass on any old thing to a superior, even if they aren't supposed to have it now?
1. Re:Pity you didn't look in the case by nomadic · 2011-05-18 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Funny how many people say this but when challenged on it, fail to come up with what "crime" he would have committed by giving the passwords to his supervisor. I'll ask you, but of course you're not going to answer it.
What Childs did wasn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 02:03 · Score: 0

What Childs did wasn't. If he'd given the new manager the passwords, THAT would have been a crime: that manager WAS NOT ALLOWED THE PASSWORDS.
Just because a General asks a corporal for the keys to the nuclear button doesn't mean that the corporal has committed a crime by saying "Sorry, sir, that only gets given to the CFO".
Worse, the demand was done over the phone with people who had ABSOLUTELY NO CLEARANCE WHATSOEVER.
So the new manager did the crime: demand something he had no security clearance to demand.
1. Re:What Childs did wasn't. by nomadic · 2011-05-18 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely wrong. There was no policy other than Childs' unilateral decision. This is the same supervisor who a week before Childs had provided account passwords. This seems to be Childs' problem; as well as the problem of a lot of his defenders on slashdot.
Is Childs case different from a labor strike? by walterbyrd · 2011-05-18 02:24 · Score: 1

When organized labor goes on strike, it stops production. Sometimes actual damage is done.
Yet, those guys are considered heros for the working people.
So why is it, when a techie does something similar, the reaction is total to completely freakout and over-react?
1. Re:Is Childs case different from a labor strike? by demonlapin · 2011-05-18 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  He did work for the city government. Personally, I think that strikes by government employees should be illegal - you do not have the right to hold the rest of the population hostage. I don't think of private-sector strikers as heroes, but they're not ipso facto criminals.
2. Re:Is Childs case different from a labor strike? by david_thornley · 2011-05-18 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Because Childs was completely unprofessional while on the job, in addition to violating clearly stated policy, and he did things that were grossly unethical and illegal after being fired for it.
  The passwords, etc., were on his laptop encrypted by something only he knew. That's a bus factor of 0.5, since taking out either Childs or his laptop (and those things never fail by themselves, right?) would have destroyed the City's ability to maintain its network.
  If you want me to support somebody oppressed by the system, find me somebody I can respect in the first place. Find me somebody who didn't get oppressed for unethical acts that reflect badly on the general area of my profession.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
3. Re:Is Childs case different from a labor strike? by RapmasterT · 2011-05-18 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  If you want me to support somebody oppressed by the system, find me somebody I can respect in the first place. Find me somebody who didn't get oppressed for unethical acts that reflect badly on the general area of my profession.
  +1
  
  I'll never understand people who choose assholes, douchebags and/or criminals to be their martyrs. The last 3 years have been 100% the result of his own stubborn, whaddayagonnadoaboutit attitude. I have no sympathy for him, and would hold him up as an example of "don't let this be you".
  
  Anyone who worked in a tech company during the dotcom implosion got to deal with plenty of people like this. Changing admin passwords on friday in case they were laid off on monday. Refusing to document anything so they would be indispensable (so they think). Refusing to answer any questions during their exit interview. Screw him and his entire ilk. If he put half that effort into being a better employee he'd probably still have a job, instead of a cellmate.
Say YES to Union by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2011-05-18 02:25 · Score: 2

Another case why we need unionization of IT workers. The National ACM will be a good start of leading the movement.

--
New Economic Perspectives
1. Re:Say YES to Union by Ossifer · 2011-05-18 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, he was represented by a union...
A judge Tuesday ordered a former city worker by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 02:56 · Score: 0

A judge Tuesday ordered a former city worker...
Judges Wednesday and Sunday were unavailable for comment.
1. Re:A judge Tuesday ordered a former city worker by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  el oh el
Childs or Sony? by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2011-05-18 03:01 · Score: 1

Who really deserves a $1.5mil fine? And will that party ever pay? Regardless of your answer to the first question, the answer to the second question will always be no.

--
I8-D
1. Re:Childs or Sony? by bugs2squash · 2011-05-18 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  I've worked with password-hiding sanctimonious bastards before and I have little sympathy for Childs. But if the penalties for this kind of misbehavior climb too high then it will become cheaper to express dis-satisfaction by simply torching the building as you walk out the door. It serves no-one for the the system to create a "may as well be hung for a sheep" mentality.
  
  --
  Nullius in verba
Re: STILL QUITE difficult at all by uufnord · 2011-05-18 03:42 · Score: 1

This -- "efforts in trying to regain control over the FiberWAN network and later test it" -- does not cost $1.5 million dollars.
there was no key system when he setup the network by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 04:06 · Score: 0

there was no key system when he setup the network and over time he became the only network guy there.
No need for a password with physical access by feneon · 2011-05-18 04:12 · Score: 1

I believe there is no need for a password if one has simple physical access to a Cisco router. I was doing this as part of CCNA training around the time this was going down.
theft of property - shooting spree for 2016 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 04:13 · Score: 0

I think the password is property, and Childs kept that property when he left. Is that property worth $1.5M, probably not. Did he cause $1.5M in damages, it is obvious to everyone that he did not.
Honestly, dropping an unfair sentence on this guy is a mistake, a $1.5M debt hanging over him for the rest of his life is going to make him crack. The probability of him getting a gun and shooting up city offices is incredibly high. He's been convicted of aggravated assault, aggravated burglary and carrying a concealed weapon from way back (about 25 years ago). His time in a Kansas prison makes him a felon, when he was arrested for what he did in SF they found him with 9mm and 45 ammunition, but no firearms. Where are his firearms, why have ammo without a gun? He cleverly hid the firearms because they are illegal for him to posses, when he gets out of prison is he going to just pick up his stash of guns?
When Terry Childs goes on his 2016 shooting spree, the prosecutors and judges will no longer be smiling smugly at a job well done.
perhaps you heard of Anonymous? by YesIAmAScript · 2011-05-18 04:19 · Score: 1

You know, the group of 4Channers who mete out vigilante justice as they see fit?
But I think gman003 was more talking about media. There are like 5 superhero movies coming out this year. Virtually all of them are vigilantes (although having seen Thor, the current #1 movie, it's not actually a vigilante movie).

--
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
1. Re:perhaps you heard of Anonymous? by sco08y · 2011-05-18 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  You know, the group of 4Channers who mete out vigilante justice as they see fit?
  But I think gman003 was more talking about media. There are like 5 superhero movies coming out this year. Virtually all of them are vigilantes (although having seen Thor, the current #1 movie, it's not actually a vigilante movie).
  As another guy put it, that group's motto contains "We are Legion" and I think that (being accurate, if melodramatic) disqualifies them as vigilantes.
  To your other point: Everyone interpreted "American culture" to mean "Hollywood and comic books."
  I'm not going to belabor the point since I'll never convince anyone, but there's a lot more to it than Hollywood and comic books.
  But even within that domain, the vigilante formula is only prominent in action movies. And given that you can only kill people legally if you're a cop or a soldier or something like that, any protagonist who kills illegally has to be a criminal or a vigilante. Since criminals aren't sympathetic figures, action heroes are split more or less evenly into cop, soldier and vigilante.
  So I still don't buy the notion that we're culturally obsessed.
If he would of gave out the password then he may by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 04:25 · Score: 0

If he would of gave out the password then he may of been in the same place or worse.
The network stayed up but if one other people people on that call got the passwords and F* the network and they all the blame is on terry.
Run, Forrest, Run! by TiggertheMad · 2011-05-18 05:06 · Score: 1

Eh, you can't garnish every single penny someone has. He'll have this over his head for the rest of his life but doesn't necessarily mean he'll be homeless.

This is really pointless. They should just order him to pay a hundredrytrillionbajillion dollars, because if the judge wants to dream, he should dream big. Unless he made some amazing investments twenty years ago, there is no way he will ever be able to pay that. Moreover, it is really easy to get a visa to live in another country with IT skills. He should just pick up and leave and send the judge a 'fuck you' postcard from France.

Granted he was kind of a dick in the way he handled things, but every aspect of this court case screams of excess. Sticking around to appeal this sentence is just asking for another undeserved ass-kicking.

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
1. Re:Run, Forrest, Run! by billcopc · 2011-05-18 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's okay. Childs should countersue for 1.5 million for being stranded as the sole sysadmin for so long. If the city had any brains, they'd have gotten a redundant sysadmin to go with their rack full of overpriced Cisco gear, and this whole incident would have been a non-issue.
  At every place I've ever worked, big or small, there was always a conversation about "What if Bill gets run over by a bus", which resulted in me training a 2nd guy, writing maintenance docs or printing off passwords to be filed and locked away. Even when I was in a 4-man shop where we winged everything, we still took the effort to secure the future of company that way. If the City of San Francisco is too smug to do the most basic contingency planning, they deserve everything that happened to them.
  
  --
  -Billco, Fnarg.com
2. Re:Run, Forrest, Run! by Fnord666 · 2011-05-18 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Moreover, it is really easy to get a visa to live in another country with IT skills. He should just pick up and leave and send the judge a 'fuck you' postcard from France.
  He will need to go at least that far to find someone who is willing to hire him after the dick move he pulled.
  
  --
  'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
3. Re:Run, Forrest, Run! by AK+Marc · 2011-05-18 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  He took a personal risk to protect the network he ran for the people who owned it in direct contradiction to the dick managers who mismanaged everything related to the situation. I don't think he'd have as much trouble as you'd assert.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
4. Re:Run, Forrest, Run! by jimnorcal · 2011-05-19 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  From what I understand, he has a prior criminal record (prior to his SF Admin situation). Because of that, he may not be allowed to live and work in other (decent) countries. Also, this is probably news that was read all over the civilized world so I can't see any company anywhere in the world to work in IT. I believe his IT career is officially over unless he works for himself.
Let's do the math. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 05:13 · Score: 0

Say the City hires a $1,000 an hour consultant to get back control of the network and test it then get Childs to pay the resulting $1.5 million bill. That equates to the consultant billing 37.5 weeks (40 hour weeks) to do the job.
Or, almost a year and a half for a $500 an hour consultant.
Re:If he would of gave out the password then he ma by nomadic · 2011-05-18 06:16 · Score: 1

No, it wouldn't be.
Dumb, meet dumber. by westlake · 2011-05-18 07:44 · Score: 1

Still, Childs was just plain stupid. He should have:
a) not admitted to having passwords, since he could have easily said that he forgot them since he no longer works there
Saying you can't remember. Saying you can't recall.
That will land you in the county lock-up until hell freezes over or your memory improves. Whichever comes first.
The geek should never tell a lie because he is no damn good at it.
it depends by publiclurker · 2011-05-18 08:23 · Score: 1

on how gullible the hiring managers are. When your boss gives you a legal order, you do it or quit. And when fired for not doing this, it is no longer your job, and you have no right to keep the passwords. Self important delusions of adequacy do not mean that the network is your own personal plaything. No self respecting manager would ever hire this idiot, and I would fire any of our managers that did.
1. Re:it depends by AK+Marc · 2011-05-18 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  And when fired for not doing this, it is no longer your job, and you have no right to keep the passwords.
  You are right in that you have no right to the passwords. But that doesn't require that you be enslaved until you give up the previous passwords that your employer didn't care to record themselves.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Posts from a juror after the case by Dr.+Gamera · 2011-05-18 08:28 · Score: 1

This is the Slashdot homepage of the juror on the case who posted heavily in the Slashdot thread about the verdict in the criminal trial of Terry Childs.
Damages are not excessive by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 09:20 · Score: 0

How is not saving Cisco router and switch configurations to device memory a valid form of disaster recovery and change management? Find one Cisco manual that endorses not saving configurations to flash memory. Mr. Childs consciously made a decision that violates general IT security policy to make himself a key holder to the kingdom as a form of dead man switch in case he were terminated. His termination did not come till after he refused a direct order from his supervisors. What would you do with employee insubordination and lack of professional ethics managing critical hardware? The damage costs stems from the cost to hire a certified third party to conduct asset identification, full vulnerability assessment, remediate vulnerabilities (patching an replacing Cisco hardware) and to bring in CCIEs to reengineer the network. Courts allow the plaintive to multiply substantiated damage costs to cover labor and overhead expenses that are hard to exactly calculate. In Federal court the formula is to multiply by four. Labor costs would be the calculation of employee hourly wage times lost employee work hours for each employee effected (12 days plus remediation time). Overhead costs would be office supplies consumed, office space lease cost, heat and A/C, water, hardware, software and equipment maintenance multiplied by each employee effected (12 days plus remediation time).
Trouble with copypasta by sco08y · 2011-05-18 10:44 · Score: 1

You included stuff from El Salvador, Colombia, Thailand, India, Mexico, England, Ireland and some loopy environmental groups; I probably missed some.
So half that list isn't US, many aren't even violent, so we're down to one or two nutters every decade in a country of 300 million.
And most people have never even *heard* of these people. Conclusion: no obsession.
[[Category:Vigilante films]] by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-18 22:34 · Score: 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Vigilante_films
Obsession is not an absolute notion, and it does not necessarily imply people actually do what is obsessed about.