Slashdot Mirror
Withhold Passwords From Your Employer, Go To Jail?
ericgoldman writes "Terry Childs was a network engineer in San Francisco, and he was the only employee with passwords to the network. After he was fired, he withheld the passwords from his former employer, preventing his employer from controlling its own network. Recently, a California appeals court upheld his conviction for violating California's computer crime law, including a 4 year jail sentence and $1.5 million of restitution. The ruling (PDF) provides a good cautionary tale for anyone who thinks they can gain leverage over their employer or increase job security by controlling key passwords."
I don't care if you made them up, they are the property of your employer.
Now the stupid thing here is Terry doesn't just engage in "burning bridges", but does it with himself standing in the middle. I can't feel pity for this fool.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I don't have a problem with this. The company may have been dumb to put this much power in one person's hands, and perhaps they got what they had coming in someone's eyes, but it doesn't excuse this behavior. If I had the only key to the server room and got fired but didn't turn in the key, I would expect retribution of some form, especially if the office had a steel door that took weeks to break down.
-Ted http://www.freemathhelp.com/
HOW!(!) is this a surprise to anybody? It's extortion, plain and simple.
The passwords are like the key to the office. You have to return them.
I've simplified the submission:
Um, if I remember this case correctly (it's been several years now I think), he DID give them the passwords, but not directly, he insisted on giving them to the city's mayor.
When I left, I handed him the key to my desk and said, "You know where they are."
Have gnu, will travel.
The people who need them should already have them at all times.
Any other way is asking for problems. Even if the problem is simply 'i forgot the password'.
Or hey. Maybe your employer is a moron.
That was, in fact, exactly the situation Childs' boss was trying to rectifiy. Childs knew it, and refused to turn over passwords to his direct supervisor even when told, in person, by the Mayor, that his supervisor was authorized to have them. He also configured the network to not able to to reboot after a power outage that exceeded the UPS time unless he, personally, was there, and refused to make backups of the configuration.
And keep in mind, the network in question included their 911 system.
The asshole belongs in prison. He had multiple chances to avoid it, including after he was charged. He chose prison rather than allow the situation you describe to end.
To me, these two paragraphs from the court document are the most damning evidence against Childs:
It's not just that he did these things – which were highly questionable, but might possibly have had some legitimate justification – but that he did them immediately before being placed on administrative leave, when he knew his employers wanted to relocate or fire him. The timing leaves little doubt of his intent.
In a city of techies like SF (where I live), it is absolutely unforgivable to allow a system design allowing for single authority. The city was negligent for ever letting it get this far.
What would you have them do to avoid this problem in the future? Perhaps they could hire someone who is a technical expert with overall responsibility for the department, whose job is to make sure something like this can't happen. Oh, wait...
Requiring the password? Sorry, that's their identity (and ass) on the line.
It's their identity on their employer's systems. If the employer makes a management decision to "compromise" that identity then that is 100% their decision to make, not IT's.
Of course, it also becomes management's responsibility. It's fair for the employee to want written confirmation to record the decision if he disagrees with it. But given that confirmation, the employee doesn't get a vote and has no right to object.
Until he has a clearly recorded transfer of responsibility, he shouldn't relinquish his password.
I think "You're fired" is a pretty clear transfer of responsibility.
Additionally, if his password is related to his personal passwords, releasing the password may constitute a legitimate risk to his privacy and fifth amendment rights.
Seriously? Really? This guy is a high-level IT expert within his organisation, and we're supposed to have sympathy if he not only reuses a password (or something related closely enough to risk the secrecy of another one) but reuses them on completely different systems, when he knows in advance that some are personal and some are professional? Give me a break. Any risk to his own privacy here is entirely self-inflicted, and trying to hide behind legal safeguards created with important and legitimate goals in order to cover your own malice and incompetence is the worst kind of legal wrangling.
Don't risk it. Have plans for unavailability, termination, and death.
That's great, but if the guy who betrayed you is the guy who was responsible for making those plans, there isn't much you can do. At most, you could have hired multiple people to act as mutual checks and balances by auditing the system, but the reality is that even the most high-level IT infrastructure today is still quite simplistic in its security, and unfortunately it remains a pretty easy mark for a skilled inside job.
Of course, if a government department did hire extra people, good enough to maintain proper oversight and audit each other's work in this kind of context but who weren't otherwise needed, many people who didn't understand the reason would be crying foul over wasteful government spending. And they'd have a point, given how rare incidents like this are and how much such people cost.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.