Slashdot Mirror


IT Pro Gets Prison Time For Sabotaging Ex-Employer's System

itwbennett writes: "In June 2012, Ricky Joe Mitchell of Charleston, West Virginia, found out he was going to be fired from oil and gas company EnerVest and in response he decided to reset the company's servers to their original factory settings. He also disabled cooling equipment for EnerVest's systems and disabled a data-replication process. After pleading guilty in January, Mitchell has been sentenced to four years in federal prison."

179 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. Duh... by TJ_Phazerhacki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The point at which this guy admitted he maliciously tampered with equipment, he was screwed. He should have argued that he was incompetent...

    --
    Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
    1. Re:Duh... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point at which this guy admitted he maliciously tampered with equipment, he was screwed. He should have argued that he was incompetent...

      I've seen more than one shop where some vital/important system required the personal intervention of one particular guy to get up and going again in the event that something needed to be reset/rebooted/repaired. I don't believe it was malice, just incompetence, overconfidence, understaffing or some combination that resulted in a plausibly deniable deadman switch.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:Duh... by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He never should have mounted an argument in the first place. He never should have spoken with authorities without his own representation, and probably not even with his own representation.

      Ignoring for a moment that his choice to act maliciously was what truly screwed him, law enforcement authorities are quite practiced at getting people to admit fault or to use language that allows the authorities to claim an admission. The only winning move is to not participate.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Duh... by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's the only video you need to see about this (Yes it's long but it's interesting) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

      --
      Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    4. Re:Duh... by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Smart people do dumb things when they're upset. According to TFA, he hacked into a protected computer to create the turmoil.

      I'll bet you a dogecoin he believed he was clever enough not to leave any traces back to himself.

      Inexperienced with law enforcement methods (or perhaps the consequences/repercussions anomaly), it probably didn't occur to him what one of the first lines of inquiry would be.

      Anyone in IT that might be disgruntled?

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re:Duh... by zildgulf · · Score: 2

      Lessons Learned:

      1. Never actively sabotage your employer's equipment in the event that you are let go.
      2. Never talk to the police or court without a lawyer. Even an incompetent lawyer is better than representing solely yourself.

    6. Re:Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's the famous Dont Talk to Police video by James Duane and that other guy.
      It's an interesting video, but would it have hurt to say which video it was? I suspect most people here have already seen it.

    7. Re:Duh... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Never talk to the police or court without a lawyer."

      Never talk to the police, ever! Lawyer or no lawyer.

      It can only hurt you.
      In court you'll have ample time to talk, but chances are that you never get there if you shut your mouth with the police.

    8. Re:Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He never should have mounted an argument in the first place. He never should have spoken with authorities without his own representation, and probably not even with his own representation.

      No! He shouldnt have engaged in malicious and destructive behavior in the first place then he wouldnt have anything to hide, he wouldnt have any proprietary information to keep secret. Information wants to be free and ultimately it will be so if you act in a malicious manner then trying to keep that information hidden and secret will only last so long.

    9. Re:Duh... by jxander · · Score: 4, Funny

      And the next question is something like "Anyone got a $5 wrench?"

      --
      This signature is false.
    10. Re:Duh... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you are not a criminal, present evidence to the police that you are not a criminal

      Incorrect. Present nothing. Say nothing. Do not open your mouth. Stare into space. Daydream. Meticulously mentally design a house in your mind.

      Repeat after me:

      Silence

      Silence

      Silence

    11. Re:Duh... by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      Can you give me one reason why I shouldn't help the police catch a criminal?

    12. Re:Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you are not a criminal, present evidence to the police that you are not a criminal

      Incorrect. Present nothing. Say nothing. Do not open your mouth.

      I agree. If you are guilty, the only way you're going to get away with it is to remain silent. If you are innocent, emulating the behavior of a guilty person will make the police suspicious of you, which will play into your paranoid fantasies about how the police are out to get you. So... win-win?

    13. Re:Duh... by Hewligan · · Score: 2

      Yes, as was posted just above: Don't talk to police

      Or, to summarise, you are not helping the police catch a criminal. You are helping the police convict you of a crime. Whether or not you actually committed the crime is irrelevant.

      --

      "If God created us in his own image, we have more than reciprocated"

    14. Re:Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can you give me one reason why I shouldn't help the police catch a criminal?

      Because if they think YOU'RE the criminal, as they say: "Anything you say can and will be used against you."

      If you give them evidence you didn't commit a crime - an alibi - they'll concoct a theory of the crime that works around your alibi. And probably come up with evidence to support that theory.

      Make them concoct their theory in a vacuum.

    15. Re: Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. If you talk, they might use it against you. Nothing you say will be used to help you. Therefore you only stand to lose by talking to anyone but your lawyer.

    16. Re: Duh... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Let's just say that you should not do either. Don't do crimes... and don't talk about crimes you did not do.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    17. Re:Duh... by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      This video (the first part) is a great demonstration of rhetoric, but in the end, it's just that : rhetoric.

      Of course, if you're guilty, don't talk. That's obvious. Otherwise, I'll ask you again, why I should help a criminal get away?

    18. Re:Duh... by sjames · · Score: 2

      Because they'll be playing pin the crime on the donkey and if you talk, all they'll here is HEEE HAW.

    19. Re:Duh... by sootman · · Score: 1

      > Repeat after me:
      > Silence
      > Silence
      > Silence

      Um... is this a trick?

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    20. Re:Duh... by networkzombie · · Score: 1

      The police will find you guilty of something. It is their job to find you guilty of something. Do you really think anything you "DON''T" say would help a criminal get away? Again, the police will find you guilty of something.

    21. Re:Duh... by mi · · Score: 1

      The only winning move is to not participate.

      Indeed. "Neither a fortress nor a maid will hold out long after they begin to parley."

      Back to TFA, why is it even a story here? Would we have had an article about an upset driver pouring sugar in his employer's gas-tank?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    22. Re:Duh... by hubie · · Score: 1

      I attributed the sentence you quoted as referring to the other shops he's observed and not to the details in the summary.

    23. Re:Duh... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      So how does this get fixed? Or are we in a permanent world-wide socieity in which law enforcement is unable to exist? Is it impossible to ever have an honest police? Or is this merely anti-establishment paranoia or anarchism?

    24. Re:Duh... by Jhon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Never talk to the police, ever! Lawyer or no lawyer."

      I hear this often and take issue with it. Last year, my daughter was kidnapped from our home in the middle of the night. My wife, son and I talked to high-heaven answering every question, letting them look at every thing they wanted. FBI, too.

      My goal was to let them rule us out as fast as humanly possible (which they did).

      I understand your sentiment, but those words "never" and "ever" that makes it just wrong.

      (Daughter was recovered. Monster is about to go on trial)

    25. Re:Duh... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then you are an idiot, a fool, a liar, or some combination of them.

      Well, I guess you're mean, rash, socially awkward, or some combination of those. I was referring to the situations I'd witnessed myself that had some similarity to the situation in TFA, not TFA guy. Seeing as I was suggesting a similar situation with a possible non-criminal explanation, whereas TFA guy admitted to doing it deliberately, I didn't think it was confusing.

      Or maybe you just read my comment too quickly before posting.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    26. Re:Duh... by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 2

      Former US District attorney and now defense attorney has several great posts on the first rule of dealing with the police and prosecutors, namely shut up. Anything you may think you can say to help the police can be said with the representation of a lawyer. If, after reading through those examples and explanations, you still wonder why everyone says to shut up then there is no convincing you and you can go on your merry way. May you never have to deal with the police when there are looking to pin someone for a crime and you happen to be in the area.

      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
    27. Re:Duh... by bane2571 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the better phrasing is don't talk to police if they come to you first.

      Fear of police when they can legitimately help you is foolish, fear of police when you have done something wrong/they think you've done something wrong is reasonable.

    28. Re:Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You have no idea how wrong you are.

      Jhon got really really lucky. The first place they're going to look if there's a kidnapping is the parents, and most of the they're going to use everything they find to either build a case or at the very least destroy a reputation. Plenty of cops don't care if they make the right arrest, they're just looking for an arrest. One prescription pill not in its original bottle is all it takes to arrest you if you give them permission to search your house.

      A bit of helpful advice: If your daughter is kidnapped, call your lawyer BEFORE you call the police. Sure, you're innocent. Sure, some innocent people get lucky when they talk to the police. But there are over 2 million people in prison in this country, and they're not all guilty.

    29. Re:Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, there aren't exceptions.

      If your child is kidnapped, call your lawyer before you call the police. You are already the prime suspect. The cops will not be looking for your daughter once they've decided you've killed her, they'll be building the case against you.

      Nothing you can say to them will help you get her back, it will only delay or prevent getting her back and make it more likely you'll be in prison for a very long time.

    30. Re:Duh... by melchoir55 · · Score: 1

      If the police become suspicious of you because you aren't giving them evidence... it doesn't matter. You haven't given them any evidence.

    31. Re:Duh... by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the better phrasing is don't talk to police if they come to you first.

      Do not answer guilt-seeking questions. If you ask the police for help, give them information. If they turn around and act like you are guilty, be silent and talk only to your lawyer. Regardless, be VERY careful when talking to law enforcement. Give very specific, fact-based answers. Do not say "this happened" say "this is what I saw/heard." The difference may not seem like much when you are distraught and providing a police report, but it could be the difference between a conviction and "not guilty" in a court of law: with either the guilty party or your innocent ass fighting for freedom.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    32. Re:Duh... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The police will find you guilty of something. It is their job to find you guilty of something.

      Yes, if you refuse to cooperate they certainly will find you guilty of something. Nothing pisses a cop off more than some pompous ass who refuses to answer questions. If you piss him off enough I'm sure there will be more than enough evidence "discovered" to convict you without any testimony.

    33. Re:Duh... by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the last shop I worked with, on April Fool's day, when a new guy asked for a database command he was told "DROP DATABASE *;" thinking no one could be that stupid.

      Except he was. Fortunately April Fool's day that year was a friday and IT had the weekend to fix the mess

    34. Re:Duh... by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      It's the latter and seems to be confined to the United States at the moment. European and Asian forces seem to get the cooperation they need and African forces, those countries who have them, are way too busy with actual crime to bother with making crimes up.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    35. Re:Duh... by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Present nothing. Say nothing. Do not open your mouth. Stare into space. Daydream. ...

      And get convicted for obstructing justice. You are screwed either way.

    36. Re:Duh... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I'll bet you a dogecoin he believed he was clever enough not to leave any traces back to himself.

      When an IT employee is being terminated.... if an IT security incident or disaster occurs soon before or soon after they leave, then more likely on not there is going to be a burden of proof resting on the former employee to show that they WEREN'T responsible for it, because the circumstantial evidence will invariably show guilt.

    37. Re:Duh... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      A bit of helpful advice: If your daughter is kidnapped, call your lawyer BEFORE you call the police. Sure, you're innocent. Sure, some innocent people get lucky when they talk to the police. But there are over 2 million people in prison in this country, and they're not all guilty.

      Yes, because everyone knows when a loved one is missing/in danger the first thing you should do is cover your ass and that's not at all suspicious.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    38. Re:Duh... by yacc143 · · Score: 1

      The only drawback is that law enforcement can ruin almost any person that relies on their work to feed themselves and their family. With impunity.

    39. Re:Duh... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      The police will find you guilty of something. It is their job to find you guilty of something. Do you really think anything you "DON''T" say would help a criminal get away? Again, the police will find you guilty of something.

      Have you seen this person?

      Yes officer, he went that way

      You're under arrest for...

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    40. Re:Duh... by yacc143 · · Score: 2

      Because the police is not interested in catching the criminal. They are interestesting in arresting somebody that could get realistically convicted.

      they need the statistics to look good.

      police officers have been known to get the wrong belief.

      police officers do lie, and they commit perjury. Can land you in innocently in death row. (And the funny part is, because a crime needs to be proven, and many of the crimes that law enforcment commits require intend, and intend is always very hard to prove, these creeps tend to go home freely.)

      From having seen it myself, an interrogation is quite often not much better than bullying the "suspect" into confessing. "Ok, so you don't want to confess, no problem, let us book you, and we'll talk again with you when you've lost your job for not being there for some days. In the meantime we'll probably have to check on all your family, bring them in for interrogation, I'm sure their employers will be understanding if we question them for a day, ...." While many innocent people might be okay with fighting for their innocence, see how many won't try to avoid pulling their family into the hole?

      So basically, never talk to the police tends to be a good starting point. Try to prepare mentally. Use any breaks the system allows you, and that means "do not talk" and "ask for a lawyer". Fact is that nearly everything you say can be twisted into making you look bad.

    41. Re:Duh... by Monoman · · Score: 1

      ... He should have argued that he was incompetent...

      So you would rather lie than be responsible for your actions. Sounds typical for us these days. 'merica!

      --
      Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    42. Re:Duh... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      How many people got fired for that?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    43. Re:Duh... by Stellian · · Score: 1

      Anyone in IT that might be disgruntled?

      What you need to expect in a case like this (assuming you can pull the perfect crime, technically speaking, and leave no digital tracks) is be prepared to face the most vicious face of law enforcement. The officers will know you did it, but they will have no proof, so they will push you to the extreme, for months or years, until they get a confession. They will ransack your home, multiple times, harass your employers and loved ones, etc. All in all, not a good side project for a geek with no soft skills.

      I mean, if you can pull the perfect cybercrime and resist the best prosecutors in town, then why not hack into City Bank and transfer a billion dollars to some nice old lady in Russia ? Surely a billion dollars is better than some momentary satisfaction. You can even set aside 500 million for the purpose of bankrupting your ex employer.

    44. Re:Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More like:

      Hey! You! What are you doing here?

      What's the matter officer?

      Just answer the question: What're you doing here?

      Just out walking to get some exer-

      Just walking, huh? Not lookin' for places to break into? We had a report of a suspicious character looking into people's windows. You trespassing on people's property? Looking in windows?

      No. I was just walking. I went to the store to get a drink, then cut thru the woods on the path to here-

      You said you were exercising, not going to the store. Why you changing your story? Nervous? You do know that that path through the woods is technically private property, right? Why'd you lie to me and say you weren't on private property? Have something to hide? Okay, you're under arrest- hands against the wall!

      But, I... what?

      Okay, now you're under arrest for resisting arrest....

    45. Re:Duh... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      > Repeat after me: > Silence > Silence > Silence

      Um... is this a trick?

      It's the first rule.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    46. Re:Duh... by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 2

      Smart people do dumb things when they're upset.

      I'm pretty sure that all people are capable of doing dumb things when we are upset. It's just that smart people can conjure up ways to cause more damage.

      I am always disgusted when I see IT "professionals" who leave a trail of destruction in their wakes when they leave. It's completely immature, and perhaps if they had applied all of that effort toward adding value instead of destroying it, they wouldn't have been sacked in the first place.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    47. Re:Duh... by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      It's to serve as a lesson to remind the rest of us not to commit nerd-rage when our corporate overlords disgruntle us?

    48. Re:Duh... by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      I really want to believe this isn't entirely true. My instincts tell me this can't be entirely true. But I also have seen some things weird enough to leave me wondering. Like my friend who was pulled over once because "We're looking for a red car involved in a robbery and your license plate matches two of the letters."

      "Do the other letters match?"

      "No, but *somebody* has to go to jail for this."

      Literal direct quote. They did let my friend go eventually, without any arrest/interrogation. They just held her for half an hour first until a better match came in. Then again, that was in Chicagoland, and the police there have a whole extra layer shady history, so maybe it's not like that everywhere else.

    49. Re:Duh... by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Probably applies in that case as much as any other.

    50. Re:Duh... by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      Totally off topic (for the thread), but I just wanted to express my sympathy for this horrible situation you describe, and I'm so happy and glad for you that you got your daughter back.

    51. Re:Duh... by anagama · · Score: 1

      I guess you missed the example where you aren't guilty, but circumstances make you the prime suspect, and everything you say is the nail in your coffin.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    52. Re:Duh... by anagama · · Score: 1

      I will admit that I have more of interest in why he was fired than the sentence etc. I wonder to what extent the employer deserved it.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    53. Re:Duh... by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      Surprisingly, no one. The guy who made the "joke" argued he made a joke akin to "if you're that dumb you should go jump off a bridge." The new guy (who did have enough common sense to not jump off the bridge) claimed he was just doing what he was told.

    54. Re:Duh... by dowens81625 · · Score: 1

      Everyone is guilty, even the police,

      The police don't have any reason to assume you are innocent, they are there to try and figure out what it is you are guilty of.

      Just last week I was jaywalking, the week before that I ran a red light, and yesterday I tossed an apple core out the window in the middle of town.

      If I ever get called in for questioning, I will admit to these crimes before they ever pull out the ginger beer.

      Never refuse to assist police with their inquires.

      Think about the golden rule, "How pissed would you be if someone did this to you?"

      Anything above a bit miffed, then Don't do it, its that simple.

      Live your life and let the rest of them rot in jail.

    55. Re:Duh... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      If the police seem like they're corrupt or not listening to you for whatever reason, feel free to lawyer up.

      So, you are saying, never ever talk to the police without a lawyer.

    56. Re:Duh... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That is why we are all screwed. Cops do this all the time. Talk to them and they might arrest you for a crime you didn't commit based on something you said, or don't talk to them and they might arrest you for a crime you didn't commit. All the while, your courts know that they do this and support those actions.

    57. Re:Duh... by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "A bit of helpful advice: If your daughter is kidnapped, call your lawyer BEFORE you call the police."

      You must not be a parent and are probably incredibly young. The only response I have to offer this is: "What kind of fucking parent would do that?"

      3am, your wife is in a panic, you daughter isn't in her bed and the side gate (which she can't possibly open) is open.

      "Calm down, honey -- let me call Duey, Chetum and Howe".

      Fuck you. I got "really really lucky" because the PD/FBI figured out REAL fast that we had nothing to do with this and had no reason to suspect us and tossed enormous resources to find our daughter.

    58. Re:Duh... by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      The popehat URL you posted has as the very first item a sad tale of two extortionists getting convicted because they spoke to the FBI. Was that one of the "several great posts" you were referring to?

    59. Re:Duh... by cmdrbuzz · · Score: 1

      To be honest, if my son was kidnapped, I'd do everything I possibly could to find him.

      Anyone that says "You call your lawyer first", cannot possibly have children, or if they do, really need their priority sorting out!

      Only thing that matters is finding your kid as fast as physically possible. If that means the police/FBI/whoever want to strip-search me to prove I had nothing to do with it, or search my house or whatever, I wouldn't care. Do whatever and however it takes to find my kid!

      And I'm so, so sorry you and your family had to go through that. Holy cow, I cannot even begin to think how hard that must be.

    60. Re:Duh... by Jhon · · Score: 1

      Friend, I had more police bodies on my property than any two "family gathering' bodies combined. And we have a big family. "What ever you need to do, do it. What ever you need to take, take it."

      One thing you never think about -- finger print dust is a PITA to remove. We just painted our house a few weeks prior and that stuff just embedded itself in the paint. The windows of my 30 year old truck still have the "dust" sheen on them (old glass was pitted, I guess).

      They parked two mobile crime labs on our block -- one IT specific, the other finger prints and other physical evidence related. When the police returned us home after being interviewed at the local station, the shear MAGNITUDE of what resources were being expended was humbling. Think that would have happened if we acted like "privacy nazis"? Feh.

      "Don't talk to the police. Ever" is just crappy advice. Police come knocking on your door and say "a little girl is missing from next door -- did you see or hear anything" and if you have information you withhold, how can you NOT be seen as being in part responsible for what happened/happens to the little girl?

      In the grand scheme of things, my wife and I would much rather have faced and continue to face the challenges such an event has wrought rather than the alternative. How many parents never find out what happened to their child? How many find out from a forensics report? We consider ourselves the luckiest parents on the face of the earth. We got to plan and enjoy our daughter's birthday rather than her memorial and burial.

      What happened is bad -- it's part of the story of her life now. It's our job as parents to make sure it's just a footnote and not the plot. And our daughter has proven to be incredibly strong and resilient. How can we feel "poor me" or "poor us" when our daughter can smile and have fun after such a horrific ordeal? She gives *US* strength.

    61. Re:Duh... by anyGould · · Score: 1

      What if they "come to you first" about the neighbours daughter? Absolute statements are absolutely always wrong :-)

      Then say nothing, and call in an anonymous tip afterwards.

    62. Re:Duh... by i.kazmi · · Score: 1

      I hope your daughter is fine...here's to hoping the sad basket gets what he deserves and rots in prison for a long long time...

    63. Re:Duh... by drkstr1 · · Score: 1

      It's the latter and seems to be confined to the United States at the moment. European and Asian forces seem to get the cooperation they need and African forces, those countries who have them, are way too busy with actual crime to bother with making crimes up.

      I was in Manila awhile back, and something I found interesting is the huge difference in the attitude of law enforcement and security forces. I always feel very nervous around armed security forces in the US and Mexico, but in Manila it was as if you were the customer, and they were there to serve you. They would say yes sir and no sir, hold doors open for you, and were simply pleasant and helpful. That's the kind of police force we need here at home. One that sees us as their customer, rather than there enemy.

      --
      Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
    64. Re:Duh... by melchoir55 · · Score: 1

      it doesn't matter. You haven't given them any evidence.

      Only a person who literally thinks the universe revolves around him would think that the only conceivable source of evidence is himself... especially if you think the evidence is being fabricated in the first place!

      It isn't because you think cops are fabricating evidence that you shouldn't speak to them. Cops have been trained that if they can construe your language as damning then it is damning. They mostly honestly believe that if they can get you to trip in word games then they have discovered something. They are mostly not attempting to "fabricate" evidence.

      By talking to them, you are very likely to give them evidence which could be used against you. The odds that you are competent enough with language to throw cops "off your scent" by speaking to them are infinitesimally small. If you are the kind of person who picks their actions based on the best probable outcome, you don't speak to them. If you are the person who buys California Lottery tickets, then maybe you roll the dice with trying to present yourself flawlessly in a stressful situation when in all likelihood you don't even know what qualifies as a flawless presentation in the eyes of the police you are speaking to.

  2. Ashamed! by sentiblue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He ruins our IT/Ops names...

    He doesn't deserve the term "Pro"

    1. Re:Ashamed! by mlts · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Four years for causing a million dollars worth of damage isn't that harsh a sentence. What would the verdict be if someone came into a facility with a cutting torch and did the same amount of physical damage? It likely would result in an arrest for some terrorism-related charge. Blanking out servers may not be as obvious as driving a semi into some core machinery, but it does the same exact thing, especially if there are no backups. The machinery may be intact, but if there is some manufacturing process that took years to develop and fine-tune, that knowledge can be lost forever.

      This guy got off lightly, and the lesson that EnerVest has learned is that they are probably going to get their next admin or admins from Tata or Infosys, and it won't be surprising to see more companies doing the same thing.

      A friend of mine had to clean up a mess (logic bombs left behind that would corrupt arrays and reset LTO tape passwords) that was similar, due to a disgruntled admin. After he cleaned up the mess and tested that backups were working on separate hardware, he was shown the door, and an offshore company hired for all IT work. The reason: "H-1Bs do not commit sabotage."

    2. Re:Ashamed! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Informative

      He ruins our IT/Ops names...

      He doesn't deserve the term "Pro"

      Right. "Pros" don't get caught!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:Ashamed! by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Four years for causing a million dollars worth of damage isn't that harsh a sentence.

      I might agree with you if Wall Street scammers didn't get less for causing HUNDREDS of millions in losses to their customers. And not from a one-time "flip out", but years of knowingly and systematically screwing over everyone who trusted them...

    4. Re:Ashamed! by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just because one set of criminals gets off easier than they should, it does not follow that all other criminals should be treated leniently.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    5. Re:Ashamed! by kelemvor4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "H-1Bs do not commit sabotage."

      Absolutely, allowing foreign nationals access to your systems is COMPLETELY safe. Moreover, they don't get angry when you take away their livelihood.

    6. Re:Ashamed! by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Well, one could argue this "Pro" is now a "Con".

      /sunglasses

      YEAAAAAH!

    7. Re:Ashamed! by taustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, between the equal protection clause of the 4th amendment and the cruel and unusual clause of the 8th, it isn't difficult to argue that it does, in fact, mean just that.

    8. Re:Ashamed! by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      So im going to throw away my mod point on this point but oh well, i can't believe someone thinks this so i want to get some clarification...

      "Just because one set of criminals gets off easier than they should, it does not follow that all other criminals should be treated leniently."

      If two groups of "criminals" is judged and sentenced according to the damage and harm they have done, and one of them does less harm/damage that the other, it does not follow that the one who did less harm should have a lesser sentence?

      OR

      justice equals = all criminals should be punished harshly no matter what the severity of the crime, as long as the% of criminals who receive less harsh punishment is relatively low?

      OR

      Justice = punishment that is mitigated by influence, money, collusion and corruption.

      i'm having a hard time following any of these "logical?" conclusions of your reasoning...

    9. Re:Ashamed! by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Your friend was a fool. He should have followed the example of Dennis Nedry and made himself indispensable.

    10. Re:Ashamed! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      and they you get offshore people who don't know what they are doing / don't care

    11. Re:Ashamed! by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      No, it simply means that the error may have been made at the too lenient side.

    12. Re:Ashamed! by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Usually the damage estimates are way overstated, so I don't buy it on that assumption, and usually people don't engage in that behavior unless they were treated reprehensibly by their employer beforehand. Perhaps the real solution here is for management to act like human beings instead of jackals.

      If they do outsource, they'll just learn their lesson the hard way. Tata employees don't give a shit about you or your goals, and their code is buggy and broken, requiring a local side programmer to clean up their mess anyway.

      H-1Bs are often treated as slave labor by aforementioned jackal management. I can guarantee they will throw their sabo into the works at some point the moment they have any power, which will happen when there are no more localside programmers left thanks to attitudes like yours.

    13. Re:Ashamed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You treat your employees like shit and you can expect them to treat you like shit back. Part of doing business is firing people gracefully if they're incompetent or unsuitable.

      The H1B comment disgusts me as a professional and a human being. They're little more than slaves with the threat of deportation held over them. Forced to work slave hours for slave wages. All because some MBA shitcock can get his bonus. It's unethical and should be illegal.

      H1B employees should be held to strict pay standards of prevailing wages PLUS 30%, incentive for business to hire local talent first. If you really want the overseas talent you should pay for it. Put up the money, or shut up because you're a fucking liar otherwise.

    14. Re:Ashamed! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That's total nonsense. Criminals are not "judged and sentenced according to the damage and harm they have done," thought that is certainly considered in sentencing. Actually they're judged and sentenced based on the crimes they're convicted of.

      The reason you're having trouble with the logic is because you seem to think the task is to make it all up yourself from whole cloth. But actually the task is to understand existing legal principles in the US. Of course, you don't really need to get that far in this case because it was total apples and oranges anyways between un-named "Wall Street scammers" who aren't even facing charges, and a person convicted of felonies.

    15. Re:Ashamed! by careysub · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, between the equal protection clause of the 4th amendment and the cruel and unusual clause of the 8th, it isn't difficult to argue that it does, in fact, mean just that.

      Amen to that. If you have two sets of crimes ones committed by the fabulously wealthy (Wall Streeters, bankers - non one else is in the position to carry out such fraud) which do vast damage, and ones that are committed by ordinary citizens that do comparatively trivial amounts of damage, and that latter set are prosecuted far more vigorously, with much harsher punishments than the former, then we do not truly have a system of laws any longer, we have a system of (very rich) men.

      One is reminded of this: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." - Anatole France

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    16. Re:Ashamed! by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      That's silly, it's different crimes. Different crimes have different prison sentences. 4oz of crack will get you a nearly life sentence where the same amount of cocaine will get you a month or two. Is the baking soda and cooking process that important that it'll net you a sentence 10 times worse?

    17. Re:Ashamed! by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Four years for causing a million dollars worth of damage isn't that harsh a sentence.

      Not by the standards of our over-inflated prison sentences in the U.S.

      But rationally it does seem like more than necessary.

      If the purpose of a prison sentence is to deter somebody, then I think 1 year, or even 6 months, would deter others just as much.

      People do these things because they don't think they'll get caught. I don't think anybody says, "Well, I'll do it if I have to serve 1 year in jail, but I won't do it if I have to serve 4 years in jail."

      If the purpose of a prison sentence is revenge -- well, do you believe in revenge? If somebody fires me unfairly, am I justified in getting revenge?

    18. Re:Ashamed! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      also forced OT pay for H1B employees prevailing wages PLUS 30% is shit when you can get 60-80+ hours out of an H1B.

      prevailing wages PLUS 30% + OT and Holiday pay is needed

    19. Re:Ashamed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think the original poster understood the existing legal principles in the US just fine. To wit: in the US, rich corporate executives don't go to jail for harming millions of people, and doing anything that involves a computer will result in a harsher punishment than a comparable act committed without a computer. Also, being poor will result in a harsher sentence pretty much no matter what you did. The Wall Street scammers do not require naming in this instance--their existence is not exactly a matter of debate, and their lack of punishment or even prosecution is a matter of public record. Believing that the US actually has a legal system concerned at all with justice shows a fundamental lack of understanding of it.

    20. Re:Ashamed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do you even have to look as far as wall streeters to find inequal punishment in the US?

      I turn on the TV every other week to see some US celebrity or another has gotten high on crack or heroin and smashed their luxury sports car through the front of somebodies house or something and gotten community service or 30 days.

      Had it been some urban black kid it would have been 5 years hard time.

      What is it about being a celebrity in the US that entitles you to break the law with reckless abandon?

    21. Re:Ashamed! by jopsen · · Score: 1

      Just because one set of criminals gets off easier than they should, it does not follow that all other criminals should be treated leniently.

      What good does it do?
      How come Americans can only want harsher punishment?

      Sure, what he did was bad... But one year in prison is enough. He will have learned the lesson.
      Giving him 4 years, isn't going to make a difference. Except, it'll cost money to lock him up, and he will have a harder time getting a new job when he gets out, there by costing society even more money.
      Oh, and he won't pay taxes for 4 years.


      It's not like people do this stuff after having consider the consequences.

    22. Re:Ashamed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      THe difference is bankers, wall street, ect., have millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire lawyers and with the way the laws/regulations are littered with loopholes, a lawyer will twist those in order to get their clients free and clear, bigwigs are very knowledgeable, and can manipulate lower ranking employees to follow or use these loopholes/schemes, or questionable practices and should the industry get caught the bigwigs stay free and clear, and of course in the process you have escape goats (those lower ranking employees), 'don't blame us, it was a few bad apples trying to take advantage of the system'.

      You have an admin that lost his temper, then couldn't shut the F' up when being questioned by authorities. He probably could have gotten away with it, the only thing law enforcement was able to deduce was a possible disgruntled admin who may have been a fault.

    23. Re:Ashamed! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      Four years for causing a million dollars worth of damage isn't that harsh a sentence

      yes it is.

      why do I say that?

      because the banksters (...) have done FAR more damage to our whole society and yet not a single wall street fuckwad did any prison time. damage to our econ was in the billions, not millions and no one did time.

      this was stupid. its all about 'making an example' but its toward a class that has basically no power and The Man wants to keep it that way; keep us all in fear.

      the guy did behave badly, but a 'million dollars' to many businesses is bullshit money. a fraction of a ceo's vacation fund. so don't give me this song and dance about 'a million dollars'. its all relative.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    24. Re:Ashamed! by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      Four years for causing a million dollars worth of damage isn't that harsh a sentence. What would the verdict be if someone came into a facility with a cutting torch and did the same amount of physical damage?

      Not a fair comparison. One is a white collar crime, the other a blue collar crime. The legal system treats those two types of crimes differently.

    25. Re:Ashamed! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Do you actually have an example of a black kid smashing their vehicle through someone's house and getting 5 years hard time? Otherwise your post is pure fiction.

    26. Re:Ashamed! by Corbets · · Score: 1

      Usually the damage estimates are way overstated, so I don't buy it on that assumption,

      Often (I hesitate to say "usually"), helpdesk monkeys don't understand value calculations and the impact an action can have across the value chain.

      and usually people don't engage in that behavior unless they were treated reprehensibly by their employer beforehand. Perhaps the real solution here is for management to act like human beings instead of jackals.

      If they do outsource, they'll just learn their lesson the hard way.

      So group B only acts reprehensibly if group A does so first? What, then, motivates group A to act reprehensibly? Whether management or line worker, people can all be assholes. It's just as probable that this sysadmin was the kind of guy that blows things way out of proportion and took an imagined slight as reason to wreak havoc.

      Tata employees don't give a shit about you or your goals, and their code is buggy and broken, requiring a local side programmer to clean up their mess anyway.

      H-1Bs are often treated as slave labor by aforementioned jackal management. I can guarantee they will throw their sabo into the works at some point the moment they have any power, which will happen when there are no more localside programmers left thanks to attitudes like yours.

      Potentially true. I've not had positive experience with off-shoring, but I would assume the "people are people" statement holds true here as well, and there are good H1-Bs as well (I myself am an immigrant worker in another country).

    27. Re:Ashamed! by taustin · · Score: 1

      The differences between sentencing for crack users (who are predominantly black) and regular cocaine users (who are predominantly white) is well documented, and enshrined in law.

    28. Re:Ashamed! by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Yeah, a year in prison to someone who has no clue what he's getting into is more than enough to "teach a lesson". What does another 2-3 years add to rehabilitate him?

      More importantly he SHOULD be liable for the damage he caused. Responsibility is not being arbitrarily jailed for any crime, it's having to pay restitution for damages. Of course I suppose it's hard to pay restitution when you are such a moron you destroy your career by taking out your anger on your (ex)-employer...

    29. Re:Ashamed! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Then use that as an example and not a fantasy. By the way, there is an ongoing process to correct that wrong.

    30. Re:Ashamed! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      What the fuck does nationality have to do with anything? Xenophobia is no excuse.

    31. Re:Ashamed! by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      "H-1Bs do not commit sabotage."

      Not intentionally, anyway. But must IT staffing really be a tradeoff between malice and incompetence?

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    32. Re:Ashamed! by anagama · · Score: 1

      Don't be a myopic pedantic idiot.

      The racial disparities are staggering: despite the fact that whites engage in drug offenses at a higher rate than African-Americans, African-Americans are incarcerated on drug charges at a rate that is 10 times greater than that of whites.

      https://www.aclu.org/criminal-...

      Race is associated with economic power.

      Or just google the word: affluenza

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    33. Re:Ashamed! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      There are enough real issues with racial disparity without making up stories. This is the first time I have been called a "myopic pedantic idiot" for asking for facts rather than fantasy. By the way you might want to Google "ad hominem".

    34. Re:Ashamed! by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      It has to do with where the person lives. When the parent says "foreign nationals", they are talking about someone that is neither a citizen of your country, nor living in your country. that means that they are not beholden to your laws. If you cannot figure out why it is more dangerous to hand over your data to someone who is not beholden to your laws than it is for someone who is, you are not thinking very hard. Xenophobia is no excuse, but Xenophobia is a non-sequiter to this discussion.

    35. Re: Ashamed! by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      You watch too many movies.

      He's going to a Federal minimum security prison. And he'll probably be paroled after 2 years. I guess there are some advantages to committing white collar corporate/data crimes. Still, he'll probably be in there with brokers and ponzi scheme operators who stole 100x what damage he caused but got the same sentence, and may even still have some of it squirreled away when they get out...

    36. Re:Ashamed! by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Of course, you don't really need to get that far in this case because it was total apples and oranges anyways between un-named "Wall Street scammers" who aren't even facing charges, and a person convicted of felonies.

      Unnamed? How about Jordan Belfort? Go watch Wolf of Wall Street and then claim he didn't face charges. He got 4 years for everything he did (could have received decades based on everything they had on him), and was out in 22 months. He still owes a ton of reparation which he has reneged on and the government has been too big of pussies to put him back in prison. Now he's selling books (including his autobiography) and doing motivational speaking for $$$.

      Another one? TY Warner. Apparently he hid over $100M of income in illegal offshore tax shelters, which basically means he stole about $40M from the US government. The sentencing recommendation was 46 to 57 months, but the judge gave him probation because he gave some money to charities (so, clearly if you have money you can buy your way out of jail!)

      There are dozens of other examples. But anyway, the point is they are really neither sentenced based on the harm they have done OR the crimes they are convicted of, they are apparently sentenced based on some judge's subjective value of "whether they deserve it". And not surprisingly, those with money and influence don't seem to "deserve" the same punishments even when their damages AND crime sentencing guidelines are higher...

    37. Re:Ashamed! by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't go the 30% route. That only solves the short term problem. H1B visas are supposed to be used only when a business cannot find local talent. 'Prevailing Wages' is too easy to lie about and the H1B worker would still be a hostage. All the while, the 30% would be argued as a discriminatory punishment.

      I say we solve both the immediate "lack of skills" with a long term solution. Require a local hire to shodow and be trained 1:1 by any H1B that gets hired. Require that the two be paid the same wages. This would make the cost of an H1B worker to be 100% of the cost of a local employee. That alone should kill the attempts to use H1B as a cost savings measure, but for those rare cases where the H1B visas are actually being used for their intended purpose, it would train a US citizen in the skills we are currently lacking. It would actually become a system of national security.

    38. Re:Ashamed! by anagama · · Score: 1

      You weren't asking for facts -- you were being an asshole pedant. A person gave a hypothetical based on widely known and scientifically studied data, and you oh so innocently asked about newspaper citations. RTFG.

      Given that knowledge about the disparity in treatment in the court system is widespread, well reported, and scientifically studied, if you are unaware and making a comment, you are myopic, and to have managed to avoid being made aware, you must be a cloistered. To comment on what you do not know know, makes you an idiot.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    39. Re:Ashamed! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      A person gave a hypothetical based on widely known and scientifically studied data,

      He did not state a hypothetical. he stated it as fact.

      Had it been some urban black kid it would have been 5 years hard time.

      To state it as a hypothetical it would have been phrased as follows.

      Had it been some urban black kid it would probably have been 5 years hard time.

      See the difference? The former is a statement of fact the latter is a statement of possibility.

      To comment on what you do not know know, makes you an idiot.

      Again I refer you to "ad hominem" . Calling people names does not strengthen your argument. I do understand the disparity in sentencing. I also like to see statements of fact backed up.

    40. Re:Ashamed! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Right, and none of those names help at all. It is still apples and oranges. You're actually arguing that throwing out a name helps? They are totally different cases, with totally different charges, so is no reason to think that you can just add up what you think the "harm" was and decide what the sentence should have been. That is not how the legal system works, nor is it on the table for a vote to start consulting Random Internet Guy, so we're really going to be sticking with using the legal system for this.

      And you really think it is obvious that securities fraud is way worse than actively and maliciously sabotaging a business? Fraud is bad, but what is this guy your HS friend or something? Give me a break.

      One reason nobody would think of that guy you didn't name the first time when you just said "Wall Street scammers," people assume you're talking about people who committed bigger crimes. Oh, but there are people who committed bigger crimes... serving life in prison, like Bernie Madoff.

    41. Re:Ashamed! by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      And you really think it is obvious that securities fraud is way worse than actively and maliciously sabotaging a business? Fraud is bad, but what is this guy your HS friend or something? Give me a break.

      Yes, 100% absolutely, I think a pump and dump scheme that defrauded hundreds of millions of dollars from many thousands of middle class families (often destroying their life savings) is worse than someone who destroyed a million dollars in servers/data. Anyone who doesn't is a bit defective, IMO. And I'm not saying the latter should be forgiven, based on what he did I think some amount of prison time is warranted. But seriously - "and none of those names help at all"? This is not an obscure name, it was an Oscar nominated movie that to the majority of the US population (and probably hundreds of millions in other countries) is now common knowledge.

      One reason nobody would think of that guy you didn't name the first time when you just said "Wall Street scammers," people assume you're talking about people who committed bigger crimes

      Right now if you said "Wall Street Scammers" Jordan Belfort (or at least "oh the Wolf of Wall Street" is probably the FIRST guy many people think of.

      The securities fraud alone should have resulted in 10x the prison sentence he got, and that doesn't even count all of the drug running, prostitution, money laundering, etc that he wasn't even tried for. Oh, and yes, it was a Hollywood movie, but it was based on Belfort's autobiography, and he has said almost all of it is true. As well as "active and malicious".

      so we're really going to be sticking with using the legal system for this.

      And my other example wasn't obscure, either. TY Warner founded "Beanie Babies", is a billionaire who intentionally defrauded the US govt of $40M, and despite the recommendation of "the legal system" the judge threw out the guidelines and gave him ZERO jail time because he thought "he was a good guy". While we all know who stole $1M from the US govt by stealing it via hacking (or burglary, whatever) would get 10-20 years.

      Seriously, if you haven't heard of either of these cases you must have been living in a cave over the last year. Not my problem if you are not up on the biggest current events on this topic, but it doesn't make your arguments very convincing...

    42. Re:Ashamed! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      He wasn't convicted of many thousands of counts of fraud. Sorry. You can only sentence somebody for what they are convicted of.

  3. He's lucky by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If he had hacked in from outside the company and done that much damage, he probably would have gotten more than 4 years.

    1. Re:He's lucky by Wintermute__ · · Score: 3, Informative

      He did. He "hacked in to a protected computer". Also:

      "Mitchell is no stranger to computer-related controversy. In high school, he was accused of planting more than 100 viruses on the school's systems, according to a report in the Charleston Gazette newspaper."

      Great choice, let's hire him!

    2. Re:He's lucky by pkinetics · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Accused is not the same as convicted.

      However in his case, he admitted to do it, but wormed his way into being allowed to finish out school. First failure of due process.

      The second failure was the court deciding to drop the matter because he had already graduated, so nothing they could do about it.

    3. Re:He's lucky by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      The article is useless. Previously they say he "tapped" into a computer, which makes no sense.

      He somehow found out that he was going to be fired. He hadn't been fired yet. It's possible that all of his accounts were still fully functional and he didn't have to circumvent any security measures- which is the trigger for those charges.

    4. Re:He's lucky by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      "Mitchell is no stranger to computer-related controversy. In high school, he was accused of planting more than 100 viruses on the school's systems, according to a report in the Charleston Gazette newspaper."

      Great choice, let's hire him!

      Eh. If we all had to answer for the rest of our lives for the stupid shit we did in high school, we'd all be homeless and penniless no one would ever love us.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  4. He turned job termination into career termination by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Informative

    And likely life termination as well. What a complete and utter moron.

  5. Does anyone actually think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does anyone actually think this shouldn't be a crime?

  6. Now I know by NotFamous · · Score: 1

    I always wondered what happens if you press the "Easy Button".

    --
    Some settling may occur during posting.
  7. Glue his fingers together so he cant use a pc by mpicpp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've cleaned up messes and had to do data recovery after people deleted their work, reformatted machines, etc. and then quit. I have no sympathy at all for people that do this type of stuff...

  8. man commits crime, goes to jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    good story

  9. Re:Ethics by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was talking to an employee who was fired, but still around for a couple of days to clean up her stuff. She asked if I had backups, because she wanted to delete all of the projects she was working on. I told her that she was paid to do that work and I doubt if other people will go through her work that much anyway. Why go the unethical route when it just makes you look bad?

    I bet this guy could have just left, and assuming he was useful, the company would soon be feeling the pain anyway.

  10. Re:He turned job termination into career terminati by aphelion_rock · · Score: 1

    Pretty stupid on the company's part too.
    Certainly gives credence to the process of removing any passed and access then ejecting the individual out the door before telling them that they are fired.

  11. Re:what a crock by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

    Well, yeah. It probably cost several thousand man hours to repair the damages he caused. That is real money lost fixing the mess. As well as the actual time lost for stopping business productivity of X number of employees who could no longer perform their work and sat around twiddling thumbs while the systems were down. We are talking potentially hundreds of thousands of damage.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  12. Re:what a crock by retchdog · · Score: 1

    uh, does destruction of property not merit prison time?

    --
    "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  13. Crappy headline by NotSanguine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This guy is no professional. A professional does his job. That's what he/she is paid to do. Since this person was getting fired, I'm guessing he wasn't meeting expectations. Even if it was a broader layoff, there's no reason to act so unprofessionally.

    Not sure if he deserves jail time, but there is no reason to break stuff on your way out the door. I'm glad I know this guy's name. I will certainly never hire him.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    1. Re:Crappy headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A professional is someone who gets paid to do his job and/or who does it as a career, not someone who necessarily does it well or morally. See "professional gambler" or "professional hit man".

    2. Re:Crappy headline by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      A professional is someone who gets paid to do his job and/or who does it as a career, not someone who necessarily does it well or morally. See "professional gambler" or "professional hit man".

      a person who is expert at his or her work: You can tell by her comments that this editor is a real professional.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    3. Re:Crappy headline by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      and the point is made by skipping the other 12 definitions how?

    4. Re:Crappy headline by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      and the point is made by skipping the other 12 definitions how?

      My point is that the sense of the noun "professional" that I used is embodied by it. Since it isn't the first entry, does that mean that it's invalid?

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    5. Re:Crappy headline by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      get off your holier than thou high horse, it makes you look like an adolescent fool.

      I'm not any better than anyone else. And I'm not arrogant enough to tell people how they should think or act.

      I speak my mind and if some disagree with me, they're welcome to present reasons why they think I'm wrong and engage in intelligent conversation.

      Apparently, you're not one of those people. So get off my lawn. Have a nice day!

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    6. Re:Crappy headline by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      Not sure if he deserves jail time

      Of course he does. He has a total of zero excuses for damaging the company's equipment and data deliberately, being fired is not an excuse.

    7. Re:Crappy headline by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Not sure if he deserves jail time

      Of course he does. He has a total of zero excuses for damaging the company's equipment and data deliberately, being fired is not an excuse.

      No excuse at all. Not even any comprehensible reason. Mitchell acted irresponsibly, and he should certainly have to compensate his former employer.

      If you read my previous posts you'll see that I think this guy's actions were completely inappropriate. Mitchell should face consequences for his actions.

      At the same time, he's now a convicted felon. Which, in the US at least, most likely means he will never be able to get a decent job ever again.

      Four years in prison might be appropriate, but ruining his life?

      Here in the US, we continue to punish those who have been convicted of a felony (by denying them decent jobs, pushing them to the fringes of society and increasing the likelihood of recidivism) even after they've served their time. Which is both unproductive and unfair.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    8. Re:Crappy headline by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      At the same time, he's now a convicted felon. Which, in the US at least, most likely means he will never be able to get a decent job ever again.

      Well, he did display severe lack of respect for other peoples' data, time and money and set out to deliberately cause harm for nothing more than getting fired. He clearly showed that he is not a person who should be in such a position and the chances are that next time he'd just be more careful about leaving evidence behind. If he had just gotten fines or something he might get another job in a similar position and cause even worse things.

      I do get what you're coming at, but of the two choices I believe prison is the more correct one. Should there be a third option, something that would mean that he'd really, really, really have to work and prove himself if he wanted to again get in a position where he is responsible for other peoples' data and equipment, but if he instead aimed for something where he isn't in such a position of power he'd have the same chances as everyone else? Sure, but I don't know if there is such an option.

    9. Re:Crappy headline by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Well, he did display severe lack of respect for other peoples' data, time and money and set out to deliberately cause harm for nothing more than getting fired. He clearly showed that he is not a person who should be in such a position and the chances are that next time he'd just be more careful about leaving evidence behind. If he had just gotten fines or something he might get another job in a similar position and cause even worse things.

      Absolutely. I certainly wouldn't hire him even if he didn't do time.

      I do get what you're coming at, but of the two choices I believe prison is the more correct one. Should there be a third option, something that would mean that he'd really, really, really have to work and prove himself if he wanted to again get in a position where he is responsible for other peoples' data and equipment, but if he instead aimed for something where he isn't in such a position of power he'd have the same chances as everyone else? Sure, but I don't know if there is such an option.

      That's really the quandary, isn't it? I'm not saying that this guy shouldn't have to face consequences, my issue is with the ostracism experienced by ex-convicts. In a better world, the "ex" would be more important than the "convict." In a better world, we'd prepare those who have been incarcerated to succeed in the larger world, not just warehouse them and then shove them to the fringes of society. It's sad, IMHO.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  14. Yup by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    That sort of thing tends to happen when you intentionally and maliciously fuck up someone else's shit.

    The real question is, and I know I bitch about other people asking this myself, but why is this on Slashdot? He's not some IT rock star like Sergey or John, EnerVest isn't some major player in the IT world like Google or Apple, and the punishment meted out seems fairly appropriate.

    Maybe the constant, mindless drone of 24-7 American media news cycles is finally starting to get to me, but this doesn't seem sensational enough to qualify as "news."

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Yup by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      You're overthinking it, attempting to classify it as Famous IT person jammed up! or as Company you've ever heard of Rogue Employee Story.

      This is a Classic Slashdottian morality play involving an otherwise intelligent IT worker who bewilderingly talks to the police and hands himself over to them.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Yup by jxander · · Score: 1

      The story, imo, is simply "Computer based crime committed, appropriate punishment served."

      That there wasn't some major freakout is newsworthy in an of itself. An "IT Pro" was tried, convicted and sentenced without (to the best of my knowledge) over bearing law enforcement trampling all over his rights or leaning on him so hard that he follows Aaron Schwartz is somewhat remarkable.

      It shouldn't be, but it is.

      --
      This signature is false.
    3. Re:Yup by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Handing yourself into the cops after deliberately breaking the law is commonly called "having a conscience", it's not bewildering at all to someone who has one.That he thought industrial sabotage was justifiable in the first place is what I find bewildering. Thinking he would get away with it implies a lack of intelligence. Still, it happens everyday in every industry, not really newsworthy, more of a "human interest" story. The "interest" part is thatt we have all thought about doing something like this but our own conscience prevents us from putting those thoughts into action. The fear of getting caught is called guilt, it's an normal, healthy stress reaction that happens when you ignore your own conscience.

      BTW: This is why people should be careful with anti-stress medication (especially if they like a couple of beers after work), it can remove the physical stress reaction (adrenaline rush) and turn an otherwise normal person into an unstressed arsehole, your body stops telling you to listen to your conscience, unfiltered thoughts become words and actions.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  15. Ashamed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, one could argue this "Pro" is now a "Con".
    Sorry, couldn't resist.

  16. Re:what a crock by jasonrice22 · · Score: 1

    the average time served for kidnapping is 52 months

    I can only imagine that the average kidnapping involves a parent that lacks custody or something more mundane than what we are use to seeing on TV. The damage this guy did is likely more comparable to burning the whole building to the ground. Well... maybe that's taking it a bit far, but it serves my point.

  17. Re:Ethics by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why go the unethical route when it just makes you look bad?

    Because humans are herd animals, and corporate politics purposefully try to reinforce this - it's what "team building" and "commitment to job" is ultimately all about. This means that getting fired tends to register at the emotional level: you are being banished from your tribe. Add any actual or perceived injustice, and revenge becomes a factor.

    Modern economic system is pretty perverse, as far as human needs are concerned, so people caught in it tend to act irrationally.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  18. Re:And in jail.. by NotSanguine · · Score: 3, Funny

    "So, what have you done to get in here?" "I just reset the system of my ex-boss, he was too stupid to recover a backup so he sued me and put me in jail"

    I couldn't resist...

    And I, I walked over to the, to the bench there, and there is, Group W's Where they put you if you may not be moral enough to join the army after Committing your special crime, and there was all kinds of mean nasty ugly Looking people on the bench there. Mother rapers. Father stabbers. Father Rapers! Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me! And They was mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys sitting on the Bench next to me. And the meanest, ugliest, nastiest one, the meanest Father raper of them all, was coming over to me and he was mean 'n' ugly 'n' nasty 'n' horrible and all kind of things and he sat down next to me And said, "Kid, whad'ya get?" I said, "I didn't get nothing, I had to pay $50 and pick up the garbage." He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?" And I said, "Littering." And they all moved away from me on the bench There, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I Said, "And creating a nuisance." And they all came back, shook my hand, And we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing, Father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the Bench. And everything was fine, we was smoking cigarettes and all kinds of Things,

    --Arlo Guthrie

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  19. Re:what a crock by mythosaz · · Score: 1

    Yup.

    Here in Arizona:

    The elements of kidnapping are (1) knowingly, (2) restraining another person, (3) with the intent, (4) to place the victim in a reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury or to seize or exercise control over a vehicle.

    So, when you argue with your girlfriend, and don't unlock the car doors, and she's scared you'll Chris Brown her -- kidnapping.

  20. Re:Ethics by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Well put.

    And not for nothing, as the grandparent's viewpoint is a sound one... Why be unethical even if you believe you've been done dirty? Hold your head high on the way out the door saying, "I was looking for a job when I found this one." Even if you don't feel it right then, you will be right proud of yourself later on.

    + to you both.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  21. Re:what a crock by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    So, I'm assuming you wouldn't mind me burning down your house/apartment, so long as I made sure there were no people endangered by the fire?

    After all, it's just destruction of property, right?

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  22. the jail / prison has healthcare + room and board by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    the jail / prison has healthcare + room and board

  23. Criminal damage by benjfowler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Open-and-shut case of criminal damage.

    What's amazing, is that there are still neckbeards out where who think that just because they're techies, that norms of proper human behaviour don't belong to them.

    1. Re:Criminal damage by causality · · Score: 1

      Open-and-shut case of criminal damage.

      What's amazing, is that there are still neckbeards out where who think that just because they're techies, that norms of proper human behaviour don't belong to them.

      When you hear about a street mugging, do you also say "What's amazing, is that there are still thugs out there who think that just because they're on the street, that norms of proper human behavior don't belong to them" too?

      If not, what's special about "... with a computer!"

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:Criminal damage by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      This troll just wants to rag on whatever group he wants to dump on. Logic and rationality really have nothing to do with it.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Criminal damage by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      He didn't have a beard.

      True neckbeards are professionals and don't get fired because the dismissal letter gets rerouted to their boss somehow. j/k. Sort of.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  24. Re:what a crock by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

    Missing the 3rd element, which is the hardest to prove or disprove.

  25. Criminal Commits Crime - News at 11! by Chucky_M · · Score: 2

    Seriously, read the article (and then I remembered where I was) he deserved to be banged up, changing jobs voluntary or not is a nasty fact of life in this economy. If you sabotage your ex employers systems then you should expect they will hire someone who isn't so stupid and is able to detect it. Business has money, what it doesn't have is patience. During a major problem they will simply hire temporary talent that will be smarter than you because they haven't spent the last few years doing a job with no destiny and can concentrate on one thing - what you did.

    This trade for want of a better world is too small to even attempt to annoy not only your ex employees but more importantly all your ex colleges. This guy is clearly an idiot who should be taken away from a keyboard. On the flip side, frankly he is probably needing a better lawyer, to do something so stupid his defence should have been more mental or stress related assuming he even had a clue.

    West Virginia, Division of Corrections - Take him home, where he belongs.....

  26. water cooler guessing game by epine · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing he wasn't meeting expectations

    You're never seen a person be fired because the ranks of management are equally vile?

    Have you never seen a manager go to jail because he deliberately fired or drove away the company's most competent employee on fabricated allegations in order to exact revenge for a perceived slight, prior to his own dismissal or resignation?

    No, I didn't think so. The master retributivist of eternal liberty sabotages human systems instead.

    1. Re:water cooler guessing game by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing he wasn't meeting expectations

      You're never seen a person be fired because the ranks of management are equally vile?

      Have you never seen a manager go to jail because he deliberately fired or drove away the company's most competent employee on fabricated allegations in order to exact revenge for a perceived slight, prior to his own dismissal or resignation?

      No, I didn't think so. The master retributivist of eternal liberty sabotages human systems instead.

      Okay. You could be right. Perhaps I shouldn't have made that inference. Regardless, Mr. Mitchell acted irresponsibly (and in the eyes of a Federal court in the southern district of West Virginia, criminally). Whether someone else acted inappropriately is, to me at least, unknown.

      Are you suggesting that Mr. Mitchell's actions were appropriate or justified?

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    2. Re:water cooler guessing game by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      ...The master retributivist of eternal liberty sabotages human systems instead.

      That's some sentence you have there. Have you considered entering this contest?

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  27. Re:Ethics by TapeCutter · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Because humans are herd animals,

    Nope, humans are pack animals, you more or less said so yourself by mentioning tribes, teams, etc.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  28. Re:what a crock by mythosaz · · Score: 1

    I didn't intend to go all Chris Brown on her?

  29. Re:Fair punishment by gabrieltss · · Score: 2

    In some states their labor laws explicitly allow companies to make you work 2 weeks straight without a day off as long as they give you 1 day off before and after the 2 week shift. Been through that - and it's criminal in my mind - but legal. Companies have the money and power to do whatever they want and can get away with it. There are lots of things companies do and can get away with because they can payoff people to make things happen for them. Yet you rarely see company executives go to prison for some of the stuff they do.

    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!
  30. Re:Ethics by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

    I was talking to an employee who was fired, but still around for a couple of days to clean up her stuff. She asked if I had backups, because she wanted to delete all of the projects she was working on. I told her that she was paid to do that work and I doubt if other people will go through her work that much anyway. Why go the unethical route when it just makes you look bad?

    I bet this guy could have just left, and assuming he was useful, the company would soon be feeling the pain anyway.

    The sad thing is that the people who think like this don't seem to be aware that this flaw in their character is probably why they got fired in the first place.

    --

    Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  31. Re:Ethics by ultranova · · Score: 1

    Nope, humans are pack animals, you more or less said so yourself by mentioning tribes, teams, etc.

    Please explain the difference between "herd" and "pack" and why it is relevant for this discussion?

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  32. Re:He turned job termination into career terminati by Cramer · · Score: 1

    Well, they did use the word "fired", which to me means "for cause". I've never been anywhere that would _fire_ a person and let them walk back to their desk and keep working. Layoff's and "down sizing", maybe, but even there care must be taken to avoid letting a pissed (now or soon to be) ex-employee back where they could make a mess.

  33. Re:the jail / prison has healthcare + room and boa by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Concrete room
    Healthcare from the 19th century
    Board from Oliver Twist.

  34. Re:Ethics by I_Lost_My_Puppy · · Score: 1

    Please explain the difference between "herd" and "pack"

    In my mind I equate "herd" with sheep or cattle, as opposed to a "pack" of wolves.

  35. Why is this news? by lionchild · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm not exactly sure why this is really a news thing. It took up two lines of text, and was about a guy who did something malicious, on purpose, was caught and pleaded guilty. Let's replace IT Pro with some other profession...with say a teacher. They know they're being let go, so they dip all the keys and answer sheets in ink, rendering them useless and remove covers from textbooks. They get caught / found out, admit they did it, they go to jail.

    I just don't get why this is really news-worthy.

    --
    Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
  36. Noob by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

    He went in and did as much damage as he could, in a sort of drive your semi through the front door kind of way, failed to cover his tracks, got caught, confessed, and is doing 4 years hard time. Better that he walked away with his head held high and never looked back.

    He should have followed best practices:

    1. Be patient. Wait. Wait at least a year. In that time they will have let any number of people go, and you won't be the go-to suspect.

    2. Plan ahead. Make sure there are a few well concealed back doors into their systems. A few ex-employees who didn't have their accounts deleted, maybe a vendor login. Write down the details, don't email them to yourself.

    3. When you are officially fired, step away from your computer. Insist that someone disable all your accounts and access privileges. Have witnesses.

    4. When it's time to strike, don't use your home computer and don't use your laptop at the closest starbucks. Bounce everything through TOR and a couple of VPNs. Don't short the stock first. Excessive paranoia is the key.

    5. Lay your groundwork carefully. Make sure ALL the backups are corrupted first. Plan your logic bomb so it deletes all traces of itself. Your attack payload should ideally wipe every server and every workstation like you hit them with DBAN.

    6. Trigger your logic bomb, log out, and never ever ever log back in again.

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    1. Re:Noob by gubol123 · · Score: 1

      Honestly this attitude makes no sense. when somebody gets fired mostly it is due to their own incompetence or because the company is not doing well. in either case there is nothing the employee can do about it right away. It is better to accept it, work hard if you are found wanting, and try to find another job...

    2. Re:Noob by bytesex · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that, after a year, he'll not be angry anymore. And what's the use of that?

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  37. The ego the size of a planet. by westlake · · Score: 1

    Incorrect. Present nothing. Say nothing. Do not open your mouth. Stare into space. Daydream.

    Good advice. Changes nothing.

    When the geek has a run in with the law no power on earth can persuade him to shut up.

  38. Re:Ethics by ptudor · · Score: 1

    "Herd" animals have eyes on the side of their heads, because they're prey. "Pack" animals have eyes facing forward, because they're predators.

  39. This is why you're escorted to the door by statemachine · · Score: 1

    Don't take it personally. Most employees can do a lot of damage, and IT is essentially the records and archival department for companies. You have to REALLY trust someone to let them go on their own recognizance.

    However, most people *DO* take it personally when they're escorted out, and it's emotional, but a lot of people don't let logic rule. A business must protect itself, and there is a lot of history behind it. For management not to do this and immediately take away system privileges, is negligent at best.

    Advice to employees: Stay calm. If you are terminated, laid off, fired (or quit), be calm about it. You do want another job, right? How's it going to sound when you are known for threatening to sue your ex-employers for frivolous reasons? Or you're the one that trashed all of a companies systems in a temper-tantrum?

    Slashdotters: Why are you defending Ricky Joe Mitchell? He should be made out to be an example of what not to do. People like him make businesses take even more drastic measures on severance, and rightfully so. If Mitchell had a legitimate grievance, he should have pursued it in an adult-like fashion, with HR, and if it was really that bad, through legal channels. It's shocking that half the posts on here seem to be "Well here's what he should've done to protect himself AFTER damaging all those systems," not "Wow that was stupid, and we should ostracize him immediately."

  40. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The police just want to catch *someone*. There are thousands of accounts of innocent people who call the police to respond to a crime, but end up as the target of police accusations -- either because they look funny, or the cop is having a bad day, or they have a previous arrest from when they were eighteen years old and stupid, or your next door neighbor smokes pot and they smell it on your doorstep. The police have no obligation or duty to protect you according to the US Supreme Court, and every incentive to put people in jail.

    Turning over some photos or giving a written witness statement? Probably fine. Testifying against someone in court? You have the oversight of a judge and jury, sure. Talking to police in private? Trip over your words, and you'll be charged with "making false statements" and have no witnesses to keep you out of jail.

  41. Re:He turned job termination into career terminati by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

    I took it that "found he was being fired" was without the company's knowledge, as in using his admin privileges to look at email, etc.

    But I agree with another comment. As still being an employee, I doubt he "tapped into a protected compauter" from the outside, and doubt that he actually didn't have authority to the computer. What does "tapped into" mean anyway? Probably an unauthorized login to format the drive, which I think the buzzphrase "reset to factory settings" means. He could have done an OS install I guess but I doubt it.

  42. Re:That's fine. by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

    Do you see a difference?

    Yes. He did his actions in blind rage at the spur of the moment. They did their actions with cold calculation, over years, despite numerous and various warnings against their actions.

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
  43. But what about the other way around by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What about when businesses do things like wreck people's lives through baseless lawsuits, blacklist people, baseless DMCA takedowns, etc? I don't see any 4 year sentences for those actions.

    This seems to be another example of where some individual does wrong and the system comes down on him. But when corporate/government types do wrong the system comes to their defence.

  44. I assume if he had worked somewhere else in the company, and had decided to make his parting gift something like filling gas tanks with concrete, he would have done some prison time too. No reason screwing with computer systems should be any different.

  45. I Bet by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Sensationalism.

    No doubt he reset everything back to factor defaults. His reasoning was likely that he was going to take his work with him when he left (configured their systems) and they could find someone else to do it for them. I have zero doubt that his "hacking" actually involved him just using his admin user account and password just prior to getting fired to do the things involved. No "hacking" involved other than it was used for somewhat nefarious purposes.

    I was accused of loading a "virus" onto my high schools computer network once upon a time. The reality was I encrypted a personal disk, the guy sitting next to me tried to do the same thing and inadvertently encrypted his entire computer, and due to the way that particular computer lab had been setup, taking that computer off the network caused it to go down. I got suspended, and had to "fix" their network (basically doing a clean install on the machine in question). Not only did I not actually do anything with viruses, I didn't actually do anything myself (other than be poorly copied). However that didn't stop me from being suspended, nor did it stop the people from saying things that were untrue.

  46. More creative ways to do it by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

    I worked in a factory some years ago. One day we came into work to discover all 120 or so of us would be made redundant in the next few weeks. A few days later management pulled us all up for a meeting. They were clearly furious about something. Turns out someone left a steaming big crap in the changing room shower the previous day, and they actually wanted to know who did it. You try keeping a straight face. The cleaners weren't paid enough to clean that shit up (literally and figuratively), and we couldn't care less if they fired us for refusing to clean it up. I don't even think the accountants let these guys spend a few hundred dollars on a hasmat cleanup by that stage. Who did it? No one knows, no one cares, and even if everyone else did know we certainly weren't going to tell those knuckleheads. There is great pleasure to be had in seeing the humiliation caused by such a symbolic act of defiance.

    --
    Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
  47. It's "at-will" employment by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

    You can walk away for any reason and they can let you go for almost any reason. Being fired/laid off is a bitter pill... but impulse control keeps you out of jail. And it's the other side of being able to walk away at any time.

  48. Here's a good one by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    Then use that as an example and not a fantasy

    Excellent advice! Check out the racial disparity in outcomes of "zero tolerance" school policies, a.k.a. the school-to-prison pipeline. Students of color who commit the exact same infractions of discipline as white students are disproportionately punished starting in pre-school.

  49. Re:Ethics by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    A team mate of mine and I were recently let go from a company. It took everything we had to convince the IT manager NOT to just have our computers formatted when we left. He didn't want to do any back ups, to have anyone go through the files, nothing. Of course, he was actively sabatoging the system so that he could expand his position by bringing in a new system and "needing" all of the software to be rewritten from scratch because the old system "failed" and "couldn't be recovered".

  50. He should have kept his mouth shut by pebear · · Score: 1

    1. I don't like or condone theft, vandalism or destruction of company property under just about every circumstances. The only thing I could think of that I might say it's acceptable if they were committing atrocities like mass killings and other capital offenses. They guy was being fired so as soon as the company decided to fire this guy they should have implemented security measures right there. As for the Idiot facing 4 years in the federal joint? Well I don't feel sorry for his stupid arse. He should have kept his mouth shut and not admitted to anything. He should have gotten a lawyer or at least got a lawyer that would have done his job. Maybe the 4 years was part of the plea deal. I think it's probably an appropriate punishment. He probably effectively shutdown this company until they had a chance to restore all their systems, I hope he didn't destroy the backup catalogs and backup images because if he did then I would say give him life....

    --
    Paul E. Bahre