If I recall (it's been awhile since I've taken an engineering course) the first rule of engineering is if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Why reinvent the wheel when ePub is a perfectly good standard that is already darn near universal.
Working to get a common standard adopted is not reinventing the wheel (an analogy I don't like to begin with, since I'm pretty happy my car doesn't move on the original incarnation of the wheel). I agree entirely that ePub is a perfectly good standard, although I have heard people in the print business wish for better typesetting options. In any case, ePub can be the common standard, and any improvements needed can be incorporated in future versions of the ePub format.
So why does the existence of ePub have no impact on the import of this campaign for a universal e-book format? Simply put, it's not universal. If ePub presents us with a pre-existing format that is everything we need, it still needs to be universal. The important concept here doesn't demand a new format, it's the push toward a world where a person can buy e-books from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Apple, any e-book store, any publisher that sells its books in e-book format, and then be able to read purchases from all of those sources on the same e-book reader from any e-book maker, without extra steps of conversion (or breaking DRM).
My question is, where do I go to sign up and lend support to the campaign?
It's time to retire the Bill Gates Borg photo and replace it with a Steve Jobs Borg photo for Apple stories.
The Borg was appropriate for Microsoft; a different, more fitting graphic should be used for Steve Jobs. Maybe a graphic from Apple's famous 1984 commercial for the Macintosh, but with Steve Jobs on the big screen (telling everyone to be the same, do as he says)?
Unfortunately, you're exactly right. From the blog:
(sic)"It’s stated intention is to allow Flash banner ads to execute on the iPad and iPhone, but there are plenty of other interesting applications (such as news site infographics)."
There would be a lot of money to be made in cajoling those flash-based banner ads onto iPad / iPhone. Yep, lots o' money...
Okay, maybe he was thinking exactly what I just commented he probably wasn't thinking. Even so, writing something that bypasses strict lockouts for a technology is still pretty great from my perspective. I can ask myself which is more relevant to my nerdy/programmer side: the convenience of avoiding banner ads, or the creation of a new method to implement locked-out technology on a closed platform?
I don't like ads, but it's still an easy question to answer.
Hey, now those flash ads can bog you down EVEN MORE, and just in case you left Javascript on with flash uninstalled, you get the benefit of it as well!
Honestly, I think this will force most people to turn Javascript off if nothing else.
Real world implications aside, it still sounds like a pretty impressive work. I doubt Chris Smoak was thinking "I should write a way for obnoxious ads to circumvent existing blocking measures" when he set out to do this. Stories like this remind me that the hacker mindset is still around, where "you can't do X" is accepted as a challenge.
'Linux is open source and we feel good about it,' said one employee. 'Microsoft we don't feel so good about.'
However, they feel pretty good about a closed-source implementation of an open source operating system on locked-in hardware? This sounds rather flamebaity and very light on facts.
I don't think your logic rings true; that's an anonymous employee source talking about his/her self and what operating system in running on his/her workstation and likely the workstations of a few other employees s/he knows. It's hardly authoritative enough to speak for all the employees, and definitely not for the corporate strategy. Maybe the quoted source feels good about running a Linux OS for a workstation because of the whole "closed-source implementation of an open source operating system on locked-in hardware" thing going on. Inferring too much from that quote is just speculation, unfounded leaps of logic, or something else entirely (which of course also goes for anything which the article author implies from it).
1. The iPod has been around for almost nine years and iPhone for three years. Hardly a hyped up fad that will disappear overnight. The Walkman lost its relevance when CDs came out. Perhaps there's a new disruptive music technology sometime in the future but we'd be hard pressed to name it right now.
2. Microsoft's earnings are flat over three years while Apple's has more than doubled. That's not even including the iPad. Microsoft's growth will come from Windows 7, server and office products but that's mostly coming from corporate spending which is still down in the dumps. Xbox is basically a break even product line so it's not even worth mentioning in this conversation.
Just to interject a minor point as we're looking at facts, the Walkman lost it's relevance when the iPod itself came out, drawing enough popularity to dedicated MP3 players. Sony's CD Walkman line was right in tune with what Sony did well with portable music: play physical media in a sexy package.
I think the farming metaphor would be "eating the seed corn". (I'm not sure if it's quite the same metaphor, but it at least has the advantage of not being horrifying to think about)
I'm pretty sure there's no way to rescue the metaphor and have it still be the professor's own, "penis-eating" choice of imagery. What a bizarrely convoluted attempt to illustrate so simple a concept.
Or use a phone/SIM purchased outside the US or use a stolen phone, etc. They also might not care, I don't think the 9/11 hijackers cared if we ID'd them afterwords since they were already willing to die for their cause.
Somehow I don't think a foreign SIM card roaming on US networks would be hard to trace. Stolen phones pose the same problems as always, but they have to at least be stolen first. As I recall, the 9/11 hijackers didn't care about being ID'd beforehand. It may be incorrectly emphasized, but it generally seems that terrorists involved with planning, carrying out, or failing to carry out attacks inside the US have been in the country legally, with their own identities, using legally bought materials.
No, humans pretty much hate seeing other humans succeed in general, deserved or not. It's an emotion allied with envy. The Germans actually have a word for the good feeling you get from seeing successful people screw up: "Schadenfreude."
You're trying to rationalize your emotional reaction to this news rather than interrogate its validity.
You're stretching the definition of the word "Schadenfreude" to fit your point: it does not. Schadenfreude has no connection to success or successful people, and it's hardly on the same page as envy. You would be better off applying it to the popularity of "America's Funniest Home Videos" than you would using it to illustrate the concept that people don't like a winner.
If I'm playing a game with a storyline and a quest, I want the gameplay to be tight, focused on the storyline, and with minimum to no distractions or side quests. I play those games for the story, I don't want to wander around lost or go off and do other things- I want the story, and I want a well written plotline engaging and long enough to be worth the game with nothing else tacked on.
I won't disagree with your interest in well-written stories, but the thing about side quests and unmarked quests is that they are optional. I can understand your stance perfectly, but I like a game to have optional exploration -- a lot of it. You can play Fallout 3 from Vault 101 to Megaton to GNR to RC to the Jefferson Memorial to Vault 112 and keep going until the game is over, but you'll miss out on chatting with Harold, finding Rockopolis, rigging an election in a shack, and so much more.
I look for storylines mainly in RPGs and for an RPG to work, I need to have some space with my character that isn't in the "tunnel of events" that so ofter describes how I feel about the main quest line. Video games tell stories in which you have limited control over your character, which presents a unique dilemma: you might pick a profession, allot personality traits, select gear, make limited decisions that reflect on your personality in largely insignificant ways, but, in the end, you're going to end up fighting the same final boss and saving the world. The more is taken up by the main quest, the more events for your character are scripted, and more and more of the decisions you have to make can only take you in the one direction.
Side quests and exploration free you from that problem, even if just a little. You can succeed, or you can fail. You can be a hero, or a bastard. Since they don't affect the ability to complete the game, they create more room to play your character and interact with the in-game world. I don't consider such things distractions. In my mind, being able to wander into towns that have things going on that aren't tied to some destiny of mine makes the story all the better.
As much as I love Android there are other things that could be improved. Until I have NoScript I don't want Flash anywhere near my Android! And even then I'd like to think sites will soon be moving away from Flash and it'll be unnecessary. For awhile there the lack of Flash on devices was a good reason not to use it. Now the nonsense can run wild again.
If you don't want Flash on your system, why install it? You can enjoy a lack of Flash on ALL your computers, you know, and NoScript is not required.
Seriously, Flash is just a plug-in. If you don't like it, uninstall it completely from your system, like you would any other software you hated. Just because Android 2.2 will support the plug-in doesn't mean it's going to be required. I don't really get why someone would feel so strongly about not liking Flash -- it's only on your computer if you've chosen to a) install it or b) keep it. Whether you use an iPhone, a Windows, Mac, or Linux desktop, you can equally "not support" Flash by not installing it.
That doesn't mean it's a GOOD industry standard. Flash should be abolished.
To be completely fair, Flash doesn't *have* to be abolished. Instead it could be improved, a lot. If Flash was rewritten to consume a reasonable amount of CPU during video playback, along with all the other technical shortcomings it has, then it might be a good standard to have around. Some developers seem to like it for specific things (non-video related). Maybe the line we should all be pushing is "Flash should be improved."
What I find particularly ironic about this thread is that Android's browser uses Webkit. That's right, the open phone that's the enemy of Apple's uber-evil closed system is running a fork of khtml created and supported by Apple. Without Apple, Android probably wouldn't be as good. It just goes to show, somebody modded +5 on slashdot doesn't need to actually need to know anything about technology, they just need to be able to denigrate whatever technology company is currently the market leader.
You can make that connection if you like, but as you said, it's a khtml fork. It's silly to speculate about what Android would be without Apple's support of Webkit, as Google could have done lots of things for their browser engine, including supporting and developing a khtml fork.
What major PC web browser doesn't support HTML5? Chrome supports it, Safari supports it, Firefox supports it, Opera supports it, IE 9 supports most of it, and even IE 6 through 8 support it through the Chrome Frame plug-in.
So people say, but that doesn't guarantee it's true or consistent. As recently as a few weeks ago, I wrote a page using HTML5 functionality for a drag and drop multi-image uploader. Lo and behold, what worked fine in Firefox 3.6 didn't work at all in Chrome (current version on OSX). I understand HTML5 has a lot of people focusing on the video tag, but I don't do video, and everything I have explored in HTML5 brings me back to the days of new functionality only working in Firefox.
So in answer to your question, Chrome, at least on Mac, does NOT support HTML5, at least to the extent that I can count on something to work just because it's in the W3C HTML5 API Spec. Perhaps officially Mac Chrome supports everything, but I've spent the time looking longingly at the documentation telling me a certain bit of code should be recognized that isn't.
So it's easy: either they provide you with a computer to use at home, or you stop checking your email at home.
Or you encrypt your data, independently and competently. I suppose the issue is that they've chosen a restrictive and (apparently) buggy encryption solution, which likely leaves you the only option of not using your own computer for work related material. Nevertheless, I'm quite pleased to read about this attempt to require strong data security, even if they have bungled it with their choice of software. Complain as is appropriate when something that is required doesn't work, and have everyone who's had problems complain as well. Perhaps their next attempt will be more reasonable, opting for one of the many tools available that wouldn't give you pause.
This has nothing to do with "ego" or "professionalism". The only important issue here is stretching a criminal charge of "computer tampering" to deal with an insubordinate employee. I'd like to see the detailed explanation of 1) exactly how he is guilty of criminal computer tampering without a loose application of the charge, and 2) how much of that was evident at the time he was arrested. Barring that, I'd like to see at least the DA's resignation.
The guy, from what I have read, is not the most pleasant person in the world. However, again from what I have read, he was doing his job (even after being fired), and is being convicted of a crime for doing so (in a scenario where he was liable to prosecution for acting otherwise). What are the IT grunts in America going to do about this?
Well, I'm definitely never going to vote for Gavin Newsom in any future political aspirations he may have. Prior to his statements and actions in this specific affair, I quite liked him as a Mayor.
Well I can't find the link now but someone provided a link to their official policies, which said passwords to things like routers needed to be documented and stored. He didn't do that. Also, as the SFgate article notes, when asked for passwords he stalled and then provided bogus ones.
Official policies aren't laws. Laws are passed by elected officials, not a board of civil administrators.
It also seems like he was given ample chances. This escalated higher and higher until they finally said "You give us the passwords now, or we send you to jail." Turns out, they were not bluffing.
That doesn't make his arrest any more appropriate, and it's a terrible precedent that the arrest wasn't deemed illegal. The city had an insubordinate employee, and happens also to be able to arrest and prosecute people. Putting those two things together doesn't make it correct.
Are we getting too hung up on the password issue? Was his refusal to divulge the passwords what he's being found guilty of?
Or is it the fact that if he stepped in front of a bus, the city had no hope of being able to manage the network? My place of employment has "the password list" and it's known to more than one person. If the city allowed Childs to hold all the keys, they're pretty stupid. If they had a policy prohibiting that, I could understand why violating it could get you jail time.
Basically he was guilty of not providing the passwords to his superiors. This is equivalent to being hired by the city to build a new stadium and then refusing to give the city the keys. I do not know what everyone is so up in arms about.
I like your new stadium analogy; it's perfect. You see, if someone is paid by the city to build a new stadium then refuses to give the city the keys, they can hire a locksmith and sue the contractor for the cost incurred.
The difference is, it is not your network. It is their network and if they want to screw it up, that is their decision. For all I car they can do a `rm -rf/` as root after I give my boss the password. will just be sure that there is a trail that I did this.
I will not withhold anything from my boss, unless I am sure there is a big issue. That I will then discuss with my N+2 and if he does not see any problem (perhaps because they work together on whatever they do) I will still give the password and will let as many people know that I had to give it.
I will still be aware that it is not my network, not my computer or not my business.
It's still your job, and your independence. I can refuse to comply with any and all demands made by my employer. I can be fired as a result, and can even end up in court over whether it constituted a breach in contract (and if damages or penalties are owed as a result). Refusing to work isn't a crime.
The lesson here is to do whatever your boss says, even if it is incredibly stupid and will make your job entirely unmanageable...
Well, I would have to agree that my 'inner security geek', would have had to swallow really hard a few time before stating production passwords over a teleconference with unknown people. Hell, I would expect to be fired just for doing that.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Sometime you just have to suck it up and go look for another job. The sad part is that Terry was probably just a conscientous civil servant, and the boss was a know-nothing political appointee. Terry had probably seen more than a few of these appointed ass-hats come and go, and figured this was just another little tempest that would blow over.
Poor guy
No, damn it. The lesson here is that the criminal system can be abused to resolve business matters, and that all discourse is about the person who has been convicted rather then the people who convicted him. The Mayor and the DA are the ones people should be focusing on.
Slashdot Mirror
If I recall (it's been awhile since I've taken an engineering course) the first rule of engineering is if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Why reinvent the wheel when ePub is a perfectly good standard that is already darn near universal.
Working to get a common standard adopted is not reinventing the wheel (an analogy I don't like to begin with, since I'm pretty happy my car doesn't move on the original incarnation of the wheel). I agree entirely that ePub is a perfectly good standard, although I have heard people in the print business wish for better typesetting options. In any case, ePub can be the common standard, and any improvements needed can be incorporated in future versions of the ePub format.
So why does the existence of ePub have no impact on the import of this campaign for a universal e-book format? Simply put, it's not universal. If ePub presents us with a pre-existing format that is everything we need, it still needs to be universal. The important concept here doesn't demand a new format, it's the push toward a world where a person can buy e-books from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Apple, any e-book store, any publisher that sells its books in e-book format, and then be able to read purchases from all of those sources on the same e-book reader from any e-book maker, without extra steps of conversion (or breaking DRM).
My question is, where do I go to sign up and lend support to the campaign?
It's time to retire the Bill Gates Borg photo and replace it with a Steve Jobs Borg photo for Apple stories.
The Borg was appropriate for Microsoft; a different, more fitting graphic should be used for Steve Jobs. Maybe a graphic from Apple's famous 1984 commercial for the Macintosh, but with Steve Jobs on the big screen (telling everyone to be the same, do as he says)?
Unfortunately, you're exactly right. From the blog:
(sic)"It’s stated intention is to allow Flash banner ads to execute on the iPad and iPhone, but there are plenty of other interesting applications (such as news site infographics)."
There would be a lot of money to be made in cajoling those flash-based banner ads onto iPad / iPhone. Yep, lots o' money...
Okay, maybe he was thinking exactly what I just commented he probably wasn't thinking. Even so, writing something that bypasses strict lockouts for a technology is still pretty great from my perspective. I can ask myself which is more relevant to my nerdy/programmer side: the convenience of avoiding banner ads, or the creation of a new method to implement locked-out technology on a closed platform?
I don't like ads, but it's still an easy question to answer.
Hey, now those flash ads can bog you down EVEN MORE, and just in case you left Javascript on with flash uninstalled, you get the benefit of it as well!
Honestly, I think this will force most people to turn Javascript off if nothing else.
Real world implications aside, it still sounds like a pretty impressive work. I doubt Chris Smoak was thinking "I should write a way for obnoxious ads to circumvent existing blocking measures" when he set out to do this. Stories like this remind me that the hacker mindset is still around, where "you can't do X" is accepted as a challenge.
'Linux is open source and we feel good about it,' said one employee. 'Microsoft we don't feel so good about.'
However, they feel pretty good about a closed-source implementation of an open source operating system on locked-in hardware? This sounds rather flamebaity and very light on facts.
I don't think your logic rings true; that's an anonymous employee source talking about his/her self and what operating system in running on his/her workstation and likely the workstations of a few other employees s/he knows. It's hardly authoritative enough to speak for all the employees, and definitely not for the corporate strategy. Maybe the quoted source feels good about running a Linux OS for a workstation because of the whole "closed-source implementation of an open source operating system on locked-in hardware" thing going on. Inferring too much from that quote is just speculation, unfounded leaps of logic, or something else entirely (which of course also goes for anything which the article author implies from it).
Let's look at facts instead of hyperbole.
1. The iPod has been around for almost nine years and iPhone for three years. Hardly a hyped up fad that will disappear overnight. The Walkman lost its relevance when CDs came out. Perhaps there's a new disruptive music technology sometime in the future but we'd be hard pressed to name it right now.
2. Microsoft's earnings are flat over three years while Apple's has more than doubled. That's not even including the iPad. Microsoft's growth will come from Windows 7, server and office products but that's mostly coming from corporate spending which is still down in the dumps. Xbox is basically a break even product line so it's not even worth mentioning in this conversation.
Just to interject a minor point as we're looking at facts, the Walkman lost it's relevance when the iPod itself came out, drawing enough popularity to dedicated MP3 players. Sony's CD Walkman line was right in tune with what Sony did well with portable music: play physical media in a sexy package.
Perhaps eatings its own offspring might suffice?
I think the farming metaphor would be "eating the seed corn". (I'm not sure if it's quite the same metaphor, but it at least has the advantage of not being horrifying to think about)
I'm pretty sure there's no way to rescue the metaphor and have it still be the professor's own, "penis-eating" choice of imagery. What a bizarrely convoluted attempt to illustrate so simple a concept.
At least now when you flip the iPad up-side-down, subscription cards don't come falling out.
But then how do you keep track of where you last left off in iBooks?
Or use a phone/SIM purchased outside the US or use a stolen phone, etc. They also might not care, I don't think the 9/11 hijackers cared if we ID'd them afterwords since they were already willing to die for their cause.
Somehow I don't think a foreign SIM card roaming on US networks would be hard to trace. Stolen phones pose the same problems as always, but they have to at least be stolen first. As I recall, the 9/11 hijackers didn't care about being ID'd beforehand. It may be incorrectly emphasized, but it generally seems that terrorists involved with planning, carrying out, or failing to carry out attacks inside the US have been in the country legally, with their own identities, using legally bought materials.
No, humans pretty much hate seeing other humans succeed in general, deserved or not. It's an emotion allied with envy. The Germans actually have a word for the good feeling you get from seeing successful people screw up: "Schadenfreude."
You're trying to rationalize your emotional reaction to this news rather than interrogate its validity.
You're stretching the definition of the word "Schadenfreude" to fit your point: it does not. Schadenfreude has no connection to success or successful people, and it's hardly on the same page as envy. You would be better off applying it to the popularity of "America's Funniest Home Videos" than you would using it to illustrate the concept that people don't like a winner.
If I'm playing a game with a storyline and a quest, I want the gameplay to be tight, focused on the storyline, and with minimum to no distractions or side quests. I play those games for the story, I don't want to wander around lost or go off and do other things- I want the story, and I want a well written plotline engaging and long enough to be worth the game with nothing else tacked on.
I won't disagree with your interest in well-written stories, but the thing about side quests and unmarked quests is that they are optional. I can understand your stance perfectly, but I like a game to have optional exploration -- a lot of it. You can play Fallout 3 from Vault 101 to Megaton to GNR to RC to the Jefferson Memorial to Vault 112 and keep going until the game is over, but you'll miss out on chatting with Harold, finding Rockopolis, rigging an election in a shack, and so much more.
I look for storylines mainly in RPGs and for an RPG to work, I need to have some space with my character that isn't in the "tunnel of events" that so ofter describes how I feel about the main quest line. Video games tell stories in which you have limited control over your character, which presents a unique dilemma: you might pick a profession, allot personality traits, select gear, make limited decisions that reflect on your personality in largely insignificant ways, but, in the end, you're going to end up fighting the same final boss and saving the world. The more is taken up by the main quest, the more events for your character are scripted, and more and more of the decisions you have to make can only take you in the one direction.
Side quests and exploration free you from that problem, even if just a little. You can succeed, or you can fail. You can be a hero, or a bastard. Since they don't affect the ability to complete the game, they create more room to play your character and interact with the in-game world. I don't consider such things distractions. In my mind, being able to wander into towns that have things going on that aren't tied to some destiny of mine makes the story all the better.
As much as I love Android there are other things that could be improved.
Until I have NoScript I don't want Flash anywhere near my Android! And even then I'd like to think sites will soon be moving away from Flash and it'll be unnecessary. For awhile there the lack of Flash on devices was a good reason not to use it. Now the nonsense can run wild again.
If you don't want Flash on your system, why install it? You can enjoy a lack of Flash on ALL your computers, you know, and NoScript is not required.
Why haven't you just uninstalled flash on it?
Seriously, Flash is just a plug-in. If you don't like it, uninstall it completely from your system, like you would any other software you hated. Just because Android 2.2 will support the plug-in doesn't mean it's going to be required. I don't really get why someone would feel so strongly about not liking Flash -- it's only on your computer if you've chosen to a) install it or b) keep it. Whether you use an iPhone, a Windows, Mac, or Linux desktop, you can equally "not support" Flash by not installing it.
That doesn't mean it's a GOOD industry standard. Flash should be abolished.
To be completely fair, Flash doesn't *have* to be abolished. Instead it could be improved, a lot. If Flash was rewritten to consume a reasonable amount of CPU during video playback, along with all the other technical shortcomings it has, then it might be a good standard to have around. Some developers seem to like it for specific things (non-video related). Maybe the line we should all be pushing is "Flash should be improved."
What I find particularly ironic about this thread is that Android's browser uses Webkit. That's right, the open phone that's the enemy of Apple's uber-evil closed system is running a fork of khtml created and supported by Apple. Without Apple, Android probably wouldn't be as good. It just goes to show, somebody modded +5 on slashdot doesn't need to actually need to know anything about technology, they just need to be able to denigrate whatever technology company is currently the market leader.
You can make that connection if you like, but as you said, it's a khtml fork. It's silly to speculate about what Android would be without Apple's support of Webkit, as Google could have done lots of things for their browser engine, including supporting and developing a khtml fork.
Game consoles play major label games, not games in general.
That's much too general a statement to be true.
What major PC web browser doesn't support HTML5? Chrome supports it, Safari supports it, Firefox supports it, Opera supports it, IE 9 supports most of it, and even IE 6 through 8 support it through the Chrome Frame plug-in.
So people say, but that doesn't guarantee it's true or consistent. As recently as a few weeks ago, I wrote a page using HTML5 functionality for a drag and drop multi-image uploader. Lo and behold, what worked fine in Firefox 3.6 didn't work at all in Chrome (current version on OSX). I understand HTML5 has a lot of people focusing on the video tag, but I don't do video, and everything I have explored in HTML5 brings me back to the days of new functionality only working in Firefox.
So in answer to your question, Chrome, at least on Mac, does NOT support HTML5, at least to the extent that I can count on something to work just because it's in the W3C HTML5 API Spec. Perhaps officially Mac Chrome supports everything, but I've spent the time looking longingly at the documentation telling me a certain bit of code should be recognized that isn't.
So it's easy: either they provide you with a computer to use at home, or you stop checking your email at home.
Or you encrypt your data, independently and competently. I suppose the issue is that they've chosen a restrictive and (apparently) buggy encryption solution, which likely leaves you the only option of not using your own computer for work related material. Nevertheless, I'm quite pleased to read about this attempt to require strong data security, even if they have bungled it with their choice of software. Complain as is appropriate when something that is required doesn't work, and have everyone who's had problems complain as well. Perhaps their next attempt will be more reasonable, opting for one of the many tools available that wouldn't give you pause.
You're talking about business. This is city government. Managers don't make the policies in government.
It's also worth pointing out that while laws can produce policy, city administrative policies don't produce laws.
This has nothing to do with "ego" or "professionalism". The only important issue here is stretching a criminal charge of "computer tampering" to deal with an insubordinate employee. I'd like to see the detailed explanation of 1) exactly how he is guilty of criminal computer tampering without a loose application of the charge, and 2) how much of that was evident at the time he was arrested. Barring that, I'd like to see at least the DA's resignation.
The guy, from what I have read, is not the most pleasant person in the world. However, again from what I have read, he was doing his job (even after being fired), and is being convicted of a crime for doing so (in a scenario where he was liable to prosecution for acting otherwise). What are the IT grunts in America going to do about this?
Well, I'm definitely never going to vote for Gavin Newsom in any future political aspirations he may have. Prior to his statements and actions in this specific affair, I quite liked him as a Mayor.
Well I can't find the link now but someone provided a link to their official policies, which said passwords to things like routers needed to be documented and stored. He didn't do that. Also, as the SFgate article notes, when asked for passwords he stalled and then provided bogus ones.
Official policies aren't laws. Laws are passed by elected officials, not a board of civil administrators.
It also seems like he was given ample chances. This escalated higher and higher until they finally said "You give us the passwords now, or we send you to jail." Turns out, they were not bluffing.
That doesn't make his arrest any more appropriate, and it's a terrible precedent that the arrest wasn't deemed illegal. The city had an insubordinate employee, and happens also to be able to arrest and prosecute people. Putting those two things together doesn't make it correct.
Are we getting too hung up on the password issue? Was his refusal to divulge the passwords what he's being found guilty of?
Or is it the fact that if he stepped in front of a bus, the city had no hope of being able to manage the network? My place of employment has "the password list" and it's known to more than one person. If the city allowed Childs to hold all the keys, they're pretty stupid. If they had a policy prohibiting that, I could understand why violating it could get you jail time.
Basically he was guilty of not providing the passwords to his superiors. This is equivalent to being hired by the city to build a new stadium and then refusing to give the city the keys. I do not know what everyone is so up in arms about.
I like your new stadium analogy; it's perfect. You see, if someone is paid by the city to build a new stadium then refuses to give the city the keys, they can hire a locksmith and sue the contractor for the cost incurred.
The difference is, it is not your network. It is their network and if they want to screw it up, that is their decision. For all I car they can do a `rm -rf /` as root after I give my boss the password. will just be sure that there is a trail that I did this.
I will not withhold anything from my boss, unless I am sure there is a big issue. That I will then discuss with my N+2 and if he does not see any problem (perhaps because they work together on whatever they do) I will still give the password and will let as many people know that I had to give it.
I will still be aware that it is not my network, not my computer or not my business.
It's still your job, and your independence. I can refuse to comply with any and all demands made by my employer. I can be fired as a result, and can even end up in court over whether it constituted a breach in contract (and if damages or penalties are owed as a result). Refusing to work isn't a crime.
The lesson here is to do whatever your boss says, even if it is incredibly stupid and will make your job entirely unmanageable...
Well, I would have to agree that my 'inner security geek', would have had to swallow really hard a few time before stating production passwords over a teleconference with unknown people. Hell, I would expect to be fired just for doing that.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Sometime you just have to suck it up and go look for another job. The sad part is that Terry was probably just a conscientous civil servant, and the boss was a know-nothing political appointee. Terry had probably seen more than a few of these appointed ass-hats come and go, and figured this was just another little tempest that would blow over.
Poor guy
No, damn it. The lesson here is that the criminal system can be abused to resolve business matters, and that all discourse is about the person who has been convicted rather then the people who convicted him. The Mayor and the DA are the ones people should be focusing on.