If I can be forgiven for porting my response here:
The InfoWorld article linked to is remarkable and revealing, in particular, to me, because I have seen this exact scenario in multiple work settings. The people with actual networking knowledge and talent control access so that the employees with "just enough knowledge to be dangerous" don't BREAK THE SYSTEM.
That's not ego or theory. I've seen it happen so many times I couldn't count: technicians who think they know what they're doing but don't adequately research their ideas (or study enough in general) are prone to wreaking all sorts of havoc on the network. This Childs fellow may well be controlling or even arrogant. But what if -- just humor the notion -- in his work environment he was actually right? That had he shared access with the less competent admins with which he may have been surrounded, the San Fran government would have had a far less stable, secure network.
I don't know, but given what I've seen, it's quite plausible. Not his call to make, I'd agree. But then, it seems that for some time, his direct superior didn't insist otherwise. Bad call, of course -- but not Childs' fault.
I'm starting to suspect his arrest and being charged were ridiculously hasty and unnecessary. Conceivably the outcome of his immediate superior(s) running an exaggerated "renegade" story up the chain of command, as much out of interpersonal distaste for Childs as actual concern over his reluctance to give up a password on demand.
Perhaps the new gap-filler for managerial incompetence: employee prosecution.
Ms. Drew's prank was ill-considered and reprehensible. But it has been acknowledged that Megan Meier suffered from clinical depression. Suicide means it was the depression that killed her, not the MySpace hoax.
What if some other adult in Megan's life had said something mean to her, and she later committed suicide? Would that adult then have been charged? What if teasing at school had immediately proceeded her death? Would it have been treated as a death inflicted by the teaser? How many adolescents who don't suffer from clinical depression are mercilessly teased, and never commit suicide?
I know, the charges against Ms. Drew are actually for misrepresentation, hence violation of MySpace terms of service. How many of the World's Internet users are guilty of misrepresenting themselves in some way (e.g., age, gender, occupation, etc.)? And by extension, are the charges supposed to herald the end of anonymity on the Internet? Does anyone want the liberties that only anonymity can protect somehow abolished? Or intimidated away?
The big picture counts. We might be disgusted with Ms. Drew's conduct. But legally prosecuting all bad behavior comprises an attack on freedom far more problematic, and affecting us all, than this person's foolish, mean-spirited prank.
Slashdot Mirror
If I can be forgiven for porting my response here:
The InfoWorld article linked to is remarkable and revealing, in particular, to me, because I have seen this exact scenario in multiple work settings. The people with actual networking knowledge and talent control access so that the employees with "just enough knowledge to be dangerous" don't BREAK THE SYSTEM.
That's not ego or theory. I've seen it happen so many times I couldn't count: technicians who think they know what they're doing but don't adequately research their ideas (or study enough in general) are prone to wreaking all sorts of havoc on the network. This Childs fellow may well be controlling or even arrogant. But what if -- just humor the notion -- in his work environment he was actually right? That had he shared access with the less competent admins with which he may have been surrounded, the San Fran government would have had a far less stable, secure network.
I don't know, but given what I've seen, it's quite plausible. Not his call to make, I'd agree. But then, it seems that for some time, his direct superior didn't insist otherwise. Bad call, of course -- but not Childs' fault.
I'm starting to suspect his arrest and being charged were ridiculously hasty and unnecessary. Conceivably the outcome of his immediate superior(s) running an exaggerated "renegade" story up the chain of command, as much out of interpersonal distaste for Childs as actual concern over his reluctance to give up a password on demand.
Perhaps the new gap-filler for managerial incompetence: employee prosecution.
Ms. Drew's prank was ill-considered and reprehensible. But it has been acknowledged that Megan Meier suffered from clinical depression. Suicide means it was the depression that killed her, not the MySpace hoax.
What if some other adult in Megan's life had said something mean to her, and she later committed suicide? Would that adult then have been charged? What if teasing at school had immediately proceeded her death? Would it have been treated as a death inflicted by the teaser? How many adolescents who don't suffer from clinical depression are mercilessly teased, and never commit suicide?
I know, the charges against Ms. Drew are actually for misrepresentation, hence violation of MySpace terms of service. How many of the World's Internet users are guilty of misrepresenting themselves in some way (e.g., age, gender, occupation, etc.)? And by extension, are the charges supposed to herald the end of anonymity on the Internet? Does anyone want the liberties that only anonymity can protect somehow abolished? Or intimidated away?
The big picture counts. We might be disgusted with Ms. Drew's conduct. But legally prosecuting all bad behavior comprises an attack on freedom far more problematic, and affecting us all, than this person's foolish, mean-spirited prank.