Well you kind of blew holes in their 'argument' in your first sentence. The fact that Management was in possession of the passwords if something went wrong. Unless his management SysAdmin's on the side, they would have had to request said passwords from him. If some harm came to the network, any logs would show where it came from (IP's, MAC addresses, dates, times, etc). Digital trails can be messy, but not that messy and obfuscated, but not completely.
His personal feelings in the matter are irrelevant. Business is not a democracy (even in a democracy he would have been outvoted as he was the only objector). He was given a directive by his management, and he failed to comply. When he was fired, he refused to surrender the passwords, which then became a case of Intellectual Property Theft.
"What is Intellectual Property Theft? Intellectual property theft is different than the theft of physical property. Instead, it involves stealing or misusing proprietary information a company (or person) owns. Examples of intellectual property include copyrights (which protect things such as written material, audio or video recordings, and even computer code), trademarks (which protect things like a company name, product name, logo, slogan, or package design), trade secrets (like a restaurant's secret recipe), and patents (which protect inventions or discoveries, like the composition of a new medication). "
These passwords would be considered a trade secret. He would not be required to 'wipe his memory' or whatever drama folks are claiming in here, but they were created while he was an employee, and they are owned by the employer. He is legally bound to surrender them. He was ordered to surrender them before he was fired. Any works created by someone in the employee of a business is owned by the business. The law is very clear about cases like this. He used company time, money, and hardware/infrastructure to create said passwords. No amount of wrangling or pleading about his feelings, or other silly drama will change that fact.
Where does it say it was a policy? TFA says he felt the "mayor was the only person he could trust".
From TFA: "Jailed IT admin Terry Childs relinquished his hold over San Francisco's multimillion-dollar FiberWAN, handing his administrative passwords over to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who was 'the only person he felt he could trust."
Most likely, your company has legal agreements that everyone agrees to when they put a personal device on the company network (assuming that's allowed at all). For instance, we have such a policy for person iPhones indicating they can be wiped to ensure company data is no longer on the device. If this guy put company data on a personal device without authorization, then he would be liable for theft as well.
If in doubt, simply ask your legal department. If you don't have a legal department, then I would suggest you get a better job;)
The professional thing to do would be to surrender them as expected. Do you seriously believe that any Admin in ANY job isn't expected to answer to his management (you know, the people who hired him)?
Are you seriously suggesting it's professional for employees to reject management directives because they 'feel' it's not a good idea?
Would you hire such a person? I wouldn't. He could have raised objections, and if management decided to go ahead, then it is out of his hands and not his decision.
Except for the whole point that they fired him for refusing to give them the passwords? It's a matter of public record at this point. He could have easily asked for a waiver from them to indicate they understand the risks and it would have been done, in addition to the paper and digital trail where they requested the passwords.
He also could have raised concerns to H.R. who would have been obligated to note his concerns in his file.
They didn't 'misplace' them. They knew exactly where they were placed. Obviously they did not have the passwords in their possession, hence the very reason for this man's arrest. They don't require that he 'wipe his memory'. The law does require that he surrender the information.
It is well established that inventions or other IP created while under the employee of a company are the exclusive property of said company. There are countless cases that state this VERY clearly. He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
By your logic, he could write the passwords down and bury it in some hidden location on their property to claim they are in possession. The law would laugh you out of court (and I daresay you know it).
On a side note: Yes, your explaining it 'horribly badly'.
So by your reasoning, he could snatch up anything in the office before they said "your fired", and legally keep it? Hell, by your reasoning, he could simply start snatching up company property with the express intent of getting fired for doing so, but he would still get to keep his parting gifts?
Intellectual property (IP) is a number of distinct types of legal monopolies over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial, and the corresponding fields of law.[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs.
When he was fired, and refused to give up the passwords, it became stealing.
He didn't steal the network. He stole the passwords. Passwords are not an obligation. They are company property. He still has to leave everything company owned behind, unless you can point out the relevant law that says otherwise?
Irrelevant. He is still obligated to supply the passwords as they are not his property. When you are fired from work, you can't simply raid your cubicle and take everything in it. The same applies to any company property.
It's not like this guy started yelling the passwords while his bosses were screaming "La La La La" with their fingers in their ears. He has a very clear request from his management that they requested the passwords. What they do with them from that point on is solely their responsibility.
If employees could simply do what they wished at work because they didn't happen to like what their place of employment was doing, we would have a very different workplace these days. That obviously isn't the case.
It doesn't matter since in this case, the people this guy works for asked for the passwords. He is completely free of guilt should they screw things up and no court would hold him responsible for doing exactly what his duties required him to do.
He never owned these passwords, the hardware, the systems, or the infrastructure he worked on. When the owners asked for the password, he should have noted his concerns, and given them up.
You depopulation link points out that the British Foreign Office actually did the depopulating. The US just benefited from it (along with the UK of course).
Also, comparing wiretaps to the great firewall isn't exactly apples to apples. At least we can go where we wish on the internet. Big brother is just watching, opposed to China, which just can't go anywhere not sanctioned by the government (proxy hacks aside) Care to be more specific about Katrina? I don't recall any cases of police abuse. Failure to prevent crime due to 'save yourself' attitudes, but cops 'oppressing' or subjugating people? Can you point out a link? As to your media reference, the US Media has very little respect for the US government. Have you even watched Fox News, and MSNBC? It's all about the story, regardless of how embarrassing it is for whatever administration is in office.
Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up") is a legal concept in the common law legal systems mostly applied in tort cases to achieve money compensation (damages) for physical and mental injuries (not accidents).
Negligence is a type of tort or delict (also known as a civil wrong). "Negligence" is not the same as "carelessness", because someone might be exercising as much care as they are capable of, yet still fall below the level of competence expected of them. It is the opposite of "diligence".
In this case, the reader was not set up to be easily accessible. You can't just plug it in to a USB port and install Android on it. It takes special skills to figure out how to hack it and root it. Claiming that they left it open to hacking is rather disingenuous IMO. No piece of hardware is immune to hacking, especially when you have physical access to the hardware. I would say the manufacturer took reasonable precautions and if someone bypassed those, then the hackers are responsible. I would equate what they did to picking a lock to get in someone's house. You don't lock every door in your house, you lock the front door.
From TFA: "If you tear open a Nook (which the team has done) you’ll find that the Android operating system is contained on a microSD card (separate from the microSD expansion slot). From here, it’s a simple matter of using a card reader to mount this card on your computer and changing a single word in the init.rc file (the file that’s in charge of which services are begun at startup, similar to a Linux boot).
This single hack will let you plug the Nook into your computer (once you have reassembled it) and access the OS, using the freely available Google Android developers kit. Right now you’ll have to be a hardcore nerd to make much use of this, but as we saw with the iPhone, these things progress to user-friendly applications fairly fast, especially when the hard work has already been done."
I would equate what they had to go through to root this thing a reasonable effort to resist casual hacking.
Yes and no. Those 'meat sacks' are necessary to raise capital. Nasa has become a very political organization. In order to raise public interest, there has to be a human element. Without it, they lose funding. You have to have something that will fire up the imagination of the voters.
Sending a probe is great. Sending a human and claiming 'first post' on Mars or what not is historic.
The problem with a larger picture is that each country has different critera as to what constitutes a specific type of crime whereas they almost all universally agree as to what constitutes a homicide. I do agree there is a downward trend (for instance, the US rate was twice what it is now as compared to the rate in 1980), but that downward trend for homicide has slowed and actually reversed in recent years and is now waffling between 5 to 6 (it's actually increased slightly from 2000 to 2008).
Yes and no. I think sexuality takes on an entirely different aspect when it's hidden. The same sort of appeal that a clad person will evoke rather than a naked one.
Violence on the other hand seems to be more of a learned response, especially when it comes to homicide, peer pressure, gang related activity, etc, where sexuality is a more natural response due to natural curiosity, hormone changes during puberty, etc.
Personally I don't think people have a deep urge to kill, where they do get a deep urge to jump their hot neighbors bones;)
I never understood the puritan view we have in American in regards to Sex and Violence. I actually agree that we should minimize exposure to violence for children. I have to wonder if we're a bit backward. It seems like Europe has a much better view on things. Minimize exposure to violence for young children, but don't be so paranoid about sexual content. Violent crime has always been out of control in the US as compared to similarly developed countries overseas. We allow our children to watch all sorts of violent movies, play violent games, yet we shelter them from any exposure to sexuality like it was some sort of dirty secret.
(note, the difference is rape rates between the US and Europe is even more pronounced, with the US showing about 7 times the rate of European nations).
What's wrong with this picture?
Homicides for every 100,000 persons:
Ireland [0.9] Germany [0.9] Norway [1.0] United Kingdom [1.4] France [1.6] Canada [1.9] Scotland [1.59] United States [5.6] Russia [20.15] Venezuela [31.61] Jamaica [32.41] Colombia [61.78]
What part of Recommendation do you not understand? The company is certainly within it's rights to ignore the recommendation, however if it makes sense, and children are likely to get online without parental consent or supervision, then why not? Your argument that it would cost the company more money is a rather broad statement. It could be something as simple as requiring a credit card number, which on the back end would be a database, and an additional authentication page when setting up the account.
They didn't restrict anything. They made recommendations. They are doing what a government is supposed to do. If they didn't, you wouldn't have safety in the workplace, safety in toys, safety against harmful chemicals, etc.
Well said. I can't agree more. It seems like the news has gotten so much more sensationalist these last few years, blowing up stories totally out of proportion. Whatever happened to responsible journalism?
I was shocked to learn that Palin believes in Gravity myself;)
On a more serious note, I don't think anyone but political pundits and extremists will pay this much attention. I know the lay person certainly isn't going to run out and read all of these e-mails. Science at it's very basic level is all about debate and questioning. That's how we arrive at workable theories. To say that are arguing with each other and contradictory is rather stupid to not put too fine a point on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well you kind of blew holes in their 'argument' in your first sentence. The fact that Management was in possession of the passwords if something went wrong. Unless his management SysAdmin's on the side, they would have had to request said passwords from him. If some harm came to the network, any logs would show where it came from (IP's, MAC addresses, dates, times, etc). Digital trails can be messy, but not that messy and obfuscated, but not completely.
His personal feelings in the matter are irrelevant. Business is not a democracy (even in a democracy he would have been outvoted as he was the only objector). He was given a directive by his management, and he failed to comply. When he was fired, he refused to surrender the passwords, which then became a case of Intellectual Property Theft.
"What is Intellectual Property Theft?
Intellectual property theft is different than the theft of physical property. Instead, it involves stealing or misusing proprietary information a company (or person) owns. Examples of intellectual property include copyrights (which protect things such as written material, audio or video recordings, and even computer code), trademarks (which protect things like a company name, product name, logo, slogan, or package design), trade secrets (like a restaurant's secret recipe), and patents (which protect inventions or discoveries, like the composition of a new medication). "
These passwords would be considered a trade secret. He would not be required to 'wipe his memory' or whatever drama folks are claiming in here, but they were created while he was an employee, and they are owned by the employer. He is legally bound to surrender them. He was ordered to surrender them before he was fired. Any works created by someone in the employee of a business is owned by the business. The law is very clear about cases like this. He used company time, money, and hardware/infrastructure to create said passwords. No amount of wrangling or pleading about his feelings, or other silly drama will change that fact.
Where does it say it was a policy? TFA says he felt the "mayor was the only person he could trust".
From TFA: "Jailed IT admin Terry Childs relinquished his hold over San Francisco's multimillion-dollar FiberWAN, handing his administrative passwords over to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who was 'the only person he felt he could trust."
Personal feelings do not a policy make...
Most likely, your company has legal agreements that everyone agrees to when they put a personal device on the company network (assuming that's allowed at all). For instance, we have such a policy for person iPhones indicating they can be wiped to ensure company data is no longer on the device. If this guy put company data on a personal device without authorization, then he would be liable for theft as well.
If in doubt, simply ask your legal department. If you don't have a legal department, then I would suggest you get a better job ;)
The professional thing to do would be to surrender them as expected. Do you seriously believe that any Admin in ANY job isn't expected to answer to his management (you know, the people who hired him)?
Are you seriously suggesting it's professional for employees to reject management directives because they 'feel' it's not a good idea?
Would you hire such a person? I wouldn't. He could have raised objections, and if management decided to go ahead, then it is out of his hands and not his decision.
Except for the whole point that they fired him for refusing to give them the passwords? It's a matter of public record at this point. He could have easily asked for a waiver from them to indicate they understand the risks and it would have been done, in addition to the paper and digital trail where they requested the passwords.
He also could have raised concerns to H.R. who would have been obligated to note his concerns in his file.
This guy is an idiot.
They didn't 'misplace' them. They knew exactly where they were placed. Obviously they did not have the passwords in their possession, hence the very reason for this man's arrest. They don't require that he 'wipe his memory'. The law does require that he surrender the information.
It is well established that inventions or other IP created while under the employee of a company are the exclusive property of said company. There are countless cases that state this VERY clearly. He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
By your logic, he could write the passwords down and bury it in some hidden location on their property to claim they are in possession. The law would laugh you out of court (and I daresay you know it).
On a side note: Yes, your explaining it 'horribly badly'.
So by your reasoning, he could snatch up anything in the office before they said "your fired", and legally keep it? Hell, by your reasoning, he could simply start snatching up company property with the express intent of getting fired for doing so, but he would still get to keep his parting gifts?
I don't think so...
No, it's Intellectual Property, but property all the same.
Two words. Intellectual Property.
Intellectual property (IP) is a number of distinct types of legal monopolies over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial, and the corresponding fields of law.[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs.
When he was fired, and refused to give up the passwords, it became stealing.
He didn't steal the network. He stole the passwords. Passwords are not an obligation. They are company property. He still has to leave everything company owned behind, unless you can point out the relevant law that says otherwise?
Irrelevant. He is still obligated to supply the passwords as they are not his property. When you are fired from work, you can't simply raid your cubicle and take everything in it. The same applies to any company property.
It's not like this guy started yelling the passwords while his bosses were screaming "La La La La" with their fingers in their ears. He has a very clear request from his management that they requested the passwords. What they do with them from that point on is solely their responsibility.
If employees could simply do what they wished at work because they didn't happen to like what their place of employment was doing, we would have a very different workplace these days. That obviously isn't the case.
It doesn't matter since in this case, the people this guy works for asked for the passwords. He is completely free of guilt should they screw things up and no court would hold him responsible for doing exactly what his duties required him to do.
He never owned these passwords, the hardware, the systems, or the infrastructure he worked on. When the owners asked for the password, he should have noted his concerns, and given them up.
You depopulation link points out that the British Foreign Office actually did the depopulating. The US just benefited from it (along with the UK of course).
Also, comparing wiretaps to the great firewall isn't exactly apples to apples. At least we can go where we wish on the internet. Big brother is just watching, opposed to China, which just can't go anywhere not sanctioned by the government (proxy hacks aside)
Care to be more specific about Katrina? I don't recall any cases of police abuse. Failure to prevent crime due to 'save yourself' attitudes, but cops 'oppressing' or subjugating people? Can you point out a link?
As to your media reference, the US Media has very little respect for the US government. Have you even watched Fox News, and MSNBC? It's all about the story, regardless of how embarrassing it is for whatever administration is in office.
From Wikipedia:
Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up") is a legal concept in the common law legal systems mostly applied in tort cases to achieve money compensation (damages) for physical and mental injuries (not accidents).
Negligence is a type of tort or delict (also known as a civil wrong). "Negligence" is not the same as "carelessness" , because someone might be exercising as much care as they are capable of, yet still fall below the level of competence expected of them. It is the opposite of "diligence".
In this case, the reader was not set up to be easily accessible. You can't just plug it in to a USB port and install Android on it. It takes special skills to figure out how to hack it and root it. Claiming that they left it open to hacking is rather disingenuous IMO. No piece of hardware is immune to hacking, especially when you have physical access to the hardware. I would say the manufacturer took reasonable precautions and if someone bypassed those, then the hackers are responsible. I would equate what they did to picking a lock to get in someone's house. You don't lock every door in your house, you lock the front door.
From TFA:
"If you tear open a Nook (which the team has done) you’ll find that the Android operating system is contained on a microSD card (separate from the microSD expansion slot). From here, it’s a simple matter of using a card reader to mount this card on your computer and changing a single word in the init.rc file (the file that’s in charge of which services are begun at startup, similar to a Linux boot).
This single hack will let you plug the Nook into your computer (once you have reassembled it) and access the OS, using the freely available Google Android developers kit. Right now you’ll have to be a hardcore nerd to make much use of this, but as we saw with the iPhone, these things progress to user-friendly applications fairly fast, especially when the hard work has already been done."
I would equate what they had to go through to root this thing a reasonable effort to resist casual hacking.
Yes and no. Those 'meat sacks' are necessary to raise capital. Nasa has become a very political organization. In order to raise public interest, there has to be a human element. Without it, they lose funding. You have to have something that will fire up the imagination of the voters.
Sending a probe is great. Sending a human and claiming 'first post' on Mars or what not is historic.
Yes, but Americans have an extremely difficult time separating the two. It's a cultural change to do so, and not one they could easily adapt to.
This equates to Digital Book Burning. This is an essential liberty.
The problem with a larger picture is that each country has different critera as to what constitutes a specific type of crime whereas they almost all universally agree as to what constitutes a homicide. I do agree there is a downward trend (for instance, the US rate was twice what it is now as compared to the rate in 1980), but that downward trend for homicide has slowed and actually reversed in recent years and is now waffling between 5 to 6 (it's actually increased slightly from 2000 to 2008).
Here's a nice slice of crime from 1960 - Current: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Yes and no. I think sexuality takes on an entirely different aspect when it's hidden. The same sort of appeal that a clad person will evoke rather than a naked one.
Violence on the other hand seems to be more of a learned response, especially when it comes to homicide, peer pressure, gang related activity, etc, where sexuality is a more natural response due to natural curiosity, hormone changes during puberty, etc.
Personally I don't think people have a deep urge to kill, where they do get a deep urge to jump their hot neighbors bones ;)
I never understood the puritan view we have in American in regards to Sex and Violence. I actually agree that we should minimize exposure to violence for children. I have to wonder if we're a bit backward. It seems like Europe has a much better view on things. Minimize exposure to violence for young children, but don't be so paranoid about sexual content. Violent crime has always been out of control in the US as compared to similarly developed countries overseas. We allow our children to watch all sorts of violent movies, play violent games, yet we shelter them from any exposure to sexuality like it was some sort of dirty secret.
(note, the difference is rape rates between the US and Europe is even more pronounced, with the US showing about 7 times the rate of European nations).
What's wrong with this picture?
Homicides for every 100,000 persons:
Ireland [0.9]
Germany [0.9]
Norway [1.0]
United Kingdom [1.4]
France [1.6]
Canada [1.9]
Scotland [1.59]
United States [5.6]
Russia [20.15]
Venezuela [31.61]
Jamaica [32.41]
Colombia [61.78]
What part of Recommendation do you not understand? The company is certainly within it's rights to ignore the recommendation, however if it makes sense, and children are likely to get online without parental consent or supervision, then why not? Your argument that it would cost the company more money is a rather broad statement. It could be something as simple as requiring a credit card number, which on the back end would be a database, and an additional authentication page when setting up the account.
They didn't restrict anything. They made recommendations. They are doing what a government is supposed to do. If they didn't, you wouldn't have safety in the workplace, safety in toys, safety against harmful chemicals, etc.
Well said. I can't agree more. It seems like the news has gotten so much more sensationalist these last few years, blowing up stories totally out of proportion. Whatever happened to responsible journalism?
I was shocked to learn that Palin believes in Gravity myself ;)
On a more serious note, I don't think anyone but political pundits and extremists will pay this much attention. I know the lay person certainly isn't going to run out and read all of these e-mails. Science at it's very basic level is all about debate and questioning. That's how we arrive at workable theories. To say that are arguing with each other and contradictory is rather stupid to not put too fine a point on it.