You haven't established that his supervisors were not supposed to have access to it, and that position is highly unlikely.
it's an equal chance
No, it's not. Holding the network hostage was likely to get him in jail. If he had given his passwords to his supervisor when they demanded it, and then someone broke into it, the chances of the DA bringing charges are so astronomically low as to be laughable. And they are nowhere near "equal."
"In 2006, writing about future threats on privacy, I described a life recorder: A "life recorder" you can wear on your lapel that constantly records is still a few generations off: 200 gigabytes/year for audio and 700 gigabytes/year for video. It'll be sold as a security device, so that no one can attack you without being recorded."
Ok, so you foretold a life recorder in 2006 on your blog. Some other guy has now suggested the same thing on his blog. The technology still isn't around. Is any part of this story news at all?
It seems pretty trivial to do something illegal, have a sock puppet sue you, have it designated a class action, settle for a pittance, and then remove the legal right to sue from anyone who doesn't remember to opt out in time.
Using a "sock puppet" is against the law, and the court has to approve any settlement in a class action.
I doubt very much that the supervisors weren't allowed to demand the passwords. Do you have a cite showing otherwise?
Policy above their heads changed, and their access was revoked, along with any other personnel that did not have a need to regularly access the server room.
A better analogy to the Childs case would be the same person or persons changing the policy in the first place deciding to change it back; and the stubborn sysadmin clinging to the old one.
Maybe so, but in my experience they are more likely to learn from their mistakes and stop dating losers. In general, the whole 'women only date misogynistic losers' idea seems to emanate from misogynistic losers who think of themselves as nice guys, but still can't get a date, or from men with no self esteem and poor social skills. Actual nice guys with confidence and self esteem never seem to have many problems getting dates, unless they are fat, ugly, and/or poor.
I think it's more complicated like that, and I certainly don't think women only date misogynistic losers; in fact I think a significant majority of women (at least past the age of 21), tend to make perfectly reasonable dating choices. I do think a significant minority of women (and again, men) seem to make irrational and self-destructive choices, and it's never (or almost never) about a failure of intelligence.
Ehh, I wouldn't necessarily discount smart women. In my experience smart women (like smart men) are also likely to get involved in a destructive relationship with a loser.
You see, if you want to walk down that road, at least be consistent.
In other words you completely fabricate what you THINK my opinions are on a wide variety of topics (incidentally getting it wrong), then criticize me for hypocrisy for holding these completely fabricated opinions?
Childs, on the other hand, did arguably prevent harm by carrying out his duty to maintain the network's security, and he's the one in jail.
Childs had a responsibility to follow the instructions of his supervisors. It was not up to him to define the scope of his own employment. Just another narcissist network admin with a god complex.
Bad parenting! You should never be concerned with "spying on and ratting out" your children. If you raise them correctly, it isn't an issue.
Oh please. It's bad parenting not to keep an eye on them. Are you honestly saying you never did anything as a kid that you shouldn't have done, or that you wouldn't want your own children to do?
As for Sheriff Joe, if people break the law (enter the country illegally) shouldn't the law enforcement officials arrest them and detain them? Don't like the law, then elect people to get it changed.
Leaping a bit to conclusions there? Sheriff Joe appears to be a narcissistic thug, and it has nothing to do with enforcing Federal immigration laws.
As a lawyer who just now switched over to slashdot from writing a Daubert motion, I can assure you that a lot of judges have no problem allowing shoddy science in. And this actually might not be shoddy science, who knows. I think the kids' safest recourse is just plain old vanilla due process.
File a UDRP complaint and get the domain name back. Won't fix matters, they'll still have access to your customers it sounds like but at least it will help.
Where's the venom because Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft won't publish every console game that someone proposes to them?
I've seen each of those companies criticized for that exact reason on many occasions over many years. Why do you argue that Apple should be exempt from such criticism?
Sure. Whats the worse that can happen? We'll get less law suits?
People lose their house and life savings, businesses start donating massive amounts to the election campaign of clerks of court so they can get a say into who gets hired as a deputy clerk. People get injured and they have no remedy. I know this is sacrilege on slashdot, but not all cases are frivolous.
ho has the better lawyers determines the winners in almost every case.
Not true at all. I've seen incompetent lawyers win things simply because the law was on their side. I've seen pro se litigants win things, despite not even having a lawyer.
How can you even be on Slashdot and post something that ignorant?
How can you even be on Slashdot and misinterpret what I said? Oh wait, that's par for the course here.
Linux was designed for x86 architecture; while it was ported for mobile use it still has plenty of legacy elements of that, for example its memory footprint and the fact that it's not a good real time operating system.
Or are you honestly going to claim that if someone was building an embedded operating system from scratch they would follow the UNIX model? If you are, then we're too far apart here, there's probably nothing I can tell you to make you believe otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
You haven't established that his supervisors were not supposed to have access to it, and that position is highly unlikely.
it's an equal chance
No, it's not. Holding the network hostage was likely to get him in jail. If he had given his passwords to his supervisor when they demanded it, and then someone broke into it, the chances of the DA bringing charges are so astronomically low as to be laughable. And they are nowhere near "equal."
"In 2006, writing about future threats on privacy, I described a life recorder: A "life recorder" you can wear on your lapel that constantly records is still a few generations off: 200 gigabytes/year for audio and 700 gigabytes/year for video. It'll be sold as a security device, so that no one can attack you without being recorded."
Ok, so you foretold a life recorder in 2006 on your blog. Some other guy has now suggested the same thing on his blog. The technology still isn't around. Is any part of this story news at all?
Childs had two courses of action which had the potential to land him in prison
I guarantee you, handing over the passwords would not have landed him in prison.
It seems pretty trivial to do something illegal, have a sock puppet sue you, have it designated a class action, settle for a pittance, and then remove the legal right to sue from anyone who doesn't remember to opt out in time.
Using a "sock puppet" is against the law, and the court has to approve any settlement in a class action.
I doubt very much that the supervisors weren't allowed to demand the passwords. Do you have a cite showing otherwise?
Policy above their heads changed, and their access was revoked, along with any other personnel that did not have a need to regularly access the server room.
A better analogy to the Childs case would be the same person or persons changing the policy in the first place deciding to change it back; and the stubborn sysadmin clinging to the old one.
Personally, I think Childs likely has OCPD.
Then why does my job have ME?
Maybe so, but in my experience they are more likely to learn from their mistakes and stop dating losers. In general, the whole 'women only date misogynistic losers' idea seems to emanate from misogynistic losers who think of themselves as nice guys, but still can't get a date, or from men with no self esteem and poor social skills. Actual nice guys with confidence and self esteem never seem to have many problems getting dates, unless they are fat, ugly, and/or poor.
I think it's more complicated like that, and I certainly don't think women only date misogynistic losers; in fact I think a significant majority of women (at least past the age of 21), tend to make perfectly reasonable dating choices. I do think a significant minority of women (and again, men) seem to make irrational and self-destructive choices, and it's never (or almost never) about a failure of intelligence.
Ehh, I wouldn't necessarily discount smart women. In my experience smart women (like smart men) are also likely to get involved in a destructive relationship with a loser.
When I get off work at 5pm, I desperately want a nap. Perhaps your job isn't working you hard enough?
If you get off at work at 5pm, YOUR job isn't working you hard enough.
Here's a tip for you: women loathe self-pitying misogynistic losers.
Well, self-pitying at least, lots of them like misogynistic losers for some reason.
You see, if you want to walk down that road, at least be consistent.
In other words you completely fabricate what you THINK my opinions are on a wide variety of topics (incidentally getting it wrong), then criticize me for hypocrisy for holding these completely fabricated opinions?
Childs, on the other hand, did arguably prevent harm by carrying out his duty to maintain the network's security, and he's the one in jail.
Childs had a responsibility to follow the instructions of his supervisors. It was not up to him to define the scope of his own employment. Just another narcissist network admin with a god complex.
Bad parenting! You should never be concerned with "spying on and ratting out" your children. If you raise them correctly, it isn't an issue.
Oh please. It's bad parenting not to keep an eye on them. Are you honestly saying you never did anything as a kid that you shouldn't have done, or that you wouldn't want your own children to do?
As for Sheriff Joe, if people break the law (enter the country illegally) shouldn't the law enforcement officials arrest them and detain them? Don't like the law, then elect people to get it changed.
Leaping a bit to conclusions there? Sheriff Joe appears to be a narcissistic thug, and it has nothing to do with enforcing Federal immigration laws.
As a lawyer who just now switched over to slashdot from writing a Daubert motion, I can assure you that a lot of judges have no problem allowing shoddy science in. And this actually might not be shoddy science, who knows. I think the kids' safest recourse is just plain old vanilla due process.
File a UDRP complaint and get the domain name back. Won't fix matters, they'll still have access to your customers it sounds like but at least it will help.
The story doesn't give too much information, it's just a rant; I'm curious as to what "education" is going to take place; maybe it's a good thing.
What crops? And livestock don't generally die because there's ash in the air.
Where's the venom because Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft won't publish every console game that someone proposes to them?
I've seen each of those companies criticized for that exact reason on many occasions over many years. Why do you argue that Apple should be exempt from such criticism?
Weird, there isn't THAT much data on the 5500, even with attached actuarial reports. Where are their datacenters, Wasilla?
Sure. Whats the worse that can happen? We'll get less law suits?
People lose their house and life savings, businesses start donating massive amounts to the election campaign of clerks of court so they can get a say into who gets hired as a deputy clerk. People get injured and they have no remedy. I know this is sacrilege on slashdot, but not all cases are frivolous.
ho has the better lawyers determines the winners in almost every case.
Not true at all. I've seen incompetent lawyers win things simply because the law was on their side. I've seen pro se litigants win things, despite not even having a lawyer.
Then he did his job. My concern is that it is possible to even bring such a suit without any evidence.
Who do you want to be the gatekeeper? The clerk's office? You'd trust deputy court clerk to decide who gets to sue and who doesn't?
I had one when I was a member of the ACNeilsen Homescan panel -- it ran on batteries.
You had the same kind of scanner used in the Country Fair store in Erie, PA in 2004? What are the odds...
I mean, they do realize that there are only 40 hours in a work week, right?
Can I have your job?
How can you even be on Slashdot and post something that ignorant?
How can you even be on Slashdot and misinterpret what I said? Oh wait, that's par for the course here.
Linux was designed for x86 architecture; while it was ported for mobile use it still has plenty of legacy elements of that, for example its memory footprint and the fact that it's not a good real time operating system.
Or are you honestly going to claim that if someone was building an embedded operating system from scratch they would follow the UNIX model? If you are, then we're too far apart here, there's probably nothing I can tell you to make you believe otherwise.