I suppose if you take the technical definition, then yes everyone in prison is by definition a criminal. I believe, though, that the technical definition relies on the naive view that the criminal justice system works with any reliable accuracy.
Well, from the interviews various news sources have conducted over the past week or two, just about every technical employee that worked there knew that Terry was the only one who knew anything about the FiberWAN.
I can see your point on most of that, and agree that a position of trust has been violated. However, I do have to raise exception with your first point:
The jackass in this story was placed in a position of trust, changed passwords, did not record them, and then refused to give them up thereby denying access to those systems.
He was in fact the CCIE that built the FiberWAN system, which ran for years with him as the sole administrator. All the IT managers knew that he was the only one with access. All issues regarding the FiberWAN were brought to him, because he was the only one who knew anything about it. He was then fired. After he was fired, he no longer felt like he had any obligation to his previous employer.
If they wouldn't have been so dense, the city may have had the forethought to provide him the "golden handshake" that is customary to give to executives that have information that could possibly harm the employer. The city burned the bridge, and then expected Childs to swim across because they didn't realize they screwed up.
Honestly, I'm sure it went something like this:
Manager 1: "Let's fire Childs."
Manager 2: "Okay, lets do that."
Manager 3: "Okay, he's been fired."
(A few days go by)
Low level tech: "Uh, hey, boys, do you realize you just fired the only guy who knows anything about our WAN link?
Managers (in unison): "Oh, shit."
(A quick phone call later)
Manager 1: "Terry, I know we fired you, and had you escorted you out of the building by armed guards, and completely humiliated you, and you're now likely to go bankrupt because of the economy and the lack of jobs available with short notice but... could you please come show us about that FiberWAN you built?"
Terry Childs: "Fsck off."
That isn't a very accurate comparison. He didn't destroy any records, and he didn't remove anything from the premises.
My hypothetical accountant doesn't have to destroy anything. He merely has to refuse to tell his ex-client the information, just like this guy did.
On that same note, though... What if your hypothetical accountant died?
What if this guy died? Same situation, only, then, the accountant's files would be available while the information this guy had would die with him.
Your 2 explanations don't make sense. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. If your accountant's files are available, and everything is available should he die, then why wouldn't he have to destroy records to cause a problem?
Well its not really illegal! All the data is being sent over the researchers computers unencrypted!
Just because a medium is not encrypted doesn't mean it's legal to listen in on it. Your phone line is unencrypted.
Tor even states that the communication isn't secure after it hits the last "exit node" and warns users that they should not use it for security but anonymity!
"Isn't secure" in this context refers to the fact that it is not encrypted in any way. Refer to the previous argument.
It is perfectly legal to capture data which is sent to or from your personal computer/network!!!
DCF (It may use a different abbreviation in your state) is the most vile pit of scum I have ever seen. A child who in DCF custody is far more likely to be abused, raped, and/or commit suicide.
We already had policies and procedures in place to wiretap. In fact, a court ordered warrant wasn't required until 3 days after the wiretap began, just in case an emergency arose that required immediate action.
Now, what is this freedom you speak of that you will lose in the case of a terrorist attack? The only freedoms I've seen taken away have been by the terrorists in the White House and on Capitol Hill.
Passing laws to catch the culprits... I don't think you know how law enforcement works. See, if they're culprits, they've already broken the law. There are laws in place, already, at this very second which allow law enforcement officials to "catch the culprits."
All the "Patriot" Act turned out to be was (1) a little less paperwork after the fact when a criminal was caught, and (2) carte blanche to go after non-criminals.
I recommend you read "Bush's Law" by Eric Lichtblau. It goes into detail about the issues between Bush and the New York Times. Most people in the Bush administration thought of the New York Times as an enemy, especially after the New York Times discovered and exposed the NSA wiretapping. Yes, mistakes were made, but they were explained as actions taken in good faith which the paper now regrets.
I've had a set missing a piece. Heck, the last set I purchased for my kid didn't match what was on the cover. When we opened the box up our Lego Star Wars set actually contained Indiana Jones pieces. Even worse, the retards at Target almost didn't take the set back. It's no wonder that people shop at Wal-Mart.
Chances are, it was switched by a customer or something else to that effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen.
2. If you stand next to me and drink a beer, _I_ don't get drunk. Pot's not like that.
Everything you know about marijuana you learned in D.A.R.E., right?
How do you know for sure that documentation is a part of his job description?
I suppose if you take the technical definition, then yes everyone in prison is by definition a criminal. I believe, though, that the technical definition relies on the naive view that the criminal justice system works with any reliable accuracy.
Yes, that's the idea. Unfortunately, theory and reality don't often intersect.
If you'll read the GP I was replying to, then you'll realize that I was not implying that at all.
I think you can safely assume they're not talking about the original topic, this far down.
You can't seriously believe that everyone sent to prison is a criminal, can you?
Well, from the interviews various news sources have conducted over the past week or two, just about every technical employee that worked there knew that Terry was the only one who knew anything about the FiberWAN.
If he's not whacked first for cutting every state worker in Cali to below state minimum wage...
The jackass in this story was placed in a position of trust, changed passwords, did not record them, and then refused to give them up thereby denying access to those systems.
He was in fact the CCIE that built the FiberWAN system, which ran for years with him as the sole administrator. All the IT managers knew that he was the only one with access. All issues regarding the FiberWAN were brought to him, because he was the only one who knew anything about it. He was then fired. After he was fired, he no longer felt like he had any obligation to his previous employer.
If they wouldn't have been so dense, the city may have had the forethought to provide him the "golden handshake" that is customary to give to executives that have information that could possibly harm the employer. The city burned the bridge, and then expected Childs to swim across because they didn't realize they screwed up.
Honestly, I'm sure it went something like this:
Manager 1: "Let's fire Childs."
Manager 2: "Okay, lets do that."
Manager 3: "Okay, he's been fired."
(A few days go by)
Low level tech: "Uh, hey, boys, do you realize you just fired the only guy who knows anything about our WAN link?
Managers (in unison): "Oh, shit."
(A quick phone call later)
Manager 1: "Terry, I know we fired you, and had you escorted you out of the building by armed guards, and completely humiliated you, and you're now likely to go bankrupt because of the economy and the lack of jobs available with short notice but... could you please come show us about that FiberWAN you built?"
Terry Childs: "Fsck off."
That isn't a very accurate comparison. He didn't destroy any records, and he didn't remove anything from the premises.
My hypothetical accountant doesn't have to destroy anything. He merely has to refuse to tell his ex-client the information, just like this guy did.
On that same note, though... What if your hypothetical accountant died?
What if this guy died? Same situation, only, then, the accountant's files would be available while the information this guy had would die with him.
Your 2 explanations don't make sense. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. If your accountant's files are available, and everything is available should he die, then why wouldn't he have to destroy records to cause a problem?
Well its not really illegal! All the data is being sent over the researchers computers unencrypted!
Just because a medium is not encrypted doesn't mean it's legal to listen in on it. Your phone line is unencrypted.
Tor even states that the communication isn't secure after it hits the last "exit node" and warns users that they should not use it for security but anonymity!
"Isn't secure" in this context refers to the fact that it is not encrypted in any way. Refer to the previous argument.
It is perfectly legal to capture data which is sent to or from your personal computer/network!!!
When did TOR become your personal network?
How could these researchers not know that they were engaging in illegal wiretapping?
On the other hand, the story is hypothetical. No charges have been filed, and there's no real evidence that the government could give a flying flip.
That isn't a very accurate comparison. He didn't destroy any records, and he didn't remove anything from the premises.
On that same note, though... What if your hypothetical accountant died?
How is this a troll? Anyone?
Oh, he let them keep the routers and switches, I'm sure.
Not if you've already been fired.
Troll?
DCF (It may use a different abbreviation in your state) is the most vile pit of scum I have ever seen. A child who in DCF custody is far more likely to be abused, raped, and/or commit suicide.
We already had policies and procedures in place to wiretap. In fact, a court ordered warrant wasn't required until 3 days after the wiretap began, just in case an emergency arose that required immediate action.
Now, what is this freedom you speak of that you will lose in the case of a terrorist attack? The only freedoms I've seen taken away have been by the terrorists in the White House and on Capitol Hill.
Passing laws to catch the culprits... I don't think you know how law enforcement works. See, if they're culprits, they've already broken the law. There are laws in place, already, at this very second which allow law enforcement officials to "catch the culprits."
All the "Patriot" Act turned out to be was (1) a little less paperwork after the fact when a criminal was caught, and (2) carte blanche to go after non-criminals.
I cried a little inside when I read that. The truth hurts.
I recommend you read "Bush's Law" by Eric Lichtblau. It goes into detail about the issues between Bush and the New York Times. Most people in the Bush administration thought of the New York Times as an enemy, especially after the New York Times discovered and exposed the NSA wiretapping. Yes, mistakes were made, but they were explained as actions taken in good faith which the paper now regrets.
I've had a set missing a piece. Heck, the last set I purchased for my kid didn't match what was on the cover. When we opened the box up our Lego Star Wars set actually contained Indiana Jones pieces. Even worse, the retards at Target almost didn't take the set back. It's no wonder that people shop at Wal-Mart.
Chances are, it was switched by a customer or something else to that effect.