How do you feel when you see Red Hat Enterprise Linux which costs as much as $18,000?
I'm so glad you asked - since I think this will help clear up some confusion!
The answer is: I don't know - since this has never happened. The market's cost for RHEL, the software, is exactly $0.
Oh yes, I know what Redhat charges for the software. It is optional. Anyone can give me a copy of it for free. Someone organized this process into a distro and calls it CentOS, as you yourself pointed out. Hence, the market's cost is $0.
Why don't you ask Apple if you can give MacOSX away for free. Or if they will give you the entire source code for it, so you can share that as well?
They will give you a very different answer than Redhat will. And that is the heart of the matter.
What Redhat charges for is a service and on some occasions I have been quite happy to pay for that. Others, it wasn't necessary. Support, updates, and so forth. Quite different from paying for a software license. This is the new model of free software companies you may have been hearing about, services not software, etc.
You seem confused about how different Darwin is from CentOS. Remember, the question is, can you get the entire sources for MacOSX? Is that Darwin? And the answer is no.
Darwin is what little bit they feel like giving you. They have no obligation to give any, and they can stop at any time. And they do not feel like giving the rest. Perhaps they never will. This is as different from Redhat as night is from day.
I don't call this free software, and I don't care who does. It's also clear which codebase I would rather contribute to, and most people in the community feel the same as I do. That's why all the BSD variants put together have so much less activity in the community than Linux, for instance, and Darwin has almost no activity by comparison.
In both cases, Apple and Red Hat add value and sell a product without offering a free version. One is GPL, one is BSD.
Now I have made clear your confusion, hopefully.
Again, if I follow your logic, "your entire belief system is a lie" as well, since you made a single error - let alone one much more significant than demanding the terminology of "GPL" versus "Free" and "BSD" versus "Open." But I do not say this - merely that I think you are confused and I hope this helps you understand the point.
OK - we can say copyleft and non-copyleft? Or GPL and non-GPL? If it pleases you, I will be happy to use whatever terminology the FSF approves.:) To me when I see Mac OS X, it doesn't feel all that "free" to me, especially since it costs like $130 bucks. But it's based on BSD! o_0
Oh right, it's re-licensed now. OK, maybe now we begin to understand why someone wouldn't feel as happy contributing to BSD. They are working for Apple (and everyone else) for free. In exchange they can pay to receive the work that they donated.
Maybe we see why individual contribution to Linux has been so much more popular than at to all of the BSD variants combined. Hence why, just for example, this GPL project, based on Stallman's work, has been so active and so important.
Has it dawned on you yet that we have this conversation on a technology stack that is almost entirely GPL?
You suppose non-copyleft contributors would have created it all, just the same, if the GPL and FSF never existed? This can be proven wrong with a thought exercise and a look at history.
If the GPL was irrelevant, why did anyone go to the trouble of using it or switching to it, when the BSD licenses and the like already existed?
Do you also argue that if America did not exist, there would be little difference as well, since the gap would be filled by Canada and Mexico?
Notice I will not even claim that this means your "entire belief system is a lie" (lol). Also, you can respond to my other points anytime, if you can. Or you can continue to use logically specious attacks (ad hominem, coy implications and exaggerations, and now nitpicking vocabulary and unjustified expansions) - they make it clear how little you can argue the actual matter at hand.:)
Please see my post here [slashdot.org] about why my simple statement of fact is not an ad hominem attack
OK, I have seen it, and I think it's BS. You made an ad hominem attack (by implication, rather than explicitly, but there is no other purpose for your "statement of fact"), and apparently now you have become embarrassed and are attempting to weasel out of it.
You were making a deceptive point - by responding to what I said with an exaggeration of what I said.
OK, apparently you did so knowingly - points for you.:)
True, but irrelevant. BSD is also free, and they don't like the GPL much.
BSD is not free. It is merely open. That is why it is so utterly marginalized, and why i.e. Linux server adoption is approximately an order of magnitude larger than BSD server adoption. BSD was there first, too, and there's a very good reason almost everyone switched to GPL projects.
RMS created the legal and social model that made software freedom possible. GPL projects are so important and ubiquitous that you cannot use the internet for 5 seconds without them, and you find it irrelevant?
You are high.
What does RMS have to do with Perl?
He created the GPL, which is the legal and social model perl is based on.
Granted, GCC won out
Why did it win out?
Coincidence? RMS's personal charm?
Oh, come on. You're totally sure "free as in speech" had nothing to do with it?;)
Free software existed long before the GPL was created, and there's a ton of it that is not GPL'd.
No. Wrong.
Open source software existed before the GPL. I would argue no software was really free (as in speech) before the GPL was codified and used.
You made it out that RMS was basically responsible for the internet existing or functioning.
Ahhh... OK, so you are claiming I made this point? This is getting confusing.:)
The fact of the matter is that the internet doesn't run on Linux
A rather meaningless statement. I notice you haven't said a thing that refutes my points. (You cannot use the internet for 5 seconds without encountering software that uses his license.) Great! My work is done.:)
Yes, RMS is responsible for a lot, but I don't for one second believe that it was impossible for that to happen without him.
Oh you lovable scamp. Indeed he did not invent the internet - which is why I did not say he did.:)
The software he personally wrote is also unimportant - which is why I didn't mention it.
But... this doesn't have much to do with the internet?
You have to introduce me to your dealer.:D
You can't go 5 seconds on the net without hitting free software. How many webservers run linux? How many routers, firewalls, and load balancers, for that matter?
Your first google search... bzzt. Google uses free software heavily.
The top 10 websites by traffic? Guess how many use GPL software in the stack. Just guess. Come on. Show of hands, who uses MySQL? Heck, for the new fangled folks, who uses Ruby on Rails?
This goes beyond the internet, man. The goddamned NSA uses Linux. Yes. RMS' work has contributed to the safety and security of the United States, FWIW.:)
You should take another look at what the FSF has in their directory. Just, give the page a while to load, OK? It's big.
Emacs? Screw Emacs! What would the world be like with GCC? Without glibc? What about if Perl just disappeared? What if wikipedia and all the sites based on mediawiki disappeared? And over half of sourceforge? And on and on and on...
And the funny thing is, the individual projects and products are almost beside the point.
What would the world be like if we didn't have the collaboration that happens in free software projects? We can't even count how many technical achievements were only possible this way, when everyone feels safe contributing, knowing that their work will not be taken and exploited by others who will not give back to the community.
Why is it that virtually none of the proprietary unices still survive? Why is it that BSD's marketshare is miniscule compared to Linux?
I'll give you a hint, it's not because of whose command line argument styles were better and it's not Linus' winning personality.:)
I think he's referring to the handling of the case after Clinton left office. The DoJ won the antitrust case right at the end of Clinton's 2nd term. So, before it was concluded and the remedies settled, the Bush people took over.
The settlement they ultimately reached with Microsoft was essentially toothless and beyond the wildest fantasy that Microsoft could have hoped for, given the fact that the government had already won a categorical victory against them in court.
Whether this was the result of bribes paid by Microsoft (who went from being notably apolotical to Washington's largest lobbyist during the course of the trial), or simply because Bush's people leaned libertarian and didn't really believe in enforcing the antitrust laws, or a combination of the two, is anybody's guess.
LOL. Heaven forfend we offend the sensibilities of a notorious, convicted monopolist, so successful in his illegal anticompetitive activities that he became the world's richest man for a number of years?
Whatever were we thinking. We'll go back to being good, obedient consumers now. Not.
How about this. M$ stops subverting standards bodies, engaging in barratry, and submarining "software patents" to squash competition, and we stop using the initials.
Why not let people form their own opinion by not misleading them?
Espousing false and misleading neutrality between a sensible viewpoint and a ridiculous one serves only to confuse.
The man basically made a lot of the internet and the modern computing experience possible. His foundation is responsible for some of the most vital, widely used, and essential software in use today.
And yet whenever he opens his mouth, cue the ad hominem attacks. They come hard and fast. Ignore what he said. Just question his character - change the subject, pick apart some wacky thing from his life. That should settle the matter.
Do you only converse with people who are absolutely normal, totally conventional, and who never make any mistakes in anything they have ever said? Because that's the only way you can bring this stuff up and be intellectually consistent.
And what's worse, this is not the ESPN forums. We're supposed to be nerds here. The man can't be weird and still be right?
We're referring to a convicted monoply that made enormous amounts of money through illegal means. Their figurehead is (on the odd average week) the world's richest man.
Although late PR efforts have caused him to be more widely known for his philanthropy, the damage Bill Gates has caused to the world economy (by destroying competition in a cluster of humanity's most vital industries) is hard to even estimate; probably on a par with the great robber barons of the 19th century.
Let's not even talk about the quality of their products.
I noticed you just made a new account to troll and spread FUD on this article, and I was wondering, who do you work for, and how much do you get paid to make these posts?
Do you get paid by the hour, or is it per post or per word? Do you get benefits? How's the work environment?
I only ask because I've been thinking of making a move into the "PR" and "viral marketing" space myself. Put the liberal arts education to work, you know.
Banning the Scientologists is based entirely on the Whois database, which is so easily fooled it's silly.
They probably already have internet connections at facilities which are not registered under their official name. You have to go to some trouble, frankly, to show up as yourself rather than your ISP. Even still the church may not even realize which connections show up as them, and which don't. They will now.
If they don't feel like relocating some of their online hit squads to some of their vast real-estate holdings which are unaffected, they will effortlessly set up new internet connectivity that is not registered to them, right where they are.
Problem solved - for them. In addition, I suspect this action, in addition to being futile, will activate the vast Church of Scientology attack machine. If the IRS couldn't withstand them, one wonders how Jimmy Wales will do.
Now what they should have done is not said a thing, and written something that allowed the church addresses to see the church edits to the page, and the rest of the world to see the non-church version. This wouldn't work either, but instead of failing immediately, it might fool them for a few weeks. Plus, it would constitute a fun practical joke.
In the end, wikipedia cannot continue to allow anonymous edits - and unlike slashdot, there is no rating system for snippets of text, so there is no way to penalize anonymity in a "soft" way. It's all or nothing.
Scientology may be just the adversary that helps them realize it.
Just helped a friend shop for routers at his small business. Criteria: only routers where open source linux firmware can be flashed.
Without this, there is literally no working QoS in the consumer price range. And many other problems are common to the crap stock firmwares, from both Linksys and their competition (D-Link, Netgear, etc). This is even the case for routers with "QoS" advertised prominently on their packaging.
With DD-WRT, the difference was immediate and obvious. QoS works, and a bunch of VOIP phones suddenly become rock solid, where before they were unusable. And then there are the extras, from vastly advanced UIs to realtime bandwidth graphs to SIP trunking to you name it.
I have no idea why these router companies don't all work with the community, but I am not so surprised more of them are starting to get it. Sad that the FSF had to resort to a lawsuit to get Cisco's attention, to get their compliance act together. But everyone wins in the end.
The bar for criminal copyright violation is quite low, for better or worse.
Um, did you bother to read that cite?
Yes.
It proves that you were wrong about "like 99%" and "very high volumes."
I would suggest admitting it and apologizing when things like this happen. It will make you look the better person.
It also does not indicate what you claim (more below on that).
Did you follow through to 506?
Yes.
Ironically, you just disproved your own point and even what I said about 'mostly'.
Criminal penalties only apply for copyright if, and I quote, it is 'a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording'.
You are wrong again.
There are multiple sections governing criminal penalties. There are specific penalties for violations relating to 'a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording' - that's 2319 (d), here. They are not the only ones. The penalties for written works are simply different. For instance, examine the foregoing sections (b) and (c) of 2319. I gather that you do not know how to read the law, so I will also provide an analysis: here:
"Increased penalties of up to five years imprisonment and $250,000 in fines were available only if the infringement involved reproduction or distribution of motion pictures, audiovisual works and sound recordings. Repeat offenders were subject to the maximum fines regardless of the number of copies or types of works involved. All other offenses continued to be misdemeanors with maximum fines of $25,000 and one year imprisonment."
I'm increasingly surprised by your desire to assert obviously incorrect facts about the law. It's a peculiar thing to do. The law is there in black and white, along with famous cases, commentary, etc.
Even if you can't understand the materials you are reading, doesn't common sense come into play at some point? Do you really believe there have been no criminal charges relating to copyright violations regarding written works? These laws date back to an era before television and radio.
You obviously have some interest in and passion about the law. Why not read more deeply, or even consider studying it? By emotionally insisting on your guesses about what you don't understand, you make yourself look ridiculous. At this point I am really becoming embarrassed for you.
As pretty much everyone who's worked with computers at all knows, this is simply factually wrong. Passwords are not stored in computers. A hash of the password is stored.
You are wrong again, in two ways. First, the minor way: although hashing passwords is good practice, it is not universally done.
The standard methodology in Unix-variants for many years was to encrypt the password using DES; the stated goal was a one-way process. Passwords can indeed be extracted, however, much to everyone's chagrin, hence the use of shadow files and so forth. Microsoft windows has, over the years, used reversible encryption.
Second: Say that all of the hardware in question only stored hashes of the passwords in question. This also isn't relevant to the "password records" example that I gave, describing common industry practice, in which passwords are recorded as working notes.
I notice you didn't respond to this.
If you can't turn it back into music, it does not count as a 'copy'.
On this point, you are correct.
...he clearly didn't make a copy, and hence cannot be in violation of copyright.
Perhaps you didn't read to the end of my last email. You're response is a non-sequitir.
...stealing passwords? How stupid are you? His behavior isn't even metaphorically stealing passwords.
OK. He... borrowed them and didn't give them back?:) LOL.
Um, actually, yes. Civil law is based on the concept of harm, not on the concept of legality.
Civil liability is governed by law.:)
You can say that running afoul of some tort, be it slander or assault, is "not illegal," because it's a civil matter. No mind that you can still end up in court, and jail if you don't cooperate - just that the government may not enforce them.
But your real problem is that many things, from assault to copyright, are both civil and criminal. Look at your own tortured parenthetical admissions ("Like 99% of copyright law. (The criminal aspects of copyright law are only applicable with very high volumes.)", "(Mostly.)").
You didn't cite any sources, again, but that's because you're lying. The bar for criminal copyright violation is quite low, for better or worse. Similarly with assault, etc.
The next time you assault someone, try telling the police you can't be arrested, because what you did is "not illegal."
Limited liability corporations do not pass on liability to their corporate officers or owners. Nice grasp of the law you have there, thinking Bill Gates could be punished for the actions of Microsoft. (And, more to the point, that's a 'cruel and unusual punishment', you imbecilic. People couldn't be given that punishment anyway.)
You seem easily confused.
This was an example of something a court couldn't do.
You've pointed out some of the reasons why not, which is good.
Your original point seems to have been that laws don't exist which govern what you do with passwords. ("There is no law stating 'You must give people passwords to systems they own'.")
You went as far as to imply that laws did not govern the outcome of US v Microsoft, either ("Microsoft once lost a court case and had to reveal the Windows API as a penalty, something which had never even been mentioned in any previously existing law").
You have now neatly showed that you were wrong, and that, as I said, laws governed every aspect of US v Microsoft. Thank you.
To restate (again) there may be no law against stealing a salt shaker. Just more general laws; more general codes for police conduct, and more general latitude for civil remedies and criminal penalties. Try stealing one and see what happens. Tell people "there's no law against stealing this salt shaker."
First of all, intellectual property is not covered under the 'criminal umbrella', whatever that means. It's covered under an entirely different set of laws that are civil, not criminal. (Mostly.)
So by mostly, do you mean, actually not at all?:)
I'm not citing because I'm telling you basic knowledge.
Common excuse given by liars and charlatans to help conceal a knowing error of fact. Also popular among the lazy.
Passwords are not fixed in a medium
If they weren't, they could never be used. They're stored in the computers that they are used to govern. Length and functionality don't matter a whit to copyright as far as I know. There are other defenses that may come to bear - you haven't said any of them.
If merely storing something in "encrypted/hashed/obfuscated" etc. form means it is not actually copied or stored, what a great loophole in copyright you've found! Woohoo! Perhaps the same defense will work with mp3s? It's party time.:)
It's also customary to keep a secure record of passwords at any installation of significant size, complexity, or monetary value. Many reasons for this which should now be painfully obvious, not least that there are usu
Just because there's no law tell you to do something doesn't mean courts can't impose it as a civil penalty, you fucktard.
Ah, but, if there's no law that's been violated by stealing the passwords... how could we be in... court?
Does the court entertain cases, render judgments, or imposes penalties, civil or otherwise, on the basis of anything... besides... laws?
Have I upset you? You seem to have stopped making sense.
do you really think the police can arrest you right then if you don't pay some random amount pulled out thin air by me?
It may be psychological, rather than legal help, that would benefit you at this point.
Do you suggest theft or property destruction have no criminal components? That police need wait for a civil action to lock you up for them?
Do you suggest that this applies to physical property only - or perhaps that intellectual property is also covered under the criminal umbrella?
I hope you're not planning on driving into anyone's house just to prove a point.:)
how about you cite any law that can be vaguely interpreted in that manner?
I did already. Can I help it if your version of "interpretation" consists of fallacious nonsense and insults?
Microsoft once lost a court case and had to reveal the Windows API as a penalty, something which had never even been mentioned in any previously existing law.
Not true.
Or do you suggest the judge could have decreed that Bill Gates stand on his head until he turned blue?
And why not?
Because of... governing... law...?
In "US v Microsft," everything that occurred in that case was covered by law, including the remedies. Your argument seems to be that if a law gives latitude to a judge, for instance by saying "all the numbers between 1 and 100" and the judge says "55," this was somehow not governed by law...
Hey David - there's no law against stealing salt shakers and pepper mills. I hope this won't encourage you to commit... petty larceny.:)
I notice you avoided citing anything, again, which is fine - I'm sure no one expected you to. But I am still curious: are you a frightened hypocrite, who wouldn't dare talk about his novel theories about his conduct with his employers and their property in the real world... who obviously knows he speaks falsely?
Or is it just that you're an honest man, with a babyish attitude and spoiled child ego, who may actually land in prison one day?
Very entertaining either way. Really can't lose.:)
You moron, I have at no point asserted that employees have the right to keep passwords from their employers. They have no such right.
Really? I could have sworn this was you:
Well, congratulations on making up laws, but, no, there's no law requiring you tell people passwords, even to their own systems.
You know, babyish insults kind of give up that you are a baby, David. And what's moronic? Contradicting yourself in a written medium like this, when it's so obvious. People generally read these in chronological order, you know.
The courts could...
Yes, do tell us about what the courts will do.
No doubt links to examples, evidence, citations are missing only because they mess up your conversational "flow."
Well, on the extremely remote chance you are not actually just a slinking hypocrite with a vivid imagination, without the guts to say any of this to the faces of their current or future employers, you might end up in court yourself one of these days. My advice: don't go pro se.
Prosecutors always use the toughest charge they can get to stick. That's how the system works. In this case, they're using the shitty, shitty computer crime laws, because they are vague and they carry big penalties. These are not good laws to have on the books - no arguments there.
But imagine I work for you:
* I lock up all your hardware and quit. * For argument's sake, say we even had "controls" - I just ignored them and changed the passwords and kept the new ones to myself. * I claim I keep all the passwords in my head. I have no written or digital materials w/ the passwords in them. (Do you believe me? Would this be up to the customary standards of the industry?) * I think I'm pretty clever, pulling that one. Maybe now the cops will believe I've got no tangible or digital work products (whether or not there are). * I tell you your passwords belong to me, not you, and the only way I'll give them to you is if I feel like it. Why, if it weren't so, I'd be a new sub-class of citizen. I'd be a slave!
Well, it's too much to hope someone will run you through this scenario so we can see if your opinions change.
I'd say your salute looks a little timid from here, though, Kelly. Something tells me you don't salute him at work, and you won't be saluting for this righteous behavior at your next job interview either.
I'll give you this much. Do you really believe he doesn't have a physical or digital copy of those passwords somewhere? That there really isn't any physical or digital stolen goods? Then he should go down for negligence, and the bevy of ordinary laws that cover sabotaging your employer. "Computer crime" - this case just shows how badly those laws are written.
A password isn't something you can copyright, so neither the employee nor the employer "own" the copyright on the password.
Bold claim. Citations please?
In short, if Scot Adams calls me up and demands I hand over any Dilbert comics I might have, I don't have to comply.
Well argued, and correct. But...
Say you worked for him - inked a lot of his comics, something like that. Then you quit. If United Media comes to believe you have materials created during that work - physical things in your possession - you may have cops and lawyers show up and ask for them.
Now, would you say it's standard or customary to keep the only copies of passwords to major pieces of infrastructure in one's head?
Who knows. It's a crazy world. Maybe a judge could be made to believe it. Maybe not.
So, you're not handing over a thing. You never made any written materials. Or you destroyed them. Or you simply refuse to. So hard to tell the difference...
But can you imagine - are you saying you would actually claim, "the passwords are mine, not my employer's?" Or, "they are not property, cannot be owned, therefore I need not give them up?" My advice, do not go out there pro se.
Is it true this guy really gave out fake passwords? Nothing says "I'm a criminal, lock me up, judge" like playing games in that way.
Say cars all used digital locks. Numbers for keys. Say you hire someone to fix your car, they change its locks, and then, though they give you the car, won't give you the key. Like on Seinfeld - the mechanic knows better than the owner. You don't take proper care of that car. You don't deserve it. LOL.
They didn't steal from you? The password they created while working for you - not yours? I admit - if we truly think it's reasonable that their mind has the only copy, it's not a matter for copyright anymore. Not that it will get you off the hook. They'll end up on the hook for other crimes instead... but I still find copyright instructive in this case.
Don't believe me, or this hypocrite - who you just know doesn't feel like sharing his novel theories on password ownership with his bosses as freely as he does with us. Ask an attorney... doubly so if you're planning on doing anything crazy at work.
Here's how I understand it. Then you can see if I got it right.
A performance isn't intellectual property. A recording is. If you have a recording, and you lost it, the performance (or another one) is unrelated. No forcing MJ back into the studio.
A password isn't a song. "Performing it" can be considered the same as simply returning it to its owner. And then it comes to records.
With a song, there are normally notes, or draft recordings, or other materials. They may be in your possession, but if you made them for work, unless you have a contract that says differently, they're work for hire materials and they belong to your employer.
With passwords, it's not what they call "customary" or "standard" to keep the only copies of them all in your head. Even if it could be accepted in court that someone was only committing some "fucktardary", to use DavidTC's term, rather than deliberately hiding stolen goods, you have a whole other set of problems now.
Say you quit. And say not long after, your employer realizes that the notes and materials that are customary to your work are missing.
Maybe you didn't give them back, or maybe you did a negligent job. The court and the cops can turn up asking for them. Try saying, "no, don't have them, sorry" then it's up to a judge to decide whether you're telling the truth. Negligence and damages, or willful contempt and theft, your choice. And if you think jail isn't a risk at this point, well... good luck to you.
Then compound the fun by saying, "I know the passwords, I just won't say them. You can't compel me to perform." Or even better, do what this guy did. Perform, and give the wrong ones out.
You know what that looks like to a judge? Hilarious. Get ready for jail time.
You know the prosecutors in this case went with computer crime laws because prosecutors find the nastiest charge they can make stick, and those laws are terrible - vague and with huge penalties, many of them dating back to the years of Kevin Mitnick. For better or worse, it's how the system works. You don't charge someone with 12 counts of assault when they're also a murderer.
It doesn't mean walking off with your company's passwords isn't theft. Hence discussing this in terms of copyright:
* the passwords are intellectual property and if you were paid to make them, they're not yours, * they have value (maybe a lot of value), * depriving your employer of them causes harm (maybe a lot of harm)...
And if you do something they assert work for hire, and didn't make them a copy, can they arrest you? NO
No, but the police can. Copyright has civil and criminal dimensions. And as I said, copyright isn't even the only issue here. Just an illuminating one.
I presume you're not the country's worst attorney - and only pretending to know the subject. I dare you to consult a real attorney about this. Report on back with who you talked to, and what you find.
In the meantime, you have presented a mountain of extremely dubious theories - virtually everything you've said, point by point, is wrong.
More than that, it's quite obvious you don't believe any of it.
If you believed it, you could assure us you've always been up front with others about your novel theories on what your rights are with those you work for. Not just here, but in "RL." If you believed it, you wouldn't mind discussing your thoughts on your employer's passwords (or are they your passwords?) in your next job interview. Just to make sure everyone was on the same page, you know.
I was trying to keep you out of trouble, but I wash my hands of you. If you refuse to consult an attorney and would rather live in a fantasy, then my advice would be to wear it on your sleeve. Don't hide your beliefs from those around you. Make sure everyone else knows what you consider your rights to be.
The problem with pp's point of view is that it's not always that cut-and-dried.
Yes, it really is.
You can be asked to do something dumb, immoral, or illegal at work. Happens every day. Your options are simple:
Document it as best you can. Contact the authorities and the media. You can quit at any time - just don't steal anything on your way out. For instance write down passwords on paper, hand them to your boss, and then walk out. Also happens every day. If it happens to be the govt you work for, then tell your story to the people. Maybe a DA sees fit to prosecute. Maybe someone loses an election. Happens a lot (thank god).
If you don't want to quit, object in writing, get the instructions in writing, and then do as you're told. You're free and clear, legally at least. You just have to sleep at night.
If this guy actually believed his boss was too stupid to be his boss, and turning over the company's property to him would lead to dire consequences, he'd have followed the law, and then laid back and become a whistleblower. If he was right, it'd be his boss in court/jail in the end.
If they do something stupid with it, then maybe _they_ end up in jail.
No, if they do something stupid with it, then maybe you end up in jail, because it was still your "responsibility" even though they made it impossible for you to uphold that responsibility. In other words, if you hand out your passwords you become a ready-made scapegoat.
Basically, it's a no-win situation. It's essentially equivalent to getting fired, except they screw you out of the rights you would have had if you were fired explicitly.
Not true at all. You can always quit. If you do, just don't steal any company property on the way out. Passwords are the company's (or government's etc) intellectual property.
You will not end up in jail.
Or stay on, object in writing, get the demand in writing, and then you are clear.
If your boss demands a password, you have to give it, by law. If he demands you give it to another person, or 20 other people, you have to give it, by law.
What insane country do you live in where not obeying what your boss is a crime? In the US private sector, employees enter a contract with their employers. Not doing what your boss says is probably a violation of that contract (which will likely get you fired), but it won't get you prosecuted for a crime.
I qualified the above with "in the US private sector", because this doesn't apply to certain public sector jobs (i.e., elected/appointed officials), public safety jobs, and, of course, the military.
Not true at all. It's not a crime to disobey. You can always quit. You just can't steal any company property on the way out. Passwords are company (intellectual) property.
What law? In this case, the State's trying t'use "disrupting computer services", which is a California-specific law. From a look at the text, it looks like you only must give the password to your boss if he or she is "authorized" to have it. I'm assuming the charges are based on:
This one, among others probably. Your work passwords are the intellectual property of your employer.
Don't take my word for it. Ask an attorney.
(5) Knowingly and without permission... causes the denial of computer services to an
authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network.
I also admit, this isn't the best written set of charges out there. Just that it's correct on the essential point. He had lots of legal options and chose to use none of them. He stole his employer's property, he went to jail.
The question is whether his bosses were "authorized".
No. Not your job to decide what's authorized. Your manager decides what's authorized. He/she gives you an order, you follow it or quit, your choice. Just don't steal anything on the way out.
As a layman, it looks to me as though Childs was correct in refusing to give out the passwords (although I'm not familiar with any relevant city policies granting authorization, again I'm pretty darned sure the HR guy isn't supposed to have 'em).
Thank you for at least admitting you are a layman.
Giving out incorrect passwords was a bad move, but easily attributed to the pressure of the surprise party.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you feel when you see Red Hat Enterprise Linux which costs as much as $18,000?
I'm so glad you asked - since I think this will help clear up some confusion!
The answer is: I don't know - since this has never happened. The market's cost for RHEL, the software, is exactly $0.
Oh yes, I know what Redhat charges for the software. It is optional. Anyone can give me a copy of it for free. Someone organized this process into a distro and calls it CentOS, as you yourself pointed out. Hence, the market's cost is $0.
Why don't you ask Apple if you can give MacOSX away for free. Or if they will give you the entire source code for it, so you can share that as well?
They will give you a very different answer than Redhat will. And that is the heart of the matter.
What Redhat charges for is a service and on some occasions I have been quite happy to pay for that. Others, it wasn't necessary. Support, updates, and so forth. Quite different from paying for a software license. This is the new model of free software companies you may have been hearing about, services not software, etc.
You seem confused about how different Darwin is from CentOS. Remember, the question is, can you get the entire sources for MacOSX? Is that Darwin? And the answer is no.
Darwin is what little bit they feel like giving you. They have no obligation to give any, and they can stop at any time. And they do not feel like giving the rest. Perhaps they never will. This is as different from Redhat as night is from day.
I don't call this free software, and I don't care who does. It's also clear which codebase I would rather contribute to, and most people in the community feel the same as I do. That's why all the BSD variants put together have so much less activity in the community than Linux, for instance, and Darwin has almost no activity by comparison.
In both cases, Apple and Red Hat add value and sell a product without offering a free version. One is GPL, one is BSD.
Now I have made clear your confusion, hopefully.
Again, if I follow your logic, "your entire belief system is a lie" as well, since you made a single error - let alone one much more significant than demanding the terminology of "GPL" versus "Free" and "BSD" versus "Open." But I do not say this - merely that I think you are confused and I hope this helps you understand the point.
OK - we can say copyleft and non-copyleft? Or GPL and non-GPL? If it pleases you, I will be happy to use whatever terminology the FSF approves. :) To me when I see Mac OS X, it doesn't feel all that "free" to me, especially since it costs like $130 bucks. But it's based on BSD! o_0
Oh right, it's re-licensed now. OK, maybe now we begin to understand why someone wouldn't feel as happy contributing to BSD. They are working for Apple (and everyone else) for free. In exchange they can pay to receive the work that they donated.
Maybe we see why individual contribution to Linux has been so much more popular than at to all of the BSD variants combined. Hence why, just for example, this GPL project, based on Stallman's work, has been so active and so important.
Has it dawned on you yet that we have this conversation on a technology stack that is almost entirely GPL?
You suppose non-copyleft contributors would have created it all, just the same, if the GPL and FSF never existed? This can be proven wrong with a thought exercise and a look at history.
If the GPL was irrelevant, why did anyone go to the trouble of using it or switching to it, when the BSD licenses and the like already existed?
Do you also argue that if America did not exist, there would be little difference as well, since the gap would be filled by Canada and Mexico?
Notice I will not even claim that this means your "entire belief system is a lie" (lol). Also, you can respond to my other points anytime, if you can. Or you can continue to use logically specious attacks (ad hominem, coy implications and exaggerations, and now nitpicking vocabulary and unjustified expansions) - they make it clear how little you can argue the actual matter at hand. :)
Please see my post here [slashdot.org] about why my simple statement of fact is not an ad hominem attack
OK, I have seen it, and I think it's BS. You made an ad hominem attack (by implication, rather than explicitly, but there is no other purpose for your "statement of fact"), and apparently now you have become embarrassed and are attempting to weasel out of it.
Hopefully you learned something.
I was making a point, not claiming you made one.
You were making a deceptive point - by responding to what I said with an exaggeration of what I said.
OK, apparently you did so knowingly - points for you. :)
True, but irrelevant. BSD is also free, and they don't like the GPL much.
BSD is not free. It is merely open. That is why it is so utterly marginalized, and why i.e. Linux server adoption is approximately an order of magnitude larger than BSD server adoption. BSD was there first, too, and there's a very good reason almost everyone switched to GPL projects.
RMS created the legal and social model that made software freedom possible. GPL projects are so important and ubiquitous that you cannot use the internet for 5 seconds without them, and you find it irrelevant?
You are high.
What does RMS have to do with Perl?
He created the GPL, which is the legal and social model perl is based on.
Granted, GCC won out
Why did it win out?
Coincidence? RMS's personal charm?
Oh, come on. You're totally sure "free as in speech" had nothing to do with it? ;)
Free software existed long before the GPL was created, and there's a ton of it that is not GPL'd.
No. Wrong.
Open source software existed before the GPL. I would argue no software was really free (as in speech) before the GPL was codified and used.
You made it out that RMS was basically responsible for the internet existing or functioning.
Ahhh... OK, so you are claiming I made this point? This is getting confusing. :)
The fact of the matter is that the internet doesn't run on Linux
A rather meaningless statement. I notice you haven't said a thing that refutes my points. (You cannot use the internet for 5 seconds without encountering software that uses his license.) Great! My work is done. :)
Yes, RMS is responsible for a lot, but I don't for one second believe that it was impossible for that to happen without him.
Oh, you are so stingy with your praise. :D
Oh you lovable scamp. Indeed he did not invent the internet - which is why I did not say he did. :)
The software he personally wrote is also unimportant - which is why I didn't mention it.
But... this doesn't have much to do with the internet?
You have to introduce me to your dealer. :D
You can't go 5 seconds on the net without hitting free software. How many webservers run linux? How many routers, firewalls, and load balancers, for that matter?
Your first google search... bzzt. Google uses free software heavily.
The top 10 websites by traffic? Guess how many use GPL software in the stack. Just guess. Come on. Show of hands, who uses MySQL? Heck, for the new fangled folks, who uses Ruby on Rails?
This goes beyond the internet, man. The goddamned NSA uses Linux. Yes. RMS' work has contributed to the safety and security of the United States, FWIW. :)
You should take another look at what the FSF has in their directory. Just, give the page a while to load, OK? It's big.
http://directory.fsf.org/all/
Emacs? Screw Emacs! What would the world be like with GCC? Without glibc? What about if Perl just disappeared? What if wikipedia and all the sites based on mediawiki disappeared? And over half of sourceforge? And on and on and on...
And the funny thing is, the individual projects and products are almost beside the point.
What would the world be like if we didn't have the collaboration that happens in free software projects? We can't even count how many technical achievements were only possible this way, when everyone feels safe contributing, knowing that their work will not be taken and exploited by others who will not give back to the community.
Why is it that virtually none of the proprietary unices still survive? Why is it that BSD's marketshare is miniscule compared to Linux?
I'll give you a hint, it's not because of whose command line argument styles were better and it's not Linus' winning personality. :)
I think he's referring to the handling of the case after Clinton left office. The DoJ won the antitrust case right at the end of Clinton's 2nd term. So, before it was concluded and the remedies settled, the Bush people took over.
Very quickly after that, the Bush DoJ amazed experts by publicly stating it would not pursue structural remedies, and would drop its complaints about the (technically ludicrous) bundling IE with the OS.
The settlement they ultimately reached with Microsoft was essentially toothless and beyond the wildest fantasy that Microsoft could have hoped for, given the fact that the government had already won a categorical victory against them in court.
Whether this was the result of bribes paid by Microsoft (who went from being notably apolotical to Washington's largest lobbyist during the course of the trial), or simply because Bush's people leaned libertarian and didn't really believe in enforcing the antitrust laws, or a combination of the two, is anybody's guess.
LOL. Heaven forfend we offend the sensibilities of a notorious, convicted monopolist, so successful in his illegal anticompetitive activities that he became the world's richest man for a number of years?
Whatever were we thinking. We'll go back to being good, obedient consumers now. Not.
How about this. M$ stops subverting standards bodies, engaging in barratry, and submarining "software patents" to squash competition, and we stop using the initials.
Why not let people form their own opinion by not misleading them?
Espousing false and misleading neutrality between a sensible viewpoint and a ridiculous one serves only to confuse.
The man basically made a lot of the internet and the modern computing experience possible. His foundation is responsible for some of the most vital, widely used, and essential software in use today.
And yet whenever he opens his mouth, cue the ad hominem attacks. They come hard and fast. Ignore what he said. Just question his character - change the subject, pick apart some wacky thing from his life. That should settle the matter.
Do you only converse with people who are absolutely normal, totally conventional, and who never make any mistakes in anything they have ever said? Because that's the only way you can bring this stuff up and be intellectually consistent.
And what's worse, this is not the ESPN forums. We're supposed to be nerds here. The man can't be weird and still be right?
Really?
We're referring to a convicted monoply that made enormous amounts of money through illegal means. Their figurehead is (on the odd average week) the world's richest man.
Although late PR efforts have caused him to be more widely known for his philanthropy, the damage Bill Gates has caused to the world economy (by destroying competition in a cluster of humanity's most vital industries) is hard to even estimate; probably on a par with the great robber barons of the 19th century.
Let's not even talk about the quality of their products.
I noticed you just made a new account to troll and spread FUD on this article, and I was wondering, who do you work for, and how much do you get paid to make these posts?
Do you get paid by the hour, or is it per post or per word? Do you get benefits? How's the work environment?
I only ask because I've been thinking of making a move into the "PR" and "viral marketing" space myself. Put the liberal arts education to work, you know.
Banning the Scientologists is based entirely on the Whois database, which is so easily fooled it's silly.
They probably already have internet connections at facilities which are not registered under their official name. You have to go to some trouble, frankly, to show up as yourself rather than your ISP. Even still the church may not even realize which connections show up as them, and which don't. They will now.
If they don't feel like relocating some of their online hit squads to some of their vast real-estate holdings which are unaffected, they will effortlessly set up new internet connectivity that is not registered to them, right where they are.
Problem solved - for them. In addition, I suspect this action, in addition to being futile, will activate the vast Church of Scientology attack machine. If the IRS couldn't withstand them, one wonders how Jimmy Wales will do.
Now what they should have done is not said a thing, and written something that allowed the church addresses to see the church edits to the page, and the rest of the world to see the non-church version. This wouldn't work either, but instead of failing immediately, it might fool them for a few weeks. Plus, it would constitute a fun practical joke.
In the end, wikipedia cannot continue to allow anonymous edits - and unlike slashdot, there is no rating system for snippets of text, so there is no way to penalize anonymity in a "soft" way. It's all or nothing.
Scientology may be just the adversary that helps them realize it.
Just helped a friend shop for routers at his small business. Criteria: only routers where open source linux firmware can be flashed.
Without this, there is literally no working QoS in the consumer price range. And many other problems are common to the crap stock firmwares, from both Linksys and their competition (D-Link, Netgear, etc). This is even the case for routers with "QoS" advertised prominently on their packaging.
With DD-WRT, the difference was immediate and obvious. QoS works, and a bunch of VOIP phones suddenly become rock solid, where before they were unusable. And then there are the extras, from vastly advanced UIs to realtime bandwidth graphs to SIP trunking to you name it.
I have no idea why these router companies don't all work with the community, but I am not so surprised more of them are starting to get it. Sad that the FSF had to resort to a lawsuit to get Cisco's attention, to get their compliance act together. But everyone wins in the end.
The bar for criminal copyright violation is quite low, for better or worse.
Um, did you bother to read that cite?
Yes.
It proves that you were wrong about "like 99%" and "very high volumes."
I would suggest admitting it and apologizing when things like this happen. It will make you look the better person.
It also does not indicate what you claim (more below on that).
Did you follow through to 506?
Yes.
Ironically, you just disproved your own point and even what I said about 'mostly'.
Criminal penalties only apply for copyright if, and I quote, it is 'a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording'.
You are wrong again.
There are multiple sections governing criminal penalties. There are specific penalties for violations relating to 'a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording' - that's 2319 (d), here. They are not the only ones. The penalties for written works are simply different. For instance, examine the foregoing sections (b) and (c) of 2319. I gather that you do not know how to read the law, so I will also provide an analysis: here:
"Increased penalties of up to five years imprisonment and $250,000 in fines were available only if the infringement involved reproduction or distribution of motion pictures, audiovisual works and sound recordings. Repeat offenders were subject to the maximum fines regardless of the number of copies or types of works involved. All other offenses continued to be misdemeanors with maximum fines of $25,000 and one year imprisonment."
I'm increasingly surprised by your desire to assert obviously incorrect facts about the law. It's a peculiar thing to do. The law is there in black and white, along with famous cases, commentary, etc.
Even if you can't understand the materials you are reading, doesn't common sense come into play at some point? Do you really believe there have been no criminal charges relating to copyright violations regarding written works? These laws date back to an era before television and radio.
You obviously have some interest in and passion about the law. Why not read more deeply, or even consider studying it? By emotionally insisting on your guesses about what you don't understand, you make yourself look ridiculous. At this point I am really becoming embarrassed for you.
As pretty much everyone who's worked with computers at all knows, this is simply factually wrong. Passwords are not stored in computers. A hash of the password is stored.
You are wrong again, in two ways. First, the minor way: although hashing passwords is good practice, it is not universally done.
The standard methodology in Unix-variants for many years was to encrypt the password using DES; the stated goal was a one-way process. Passwords can indeed be extracted, however, much to everyone's chagrin, hence the use of shadow files and so forth. Microsoft windows has, over the years, used reversible encryption.
Second: Say that all of the hardware in question only stored hashes of the passwords in question. This also isn't relevant to the "password records" example that I gave, describing common industry practice, in which passwords are recorded as working notes.
I notice you didn't respond to this.
If you can't turn it back into music, it does not count as a 'copy'.
On this point, you are correct.
...he clearly didn't make a copy, and hence cannot be in violation of copyright.
Perhaps you didn't read to the end of my last email. You're response is a non-sequitir.
...stealing passwords? How stupid are you? His behavior isn't even metaphorically stealing passwords.
OK. He... borrowed them and didn't give them back? :) LOL.
Um, actually, yes. Civil law is based on the concept of harm, not on the concept of legality.
Civil liability is governed by law. :)
You can say that running afoul of some tort, be it slander or assault, is "not illegal," because it's a civil matter. No mind that you can still end up in court, and jail if you don't cooperate - just that the government may not enforce them.
But your real problem is that many things, from assault to copyright, are both civil and criminal. Look at your own tortured parenthetical admissions ("Like 99% of copyright law. (The criminal aspects of copyright law are only applicable with very high volumes.)", "(Mostly.)").
You didn't cite any sources, again, but that's because you're lying. The bar for criminal copyright violation is quite low, for better or worse. Similarly with assault, etc.
The next time you assault someone, try telling the police you can't be arrested, because what you did is "not illegal."
Limited liability corporations do not pass on liability to their corporate officers or owners. Nice grasp of the law you have there, thinking Bill Gates could be punished for the actions of Microsoft. (And, more to the point, that's a 'cruel and unusual punishment', you imbecilic. People couldn't be given that punishment anyway.)
You seem easily confused.
This was an example of something a court couldn't do.
You've pointed out some of the reasons why not, which is good.
Your original point seems to have been that laws don't exist which govern what you do with passwords. ("There is no law stating 'You must give people passwords to systems they own'.")
You went as far as to imply that laws did not govern the outcome of US v Microsoft, either ("Microsoft once lost a court case and had to reveal the Windows API as a penalty, something which had never even been mentioned in any previously existing law").
You have now neatly showed that you were wrong, and that, as I said, laws governed every aspect of US v Microsoft. Thank you.
To restate (again) there may be no law against stealing a salt shaker. Just more general laws; more general codes for police conduct, and more general latitude for civil remedies and criminal penalties. Try stealing one and see what happens. Tell people "there's no law against stealing this salt shaker."
First of all, intellectual property is not covered under the 'criminal umbrella', whatever that means. It's covered under an entirely different set of laws that are civil, not criminal. (Mostly.)
So by mostly, do you mean, actually not at all? :)
I'm not citing because I'm telling you basic knowledge.
Common excuse given by liars and charlatans to help conceal a knowing error of fact. Also popular among the lazy.
Passwords are not fixed in a medium
If they weren't, they could never be used. They're stored in the computers that they are used to govern. Length and functionality don't matter a whit to copyright as far as I know. There are other defenses that may come to bear - you haven't said any of them.
If merely storing something in "encrypted/hashed/obfuscated" etc. form means it is not actually copied or stored, what a great loophole in copyright you've found! Woohoo! Perhaps the same defense will work with mp3s? It's party time. :)
It's also customary to keep a secure record of passwords at any installation of significant size, complexity, or monetary value. Many reasons for this which should now be painfully obvious, not least that there are usu
Just because there's no law tell you to do something doesn't mean courts can't impose it as a civil penalty, you fucktard.
Ah, but, if there's no law that's been violated by stealing the passwords... how could we be in... court?
Does the court entertain cases, render judgments, or imposes penalties, civil or otherwise, on the basis of anything... besides... laws?
Have I upset you? You seem to have stopped making sense.
do you really think the police can arrest you right then if you don't pay some random amount pulled out thin air by me?
It may be psychological, rather than legal help, that would benefit you at this point.
Do you suggest theft or property destruction have no criminal components? That police need wait for a civil action to lock you up for them?
Do you suggest that this applies to physical property only - or perhaps that intellectual property is also covered under the criminal umbrella?
I hope you're not planning on driving into anyone's house just to prove a point. :)
how about you cite any law that can be vaguely interpreted in that manner?
I did already. Can I help it if your version of "interpretation" consists of fallacious nonsense and insults?
Microsoft once lost a court case and had to reveal the Windows API as a penalty, something which had never even been mentioned in any previously existing law.
Not true.
Or do you suggest the judge could have decreed that Bill Gates stand on his head until he turned blue?
And why not?
Because of... governing... law...?
In "US v Microsft," everything that occurred in that case was covered by law, including the remedies. Your argument seems to be that if a law gives latitude to a judge, for instance by saying "all the numbers between 1 and 100" and the judge says "55," this was somehow not governed by law...
Hey David - there's no law against stealing salt shakers and pepper mills. I hope this won't encourage you to commit... petty larceny. :)
I notice you avoided citing anything, again, which is fine - I'm sure no one expected you to. But I am still curious: are you a frightened hypocrite, who wouldn't dare talk about his novel theories about his conduct with his employers and their property in the real world... who obviously knows he speaks falsely?
Or is it just that you're an honest man, with a babyish attitude and spoiled child ego, who may actually land in prison one day?
Very entertaining either way. Really can't lose. :)
You moron, I have at no point asserted that employees have the right to keep passwords from their employers. They have no such right.
Really? I could have sworn this was you:
Well, congratulations on making up laws, but, no, there's no law requiring you tell people passwords, even to their own systems.
You know, babyish insults kind of give up that you are a baby, David. And what's moronic? Contradicting yourself in a written medium like this, when it's so obvious. People generally read these in chronological order, you know.
The courts could...
Yes, do tell us about what the courts will do.
No doubt links to examples, evidence, citations are missing only because they mess up your conversational "flow."
Well, on the extremely remote chance you are not actually just a slinking hypocrite with a vivid imagination, without the guts to say any of this to the faces of their current or future employers, you might end up in court yourself one of these days. My advice: don't go pro se.
Prosecutors always use the toughest charge they can get to stick. That's how the system works. In this case, they're using the shitty, shitty computer crime laws, because they are vague and they carry big penalties. These are not good laws to have on the books - no arguments there.
But imagine I work for you:
* I lock up all your hardware and quit.
* For argument's sake, say we even had "controls" - I just ignored them and changed the passwords and kept the new ones to myself.
* I claim I keep all the passwords in my head. I have no written or digital materials w/ the passwords in them. (Do you believe me? Would this be up to the customary standards of the industry?)
* I think I'm pretty clever, pulling that one. Maybe now the cops will believe I've got no tangible or digital work products (whether or not there are).
* I tell you your passwords belong to me, not you, and the only way I'll give them to you is if I feel like it. Why, if it weren't so, I'd be a new sub-class of citizen. I'd be a slave!
Well, it's too much to hope someone will run you through this scenario so we can see if your opinions change.
I'd say your salute looks a little timid from here, though, Kelly. Something tells me you don't salute him at work, and you won't be saluting for this righteous behavior at your next job interview either.
I'll give you this much. Do you really believe he doesn't have a physical or digital copy of those passwords somewhere? That there really isn't any physical or digital stolen goods? Then he should go down for negligence, and the bevy of ordinary laws that cover sabotaging your employer. "Computer crime" - this case just shows how badly those laws are written.
A password isn't something you can copyright, so neither the employee nor the employer "own" the copyright on the password.
Bold claim. Citations please?
In short, if Scot Adams calls me up and demands I hand over any Dilbert comics I might have, I don't have to comply.
Well argued, and correct. But...
Say you worked for him - inked a lot of his comics, something like that. Then you quit. If United Media comes to believe you have materials created during that work - physical things in your possession - you may have cops and lawyers show up and ask for them.
Now, would you say it's standard or customary to keep the only copies of passwords to major pieces of infrastructure in one's head?
Who knows. It's a crazy world. Maybe a judge could be made to believe it. Maybe not.
So, you're not handing over a thing. You never made any written materials. Or you destroyed them. Or you simply refuse to. So hard to tell the difference...
But can you imagine - are you saying you would actually claim, "the passwords are mine, not my employer's?" Or, "they are not property, cannot be owned, therefore I need not give them up?" My advice, do not go out there pro se.
Is it true this guy really gave out fake passwords? Nothing says "I'm a criminal, lock me up, judge" like playing games in that way.
Say cars all used digital locks. Numbers for keys. Say you hire someone to fix your car, they change its locks, and then, though they give you the car, won't give you the key. Like on Seinfeld - the mechanic knows better than the owner. You don't take proper care of that car. You don't deserve it. LOL.
They didn't steal from you? The password they created while working for you - not yours? I admit - if we truly think it's reasonable that their mind has the only copy, it's not a matter for copyright anymore. Not that it will get you off the hook. They'll end up on the hook for other crimes instead... but I still find copyright instructive in this case.
Don't believe me, or this hypocrite - who you just know doesn't feel like sharing his novel theories on password ownership with his bosses as freely as he does with us. Ask an attorney... doubly so if you're planning on doing anything crazy at work.
Here's how I understand it. Then you can see if I got it right.
A performance isn't intellectual property. A recording is. If you have a recording, and you lost it, the performance (or another one) is unrelated. No forcing MJ back into the studio.
A password isn't a song. "Performing it" can be considered the same as simply returning it to its owner. And then it comes to records.
With a song, there are normally notes, or draft recordings, or other materials. They may be in your possession, but if you made them for work, unless you have a contract that says differently, they're work for hire materials and they belong to your employer.
With passwords, it's not what they call "customary" or "standard" to keep the only copies of them all in your head. Even if it could be accepted in court that someone was only committing some "fucktardary", to use DavidTC's term, rather than deliberately hiding stolen goods, you have a whole other set of problems now.
Say you quit. And say not long after, your employer realizes that the notes and materials that are customary to your work are missing.
Maybe you didn't give them back, or maybe you did a negligent job. The court and the cops can turn up asking for them. Try saying, "no, don't have them, sorry" then it's up to a judge to decide whether you're telling the truth. Negligence and damages, or willful contempt and theft, your choice. And if you think jail isn't a risk at this point, well... good luck to you.
Then compound the fun by saying, "I know the passwords, I just won't say them. You can't compel me to perform." Or even better, do what this guy did. Perform, and give the wrong ones out.
You know what that looks like to a judge? Hilarious. Get ready for jail time.
You know the prosecutors in this case went with computer crime laws because prosecutors find the nastiest charge they can make stick, and those laws are terrible - vague and with huge penalties, many of them dating back to the years of Kevin Mitnick. For better or worse, it's how the system works. You don't charge someone with 12 counts of assault when they're also a murderer.
It doesn't mean walking off with your company's passwords isn't theft. Hence discussing this in terms of copyright:
* the passwords are intellectual property and if you were paid to make them, they're not yours,
* they have value (maybe a lot of value),
* depriving your employer of them causes harm (maybe a lot of harm)...
Well, like I said, don't take my word for it...
And if you do something they assert work for hire, and didn't make them a copy, can they arrest you? NO
No, but the police can. Copyright has civil and criminal dimensions. And as I said, copyright isn't even the only issue here. Just an illuminating one.
I presume you're not the country's worst attorney - and only pretending to know the subject. I dare you to consult a real attorney about this. Report on back with who you talked to, and what you find.
In the meantime, you have presented a mountain of extremely dubious theories - virtually everything you've said, point by point, is wrong.
More than that, it's quite obvious you don't believe any of it.
If you believed it, you could assure us you've always been up front with others about your novel theories on what your rights are with those you work for. Not just here, but in "RL." If you believed it, you wouldn't mind discussing your thoughts on your employer's passwords (or are they your passwords?) in your next job interview. Just to make sure everyone was on the same page, you know.
I was trying to keep you out of trouble, but I wash my hands of you. If you refuse to consult an attorney and would rather live in a fantasy, then my advice would be to wear it on your sleeve. Don't hide your beliefs from those around you. Make sure everyone else knows what you consider your rights to be.
We both know it's advice you won't take, though.
The problem with pp's point of view is that it's not always that cut-and-dried.
Yes, it really is.
You can be asked to do something dumb, immoral, or illegal at work. Happens every day. Your options are simple:
Document it as best you can. Contact the authorities and the media. You can quit at any time - just don't steal anything on your way out. For instance write down passwords on paper, hand them to your boss, and then walk out. Also happens every day. If it happens to be the govt you work for, then tell your story to the people. Maybe a DA sees fit to prosecute. Maybe someone loses an election. Happens a lot (thank god).
If you don't want to quit, object in writing, get the instructions in writing, and then do as you're told. You're free and clear, legally at least. You just have to sleep at night.
If this guy actually believed his boss was too stupid to be his boss, and turning over the company's property to him would lead to dire consequences, he'd have followed the law, and then laid back and become a whistleblower. If he was right, it'd be his boss in court/jail in the end.
Instead I'm afraid it's increasingly obvious he didn't really believe this.
No, if they do something stupid with it, then maybe you end up in jail, because it was still your "responsibility" even though they made it impossible for you to uphold that responsibility. In other words, if you hand out your passwords you become a ready-made scapegoat.
Basically, it's a no-win situation. It's essentially equivalent to getting fired, except they screw you out of the rights you would have had if you were fired explicitly.
Not true at all. You can always quit. If you do, just don't steal any company property on the way out. Passwords are the company's (or government's etc) intellectual property.
You will not end up in jail.
Or stay on, object in writing, get the demand in writing, and then you are clear.
Ask an attorney if you don't believe me.
Whoa. Very, very wrong.
The key is your property. So is the copy. He fails to return it: theft. Jail. Happens every day. Check your court's records.
Only loophole: say you "lost" the car key. Or the passwords. Maybe you can convince the judge.
Work passwords are exactly the same - intellectual property, belonging to your employer under work for hire rules.
Ask an attorney if you don't believe me.
Or just ask yourself how you ever replace a network or systems admin who doesn't feel like letting you?
If your boss demands a password, you have to give it, by law. If he demands you give it to another person, or 20 other people, you have to give it, by law.
What insane country do you live in where not obeying what your boss is a crime? In the US private sector, employees enter a contract with their employers. Not doing what your boss says is probably a violation of that contract (which will likely get you fired), but it won't get you prosecuted for a crime.
I qualified the above with "in the US private sector", because this doesn't apply to certain public sector jobs (i.e., elected/appointed officials), public safety jobs, and, of course, the military.
Not true at all. It's not a crime to disobey. You can always quit. You just can't steal any company property on the way out. Passwords are company (intellectual) property.
What law? In this case, the State's trying t'use "disrupting computer services", which is a California-specific law. From a look at the text, it looks like you only must give the password to your boss if he or she is "authorized" to have it. I'm assuming the charges are based on:
This one, among others probably. Your work passwords are the intellectual property of your employer.
Don't take my word for it. Ask an attorney.
(5) Knowingly and without permission ... causes the denial of computer services to an
authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network.
I also admit, this isn't the best written set of charges out there. Just that it's correct on the essential point. He had lots of legal options and chose to use none of them. He stole his employer's property, he went to jail.
The question is whether his bosses were "authorized".
No. Not your job to decide what's authorized. Your manager decides what's authorized. He/she gives you an order, you follow it or quit, your choice. Just don't steal anything on the way out.
As a layman, it looks to me as though Childs was correct in refusing to give out the passwords (although I'm not familiar with any relevant city policies granting authorization, again I'm pretty darned sure the HR guy isn't supposed to have 'em).
Thank you for at least admitting you are a layman.
Giving out incorrect passwords was a bad move, but easily attributed to the pressure of the surprise party.
Nope. It's pretty much making him look guilty.