If I don't turn up to work, they don't have to pay me. What they can't do is prevent me taking a job elsewhere, without paying me.
That equates to them paying me to sit at home.
I've seen this actually happen, as an enforcement of a non-compete clause. A friend was paid to sit at home for six months because he refused to work for the company he left and they didn't want him to work for the company that he was joining.
I'm not suggesting that Childs isn't a self-important fucktard. I have no idea, although the evidence tends to support your theory.
That doesn't mean he's not correct in refusing to break the law by divulging computer access codes to unauthorised people. You get in serious trouble for that sort of shit.
Frankly nobody in my company has the authority to ask for my password. Anybody with the authority to access resources I have access to also has the authority to request either their own access, or an administrative override on my access (i.e. admin changing my password).
If my boss wants my password he wont get it.
If my boss wants information I have signed an NDA for, he wont get it unless the person with whom I signed the NDA gives me authorisation to share that information.
Maybe I work in organisations with more complex hierarchies than you do.
My contract guarantees me 3 months pay if they want to make me redundant (i.e. fire me for anything other than gross misconduct).
Comically if I decide not to turn up to work tomorrow the worse they can do is get an injunction against me working somewhere else for those three months. Even then they'd have to pay me for them.
Of course, that wont help with references, but I can get good references from within the team and other contacts at the company if I need.
Reality is that I have the professionalism and integrity not to screw them over, and they wont screw me either. But I work for an ethical company..
Interesting. Here the premium for fully comprehensive cover (i.e. insuring your car too) over 3rd party liabity (i.e. only insuring the other guy) is only a very small percentage.
20% extra to cover the cost of replacing my own car? Including hire car if needed, including breakdown assistance, including legal cover?
You would give passwords to a room of people that lacked authorisation for them?
Have you any idea how many laws that breaks?
Forget professional ethics, forget contractual obligations (both of which should stop you from doing such a thing) you'd be breaking a myriad of criminal laws by intentionally revealing passwords without authorisation.
Had he refused to obey a court order to provide the credentials you may be right.
Reality as I understand it is that no such court order exists, and he did hand over the credentials as soon as he could be sure it was appropriate to do so (i.e. not an open forum containing multiple individuals to whom he could not legitimately tell passwords without being charged with various conspiracy and/or hacking laws).
He was willing to talk, just not to any random person. That the random people may have the same employer does not make them authorised to receive such sensitive information.
That he was no longer employed also pulls into question his obligation to remember/provide the credentials anyway. I can't remember my passwords at previous employers; why would I?
I suspect you're right. Unfortunately being shit at his job to the point of maliciousness is not illegal.
Had his employer explicitly demanded that he document his passwords and make them available to the appropriate members of the organisation (city) before sacking him then they'd have an infinitely stronger civil case against him.
They'd still be on dodgy grounds for criminal prosecution.
Right now, they have no grounds (that I can see, in my common sense non-legal view of the world) for criminal action against him. Which makes his multi-month sojourn in a secure facility pretty harsh.
Just because he's a cock of the highest order doesn't make him a criminal and doesn't make it acceptable to lock him up for months without trial.
To make it more accurate, you would need to hire a locksmith to reset the combo to your safe, and pay him a retainder to open your safe for you any time you asked him to.
At a future point you refuse to pay him, tell him his services are no longer required, and then get your clumsy mate to ask him for the combination to your safe. Then put him in jail for saying 'your mate is not qualified to open the safe without breaking it'.
Because frankly if he gives your mate the code he's going to go to jail for conspiracy to rob your safe and/or conspiracy to break your safe.
Such is the law, such is the situation, and such is the extent of the flaws in your analogy.
Thank you for posting the most concise summary of the situation as I see it, addressing the issues as I understand them.
It may be that there is information we are unaware of, but there is a scary amount of blinkered naivity, prejudice and ignorance being posted elsewhere on this topic so it's nice to see someone describing it all so sensibly.
The law is such an utter cock at times that you're fucked whether you obey it to the letter, obey it in intent or just try and obey part of it because it's contradictory.
In this situation it appears he obeyed the law and is getting fucked over anyway. Had he acted any differently he would have broken multiple other laws.
it's not my right to withhold them from the rightful owners
No, but it is your responsibility to withhold them from unauthorised people. Since the people listening included a number of people that explicitly lacked authorisation it would at best be irresponsible and unethical of you to share the passwords, and potentially illegal and actionable.
Under those circumstances would you - pretty much guarantee a criminal charge by sharing the passwords - risk potential prosecution for rightfully withholding passwords
If he gave up the passwords to after he's been fired then he's guilty of conspiracy to misuse computing services (in British terms; I'm fairly sure the US has equivalent laws).
He has a cast iron defense that he was fucked either way: Share the passwords with people he knew he'd signed a contract not to tell the passwords to (i.e. people unauthorised to have access) or get shafted as he is being for refusing.
I hope to hell the city get fucked senseless both financially and (regarding specific employees) in terms of custodial sentences for doing this to him.
Any particular reason for precisely naming the film at 11?
Not that I'm knocking Scum, it's a fucking masterpiece; indeed it broke the system.
Who's the daddy now?
Re:You're afraid to send out a resume?
on
Linked In Or Out?
·
· Score: 1
I enjoy my work. I'd enjoy not working more. Therefore work is (much like the person you quoted) the horrible thing I do in order to have money.
If I enjoyed my job less than other jobs I could do then at that point I'd need to find a better job. Give me a few million pounds to live off and I'll find a better pastime than working for a living.
T-Mobile are charging me a sensible (and competitive) rate for my phone calls and threw in the data access and the phone for free.
Or to look at it another way, I paid £270 for the phone and got 10 hours of free calls a month for 18 months, all the texts/MMS messages I will ever send for free and internet access thrown in. I'd have paid £270 just for the phone!
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you assume that gay people have homosexual sex?
It's possible to be gay and celibate. It's possible to be gay and only have heterosexual sex.
It's also possible to be a straight man and have a hard cock thrust deep inside you. Talk to porn actors, male prostitutes and rape victims..
Perhaps you really don't give a damn, but you sure as hell hold prejudiced views about it all.
You must be ugly. I find it's important to know when they're male and offering me a drink too.
If I don't turn up to work, they don't have to pay me. What they can't do is prevent me taking a job elsewhere, without paying me.
That equates to them paying me to sit at home.
I've seen this actually happen, as an enforcement of a non-compete clause. A friend was paid to sit at home for six months because he refused to work for the company he left and they didn't want him to work for the company that he was joining.
I'm not suggesting that Childs isn't a self-important fucktard. I have no idea, although the evidence tends to support your theory.
That doesn't mean he's not correct in refusing to break the law by divulging computer access codes to unauthorised people. You get in serious trouble for that sort of shit.
Frankly nobody in my company has the authority to ask for my password. Anybody with the authority to access resources I have access to also has the authority to request either their own access, or an administrative override on my access (i.e. admin changing my password).
If my boss wants my password he wont get it.
If my boss wants information I have signed an NDA for, he wont get it unless the person with whom I signed the NDA gives me authorisation to share that information.
Maybe I work in organisations with more complex hierarchies than you do.
My contract guarantees me 3 months pay if they want to make me redundant (i.e. fire me for anything other than gross misconduct).
Comically if I decide not to turn up to work tomorrow the worse they can do is get an injunction against me working somewhere else for those three months. Even then they'd have to pay me for them.
Of course, that wont help with references, but I can get good references from within the team and other contacts at the company if I need.
Reality is that I have the professionalism and integrity not to screw them over, and they wont screw me either. But I work for an ethical company..
Interesting. Here the premium for fully comprehensive cover (i.e. insuring your car too) over 3rd party liabity (i.e. only insuring the other guy) is only a very small percentage.
20% extra to cover the cost of replacing my own car? Including hire car if needed, including breakdown assistance, including legal cover?
Worthwhile to me.
You would give passwords to a room of people that lacked authorisation for them?
Have you any idea how many laws that breaks?
Forget professional ethics, forget contractual obligations (both of which should stop you from doing such a thing) you'd be breaking a myriad of criminal laws by intentionally revealing passwords without authorisation.
Learn the law, it's really rather very nasty.
I would think it should just be contempt of court
Had he refused to obey a court order to provide the credentials you may be right.
Reality as I understand it is that no such court order exists, and he did hand over the credentials as soon as he could be sure it was appropriate to do so (i.e. not an open forum containing multiple individuals to whom he could not legitimately tell passwords without being charged with various conspiracy and/or hacking laws).
He was willing to talk, just not to any random person. That the random people may have the same employer does not make them authorised to receive such sensitive information.
That he was no longer employed also pulls into question his obligation to remember/provide the credentials anyway. I can't remember my passwords at previous employers; why would I?
I suspect you're right. Unfortunately being shit at his job to the point of maliciousness is not illegal.
Had his employer explicitly demanded that he document his passwords and make them available to the appropriate members of the organisation (city) before sacking him then they'd have an infinitely stronger civil case against him.
They'd still be on dodgy grounds for criminal prosecution.
Right now, they have no grounds (that I can see, in my common sense non-legal view of the world) for criminal action against him. Which makes his multi-month sojourn in a secure facility pretty harsh.
Just because he's a cock of the highest order doesn't make him a criminal and doesn't make it acceptable to lock him up for months without trial.
Your analogy is flawed.
To make it more accurate, you would need to hire a locksmith to reset the combo to your safe, and pay him a retainder to open your safe for you any time you asked him to.
At a future point you refuse to pay him, tell him his services are no longer required, and then get your clumsy mate to ask him for the combination to your safe. Then put him in jail for saying 'your mate is not qualified to open the safe without breaking it'.
Because frankly if he gives your mate the code he's going to go to jail for conspiracy to rob your safe and/or conspiracy to break your safe.
Such is the law, such is the situation, and such is the extent of the flaws in your analogy.
Thank you for posting the most concise summary of the situation as I see it, addressing the issues as I understand them.
It may be that there is information we are unaware of, but there is a scary amount of blinkered naivity, prejudice and ignorance being posted elsewhere on this topic so it's nice to see someone describing it all so sensibly.
The law is such an utter cock at times that you're fucked whether you obey it to the letter, obey it in intent or just try and obey part of it because it's contradictory.
In this situation it appears he obeyed the law and is getting fucked over anyway. Had he acted any differently he would have broken multiple other laws.
Not much of a choice is it.
Lucky you didn't work in my IT department. I would have fired you on day one.
You'd also be facing a wrongful dismissal tribunal, no doubt accompanied by serious discussions with HR and your own managers.
You can't fire people for obeying their contract, especially for specifically adhering to NDAs (which go beyond general employment contracts).
Shit, you'll be telling us you'd fire someone for refusing to hack a competitor's systems next..
Interesting. I've signed NDAs in the past that prevent me from discussing my work with my boss.
FFS, they explicitly stated that other employees in the same company are excluded from the information.
Obviously I'm in the habit managing my boss well enough that this sort of thing never causes me problems anyway..
Agreed, and to add the one single word that really matters:
Oil.
it's not my right to withhold them from the rightful owners
No, but it is your responsibility to withhold them from unauthorised people. Since the people listening included a number of people that explicitly lacked authorisation it would at best be irresponsible and unethical of you to share the passwords, and potentially illegal and actionable.
Under those circumstances would you
- pretty much guarantee a criminal charge by sharing the passwords
- risk potential prosecution for rightfully withholding passwords
Lets face it, the guy was fucked either way.
Besides, who really believes that your clothing changes who you REALLY are?
Women.
Senior Managers.
People in public service.
Many other people.
(Note that responses are not mutually exclusive)
If he gave up the passwords to after he's been fired then he's guilty of conspiracy to misuse computing services (in British terms; I'm fairly sure the US has equivalent laws).
He has a cast iron defense that he was fucked either way: Share the passwords with people he knew he'd signed a contract not to tell the passwords to (i.e. people unauthorised to have access) or get shafted as he is being for refusing.
I hope to hell the city get fucked senseless both financially and (regarding specific employees) in terms of custodial sentences for doing this to him.
Any particular reason for precisely naming the film at 11?
Not that I'm knocking Scum, it's a fucking masterpiece; indeed it broke the system.
Who's the daddy now?
I enjoy my work. I'd enjoy not working more. Therefore work is (much like the person you quoted) the horrible thing I do in order to have money.
If I enjoyed my job less than other jobs I could do then at that point I'd need to find a better job. Give me a few million pounds to live off and I'll find a better pastime than working for a living.
And one look at the legal threats page is enough to prove that those guys treat the law as a joke they can ignore.
erm. American law is a joke, and they can ignore it.
Not a very funny joke admittedly.
I really liked the original Max Payne. Very few games have drawn me into their story so effectively.
You can be against capital punishment without accepting the possibility of higher crime rates.
The only way to prevent crime is to make everything legal. Or kill everyone.
I vote for the latter.
The US market feels pretty broken.
T-Mobile are charging me a sensible (and competitive) rate for my phone calls and threw in the data access and the phone for free.
Or to look at it another way, I paid £270 for the phone and got 10 hours of free calls a month for 18 months, all the texts/MMS messages I will ever send for free and internet access thrown in. I'd have paid £270 just for the phone!