Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Perl Programming User Journal Government Intel The Courts News

Randal Schwartz's Charges Expunged 219

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the about-time dept.
After 13 years, Randal Schwartz has had his conviction expunged. In effect, legally it never happened. If you haven't heard about this one before, my take is that as a contractor at Intel, Randal did some over-zealous white-hat cracking free-of-charge; this embarrassed some people in management (he pointed out that their passwords were terrible) and management then chose to embarrass themselves further by having him convicted of a felony under an 'anti-hacking' law. More info can be had from the Friends of Randal Schwartz.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Randal Schwartz's Charges Expunged

Comments Filter:
  • Congratulations (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ron Harwood (136613) <harwoodr AT linux DOT ca> on Thursday March 01, 2007 @10:41PM (#18202718) Homepage Journal
    Congratulations to Randal - it's nice to actually read a good news story with regards to the legal system.
    • Re:Congratulations (Score:5, Insightful)

      by A beautiful mind (821714) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @10:48PM (#18202782)
      13 years of fighting doesn't sound especially pleasant. I can't imagine what Randall had to go through to get his name cleared.
      • Re:Congratulations (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mikkeles (698461) on Friday March 02, 2007 @07:57AM (#18205414)
        Justice delayed is justice denied. This is not a feather in the cap for the justice system.
        • Indeed. Justice would be seeing the Intel PHBs get Nifonged.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by grantsellis (537978)
          IANAL, but I work for a defense lawyer who handles expungements.

          The whole point about expungement is that the court thinks you were guilty but is letting you off anyway because you've filled certain statutory criteria.

          The most usual criterion (other than turning 18) is the passage of time.

          This isn't justice delayed. The delay is the whole point. The court still thinks he's guilty but is letting him off anyway.

          This means he can stop fighting REGARDLESS on whether or not the justice system thinks he was gui
    • by ShaunC (203807) *
      Seconded... Congrats Merlyn. It sucks that all of this happened in the first place, but you're proof that if you keep fighting, eventually justice can work for "the little guy."
      • Re:Congratulations (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jc42 (318812) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @11:55PM (#18203188) Homepage Journal
        ... if you keep fighting, eventually justice can work for "the little guy."

        Well, maybe, but what I always find interesting in cases like this is: How much money did it cost?

        All too often, when the "little guy" wins, he's also bankrupt.

        Anyone know what the bill was for all this legal action?
        • by Anonymous Coward
          SCO is being drained to death by the unfair legal assault by IBM. I hope that SCO wins $2-3 billions in the end. They certainly deserve it.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Lesrahpem (687242)
          I have had a felony expunged before, and in my experience, it wasn't a big deal at all. My conviction was computer-related as well, and all I had to do was wait a certain amount of time and then apply at the county court house to have it expunged. I had a hearing with just a magistrate to explain why I wanted it expunged (all I had to say was that I felt it would effect my employment opportunities), and paid something like 20.00 in court costs. That was all it took.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Basehart (633304)
            "My conviction was computer-related as well"

            What did you do, beat someone to death with a laptop?
  • by Almost-Retired (637760) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @10:43PM (#18202744)
    Congratulations Randall, its great news to hear that the legal system actually works once in a while.

    --
    Cheers Gene
    • by 1010110010 (1002553) on Friday March 02, 2007 @12:08AM (#18203270)
      Are you fucking serious? After 13 years? You call that working?
      • Well, TBT, not no, but HELL NO! It should have been laughed out of court in the first place, 13 years ago. Now I'm serious, this was a miss-carriage if there ever was one. And if it weren't for the adverse publicity, I believe he should have plenty of grounds for a civil action for damages.

        But thats just me, an honest old fart & cynic that still thinks whats right is whats right, and whats wrong should be quickly punished, a bit like Willy N. and "Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses" song. Sometim
        • by psykocrime (61037)
          Its ALL a matter of responsibility for ones own actions at the end of the trip.

          Are you kidding? Responsibility? What kind of nut are you, anyway... why should anybody take responsibility
          for their actions? Didn't you know that everybody is a victim, and everything bad that happens is the fault of
          the evil capitalists? And furthermore, didn't you realize that we're all entitled to live in a world where everybody
          gets the fairy-tale ending (and a pony) no matter how lazy, incompetent, or untalented they might
          • And where the hell is the smiley? Methinks you forgot that little detail.

            Where the hell does /. find these folks anyway. Inquiring minds would like to know.

            Or are you just new here?

            --
            Cheers, Gene & this time I'll paste my usual sig in. Enjoy.
            "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
              soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
            -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
          • by killjoe (766577)
            Personal responsibility is for suckers and fools.

            The smart form corporations.
        • by killjoe (766577)
          In the days you are pining for Randall would have been shot or hanged when he was accused. He would have been railroaded by the sheriff who was owned by the railroad or the bank.

          Ah the good old days when people were hanged the same day they were charged.

          Actually come to think of it in the old days the copper barons and the railroads would have just killed the guy themselves if they thought he was stealing from them.

    • Yeah, I bet it was a real in his life...
    • From the article:
      I don't have my gun possession rights restored yet, but apparently that's
      merely a formality with the BATF, and I'll be taking care of that soon.


      (sarcasm on)
      Well Thank God because it's a miracle that you survived these past 13 years without a gun. Certainly this is the most important part of getting your name cleared.
      (sarcasm off)
      • Please go and read the Bill of Rights, the 2nd one in particular. Without it, you wouldn't have the ability to write that, because that is supposedly guaranteed by the first. But without the 2nd, we would not now have the first, it would have been nibbled to death by ducks.

        --
        Cheers, Gene
        "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
          soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
        -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
  • by twitter (104583) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @10:44PM (#18202754) Homepage Journal

    The terrible thing about character assassination is that the event never had to happen. All you have to do is start a rumor about travel expenses and the victim is as good as blacklisted at big dumb companies where lip service is given to leadership but obedience and conformity are valued above all else.

  • by vux984 (928602) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @10:45PM (#18202756)
    Except that it did.

    And all the effects can never be erased.

    For example any "lists" he's been added to over the last 13 years will not be updated to reflect his new 'never was a criminal' status. Be it terrorist watch lists, no fly lists, FBI persons of interest list, or whatever else, not to mention his prints will remain in the system, etc, etc.

    • by hansamurai (907719) <hansamurai@gmail.com> on Thursday March 01, 2007 @11:00PM (#18202874) Homepage Journal
      perl will take care of this...

      @files = ("terrorist_watch_list.txt", "no_fly.doc", "fbi_persons_of_interest_list.ppt");
      foreach $file (@files) {
              unlink($file);
      }
      • by belmolis (702863) <billposer@nOSpam.alum.mit.edu> on Thursday March 01, 2007 @11:32PM (#18203048) Homepage

        Uh, actually, this program doesn't do the right thing. Surely the right thing to do is not to delete the files but to remove Randall's name from them. Some people deserve to be on those lists.

        • Uh, actually, this program doesn't do the right thing.
          If anyone knows how to fix it (and turn it into a one-liner in the process) Randal Schwartz does. ;-)
          • by TommydCat (791543)

            If anyone knows how to fix it (and turn it into a one-liner in the process) Randal Schwartz does. ;-)

            ...using map [perl.com], no doubt. Congrats on a significant victory, Randall!

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Tmack (593755)

              If anyone knows how to fix it (and turn it into a one-liner in the process) Randal Schwartz does. ;-)

              ...using map [perl.com], no doubt. Congrats on a significant victory, Randall!

              something like

              map({open IN, "<$_";open OUT, ">$_.tmp";foreach $line(<IN>){ $line=~s/Randal Schwartz/Bill Gates/i; print OUT $line; }close IN; close OUT;rename($_.tmp,$_)},["terrorist_watch_list.txt" , "no_fly.doc", "fbi_persons_of_interest_list.ppt"]);

              Assuming of course, his name is in plaintext in the doc and ppt files... otherwise, just need to pass it to something that can filter those to text and back.

              Tm

        • I'll fix up the script as soon as you point to a senior FBI guy who can be trusted with it.
        • by hyfe (641811)

          Some people deserve to be on those lists.
          .. and they're most likely not anyways.
        • Uh, actually, this program doesn't do the right thing. Surely the right thing to do is not to delete the files but to remove Randall's name from them. Some people deserve to be on those lists.

          Yeah, because that no-fly is full of people so dangerous that it is just not safe to let them ride in an airplane, yet so innocent that we can't even arrest them.
        • >Some people deserve to be on those lists.

          Well, approximately 95% of them don't. And I can accept a 5% failure rate.
        • by geekoid (135745)
          not enough to bother and have no fly lists handle by the government. The airliners can have one if they want, but there is no reason we should be paying for this list.
    • by mekkab (133181) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @11:00PM (#18202876) Homepage Journal
      and Randall still can't get a clearance without being upfront about it.
      Basically it means he can tell a police officer he's never been arrested and doesn't need to disclose it on a non-clearance employment application or any "low grade" background check like rentin an apartment.

      With that out of the way, Randal has helped me out on comp.lang.perl (right before it went moderated) so ... Good on ya, Randall!
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01, 2007 @11:21PM (#18202990)
        There was a PDF file linked on the http://www.lightlink.com/spacenka/fors/ [lightlink.com]Friends of Randal Schwartz site states:

        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the Court shall forward a certified copy of this Order to all law enforcement agencies mentioned in the Court's file, including the following:
        A. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
        B. The Oregon State Police, and
        C. The Oregon State Corrections Division, and
        D. The Arresting Agency, Portland Police Bureau.
        So the FBI can't use it against him. The PDF file is a copy of the expungement order from the court.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by bladesjester (774793)
          A lot of the time, agencies (and even the courts) don't follow expunge orders. They conviniently "forget", so you have to hire a lawyer to follow up and make sure the court order was actually followed.
        • by vux984 (928602)
          Yeah, so a copy of the order was issued. Then what? They're all going to meticulously remove their records on him. Hardly, this will just get added to those records. So, yeah, when they pull up his file which will still exist, they'll see his past, and the fact that they won't be allowed to use it.

          Sort of like instructing a jury to disregard testimony. They might be able to try, and I'm sure they do their level best, but its never really gone.
      • by Wavicle (181176) on Friday March 02, 2007 @01:43AM (#18203852)
        and Randall still can't get a clearance without being upfront about it.

        As someone who has gone through a security background check, worked at Intel and read the decision of the appeals court: I would be fairly surprised if Randal was able to get a security clearance even even if no conviction had occurred. The undisputed portions of the case suggest that Randal lacked an ethical barrier between him and either his curiosity about things for which he did not have access or his desire to gain respect by demonstrating his skill. This was 13 years ago maybe he has changed, I don't know.

        Whether his intentions at the time were noble or not: he logged onto a system for which he knew his account should have been deleted; he ran a gate program on the system (after previously being told to stop running a gate on other systems); he cracked one of the passwords to someone with higher access on the system; he then logged on to the system using the cracked user's account; he transferred the password file to another machine; he ran crack on this other machine; he turned up 35 weak passwords; he said nothing; he left for a while to teach a class; he came back; he still said nothing; he re-ran crack on another faster machine (this is apparently what eventually got him caught).

        Randal claims he did all this to re-gain respect at Intel's supercomputer division. I have no reason to doubt this is honest. The fact that he so freely gave so much information to the police suggests to me that he was trying to convey that he had no intention of harming Intel's business. However it is very, very bad judgment. Now if you were the agent assigned to his security background check, looking to see if his character demonstrates a likelihood of compromising sensitive information, even unintentionally, what would you think?
        • by doom (14564) <doom@kzsu.stanford.edu> on Friday March 02, 2007 @03:47AM (#18204358) Homepage Journal

          I would be fairly surprised if Randal was able to get a security clearance

          I was once working as an engineer at a secure facility, where one of my friends explained to me that he had never actually planned on working there. He figured he'd let them pay them while the background check was in progress, but never expected to actually be cleared (the interview with the Feds went something like Q: "So what about all these hits of acid they found in your refrigerator?", A: "Well, they were there.")

          But they did indeed give him a clearence, I would infer because they concluded he wasn't vulnerable to blackmail on the point, and so on.

          And I have to say that the opinion of "someone who has gone through a security check" isn't terribly authoritative, unless you were turned down for having a similar background to Randal's.

        • by cheros (223479) on Friday March 02, 2007 @06:20AM (#18204990)
          At a sufficiently high level, a security check is not something you 'fail' or 'pass' - it's simply a risk assessment that clarifies to those that are planning to use your services which areas of risk they need to manage. It's not a tick box process that HR does over lunch - it takes months of investigative work. There is a simple way to get through that: do. not. lie.
    • by eggboard (315140) *
      The expungement order requires that the FBI and other authorities be notified that the felonies are expunged. Now, I don't want to pretend that the system works, and thus his records won't show up in the wrong place in the wrong way.

      But I'm very happy for Randal. I exchanged some email with him after I was made aware of the news, and wrote up an account at TidBITS [tidbits.com]. I had written a letter supporting a pardon to the Oregon governor a few years ago, and was delighted that his day out of court has finally arriv
    • by scruffy (29773)
      Don't forget the big data brokers like Experian with their own criminal databases.
    • by kalirion (728907)
      Also, what about the $68,000 fine he was forced to pay (according to wikipedia) for something that "never happened"? Can he report it as a robbery and get his money back?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    The former CEO of aforementioned computer company actually wrote a business book with the word "paranoid" in its title. A bad match for top shelf Perl hackers, who are some of the quickest, wittiest, and down-to-earth people in our business.

    Congratulations Mr. Schwartz.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by LarryLong (899387)
      Well there you go. I've been trying for years to become more witty and improve my mental processes, and all I had to do was go out and learn Perl. Thanks for the tip. :)
  • by Andrew Sterian (182) <andrewsterian@yahoo.com> on Thursday March 01, 2007 @10:49PM (#18202792) Homepage
    ...did he get his $68,000 back from Intel?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Score Whore (32328)
      No. He got his record cleared. Ie. he can apply for jobs of a sensitive nature. They haven't declared him innocent. Jesus people, get a clue. He was convicted of a crime. He was punished. Now he's received a pardon after his sentence was fulfilled. It's fairly common at the state level. At the federal level, it depends on the president. Clinton was fairly liberal with his pardons. Bush is tight with his. Whoop dee do.
      • Re:Whither $68k? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by krbvroc1 (725200) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @11:47PM (#18203130)

        At the federal level, it depends on the president. Clinton was fairly liberal with his pardons. Bush is tight with his. Whoop dee do.

        Most of the 'controversial' pardons are granted the last day of office, so there is not enough data to compare the current president and former. Report back in 2008 when there is more data.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by jomegat (706411)
          Here's how W's list will start:
          • Lewis "Scooter" Libby
          • Donald "Rummy" Rumsfeld
          • Richard "Dick" Cheney
          Note that like most mobsters, W's friends have nicknames. And yes, I know none of these people have been convicted for anything, but there's still time.
        • by dave420 (699308)
          When Hitler, Megatron and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man will all be made honorary US citizens by Bush, when he's half-way out the door...
    • by quanticle (843097)
      It says here (http://www.lightlink.com/spacenka/fors/):
      >>Schwartz appealed the conviction. A decision by the State of Oregon Court of Appeals in April 2001 upheld the convictions on all counts, but reversed the restitution order and sent this issue back to the original court for reconsideration.<<

      So it looks like the restitution was either reduced or eliminated, as the original restitution order was overturned on appeal.
  • The best way to pass out embarassing information is anonymously. Burn some CD's with the info and leave them around randomly, in places untraceable to you.

    Don't touch the CD's with your fingers.
    Destroy the CD burner when you're done.
    Buy the CD burner secondhand at a garage sale. Pay cash.
    Steal the CDs from a college student.
    Don't leave the CD in a place where there's a camera.

    What else. Help me out here.

    Rely on someone else to find the data and spread it around. No need to get yourself into trouble. Have some Common Sense. Do you know what I am speaking of?
    • by cloricus (691063)
      I didn't realise this was blowing the whistle; I thought it was part of any good IT department employees job. That is to ensure all passwords, more so management passwords, are as secure as possible.
       
      Getting in trouble for improving corporate security is absolutely insane.
      • I didn't realise this was blowing the whistle; I thought it was part of any good IT department employees job. That is to ensure all passwords, more so management passwords, are as secure as possible.
        He wasn't an employee of Intel. He was a contractor hired to do a specific job which wasn't checking for password security.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by mark3748 (1002268)
          Intel is not, and never has been a fun company to be a contractor at... If you're an employee, it's great, but there's definately an "us vs. them" feel if you're a contractor, and Intel is the only company I've been at that is like that. You seriously don't want to piss off the wrong people there.

  • by FlyByPC (841016) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @10:57PM (#18202850) Homepage
    Breaking news:White-hat hacker's conviction "never happened."

    In other news:
    • Hell freezes over; Devil announces installation of HVAC units.
    • Islam and Judaism to merge; Pope named as new high official.
    • Coca-Cola to license soda formula as GPL; KFC to follow suit
    • George W. Bush awarded Nobel Peace Prize
    • Bill Clinton and Gary Hart take vow of chastity
    • George W. Bush awarded Nobel Peace Prize
      I call shenanigans!

      -nB

      Laugh, it's a joke (and I voted for the other, other guy anyway!)
    • by psykocrime (61037)
      George W. Bush awarded Nobel Peace Prize

      Now that's just silly...
  • by viking80 (697716) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @11:03PM (#18202892) Journal
    Expungement is the sealing of a criminal record so it is not publicly available. The consequence might be that you can deny you have a criminal record, but it is quite different from a pardon, which is forgiveness of a crime and the penalty associated with it.
    • by humphrm (18130) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @11:22PM (#18202998) Homepage

      but it is quite different from a pardon, which is forgiveness of a crime and the penalty associated with it.

      Indeed, a pardon cannot become effective unless you admit to wrongdoing - then you are "forgiven" and the penalty is dropped.

      In this case, he could argue that he never broke the law to begin with, because he was (albeit overzealeously) exposing security issues to his own employer. So accepting a pardon would be saying, "Yeah, I did break the law, sorry." In this case, he does not have to admit wrongdoing. In this case, Randall is instead being told, "Yeah, you didn't break the law, sorry."

      Honestly every one who knows Randall probably knows about this legal blemish, and probably don't care about it.

    • by bryan1945 (301828)
      Not quite- it is removed, ie. expunged, so there is no record left. Except for federal agencies which never seem to comply with an expungement order.
  • by cmholm (69081) <cmholm@NOSPaM.mauiholm.org> on Thursday March 01, 2007 @11:17PM (#18202958) Homepage Journal
    It shouldn't have been necessary, but it was Randal's misfortune to show us the way to live with catch-all computer crime laws. To wit:

    The independent contractor shall...
    • Put all proposed activities in the contract/statement of work in as great a detail as possible, then...
    • Get written approval from the customer (your immediate POC and their boss) for any additional activities that occur to you after work commences.

    The in-house employee shall...
    • Review company computer use policies yearly, if not already required to do so.
    • Before attempting activities that may even conceivably be considered against company policy, get approval from lead in writing, hard copy signature if possible.

    May not seem a good use of time, unless you consider the value of staying out of the criminal legal system.
    • by kcbrown (7426) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Friday March 02, 2007 @12:37AM (#18203448)

      No, the real moral of this story, and others like it, is simple:

      • Don't bother testing the security of a system unless you're forced to use that system to store, in unencrypted form, information you care about.
      • If you are forced to use such a system (and thus to test its security), perform all your tests in such a way that there's no way they can be traced back to you.
      • If you find security holes, the only action you should take is to minimize your use of the system. Under no circumstances should you actually tell management about the security holes unless you have, signed and in writing, authorization to perform the security testing. If you have such authorization, make sure you store copies of it in safe places. Even so, with today's fucked up legal environment, it's entirely possible that their lawyers would be able to get said document stricken from the evidence record on some sort of legal technicality, which means that even if you have ironclad proof that you were authorized to perform the security testing in question, you might not be able to use it.
      • If you absolutely must tell someone, make sure it's someone you can absolutely, positively trust with your life. Because that may be what's on the line (well, at least part of it, because we're talking about jail time here, and inmates love fresh nerd meat).

      The bottom line is that corporate management doesn't give a shit about the actual security of their system. They only care about the illusion of security, and they'll bring their full wrath against anyone who dares shatter that illusion.

      Let them have their illusion. If they ever get seriously 0wn3d, as is likely (it's only a matter of time), you can laugh your ass off at them, because it'll be evil people getting the shaft from other evil people. But today there is nothing but a whole lot of pain for the good guys in the world. Welcome to the real world, where evil usually wins in the end thanks to the world's inherent tendency towards chaos. You can try to fight it if you want, but you'll probably lose, so why bother? You're probably better off just keeping your own affairs in order and letting the others get fucked up the ass for their stupidity.

    • Dear Upper Management:

      Would you please give me written permission to read slashdot during my breaks, so that I can better understand the current issues with computer security and unauthorized use of company computers. And would you mind signing that with a blue pen and giving me the original and you can keep the photocopy.

      Thank You.
  • What about Chip? (Score:4, Informative)

    by nuzak (959558) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @11:59PM (#18203216) Journal
    Whatever happened to Chip Salzenberg [slashdot.org]? He seems to have pretty much vanished since mid-2006.
  • by tji (74570) on Friday March 02, 2007 @12:20AM (#18203332)
    The slashdot crowd has a short memory.. This is not a simple issue of "embarassing the management", as the summary states. In fact, in all the original writeups, I don't remember ever hearing executive passwords being an issue. The issues were egregious violations of corporate security policy, and basic logic:

    - His position at Intel was not involved in security, intrusion detection, or other areas that might actually call for "white hat hacking" as part of the job function. He was a contractor, not an Intel employee, which I'm sure made Intel even more concerned about his security violations.

    - He had installed backdoors on Intel machines, which allowed him to access the Intel network from outside the company.

    - He took passwd files and ran cracking tools against them to break other users passwords.

    - Not only was he cracking password files from Intel organizations, he was using Intel systems to crack password files from other companies, including O'Reilly and Associates.

    See this writeup [mit.edu] for information from the person involved in shutting him down.

    Whether this was "white hat" hacking could be debated. In any case, it was fucking stupid. Bypassing network security for an inbound back door?!? Cracking password files from other companies on Intel computers?!? These are just stupid moves, which anyone should expect to get fired for doing.
    • No shit. The first thing that I thought when I read the OP was, how the hell did (s)he get that summary?!?!?

      Mr. Schwartz decided that he wanted far more computing power then what he legally had access to. He then found some, used it and got caught. Sheer stupidity and he's bloody lucky to this ruling.

      Hopefully he's learned his lesson.

      Oh, and for those that think what Mr. Schwartz did was "white hat", it in no way shape or form is that. Hell, it's not even Grey. Yah, installing backdoors. That's soooo
    • by merlyn (9918) on Friday March 02, 2007 @01:07AM (#18203640) Homepage Journal
      "His position at Intel was not involved in security, intrusion detection, or other areas that might actually call for "white hat hacking" as part of the job function.".

      Wrong, I was a systems and network administrator. According to job description, that's part of the job.

      • Congratulations on getting your name cleared! :)

        Eivind.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LizardKing (5245)

        You'd already been reprimanded for a security violation of the SSD facility after your contract there had expired. You were using resources (on a machine you had been told not to use) to crack the passwords of not only an Intel facility you no longer worked at, but also another company. You installed a backdoor that while you may argue it was secure, allowed external access to the Intel network without having approval to do so. Every employer I have worked at would look on these unauthorised actions as gros

      • by e40 (448424)

        Wrong, I was a systems and network administrator. According to job description, that's part of the job.
        So, now we know all the other points made by the grandparent post are correct.
      • by TheLink (130905) on Friday March 02, 2007 @11:32AM (#18206976) Journal
        What I'm curious about is why does Sony get away so easily with installing backdoors and you don't?

        I mean just look at the fine to revenue ratios. And who got a criminal record because they were involved in the sony rootkit thing?
    • State of Oregon v. Randal Schwartz [lightlink.com] Washington County Circuit Court C94-0322CR
      Complaint brought by Mr. Schwartz's client, the Intel Corporation

      Intel v. Randal Schwartz: Why Care? [eff.org] by Jeffrey Kegler, February 4, 1996
    • by doom (14564)

      tji wrote:

      The slashdot crowd has a short memory.. This is not a simple issue of "embarassing the management", as the summary states. In fact, in all the original writeups, I don't remember ever hearing executive passwords being an issue.

      I remember reading this in a column in a free weekly computer rag, shortly after it happened. The author of the column wasn't willing to mention "Intel" by name... but he was willing to mention that a vice-president of the company was using the password "vicepresident".

  • Great news (Score:3, Informative)

    by mgiuca (1040724) on Friday March 02, 2007 @12:34AM (#18203426)
    That's great. Coincidentally enough, I just became aware of Randall Schwartz the other day when I listened to the FLOSS Weekly [www.twit.tv] podcast where they interviewed him. It was a good listen (as always) - he talks about this case if anyone's interested.

Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth. -- Nero Wolfe

Working...