Randal Schwartz's Charges Expunged 219
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.
the terrible thing about character assassination (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
an unfortunate encounter (Score:2, Interesting)
Congratulations Mr. Schwartz.
Ditto; FBI can still see it (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Congratulations (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Congratulations (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:If you're going to blow the whistle (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Congratulations (Score:2, Interesting)
> Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence, your honor!
Ok sorry, just Intel [mit.edu].
Sorry for implying you're an asshat, but that linked document made you sound like one. Guess i should read more about it [lightlink.com] from your perspective before passing judgement.
Glad your legal battle is finally over.
Re:Congratulations (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How's that for revisionist history? (Score:1, Interesting)
Firing would be justified, especially after being told multiple times to stop.
But while stupid, his actions didn't warrant criminal prosection, which is the crux of most of the arguments against this case.
- Matt
Re:Congratulations (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How's that for revisionist history? (Score:3, Interesting)
By your own argument he was therefore absolutely responsible for the breach of security on the network that he himself caused. And yes, it was a breach, installing a backdoor for offsight access without permission - or at the very least notification to IT - is a breach of security.
Re:Congratulations (Score:3, Interesting)
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 guilty.