Judge Won't Lower $5M Bail For Jailed SF IT Admin 429
snydeq writes "San Francisco County Judge Charles Haines has denied Terry Childs' motion to reduce his $5 million bail, alluding to 'public security concerns,' according to Richard Shikman, who is representing Childs in court. The ruling comes in the wake of a recent decision to drop three of the four changes that have been levied against Childs, who has spent the past 14 months in jail. The fourth charge — that Childs violated a California statute regarding illegal denial of service for the San Francisco FiberWAN — has been called into question by those closely monitoring the case. As a point of comparison, the San Francisco Felony Bail Schedule lists a $1 million bail for the most serious crimes, such as sexual assault of a child, aggravated arson, or kidnapping for ransom. Prosecutors have argued that the bail is appropriate because, if released, Childs could cause damage to San Francisco's network."
Only if... (Score:5, Insightful)
He's a danger to their network only if no one has yet changed the passwords on the routers and other equipment.
Witchcraft (Score:5, Insightful)
No confidence (Score:5, Insightful)
> Prosecutors have argued that the bail is appropriate because, if released, Childs could cause damage to San Francisco's network.
It sounds like they have zero confidence in whoever is now in charge of securing their network.
Re:No confidence (Score:1, Insightful)
Childs did not trust them either.
Sick of this (Score:4, Insightful)
Man, I shouldn't have blown my mod points. (Score:4, Insightful)
Since I can't mod you down, I'll just note that they've now had over a year to change the passwords and otherwise secure the allegedly compromised LAN.
Re:Witchcraft (Score:5, Insightful)
Judge doesn't quite understand (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing I don't understand is why this guy doesn't exercise his right to a speedy trial. He's already been punished enough considering all the evidence I've seen suggests he is innocent. Maybe he is getting some kind of zen experience living in jail and he actually likes it or something. From what I've heard from some sysadmins, living in jail can't be much worse than that job.
Re:Admin can do much more harm! (Score:4, Insightful)
You are right, any nutso can get a sniper rifle, case full of ammo, and take out half a campus from the church tower. It's the really dangerous folk, like the ones who haven't had access to your network in the past year (which you somehow haven't secured on your own because you are too fucking stupid) that are the real danger to society at large.
Here's a tip for the Judge, if there is still something out there on SF's network that Childs actually could manipulate with greater access or affect than a normal citizen, then the folk who should be in jail are the ones who cleaned up the mess.
What happens if he beats the rap? (Score:5, Insightful)
Prosecutors have argued that the bail is appropriate because, if released, Childs could cause damage to San Francisco's network.
So if the 4th charge is dropped and he is freed, can they keep him jailed? He could, at that point, still cause the same damage that he can now.
Seems excessive (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the problem is they know he's not going to be convicted of anything in the end. So the judge is trying to send a message to people who might be inclined to do the same thing.
"We can get you. We don't need to actually convict you, either. We can get you anyway."
Re:Judge doesn't quite understand (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, and you're wrong.
The Judge doesn't understand, he is not paid to understand.
What the Judge does understand is that letting this guy out of jail on BOND is dangerous to SF political types running the city. This is far more dangerous, in their mind, than a child rapist, mass murderer or other heinous criminal, hence the steep bail.
And the city wonders why nobody wants to visit there any more.
Re:too easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Prosecutors have argued that the bail is appropriate because, if released, Childs could cause damage to San Francisco's network.
Yeah, so can anyone who's competent with networking.
Just admit that he was presumed guilty before a trial you incompetent fools. You all are making yourselves look more and more like idiots, and the Childs is laughing his ass off in jail.
Oops shouldn't have said that out loud, I might be labeled a terrorist.
Re:Sick of this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:too easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Disagreement (Score:4, Insightful)
When I was a corporate IT guy (about 3 years in the middle of about 16 years as a consultant), I took responsibility over a large part of the network in a multi facility health care business. This wasn't life or death stuff, but network outages did cause problems with appointments and general "face" of the corporation. When I came on board, the network was down a lot. No change control, no "chief" in charge of the network, and about 9 people mucking with stuff constantly.
I put my job on the line, in exchange for FULL control of that system (It was a 85 server Netware + Groupwise environment). The first thing I did was take *everyone's* admin away, removed "admin" from supervisory rights to the tree. I then doled out the appropriate levels of access to the security team (read new users, password resetters), put in a hidden OU with a tree supervisor in it and then wrote the "master" admin/login information down. Lightly, in pencil. Folded it up, put it in an envelope with a tamper seal, that went into another tamper evident envelope and that went into the safe. Every month or two I changed the password and replaced the envelope.
That was in case I died, they could easily get in. That is what Terry should have done. Then it wouldn't have come to this - he might have gotten sacked, and/or lost control over what he considered to be his "creation" -- but he wouldn't be rotting in jail....
Re:too easy (Score:1, Insightful)
Nahh, it's grandstanding or penis waving. Nothing more.
The judge is biased, the prosecutors are trying to show the world that they really dont have 1" long penises and cat get it up in bed.
Nothing more is happening than that. Too bad the USA legal system is horribly corrupt to allow such abuses go without having recourse. The procecuters shoul be disbarred and forced to never work in law again if found to be abusing the system. The judge should be simply shot for being stupid and a danger to freedom and the american way.
Re:Judge doesn't quite understand (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, I'd be surprised if most people visiting SF had heard of this case. There are plenty of other reasons why nobody wants to visit SF anymore, and most derive from the rampant homelessness problems, crumbling infrastructure and systematic discrimination against people with cars.
Re:14 Months? (Score:5, Insightful)
You actually think that laws to protect you from the government actually apply to you?
Wow, Let me guess, you also think we run by a Innocent until proven guilty system as well.
If you enter the legal system you are FUCKED. They play by their rules and will PUNISH YOU for trying to exercize any of your rights. you are a piece of shit and everyone in the system knows you are guilty.
Honestly, you have a better chance at running and hiding out than getting justice through the legal system. It really is that fucked up.
Re:Only if... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The defendant's withholding the passwords caused DTIS to be denied administrative access to the FiberWAN, which constituted a denial of computer services," Judge McCarthy wrote.
The defending not giving up the administrative passwords for his former employer's network didn't cause anyone to be denied administrative access. Their own incompetence and lack of planning were responsible for that.
This whole thing is ridiculous, yet it's still not over... The people who need to be held accountable are the managers responsible for allowing such a major fuck-up to occur with something as critical as they claim.
Re:Only if... (Score:5, Insightful)
He's a danger to their network only if no one has yet changed the passwords...
No kidding. Are those routers and servers just running on on the same settings they were set on 14 months ago? No one has run updates? Changed any settings? Heck, in a lot of places half that equipment would have been replaced in a year. Any reasonably competent admins could have secured that network before now. Most routers have a way of resetting the root password, even if that means taking them off-line a few at a time and reprogramming them.
This is insane. 14 months in jail. Come on San Francisco, time to extract your head out of your boyfriend's ass.
Hopefully his lawyers can appeal to a judge with clue before this stupidity goes any further.
Re:take that SF (Score:3, Insightful)
or, more importantly, since the prosecution doesn't want him out of jail during the trial, and the judge clearly subscribes to that view, why doesn't he just drop the whole charade of offering him bail that he'll never be able to meet?
Re:too easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
it's not at all inconceivable that Childs could cause damage to that network if he chose to do so.
You are correct, of course. Childs should be immediately lobotomized, or if the procedure appears to be unreliable then he should be just killed. He knows too much and can never be released. His possible future crime must be prevented at any cost. Same applies to all future sysadmins of SF - once they learn the network (a few weeks on the job, perhaps) they will have to be destroyed.
Re:Only if... (Score:5, Insightful)
You would think, by now, that someone would have come in and cleaned up the network and battened the hatches. After all the publicity this has gotten, if there's _still_ a hole for Child's to access, then they deserve whatever skull-fucking he can give them.
I know these are government employees, but, as I said, with the publicity surrounding this one, they might have justified breaking the piggy bank to pay for a real network guru to give it a once-over, at least.
Re:too easy (Score:5, Insightful)
this is preposterous. basically they're condemning him for being arrogant while competent. he always stated that he was only refusing to hand out the passwords because he didn't trust the competence of the people that were still working there.
what harm could he now do to the city network? he was fired, the password has already been disclosed to the mayor about a year ago... or have they forgotten to change the passwords?
and if he did have backdoors, it's already time they had them fixed. if he uses them, then, yeah, he's provoking the wrath of law, but... 5 million?
each year he spends on the jail probably means about 10 years he looses from his lifespan from physical and emotional distress. fsck the fscking judges and DAs.
Robin Williams said it right:
"You know, I heard scientists are now using lawyers instead of mice for experiments, for two reasons: one, scientists grow less attached to lawyers and two, there are somethings that even mice won't do."
add "judges" to that, will you?
Re:Judge doesn't quite understand (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No confidence (Score:5, Insightful)
No, my point was kind of that there is an implicit trust between all employees and their IT personnel. The IT people have all the keys to all the doors, they can know anything about your company, even that which should be restricted to the highest personnel. Refusal to divulge root passwords to those who shouldn't have them isn't a very good reason to throw someone in jail, even if it IS a city government network.
Instead of holding this man, they should congratulate him for bringing to light the colossal insufficiency of their manpower in this department and the total negligent lack of redundancy in key positions. The fact that they got into this position at all, with only a single person having the root passwords for key infrastructure is a sign of the departments lack of intelligible oversight.
Re:14 Months? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that this is less about malicious intent of those participating in the system (poilice, lawyers, judges, lawmakers), and more about Perceived Effectiveness. It's not that they don't want justice, but they need measurable numbers. They need to show that they're Being Effective at deterring crimes, stopping pedophiles, stopping hackers, winning the war on drugs, etc.
Police are there to make arrests and get the DA a case good enough to go to trial. It's not about "justice", or even your guilt: If something you say can be interpreted as implication, you're dealing with a DA.
DA's care about looking good to constituents (and/bosses). They can't NOT prosecute cases that the police give them. (Perhaps they CAN, but it looks bad, so I doubt it happens unless they feel they can't win it ... and even then they'll try to plea bargain you out.)
Judges care about ... who knows what. :) They don't like to have things overturned, as that makes them look bad, but at the same time they tend to be very keen on interpreting the letter of the law. It's generally the higher appeals courts that seem to care about the "spirit" of the law, and even then the letter's pretty strong.
Re:too easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Prosecutors have argued that the bail is appropriate because, if released, Childs could cause damage to San Francisco's network.
This oddly sounds like crap that brought up in Kevin Mitnick's trial.
My guess is the DA knows he's fscked and is grasping at straws. I wouldn't be surprised once the last charge is dropped, Childs counter sues for being charged, arrested, and in jail.
Re:Only if... (Score:4, Insightful)
He doesn't deserve to sit in jail until someone gets around to changing the passwords.
Re:Only if... (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you think that he'd do that if let loose? If it did get screwed up, I'd think he'd be the first to receive blame at this point. Unless one has a very, very good escape plan that is sure-fire and won't fail, I would think that unless they're completely nuts, a person in Childs' position is not going to go at them for "revenge".
They're more in danger from other threats than this man at this point. To put it more succinctly: The risk is imaginary; the DA's whipping up fantasies that're just plausible enough that the Judge is willing to sign off on them. He didn't do a denial of service. He didn't intend to do so, as best as can be determined. He followed their internal security policies per passwords, even.
Whatever happened to the constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Judge needs to be removed and disbarred.
Re:Only if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since one can never prove that a network is secure, what are they going to do: lock him up forever?
Re:Judge doesn't quite understand (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazing, isn't it? But it's the way a stereotypical politician typically thinks- when they do manage to think. I certainly wouldn't want to work for them after this whole debacle- the stuff that's coming to light through all of this does not reflect well on the DA's office or the city itself right at this time.
Re:Disagreement (Score:5, Insightful)
Your reasoning is very short sighted. Yes the "in case of bus" envelope is important, but if you've ever actually been a sysadmin, you know you're the blame guy. There are always idiots up the corporate chain that will blame you for anything technical even if the problem stems directly from them not following your instructions, or otherwise doing something stupid.
That aside, this isn't about you. I know it's hard to imagine, but try to bear with me. It goes like this:
Maybe he's a dick, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that WHAT HE DID WAS CORRECT! You do NOT give the "bus envelope", password or whatever, to some guy, the janitor, the mail boy or whoever, you give it to one of a small number of people only. It may be handled by a secretary or other assistant, but opening said envelope would be grounds for immediate dismissal, as would revealing that same password info to any of the afore mentioned individuals without appropriate "clearance" or what have you.
So here's the situation, your boss, who may or may not have the right to know the password, with some people in the room who DEFINITELY aren't on the access list demands the password.
Situation #1:
You refuse to divulge sensitive info in front of inappropriate individuals because 1) it's actually your job, and 2) if you do so, you can be held liable for any damage done as a result. You are arrested immediately. Happy fun.
Situation #2:
You give up the password immediately, someone brings the system to a crashing halt by incompetence, and you are arrested immediately because it's obviously something you did. Happy fun.
Sure, an envelope is a good idea, but there wasn't one, and that's not his fault, that's a management oversight. Even if this guy's difficult, or abrasive or whatever, he didn't break anything, and was willing to go forward with relinquishing the password, just on very specific terms. If that's a reason to spend over a year in jail, then we better start handing out life sentences for J walking, because unlike not giving up a password, J walking could actually harm someone.
Re:Witchcraft (Score:5, Insightful)
While it's lots of fun to make fun of right wing crazies, it should be noted that this case is taking place in San Francisco, California, one of the most liberal places in the country. Just further proof that stupidity knows no political or ideological boundaries.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
it's not at all inconceivable that Childs could cause damage to that network if he chose to do so.
It's not at all inconceivable that the average slashdot reader could damage the network if he chose to do so (with some basic research + social engineering, to gather some general info).
Re:Disagreement (Score:4, Insightful)
He's not the innocent child that some are alluding to - he did willfully not give the passwords out.
He did willfully not give the passwords out TO PEOPLE HE DIDN'T KNOW, AND DID NOT KNOW IF THEY WERE AUTHORIZED TO HAVE THE PASSWORDS.
Sheesh.
If you're a lowly private in charge of highly classified information, even if a colonel comes along, you're not supposed to hand over the highly classified information without determining that the colonel is authorized to have it. Even if the colonel yells really loud.
Re:14 Months? (Score:3, Insightful)
You actually think that laws to protect you from the government actually apply to you?
Well, speaking as a relatively wealthy white guy with a few political connections and at least a basic understanding legal procedures, I'd say yes. If I were, say, poor, black, or less connected, I'd probably be very very screwed if I were accused of something.
Common to place conditions on bond (Score:3, Insightful)
House arrest, and GPS monitor. Any damage to their network can easily be traced to an IP address, which if he can't move with freedom, makes it pretty easy to identify if it came from his computer. (I'm assuming they can't restrict his access to computer.) If he does, charge him with another crime. If he were to attack the network under such conditions, he'd be demonstrating his utter desire for being raped in prison, as I can't think of any other sane reason why he'd do it. Only reason bond should be denied is flight risk or a risk to further harm against a human victim/witness.
Re:Disagreement (Score:3, Insightful)
He's not the innocent child that some are alluding to - he did willfully not give the passwords out.
Neither would you if your boss asked you to blab the keys to the kingdom to random unknown persons on a conference call. Even with what he did - hell, what I can do in the scope of my job - the worst he should expect without demonstrated malice is getting canned.
Re:Disagreement (Score:5, Insightful)
Fixed that for you.
I have to ask you - if the facility manager demanded that you tell him the password while standing in the middle of a conference room full of people you don't know and with a live conference call going on would you have done it? I doubt it. You might have directed him to the envelope in the safe, but more likely you would have pointed to the security policy in effect and told him you can't do that, but if he would like to make a written request through your boss then an arrangement could be made.
You're making the mistake of believing this is about the actual security issues or the proper performance of duties. This is about a manager waving his dick around and screaming bloody murder when he's told to put it away. Look at all of the case. When he was told to disclose the passwords, there were about a dozen people in the room and an unknown number of people on the conference call. None of the people in the room had any reason to know the password - and he did not directly report to the manager demanding the password.
Remember, Childs said he would turn the passwords over to the City Manager - who was the only person above him in the network foodchain - before he was arrested, and the city lawyers blocked the manager from talking to him for over a week after he was arrested. He never refused to turn over the passwords, he refused to turn them over to people with no right/reason to have them.
Re:Only if... (Score:3, Insightful)
Any reasonably competent admins could have secured that network before now
I believe it was the lack of those that got Child's in this trouble in the first place.
Re:too easy (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what you get when state prosecutes are chosen at the whim of the vindictive masses instead of by careful selection based on merit and principle.
Re:Judge doesn't quite understand (Score:1, Insightful)
it is always for the next four months!
you will learn this in time
Re:too easy (Score:4, Insightful)
10 days is hardly enough time to mount a defence.
Especially when you need to convince a bunch of hicks, who don't know what a computer is that you could not have done it.
Re:Disagreement (Score:2, Insightful)
Had he done that, he would have been fired the instant the passwords hit the paper. The only reason he remained employed for so long is because no one else knew the passwords. He was, in essence, blackmailing the city. They tolerated him because he did actually keep the network running. I don't know what the last straw was that has brought us to today's farce.
Re:Witchcraft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:too easy (Score:5, Insightful)
no it shouldn't. The whole thing could have been fixed with a simple contempt of court charge and sweat him till he tells, that was their legal option and they chose not to do that.
Beyond that all the attempts of the management to "hack in" were unnecessary and not relevant to the criminal case. (like breaking the windows out of YOUR car because somebody stole it) HE did not do any damage after he was fired... the trouble was that he was fired TWICE... the first time the manager didn't write him up per union policy for being a dick and he got his job back. So he was refusing to turn his password over to the people that GOT him fired and weren't qualified to properly manage the network... they broke it because they didn't call a certified person FIRST. Also, they had already accused him of wrongdoing when he hadn't done anything....how do you prove you DIDN'T attempt to commit a crime?
Re:too easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:too easy (Score:4, Insightful)
no, it was a network that had him as the "caretaker". Despite the methods, from what has been said, what he was doing was trying to protect the network. As a "caretaker", it's his job to do what he must to protect the network.
Actually, all of his authority with respect to this network come from his supervisor/manager. He only has the authority to "do what's best for the network" as long as it's still granted to him by his supervisor. As soon as his supervisor revokes that authority, he no longer has the privilege of deciding what is best for the network.
After all that, he was just being a dick, and it's stupid to be a dick to people who can have you locked up in jail. This may be United States, but it's not the United States you were (probably) taught about in grade school.
Re:he better sue as 14 months in jail looks bad re (Score:3, Insightful)
he could even claim he's still an employee and due back wages. The original fight was because he was an ass to a new woman manager and she walked to her boss and claimed "sex harassment". The manager tried to fire him without following city process in the first place... and didn't follow legal process to get the passwords in the second place... he could probably go back to the city worker's union and actually win his job back for managerial misconduct if charges don't stick!!!! After all he hasn't even had 3 officially written strikes yet!!!
He may be an ass, but he's been smart enough to follow the City's work rules to the letter.... it's the management that's skipping steps in the written HR process.
Re:too easy (Score:4, Insightful)
how do you prove you DIDN'T attempt to commit a crime
Theoretically, you shouldn't have to, it should be up to the state to prove that you did actually commit a crime.
Theoretically.
Re:too easy (Score:5, Insightful)
His duty to help them by giving them passwords and other confidential information ALSO ended when his employment contract ended. That's what the law says. In fact, legally, he should have destroyed all confidential information in his possession, and as such, suing because he wouldn't turn over confidential passwords that he was not obligated or even allowed to retain is a new level of absurd.
When this is over, $5 million is likely to seem like peanuts compared with the settlement that San Francisco will end up paying out.
Re:Disagreement (Score:4, Insightful)
Terry Childs played the "battle of wills" game and lost. He's not the innocent child that some are alluding to - he did willfully not give the passwords out.
When I was a corporate IT guy (about 3 years in the middle of about 16 years as a consultant), I took responsibility over a large part of the network in a multi facility health care business. ...that is what Terry should have done. ...
Uh, so because he didn't do what YOU did you think it is right to throw him in Jail for a year? Our prisons are swelling with thousands of people who are their on someone's whim. EVERYONE is a federal felon nowadays. I mean everyone. There is some federal law you are violating that can land you in prison indefinitely. Now, if you are a member of Congress or the cabinet you can "forget" to pay some taxes. Otherwise, you better hope you don't tick off someone in power because they can and will destroy you. http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556 [amazon.com]
We are living in some scary times. The political class is treated like royalty and every crime is forgiven (see Kennedy, Chappaquiddick, and the royal state funeral he was given). And the average American, who is thrown into prison just to pump up some prosecutor resume.
Re:too easy (Score:3, Insightful)
All you have to do to not break something, generally speaking, is to not touch it. By a similar standard, I haven't shocked myself on the flyback transformer on a CRT in almost two decades. The fact that I haven't cracked open a CRT in nearly that long might have something to do with that.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Scalia's wet dream (Score:4, Insightful)
Excessive Bail == pressure for plea (Score:5, Insightful)
On one charge? This looks _very_ fishy. Conditions on bail would certainly include no computer use. I suspect the real motive for the DA is to use incarceration as pressure for some sort of plea bargain. Any bargain, because their case is weak / non-existant. Highly corrupt.
The DA has to pressure, because if he does NOT cave, they're facing a multi-million $ lawsuit for wrongful (or even malicious where less would be protected by privilige) prosecution. This will ruin careers. As it should.
Re:take that SF (Score:4, Insightful)
then why isn't he forced to hold him with bail that he can reasonably meet? What happens when Childs get $5m together? Does the prosecutor just go and ask for it to be raised to $10m?
I suppose my question is what, functionally, is the difference between being held without bail, and being held with bail deliberately constructed to be so high as to be unmeetable? And if there's no difference, why have the distinction?
Re:too easy (Score:3, Insightful)
After all that, he was just being a dick, and it's stupid to be a dick to people who can have you locked up in jail.
14 months and a $5M bail for being a dick? There are a lot of slashdotters that should be concerned right now...
Re:Witchcraft (Score:3, Insightful)
[...]apparently felt that he was doing the right thing and wasn't able to distance himself from his own beliefs long enough to recognize that they were putting him in jeopardy
Yeah. History is full of those kind of people. Washington. Franklin. Jefferson. Truman.
Stand up for what you believe. Or die know you compromised your beliefs to satisfy a bunch of know nothing idiots. It's a choice.
Most people choose not to make it, by living shallow, quiet, unobtrusive lives.
Including myself, actually! Life's a lot more fun when you don't have to run from the FBI. Or so I would imagine.
Why is this still up--boycott the city (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see why this is still up. If most of the IT community with any sense of self respect boycotted the entire city, the problem would evaporate within two weeks. Any professional with even an ounce of self respect should be refusing to service any aspect which receives funding, or inherits legal obligations from any portion of the city. They've already demonstrated they're willing to prosecute someone for doing their job and following policy.
I don't care if the guys supervisor told him to hand over the password--his supervisor was not in a position of authority to make such a demand. And even if he *was*, the charges and accusations they leveled demonstrated that they behaved with a callous lack of professional ethics, and abuse of power intended to crush the will of this man, instead of simply punishing him according to the rule of law. The charges were clearly trumped up--so such an extent that even the biased judge had no choice but to throw them out.
Refuse to consult or provide services to anyone associated with the city until they repay Childs and punish those responsible for this abuse of authority. They've already engaged in miscarriage of justice, and it's already painfully clear neither the DA nor the judge will be held accountable.
To the Court of Appeals, Maybe? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bail appeals (using "appeal" loosely) are usually reserved for the very rich, because they are usually a big waste of time. They are a waste of time because the trial judge is invested with a very large dollop of discretion in matters of bail. Here, the big bail doesn't seem to have too much to do with the charge that the defendant is being detained on. It's kind of like holding me on thirty gazillion dollars bail for a driving while license suspended charge because the judge is concerned that I am going to vandalize my neighbor's Rolls Royce.
This case sucks because the poor bastard has to rot in jail while his lawyers are preparing his defense. If he had money, his experts would be done by now and the State would have, long ago, had its back against the wall scrambling to try to put their bullshit case together.
I bet that the County Attorney depended on the City's experts (rather than his own, independent, experts) when he filed charges. That's reasonable, but you'd hope they'd have their own independent experts on board by now. Too bad nobody's Groklawing for the defendant.
Re:too easy (Score:4, Insightful)
Most that I have delt with would fall into the "serious business practice problems" category. A company I worked with years ago had a lead admin that was completely paranoid, he was the only one in the company with root access, he supposedly kept the password in a safe that only he, the ceo and the cfo had access to. The lesser admins (thats actually how they referred to us in the department procedures) were the ones who were stuck with being on call and had to call up the lead any time there was a problem...all would be fine if it weren't for the fact that he was very cranky in the middle of the night and would yell at us if we actually called the hesitantly give us temporary access and tell us to figure it out and not bother him. Sometimes outages would go on for hours because we couldnt reach him.
I could only take about 6 months...shortest job I have ever held. I can handle alot of crap, dont trust me with root fine...but at least give me pseudo or at minimum dont bitch when your underlings have to call because you set it up that way.
Re:too easy (Score:4, Insightful)
what harm could he now do to the city network? he was fired, the password has already been disclosed to the mayor about a year ago... or have they forgotten to change the passwords?
Likely none, and they realize this. But they've imprisoned a man - a competent, intelligent man - for over a year now. They've ruined his ability to do what he evidently got a great deal of satisfaction from (noted due to his level of competency). They've smeared his good name, lied about him, and ruined his life.
I suspect they're quite worried about him getting out. On the outside, he'd be able to sue the life out of them and/or the city - and if the city gets sued, then those who invoked the lawsuit will face scrutiny.
Oh yeah, and again, the "smart, competent" bit. What was it about the mental stability of IT workers, nurses, and postal workers and our propensity to go off the deep and which is so wantonly stereotyped in the media? Oh, right. They're probably at least a little concerned that the guy would kill them all in their sleep. I don't doubt he's thought about it, wistfully (there's likely not much else for him to do).
Maybe their network still isn't secure. (Score:5, Insightful)
What skilled, knowledgable, trained network administrator would work for them at this point?
Some may be willing to take a crappy job to put food on their kids table... but one that's likely to put you in jail for following their own proceedures?... I wouldn't do that to my kids.
wtf? where is the outrage?? (Score:2, Insightful)
"accused city hacker" instead of "the guy who built and maintained san francisco's networks for several years"?
"essentially commandeered the system" instead of "yeah, that was his JOB"?
with the city still trying to politically assassinate this guy, the judicial system still eager to help, and the press still spewing this ignorant garbage to the general public, why isn't the entire IT community out on the streets protesting for this guy?
Re:Bail (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't change the fact that, of two people accused of committing similar crimes, the one who can raise sufficient money gets to leave jail. The one who can't, stays in jail until the trial is complete. I can think of no moral or ethical reason that should be allowed.
Re:Citation needed (Score:3, Insightful)
You probably can't write an employment contract that requires me to keep working after you've stopped paying me. Even if you could, a violation of such a contract would be purely a civil matter, unless there was some actual crime underlying the breach.
Re:Excessive Bail == pressure for plea (Score:4, Insightful)
The DA has to pressure, because if he does NOT cave, they're facing a multi-million $ lawsuit for wrongful (or even malicious where less would be protected by privilige) prosecution. This will ruin careers. As it should.
Then that DA is exceptionally short-sighted. They've already gone so far as to set up a storm that won't blow over. Having a powerful official visibly give the shaft to an employee is not something that goes down well in a first world country. Whatever the city does at this point is meaningless, it's already over, the only important thing now is how long they intend to thrash around until they fall down.
Re:too easy (Score:2, Insightful)
Deliberate damage is one thing but just losing the admin shouldn't cause this much damage, what if the guy was killed in a car accident?
Re:too easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, all of his authority with respect to this network come from his supervisor/manager. He only has the authority to "do what's best for the network" as long as it's still granted to him by his supervisor. As soon as his supervisor revokes that authority, he no longer has the privilege of deciding what is best for the network.
Yes. The issue is, however, that none of the people who informed he had been fired and demanded he handed over the passwords _were actually his supervisor_. AIUI, a subordinate had been promoted over him, and he hadn't been notified of this.
Look at it this way: you're in charge of a network and have the passwords that can be used to do just about anything with it. One day your assistant comes to you and says, "I've just been promoted to your job, and you've been fired. Hand over the passwords." Wouldn't you think maybe you were in some kind of social engineering attack, and want to confirm it with somebody you knew to be your superior? That's all Childs did.
Special Awe Required (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's why they can't just let him go and drop the charges. How much would you have to be paid to willingly give up your career, have your name smeared, and be put in jail with criminals for over a year. That is at least what this man is owed, in addition to punitive damages.
While he is awaiting trial and 'not innocent' it is hard to counter-sue. In that interim those involved may have moved to different positions, retire, lose their election, etc. Even if he wins a multi-million dollar countersuit, do you think anyone will be held personally responsible? What needs to happen but won't is that every single person involved in prosecuting him needs to be disbarred, removed from their employ, and after being put in jail for a similar period and slapped with a criminal record, be unable to get a job running the city's street sweepers.
Re:too easy (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, the signal-to-noise ratio would get a lot better around here.
Re:Citation needed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:too easy (Score:3, Insightful)
all of his authority with respect to this network come from his supervisor/manager. He only has the authority to "do what's best for the network" as long as it's still granted to him by his supervisor. As soon as his supervisor revokes that authority, he no longer has the privilege of deciding what is best for the network.
And as soon as his employment is terminated, his obligations to that supervisor end, including the divulging of passwords.
Sorry, that's pure BS. Even if he's not employed, he's obligated by law to turn over control of the company's property. Think of it this way. I just got fired and they wanted the keys to the company truck back. I told them to go to hell because "I don't have to listen to you anymore."
Now, what would your next move be as the employer? Probably the same as everyone; call the cops.
Re:too easy (Score:3, Insightful)
No he shouldn't have to spend 14 months in jail, awaiting trial -- the constitution demands the right to a speedy trial. However he and his lawyer(s) have chosen not to exercise this right. I do think the $5 million bail is excessive, but bail is warranted nonetheless.
And to everyone who thinks he going to cash in in some lawsuit against the city, keep dreaming... A civil jury of San Franciscans is not going to take too kindly to having had their city held hostage for weeks, requiring the mayor to make a jailhouse visit etc. Just because he was delegated some responsibility doesn't mean he has some legal right to deny the revocation of that responsibility.
And now pesky infantile moderators, go ahead and mod me down: -1 strenuously disagree without logical basis...