Alabama IT Whistleblower Fired For Spyware 751
chalker writes "Vernon Blake, an IT sysadmin for the Alabama Department Of Transportation, wanted to get evidence that his boss spent the majority of his time playing solitaire on his computer. Since emails to higher up supervisors were ignored, he installed Win-Spy, which grabbed screenshots several times per day over a period of 7 months. 70% of the resulting screenshots showed an active game of solitaire, and another 20% showed his boss checking the stock market. When he reported this to superiors, he was fired, even though he had 21 years of service in the position. His boss got a reprimand to 'stop playing games'. He is appealing his termination in court since he claims it was part of his job description to 'confirm and document' computer misuse for ALDOT. His complete story is here."
Everyone knows (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially in Government! (Score:4, Insightful)
I read that as:
And I thought AC deserved a medal.Re:Everyone knows (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.dot.state.al.us/Bureau/Right_of_
Oh look, I do believe it has George Dobb's phone number on it.
Slashdot away!
Suggested voicemail message: "We are watching you. Stop playing games on your computer and get back to work."
Re:Everyone knows (Score:5, Informative)
dobbsg@dot.state.al.us - George Dobbs, the Solitaire King
bowlinp@dot.state.al.us - Paul Bowlin, the head of the ROW Bureau, who thinks George's work ethic is above reproach.
aldotinfo@dot.state.al.us - E-mail address for ALDOT, apparently the only published address through which ALDOT director Joe McInnes (who signed the termination letter) can be reached.
governorbobriley@governor.state.al.us - "In Birmingham, they love the gov'nor - Hoo Hoo..."
Drop these folks a line, let 'em know what you think. "Now we all did what we could do..."
Re:Everyone knows (Score:5, Insightful)
The sysadmin's decision to "spy" on his boss was a poor one, regardless of the scenario. Whatever the bosses story you have to ask yourself "Exactly what was the sysadmin attempting to accomplish?" If his boss was such a poor performer, his failures would have made themselves evident over time.
No one here knows whether or not he deserved to lose his job.
Contrary to popular slashdot opinion, I would be amazed if this guy won his lawsuit. It would just be too dangerous a precedent to set.
Re:Everyone knows (Score:5, Funny)
You've never worked in government, have you?
Re:Everyone knows (Score:5, Interesting)
strongly disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
Your comment implies they know exactly what they're doing.
I've held a few peon IT positions, I've had different attitudes during them. My starting job, I was opinionated and high profile, and just got myself in a world of crap. I soon learned that the less you're heard from, the less unneeded attention comes your way. Now theres a danger that your job can get too cushy and you can goof off too much and get in trouble, but a steady application of self motivation can help you steer clear of trouble.
Instead of arguing about upper level decisions, "advise and persuade", and if ever a decision of yours proves it would have been better instead of the way management actually went, do not rub it in!. If a decision recommended by you is subsequently championed by someone else without acknowledgement of its origion, congratulate them on their creativity. I once walked in on my boss snoozing on his desk, I told him he should take it easier, he was wearing himself out. (Good boss tho, plus a new father so 3 am feedings were taking a toll.)
Its a wonderful thing, these periodic paychecks, and even better if you get to hack in an airconditioned environment to get them. Pragmatism goes a long way.
Strongly disagree with something? Really!? (Score:4, Interesting)
And in the end, all you have is your integrity.
I have mine, and I was a consultant (which is saying something). Heheh. I never AFIAK told a client something they wanted to hear in order to get a job. I never failed to mention an existing or potential problem. I told them, "You can disagree with what I recommend, but you DO pay me for my knowledge, expertise, and experience."
Anything less than that is negligence, which may not be what you are suggesting, but pragmatism is akin to being practical. So is letting your boss get away with making bad decisions practical? What if that decision causes a few people to lose "these periodic paychecks"?
My boss is human. I argue with him every day. It's part of the job. They watch you so you don't make mistakes, and you watch then to do the same. As long as you act as a team, then things work well. As soon as people start worrying about looking good, then things get messy. I constantly argue with my boss about that point exactly. I tell him that I am interested in making the company run well from an IT standpoint, and that the company makes money to pay me. If everyone worries about looking good, then they make decisions that they think will be popular rather than decisions that are right for the business.
Re:Everyone knows (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh the optimism of inexperience. Soon to be crushed by the dismal intrusion of reality.
Re:Everyone knows (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. It seems that the sysadmin has made the assumption that a person needs to be actively using a computer to be "working". BS. Maybe this guy plays a game of solitaire in the morning while listening to his voicemail, and then goes to a meeting for an hour, pours over some documents, or brainstorms on paper. This could easily look like two hours of playing solitaire when looking at the screenshots.
There is probably a lot of time when Slashdot is up on my screen at work, and I'm across the room working on a whiteboard.
Re:Everyone knows (Score:4, Insightful)
Even when it is your job to do security stuff like that, you should run it by the person in charge of security for the company. (In my company, all the security people have 2 bosses, they report to someone in IT who signs their paychecks etc, and they have a logical boss who is the head of security for the company.) Safest way to do things I think.
That's 90% (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's 90% (Score:5, Informative)
10. An analysis of the screenshots yielded the following results:
- 293 (approx. 71%) of the screenshots documented active, on-going
games of solitaire.
- 87 (approx. 21%) of the screenshots documented web site visits, email
subscriptions, and other miscellaneous non-job related activities
consisting mostly of personal financial and stock market research.
- 29 (approx. 7%) of the screenshots indicated some job related activities,
mostly consisting of an "I concur" in an email response. However, solitaire
was minimized (hidden) for quick retrieval on most of these screens.
- 1 % or less of the screenshots were inconclusive as far as the type of activity.
- No screenshots (0%) documented any job-related activities such as word
processing, spreadsheets, databases, job related websites, electronic
document management, right-of-way plans standards, etc.
Additionally,5. A screen capture utility was used to automate this process. The utility behaves like a camera by capturing photographs of the computer screen. The utility did not target any specific activity or application usage by the user.
6. Screenshots were automatically recorded at times randomly selected by the screen capture utility. The installer of said utility had no control over the randomly selected times.
7. Periods of computer inactivity on the part of the user de-activated the utility until such time that user input was detected. This feature prevented generation of redundant screenshots at night, weekends, holidays, days off, etc.
8. Also, A minimum time interval of approximately 30 minutes transpired between screenshots to prevent a large volume of redundant images. The purpose of the utility was to take a representative sample of computer activity. The pattern of computer usage on the part of the user ultimately governed the interval between screenshots. When no activity was detected, screenshots were halted.
I really hope this guy gets vindicated in the end. He did his job, documented his case very well, and got screwed.
How you could make it look really bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Did he? How do you know he did not take 2,000 screenshots and cull them? Always beware when an interested party hands you "random" samples. It would have been better if he tied the screenshots to time logs of applications. If his boss really played solitare all day, a log of applications would show it and the percentage time it was active. Even still, it would be difficult for him to prove as he could manipulate the logs manually.
What's called for is institutionalized watchdoging. There should have been someone who this man could have asked for help in doing his job. An IT person under another boss would be good. This institutional failure should as a basis for a transfer, not a firing.
I can imagine the state trying to slip out of the bind by saying that the boss was not abusing his computer or network time. It can always be argued that playing the boss was accomplishing his job description and what he did with his spare time was his business. Managerial positions can be that way.
A conscientious manager will roll up their sleeves and help get work done when they run out of planning, reports and all that boring crap. It helps to keep your feet on the ground.
A slob will sit around and turn into a moron. A slob that's drooling 90% of the time soon finds few topics for reports and might get axed. A dangerous slob is one that got themselves promoted to hide incompetence. They have a tendency to screw up and blame their underlings. I've had one of those and I think this one did too. Typically, those they leave in charge for an extended leave will say things like, "I did my job and his job with ease. My job usually takes all of my time. I wonder what the boss does all day."
Re:That's 90% (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, where I work, my boss tells me what my job is. Sometimes it's obvious, and sometimes I have to use judgement. No matter how I tried to justify it, I don't think installing a keylogger on his computer could ever by construed as his wishes.
I think exposing his boss for being useless was a good thing (and arguably his duty), but the end doesn't justify the means, IMO.
couldn't he just.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:couldn't he just.... (Score:5, Funny)
- Seth
Re:couldn't he just.... (Score:5, Funny)
How about creating a custom solitaire that Loses Every Time. The boss would become frustrated. Seething in anger he would blurt it out at status meetings, thus outing himself.
Re:couldn't he just.... (Score:3, Informative)
a search for sol.exe on the entire c drive will give you all three copies and then you can delete them.
Re:couldn't he just.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you can remove solitaire and other games from Win 2k. You must edit sysoc.inf to unhide the Games section of Add/Remove Windows Components. Then you can remove games. I think XP changed the default behavior back to not hiding, but it's a simple task to fix one way or another.
Re:couldn't he just.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:YOU CALL THAT (Score:5, Interesting)
You want one command? Done. Run this as a local admin:Or perhaps you'd like to nuke all the games at once? You could of course run the Uninstall section for each game. But since we're so fixed on the "one command" notion, we'll need a file c:\nogames.txt with the following contents (disregard the spaces added by slashcode):Once we have that, run this command to blow away all the games at once. (Add
Just because YOU don't know how to administer a Windows network doesn't mean it's not possible.
maybe he was fired... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying its right to spend all day playing solitare, but it sounds like this weasel went to extremes to "tell on" someone.
Re:maybe he was fired... (Score:4, Insightful)
Errrr... isn't that why he installed the spyware in the first place? So he wouldn't have to spend 70% of his time worrying about what his boss was doing?
Re:maybe he was fired... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:maybe he was fired... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:maybe he was fired... (Score:3, Funny)
Are you really sure about that?
Disclaimer: I have nothing against Alabama, this was a joke.
Re:maybe he was fired... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've lived from Colorado to Georgia in various places since reaching voting age (and have a significant
Re:maybe he was fired... (Score:5, Interesting)
but friends and i have dealt with situations like this before (the tech side, not stuffed suit side).
here's what happened: we had a dumbfuck COO making life absolutely miserable for everyone. he did absolutely nothing for the company and his net contribution to the company was ZERO. yet his fellow stuffed suits excused his bad behavior, even though the fucktwit COO was single handedly decimating moral through out the ranks.
well amongst the techies, we already had one guy leaving for a better job, so he volunteered (with help from unknown sources) to gather some dirt. he put it all together in a report of our COOs activities and in the middle of the night, placed hard copies on nearly 300 desks, and emailed over 1000 employees. this shit was gravy...we had evidence(photos/screen caps/receipts) of: an affair w/underling, porn surfing, game playing, almost zero actual work, frivilous purchases on company credit card, 3 hour lunches, sleeping frequently on the job, etc.
shit hit the fan, they accused the entire IT dept in complicity, but the single IT guy leaving, while not admitting it directly, intimated that he acted alone.
needless to say, the uproar amongst rank and file quickly drowned out the investigation.
The COO, CFO and a vice president all left.
Apparently they believed that their similar activities had been documented as well....as an anonymous message (not from us) stated "more was coming". we actually had nothing more, but the threat alone was enough.
karma rolled some fucking heads that month.
little guys: 3
fucktwit suits: 0
Re:maybe he was fired... (Score:5, Interesting)
At my last job, we had a few dumb-fuck executives that eventually drove our company out of business, hence it's my previous job. Anyhow, there was one such guy that was spending company money for himself, sexually harassing the ladies (one quit after her superior wouldn't take serious action against this guy), and basically did everything to screw the company and nothing to help it.
We had plenty of mud to dig up, actually, we didn't need to dig any up because it was well known throughout the entire company. The CEO etc. wouldn't do jack, because (although not as bad) he had done similar things to a certain extent.
It was obvious that making a stink would only get the person making the stink have a miserable life, or get fired for some technicality. So, instead of a legitimate confrontation, we used a more shaddy approach. Most of it was illegal, but hard to prove, but wouldn't get anyone fired. So long as we weren't caught in the process of doing it.
We basically harassed the fucking hell out of the executive in question. Some very childish pranks like using a high strength epoxy putty to seal all the key holes on his Mercedes (keyless entry still worked, but he did notice this), took the air out of his car tires, and ripped off the emblem. Next came the dog shit on his door steps, uprooted flowers in his garden, and other general vandalism. To make sure he understood it was an internal effort, we glued his books closed, and chopped a few cables on his office computer. (I still can't believe that this was done by the sysadmin himself... BOFH or what!?) There was loads more, but we finally drove the thought home by sending a piece of mail from a spoofed acount that generally said "Either your life could continue being hell, or you can leave the company. You choose." He was gone in 2 weeks.
Was this legal? No! Was it ethical? Probably not. But it was the lesser of 2 evils, where the other evil was making a stink and getting fired in return. Sometimes doing it the "right way" isn't really the right way at all if you end up losing. It's not worth it. I suppose we could have hired someone to break his legs (there were more than a few ladies in the office that would have been very happy to contribute to the "hit tip" if we had collected!) but we certainly got more entertainment and satisfaction out of doing it ourselves. Best of all, it wasn't even a coordinated plan, it was completely autonomous. As soon as people caught on that someone was raising hell, everyone else followed.
So Patrick, if you're reading this, now you know. By the way, I have your Mercede's emblem.
What he should have done. (Score:5, Insightful)
Block access to certain websites.
If the boss raises these restrictions up, talk to him about how that would be conflicting with official policies. Ask for confirmation in an email if he still objects and want things changed.
If you work in government these are all things that set the trail for accountablitity and responsiblity (and yes that scares the crap out of people).
Spying in the workplace, unless its 100% cleared from above, is immoral.
Could I, as a janitor, put cameras in the woman's washroom because I wanted to prove that too much time was being spent there?
Wait (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wait (Score:4, Funny)
Oh they have plenty of computers in Alabama. The problem is that because most computers don't ship with TV cards hard-wired to watch football games, televangelists, and Fox News, the locals don't see why anyone would want to use one unless they were some kind of godless heathen communist.
As a godless heathen communist who studied computer science at a university in Alabama, this was just fine with me :-)
Use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Use? (Score:3, Informative)
'whistleblower'? (Score:4, Insightful)
This guy was just an asshole, the kind of person who thinks because he's a sys-admin who has admin access on the computers that he ought to be the computer morality person as well. Or in this case, the productivity nazi.
The supervisor in this story has gotten good reports, maybe playing solitaire is the way he 'thinks'. Who knows?
The person who setup these screen grabs (seven months of them) deserved exactly what he got.
Re:'whistleblower'? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was so well known this guy's boss was playing solitaire all the time that people were circulating cartoons about it.
He went to upper management before installing the spyware, and kept bugging them about it.
That to me is not indicative of someone that is simply installing spyware to try and catch his boss surfing porn: it's a sysadmin who's using whatever tools he has to back up a claim no one seems to be taking seriously.
Re:'whistleblower'? (Score:4, Insightful)
Be that as it may, it's not his job or his place to be conducting surveillance on a superior he thinks isn't working hard enough. I've got zero sympathy for him.
Re:'whistleblower'? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep. Because, after all, if your job description says you are supposed to look for computer misuse (and that term happens to include use of the computer for non-business purposes), monitor computer systems to document such misuses, etc., what they really mean is that you're supposed to be doing that to other peons like yourself, not your supe
Re:'whistleblower'? (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, it's a sysadmin who's an idiot. The 'higher ups' were informed and chose to ignore it. He should have done the same thing.
And who exactly made the cartoons (one of which is not a cartoon at all, but rather an inadequately pixelated photo). If it was him, he's an idiot. If it was someone else (who would have gotten the information from him), he's still an idiot.
He may have been a sysadmin, but he won't be in the future. No potential boss would hire him knowing that they may be spied upon and end up seeing their names in the local paper in an unfavorable light. He abused his position and is now seeing the consequences.
Solitaire (Score:5, Funny)
Other side of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying this is the case, but its worth considering that the boss could have a radically different story, and the article did present a very one sided view.
Re:Other side of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)
Choice quote:
Spying on your boss for seven (!) months is one thing but on your own wife? Seems to me he was more of a control freak.
Re:Other side of the story? (Score:4, Insightful)
Excellent point! The only explanation is that he was never asked to work on such documents. Otherwise there would be screenshots of his Outlook with these emails. This also explains why his email responses were just short "I concur" - the boss was obviously not the decision-maker in the discussion and only wanted to sign off on something that was already decided by other.
So his job was simply to manage the department, and that can be done without any computer. I do some management myself, and I tell you, there are days when I can't even come close to my own computer, so busy I am talking to other people. In fact, the only thing a manager is required to do is to enable his people to work most efficiently.
With regard to some comments that suggest that if the boss was given a computer, he should use it. That's ridiculous. A computer is a part of anyone's workplace, as a chair is. And in fact he did receive and send some email now and then.
Rule #1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Spyware. (Score:5, Funny)
Thats what the boss gets....... (Score:5, Funny)
Arthur - If you're reading this -- just kidding! Otherwise, I am completely serious.
Sounds like a case of (Score:5, Funny)
The more interesting question (Score:5, Interesting)
Should it matter if you're spending half your time playing Solitare if you still manage to do the job you're supposed to do?
This boss's managers don't seem to want to get rid of him. One conclusion you could draw from that is that perhaps the boss actually is getting what he's supposed to be doing done. (Maybe most of his work isn't even done on the computer?)
In that case, who cares if he's playing solitare? Perhaps he's thinking things through and making decisions while doing it?
Personally, I've got a job where nobody tells me what to do with my time, as long as I get the job done.
And that's the way it should be, if you ask me.
By my definition, a job is performing a task for money.
Re:The more interesting question (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ask me, the more interesting question is: To what extent should an employer have a right to decide what their employees do on company time.
When you're on the company's time you should be working. That's why its called 'work.' If the guy was getting his job done and still playing solitare 70% of the time either A) the guy needs more tasks or B) someone else probably has the capicity get the tasks done. The point of the article is that there is incredible
Playing Solitaire (Score:4, Insightful)
Installing unauthorized software on a state government computer WILL get you fired. Raise the bar, and install spyware on a state government computer and you could be facing criminal charges. It does not matter that the software install was for alleged "white hat" purposes.
Had this same sort of problem (Score:3, Funny)
He has a hit counter... (Score:4, Interesting)
He has a toolbarcounter on his whine page [aldotwaste.com]
This should be fun to watch... [toolbarcounter.com]
Counter Hits Summary
Total Months Counter Hits / 12200
Average Number Of Counter Hits Per Day / 394
Oh, and I imagine this will look different in a few hours as well
Top 5 Browsers by Visits
(Browsers / Visits)
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.x / 6498
FireFox / 1447
Unknown / 922
Safari / 598
Netscape 7 / 437
rules to live by (Score:3, Insightful)
During bad times I took a soul killing job at a charity. Like many charities, this one was run to keep buddies employed. I was doing the number two position in our branch office, moving our inefficient paper around. Number one sat in her glass-walled office and read romance novels all day, being a buddy of the big chief at head office.
Desperate for brain stimulation, I figured out how we could exchange our photocopier lease for a computer system lease (our charter did not allow us to own equipment), and how to set it all up to handle our paperwork. I figured a month to install, another to make absolutely sure it worked perfectly, and then they could fire me as redundant. Excellent efficiency. Wrote it up and delivered to my manager. Got turned down. I bugged for why. It was eventually admitted that it would also eliminate the number two at head office, who was of course another buddy of the big chief.
But I got out soon enough. There was an inspection coming up and I was informed I'd have to be demoted because romance-reader needed to cover up that I'd been doing all the work; branches weren't supposed to have a number two.
You might think of that next time you're phoned to donate clothing to be resold by a charity. Give it directly to the poor instead and write a cheque to a real cause.
90% of the time the screen was blue... (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone live in Alabama? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who lives in Alabama ought to be writting a letter to their state representatives asking what is up there. Reports that someone is missusing their computer shouldn't have been ignored in the first place. The state of Alabama needs to completely change that department. Start with replacing the cabinet person responsible for transportation. (I'm guessing this is a cabinet level position, but I don't know how that state government works)
Then do a massive layoff, since most of the upper management obviously needs to go.
We can argue the ethics of what this guy did, but I'm having problems finding anyone ethical in this story. Not the supervistor who ignored the report (if it wasn't ignored either the behavior would have stopped, or the boss would have been fired before this guy finished 6 months of screen grabbing). Not the boss playing solitare instead of the job he should do. Even if he can do his job in 1 hour a week, it is unethical to not find other work that needs to be done for the other 49. This guy is perhaps most ethical, as a admin his job is to watch the state's computers. (but perhaps because I don't know that state) This isn't a private machine he was spying on.
If the supervisors were doing their job, this would have never got this far, because they would have repramanded the boss right away. Then either the boss would have changed so nothing would need to be done, or he wouldn't and they would know to fire him. Most people I know have done something stupid like this at work (including a number of you reading this at work), but when it becomes a problem the boss is supposed to notice and tell you to change before it becomes time to fire you.
that's a tough one (Score:3)
if it were me, I'd look at something like bitch-slap, you know, the old bluescreen inducing network app? from the screenies it looks like it may work on that old system. just randomly crash the computer, but be sure to cover your tracks, that would be enough to keep me entertained. you can only worry about what the next guy is getting away with for so long, plus, it's only a job.
CB
Whistleblower? (Score:3, Insightful)
What right does this person have to dictate what his boss should do? If he doesn't feel his boss is performing his job correctly, he should report it to the higher-ups, which he did. The higher-ups didn't care. This should have been a big fucking hint. Perhaps his boss can do his job and play Solitaire at the same time. Maybe that's why he ended up as Boss.
Here on Slashdot, many people post and read articles from work. This is claimed as "Okay," because we're getting our jobs done regardless, right? But when it comes to somebody in a position of power, suddenly playing a mindless cardgame is such a horrible violation that a sysadmin must "blow the whistle?" I call bullshit.
This idiot overstepped his boundaries. What makes it worse is that he was a government employee and demonstrated an intent to use his position as system administrator to spy on other government employees. This is completely unacceptable, and it was entirely appropriate to fire his dipshit ass.
Re:Whistleblower? (Score:5, Funny)
Employment "At Will" in Alabama (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesnt work like that (Score:3, Insightful)
Its like for example, I posted a comment about Google and search engines recently, [slashdot.org] which I posted intending it to be funny. The mods obviously agreed, and it's presently rated +5 Funny. HOWEVER, two guys still replied "correcting" my "claim" that searching Google for "search engine" took me to the home page. The fact is, whether my "claim" is accurate or not is irrelevant - it's funny to think that someone searched Google to find out what a "search engine" is and was taken back to the Google homepage and thinks Google is broken (get it??) What the joke is implying is that Google is so good, for many people it is the only way to search the web and has in fact become a verb - "Googling" for something rendering the "search engine" phrase obsolete.
In a similar fashion, if you are employed as a sysadmin and part of your job role is to "identify misuse of the net" or company hardware, this does not mean you have carte blanche to spy on the boss, (or worse, their superiors). If you want to lose your job, sure - go right ahead but people do not hire you to spy on them. You will very rarely see any of these "unwritten rules" formalised - it's just "the done thing", and the very fact the phrase "unwritten rule" exists should tell you something.
It's the geek syndrome - taking things literally. It's why we are traditionally so bad with the feminine mind set (I'm not being sexist here, men (typically gay men) can exhibit the feminine mind set too) until we understand the rules; and there are rules - for example if the average woman asks you "does her arse look big in this" she is most definitely NOT looking for an honest answer, she is looking for a compliment.
Learning to read between the lines is a useful skill. A wise person once said something along the lines of "often rather than what you do say, it's what you don't say that can be the difference between a sucessful career and an unsucessful one".
I agree, it sucks, however it's the way things are and the people who can adapt to this are sucessful.
Think before you blow the whistle (Score:3, Insightful)
M@
they sysadmin was wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Solitare can work your brain. I think excess is one thing, but the occasional game is not going to do anything. If this guy just came to work and played solitare all day well then I could see that as excess. But if he cooled down from a meeting by firing off a few hands, then I doin't have an issue with that.
Wronged righteousness (Score:5, Interesting)
It really surprises me that after 21 years of supposed service, this guy gets canned for the expose, which leads me to believe there is something(s) we're all not being told. 21 years and this guy still doesn't have a sensible grasp of the environment that would can him as sooner than praise him? 21 years and this guy is worth less than a solitair playing spider monkey? Normally that only happens when they're just dying for an excuse to get rid of you, normally after you've done something to piss them off.
Sorry, but thing aren't adding up here for the righteous IT guy here. I'm betting he screwed the pooch way before this incident.
Why do folks say he was doing his job? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, misuse of the computer, if you ask me, would involve installing spyware and trojans on other people's computer, looking at their files, flooding the network, running a porn site.
This sysadmin scares me, if he doesn't think you are doing your job properly, then even after he has told your boss about it he thinks he can install spyware on your computer and watch you. What other thing that bothers him would make him feel justified in doing crap like this?
I would fire him on the spot, possibly consider pressing charges. While employers do own their computers and thus you don't have as much privacy from your employer as you should have, this guy was not authorized by the employer, and what he did is possibly illegal.
Re:Why do folks say he was doing his job? (Score:4, Insightful)
The employer's ownership of the infrastructure doesn't give J. Random Admin authority to act as judge, jury, and executioner. I hope he gets to spend some time in the state pen for not being smart enough to drop it after he was rightfully fired.
He was also spying on his wife... (Score:3, Interesting)
Testimony alleged that as a result of Blake downloading the software, a computer hacker at an unknown location in Australia breached the Alabama Department of Transportation's computer firewall in 2003.
also,
Blake also testified Monday that he installed the program on two other computers in the department, that of the state Right of Way Engineer Paul Bowlin, who heads the division, and Right of Way Secretary Jana Trafford Blake. Jana Blake is married to Vernon Blake.
So he spies on his wife, his boss, and HIS boss. It's also possible that his actions led to a breach in the firewall at the office as well (that's disputed and may not be the case). With those facts in play, that changes my view of events.
No whistleblower here... (Score:5, Insightful)
If he thought somebody was running a web server or downloading pornography, or gambling online, that is one thing. But to take it upon himself to perform his own performance evaluation of his superior, was a bit bold and he was rightfully fired.
His focus should have been on the machines and the network, not carrying out retribution for a personal grudge.
Re:No whistleblower here... (Score:4, Interesting)
RTFA [decaturdaily.com].
So the "lazy boss" received commendations for production. Seems that the "lazy boss" gets a lot done while still playing solitaire. Even when his supervisors had full knowledge of his alleged "slacking off" they chose to keep the "lazy boss" on the payroll. They even commented that his production is "above reproach". Seems to me the sysadmin was grinding his axe in error.
He was also a doofus for taking the situation into his own hands. He installed a pirated version of WinSpy without authorisation from a superior officer. He also monitored other staff (two other people) for 7 months, without authorisation. He claims he was doing it to catch slackers at work. But that behaviour is too easily miscontrued. He was begging for trouble and he got it.
What he should have done... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironically, it appears that his biggest flaw was too much company loyalty. Normally company loyalty is a good thing, but being loyal to a company that has bad internal policies and practices isn't going to get you very far, as this story indicates.
Another possibility would have been to ask permission to install the spy software on company computers to facilitate documenting evidence of wasteful activity (this request being made entirely outside of and temporally distant from any discussion regarding his boss's activities so that a connection between the two would not be obvious). There is no reason why any computer on the network that the sysadmin is trying to prevent abuse on should be excluded from possible monitoring, but the exact policies that would be followed by the software and the adminstrator would need be laid out in writing to ensure accountability for how the software is used to the senior management, and to ensure to their satisfaction that it is not abused. Once permission had been obtained and after a few months, once the evidence is gathered, he could not have been justly fired for installing this "unauthorized software" after presenting the evidence to the higher ups, since he in fact would have HAD authorization to install exactly that software. If they chose to fire him anyways for that reason, it would be an open and shut wrongful dismissal case.
Of course, then we probably wouldn't be arguing about it on slashdot... and heaven knows what a crime that would be.
Re:What he should have done... (Score:4, Interesting)
Dunno how it is in BC, but the job market down in the USA (especially Alabama) is really shitty (especially for the 45+ age group) and he was probably making a very nice bundle of money after 20 years of raises in a government job.
I also like how everyone apparantly knows all about the computer policies at the guy's place of work (and are able to comment on them.)
Everyone on here misses the point... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sweet Jesus. YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT (Score:4, Informative)
Right, it seems this link [decaturdaily.com] (an actual news story on the issue rather than just the one guy's point of view) has already been posted here more than once.
It stuns me that despite ~50 +5 replies, no one has bothered to point out that the program this guy installed HAD A BACKDOOR.
Yes, that's right people. That's why they're calling this spyware. Because it is.
Read this:
Bobby Mitchell, an employee contracted to DOT to do computer network support and computer programming, told the hearing officer that DOT's computer firewall crashed in January 2003 and had to be rebuilt.
Mitchell said he found WinSpy on Dobbs' computer when transferring material and programs in his computer to a new one and at that time saw that the program had an "imbedded address" that allowed someone outside the department to have access to DOT's computer system. The imbedded address was traced to Australia.
So, who still actually believes he should get his job back? He was so focused on proving his boss was in the wrong that he compromised the security of the network he was a sysadmin for.
No it wasn't (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No it wasn't (Score:4, Insightful)
Playing Solitaire is not misuse. It's not the best use of time, but it is not misuse. He sent the emails to the higher-ups, they obviously weren't that interested. In other words, he must still have been getting his work done. (Or his job wasn't so consequential, but it's not a syadmin's job to trim the fat.)
By installing spyware on his boss's machine, he captured and examined data that he is not privy to. What was to stop him from seeing his boss emailing another executive about future layoffs, or the salary of one of his coworkers? His was quite obviously fired due to mistrust. Being his boss might have played into the politics a bit, but I certainly wouldn't hire this guy.
Re:No it wasn't (Score:5, Informative)
-
Playing Solitaire is not misuse. It's not the best use of time, but it is not misuse. He sent the emails to the higher-ups, they obviously weren't that interested. In other words, he must still have been getting his work done. (Or his job wasn't so consequential, but it's not a syadmin's job to trim the fat.)
Actually if you look at the excerts from ALDOT's computer usage policy he has up any non-work related usage of the computer is defined as misuse/abuse. So in this case it was in fact misuse.Re:No it wasn't (Score:4, Informative)
If it were a private company, you might be right, upper management would have the say, but this is a government agency, that is using taxpayer money. I think of this guy as a hero of the people. This kind of wasteful behavior needs to stop. If all this so called 'boss' has to do is play solitare all day, then his position needs to be ELIMINATED!
The salaries of most government positions is public knowledge, btw.
Re:That was appropriate (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy knew his boss fucked around on the computer all day instead of doing his job and this was known to the employee who got fired.
He reported this to higher ups and they ignored it. The first mistake here is they should've listened. Since they didn't, the only other option was to take matters into his own hands.
Even if he wasn't an IT manager of sorts, he did the right thing in proving to higher-ups that his boss is doing nothing but wasting the company's money by playing solitaire and looking at stock market crap instead of working.
I'm sure there are tons of people out there who are looking for a job and would be more than happy to fill his position and actually do some work.
They should've fired the boss and gave the IT manager that position (provided it paid more).
Re:That was appropriate (Score:5, Insightful)
Why, exactly, was his "only other option" to spy on his boss? Why not write the letters to the editor that are now being written for him? Why not put up a website that talks about the issues he's facing, without mentioning names? Why is the next step to spy on his boss?
Was his boss' conduct reprehensible? Yes. Was it his job to spy on him? Short of a policy expressly giving him permission to spy on his boss (or *anyone* else in the office), his behavior was wrong. And no, " 'to confirm and document' such misuse" [knology.net] is *not* sufficient authorization for spying on *any* user in the office, especially his boss.
You can get in trouble doing such things, including prosecution under federal wiretapping laws. This is *not* an area where you want to screw around with.
Re:That was appropriate (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That was appropriate (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That was appropriate (Score:3, Insightful)
He proved nothing except that his boss leaves solitaire open on his computer. If his boss was getting his job done and pleasing his employer, who cares how he did it?
Re:That was appropriate (Score:3, Informative)
This is not to try and pick fault at what you are saying I agree with it (just not that little part). Plus by drawing attention to it, I'm hoping to quell peoples ideas that "employee just wanted boss's job" type threads.
Horseshit (Score:3, Insightful)
- This guy had complained to his superior's superiors. They apparently didn't care. So this guy's crusade basically ends right there. He did what he should have done, and when those higher ups don't care, you can get pissed all you want, but you don't take matters into your own hands.
- This guy seems to have a personal beef with his boss.
- Most people down here (including people that work in IT) think this guy is an
Re:Horseshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you seriously think that a boss like that is someone worth sticking up for? Someone you'd want to follow? Christ, no wonder this country is so fucked up.
Re:Horseshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, in a corporate organsation you could easily find that your required to take additional action such as informing someone more senior who represents the investors (e.g. a non executive director) and you tell them that company policy is not being followed. You may find you are legally required to ensure that company policy is followed through or you can lose your job. In this case there are no 'non executive directors', but there are investors - the taxpayers of the state of Alabama.
This was his BOSS.
So? Are you suggesting that cover ups and failure to follow offical policy (as far as following the offical complaints proceedure and enforcing the existing policy prohibiting such use of equipment) simply were not criminal enough to be worth him drawing attention to or that 'your boss' can engage in whatever criminal acts he likes, including misuse of public property and/or funds, and that you should be complicit out of some kind of automatic respect for someone in your organisation who happens to be in a higher pay band than you are?
It's taxpayers money. If it was a private enterprise it would be investors money. I shouldn't need to remind you that employees have a fiduciary (and, in the case of corporate enterprises, frequently legal) responsiblity to that organisations investors. Senior employees can be personally liable and can face not only fines but jail time for acting against the interests of an organisation they are explicitly employed to represent the interests of.
If someone is jerking around like this guys boss in a company I've invested in, or if my local government representatives where up to this (which I'm quite sure they are) as an investor/taxpayer I'm damn sure I want to know and I'm sure I want the senior executives who've tried to sweep this under the carpet and who have failed to act in the manner in which there were hired to exposed and fired (it's their job to ensure this sort of thing doesn't go on, it's not a charity, if they can't do the job for which they are very well paid they should be slung out on their ear).
You stay in official channels when dealing with any personel problem, and you ESPECIALLY do this when a superior is involved
I say you obay your fiduciary and legal obligations to taxpayers/investors FIRST and if that's contrary to 'staying within the little white lines of company policy' SCREW THEM (after all they [both this guys boss, and his seniors] have already thrown the rule book out the window and are using it to shaft this guy, and all the state taxpayers and more fool you if you let them continue).
What your suggesting is that he be complicit in a system which is supressing evidence of corruption in a government organisation (the act of corruption being not the act of the origional employee, but complete failure to take any action to enforce the organisations existing policy when complaints were made). What you are suggesting is that he 'stays within the box' and acts in the best interests of his management, even if thats not in the best intrests of taxpayers/investors.
In short, what you are suggesting is completely immoral.
I say screw that, rat on the bastards and tell everyone who'll listen.
It's you - the taxpayer and investor in this service - that's getting screwed by these incompotent lazy slobs, and it's only the very people being ratted on for being incompotent lazy slobs that are trying to cover it up to save their own fat underworked and overpaid behinds.
Re:That was appropriate (Score:5, Insightful)
Every government makes it very clear that your computer can and will be monitored (even though the sys-admins are usualy not up to the task of actually figuring out how to effectively monitor it). i.e. the sys-admin had every right to do this and was acting according to what someone way way higher up would say was good practices to the cammeras.
that said, I've been around the block enough time that there are four possible real issue here that got him fired.
Re:That was appropriate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That was appropriate (Score:3, Insightful)
Companies don't need Lone Ranger admins. They promote a Big Brother atmosphere in which they cannot be trusted by those they support nor by those with whom they are employed.
Re:That was appropriate (Score:5, Insightful)
Proper channels should have been followed. If his employer was unwilling to take action he should have left it alone. We all work with people who are lazy and unjustly promoted. But that doesn't give us the right to spy on them.
As a sysadmin I find this guy's behavior pathetic. It's an abuse of his position. I would have fired him, too.
Re:That was appropriate (Score:5, Informative)
-
Being the sysadmin does not grant you the right to spy on another employee even if that employee is your boss. There is a certain amount of trust that an employer has to grant a sysadmin but when that trust is taken advantage of as in this case it becomes abuse.
Actually most workplace computer policies permit exactly what this guy did. Perhaps you should read yours more thoroughly, I know I haven't worked anywhere that doesn't in fact include a clause similar to this one, take from the ALDOT's Computer Usage Policy (posted on the guy's site[emphasis added by him]):-
Any individual who utilizes any ALDOT computer resource consents by that use to the
potential monitoring of such use.
I won't post it all here but you should look at the documents on his site, the same one contains the definitions of System Administrator. He didn't break any rules. Also I should note that this is standard for non-classified government work. Because of open secrets laws every detail of what a government employee does, including their personnel files, are public records. Government employees effectively have no privacy at their jobs, it's something fairly unique to the job sector.Because the Internet services are to be used only for government business, all records in these systems are hereby considered government records. As such, these records are subject to the provisions of state laws regarding their maintenance, access, and disposition. Employees using these services do not enjoy any right of personal privacy.
A user who utilizes ALDOT computer resources for any purposes other than for official ALDOT purposes, is guilty of theft or misuse of state resources and may be subject to both ALDOT personnel action and appropriate criminal prosecution.
-
Proper channels should have been followed. If his employer was unwilling to take action he should have left it alone. We all work with people who are lazy and unjustly promoted. But that doesn't give us the right to spy on them.
Proper channels were followed, he documents it all on his site, shows the policies, tells each step he took. There's even this statement: "On my part, no laws were broken, ALDOT's own policies and procedures were followed in letter and spirit, and actions taken were in ALDOT's and the taxpayer's best interest."He explains he took the action he did because the boss's game playing was causing problems within the division of employee moral and supervision. Another quote: "Not only was this behavior wasteful, it impeded my ability to effectively supervise subordinates, including my ability to discipline employees for wasteful behavior of any type. The situation deteriorated to the point where cartoons were being distributed that mocked my supervisor's behavior." He includes two examples of those cartoons.
So I have to ask you, how much did you read about this issue before you passed judgement? And while I understand you aversion to "spying" on users (having done sysadmin work for quite a while myself) I find it odd that you don't realize that sometimes it is not only necessary but required. If someone if using company resources to violate laws the company will require proof before they can act to protect themselves from future prosecution (and defend themselves if such prosecution occurs). Even if they're not breaking laws but violating company computer usage policy often monitoring to gather proof will be required before they can be disciplined and/or fired.
-
As a sysadmin I find this guy's behavior pathetic. It's an abuse of his position. I would have fired him, too.
Well frankly I must say I'm glad you don't work for my organization. Protecting user privacy is important but also is understanding that monitoring must occur sometimes, no matter how much we find it distasteful. Also he didn't abuse his position, if you read all the info presented you'll find he followed their polices and procedures properly and did his job. If that's a fireable offense, well I suppose we'd all better start playing card games at work all day instead of working.Re:That was appropriate (Score:5, Insightful)
It's government here -- you know, that thing that produces nothing yet can perpetuate itself by just spending enough to get another 20x-too-big budget the next year, no matter how worthless 80% of the employees are?
Proper channels should have been followed. If his employer was unwilling to take action he should have left it alone.
Hey -- "his employer" is us! (If you live in the US, particularly Alabama.) So, if the (possibly also solitaire-playing usless leech) boss of the boss in question chooses to do nothing we should all just suck it up? What the fuck are you saying, that government isn't accountable to the people, and shouldn't be? No protection should be afforded to whistleblowers [osc.gov] who expose the wholesale robbery of everyone?
Wow. Just wow.
Re:That was appropriate (Score:3, Insightful)
W
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm just going to be up front and tell you I haven't RTFA yet. (in a bit of a hurry, headed to dinner...) So I'm just gonna talk in a general sense here. In other words, this isn't necessarily a direct rebuttal to what you're saying.
I'm not a manager. In fact, I had a job very similar to what this guy was doing to a much lesser extent. I read what he did and a couple of things bothered me.
1.) He notified the management, they chose not to act on it.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
-
Understanding that I am taking the summary of the article at face value, and that I haven't gotten to the details of the article yet, this is what I think: This guy took it too far. Way too far. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the people above him thought "Geez, what if he caught a screen grab of me looking at porn? I get a bunch of that shit in my email all the time. Was he going to go McBain on me, too?"
Once you read the whole article (and particularly his site) you'll understand why. The boss playing cards constantly was becoming a major issue within his division. Discipline was becoming impossible because the boss was, well, he was doing everything they weren't supposed to. He has two examples of jokes posted around the place about the boss's game playing by employees in fact.Maybe he was doing his job, but he should have had a little more faith in the higher-ups.
He did what he did because the issue had gone way beyond just a "I think the boss isn't doing his job" to a "the boss isn't doing his job and it's so obvious no one else wants to do theres." Higher-ups had continued to ignore it and wouldn't solve the situation. Something had to be done. Even though he was fired the situation was finally solved, it's a crying shame for Alabama taxpayers that it had to reach such a point. The boss should have long since been reprimanded for his behaviour, if not fired.
Frankly if I lived in Alabama I'd be livid. The taxpayers were paying this guy's boss to do nothing buy play card all day. The sheer quantity of the screenshots showing him playing games pretty much tosses out the "Maybe he had solitaire open because he was on the phone a lot, and wanted something to keep his hands active?" idea that you presented. He was simply being paid to, well, not work.
One thing I thought of since I've dealt with environments where games shouldn't be played (University computer labs) is why didn't he just change the permissions on them? It sounds like they were in an NT or Active Directory domain, it's pretty unlikely the boss had administrator access since this guy was the designated support person for his division (he has the policy on support personnel up too, it says one person in each division/dept. will be granted administrator access for their part of the domain tree). He could have avoided this mess and forced the issue with the higher-ups by simply changing the permissions on solitaire to be administrator only or even nobody. It's likely the boss wouldn't have pushed the issue too hard as it would make him look bad trying to get access to a game restored. The guy could have also locked access to solitaire on all computers in his division to make it a policy issue, not a direct confrontation of his boss.
Still the whole situation shows there's some serious waste going on in ALDOT. Alabama taxpayers should raise hell with them on that at least.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
His notifications to upper management was nothing more than standard, vapid comments about ineffective management (such that virtually every drone makes regularly). There was virtually nothing actionable, and his attempts to fall back on that as a defense are weak and transparent.
When you're a sysadmin, you have access to all sorts of sensitive data. To actively capture it and use it zealously nail your boss, well I tell you what, that'd scare the hell out of me.
Indeed. His boss could very well have been evaluating division salaries, writing a bonus recommendation letter for Vernon (the overzealous sysadmin), or a wide range of other private matters. Sysadmins have a sad case of god complex (I have been in several positions where I consulted on infrastructure to contain the power of the sysadmin -- one they knew the sysadmin was going through the payroll files, for instance, based upon "in the know" comments he made to other employees).
The whole reason Slashdot isn't a big fan of things like video cameras at every street corner is that anything can be captured to make somebody look like they're doing something illegal. It's discomforting.
Humorously many of the visitors to Slashdot are doing so on paid hours, and some of them probably have an overzealous sysadmin on a crusade, carefully logging all of the details in hopes to prove that regardless of output, clearly the employee is ineffective because they read that story on Star Wars III. The problem with this is that just because we're not doing something visually productive, it doesn't mean that we're not mentally preparing or ruminating over some piece of mental data -- ultimately our productivity can be measure in the solutions and projects we provide in a given period of time, not whether we have vi or solitaire on our screens. Indeed, given that the person being monitored was a manager, it is entirely conceivable that he was doing the best thing that he could do at times - assessing the situation and deciding that his intervention wasn't currently needed, and retiring to a game of solitaire. Big fucking deal. Ultimately his higher ups rank him based upon the results of his division, not whether he was a busybody filling his day with make work, carefully micromanaging his charges.
This sysadmin, Vernon, sounds like a sad, pathetic, jealous prick that has no comprehension of boundaries, and feels that he's on some sort of personal crusade to save us all. I find it unbelievable that he releases the information that he has (illegally released information - the guy is basically spreading proprietary internal state information publicly. I'll be surprized if he doesn't end up going to jail for this) and truly believes that he's in the right - this wanker won't get a job administering anything more advanced than a toilet plunger in the future.
RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
It also only captured during randomly set intervals at 30 minutes a minimum. Basically, it was set up so that it was a completely random sample that the sysadmin was unable to knowingly control in order to make the guy look bad.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that the use of monitoring software makes me uncomfortable. However, as far as I can tell, no laws or policies were broken. I don't know whether the sysadmin should be allowed to keep his job, but I find it appalling that the guy's *boss*, the time-waster, is still porking on the taxpayer's dime.