Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
The Courts Crime Government IT Your Rights Online

Rough Justice For Terry Childs 418

snydeq writes "Deep End's Paul Venezia sees significant negative ramifications for IT admins in the wake of yesterday's guilty verdict for Terry Childs on a count of 'denial of service.' Assuming the verdict is correct, Venezia writes, 'shouldn't the letter of the law be applied to other "denial of service" problems caused by the city while they pursued this case? In particular, to the person or persons who released hundreds of passwords in public court filings in 2008 for causing a denial of service for the city's widespread VPN services? After all, once the story broke that a large list of usernames and passwords had been released to the public, the city had to take down its VPN services for days while they reset every password and communicated those changes to the users.' Worse, if upheld on appeal, the verdict puts a vast number of IT admins at risk. 'There are suddenly thousands of IT workers all over the country that are now guilty of this crime in a vast number of ways. If the letter of the law is what convicted Terry Childs, then the law is simply wrong.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rough Justice For Terry Childs

Comments Filter:
  • by Phrogman ( 80473 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @06:10PM (#32022744) Homepage

    I think I would want to draft up a very clear - and legally binding - agreement that I would want my superiors in management to sign on behalf of the company. It would spell out in specific details, the security policies, security review process, enforcement etc. It would absolve me from prosecution unless I violated any of the very specific rules that were listed. If my superior changed, they would have to sign the document when they took up their position etc.

    I wouldn't likely get the job, they'd hire someone who wasn't so paranoid, but I don't think I would want to take a job where if someone in management decided to break the rules, and I tried to apply those rules for the sake of ensuring I didn't violate the trust that had been placed in me, then I wasn't liable for prosecution either way, like Childs was.

    Now, he could have handled things differently I am sure, but he might have been prosecuted either way from what I have read so far. I would like more details in an objective report on the situation.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's really not that complicated... You have a boss who makes the rules, if your boss later tells you to break the rules then you do it. If someone higher up on the chain of command than your boss asks you to break a rule you might ask them to ask you formally (via your boss) but then you still do it. If your boss tells you to break a rule that he set, and security is compromised, you wouldn't be liable (as long as your have the request is documented).
      • by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) <> on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @06:52PM (#32023326) Journal

        You have a boss who makes the rules, if your boss later tells you to break the rules then you do it.

        Just like Enron's accountants?

        Sorry, no. If your boss later wants to change the rules, there's likely a procedure in place to do so, but they can't simply do that by fiat. That's the whole point of having a policy in the first place.

        • by __aasqbs9791 ( 1402899 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @08:01PM (#32024240)

          Changing the rules isn't always the same as breaking the law. If you boss tells you to never give out passwords, and then asks you for a password, and when you refuse says he's changing that rule, it is whole different thing than your boss ordering you to break a law regarding financial accounting laws. Especially if that boss was the owner of the company (which isn't the case in either your example or Childs, of course.

          Though I've seen so many different things on this case I'm not sure where I stand. It seems to depend on the specifics. If the rules were such that it actually said he couldn't release the passwords except to the Mayor himself in person then I'm probably on his side. But otherwise someone like the Mayor likely does many things by proxy, so he may have just been acting the fool (to quote Judge Joe Brown). The devil's in the details I guess.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Aceticon ( 140883 )

            I think the overall issue is that you can't take an IT Admin position working for the a Local, State or Federal public entity in the US since you're damned if you do (give the passwords) because of laws and regulations and damned if you don't since they'll take you to court and have you convicted anyway.

            Either stay away from those positions or ask for a significant premium on your salary/rate to cover the legal risk.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @08:13PM (#32024396)

          Just like Enron's accountants?

          If you're not comfortable doing what you're told, then quit. (Or, in the case of Enron, go to the SEC or whatever.) Even if you believe that all people have a right to a job, nobody has a right to a particular job.

          Sorry, no. If your boss later wants to change the rules, there's likely a procedure in place to do so, but they can't simply do that by fiat. That's the whole point of having a policy in the first place.

          It's a great theory, but it's also hopelessly naive. The rules don't apply equally to everyone. It sucks that the world works this way, but it does, and that's never, ever going to change. Behaving as if the rules your boss tells you apply equally to him is an exercise in frustration, and also a good recipe for getting fired. Or, as in this case, sent to jail.

          That's politics, my friend, and any time you have more than two people in a room you get politics. There is no avoiding it. Which is why policies and procedures are worthless. The people who write them can change them any time they choose. They can be enforced selectively or not at all. And you can be accused of not following a procedure, even though you did, because the person interpreting the procedure is the same person who wants to punish you for some other reason.

          Seriously, learn from my experience in corporate America. (Which, I am told, is nothing compared to the politics that goes on in public service jobs, and I'm not even talking about politicians.) This is the way the world works. The good news is that you don't have to be an active participant, and in fact taking the passive approach makes your life easier in many ways. But you do have to be aware of it, and Childs was not. Either that or he very badly overestimated his clout with the mayor (it's probably a combination of the two).

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by amirulbahr ( 1216502 )
          You don't serve your boss. You serve the same stakeholders that your boss serves. It would be both morally and legally wrong to, for example, collude with your boss to defraud the company. The line is not as clear as GP makes out.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        "if your boss later tells you to break the rules then you do it."

        Is it needed any more to invoke Godwin's law?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 )

        > You have a boss who makes the rules, if your boss later tells you to break the rules then you do it.

        Except it isn't quite like that.

        Whenever I see one of these "Mad Max" style posts, I wonder if these people have ever been employed anywhere.

        In all likelihood, your boss doesn't create policy. He enforces it just like you do. He doesn't make the
        rules either. He also doesn't get to break them arbitrarily.

        Piss off the boss or break the rules? That's certainly a dilemma to show what kind of man you are.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by yuna49 ( 905461 )

        It's really not that complicated... You have a boss who makes the rules, if your boss later tells you to break the rules then you do it.

        Or you resign.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Assmasher ( 456699 )

        Ahhh... The Nuremberg defense.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        The boss can change the rules the boss makes, within limits imposed by law and corporate policy. There may be rules from higher up that your boss must obey. For example, if corporate policy is that nobody tells anybody else their password, the boss has no right to demand your password.

        Now, if you're in a position where your boss demands something that's either illegal or against corporate policy, after you've explained it, you've got a problem. I'd probably ask for the request in writing. That may no

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by flibuste ( 523578 )

        It's really not that complicated... You have a boss who makes the rules

        Oh yeah. With your logic, here is a small sample of what can happen and the sweet consequences that follow.

        • 1939-1945, and the extermination camps.
        • Vietnam and the killing of hundred thousands of innoncent farmers by 'enlightened people' from some political party.
        • CIA contractors and US soldiers in Guantanamo, and waterboarding.

        I reckon my examples are a little extreme, but the sheep mentality such as yours causes more troubles than

    • I wouldn't likely get the job, they'd hire someone who wasn't so paranoid

      That's crazy -- who wants a system administrator who isn't paranoid?

    • by RichardJenkins ( 1362463 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @07:08PM (#32023538)

      I understood that they had a set of policies for 'user-level' passwords (which this was not classed as) saying things like 'never diclose your password, even to your boss' and another set of policies for 'system-level' passwords, which these passwords were classed as. The policies for 'system-level' passwords say they must be stored in a centrally managed database: a policy that Childs violated by keeping them in a way only accessible to him. Under your model (assuming the above is correct) you wouldn't be absolved from prosecution in this case, because Childs hadn't followed procedures related to 'system-level' passwords.

      It's all rather moot though, there is a systemic problem in any organisation which lets its IT be run in a way where someone can hold it hostage like this. The real lesson here is that institutional incompetence can lead to individual criminal liability.

      If you're an IT admin working in the States then it's your geographic (not professional) situation that's putting you at risk of going to jail for something stupid like this.

  • by andrewme ( 1562981 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @06:11PM (#32022754)
    Not trying to be a troll here, but... and maybe I'm not understanding the whole case correctly. I've followed the articles on Slashdot for a while. In my opinion: if the city hires you, you are subservient to the city. You do not give passwords to your inferiors. Ever. You do, however, give passwords to your superiors when asked. Always. They hired you, after all. They are your bosses. If I hire a security guard for my building, he'd damn well better give me the key if I decide to fire him, or if I get locked out, or both. You don't hide data from your superiors, plain and simple, however *technologically* less advanced they might be. Maybe the city is making a mountain out of a molehill; I'm really not qualified to comment on that, since I don't know as much about the case as some of the people on here will. Honestly, though, my original point: you get hired by someone, you do what they want to do, provided it isn't illegal. I highly doubt that giving someone the password or passwords to their own systems would have been the wrong thing to do.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      The only Superior he was supposed to give the password to is the Mayor. He was only supposed to do that in an environment deemed secure enough for no one else to get the password. He complied with that. He is basically being sued into oblivion because he didn't want the secretary, the press, and/or anyone else getting a hold of the password.

      • by George Beech ( 870844 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @06:18PM (#32022870)
        No that's a twist on what happened to suit the ideas of slashdot. What happened was he was locked up and said "I'll only give these passwords to the Mayor" Now what he was required to do by the state policy was provide the passwords to Information Security for inclusion in the central password management database due to them being production passwords. He obviously did not do this as none of this would have happened if he did.
      • by beakerMeep ( 716990 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @06:37PM (#32023140)
        People keep saying this but where's the proof? I haven't seen any evidence of such a policy. But I admittedly have only been partially following the case.

        From: [] (emphasis mine).

        Childs reportedly had a fractious relationship with some of his coworkers, attorneys on both sides said. He testified at trial that he never intended to harm the network but said that other employees, including his supervisors, were not qualified to have the passwords. Childs claimed he was merely following established industry guidelines for password protection. "You do not ever give up your username and password," Childs said.

        That doesn't sound like you make it sound. Industry guidelines are not the same as company/government policy.

        To be honest I think the Slashdot community is wrong to defend this guy. He sounds like an ego-maniac driven not by security, but by the sys-admin God complex. However, that's just what I think, and I could be wrong. Sans the full transcript of the trial it's really hard to say what happened. I'd love for groklaw to take a look at it too. They probably need a break from SCO shenanigans. :)

        • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @07:20PM (#32023692)

          Also they weren't asking for HIS username and password, they were asking for THE username and password. There is a difference as any competent sysadmin should know. I won't give up my password to any systems here at work. Policy requires that I do not. However my password is only for my accounts. There are other accounts I have the password for, that are not mine, share accounts. There would be root on the UNIX systems, the local administrator account on the Windows systems, the enable password on the switches, the SA password on the DB server, and so on. There is only one of those accounts (and in the case of things like root, can only be one). It isn't my password on them, it is a password all the IT staff share. That password isn't something I can change to one only I know and refuse to give out, I'd get in trouble for that.

          Big, big difference. Had the city said "We want your password to log in to your personal e-mail account and bank account," well ya, I'd be supporting him for saying no. However they wanted the system passwords for various devices and services that have but one master password. If those passwords were the same as his personal password that is bad security practice on his part, however there is still a solution: Change the passwords and give them the new ones (or change the password on your account).

        • by biryokumaru ( 822262 ) <> on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @07:30PM (#32023834)
          Here [] is the policy. I believe the relevant section (page 32) only really applies to user passwords, not system-level stuff.
      • by MushMouth ( 5650 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @07:33PM (#32023884) Homepage

        According to the network engineer who was a juror on the case (so I am guessing that he knows far more details about it than you or I)....
        He didn't refuse to just give his "password" but to give any access at all to the core routers, removed any way of password retrieval without doing a full system reset, and would not provide the configurations to these routers.

        On top of that, there were emails and witnesses that made it appear that Childs was doing this all to make it such that only HE had access.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by blair1q ( 305137 )

      Well, no.

      The rules made it so he could insist on giving the passwords only to the Mayor and only in a secure situation.

      He used that as an excuse.

      It's pretty clear from all I've read that he really was holding the city hostage because he was disgruntled at the changing employment situation, and in the process he prevented city personnel from accessing data they needed to do their jobs.

      The Jury was sympathetic that the city acted like idiots once it all started, but they were also cognizant that he wasn't com

      • Re: Initiative (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Phrogman ( 80473 )

        I think they took away the "initiative to find a way to get the password to the right person in a secure manner" when they locked him up in jail and left him there. He evidently requested to see the mayor, and when the mayor arrived, gave him the password. Unless that isn't the way it went, I don't really see what else he could have done.

        Again though, I haven't read a good article that had significant details in it, just crappy links from /. and short articles that had few details. I want a time line, a cop

      • I appreciate this as the first well-reasoned, moderate opinion on the situation I've read that's not supporting Childs. If I had mod points I'd use them.

        At the same time, we should all appreciate that unless we've gone to great lengths to become informed on the matter, our "everything you've read" (particularly in the newspapers) could easily have been the machinations of an administration which, as you put it, "acted like idiots once it all started" and were more interested in petty office-politics than a

        • by sribe ( 304414 )

          Well, in my case, everything I've read has been on /. so I've got the opposite problem, I know that my information about the case is probably (wildly) biased in favor of Childs. One the one hand, I really cannot see what crime he was guilty of. On the other hand, prosecutors are not generally as vindictive, and juries not as stupid, as people here like to believe.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            I'm perplexed why some people on Slashdot who are so willing to trash the performance of their fellow geeks, rally around one who is charged with a crime.

            If we assume this guy is innocent of a crime without knowing the facts, why can't we assume everybody else is competent until it is proven otherwise?

      • in the process he prevented city personnel from accessing data they needed to do their jobs.

        From everything I've read about the case this simple isn't true. From what I've read at no time were any network services disrupted. It was just that no one could access the equipment to make changes.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      So, you get hired by Joe Schmoe. He gets fired. John (the guy in the next cubicle) comes in and tells you that he has been given Joe's job, your fired, and he wants you to give him all the company passwords that you have. What do you do? Oh yeah, when John did this, he came into your office with three people you have never met.
      That is what happened to Terry Childs.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        What Tony should have said is "The passwords are in the secure password repository. Look it up yourself." The problem is that he couldn't say that because it was a lie to. He dug his own hole.

    • by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @06:33PM (#32023088) Journal

      You got an upstart sysadmin who went on a powertrip and thought he was smarter then anyone else and therefor above any laws that only apply to lesser people.

      This is not uncommon with people who are highly intelligent but not to well versed in social skills. Not so much nerds but Mensa people. Like that reiserfs guy, thought he could get away with murder because he was smart and the police is dumb, they must be because they ain't him.

      Your assessment is 100% right and he had no call to judge the people asking for access to be unsuitable. His opinion simply did not matter at that time. It is like when a cop with a dog tells you to get down on the floor. That is not the time to start an argument. That is the time to get down on the floor and become part of how the justice system works, injustices included and part of the system, sucks to have it happen to you.

      If you ever find yourself in the same position as Childs, document EVERYTHING, in paper, print all emails and insist on written instructions, never verbal, and then do as you are told and get the fuck out of there.

      Do not argue with the system, you are not smarter. Do you know how you are not smarter then the system? If you think arguing with the system is a good idea.

      Childs is an idiot and yes, idiots go to jail. lets see him argue with Bubba about access to his ass.

      • I fail to see what this has to do with upstart.

      • thought he was smarter then anyone else and therefor above any laws that only apply to lesser people.

        The way I read it, he was following the policy (law) to the letter. Seems like management were the ones who thought they were above any laws.

        Like that reiserfs guy, thought he could get away with murder

        Because not giving passwords over is exactly like murder.

        It is like when a cop with a dog tells you to get down on the floor.

        No, a cop with a dog is like a cop with a dog.

        If you ever find yourself in the same position as Childs, document EVERYTHING, in paper, print all emails and insist on written instructions, never verbal,


        and then do as you are told

        I'd be less inclined to do as I'm told if I had everything documented that way.

        and get the fuck out of there.

        Oh, definitely -- though jail does make that harder.

        Also, you haven't presented any evidence that he wasn't, in fact, smarter than the system. The fact that he fought the system and

  • They just made our jobs easier.

    Hey, you want the password? yeah its p@ssw0rd. Tell your friends!

    Before you know it, it'll be written into the next Windows shell and you won't even have to enter it anymore. No more managing passwords and user accounts and all the stuff that makes IT frustrating.

    [/sarcasm ]

  • He broke the law and he's going to do a few years in prison for it. I don't understand what the big deal is? Should I have sympathy for him because he is a sysadmin?

    Justice system did exactly what it was designed to do, rehabilitate criminals and deter others from doing crimes.

    Next time, is he going to deny people access who deserve that access because of some ideological nonsense? Doubt it.

    Though he probably will never get hired in IT again, not just because he is a felon, but because you google
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @06:17PM (#32022846)

    The juror has been interviewed some already, and is even on /.

    I had many bad assumptions myself. But if the juror is being at all truthful...this guy did some bad things.


    • by bartle ( 447377 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @07:15PM (#32023630) Homepage
      Exactly. Quoting from this [] post on Slashdot:

      As to these configuration backups, Mr. Childs kept these on a DVD he kept with him at all times. Furthermore, this DVD was encrypted and could only be decrypted using his laptop (as the encryption program required not only a password, but access to a specific file that existed on the laptop).

      Can these actions be defended as anything other than job security? Unless someone has reason to think that BengalsUF is getting the story wrong, why is there so much popular defense for this guy?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jafiwam ( 310805 )

        That sure violates the "what if I get hit by a bus / win the lottery" rule.

        It's also the point at which it makes Childs a jackass that deserves jail over "just doing my job."

        A few minutes of talk and a phone call could have given him sufficient CYA and probably job security to fix what they break. He chose a power trip instead. Let him rot.

      • No, absolutely not (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 )

        I mean the keeping of a backup with heavy encryption is certainly defensible. After all you might want to make sure you have the configurations in case you are away on vacation and get a panicked "Oh my god we blew up the network!" call. Of course you would want said data heavily encrypted, in case your laptop was stolen.

        However when those are the ONLY copy, other than the running config? Hell no, that is a blatant attempt to lock others out. Reliability of the service must always come first. So for one, th

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Darinbob ( 1142669 )
        The defense is probably because the city did some really stupid things and told some lies (or stretched the truth at least). Further there was so little information about what actually happened to justify a criminal proceeding. After all, it's not a crime to be a jerk, not a crime to be paranoid, not a crime to be an idiot, not a crime to not divulge passwords, not a crime to try and get some job security through legal means, etc. It's pretty clear that the city was mismanaged badly and was desperately t
    • by rufey ( 683902 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @07:19PM (#32023680)

      If the person mentioned was on the jury, and there is nothing I've read of his to suggest otherwise, I highly recommend reading his recent posts on his slashdot user page: []

      I learned more in 5 minutes about the case than I have over the past 2 years reading Slashdot and news stories. And, as it turns out, most of what I've read up until today has been embellished or simply was an opinion of someone who knew little about the case.

  • by Anonymous Psychopath ( 18031 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @06:26PM (#32022990) Homepage

    Prosecutors, judges and juries all consider intent. Making a mistake is not the same as malicious action. True, there are times when it's difficult to tell. This isn't one of them.

    • In other words: it's ok to follow secure procedure and make everyone mad, but don't be a jerk about it. Make sure it is clear why you are doing what you are doing, and be calm.
      • by Ossifer ( 703813 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @07:12PM (#32023582)
        In appropriate words: don't lie about you violent past, don't harass the person employed to do your background check, don't give false passwords to keep your boss' boss off your trail, don't admit to your co-worker that you're going to screw over your employer if they fire you, and most of all don't come afterward with the lame excuse of being the only IT God on the planet such that only you could ever possess the keys to the kingdom.
  • ugh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @06:32PM (#32023076) Homepage
    'There are suddenly thousands of IT workers all over the country that are now guilty of this crime in a vast number of ways.

    Setting up and configuring system where they have sole access, locking out the actual owner of the system, arbitrarily deciding that their direct supervisors aren't "authorized users" (based not on any actual rules or policies but their own nebulous "best practices" decision and by the way anyone who thinks a network engineer should have the authority to lock whoever he wants out of the system, based entirely on his own discretion, is incompetent), and then refusing to provide system access when he was assigned other responsibilities not dealing with locked system, then repeatedly refusing to provide the information even after being imprisoned? Really? Thousands of IT workers guilty of that?
    • No kidding (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @07:14PM (#32023610)

      Only way I see you being "at risk" is if you are an asshole, or the policies are extremely unclear. In the event of the second case, well then take it upon yourself to get them clarified.

      Personally, I'm not worried. Here our policy is that various critical information, including things like root passwords, has to be kept in a safe. My boss is responsible for all that. Also, all our IT staff has the passwords for everything (in theory, there are some I can't remember because I never use them). So, I'm not worried about a situation where I have sole access to a system an am being pressured to divulge the password. They are stored in a location per policy, and the people who can access them are specified by policy. All I need to do is look at the policy and make sure I follow it, and also make sure that should I set up a system that uses a special password for some reason, it gets documented.

      Always remember: They aren't your systems, it's not your network. They belong to the organization that you work for. That means said organization gets to decide who gets what access. You can, and should, have input on that policy, but you can't unilaterally declare that you are the only one.

  • Not DoS (Score:4, Informative)

    by guspasho ( 941623 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @06:33PM (#32023082)

    Assuming the verdict is correct, Venezia writes, 'shouldn't the letter of the law be applied to other "denial of service" problems caused by the city while they pursued this case?

    Childs wasn't convicted of "denial of service", that's just rhetoric. He was convicted of computer tampering, as the linked Slashdot story explains in the summary.

  • by CPE1704TKS ( 995414 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @07:14PM (#32023608)

    You've got to be kidding. Do you honestly think you can go back to prior cases and use that to show how something is or isn't a crime?

    What matters is how good your lawyer is and what sort of strings they can pull. Obviously, this guy's lawyer wasn't as good as the other guy's lawyer.

    The rules that apply to us DO NOT apply to rich people. Stop believing for one second that they do. Look at some black dude that goes to jail for 3 years for stealing bread vs. the Wall Street banksters that steal billions and get multi-million dollar bonuses.

    Marc Rich was convicted of tax evasion, and fled to Switzerland. It took $250,000 in donations to Bill Clinton for him to pardon him on his last day in office.

    There is no justice, all there is is how much money you have to spend to grease the wheels of the system.

  • by unix_geek_512 ( 810627 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @07:44PM (#32024030)

    SF is criminally stupid, that's all there is to it. They've wasted taxpayer money over a case that should never have been brought.

    Their own employees and contractors caused a ton of downtime trying to get control of the network. If they'd left things alone there wouldn't have been any downtime.

    Not to mention they violated they guy's constitutional rights over something that could have been resolved amicably within 24 to 72 hours.

    Instead, they acted like a totalitarian regime and threw the guy in jail to break his will to resist.

    It's the people in charge of SF that should be prosecuted not this guy.

    Did he act like a damn jerk? You Bettcha! Did the city act like Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili in 1936-1938? Heck yeah!

    Anyone in IT should be worried about ending up like this guy if they anger the SF city government in any way, this could be one heck of a bad precedent.

    Semper Fi Comrades

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kenja ( 541830 )
      You do not "leave things alone" when the only person who has access to your network equipment is a disgruntled ex-employee.
  • Bad Laws? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IonOtter ( 629215 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @08:45PM (#32024722) Homepage

    "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." - Ulysses S. Grant

  • by 0WaitState ( 231806 ) on Thursday April 29, 2010 @12:07AM (#32026278)
    Pretty interesting interview with one of the jury members, who appears to understand the issues. Terry Childs juror explains why he voted to convict []

    The juror lays out the legal issues pretty effectively, and makes a compelling case for conviction on those issues, while also discussing the incompetence of the city's IT department. Apparently he does not believe in jury nullification.

    Personaly I disagree with the outcome on the basis that I think the City of San Francisco illegitimately used its combined capabilities as employer, and owner of a court system and police force to escalate a civil employment matter into a criminal case, and then jailed a man for 2 years pre-trial on a laughable pretext. But I appreciate this juror's willingness to discuss the issues.

I THINK MAN INVENTED THE CAR by instinct. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.