Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Terry Childs Denied Motion For Retrial 223

snydeq writes "The former San Francisco network administrator who refused to hand over passwords for one of the city's networks has been denied a new trial and is expected to be sentenced Aug. 6. Terry Childs had been due for sentencing Friday but the court instead heard two defense motions, one requesting a new trial and the other for arrested judgment — essentially to have his original conviction overturned. The motions were both denied but the court then ran out of time before the sentencing phase could be conducted."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Terry Childs Denied Motion For Retrial

Comments Filter:
  • by Revotron ( 1115029 ) on Monday August 02, 2010 @06:15PM (#33116812)

    When you've got more pressing legal matters to preside over other than some self-righteous dickhead with a God-complex locking a whole city out of their own network, you will quickly find that you're running out of time.

    The legal system is overloaded enough as-is. Just because His Holiness the Network Administrator doesn't want to go to federal PMITA prison is no good reason to cram more stupid shit into our crowded legal system.

  • by dougmc ( 70836 ) <> on Monday August 02, 2010 @06:35PM (#33117048) Homepage

    "He does his job AFTER he's fired?" HUH?!?!

    When you're fired, your job is OVER.

    ... then you are no longer under any obligation to provide passwords or anything else related to your previous job whatsoever.

    You can't have it both ways. Was his job OVER or not?

  • by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Monday August 02, 2010 @06:39PM (#33117098)

    Said passwords were company property he was holding on to.

  • by Joe The Dragon ( 967727 ) on Monday August 02, 2010 @06:47PM (#33117218)

    that is the high security mode that is used some times and they did not use this he just turned off the password recovery forcing you to do a full reset to get back in.

  • by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Monday August 02, 2010 @07:12PM (#33117508)
    No, it's like saying you don't have to spend your own time documenting everything you did while there. They asked him to work after they fired him, then arrested him for not working for free after being fired. Writing down information is work. Returning a laptop to someone that shows up and asks for it isn't work.
  • by deek ( 22697 ) on Monday August 02, 2010 @07:48PM (#33117854) Homepage Journal

    This is a notice to network admins that your bosses don't want security or good workers. They want "Yes!" men.

    They also want workers that will give access to authorised personnel. Terry didn't do that. Withholding his password is fine, but he also refused to give admin access to people he _knew_ were authorised for it.

    I once had a co-worker that disabled admin rights for me (and some others) to the network switches and routers at work. He wanted to lock it down just to people that maintained it (his justification), although I learnt that he had given access to his clique, which included people that were certainly not responsible for network maintenance. Anyway, this prevented me from debugging issues that were handed to me to solve. I tried dealing with him directly, but he was frustratingly obstinate, dismissing out of hand any argument that I gave for my access. I eventually had to ask management to talk with him. Access was grudgingly given back to me.

    Thankfully, the guy has now left the company. He caused me enough grief. If he had been like Terry Childs though, it would have been worse.

  • Re:It's The Law! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cyberllama ( 113628 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2010 @12:40AM (#33119786)

    You say that, but do you recall what happened when he did give the passwords to them? They were immediately included in a legal filing against him which was part of the PUBLIC record -- meaning any idiot could see them. They had to shut their network down for days while they changed all the passwords on everything after they realized what an idiotic thing they'd done.

    It sort of made his reasoning of "I'm not giving you the passwords cause you'll do something stupid with them" seem really, really justified.

    And as I recall, it wasn't that he refused to give them over -- it was that he refused to give them over to "just anyone". He wanted to be sure that it was someone who wouldn't screw it up. Yes, he's an arrogant bastard who clearly and obviously looks down upon the people he works for -- but some of that seems to be justified. They clearly are at least a *bit* incompetent.

  • by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2010 @12:55PM (#33125600)
    Technicalities == details that I find inconvenient, right?

I was playing poker the other night... with Tarot cards. I got a full house and 4 people died. -- Steven Wright