Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Accused Rogue Admin Terry Childs Makes His Case

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the yeah-good-luck-with-that dept.

Networking 397

angry tapir writes "He's been in jail for seven months now, but former San Francisco network administrator Terry Childs says he's going to keep fighting to prove he's innocent of computer crime charges. Childs was arrested on July 12, charged with disrupting the City of San Francisco's Wide Area Network during a tense standoff with management. Infoworld has also conducted an interview with Childs."

cancel ×

397 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Something Important (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26901641)

Is this another 'Won't somebody think of the Childs?' story?

from the yeah-good-luck-with-that dept. (5, Interesting)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901675)

Thanks for just blowing away presumption of innocence, Taco :-/

Re:from the yeah-good-luck-with-that dept. (4, Insightful)

xouumalperxe (815707) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901953)

I'd say it's more like blowing away the presumption of functional law enforcement where IT is concerned.

i could have been a contender.... (0, Offtopic)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901677)

I almost got frist psot but Terry changed my WPA key. ):

Equal Protection? (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901695)

"He's been in jail for seven months now,...

I love our entire "Innocent until proven guilty" thing. Unless you are on the wrong side of the celebrity wagon. I bet Paris would be out by now...

Re:Equal Protection? (4, Insightful)

PrescriptionWarning (932687) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901763)

or possibly he couldn't make bail because he's not as filthy rich as Paris

Re:Equal Protection? (5, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901839)

Kinda the point... "Bail" should be equally difficult for different people.

Re:Equal Protection? (4, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901951)

Hey, Paris worked really really hard for all that money and she deserves a little break when it comes to doing hard time.

Re:Equal Protection? (1, Interesting)

Onaga (1369777) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902061)

Why should it? Not everyone "earns" money the same way, but let's say an industrialist works hard to build up a small fortune. If he commits the same crime as some high school dropout, the industrialist should have his bail set 1000x higher as a punishment for being successful? Why not argue that the price of a milk should decrease Warren Buffet's money at relatively the same rate as a fry cook's money?

Someone's money earns them the right to have fancy cars and mansions. For better or worse, it also lets them afford bail and expensive lawyers. Don't punish people for their success... or the success of their family (Hilton).

</rand> ...err, I mean </rant>

Re:Equal Protection? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26902103)

Nice try, but that analogy/rebuke doesn't really work. Bail is intended to make sure people show up for trial, so it has to be adjusted for the relative impact it will have on the accused.

Re:Equal Protection? (1)

Xiaran (836924) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902335)

Exactly. The same principle is applied to taxation. At least it should be :)

Re:Equal Protection? (2, Insightful)

Mr. Droopy Drawers (215436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902735)

Why should it apply to taxation? Taxes are not a social program. It's designed to pay for government.

Oh, and bail is refunded if you show up for court.

Re:Equal Protection? (2, Interesting)

Onaga (1369777) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902655)

The quote that I have issue with is: "or possibly he couldn't make bail because he's not as filthy rich as Paris"

So it's not an issue of making it "as difficult." Some people simply can't afford bail. Rich people tend to afford bail. If you make it high enough that they can't afford it, then there's no point to it. So we're still back to poor people can't afford bail and you can't raise bail high enough where rich people can't afford it. The only other thing one could say is that bail should be lowered for poorer people to a point where it is affordable for everyone. Yes we can.

Re:Equal Protection? (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902121)

You must be new here let me welcome you to Socialist America.

Re:Equal Protection? (4, Funny)

Curtman (556920) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902659)

let me welcome you to Socialist America.

Hey, hey now. It's called "Canada", not "Socialist America".

Re:Equal Protection? (1)

chrispycreeme (550607) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902177)

Someone's money earns them the right to have fancy cars and mansions. For better or worse, it also lets them afford bail and expensive lawyers. Don't punish people for their success... or the success of their family (Hilton).

Except that bail isn't meant to be punishment, it's meant to be a deterrent from fleeing the court. $1000 might be enough to induce a high school dropout working at 7-11 to return to court, the same amount wouldn't work on Bill Gates. It's bail not a fine, you get it back unless you skip town.

Re:Equal Protection? (5, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902287)

While at the same time I've seen arguments that it's right that the rich and powerful tend to get more when they sue newspapers and radio stations for defamation because they're more valuable people... I mean their reputation is more valuable.

Lets go the whole hog!
one rule for the rich, one for the poor!
The lazy fuckers!
Probably all criminals anyway!

Hit someone while drunk driving? well since you're rich you're obviously more valuable to society, lets stack the odds in your favor so you don't go to jail!

Speeding? well sure if you make more money in the 20 minutes you save getting to work than it costs you to pay for your speeding ticket then that's perfectly fine!
It just makes economic sense for you to break the law then!

Crime isn't the same as milk or eggs. It's not a comodity. Fines are supposed to be punishment so if a fine is too small to be noticed by one person or so big as to not fit the crime for another then it's not justice. Fines relative to your wealth make perfect sense in that context.
If you get to avoid going to jail because of your daddies money then something is seriously messed up with your legal system.

Re:Equal Protection? (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902593)

We do have a messed up legal system that favors the rich. When it gets messed up enough usually there is a revolution.

Re:Equal Protection? (3, Interesting)

ITJC68 (1370229) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902791)

This makes perfect sense!!! Instead of a static fine make it a percentage of your year gross wages!! That way it is fair right?!? The only issue could become that some cities where these celebrities live would purposely look for them so they could get more money. It would be similar to a police cruiser looking for speeders and picking out only the most expensive cars because it would be more likely for them to get more money for the ticket. I know it seems far fetched now but don't put it past some departments or cities. My 2 and half cents.

Re:Equal Protection? (2)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902401)

but let's say an industrialist works hard to build up a small fortune.

Well, in the real world fortunes are built by leaching off the hard work of others, but we'll pretend.

If he commits the same crime as some high school dropout, the industrialist should have his bail set 1000x higher as a punishment for being successful?

Bail is not a punishment, it's a surety of appearance at trial.

Someone with a metric fuckload of money is going to be more willing to write off a bail of, say, $10,000, and is also more a a flight risk, than an average joe.

(There's also the problem that bails are set so high for the average joe that he often has to pay a bail bondsman a fraction of the bail, rather than put up the whole amount and have it returned when he shows up in court. But that's another issue.)

Re:Equal Protection? (1)

I_Voter (987579) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902647)

Onaga wrote:
[should bail be] .. set 1000x higher as a punishment for being successful?
----

Is it a Freudian slip that you used the word successful as opposed to the word productive?

I_Voter

Can an invisible hand pick your pocket?

Re:Equal Protection? (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902319)

It should be equally reasonable. After all, the state hasn't proven anything.

Re:Equal Protection? (4, Interesting)

poena.dare (306891) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901765)

Apparently the city of SF is having a wee bit of a problem understanding exactly what a network admin does. I read TFA, the guy sounds sane.

Re:Equal Protection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26902695)

Thanks to you, I have chosen to RTFA. I only do it once in a week or two, so this one better be worth my time... >:[

Re:Equal Protection? (4, Interesting)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901775)

By now? If she'd been in seven hours it would be amazing...

But more seriously wow. I had only heard about this in passing, and didn't know the details. What is an IT person supposed to do? They hire him to be in charge of the network and then ask him to hand out root passwords to anyone important in the city government. At my job they make us swear on everything holy to not give our passwords or pins to ANYONE and probably would have us shot as a penalty if they could get away with it, but even without those restrictions I'm not going to hand out my password to my boss, my boss's boss, or even the CEO of the company.

Re:Equal Protection? (1)

pla (258480) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901901)

but even without those restrictions I'm not going to hand out my password to my boss, my boss's boss, or even the CEO of the company.

I like my job, but preserving it comes pretty damned far behind "my freedom" in order of my priorities. Jail vs giving out the keys to the kingdom? "Would you like the portcullis up or down when you arrive, Mr. Barbarian?"

Anyone who chooses prison over a job doesn't count as "principled", they count as an idiot.

Re:Equal Protection? (5, Insightful)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901977)

Giving out the passwords could also lead to jail time. My personal password ties my account to me personally. Apart from all the potential abuses of international trade laws that could happen from my personal email if someone else had access, what if any one of those people put child porn on a rival's computer because they now had the keys? What if it was my computer? These people were willing to not only charge him in court for doing his job but also threw him under the publicity bus too.

Re:Equal Protection? (4, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902181)

Giving out the passwords could also lead to jail time. My personal password ties my account to me personally.

It sounds like Childs had a pretty good clue about network administration - Meaning that he almost certainly didn't "run as root". He also had decent forewarning (most accounts describe this as ongoing for at least six months) that he could expect some bad mojo down the line, and could have taken appropriate steps to isolate his personal access from his professional access well in advance of the issue coming to a head.

Now, if I absolutely had to surrender my personal account, I'd simply change the password to "password" first, and ASAP bulk-email everyone in my address list to say that ownership of my account had changed hands and future contact from that account would not come from me.

Whether or not my employer owns "my" account, they sure as hell don't own my reputation.

Re:Equal Protection? (2, Insightful)

corbettw (214229) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902605)

My understanding of the case is they were asking for the router passwords, both login and enable (root). Not his personal passwords. There was no reason not to do so, the guy is an idiot and should've been fired on the spot. Letting him rot in jail for these past seven months is just overkill, though. They should let him go, it's not like he's likely to work in network security again, anyway.

Re:Equal Protection? (3, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902299)

It is a situation that defies what most people would do to be sure. This leads me to think that there is certainly a LOT more going on than we are able to know. I would guess that perhaps either he is trying to protect his own illegal activities or those of another or is trying to prevent something worse from happening to him at the hands of those above him.

But sometimes, you just have to accept that some people actually do things on principle. For example, a couple of years ago, I left my job because I refused to give up "evidence that could exonerate me." The short of it was that my office's IP address was reportedly being used to share Adobe software via bit torrent. While it was true that I used bit torrent, it was most assuredly not Adobe software. (I'm not completely innocent... there was pr0n involved... legal stuff but still) But there was no software infringement going on as far as I knew. But they wanted me to hand over my personal property for them, in another state, to examine for an undetermined amount of time in order to answer a BSA complaint. I simply packed up my gear and went home. I had much other personal data on my system and was unwilling to share it for any reason. They offered me no assurances of any kind and when I asked them "why would compliance be in my best interests?" they had no answer at all... only silence. Most people at the office agreed with my position.

In the end, I got a better job in fairly short time and no other consequences at all. I learned a lesson but it was not one "hard learned." Still, I was not going to just bend over and give up my personal property and data.

Re:Equal Protection? (1)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902739)

How do you balance this individual need against an organizations's need for continuity of operations in the event of your death or incapacity to perform work? There needs to be some sort of business continuity procedure in place that lists all root passwords (ideally highly compartmentalized). Who is the backup person, and how do you control their access.

With most data centers, the solution at a physical level is to go to a secured, automated key cabinet that requires authentication and manages check-in and check-out of any keys for emergency use.

With most public buildings, the solution is to have a master key that just about anybody that thinks they are sufficiently important enough will have a copy of. (While I was in school I had a key that would provide full access to all buildings, offices, steam tunnels, and I believe the Chancellor's office-- as an engineering aide!)

Re:Equal Protection? (5, Insightful)

madcow_bg (969477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902017)

but even without those restrictions I'm not going to hand out my password to my
boss, my boss's boss, or even the CEO of the company.

I like my job, but preserving it comes pretty damned far behind "my freedom" in order of
my priorities. Jail vs giving out the keys to the kingdom? "Would you like the portcullis
up or down when you arrive, Mr. Barbarian?"

Anyone who chooses prison over a job doesn't count as "principled", they count as an idiot.

P and GP may be talking about the same thing. If I have assigned the keys to take care of the network, and more importantly am liable both morally and legally (morally is needed because of future employments, who knows), then it is plainly a good idea to keep them secret.

However, if my boss or my boss' boss or the CEO asks to have them and most importantly signs a paper that request them, by god, just give it to the man. By having the command in writing you are covered in case something wrong happens with those keys.

If no written order comes, how are they supposed to prove you denied them the request?

Re:Equal Protection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26902669)

The request in writing, BINGO, BINGO, that my friends is the begin and end of this. Or it should have been. If I was the guy and some city bigshot signed this form that covered my ass, I would have handed the stuff over.

If the dumbass breaks the network, I'm covered and in all likelyhood I change the password after a week, or a month, whatever just to get back my piece of mind.

Re:Equal Protection? (4, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902799)

I like my job, but preserving it comes pretty damned far behind "my freedom" in order of my priorities. Jail vs giving out the keys to the kingdom? "Would you like the portcullis up or down when you arrive, Mr. Barbarian?"

"I have no gate key."

"Fezzik, tear his arms off."

"Oh, you mean THIS gate key!"

Re:Equal Protection? (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901791)

It has NEVER been innocent until proven guilty. that fairy tale is simply read to the children to make them smile.

Every lawyer, and person that has even been exposed to the legal system knows. You're guilty, then you have to fight to prove your innocence.

Re:Equal Protection? (4, Interesting)

Inda (580031) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902425)

I've said similar on here in the past and not been modded up *grumpy*

It also stems from the fact that we don't lock up innocent people in the western world.

Re:Equal Protection? (3, Insightful)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902637)

The presumption of innocence really works.

The presumption of innocence is a rule that applies to criminal trials. All it means (ALL it means) is that the jury cannot convict you unless they find beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the charged crime. Juries take this very seriously. "Every lawyer" knows that. Juries can be stupid, sometimes, but they very often are stupid on behalf of the defendant. In other words, if they're not sure then they cut the defendant a break. "Every lawyer" who actually does trials knows that, too.

In the U.S., less than five percent of cases go to trial. That means that less than five percent of people ever test the presumption of innocence. Why? Maybe because they're guilty . . .

Bail is a different issue. Judges have to assess danger to the community. Sometimes, people who can't make bail rot there before trial. Those people have a remedy, though. They can insist on a speedy trial. Most states have speedy trial rules just for that purpose.

Mr. Childs probably isn't pushing for a speedy trial because the State probably has a strong case against him and he wants to build an effective defense. Defense takes time and preparation. So, I guess that Mr. Childs is sitting in jail (1) because the judge thinks he's a danger to the community; (2) he can't make bail; and (3) he needs the time to prepare his complicated defense.

The presumption of innocence is not a fairy tale in the U.S. It is a plain reality.

Re:Equal Protection? (2, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901959)

If he's been in jail that long then he waived his right to a speedy trial and was unable to come up with the money for bail.

Re:Equal Protection? (1)

auric_dude (610172) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902149)

I think you are wrong about Paris she would not be out by now rather I expect that she would be the first to go down.

Linux (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26901697)

Jimmy woke up groggy on a carpet floor. He wasn't sure what time or day it was. He just knew he was molested by 3 free software developers and a goat. Then his virginity was taken by a man named Stallman who fucked him with in the inch of his life while ranting about GNU. He felt like he belonged to them all ready. It was happening so fast. He felt something in his ass. It was a butt plug. He pulled it out and saw it was 8 inches long and 5 inch thick.

Jimmy vowed never to try Linux again.

Re:Linux (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26901793)

You have really weird fantasies. Have you ever thought about going to a psychiatrist instead of posting to slashdot?

Re:Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26902549)

He has an imagination, something you obviously don't have.

Anyway, he's obviously lying. If that were true then Mac users would flock to Linux in droves.

Re:Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26901809)

Staying with Mac then?

Re:Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26902087)

Of course, smaller dicks.

Re:Linux (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902089)

If he's a Mac user, then all I can say is... ...That's no butt plug...

CQ? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901747)

From The Fancy Article:

He's been in jail for seven months now, but former San Francisco network administrator Terry Childs [cq] says he's going to keep fighting to prove he's innocent of computer crime charges.

What does the CQ stand for?

Re:CQ? (3, Informative)

macxcool (1370409) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901829)

According to Wikipedia, either:
Central Queensland
Congressional Quarterly
or
A symbol indicating that the spelling is actually correct, believe it or not.

Does that help?

Re:CQ? (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902119)

Does that mean that I can put CQ at the end of all of my posts to cover my bases? That way if I haven't made a mistake, then it's correct, and if I have then people will think the obscure use of CQ indicates that my error is in actuality an obscure exception to whatever rule of spelling I broke.*

* CQ

Re:CQ? (4, Informative)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902427)

CQ or Cadit Quaestio [wikipedia.org] means "the spelling (or the simple fact) has been checked and double checked", so there's no need to check it again. As it was editorial markup, it should not have appeared in the published version of the story.

If something you mark as CQ later turns out to be wrong (because you haven't bothered to check), well that's egg on your face, isn't it?

Re:CQ? (0, Troll)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902239)

Does that help?

Why, yes, yes it does. The Gramer Knotzees [cq] won't be bother me any moore [cq]!

Re:CQ? (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902467)

Why, yes, yes it does. The Gramer Knotzees [cq] won't be bother me any moore [cq]!

I believe [sic] is more appropriate in this context.

Re:CQ? (1)

OneSmartFellow (716217) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902507)

Didn't you ever listen to Jodie Foster in 'Contact' ?

CQ, this is W9GFO. CQ, this is W9GFO here. Come back

Interview? (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901781)

I know I don't RTFA often enough but did the "interview" strike anyone as a bit thin? I'm more use to the format of question and answer and I got ten paragraphs that had a glorious 7 sentences of actual quotes from the subject of the interview. None of which touches on what he did, why he did it and only the faintest hint and why he feels that he's not guilty.

Looking at it I get the feeling that the reason I don't bother with the articles as much anymore is because web journalism is simply too lite in all the wrong places.

Re:Interview? (2, Informative)

riegel (980896) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901825)

It sounds like the problem isn't that web journalism is lite but that there really isn't a lot of new information.

Re:Interview? (4, Informative)

zzottt (629458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901851)

he couldnt record it nor talk about the trial... not much you can do with 30 minutes

Re:Interview? (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902465)

And that's fine in and of itself but at the same time why present it as newsworthy? While I'm sure there are many here who are concerned at the outcome of all of this it doesn't seem right to just hash the same old stuff just to pump out an article. I'm speaking more to the tone of respectable journalism than anything Childs is facing overall.

I suppose it's a tad better than the latest top 10 TechRepublic article but there is a good reason that stuff never gets too much coverage here.

Re:Interview? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26902277)

Looking at it I get the feeling that the reason I don't bother with the articles as much anymore is because web journalism is simply too lite in all the wrong places.

Yeah, you're right! Look what Slashdot turned into...

Re:Interview? (4, Insightful)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902619)

Can someone even explain what he's charged with and what his specific actions were?

Refusing to do your job and inform management of passwords is not illegal. (It's pretty strange behavior, but not illegal.)

The only thing I can glean from reading both links is 'three modems', one of this was a DSL one he didn't set up for testing and whatnot, one of them was to operate his pager, and one of them was to link the city's network in emergencies. None of them even vaguely look like backdoors, but, more important, none of them were used as backdoors to a system he had access to anyway. (You don't install secret backdoors in cabinets in your office.)

I know Childs can't talk because his lawyers says not to, but there's a fucking document called a 'arrest report' that actually lays out charges against him and the specific actions he took that were in violation of the law. What are they?

Googling throws a lot of nonsense around, including the fact they've charged him with supposedly planning to use a planned power outage to do something bad, when said power outage wouldn't have affected those system. (And what 'something bad' is very vague.)

And, also, when the police search his house, they found weapons ammo. This is presumably relevant somehow.

legit modems? (4, Interesting)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901821)

This article gives better reasons for those modems being on the network than previous stories. Doesn't seem so rogue now, does it?

Re:legit modems? (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902073)

This article gives better reasons for those modems being on the network than previous stories. Doesn't seem so rogue now, does it?

Did it ever seem rogue to people with actual technical experience?

What it seemed to me was stupid. If people above you in the chain of command want to break the network and destroy your security, you have to let them. The only recourse you really have is to demand such things in writing and run them all through your boss. The worst they can do in such a situation is fire you. But your job is to do as you are told, and if they tell you to fuck it all up, then you can either quit or capitulate.

It seems to me like Childs was trying to obey the letter of his job description, without fully considering the ramifications. Certainly he wasn't trying to take over the network - however dumb he might be, I certainly don't believe he's crazy enough to forget about cops and prisons. He surely didn't think that they would be wielded against him for these particular actions, but that was just dumb. Now the city is trying to do everything they can to justify their actions, so they're trotting out bullshit arguments against him (like allegedly holding information he shouldn't, or installing back doors - which frankly are not a bad idea if they are secure back doors. someone 0wns your network, it's nice to be able to get in!)

Odds are, most of us will never know the truth. The only one who knows the full truth of Childs' intentions is himself, and most people aren't all that in-touch with themselves anyway. However, he's had a lot of time to sit and think about it.

Re:legit modems? (2)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902457)

This article gives better reasons for those modems being on the network than previous stories. Doesn't seem so rogue now, does it?

It only seems rogue when they make ludicrous statements like he put "1,100 modems" on the network.

Anybody with half a brain can think about that statement as say 1) There's no way someone had that many modems and phone lines because would be wayyy too expensive and 2) if you were putting secret modems on the network to 'wreak havoc' (whatever that means), you certainly wouldn't need anything close to 100 of them, let alone 1,100 of them.

If I were confronted with a room full of people not my boss and asked to reveal admin passwords, I wouldn't even try to give them the wrong ones, I would be like "if you need those, you need to ask my boss, not me because I am not authorized to give them to you."

Wait a second? (3, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901855)

You know I was arguing all about either torture the guy and let him walk to get the passwords, thinking that 10 minutes of waterboarding is less damaging than 7 years in prison.

Now, his side says that he's getting tossed into jail for sneaking a few modems onto his desk and not giving out the passwords to the modems he set up? come on now, that's not the story we heard coming from s.f. before and I have to wonder just what passwords s.f. was asking for.

I don't know that I would hire the guy, but, somehow, when all the banks in the fine city of san francisco are sitting there having blown through trillions of dollars, I think maybe s.f. pd needs to be putting some other people in prison besides this guy.

Re:Wait a second? (3, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902021)

There is DEFINITELY something else more nefarious going on here, but it's impossible to say what. So far SF has completely mismanaged the case, continually getting technical details wrong and putting a ton of irrelevant yet sensitive information (the VPN access information) into the complaint. Unless they can come up with some better evidence their case looks like complete bullshit. That won't necessarily prevent him being found guilty, though.

The most amazing part of this whole story is... (4, Interesting)

yttrstein (891553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901859)

That there's a network admin somewhere that has giant ethical nuts. As anyone with even a day's worth of network admin/engineering experience knows, the loyalty of all network admins can be purchased with A. a fat paycheck or B. a threat of any kind from someone with authority.

Can you imagine even half of the network admins in the united states changing the passwords on their routers and shutting them down until Childs is released?

Yeah, I can't either.

Re:The most amazing part of this whole story is... (4, Interesting)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902015)

I thought that too. Huge testicular fortitude by Childs. I think the interviewer noticed something when he mentioned that at the end Childs stopped and said "it's a different world in here" in reference to prison. That is perhaps the point of the blog entry, to show that Childs really isn't a whacko control fr34k with an attitude problem. I'm not saying network admins are that way, just that he was sort of painted that way in the original news headlines. I hope that he gets exonerated. Everyday I have to deal with people that have no clue how computers work, let alone databases or networks.

I also have hopes that Childs being exonerated would reinforce the value of IT staff in general. That is to say that hey, you hired people who know what they are doing. Let them do it and don't mess them around.

Car analogy: Don't micromanage your NASCAR driver or even the engineering staff who build the car.

I guess what I mean is I hope the PHBs get it rough with no reach around on this one.

Re:The most amazing part of this whole story is... (2, Insightful)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902069)

Can you imagine even half of the network admins in the united states changing the passwords on their routers and shutting them down until Childs is released? Yeah, I can't either.

I can't either, but probably for different reasons than you.
1. Such actions could cost employers to lose money and might subject those responsible to criminal charges (quite possibly felony charges) similar to Terry Childs.
2. Your suggestion fails to take into account that the legal system (judges, lawyers and police) is mostly comprised of people with extremely limited technical knowledge. Do you really want such people deciding whether you might have a point to this protest? I'm thinking "no". Also, the legal system might be seriously unimpressed with such stunts and look to make examples of everyone who engages in this kind of protest simply to keep it from happening again in the future. Remember, back in the 1980s that President Reagan told the air traffic controllers if they went on strike (which was illegal) that he would fire them all. They went on strike and he did fire them. Nobody in the federal government has been on strike since then.
I read the articles linked to in the main post and I'm still unconvinced that Childs is a "victim". At best he's an idiot for not realizing that the passwords were not his to protect, they were his employer's. At worst he deliberately tried to sabotage the network and is now trying to weasel out of jail time and fines.
Keep in mind that Childs himself now says it wasn't worth it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when your employers says "Give me the passwords" that you do that. It's not his job as a network admin to worry about what will happen to those passwords.

Re:The most amazing part of this whole story is... (5, Insightful)

yttrstein (891553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902233)

As an employer, I'll let you in on something:

The reason that punishment has been laid so strongly and swiftly down on Childs is directly because of the power of the position he held. He's being made an example in order to make sure that no other network admins get any bright ideas about exposing their feelings of real ownership and territory that every good network engineer has about their responsibilities (and equipment for that matter).

As an employer, I hope the steps being taken against this man, no matter what his motivations were, are entirely unsuccessful. The world needs fearless and ballsy geeks a lot more than it needs spineless jellyfish who happily do whatever they're told *despite the ethics of it*. There's something deeply disturbing about so many giant brains have willfully given up control of (and responsibility for) their own actions and are all too ready to claim they were "just doing my job".

Pardon my revulsion, but there are those of us who remember where that sort of outlook takes the species.

Re:The most amazing part of this whole story is... (1)

DigitalSorceress (156609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902317)

snip... It's not his job as a network admin to worry about what will happen to those passwords.

I have to disagree there... if your management has no concept of the importance of keeping root level passwords in as few hands as possible, then they're probably not savvy enough to know the difference if one of the many folks with such access causes a problem / breaks something.

What I'm getting at is that if the management insists on letting that many chefs in the kitchen, then I betchya they will be totally surprised to find that the soup is ruined and will come down hard on the head chef for it.

When Childs said he should have gotten out, I think he meant that he should have left the job, not that he should have given them the passwords.

As a former network admin, it WAS my job to worry about the passwords. However, at that place, the CIO (my direct boss) was very technologically competent, and in fact, he filled in for me when I was sick :). That was a small company though where the other IT folks were DBA, and a bunch of developers, so the CIO and I were the only ones who touched the routers/firewalls and most of the servers. However, our DBA had root level access to those systems he needed to touch and in a pinch, I would have given him PWs for anything he needed. The difference: I would have changed those afterward. Not cuz I didn't trust him, but because "need to know" doesn't mean that once you needed to know, you always do.

At my current job, I'm a software engineer (really, the software Janitor... I clean up after others) so I personally have a lot of access, but it's not my place to give PWs to anyone else... that's our network / infrastructure folks. All depends on what you do and who you work with.

Re:The most amazing part of this whole story is... (3, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902127)

That there's a network admin somewhere that has giant ethical nuts.

Only if 100% of what Childs says is true. I'm not so sure I'm ready to believe him -- the circumstances of his confrontation with management suggests there may be layers to this story that aren't making it into the media.

Re:The most amazing part of this whole story is... (1)

Sam Lowry (254040) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902293)

That's a good plan for a nation-wide strike.

Press Interviews while incarcerated (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26901925)

Not going to comment on Child's innocence or guilt, but I have to wonder whether his lawyer is giving him good advice. I mean, giving an interview to the press which you discuss some case specifics doesn't seem like a very wise thing to do. Even though TFA was just a summary of the interview and did not contain a transcript of it, I'm guessing that the San Francisco prosecutor could subpoena the reporter to turn over a transcript, or recordings and any notes the reporter took to use against Childs.

Giving an interview to the press really screwed over UK hacker Gary McKinnon, who's currently fighting an extradition order to be brought to the US to face charges breaking in to Pentagon computers. His interview by the BBC shortly after he was arrested basically was a full confession of everything he had done and left no wiggle room to create a case for reasonable doubt. The US prosecutor could base his case just on the BBC article alone and probably get a conviction. Of, McKinnon gave the interview before the US filed charges, I think, so he may have thought he was in the clear when the British authorities didn't file their own charges.

Anyway, it just not a smart idea to give interviews to the press while facing criminal charges, and I'm surprised his lawyer let him do it.

Re:Press Interviews while incarcerated (4, Interesting)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902137)

I get the impression that his defense is not going to be "I didn't do it" but "I did it, but it's not a crime"

Personally I think he's holding out for the fat paycheck at the end of the inevitable lawsuit, and good for him. This whole thing is about the city of SF trying to save face.

In the land of the free (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901945)

he's going to keep fighting to prove he's innocent of computer crime charges.

      Well, good luck with that...

Mmmmm... No. (2, Insightful)

Concern (819622) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902085)

I hate to say it, but these stories only reinforce for me that Childs is likely guilty.

It seems even clearer that he really did keep passwords to himself, and when asked, refused to hand them over to his management.

Management can ask for them (how can they ever replace a network admin, otherwise?) and they can ask you to hand them over to anyone they say. As Schneier says, they belong to your employer, not you.

These articles imply that it's not "good practice" to give passwords out. If that's really his defense, it's specious and deceptive. If your boss demands a password, you have to give it, by law. If he demands you give it to another person, or 20 other people, you have to give it, by law.

If they do something stupid with it, then maybe _they_ end up in jail. If you want, you can even try catching them at it, being a whistle-blower, help them along with that process. But that's _not_ your problem, as an admin.

I just get the sense of a tense guy who had a personality conflict with his boss (who may have been an ass, or not), and who let his emotions carry him over into criminal conduct. At the most, there are some mistakes in ancillary parts of the charges against him (re. modems), which is unimportant to the main issue.

By Law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26902339)

Can you please cite the CA law which requires such action?

Re:Mmmmm... No. (1)

Unnngh! (731758) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902541)

To offer a slightly different perspective: If he felt that management was going to misuse the passwords to compromise the security of the network, he was best off sticking to his guns, as it would have come back on him, not management, if the security was compromised. Corruption at the top levels is not unheard-of. It just doesn't sound like that's what happened. In situations like this, people typically work out some compromise, like bringing in outside contractors with limited permissions or with a separate admin account for a limited time, etc.

Based on what we have seen, as you said, he was most likely engaged in a power struggle with management, and he handled it poorly when management could have just come in and said "you're fired, give us the passwords and leave."

Re:Mmmmm... No. (1)

sproot (1029676) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902581)

If your boss demands a password, you have to give it, by law. If he demands you give it to another person, or 20 other people, you have to give it, by law.

[citation required]

Re:Mmmmm... No. (5, Interesting)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902781)

Well, congratulations on making up laws, but, no, there's no law requiring you tell people passwords, even to their own systems. At all. Barring some sort of court order requiring that, which does not exist in this case.

And that's not what he's charged with. He's charged with, essentially, doing his job, with lots of evidence of doing his job introduced as evidence.

Like keeping detailed diagrams of the network at his house....the network he built by hand.

Or installing network sniffers...commericial network sniffers that monitor the network for viruses and hack attempts, like he was supposed to as part of his job.

Or having a modem installed...that paged him in case of network problems.

Or configuring routers to not let people do a 'password reset'...in unsecured locations, like thousands of network admin do to routers they can't lock up to keep people from screwing with them.

Or confronting someone who claims they're doing an 'audit' of his systems and, as he claims, walking out with a hard drive. (They were doing an audit, but he didn't know that.)

They have decided all this means he was planning to bring the network down for some unspecified reason. Of course he could bring the network, any network admin knows enough to bring the network down. If they don't, they don't know enough to do their job keeping it up.

Re:Mmmmm... No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26902829)

It's a tricky scenario though.

What if your employer orders you to do something illegal. Do you have to do it, just because your employer says you do?

What if he had been told to publish the passwords on the Internet?

Or even been told to publish the personal data that is stored in his computer systems on the Internet?

If you admin a server with confidential data belonging to members of the public, which only a small group of people have passwords to, and your boss orders you to publish that password, compromising the security of that information, should you automatically follow the order?

If you work in the health and human services datacenter, and your boss orders you to put the whole database, unencrypted, on a CD and mail it to them, would you? What if they ordered you to e-mail them the system passwords in plaintext?
What if they ordered you to tell the passwords to a room of people who you didn't trust to keep them secret?

There is a line of negligence over which you can't go, even if your boss tells you to.

I'm not saying that this case is on the far side of that line - we don't have the details - but perhaps the admin felt it was.
Perhaps he felt it would be negligent to share those passwords, and would hurt (for example) taxpayers whose data was stored.

I think the prosecution should have to prove that he refused to share the passwords out of some malicious intention, as opposed to because he thought sharing them would be negligent.

It is not as simple as schneir makes out.

Plagarism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26902097)

Editors,

Could you at least read the first two paragraphs of the links in the submission, instead of posting plagiarized text? I mean, it only takes a couple of seconds to follow the first link and read a two sentences.

The techie media is getting it right... (2, Interesting)

DigitalSorceress (156609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902109)

If things went down like Childs said, then he was indeed doing his job correctly. I've got root level access to all our Linux servers and several of our AD domains due to the work I do. However, I'm not the network admin. I would not give any of the passwords to anyone (including my boss, the head of IT), and instead would direct the requester to our head network/infrastructure guy.

I happen to know that he would refuse to just give out root passwords to management just because they wanted it. The only people with that level of access are those who need it for their work. This is how things SHOULD BE.

Now if Childs was the only one with the passwords (which from the standoff, I guess he was), then he may be guilty of forgetting that you NEVER put all your eggs in one basket. Were I in Childs' position, I would have been concerned what would happen to my network should I get hit by a bus. However, I can't believe he wouldn't have a PFY to share the info with. You always gotta have a second.

Re:The techie media is getting it right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26902727)

Not right - that is insubordination. You have a very distorted idea of what your job is, hopefully you do not have a wife and children depending on you, because sooner or later you are going to end up leaving them high and dry.

Re:The techie media is getting it right... (1)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902843)

Your "hit by a bus" scenario hits the nail on the head. I've been working for the past nine months to establish an IT department that, previously, did everying as an IT ad-hocracy. Passwords, which were once kept in an MS Word document on the LAN, are now tucked away safely in my grey matter and archived in an encrypted password storage application. That application has a password that is 45 characters long. The safeguard, in case I am ever "hit by a bus" or otherwise relieved of my duties is this: the two senior officers have copies of the password in an appropriately sealed and labeled set of envelopes that are kept in two separate, locked locations. If I'm ever gone and they need the passwords, they can unlock the safe, open the envelope, and get into the password storage and retreival system.

Power struggle. (4, Interesting)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902143)

It seems to me the whole thing is really about a power struggle with a recalcitrant employee. Someone with a lot of authority in City Government sicked Johnny Law after this guy when he refused to give out the admin passwords. The city then calls up the media, lets out the dogs, scarlet letter, the whole 9 yards.

In reality, is failing to reveal an admin password a criminal offense? Have we really gotten so strange in this day and age that some passwords are now considered "property"?

I have no problem with him being fired. He sounds like a control freak who took the whole system to be his personal baby. But the charges against him sound more like someone is pissed off, and trying to take it out through the court system.

Re:Power struggle. (1)

odin84gk (1162545) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902361)

...Have we really gotten so strange in this day and age that some passwords are now considered "property"?

I have no problem with him being fired. He sounds like a control freak who took the whole system to be his personal baby. But the charges against him sound more like someone is pissed off, and trying to take it out through the court system.

Are your car keys considered property? If your employer gives you the keys to a company car and you refuse to return the keys, wouldn't that be the same thing as you refusing to return the car?

Lets say I'm paying an engineer to design a new widget. Sure, I want the final widget, but I also own their designs, their firmware, their manufacturing plans, and everything in between. Holding a password is the same as refusing to release the old work to management.

Re:Power struggle. (1)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902381)

Have we really gotten so strange in this day and age that some passwords are now considered "property"?

If I steal the keys to your car, who owns your car?

Re:Power struggle. (2, Insightful)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902699)

I do, because stealing something doesn't change ownership.

If, however, I employ you to keep my car keys from me when I'm drunk, and you give them to me anyway, on the basis that I asked you to and I'm your employer, are you doing your job?

Now, of course, this analogy breaks down because they fired him, so it wasn't his job to withhold passwords from them any more. But the question remains, was it his legal obligation to provide them?

Re:Power struggle. (1)

GameMaster (148118) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902783)

The problem with you're analogy is that car keys are a physical object. While they may not be worth much, it is still, at least, a petty offence to steal them.

A better analogy might be if I employ someone as a driver and then require them to take my keys to Home Depot and use their own money to make a copy without reimbursement. At that point, that copy is his/hers. Just because I fire that person doesn't give me the right to demand that key back even if the car's owner happens to loose the original. Of course, you still own the car but, unless that person tries to use that key after being fired, they haven't commited a crime just having it.

Re:Power struggle. (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902439)

He got arrested because even after they fired him he wouldn't give them the passwords. How are they supposed to manage the network if the only guy who knows the passwords is the guy you fired?
So by refusing to give them the passwords when they fired him, he was denying them access to their property. On the other hand, I agree with the people who think this whole situation smells of a bigger problem somewhere.

Re:Power struggle. (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902839)


He got arrested because even after they fired him he wouldn't give them the passwords.

Is refusing to give out a password illegal? How?

How are they supposed to manage the network if the only guy who knows the passwords is the guy you fired?

I don't know. How would the manage the network if the guy got hit by a bus?

The problem of an unknown password that can't be reset is much larger than one guy going for a power grab. There's various ways to solve this, but one of them isn't throwing a guy in jail, charging him with 4 felonies and pretending it's all his fault.

Re:Power struggle. (1)

sheepofblue (1106227) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902577)

Yep what if he had stated that he forgot them or ala Clinton I cannot recall. The fact that more than one person did not have them is the real problem. Any business (or agency) that trusts the keys to its entire system to only one person fails the beer truck test. Thus needs to be fixed. This was obviously a bad employee who had a intimidating confrontation (by design) and made the wrong choice. Then over zealous bureaucrats got stupid. Sadly only one of the people that were acting like children is in jail.

what really happened .. (1)

viralMeme (1461143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902871)

No one bothers to tell Childs that former co-worker, Jeana Pieralde gets promoted to Chief Information Security Officer, despite no role actually existing up to then. She then sneeks back in after hours and is caught remoiving a harddrive. Childs photographs her and next think in in the clink on $5,000,000 bail. If was only retrospectively that the City realized that this 'rogue' administrator had been recalcitrant "Over the last months" ..

playing wow at work can get you fired. (0, Offtopic)

packslash (788926) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902313)

sure rogues are fun, but you really shouldn't be playing them at work!

Original story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26902437)

Does anyone have a link to the original story? I remember it was on Slashdot before, but TFS mentions this issue as if everyone would have the previous story bookmarked...

what is actually claimed in the affivadit .. (2, Informative)

viralMeme (1461143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902453)

Does anyone find it curious that the city managers claim they couldn't get access to the system without Childs passwords. I mean how difficult is it technically to reset a password, especially with physical access to the system. And with most reported 'news' nowadays, the facts keep changing with each new itteration:

Sep 10 2008 "The SF rogue admin Terry Childs installed a 'terminal server [infoworld.com] ,' which appears to be a router, on the city's network, but investigators haven't been able to find or log into it"

"Childs has become increasingly hostile at work and defiant toward certain managers and has failed to comply with standard work procedure, as described above by the only system administrator situation"

"On the late afternoon of Friday 6-20-08, Security Manager J. Pieralde was conducting an audit inventory of equipment at the OMP Data Center. As she proceeded with her work, she was confronted by Childs and Childs began taking pictures of her, using his SF Owned cell phone. Pieralde became so concerned for her personal safety that she locked herself in a room and contacted Director R. Robinson by cell phone, informing him of (S) Childs' behavior .."

"Over the last months, Childs has refused and not authorized or allowed any other system administrators to the FiberWAN .."

"
"
"The Labor Relations representative, Mr. Leung, then informed Childs that because of his insubordination and his failure to answer questions by a superior of his insubordination and his failure to answer questions by a superior he was being suspended from his employment .."

" Childs' City owned work cell phone, pager, ID cards, and access cards were taken from him .."

"Approximatly, an hour later, a page was received on the pager and a check of messages revealed a message from one of the routers . .Security Director J. Pieralde .. highly suggests that Childs still had current system admin rights .."

"Mr. Maupin was also able to determine that Mr' Childs had, in fact, intentionally configured multiple Cicso network devices with a command that erases [infoworld.com] all configuration date in the event that someone tries to restore administrative access or tries to perform disaster recovery. This command was created for military applications that require deployment of network devices in areas that may have the possibility of hostile forces that could get physical access to network devices .."

Does anyone else apart from me think this is technologically nonsense

Re:what is actually claimed in the affivadit .. (3, Informative)

GameMaster (148118) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902623)

The whole thing stinks, but you never know until we see all the facts.

The picture taking incident could have been him flying off the handle like they make it out to be, or it could have been him taking pictures as cya insurance because he was concerned she might mess up (EIther intentionally or unintentionally) some mission-critical systems. One would wonder why she called a director, and not 911, if she was actually concerned for her personal safety. That makes it sound like, to me anyway, some of the hyperbole they were talking about in the article.

The thing about the router paging his work pager sounds like nothing. I see nothing out of the ordinary for an admin to set up a router to page his work pager if it has problems. How does this, in any way, signify him still having access if he no longer has the pager? He either has the pager (and is thus allowed to contact the network as an employee) or the pager is confiscated from him when he is fired (removing his access to the network). There may be more to the story, but that statement means nothing on it's own.

Re:what is actually claimed in the affivadit .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26902755)

Not me. You should never try to remove any of the methods that allow for password recovery when you have physical access to the device if the device is kept in a secured location.

There is rational security, and then there is crazy. If someone has time and physical access, they should be able to recover the passwords. That is your last ditch method to recover access to an exploited device.

It seems like he was one of the only people there (0)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902519)

It seems like he was one of the only people there who had a clue about how to run the network and he did not what to let the other people in the city mess up the network and have to work a lot of over time to fix it.

The thing was they where cutting back on people and he was the only one there who had any idea on how things where set up and the other people can make a big mess be messing with the network and they where the same people who installed viruses on a sever. And Terry Childs tried to set some security policy's and they did not seem to look at them.

He also set the network stuff to do a full reset if some tried to do the easy password reset on them or set them to trun off the easy reset forcing you to do a full reset to get back in to them a common high security setting that is used on some networks.

yet more 'facts' in the Childs case .. (5, Interesting)

viralMeme (1461143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902767)

"On Friday, June 20, there was an altercation between Childs and Jeana Pieralde, the new DTIS security manager at the 1 Market Street datacenter in San Francisco. Until her promotion, she had been a city network engineer who worked with Childs"

Why didn't anyone tell Childs of this promotion, and who got her the 'promotion'?

"Childs disputed this interpretation of events, claiming in court documents that Pieralde was conducting clandestine searches of DTIS employee workspaces and had removed a hard drive from an office when he confronted her. He also denied taking photos of Pieralde"

Were there or were there not photographs taken of Pieralde by Childs. Was Pieralde authorized to conduct such audits and where now is this 'SF Owned cell phone', and what exactly did Childs intend to do with these photographs.

"the city stated that Childs was placed under surveillance [infoworld.com] and was arrested on the evening of July 12 as he was parking his vehicle near his home in the suburb of Pittsburg. At the time of his arrest, he was found to have $10,000 cash on his person and receipts showing that he had traveled to Sparks, Nevada, where he had looked at renting storage units. Following his arrest, police searched his house and workspaces. Police turned up 9mm and .45 caliber bullets, but apparently no weapons"

Like, if he was under surveillance (and his cell/pager conficated), wouldn't they have noticed that he wasn't actually near a computer whern the pager went off ?

"Considering that normal bail for a murder case is $1 million -- one fifth of what Childs' bail was set at -- this filing was unexpected"

-------

"it is a mystery what exactly Jeana Pieralde was doing performing an unannounced, after-hours "security audit" in a City office other than that in which she herself worked. It was during that secret "security audit" on the evening of Friday, June 20th, 2008, in which Jeana Pieralde took a hard drive from another City employee's office and was photographed by Terry Childs as she did so"

"The office from which Pieralde removed the hard drive belonged to DTIS Security Officer Nancy Hastings (who naturally was not present in the office because the "security audit" was being conducted after hours.)" "Terry Childs had returned late to the offices (which do include his office and do not include Jeana Pieralde's office) at about 5:15 P.M. to find Jeana Pieralde (who does not work in those offices) taking a hard drive [wordpress.com] from one of Terry's co-workers offices. Terry photographed this act with the camera in his cellphone"

Did Pieralde really remove a harddrive. What was the name of this co-worker, where is this harddrive now. What motovated Pieralde to remove the harddrive. What's really going on here. Was Pieralde caught with her-in-th-cookie-jar, and someone decide to frame Childs to distract from something?

We need to protest (0, Offtopic)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902823)

Make a National IT Walkout day.

#1 Change the root or administrative password and don't give it to any managers.

#2 Change the PIN number to enter the server room and don't give it to any managers.

#3 Shut down all servers in the server room before going home.

#4 Turn off all cell phones and pagers, and put your home phones off the hook.

#5 Let management go one day without an IT department and see what happens.

That'll teach them to nail innocent admins for things managers with admin or root access have done.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?