Accused Rogue Admin Terry Childs Makes His Case 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."
from the yeah-good-luck-with-that dept. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Equal Protection? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
legit modems? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait a second? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
The most amazing part of this whole story is... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Wait a second? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Equal Protection? (Score:1, Interesting)
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>
The techie media is getting it right... (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Press Interviews while incarcerated (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Power struggle. (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Equal Protection? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
It also stems from the fact that we don't lock up innocent people in the western world.
Re:Equal Protection? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
yet more 'facts' in the Childs case .. (Score:5, Interesting)
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
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?
Re:Mmmmm... No. (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Equal Protection? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Equal Protection? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, and bail is refunded if you show up for court.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to beg in the streets, steal bread, or sleep under a bridge." -- Anatole France
So very useful, to know that if you could only have borrowed a frightful sum of money many times your yearly income, they would let you have it back years later after the wheels of Justice have ground ever so slowly.
Here we have a classic example of how the law screws the less than wealthy. This guy is thrown in jail at taxpayer expense when an ankle bracelet would have been good enough to keep track of him. He also has no income and gets deeper and deeper into debt.
He is being punished for being charged with a crime, not for being guilty.
Is the government going to pay him for lost wages if he is found innocent? Will they keep up mortgage payments while he is in jail before the trial?
I kinda fucking doubt it. You show me the justice.
Re:The most amazing part of this whole story is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mmmmm... No. (Score:2, Interesting)
I completely agree.
This whole situation reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry's mechanic held his car hostage because he didn't feel Jerry did a good enough job taking care of it.
As much as it may pain network admins to hear it, you don't own your network. You are paid to build and maintain it but your relationship to it is like the mechanic and not like the car owner. If the people who pay you and who paid for the network ask for the keys, give it to them. If you don't, from their point of view you are now holding their property hostage.
Re:He's not required to presume innocence (Score:3, Interesting)
It only makes sense because it's what you believe.
If the police arrest someone, you should wait until they actual present their case to decide if the person is guilty.
The cops presumed them guilty, or they wouldn't have arrested them. So you are already working under a broken premise. Also, court findings are not fact. They either did or did not do what they are accused of. If they did it, that was either against the law or not against the law. Courts find whether the prosecution proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused did what they are accused of and that it is a violation of the law the prosecutors assert. If they are found to have performed the act, but it wasn't against the law, then they would have been found "guilty" of performing the act, but not guilty of the crime. And even if they found not guilty, that doesn't mean they didn't do it, but that it wasn't proven that they did it.
How about O.J. Simpson? Let's say that he did it. He wasn't found guilty. But that doesn't mean he isn't guilty of committing the crime, just that his guilt couldn't be proven in court. Whether he performed the act or not is *never* changed by the finding of the court. Thus the court isn't a useful gauge of the guilt of someone. It may be highly correlated with guilt, but it never determines it in fact.
Sure, there's no legal requirement for you give people a chance to defend themselves, but if you don't, you're still a douchebag.
Courts are charged with keeping innocent people out of jail. As such, they have a high standard for findings. Civil cases and most people's minds work on a different scale. You just determine which was more likely and that's the answer. It's more likely than not that O.J. Simpson killed. He had a ruling against him in civil court with the reduced standard. So does that mean he killed? Well, he was found not guilty in a court with a higher standard. I'd guess that most people think he did kill. The courts determined he was "responsible." But there wasn't enough to "prove" that he did it.
That's the way it is supposed to work. Everyone thinks you are guilty, but you aren't in jail because they couldn't prove it. If it can't be proven, then you shouldn't spend time in jail. If it is most likely, then there's no reason people shouldn't think you did it. "Presumed Innocent" is a legal standard used in order to give a fair trial. "Presumed Guilty" would have the accused always denied bail, show up in court in prison clothes, and reduce the standard of proof needed to convict. We don't want that, so in court (and only in court) the accused is "presumed innocent." That legal stance is not used anywhere else. Not by the police, and certainly not by the population as a whole.
Re:meanwhile, back in the real world... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yup. Look on the PBS Frontline website for their recent episode on Plea Bargains (you can watch it online). It is a real eye-opener.
One woman was clearly falsely accused but was convicted. It became fairly obvious that she was falsely confused, and so the DA offered her a plea bargain for time served if she pled guilty (one of those cases of the DA being more concerned with a win/loss record than justice). Due to her religious convictions she did not want to plea guilty since she would have to lie and confess to a crime she did not commit. She lost her appeals and is still in prison for a crime she professes she did not commit, and she could have been free today if she only confessed to it. What motive could she possibly have for not confessing, other than a desire to be honest? And yet as a society we both punish her and bear the expense of imprisoning her.
Plea bargains are a the natural result of barter between somebody with everything to lose and somebody with nothing to lose. Threaten an innocent person with 30 years in prison and they have tremendous incentive to accept a year or two of punishment for a crime they didn't commit. Sure, in some cases I think that plea bargains are a good concept, but they're being wielded in a fundamentally unfair way. It should be the goal of the DA to seek justice, not convictions.