<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_02_2238231</id>
	<title>Terry Childs's Slow Road To Justice</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267546860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/" rel="nofollow">snydeq</a> writes <i>"Deep End's Paul Venezia provides an update on the <a href="http://infoworld.com/print/114958">City of San Francisco's trial against IT admin Terry Childs</a>, which &mdash; at eight weeks and counting &mdash; hasn't even seen the defense begin to present its case. The main spotlight thus far has been on the testimony of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. 'Many articles about this case have pounced on the fact that after Childs <a href="//it.slashdot.org/story/08/07/23/1515203/SF-Admin-Gives-Up-Keys-To-Hijacked-City-Network">gave the passwords</a> to the mayor, they couldn't immediately be used. Most of these pieces chalk this up to some kind of secondary infraction on Childs's part,' Venezia writes. 'Just because you give someone a password doesn't mean that person knows how to use it. Childs's security measures would have included access lists that blocked attempted logins from non-specified IP addresses or subnets. In short, it was nothing out of the ordinary if you know anything about network security.' But while the <a href="//entertainment.slashdot.org/story/08/07/25/229229/San-Francisco-DA-Discloses-Citys-Passwords">lack of technical expertise in the case is troubling</a>, encouraging is the fact that the San Francisco Chronicle's '<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/23/BAHN1C5MQE.DTL">breathless piece reporting on the mayor's testimony</a>' drew comments 10-to-1 in Childs's favor, which may indicate that 'public opinion of this case has tilted in favor of the defense,' Venezia writes. Of course, 'if [the trial] drags into summer, Childs will have the dubious honor of being <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/15/0121259/The-Trial-of-Terry-Childs-Begins">held in jail for two full years</a>.' This for a man who '<a href="//news.slashdot.org/story/09/02/24/2240241/Terry-Childs-Case-Puts-All-Admins-In-Danger">ultimately protected the [City's] network until the bitter end</a>.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " Deep End 's Paul Venezia provides an update on the City of San Francisco 's trial against IT admin Terry Childs , which    at eight weeks and counting    has n't even seen the defense begin to present its case .
The main spotlight thus far has been on the testimony of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom .
'Many articles about this case have pounced on the fact that after Childs gave the passwords to the mayor , they could n't immediately be used .
Most of these pieces chalk this up to some kind of secondary infraction on Childs 's part, ' Venezia writes .
'Just because you give someone a password does n't mean that person knows how to use it .
Childs 's security measures would have included access lists that blocked attempted logins from non-specified IP addresses or subnets .
In short , it was nothing out of the ordinary if you know anything about network security .
' But while the lack of technical expertise in the case is troubling , encouraging is the fact that the San Francisco Chronicle 's 'breathless piece reporting on the mayor 's testimony ' drew comments 10-to-1 in Childs 's favor , which may indicate that 'public opinion of this case has tilted in favor of the defense, ' Venezia writes .
Of course , 'if [ the trial ] drags into summer , Childs will have the dubious honor of being held in jail for two full years .
' This for a man who 'ultimately protected the [ City 's ] network until the bitter end .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "Deep End's Paul Venezia provides an update on the City of San Francisco's trial against IT admin Terry Childs, which — at eight weeks and counting — hasn't even seen the defense begin to present its case.
The main spotlight thus far has been on the testimony of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.
'Many articles about this case have pounced on the fact that after Childs gave the passwords to the mayor, they couldn't immediately be used.
Most of these pieces chalk this up to some kind of secondary infraction on Childs's part,' Venezia writes.
'Just because you give someone a password doesn't mean that person knows how to use it.
Childs's security measures would have included access lists that blocked attempted logins from non-specified IP addresses or subnets.
In short, it was nothing out of the ordinary if you know anything about network security.
' But while the lack of technical expertise in the case is troubling, encouraging is the fact that the San Francisco Chronicle's 'breathless piece reporting on the mayor's testimony' drew comments 10-to-1 in Childs's favor, which may indicate that 'public opinion of this case has tilted in favor of the defense,' Venezia writes.
Of course, 'if [the trial] drags into summer, Childs will have the dubious honor of being held in jail for two full years.
' This for a man who 'ultimately protected the [City's] network until the bitter end.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31350652</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>Bourbonium</author>
	<datestamp>1267611960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, you seem to be missing most of the entire story.  RTFA.  And not just the most recent one.  Go back into the archive of Venezia's blog and read his earlier reports about what happened.  Pay particular attention to the comments posted to these pieces, some from Child's former manager who quit several months before this incident.  He vouches for Terry's skills and integrity and confirms that the SF IT management team is incompetent and deserves to be in jail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you seem to be missing most of the entire story .
RTFA. And not just the most recent one .
Go back into the archive of Venezia 's blog and read his earlier reports about what happened .
Pay particular attention to the comments posted to these pieces , some from Child 's former manager who quit several months before this incident .
He vouches for Terry 's skills and integrity and confirms that the SF IT management team is incompetent and deserves to be in jail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you seem to be missing most of the entire story.
RTFA.  And not just the most recent one.
Go back into the archive of Venezia's blog and read his earlier reports about what happened.
Pay particular attention to the comments posted to these pieces, some from Child's former manager who quit several months before this incident.
He vouches for Terry's skills and integrity and confirms that the SF IT management team is incompetent and deserves to be in jail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31346108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340528</id>
	<title>Re:Both sides behaved terribly</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1267551720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When it comes to security, it doesn't really matter--people's data, money, and potentially livelihoods may be at stake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When it comes to security , it does n't really matter--people 's data , money , and potentially livelihoods may be at stake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it comes to security, it doesn't really matter--people's data, money, and potentially livelihoods may be at stake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31346032</id>
	<title>A "Free Terry Childs" Fund?</title>
	<author>Its\_The\_Viz</author>
	<datestamp>1267633980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, </p><p>I'd hire Terry Childs in a second because he is clearly very good at what he does.  The only thing I would change is that I would make him document his procedures.  It was a failure of management that helped him to develop a NetGod complex.  Did he handle his grievances correctly? No, but I doubt that there isn't an IT professional in the field that hasn't experienced heartburn at the hands of incompetent management (at least as far as their IT skills and knowledge are concerned).</p><p>To some extent, this story reminds me of the first Ghostbusters movie, when the Fed blessed with authority but cursed with ignorance demanded that the Ghostbusters shut down the spirit containment grid. They were thrown in jail until a personal conference with the mayor convinced him of that which mattered most to him; saving millions of VOTERS.  That however was a comedy fiction, this is actually a little scary.</p><p>I suspect that Mr. Childs' bail is set so high because unlike most of us ordinary citizens, the city is AFRAID of him.  He represents an unwelcome check on their power because beyond the normal parameters of the relationship between citizens and their government, or even workers and their employers, the machines only respect those with the expertise to utilize them properly.  We've implicitly given the machines a LOT of power over us in this society, and Mr. Childs knew how to talk to the machines.  He must be contained because the state cannot have citizens disgruntled with its periodic incompetence doing end runs around its bureaucracy. The amount of his bail reflects the magnitude of the threat he poses in the eyes of the city.</p><p>Personally, I think there should be a fund raised (contributions of $1, $5, $10) to bail him out; while he didn't handle his concerns properly, his real crime is embarrassing the city of San Francisco.  For that, 2 years in jail is excessive especially given that if they are like any other city I've ever visited, they probably deserved it.  I'd bet that there's a little bit of Terry Childs in most if not all IT professionals that take pride in their work.  When he gets out, I hope he writes a book and does paid speaking engagements.</p><p>As boring as the trial may be, I'm sure his story would be a lot more interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 'd hire Terry Childs in a second because he is clearly very good at what he does .
The only thing I would change is that I would make him document his procedures .
It was a failure of management that helped him to develop a NetGod complex .
Did he handle his grievances correctly ?
No , but I doubt that there is n't an IT professional in the field that has n't experienced heartburn at the hands of incompetent management ( at least as far as their IT skills and knowledge are concerned ) .To some extent , this story reminds me of the first Ghostbusters movie , when the Fed blessed with authority but cursed with ignorance demanded that the Ghostbusters shut down the spirit containment grid .
They were thrown in jail until a personal conference with the mayor convinced him of that which mattered most to him ; saving millions of VOTERS .
That however was a comedy fiction , this is actually a little scary.I suspect that Mr. Childs ' bail is set so high because unlike most of us ordinary citizens , the city is AFRAID of him .
He represents an unwelcome check on their power because beyond the normal parameters of the relationship between citizens and their government , or even workers and their employers , the machines only respect those with the expertise to utilize them properly .
We 've implicitly given the machines a LOT of power over us in this society , and Mr. Childs knew how to talk to the machines .
He must be contained because the state can not have citizens disgruntled with its periodic incompetence doing end runs around its bureaucracy .
The amount of his bail reflects the magnitude of the threat he poses in the eyes of the city.Personally , I think there should be a fund raised ( contributions of $ 1 , $ 5 , $ 10 ) to bail him out ; while he did n't handle his concerns properly , his real crime is embarrassing the city of San Francisco .
For that , 2 years in jail is excessive especially given that if they are like any other city I 've ever visited , they probably deserved it .
I 'd bet that there 's a little bit of Terry Childs in most if not all IT professionals that take pride in their work .
When he gets out , I hope he writes a book and does paid speaking engagements.As boring as the trial may be , I 'm sure his story would be a lot more interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I'd hire Terry Childs in a second because he is clearly very good at what he does.
The only thing I would change is that I would make him document his procedures.
It was a failure of management that helped him to develop a NetGod complex.
Did he handle his grievances correctly?
No, but I doubt that there isn't an IT professional in the field that hasn't experienced heartburn at the hands of incompetent management (at least as far as their IT skills and knowledge are concerned).To some extent, this story reminds me of the first Ghostbusters movie, when the Fed blessed with authority but cursed with ignorance demanded that the Ghostbusters shut down the spirit containment grid.
They were thrown in jail until a personal conference with the mayor convinced him of that which mattered most to him; saving millions of VOTERS.
That however was a comedy fiction, this is actually a little scary.I suspect that Mr. Childs' bail is set so high because unlike most of us ordinary citizens, the city is AFRAID of him.
He represents an unwelcome check on their power because beyond the normal parameters of the relationship between citizens and their government, or even workers and their employers, the machines only respect those with the expertise to utilize them properly.
We've implicitly given the machines a LOT of power over us in this society, and Mr. Childs knew how to talk to the machines.
He must be contained because the state cannot have citizens disgruntled with its periodic incompetence doing end runs around its bureaucracy.
The amount of his bail reflects the magnitude of the threat he poses in the eyes of the city.Personally, I think there should be a fund raised (contributions of $1, $5, $10) to bail him out; while he didn't handle his concerns properly, his real crime is embarrassing the city of San Francisco.
For that, 2 years in jail is excessive especially given that if they are like any other city I've ever visited, they probably deserved it.
I'd bet that there's a little bit of Terry Childs in most if not all IT professionals that take pride in their work.
When he gets out, I hope he writes a book and does paid speaking engagements.As boring as the trial may be, I'm sure his story would be a lot more interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31342944</id>
	<title>Re:Men like these...</title>
	<author>bsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1267616400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://xkcd.com/705/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/705/</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/705/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/705/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340846</id>
	<title>Competence</title>
	<author>not\_hylas( )</author>
	<datestamp>1267555140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Criminalization of competence. non story.<br>But seriously, see how things are taking shape?<br>I don't get it - with a bullet. This guy behaves appropriately and ends up in jail?</p><p>At some point you realize that it isn't incompetence. It's their goal.</p><p>Communication is only possible between equals.</p><p>You can't herd Cats<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but you can move their food.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Criminalization of competence .
non story.But seriously , see how things are taking shape ? I do n't get it - with a bullet .
This guy behaves appropriately and ends up in jail ? At some point you realize that it is n't incompetence .
It 's their goal.Communication is only possible between equals.You ca n't herd Cats ... but you can move their food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Criminalization of competence.
non story.But seriously, see how things are taking shape?I don't get it - with a bullet.
This guy behaves appropriately and ends up in jail?At some point you realize that it isn't incompetence.
It's their goal.Communication is only possible between equals.You can't herd Cats ... but you can move their food.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340540</id>
	<title>Re:Both sides behaved terribly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267551840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His employer was the City, which, being a government, is not a private institution but a public service.  In protecting the systems from incompetent individuals, Childs is fulfilling his duty to his fellow citizens.</p><p>Such a sense of Duty is rare these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His employer was the City , which , being a government , is not a private institution but a public service .
In protecting the systems from incompetent individuals , Childs is fulfilling his duty to his fellow citizens.Such a sense of Duty is rare these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His employer was the City, which, being a government, is not a private institution but a public service.
In protecting the systems from incompetent individuals, Childs is fulfilling his duty to his fellow citizens.Such a sense of Duty is rare these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340822</id>
	<title>Re:How about men like that dumb mayor?</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1267554840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idiot wasn't the mayor, but someone in middle management. The mayor was brought in as an appropriate person to receive the passwords because the idiot that originally demanded them wasn't actually covered by the security policies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idiot was n't the mayor , but someone in middle management .
The mayor was brought in as an appropriate person to receive the passwords because the idiot that originally demanded them was n't actually covered by the security policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idiot wasn't the mayor, but someone in middle management.
The mayor was brought in as an appropriate person to receive the passwords because the idiot that originally demanded them wasn't actually covered by the security policies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31350884</id>
	<title>Re:Disagreeing with the majority here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267612980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really are malignant aren't you.</p><p>Or more likely just an asshole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really are malignant are n't you.Or more likely just an asshole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really are malignant aren't you.Or more likely just an asshole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31354378</id>
	<title>Re:Appalling lack of social skills</title>
	<author>haruharaharu</author>
	<datestamp>1267636620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With better social skills, he would have understood why the organization wanted a more institutionalized, standard procedure based, and redundant way of operating the vital network, and he would have made concessions in this regard while still maintaining
a high level of operational security and technical integrity.</p></div><p>I suppose you missed the part where Childs attempted to set this up on several occasions only to be rejected - there was no written policy for a lot of what was in his job description. Further, the auditor he caught snooping around after hours should be enough to set anyone on edge. Demanding passwords shortly afterwards is hardly sensible.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They let the situation get out of hand, allowing non-documentation and informal operation for a long time, and allowing a non-team-based, non-redundant
approach to the operation of the network. And they were unable to effectively use management and leadership skills to
get the changes they needed from their senior technical employee, or failing that, to put in another senior technical person
to whom Childs was ordered to train on the full operation of the network.</p></div><p>It's entirely possible that Childs was the only competent admin in the group. Not even surprising seeing the antics of his boss.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This is all just a huge misunderstanding, and a situation that management let get out of control from the get-go of that
network's creation. It does not justify the criminal skapegoating that has occurred.</p></div><p>totally agree. I think handing him the $5MM + tax gross-up and a pension should go most of the way towards mending this rift.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With better social skills , he would have understood why the organization wanted a more institutionalized , standard procedure based , and redundant way of operating the vital network , and he would have made concessions in this regard while still maintaining a high level of operational security and technical integrity.I suppose you missed the part where Childs attempted to set this up on several occasions only to be rejected - there was no written policy for a lot of what was in his job description .
Further , the auditor he caught snooping around after hours should be enough to set anyone on edge .
Demanding passwords shortly afterwards is hardly sensible.They let the situation get out of hand , allowing non-documentation and informal operation for a long time , and allowing a non-team-based , non-redundant approach to the operation of the network .
And they were unable to effectively use management and leadership skills to get the changes they needed from their senior technical employee , or failing that , to put in another senior technical person to whom Childs was ordered to train on the full operation of the network.It 's entirely possible that Childs was the only competent admin in the group .
Not even surprising seeing the antics of his boss.This is all just a huge misunderstanding , and a situation that management let get out of control from the get-go of that network 's creation .
It does not justify the criminal skapegoating that has occurred.totally agree .
I think handing him the $ 5MM + tax gross-up and a pension should go most of the way towards mending this rift .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With better social skills, he would have understood why the organization wanted a more institutionalized, standard procedure based, and redundant way of operating the vital network, and he would have made concessions in this regard while still maintaining
a high level of operational security and technical integrity.I suppose you missed the part where Childs attempted to set this up on several occasions only to be rejected - there was no written policy for a lot of what was in his job description.
Further, the auditor he caught snooping around after hours should be enough to set anyone on edge.
Demanding passwords shortly afterwards is hardly sensible.They let the situation get out of hand, allowing non-documentation and informal operation for a long time, and allowing a non-team-based, non-redundant
approach to the operation of the network.
And they were unable to effectively use management and leadership skills to
get the changes they needed from their senior technical employee, or failing that, to put in another senior technical person
to whom Childs was ordered to train on the full operation of the network.It's entirely possible that Childs was the only competent admin in the group.
Not even surprising seeing the antics of his boss.This is all just a huge misunderstanding, and a situation that management let get out of control from the get-go of that
network's creation.
It does not justify the criminal skapegoating that has occurred.totally agree.
I think handing him the $5MM + tax gross-up and a pension should go most of the way towards mending this rift.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31347522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340802</id>
	<title>Re:Both sides behaved terribly</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1267554600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to come at this from both angles since I don't know both sides and am reading up on it now. It seems that both sides are at fault here; I think they are FAR too hard on Childs (two years in prison? He didn't do anything to warrant that. Go arrest a child diddler instead and stop wasting tax money criminalizing this guy. It's obviously a civil matter). I think they should pursue it as a civil matter though, because of how he configured some items to be totally reliant on him (see below on flashing)</p><p><b>Firing</b></p><p>It's not his responsibility after being fired to guide city officials through administration of various components of the city infrastructure. His responsibility to them, aside from handing the password over to the respective individual (apparently the mayor in this case, but if that wasn't it, blame city council for not having a pecking order in place with a trustee assigned to this information) ended when he was fired. Why should he have to explain how to reconfigure routers, smart switches, servers, and the like, or how to enter passwords or to clear IP filter lists they tripped when they kept typing the passwords wrong (presumably with capslock on?). if they wanted all of that documented they should have paid him to document it (either as part of his job description or after the fact), or allowed him to hire enough assistants to document it all (which in turn can introduce security holes with more people than necessary knowing the passwords and the network architecture), or maybe they could have just visited www.google.com and do their own job.</p><p>Heck, if you read some of the older news on this, it appears Childs attempted to get policies in place for protecting and storing backups and credentials but city officials did not accept it (the "Not Invented Here" syndrome; if it's not done by overpaid hack officials, it's not good enough). From <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/why-san-franciscos-network-admin-went-rogue-286?page=0,3" title="infoworld.com">http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/why-san-franciscos-network-admin-went-rogue-286?page=0,3</a> [infoworld.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>(When I asked Terry if we could get a copy of the City's network security policy some months ago, he told me, 'I've been trying to get them to approve one for years. I've written ones up and submitted them, but they don't want to do it, because they don't want to be held to it.')</p></div></blockquote><p>Now granted, that is his word against theirs, but truly competent system administrators are often almost paranoid about whom they share passwords with, and are sticklers about following policy/procedure when it comes to handing over those credentials (and backups which may contain those credentials in easily retrievable format or otherwise provide an easy way to compromise a device).</p><p><b>Flashing</b></p><p>However, this should weigh against Childs in most people's minds, including the more technical (from <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/why-san-franciscos-network-admin-went-rogue-286?page=0,4" title="infoworld.com">http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/why-san-franciscos-network-admin-went-rogue-286?page=0,4</a> [infoworld.com] ):</p><blockquote><div><p>&ldquo;At one point he was concerned about the security of the FiberWAN routers in remote offices, so he had them set up without saving the config to flash. 'If they go down, I'll get alerted, and connect up to them and reload the config.' Great, except we have power outages all the time in this city, some of those devices aren't on UPSes, and what happens if you're on vacation? And what about the 15 to 60 minutes it might take you to connect up and reload? He eventually conceded and (ahem) decided that disabling password recovery was sufficient security.&rdquo;</p></div></blockquote><p>As you can see, Childs may have had the city's best interest at heart when it came to sharing the passwords and changing configurations on a moment's notice, but not writing the configurations to flash? How ridiculous is that? What would have happened if he became sick enough to not be able to work on call, had family issues to tend to, or whatever? Not having the configuration documented <i>and</i> not even writing them to flash would lead me to believe that he had them fully documented and backed up himself, maybe on his own PC or a PDA.  There is no way he would re-write the config files from scratch every single time.</p><p>Now, they could have done (as he conceded) "no service password-recovery" to disable password recovery at the console port, but a seasoned CCNE or CCIE or even a CCNA who works with the routers regularly will likely have everything on hand to re-flash the router, and in either case it would require physical access. Once you have physical access to a device, it's game over (the key there is to place equipment in secured locations). So, I think he was (claiming to be) worrying about a non-issue there. So, not flashing everything to NVRAM is a problem. I could see the city pursuing him in a civil case to force him to spend the time to at minimum hand over his backups or log in to each router and write the configs to flash (under supervision of a court-appointed CCNE) or to cover the costs for another CCNE or CCIE to do the same.</p><p>As I said both sides are unreasonable, except Childs was not criminally unreasonable.  I think though, that he is unreasonable enough that he may very well have made himself unemployable once all of this has played out. I can't figure out whether he did things they way he did (not writing configs to NVRAM) to either make himself indispensable (solely reliant upon him), as many government hacks do, or if he was truly that paranoid about security. Given that any admin knows that once anyone has physical access to a device all bets are off, I'm betting it's the former. Again, it's nothing that many other government employees don't do.</p><p>How can this be avoided in the future? Have a clear policy in place up front, or if dealing with new technology, make architecting the policy part of the job description of the individual in question (to be submitted to and approved by appointed officials). Obviously there needs to be a mechanism in place for storing passwords, backups, and the like, and as anyone in IT knows, complete documentation of any environment is a tremendously huge job, but on the other hand, it's not all that hard to document each device with the location, serial number, and a disc with a backup of the initial config on it.  That info could easily be escrowed or kept in a safe deposit box, or worst case, a fireproof safe in the mayor's office.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to come at this from both angles since I do n't know both sides and am reading up on it now .
It seems that both sides are at fault here ; I think they are FAR too hard on Childs ( two years in prison ?
He did n't do anything to warrant that .
Go arrest a child diddler instead and stop wasting tax money criminalizing this guy .
It 's obviously a civil matter ) .
I think they should pursue it as a civil matter though , because of how he configured some items to be totally reliant on him ( see below on flashing ) FiringIt 's not his responsibility after being fired to guide city officials through administration of various components of the city infrastructure .
His responsibility to them , aside from handing the password over to the respective individual ( apparently the mayor in this case , but if that was n't it , blame city council for not having a pecking order in place with a trustee assigned to this information ) ended when he was fired .
Why should he have to explain how to reconfigure routers , smart switches , servers , and the like , or how to enter passwords or to clear IP filter lists they tripped when they kept typing the passwords wrong ( presumably with capslock on ? ) .
if they wanted all of that documented they should have paid him to document it ( either as part of his job description or after the fact ) , or allowed him to hire enough assistants to document it all ( which in turn can introduce security holes with more people than necessary knowing the passwords and the network architecture ) , or maybe they could have just visited www.google.com and do their own job.Heck , if you read some of the older news on this , it appears Childs attempted to get policies in place for protecting and storing backups and credentials but city officials did not accept it ( the " Not Invented Here " syndrome ; if it 's not done by overpaid hack officials , it 's not good enough ) .
From http : //www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/why-san-franciscos-network-admin-went-rogue-286 ? page = 0,3 [ infoworld.com ] ( When I asked Terry if we could get a copy of the City 's network security policy some months ago , he told me , 'I 've been trying to get them to approve one for years .
I 've written ones up and submitted them , but they do n't want to do it , because they do n't want to be held to it .
' ) Now granted , that is his word against theirs , but truly competent system administrators are often almost paranoid about whom they share passwords with , and are sticklers about following policy/procedure when it comes to handing over those credentials ( and backups which may contain those credentials in easily retrievable format or otherwise provide an easy way to compromise a device ) .FlashingHowever , this should weigh against Childs in most people 's minds , including the more technical ( from http : //www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/why-san-franciscos-network-admin-went-rogue-286 ? page = 0,4 [ infoworld.com ] ) :    At one point he was concerned about the security of the FiberWAN routers in remote offices , so he had them set up without saving the config to flash .
'If they go down , I 'll get alerted , and connect up to them and reload the config .
' Great , except we have power outages all the time in this city , some of those devices are n't on UPSes , and what happens if you 're on vacation ?
And what about the 15 to 60 minutes it might take you to connect up and reload ?
He eventually conceded and ( ahem ) decided that disabling password recovery was sufficient security.    As you can see , Childs may have had the city 's best interest at heart when it came to sharing the passwords and changing configurations on a moment 's notice , but not writing the configurations to flash ?
How ridiculous is that ?
What would have happened if he became sick enough to not be able to work on call , had family issues to tend to , or whatever ?
Not having the configuration documented and not even writing them to flash would lead me to believe that he had them fully documented and backed up himself , maybe on his own PC or a PDA .
There is no way he would re-write the config files from scratch every single time.Now , they could have done ( as he conceded ) " no service password-recovery " to disable password recovery at the console port , but a seasoned CCNE or CCIE or even a CCNA who works with the routers regularly will likely have everything on hand to re-flash the router , and in either case it would require physical access .
Once you have physical access to a device , it 's game over ( the key there is to place equipment in secured locations ) .
So , I think he was ( claiming to be ) worrying about a non-issue there .
So , not flashing everything to NVRAM is a problem .
I could see the city pursuing him in a civil case to force him to spend the time to at minimum hand over his backups or log in to each router and write the configs to flash ( under supervision of a court-appointed CCNE ) or to cover the costs for another CCNE or CCIE to do the same.As I said both sides are unreasonable , except Childs was not criminally unreasonable .
I think though , that he is unreasonable enough that he may very well have made himself unemployable once all of this has played out .
I ca n't figure out whether he did things they way he did ( not writing configs to NVRAM ) to either make himself indispensable ( solely reliant upon him ) , as many government hacks do , or if he was truly that paranoid about security .
Given that any admin knows that once anyone has physical access to a device all bets are off , I 'm betting it 's the former .
Again , it 's nothing that many other government employees do n't do.How can this be avoided in the future ?
Have a clear policy in place up front , or if dealing with new technology , make architecting the policy part of the job description of the individual in question ( to be submitted to and approved by appointed officials ) .
Obviously there needs to be a mechanism in place for storing passwords , backups , and the like , and as anyone in IT knows , complete documentation of any environment is a tremendously huge job , but on the other hand , it 's not all that hard to document each device with the location , serial number , and a disc with a backup of the initial config on it .
That info could easily be escrowed or kept in a safe deposit box , or worst case , a fireproof safe in the mayor 's office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to come at this from both angles since I don't know both sides and am reading up on it now.
It seems that both sides are at fault here; I think they are FAR too hard on Childs (two years in prison?
He didn't do anything to warrant that.
Go arrest a child diddler instead and stop wasting tax money criminalizing this guy.
It's obviously a civil matter).
I think they should pursue it as a civil matter though, because of how he configured some items to be totally reliant on him (see below on flashing)FiringIt's not his responsibility after being fired to guide city officials through administration of various components of the city infrastructure.
His responsibility to them, aside from handing the password over to the respective individual (apparently the mayor in this case, but if that wasn't it, blame city council for not having a pecking order in place with a trustee assigned to this information) ended when he was fired.
Why should he have to explain how to reconfigure routers, smart switches, servers, and the like, or how to enter passwords or to clear IP filter lists they tripped when they kept typing the passwords wrong (presumably with capslock on?).
if they wanted all of that documented they should have paid him to document it (either as part of his job description or after the fact), or allowed him to hire enough assistants to document it all (which in turn can introduce security holes with more people than necessary knowing the passwords and the network architecture), or maybe they could have just visited www.google.com and do their own job.Heck, if you read some of the older news on this, it appears Childs attempted to get policies in place for protecting and storing backups and credentials but city officials did not accept it (the "Not Invented Here" syndrome; if it's not done by overpaid hack officials, it's not good enough).
From http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/why-san-franciscos-network-admin-went-rogue-286?page=0,3 [infoworld.com] (When I asked Terry if we could get a copy of the City's network security policy some months ago, he told me, 'I've been trying to get them to approve one for years.
I've written ones up and submitted them, but they don't want to do it, because they don't want to be held to it.
')Now granted, that is his word against theirs, but truly competent system administrators are often almost paranoid about whom they share passwords with, and are sticklers about following policy/procedure when it comes to handing over those credentials (and backups which may contain those credentials in easily retrievable format or otherwise provide an easy way to compromise a device).FlashingHowever, this should weigh against Childs in most people's minds, including the more technical (from http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/why-san-franciscos-network-admin-went-rogue-286?page=0,4 [infoworld.com] ):“At one point he was concerned about the security of the FiberWAN routers in remote offices, so he had them set up without saving the config to flash.
'If they go down, I'll get alerted, and connect up to them and reload the config.
' Great, except we have power outages all the time in this city, some of those devices aren't on UPSes, and what happens if you're on vacation?
And what about the 15 to 60 minutes it might take you to connect up and reload?
He eventually conceded and (ahem) decided that disabling password recovery was sufficient security.”As you can see, Childs may have had the city's best interest at heart when it came to sharing the passwords and changing configurations on a moment's notice, but not writing the configurations to flash?
How ridiculous is that?
What would have happened if he became sick enough to not be able to work on call, had family issues to tend to, or whatever?
Not having the configuration documented and not even writing them to flash would lead me to believe that he had them fully documented and backed up himself, maybe on his own PC or a PDA.
There is no way he would re-write the config files from scratch every single time.Now, they could have done (as he conceded) "no service password-recovery" to disable password recovery at the console port, but a seasoned CCNE or CCIE or even a CCNA who works with the routers regularly will likely have everything on hand to re-flash the router, and in either case it would require physical access.
Once you have physical access to a device, it's game over (the key there is to place equipment in secured locations).
So, I think he was (claiming to be) worrying about a non-issue there.
So, not flashing everything to NVRAM is a problem.
I could see the city pursuing him in a civil case to force him to spend the time to at minimum hand over his backups or log in to each router and write the configs to flash (under supervision of a court-appointed CCNE) or to cover the costs for another CCNE or CCIE to do the same.As I said both sides are unreasonable, except Childs was not criminally unreasonable.
I think though, that he is unreasonable enough that he may very well have made himself unemployable once all of this has played out.
I can't figure out whether he did things they way he did (not writing configs to NVRAM) to either make himself indispensable (solely reliant upon him), as many government hacks do, or if he was truly that paranoid about security.
Given that any admin knows that once anyone has physical access to a device all bets are off, I'm betting it's the former.
Again, it's nothing that many other government employees don't do.How can this be avoided in the future?
Have a clear policy in place up front, or if dealing with new technology, make architecting the policy part of the job description of the individual in question (to be submitted to and approved by appointed officials).
Obviously there needs to be a mechanism in place for storing passwords, backups, and the like, and as anyone in IT knows, complete documentation of any environment is a tremendously huge job, but on the other hand, it's not all that hard to document each device with the location, serial number, and a disc with a backup of the initial config on it.
That info could easily be escrowed or kept in a safe deposit box, or worst case, a fireproof safe in the mayor's office.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31342128</id>
	<title>Re:Men like these...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267608960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Men like these are all that stand between us and the terrorists who would destroy our internet-based communications.</p></div><p>Maybe going overboard there. These are the kind of men who think they know best - and everyone else is an idiot. In the defence forces - they would be termed as going 'rogue', and it is usually punished harshly.</p><p>Giving passwords to a mayor who is no techie is not that different from giving it to his supervisor - except, he made a lot of noise. The mayor will be forced to give it back to his supervisors, and they, then, will hire a new network admin. Being anal about your work is all good when you are a one man shop - but not in any organization larger than that. This is just the equivalent to a person kidnapping someone's kids 'cos they think the parents have no idea how to look after the kid. If you want to do it - there are ways - and a formal way of doing it, else you get slapped with a kidnapping charge.</p><p>Yes 2 yrs in jail is crazy - but Terry should have also had the sense to give his passwords to his superiors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Men like these are all that stand between us and the terrorists who would destroy our internet-based communications.Maybe going overboard there .
These are the kind of men who think they know best - and everyone else is an idiot .
In the defence forces - they would be termed as going 'rogue ' , and it is usually punished harshly.Giving passwords to a mayor who is no techie is not that different from giving it to his supervisor - except , he made a lot of noise .
The mayor will be forced to give it back to his supervisors , and they , then , will hire a new network admin .
Being anal about your work is all good when you are a one man shop - but not in any organization larger than that .
This is just the equivalent to a person kidnapping someone 's kids 'cos they think the parents have no idea how to look after the kid .
If you want to do it - there are ways - and a formal way of doing it , else you get slapped with a kidnapping charge.Yes 2 yrs in jail is crazy - but Terry should have also had the sense to give his passwords to his superiors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Men like these are all that stand between us and the terrorists who would destroy our internet-based communications.Maybe going overboard there.
These are the kind of men who think they know best - and everyone else is an idiot.
In the defence forces - they would be termed as going 'rogue', and it is usually punished harshly.Giving passwords to a mayor who is no techie is not that different from giving it to his supervisor - except, he made a lot of noise.
The mayor will be forced to give it back to his supervisors, and they, then, will hire a new network admin.
Being anal about your work is all good when you are a one man shop - but not in any organization larger than that.
This is just the equivalent to a person kidnapping someone's kids 'cos they think the parents have no idea how to look after the kid.
If you want to do it - there are ways - and a formal way of doing it, else you get slapped with a kidnapping charge.Yes 2 yrs in jail is crazy - but Terry should have also had the sense to give his passwords to his superiors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340968</id>
	<title>Re:Disagreeing with the majority here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267556100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this has nothing to do with whether or not he was  'in the wrong'. The trial is all about whether or not he broke the law. Two entirely different things.</p><p>he may well be an 'asshat', and he may have behaved badly, and he may also be incompetent, or even crazy - but none of these things warrants any time at all in jail unless he also broke the law</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this has nothing to do with whether or not he was 'in the wrong' .
The trial is all about whether or not he broke the law .
Two entirely different things.he may well be an 'asshat ' , and he may have behaved badly , and he may also be incompetent , or even crazy - but none of these things warrants any time at all in jail unless he also broke the law</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this has nothing to do with whether or not he was  'in the wrong'.
The trial is all about whether or not he broke the law.
Two entirely different things.he may well be an 'asshat', and he may have behaved badly, and he may also be incompetent, or even crazy - but none of these things warrants any time at all in jail unless he also broke the law</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31351818</id>
	<title>Re:The city is in it deep now.</title>
	<author>BitterOak</author>
	<datestamp>1267617360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
But he won't blink.   And if he is found innocent, he has a hell of a lawsuit.</p></div><p>Lawsuit for what?  I don't think you can sue for being found not guilty in a criminal trial.  And if judges set bail too high, you can appeal to have the bail lowered, but I don't think you can sue the judge for monetary damages.  Now, if the prosecution presented false evidence, that would be a different story.  It's not clear that they did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But he wo n't blink .
And if he is found innocent , he has a hell of a lawsuit.Lawsuit for what ?
I do n't think you can sue for being found not guilty in a criminal trial .
And if judges set bail too high , you can appeal to have the bail lowered , but I do n't think you can sue the judge for monetary damages .
Now , if the prosecution presented false evidence , that would be a different story .
It 's not clear that they did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
But he won't blink.
And if he is found innocent, he has a hell of a lawsuit.Lawsuit for what?
I don't think you can sue for being found not guilty in a criminal trial.
And if judges set bail too high, you can appeal to have the bail lowered, but I don't think you can sue the judge for monetary damages.
Now, if the prosecution presented false evidence, that would be a different story.
It's not clear that they did.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31346002</id>
	<title>Re:Men like these...</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1267633800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My nephew is an idiot who wrecked my last car.  The valet did the right thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My nephew is an idiot who wrecked my last car .
The valet did the right thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My nephew is an idiot who wrecked my last car.
The valet did the right thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31352572</id>
	<title>Re:System incapable of Justice.</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1267621260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial</p></div></blockquote><p>The 2nd amendment says you have the right to own a gun, and yet not everybody does...  THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN IN OUR COUNTRY!  EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A GUN!</p><p>And your right to remain silent?  When was the last time you saw cops duct-tape someone's mouth shut because they wouldn't shut-up about their crimes?  THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN IN OUR COUNTRY!</p><p>Okay, welcome back to sanity...  Like all other rights, you can opt to release them.  Nobody with any sense has ever claimed he doesn't have the right to a speedy trial.  In this case, he chose not to exercise that right, and he surely had good reasons for doing so (like having enough time to gather witnesses, and the like).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy TrialThe 2nd amendment says you have the right to own a gun , and yet not everybody does... THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN IN OUR COUNTRY !
EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A GUN ! And your right to remain silent ?
When was the last time you saw cops duct-tape someone 's mouth shut because they would n't shut-up about their crimes ?
THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN IN OUR COUNTRY ! Okay , welcome back to sanity... Like all other rights , you can opt to release them .
Nobody with any sense has ever claimed he does n't have the right to a speedy trial .
In this case , he chose not to exercise that right , and he surely had good reasons for doing so ( like having enough time to gather witnesses , and the like ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy TrialThe 2nd amendment says you have the right to own a gun, and yet not everybody does...  THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN IN OUR COUNTRY!
EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A GUN!And your right to remain silent?
When was the last time you saw cops duct-tape someone's mouth shut because they wouldn't shut-up about their crimes?
THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN IN OUR COUNTRY!Okay, welcome back to sanity...  Like all other rights, you can opt to release them.
Nobody with any sense has ever claimed he doesn't have the right to a speedy trial.
In this case, he chose not to exercise that right, and he surely had good reasons for doing so (like having enough time to gather witnesses, and the like).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31349500</id>
	<title>Re:Men like these...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267649880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When you go to pick up the vehicle, the valet refuses because he doesn't think you can handle driving it.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; It was the cities network, not his personal playtoy, regardless of how he felt about it.</p></div><p>Okay, imagine a situation. You're the valet. I'm the schmuck who owns the Hummer. You park my car. I come back, totally wasted, tripping over myself, clearly incapable of driving the car, and a danger to everyone on the road.</p><p>I'd be surprised if it's even legal for you to just say "welp, here's your keys, have a good night".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you go to pick up the vehicle , the valet refuses because he does n't think you can handle driving it .
    It was the cities network , not his personal playtoy , regardless of how he felt about it.Okay , imagine a situation .
You 're the valet .
I 'm the schmuck who owns the Hummer .
You park my car .
I come back , totally wasted , tripping over myself , clearly incapable of driving the car , and a danger to everyone on the road.I 'd be surprised if it 's even legal for you to just say " welp , here 's your keys , have a good night " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you go to pick up the vehicle, the valet refuses because he doesn't think you can handle driving it.
    It was the cities network, not his personal playtoy, regardless of how he felt about it.Okay, imagine a situation.
You're the valet.
I'm the schmuck who owns the Hummer.
You park my car.
I come back, totally wasted, tripping over myself, clearly incapable of driving the car, and a danger to everyone on the road.I'd be surprised if it's even legal for you to just say "welp, here's your keys, have a good night".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340914</id>
	<title>Re:Overstepped bounds</title>
	<author>ixidor</author>
	<datestamp>1267555680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>yeah except the part lots of other people here have mentioned, where the contract specifically said to the mayor only. so he did exactly what he should have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah except the part lots of other people here have mentioned , where the contract specifically said to the mayor only .
so he did exactly what he should have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah except the part lots of other people here have mentioned, where the contract specifically said to the mayor only.
so he did exactly what he should have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341496</id>
	<title>what an idiot</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1267647240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this guy strikes me as being brain dead or just plain stupid. it's not your network, just give them access you noob.</htmltext>
<tokenext>this guy strikes me as being brain dead or just plain stupid .
it 's not your network , just give them access you noob .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this guy strikes me as being brain dead or just plain stupid.
it's not your network, just give them access you noob.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340796</id>
	<title>Re:The Mayor's Testimony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267554540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Realistically, Newsom wasn't involved in the debacle until they realized that the only way they were going to get the authentication credentials was to do it by the book, as Terry Childs was insisting, which meant the mayor, in person, receiving the credentials.  Not over a freaking speakerphone as Childs' supervisor attempted.  It's possible that Gavin Newsom appointed some of the idiot IT managers that let a single contractor have undivided ownership of the network...
<br> <br>
And no, da mayor does not get to tell the prosecutor to drop a case.  Maybe in Chicago, but not in most cities.  The real question is why the prosecutor went balls-out for 5 million dollars bail.  BTW, the trial judge already tossed 4 of the 5 indictments.  Just arresting the guy for a few days was enough to send the message "don't be a prick".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Realistically , Newsom was n't involved in the debacle until they realized that the only way they were going to get the authentication credentials was to do it by the book , as Terry Childs was insisting , which meant the mayor , in person , receiving the credentials .
Not over a freaking speakerphone as Childs ' supervisor attempted .
It 's possible that Gavin Newsom appointed some of the idiot IT managers that let a single contractor have undivided ownership of the network.. . And no , da mayor does not get to tell the prosecutor to drop a case .
Maybe in Chicago , but not in most cities .
The real question is why the prosecutor went balls-out for 5 million dollars bail .
BTW , the trial judge already tossed 4 of the 5 indictments .
Just arresting the guy for a few days was enough to send the message " do n't be a prick " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Realistically, Newsom wasn't involved in the debacle until they realized that the only way they were going to get the authentication credentials was to do it by the book, as Terry Childs was insisting, which meant the mayor, in person, receiving the credentials.
Not over a freaking speakerphone as Childs' supervisor attempted.
It's possible that Gavin Newsom appointed some of the idiot IT managers that let a single contractor have undivided ownership of the network...
 
And no, da mayor does not get to tell the prosecutor to drop a case.
Maybe in Chicago, but not in most cities.
The real question is why the prosecutor went balls-out for 5 million dollars bail.
BTW, the trial judge already tossed 4 of the 5 indictments.
Just arresting the guy for a few days was enough to send the message "don't be a prick".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31343222</id>
	<title>Re:Men like these...</title>
	<author>Eivind Eklund</author>
	<datestamp>1267618800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terry Childs refused to divulge the passwords to anybody he didn't know were entitled to get the passwords.  That's the appropriate security procedure: You do not give passwords to people that claim that they should get them, you give them to somebody you know should have access to them.  If I had called you after you had quit somewhere, you shouldn't give me the passwords - because you have no idea who I am.</p><p>Eivind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Terry Childs refused to divulge the passwords to anybody he did n't know were entitled to get the passwords .
That 's the appropriate security procedure : You do not give passwords to people that claim that they should get them , you give them to somebody you know should have access to them .
If I had called you after you had quit somewhere , you should n't give me the passwords - because you have no idea who I am.Eivind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terry Childs refused to divulge the passwords to anybody he didn't know were entitled to get the passwords.
That's the appropriate security procedure: You do not give passwords to people that claim that they should get them, you give them to somebody you know should have access to them.
If I had called you after you had quit somewhere, you shouldn't give me the passwords - because you have no idea who I am.Eivind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341748</id>
	<title>Re:Disagreeing with the majority here...</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1267649280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I have said this before here, and will say it again now. I believe Childs is in the wrong and has behaved badly"</p><p>Then you are blind and you need to stay up there with the rest of the morons who fucked up proper procedure - before you fire your ADMIN you get all passwords and you acquire total control of the system before you let them go.</p><p>I wouldn't trust you to be NEAR my network, let alone OWN one on the same fucking subnet, if you're that blind. You're likely to be more of a risk than he is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I have said this before here , and will say it again now .
I believe Childs is in the wrong and has behaved badly " Then you are blind and you need to stay up there with the rest of the morons who fucked up proper procedure - before you fire your ADMIN you get all passwords and you acquire total control of the system before you let them go.I would n't trust you to be NEAR my network , let alone OWN one on the same fucking subnet , if you 're that blind .
You 're likely to be more of a risk than he is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I have said this before here, and will say it again now.
I believe Childs is in the wrong and has behaved badly"Then you are blind and you need to stay up there with the rest of the morons who fucked up proper procedure - before you fire your ADMIN you get all passwords and you acquire total control of the system before you let them go.I wouldn't trust you to be NEAR my network, let alone OWN one on the same fucking subnet, if you're that blind.
You're likely to be more of a risk than he is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340470</id>
	<title>The Mayor's Testimony</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1267551240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad to see the mayor can be so jocular and jovial and downright chummy, cracking wise and generally campaigning when a man's freedom is at stake here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad to see the mayor can be so jocular and jovial and downright chummy , cracking wise and generally campaigning when a man 's freedom is at stake here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad to see the mayor can be so jocular and jovial and downright chummy, cracking wise and generally campaigning when a man's freedom is at stake here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341888</id>
	<title>Re:System incapable of Justice.</title>
	<author>Nazlfrag</author>
	<datestamp>1267607100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2 years waiting for trial isn't so bad if you aren't locked up. He was kept behind bars thanks to the ludicrous bail set at 5 million dollars. That is what needs fixing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 years waiting for trial is n't so bad if you are n't locked up .
He was kept behind bars thanks to the ludicrous bail set at 5 million dollars .
That is what needs fixing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2 years waiting for trial isn't so bad if you aren't locked up.
He was kept behind bars thanks to the ludicrous bail set at 5 million dollars.
That is what needs fixing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340484</id>
	<title>Both sides behaved terribly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267551300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Childs doesn't deserve two years in jail, and further penalties heaped upon him.  There is a lot of incompetence mixed with hurt pride among the city staff, which is to be expected from any government body.<br> <br>

But Childs himself behaved terribly as well.  None of those passwords were his.  None of those systems were his.  It doesn't matter if his employers were competent or not; he should have let them have access to their own property.  If he thought they were going to ruin things, speak out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Childs does n't deserve two years in jail , and further penalties heaped upon him .
There is a lot of incompetence mixed with hurt pride among the city staff , which is to be expected from any government body .
But Childs himself behaved terribly as well .
None of those passwords were his .
None of those systems were his .
It does n't matter if his employers were competent or not ; he should have let them have access to their own property .
If he thought they were going to ruin things , speak out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Childs doesn't deserve two years in jail, and further penalties heaped upon him.
There is a lot of incompetence mixed with hurt pride among the city staff, which is to be expected from any government body.
But Childs himself behaved terribly as well.
None of those passwords were his.
None of those systems were his.
It doesn't matter if his employers were competent or not; he should have let them have access to their own property.
If he thought they were going to ruin things, speak out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31347522</id>
	<title>Appalling lack of social skills</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1267640040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is what Terry Childs is really "guilty" of.</p><p>In his zealous creation of unorthodox network configurations, and his hoarding of all the administrative secrets,<br>he probably thought he was creating a uniquely secure network. He was probably proud of the way he was doing<br>it. While his intuition to keep password distribution to a minimum was correct, he apparently failed to recognize<br>that some redundancy was required, and some network config documentation in trusted hands other than his own,<br>in order to protect the network from "run over by bus" scenarios.</p><p>Other aspects of what the affidavit against him charges, such as connection of "unauthorized" devices, are spurious<br>accusations, because Childs probably believed, and quite possibly with justification given his "total responsibility<br>for that network's creation and operation" role, that it was within the discretion of his mandate and role to set up such access<br>devices, if he saw fit. It sounds like no one was supervising him at all for a long time, then they came in with<br>a whole bunch of regs &amp; requirements after the fact which he was retroactively violating.</p><p>No. The real issue here is that poor mister Childs, and, it seems, his direct supervisors, were all guilty of a lack of the basic social<br>skills that would have allowed each other to understand what the basis of each others' position on various issues<br>was, and to come to some amicable agreement on those issues. Childs was clearly very senior, and had been given<br>carte blanche authority in his domain. This led him to some excessive perceptions of his "rightful powers" and to his somewhat<br>distorted sense of complete justification for retaining sole custody of the vital secrets of the network.</p><p>With better social skills, he would have understood why the organization wanted a more institutionalized, standard procedure based, and redundant way of operating the vital network, and he would have made concessions in this regard while still maintaining<br>a high level of operational security and technical integrity.</p><p>With better social skills, his management should have had no real problem in convincing Childs of the reasonableness of some<br>aspects of their requests. It seems as if it was all escalated to "conflict level" almost immediately, and that the organization's<br>management, as well as Childs, each became rapidly paranoid about the others' motives.</p><p>I place most of the blame for the way it worked out on those managing Childs. They let the situation get out of hand, allowing non-documentation and informal operation for a long time, and allowing a non-team-based, non-redundant<br>approach to the operation of the network.  And they were unable to effectively use management and leadership skills to<br>get the changes they needed from their senior technical employee, or failing that, to put in another senior technical person<br>to whom Childs was ordered to train on the full operation of the network. Rather than saying "we're ordering you to hand over<br>the loot", a competent management could have convinced him of the obvious benefits of becoming more methodical and implementing redundancy of critical operational knowledge. They could have made a rational argument about some of the specific<br>ways in which redundancy needed to be added, and specific ways that security needed to be improved on the network.<br>And if they were properly skilled, they could even have done that in a way that did not damage and threaten his fragile<br>ego. They could have made it seem to him like it was his great idea.</p><p>This is all just a huge misunderstanding, and a situation that management let get out of control from the get-go of that<br>network's creation. It does not justify the criminal skapegoating that has occurred.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is what Terry Childs is really " guilty " of.In his zealous creation of unorthodox network configurations , and his hoarding of all the administrative secrets,he probably thought he was creating a uniquely secure network .
He was probably proud of the way he was doingit .
While his intuition to keep password distribution to a minimum was correct , he apparently failed to recognizethat some redundancy was required , and some network config documentation in trusted hands other than his own,in order to protect the network from " run over by bus " scenarios.Other aspects of what the affidavit against him charges , such as connection of " unauthorized " devices , are spuriousaccusations , because Childs probably believed , and quite possibly with justification given his " total responsibilityfor that network 's creation and operation " role , that it was within the discretion of his mandate and role to set up such accessdevices , if he saw fit .
It sounds like no one was supervising him at all for a long time , then they came in witha whole bunch of regs &amp; requirements after the fact which he was retroactively violating.No .
The real issue here is that poor mister Childs , and , it seems , his direct supervisors , were all guilty of a lack of the basic socialskills that would have allowed each other to understand what the basis of each others ' position on various issueswas , and to come to some amicable agreement on those issues .
Childs was clearly very senior , and had been givencarte blanche authority in his domain .
This led him to some excessive perceptions of his " rightful powers " and to his somewhatdistorted sense of complete justification for retaining sole custody of the vital secrets of the network.With better social skills , he would have understood why the organization wanted a more institutionalized , standard procedure based , and redundant way of operating the vital network , and he would have made concessions in this regard while still maintaininga high level of operational security and technical integrity.With better social skills , his management should have had no real problem in convincing Childs of the reasonableness of someaspects of their requests .
It seems as if it was all escalated to " conflict level " almost immediately , and that the organization'smanagement , as well as Childs , each became rapidly paranoid about the others ' motives.I place most of the blame for the way it worked out on those managing Childs .
They let the situation get out of hand , allowing non-documentation and informal operation for a long time , and allowing a non-team-based , non-redundantapproach to the operation of the network .
And they were unable to effectively use management and leadership skills toget the changes they needed from their senior technical employee , or failing that , to put in another senior technical personto whom Childs was ordered to train on the full operation of the network .
Rather than saying " we 're ordering you to hand overthe loot " , a competent management could have convinced him of the obvious benefits of becoming more methodical and implementing redundancy of critical operational knowledge .
They could have made a rational argument about some of the specificways in which redundancy needed to be added , and specific ways that security needed to be improved on the network.And if they were properly skilled , they could even have done that in a way that did not damage and threaten his fragileego .
They could have made it seem to him like it was his great idea.This is all just a huge misunderstanding , and a situation that management let get out of control from the get-go of thatnetwork 's creation .
It does not justify the criminal skapegoating that has occurred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is what Terry Childs is really "guilty" of.In his zealous creation of unorthodox network configurations, and his hoarding of all the administrative secrets,he probably thought he was creating a uniquely secure network.
He was probably proud of the way he was doingit.
While his intuition to keep password distribution to a minimum was correct, he apparently failed to recognizethat some redundancy was required, and some network config documentation in trusted hands other than his own,in order to protect the network from "run over by bus" scenarios.Other aspects of what the affidavit against him charges, such as connection of "unauthorized" devices, are spuriousaccusations, because Childs probably believed, and quite possibly with justification given his "total responsibilityfor that network's creation and operation" role, that it was within the discretion of his mandate and role to set up such accessdevices, if he saw fit.
It sounds like no one was supervising him at all for a long time, then they came in witha whole bunch of regs &amp; requirements after the fact which he was retroactively violating.No.
The real issue here is that poor mister Childs, and, it seems, his direct supervisors, were all guilty of a lack of the basic socialskills that would have allowed each other to understand what the basis of each others' position on various issueswas, and to come to some amicable agreement on those issues.
Childs was clearly very senior, and had been givencarte blanche authority in his domain.
This led him to some excessive perceptions of his "rightful powers" and to his somewhatdistorted sense of complete justification for retaining sole custody of the vital secrets of the network.With better social skills, he would have understood why the organization wanted a more institutionalized, standard procedure based, and redundant way of operating the vital network, and he would have made concessions in this regard while still maintaininga high level of operational security and technical integrity.With better social skills, his management should have had no real problem in convincing Childs of the reasonableness of someaspects of their requests.
It seems as if it was all escalated to "conflict level" almost immediately, and that the organization'smanagement, as well as Childs, each became rapidly paranoid about the others' motives.I place most of the blame for the way it worked out on those managing Childs.
They let the situation get out of hand, allowing non-documentation and informal operation for a long time, and allowing a non-team-based, non-redundantapproach to the operation of the network.
And they were unable to effectively use management and leadership skills toget the changes they needed from their senior technical employee, or failing that, to put in another senior technical personto whom Childs was ordered to train on the full operation of the network.
Rather than saying "we're ordering you to hand overthe loot", a competent management could have convinced him of the obvious benefits of becoming more methodical and implementing redundancy of critical operational knowledge.
They could have made a rational argument about some of the specificways in which redundancy needed to be added, and specific ways that security needed to be improved on the network.And if they were properly skilled, they could even have done that in a way that did not damage and threaten his fragileego.
They could have made it seem to him like it was his great idea.This is all just a huge misunderstanding, and a situation that management let get out of control from the get-go of thatnetwork's creation.
It does not justify the criminal skapegoating that has occurred.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341700</id>
	<title>Re:Both sides behaved terribly</title>
	<author>haruharaharu</author>
	<datestamp>1267648920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>None of those passwords were his. None of those systems were his. It doesn't matter if his employers were competent or not; he should have let them have access to their own property. If he thought they were going to ruin things, speak out.</p></div><p>Guess they should've thought about the keys before firing him. And besides, handing the keys over to some idjit over a speakerphone just sets him up for further prosecution when they screw the network and blame him over it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>None of those passwords were his .
None of those systems were his .
It does n't matter if his employers were competent or not ; he should have let them have access to their own property .
If he thought they were going to ruin things , speak out.Guess they should 've thought about the keys before firing him .
And besides , handing the keys over to some idjit over a speakerphone just sets him up for further prosecution when they screw the network and blame him over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of those passwords were his.
None of those systems were his.
It doesn't matter if his employers were competent or not; he should have let them have access to their own property.
If he thought they were going to ruin things, speak out.Guess they should've thought about the keys before firing him.
And besides, handing the keys over to some idjit over a speakerphone just sets him up for further prosecution when they screw the network and blame him over it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340460</id>
	<title>Will ciso befored to let take the test with out ha</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1267551180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will ciso before to let take the reup test with out having to do full lab test and is he able to get IT books / tests in jail?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will ciso before to let take the reup test with out having to do full lab test and is he able to get IT books / tests in jail ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will ciso before to let take the reup test with out having to do full lab test and is he able to get IT books / tests in jail?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31346572</id>
	<title>That's ok</title>
	<author>kilodelta</author>
	<datestamp>1267636440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know of one former job where they have no clue on the passwords used for things like databases, configuration passwords, etc. When they laid me off they didn't even ask. I guess they thought I did nothing there.
<br> <br>
I know it won't happen soon but there will come a day when they'll wonder what those passwords are. Hell I don't even remember them, I used nice cryptic passwords for everything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know of one former job where they have no clue on the passwords used for things like databases , configuration passwords , etc .
When they laid me off they did n't even ask .
I guess they thought I did nothing there .
I know it wo n't happen soon but there will come a day when they 'll wonder what those passwords are .
Hell I do n't even remember them , I used nice cryptic passwords for everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know of one former job where they have no clue on the passwords used for things like databases, configuration passwords, etc.
When they laid me off they didn't even ask.
I guess they thought I did nothing there.
I know it won't happen soon but there will come a day when they'll wonder what those passwords are.
Hell I don't even remember them, I used nice cryptic passwords for everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340632</id>
	<title>How about men like that dumb mayor?</title>
	<author>Taco Cowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1267552860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why in the world that the good guy is thrown into jail and that idiot still remains the mayor?</p><p>Is this the good old U. S. of A. that stands for Justice, Liberty and Truth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why in the world that the good guy is thrown into jail and that idiot still remains the mayor ? Is this the good old U. S. of A. that stands for Justice , Liberty and Truth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why in the world that the good guy is thrown into jail and that idiot still remains the mayor?Is this the good old U. S. of A. that stands for Justice, Liberty and Truth?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340712</id>
	<title>Re:Men like these...</title>
	<author>fred133</author>
	<datestamp>1267553700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is insane,isn't this the job of a sysadmin,protect the password?<br>Above all else,protect the password.<br>Just because his managerial superior demands the password,do you hand it over?<br>Do you give the keys to your 6000 lb. Hummer to a 9 year old because he demands them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is insane,is n't this the job of a sysadmin,protect the password ? Above all else,protect the password.Just because his managerial superior demands the password,do you hand it over ? Do you give the keys to your 6000 lb .
Hummer to a 9 year old because he demands them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is insane,isn't this the job of a sysadmin,protect the password?Above all else,protect the password.Just because his managerial superior demands the password,do you hand it over?Do you give the keys to your 6000 lb.
Hummer to a 9 year old because he demands them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31346108</id>
	<title>Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1267634340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like this guy didn't document how he secured the system, then refused to show his employer how to access it again.  I say screw him.  You're working for the city and your employer.  Their resources belong to them, including the security measures you put in place.  You refuse to relinquish that access, whether the keys to the kingdom be virtual or real, then you deserve to go to jail.  I hope he stays there.  I have no clue why idiots like this become Slashdot Heroes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like this guy did n't document how he secured the system , then refused to show his employer how to access it again .
I say screw him .
You 're working for the city and your employer .
Their resources belong to them , including the security measures you put in place .
You refuse to relinquish that access , whether the keys to the kingdom be virtual or real , then you deserve to go to jail .
I hope he stays there .
I have no clue why idiots like this become Slashdot Heroes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like this guy didn't document how he secured the system, then refused to show his employer how to access it again.
I say screw him.
You're working for the city and your employer.
Their resources belong to them, including the security measures you put in place.
You refuse to relinquish that access, whether the keys to the kingdom be virtual or real, then you deserve to go to jail.
I hope he stays there.
I have no clue why idiots like this become Slashdot Heroes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340770</id>
	<title>Disagreeing with the majority here...</title>
	<author>Kozar\_The\_Malignant</author>
	<datestamp>1267554240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have said this before here, and will say it again now.  I believe Childs is in the wrong and has behaved badly.  He seems to have a martyr complex and doesn't seem to remember who actually owns the network.

I would <b>never</b> hire this guy to manage my network; and yes, I do have a network I hire people to manage.  His actions show me he cannot be trusted.  He is not Horatio at the Bridge; he is a complete asshat.  For the record, I do live and work in the Bay Area, and I also believe Gavin Newsom is a complete asshat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have said this before here , and will say it again now .
I believe Childs is in the wrong and has behaved badly .
He seems to have a martyr complex and does n't seem to remember who actually owns the network .
I would never hire this guy to manage my network ; and yes , I do have a network I hire people to manage .
His actions show me he can not be trusted .
He is not Horatio at the Bridge ; he is a complete asshat .
For the record , I do live and work in the Bay Area , and I also believe Gavin Newsom is a complete asshat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have said this before here, and will say it again now.
I believe Childs is in the wrong and has behaved badly.
He seems to have a martyr complex and doesn't seem to remember who actually owns the network.
I would never hire this guy to manage my network; and yes, I do have a network I hire people to manage.
His actions show me he cannot be trusted.
He is not Horatio at the Bridge; he is a complete asshat.
For the record, I do live and work in the Bay Area, and I also believe Gavin Newsom is a complete asshat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340500</id>
	<title>$5 million bail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267551420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many children would you have to rape to get bail set that high? How many people would you have to kill? How many computer offenses would you have to commit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many children would you have to rape to get bail set that high ?
How many people would you have to kill ?
How many computer offenses would you have to commit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many children would you have to rape to get bail set that high?
How many people would you have to kill?
How many computer offenses would you have to commit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31351722</id>
	<title>Re:Sure they could have been readily used.</title>
	<author>Cramer</author>
	<datestamp>1267616940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>[grab] a console cable...</p></div></blockquote><p>It's not always that easy.  If password recovery is disabled, the only option is to erase the system and start over.  If it doesn't have a startup config, then you're starting from scratch. (in other words: "screwed" since you'll be staring at a blank router with little or no knowledge of it's previous/needed configuration.)</p><p>I've had to recover routers for people before.  I never go in without enough information to get things minimally functional (interface addresses, routes, etc.) in the event I have to erase everything, the startup config is wrong, etc. (there have been cases where nobody was sure it'd power back up.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ grab ] a console cable...It 's not always that easy .
If password recovery is disabled , the only option is to erase the system and start over .
If it does n't have a startup config , then you 're starting from scratch .
( in other words : " screwed " since you 'll be staring at a blank router with little or no knowledge of it 's previous/needed configuration .
) I 've had to recover routers for people before .
I never go in without enough information to get things minimally functional ( interface addresses , routes , etc .
) in the event I have to erase everything , the startup config is wrong , etc .
( there have been cases where nobody was sure it 'd power back up .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[grab] a console cable...It's not always that easy.
If password recovery is disabled, the only option is to erase the system and start over.
If it doesn't have a startup config, then you're starting from scratch.
(in other words: "screwed" since you'll be staring at a blank router with little or no knowledge of it's previous/needed configuration.
)I've had to recover routers for people before.
I never go in without enough information to get things minimally functional (interface addresses, routes, etc.
) in the event I have to erase everything, the startup config is wrong, etc.
(there have been cases where nobody was sure it'd power back up.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341468</id>
	<title>Here</title>
	<author>Konster</author>
	<datestamp>1267647000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is the passcode to SF City's IT goodies:</p><p>GavinNewstromIsAThumbdick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the passcode to SF City 's IT goodies : GavinNewstromIsAThumbdick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the passcode to SF City's IT goodies:GavinNewstromIsAThumbdick</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31345884</id>
	<title>Re:Men like these...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267633260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  The difference in your car analogy is that the Hummer doesn't belong to you. It's more like leaving the vehicle with a valet.  When you go to pick up the vehicle, the valet refuses because he doesn't think you can handle driving it.</p></div><p>Am I drunk?</p><p>Good for the valet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference in your car analogy is that the Hummer does n't belong to you .
It 's more like leaving the vehicle with a valet .
When you go to pick up the vehicle , the valet refuses because he does n't think you can handle driving it.Am I drunk ? Good for the valet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  The difference in your car analogy is that the Hummer doesn't belong to you.
It's more like leaving the vehicle with a valet.
When you go to pick up the vehicle, the valet refuses because he doesn't think you can handle driving it.Am I drunk?Good for the valet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31344708</id>
	<title>Re:Men like these...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267628280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It was the cities network, not his personal playtoy, regardless of how he felt about it.</i></p><p>True.</p><p><i>I worked at a company for 8 years. I had set a policy that passwords were given to management in case something happened to me and my IT group.</i></p><p>Actually, the city had a policy that employees were NOT to give passwords to their immediate bosses, regardless of what the boss said. Passwords were only supposed to be given to explicitly authorized people, and Childs' superior asking for Childs' passwords was not one of those explicitly authorized people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was the cities network , not his personal playtoy , regardless of how he felt about it.True.I worked at a company for 8 years .
I had set a policy that passwords were given to management in case something happened to me and my IT group.Actually , the city had a policy that employees were NOT to give passwords to their immediate bosses , regardless of what the boss said .
Passwords were only supposed to be given to explicitly authorized people , and Childs ' superior asking for Childs ' passwords was not one of those explicitly authorized people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was the cities network, not his personal playtoy, regardless of how he felt about it.True.I worked at a company for 8 years.
I had set a policy that passwords were given to management in case something happened to me and my IT group.Actually, the city had a policy that employees were NOT to give passwords to their immediate bosses, regardless of what the boss said.
Passwords were only supposed to be given to explicitly authorized people, and Childs' superior asking for Childs' passwords was not one of those explicitly authorized people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341502</id>
	<title>The city is in it deep now.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267647300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's all pretty much making sense to me.  The arrest, the insane bail.
<p>
It sounds to me that they screwed up badly.
</p><p>
So they keep trying to intimidate this guy.  Keep him in jail for years without a trial, make him plea bargain out.
</p><p>
But he won't blink.   And if he is found innocent, he has a hell of a lawsuit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all pretty much making sense to me .
The arrest , the insane bail .
It sounds to me that they screwed up badly .
So they keep trying to intimidate this guy .
Keep him in jail for years without a trial , make him plea bargain out .
But he wo n't blink .
And if he is found innocent , he has a hell of a lawsuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all pretty much making sense to me.
The arrest, the insane bail.
It sounds to me that they screwed up badly.
So they keep trying to intimidate this guy.
Keep him in jail for years without a trial, make him plea bargain out.
But he won't blink.
And if he is found innocent, he has a hell of a lawsuit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341308</id>
	<title>His lawyer neve pushed the issue</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1267559160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to excessive your right to speedy trial. More or less your lawyer files a speedy trial motion and that sets things in motion. What sort of time limits there are depends on the jurisdiction (notice the Constitution doesn't specify a specific time) different states have different laws, and the judge in the case.</p><p>Generally, this isn't done. The defense wants time to prepare for trial. They don't try and push the trial date. That seems to have been the case here.</p><p>The Constitution says you have a right to a speedy trial, it doesn't say you can be forced to have one. If neither side push the issue, it can drag on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to excessive your right to speedy trial .
More or less your lawyer files a speedy trial motion and that sets things in motion .
What sort of time limits there are depends on the jurisdiction ( notice the Constitution does n't specify a specific time ) different states have different laws , and the judge in the case.Generally , this is n't done .
The defense wants time to prepare for trial .
They do n't try and push the trial date .
That seems to have been the case here.The Constitution says you have a right to a speedy trial , it does n't say you can be forced to have one .
If neither side push the issue , it can drag on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to excessive your right to speedy trial.
More or less your lawyer files a speedy trial motion and that sets things in motion.
What sort of time limits there are depends on the jurisdiction (notice the Constitution doesn't specify a specific time) different states have different laws, and the judge in the case.Generally, this isn't done.
The defense wants time to prepare for trial.
They don't try and push the trial date.
That seems to have been the case here.The Constitution says you have a right to a speedy trial, it doesn't say you can be forced to have one.
If neither side push the issue, it can drag on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31352232</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1267619400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HOW IS THIS INFORMATIVE??  There are no links in your post that point us to the contract that supposedly directly Mr. Childs to reveal the passwords ONLY to the mayor.  Furthermore,  your posts seem to link to a couple of rather obscure blogs,  which in turn link to all of the other InfoWorld and other articles that we've all been discussing.   Next please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HOW IS THIS INFORMATIVE ? ?
There are no links in your post that point us to the contract that supposedly directly Mr. Childs to reveal the passwords ONLY to the mayor .
Furthermore , your posts seem to link to a couple of rather obscure blogs , which in turn link to all of the other InfoWorld and other articles that we 've all been discussing .
Next please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HOW IS THIS INFORMATIVE??
There are no links in your post that point us to the contract that supposedly directly Mr. Childs to reveal the passwords ONLY to the mayor.
Furthermore,  your posts seem to link to a couple of rather obscure blogs,  which in turn link to all of the other InfoWorld and other articles that we've all been discussing.
Next please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31352700</id>
	<title>miscommunication</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267622280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the investigating police had of showed Child their badges or at least identified themselves as police officers, I'm sure this whole debacle could have been avoided from the get go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the investigating police had of showed Child their badges or at least identified themselves as police officers , I 'm sure this whole debacle could have been avoided from the get go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the investigating police had of showed Child their badges or at least identified themselves as police officers, I'm sure this whole debacle could have been avoided from the get go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31345716</id>
	<title>Re:Men like these...</title>
	<author>tsstahl</author>
	<datestamp>1267632600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do know the guy is in this situation precisely because he followed the policies in effect at the time, right?</p><p>Childs may be an ass, but that ain't illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do know the guy is in this situation precisely because he followed the policies in effect at the time , right ? Childs may be an ass , but that ai n't illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do know the guy is in this situation precisely because he followed the policies in effect at the time, right?Childs may be an ass, but that ain't illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340452</id>
	<title>I'd log in...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267551060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd log in to post a comment, but Terry Childs won't tell me my password...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd log in to post a comment , but Terry Childs wo n't tell me my password.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd log in to post a comment, but Terry Childs won't tell me my password...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340676</id>
	<title>Re:Sure they could have been readily used.</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1267553280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the case of a sweet target like a government network, it would be negligent to let anyone anywhere connect to try a few passwords. Sometimes it's best to restrict enable mode to serial console.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the case of a sweet target like a government network , it would be negligent to let anyone anywhere connect to try a few passwords .
Sometimes it 's best to restrict enable mode to serial console .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the case of a sweet target like a government network, it would be negligent to let anyone anywhere connect to try a few passwords.
Sometimes it's best to restrict enable mode to serial console.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162</id>
	<title>Re:Men like these...</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1267557600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The difference in your car analogy is that the Hummer doesn't belong to you. It's more like leaving the vehicle with a valet.  When you go to pick up the vehicle, the valet refuses because he doesn't think you can handle driving it.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; It was the cities network, not his personal playtoy, regardless of how he felt about it.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I worked at a company for 8 years. I had set a policy that passwords were given to management in case something happened to me and my IT group.  When they laid me off, I was locked out of everything, according to my own plan.  The plan stated that if any admin with substantial rights were to leave the company, all keys and passwords must be changed immediately, preferably between the time they were brought into the office to told they were gone, and the time they walked out.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Despite the fact that I was there for 8 years, and despite the fact that I felt all the servers were my electronic children, the moment I was laid off was the moment that it was no longer mine to say anything about.  I was only a caretaker on behalf of the owners.  If/when they choose that I am no longer the caretaker, I have no control nor responsibility to that network.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Another company I worked for improperly terminated me.  The moment I was told to "fuck off" was the moment that I had no responsibility to anything they owned.  I was contacted later by someone for assistance on a project I worked on.   The guy contacting me was a nice guy, and he wasn't asking for much.  My responses were.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1) I don't work there any more.  Go away.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2) They fired me, and I wouldn't help them with anything.  Go away.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 3) You're a good guy, here's the answer.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Those answers were in sequence in one email.  He admitted that he expected the first two answers, but was pleased to get the third.  They could have gotten another developer in there to figure out what I did.  It really wasn't hard, and a good developer could have done it in about 10 minutes.  It's not advantageous for anyone to burn bridges.  My contacts there may land me my dream job sometime in the future.  Terry Childs will have an awful hard time convincing anyone that he isn't a threat to the continuity of their projects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    The difference in your car analogy is that the Hummer does n't belong to you .
It 's more like leaving the vehicle with a valet .
When you go to pick up the vehicle , the valet refuses because he does n't think you can handle driving it .
    It was the cities network , not his personal playtoy , regardless of how he felt about it .
    I worked at a company for 8 years .
I had set a policy that passwords were given to management in case something happened to me and my IT group .
When they laid me off , I was locked out of everything , according to my own plan .
The plan stated that if any admin with substantial rights were to leave the company , all keys and passwords must be changed immediately , preferably between the time they were brought into the office to told they were gone , and the time they walked out .
    Despite the fact that I was there for 8 years , and despite the fact that I felt all the servers were my electronic children , the moment I was laid off was the moment that it was no longer mine to say anything about .
I was only a caretaker on behalf of the owners .
If/when they choose that I am no longer the caretaker , I have no control nor responsibility to that network .
    Another company I worked for improperly terminated me .
The moment I was told to " fuck off " was the moment that I had no responsibility to anything they owned .
I was contacted later by someone for assistance on a project I worked on .
The guy contacting me was a nice guy , and he was n't asking for much .
My responses were .
    1 ) I do n't work there any more .
Go away .
    2 ) They fired me , and I would n't help them with anything .
Go away .
    3 ) You 're a good guy , here 's the answer .
    Those answers were in sequence in one email .
He admitted that he expected the first two answers , but was pleased to get the third .
They could have gotten another developer in there to figure out what I did .
It really was n't hard , and a good developer could have done it in about 10 minutes .
It 's not advantageous for anyone to burn bridges .
My contacts there may land me my dream job sometime in the future .
Terry Childs will have an awful hard time convincing anyone that he is n't a threat to the continuity of their projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    The difference in your car analogy is that the Hummer doesn't belong to you.
It's more like leaving the vehicle with a valet.
When you go to pick up the vehicle, the valet refuses because he doesn't think you can handle driving it.
    It was the cities network, not his personal playtoy, regardless of how he felt about it.
    I worked at a company for 8 years.
I had set a policy that passwords were given to management in case something happened to me and my IT group.
When they laid me off, I was locked out of everything, according to my own plan.
The plan stated that if any admin with substantial rights were to leave the company, all keys and passwords must be changed immediately, preferably between the time they were brought into the office to told they were gone, and the time they walked out.
    Despite the fact that I was there for 8 years, and despite the fact that I felt all the servers were my electronic children, the moment I was laid off was the moment that it was no longer mine to say anything about.
I was only a caretaker on behalf of the owners.
If/when they choose that I am no longer the caretaker, I have no control nor responsibility to that network.
    Another company I worked for improperly terminated me.
The moment I was told to "fuck off" was the moment that I had no responsibility to anything they owned.
I was contacted later by someone for assistance on a project I worked on.
The guy contacting me was a nice guy, and he wasn't asking for much.
My responses were.
    1) I don't work there any more.
Go away.
    2) They fired me, and I wouldn't help them with anything.
Go away.
    3) You're a good guy, here's the answer.
    Those answers were in sequence in one email.
He admitted that he expected the first two answers, but was pleased to get the third.
They could have gotten another developer in there to figure out what I did.
It really wasn't hard, and a good developer could have done it in about 10 minutes.
It's not advantageous for anyone to burn bridges.
My contacts there may land me my dream job sometime in the future.
Terry Childs will have an awful hard time convincing anyone that he isn't a threat to the continuity of their projects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432</id>
	<title>Men like these...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267550880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Men like these are all that stand between us and the terrorists who would destroy our internet-based communications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Men like these are all that stand between us and the terrorists who would destroy our internet-based communications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Men like these are all that stand between us and the terrorists who would destroy our internet-based communications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340756</id>
	<title>Re:I'd log in...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267554060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry I'll just look it up for you. Ah yes, here it is:</p><p>boobs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry I 'll just look it up for you .
Ah yes , here it is : boobs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry I'll just look it up for you.
Ah yes, here it is:boobs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340764</id>
	<title>SanFran is in deeper than they care to be</title>
	<author>rahvin112</author>
	<datestamp>1267554120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Childs isn't going to be convicted. Not only that but the personal injury lawyers in California are going to be falling over themselves to represent him in a civil suit against the city, manager that caused all this and the DA that went along with it. He's worth several million dollars for what they did to him. His job specifically required that he not disclose his password to anyone other than city management. He was confronted with a situation he handled badly with a room full of people demanding the passwords to the WAN. His response should have been that he couldn't legally provide them to the people in the meeting or that he needed an attorney present before answering any questions.</p><p>
&nbsp; But the past is the past, once the city went to the stage of prosecuting him and publicly demonizing him they had to go full court and try to convict him because they just opened themselves up to civil damages. Now two years later I'm willing to bet they have made at least one offer for a minor conviction to end it all simply so he can't sue them. He didn't fall for the trick and once this is over he's going to be paid a tidy sum, likely with an NDA so the political people involved don't get burned for what they did. Personally I hope he demands they fire the bitch that caused all this as part of the settlement with the city. I know I would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Childs is n't going to be convicted .
Not only that but the personal injury lawyers in California are going to be falling over themselves to represent him in a civil suit against the city , manager that caused all this and the DA that went along with it .
He 's worth several million dollars for what they did to him .
His job specifically required that he not disclose his password to anyone other than city management .
He was confronted with a situation he handled badly with a room full of people demanding the passwords to the WAN .
His response should have been that he could n't legally provide them to the people in the meeting or that he needed an attorney present before answering any questions .
  But the past is the past , once the city went to the stage of prosecuting him and publicly demonizing him they had to go full court and try to convict him because they just opened themselves up to civil damages .
Now two years later I 'm willing to bet they have made at least one offer for a minor conviction to end it all simply so he ca n't sue them .
He did n't fall for the trick and once this is over he 's going to be paid a tidy sum , likely with an NDA so the political people involved do n't get burned for what they did .
Personally I hope he demands they fire the bitch that caused all this as part of the settlement with the city .
I know I would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Childs isn't going to be convicted.
Not only that but the personal injury lawyers in California are going to be falling over themselves to represent him in a civil suit against the city, manager that caused all this and the DA that went along with it.
He's worth several million dollars for what they did to him.
His job specifically required that he not disclose his password to anyone other than city management.
He was confronted with a situation he handled badly with a room full of people demanding the passwords to the WAN.
His response should have been that he couldn't legally provide them to the people in the meeting or that he needed an attorney present before answering any questions.
  But the past is the past, once the city went to the stage of prosecuting him and publicly demonizing him they had to go full court and try to convict him because they just opened themselves up to civil damages.
Now two years later I'm willing to bet they have made at least one offer for a minor conviction to end it all simply so he can't sue them.
He didn't fall for the trick and once this is over he's going to be paid a tidy sum, likely with an NDA so the political people involved don't get burned for what they did.
Personally I hope he demands they fire the bitch that caused all this as part of the settlement with the city.
I know I would.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341684</id>
	<title>Re:System incapable of Justice.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267648800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget the Eighth Amendment:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.</p><p>Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget the Eighth Amendment : Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment .
Ratified 12/15/1791.Excessive bail shall not be required , nor excessive fines imposed , nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget the Eighth Amendment:Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
Ratified 12/15/1791.Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341436</id>
	<title>Re:$5 million bail</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1267646640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How many children would you have to rape to get bail set that high? How many people would you have to kill?</i></p><p><br>Not even one.</p><p>"Out on Bail" is a conditional - supervised - pre-trial release.</p><p>You will probably - almost certainly - be denied bail on serial rape or murder charge.</p><p>How many computer offenses would you have to commit? </p><p>You could be <b>charged</b> with only one.</p><p>Your eligibility for bail depends on the seriousness of the charge, the risk of flight, the danger you present to the community - and - not least - your willingness to accept the terms and conditions of your release.</p><p>Which might well include surrendering control over any data, physical keys, passwords, etc., in your possession.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many children would you have to rape to get bail set that high ?
How many people would you have to kill ? Not even one .
" Out on Bail " is a conditional - supervised - pre-trial release.You will probably - almost certainly - be denied bail on serial rape or murder charge.How many computer offenses would you have to commit ?
You could be charged with only one.Your eligibility for bail depends on the seriousness of the charge , the risk of flight , the danger you present to the community - and - not least - your willingness to accept the terms and conditions of your release.Which might well include surrendering control over any data , physical keys , passwords , etc. , in your possession .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many children would you have to rape to get bail set that high?
How many people would you have to kill?Not even one.
"Out on Bail" is a conditional - supervised - pre-trial release.You will probably - almost certainly - be denied bail on serial rape or murder charge.How many computer offenses would you have to commit?
You could be charged with only one.Your eligibility for bail depends on the seriousness of the charge, the risk of flight, the danger you present to the community - and - not least - your willingness to accept the terms and conditions of your release.Which might well include surrendering control over any data, physical keys, passwords, etc., in your possession.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340826</id>
	<title>Re:Men like these...</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1267554960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you give the keys to your 6000 lb. Hummer to a 9 year old because he demands them?</p></div><p>Hmmm. Sure. <a href="http://auto-novosti.ru/photo/hummer-crash-small.jpg" title="auto-novosti.ru">Fuck it!</a> [auto-novosti.ru]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you give the keys to your 6000 lb .
Hummer to a 9 year old because he demands them ? Hmmm .
Sure. Fuck it !
[ auto-novosti.ru ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you give the keys to your 6000 lb.
Hummer to a 9 year old because he demands them?Hmmm.
Sure. Fuck it!
[auto-novosti.ru]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31354782</id>
	<title>Re:Men like these...</title>
	<author>Meski</author>
	<datestamp>1267640940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And men like General Jack D Ripper.
<br> <br>
 I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And men like General Jack D Ripper .
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration , Communist indoctrination , Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And men like General Jack D Ripper.
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340684</id>
	<title>Re:Sure they could have been readily used.</title>
	<author>Bios\_Hakr</author>
	<datestamp>1267553340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This just goes to show how incompetent the other (were there other?) network managers were.  If I encounter an unknown Cisco device, it takes maybe 20 minutes to recover to a full working state with MY passwords in-place.  Most places run some sort of ACS.  How hard would it be to break into the AAA and add a user/pass?</p><p>And anyone with even basic Cisco knowledge understands management VLANs.</p><p>The major problem is that the Mayor did not ask the right question in the right way.  He probably asked, "what are the master usernames and passwords?"  He should have asked, "what do we need to do to take control of B1024\_CITY\_CORE\_6509?"</p><p>Of course, there was some shadiness in that Childs decided to only tell them what they asked for vice what they needed to know...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This just goes to show how incompetent the other ( were there other ?
) network managers were .
If I encounter an unknown Cisco device , it takes maybe 20 minutes to recover to a full working state with MY passwords in-place .
Most places run some sort of ACS .
How hard would it be to break into the AAA and add a user/pass ? And anyone with even basic Cisco knowledge understands management VLANs.The major problem is that the Mayor did not ask the right question in the right way .
He probably asked , " what are the master usernames and passwords ?
" He should have asked , " what do we need to do to take control of B1024 \ _CITY \ _CORE \ _6509 ?
" Of course , there was some shadiness in that Childs decided to only tell them what they asked for vice what they needed to know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just goes to show how incompetent the other (were there other?
) network managers were.
If I encounter an unknown Cisco device, it takes maybe 20 minutes to recover to a full working state with MY passwords in-place.
Most places run some sort of ACS.
How hard would it be to break into the AAA and add a user/pass?And anyone with even basic Cisco knowledge understands management VLANs.The major problem is that the Mayor did not ask the right question in the right way.
He probably asked, "what are the master usernames and passwords?
"  He should have asked, "what do we need to do to take control of B1024\_CITY\_CORE\_6509?
"Of course, there was some shadiness in that Childs decided to only tell them what they asked for vice what they needed to know...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340728</id>
	<title>Overstepped bounds</title>
	<author>georgewilliamherbert</author>
	<datestamp>1267553820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can understand Childs' frustration with some managers - but IT folks don't set corporate or city policy.  Sometimes we are asked to write a draft policy for security - or participate in organizational efforts to draft one - but we don't get to arbitrarily impose one.</p><p>In particular, sitting on all access and passwords and refusing to share or divulge them is effectively the last refuge of someone who's on a power trip, or about to get let go and is trying to delay that.</p><p>They aren't your systems.  The people who paid for them - the city, and its elected and hired management, the company, the shareholders of the company and their hired execs and management - they own the systems.  When IT starts to assert ownership, it's wrong.</p><p>We need to assert responsibility - and that includes not giving out the passwords and access controls inappropriately.  But appropriate sharing of that information is required.  Any of us could have a heart attack or be hit by a bus tomorrow.  If you haven't thought through the impact of the "Bus Test" on each of your coworkers, and yourself, then you're not doing your job.  Your boss absolutely must be able to tell your emergency replacement how to do their job.  If they can't do their job, or take an inordinate amount of time hacking in to everything to get access that you didn't share, you did your job wrong.</p><p>I don't think he should have been charged as he was.  But he did wrong.  He probably deserved to be suspended or fired for doing it as persistently as he did, even if his bosses were bozos (and I have no personal knowledge or opinion on that point).  If he thought his bosses were doing wrong, he should have escalated within his management chain, ultimately to the mayor.  But just saying no, until arrested, isn't responsible or reasonable.</p><p>Unless security policy already says "don't tell managers this" and management has already signed off on that - and there's another techie, or a envelope in the safe with the info, in case of Bus - when managers in the management chain insist on it, you give it up, or immediately escalate to more senior management.  Period.  Even if you think it's going to be a disaster.  You are not the last and final judge of who gets it and who doesn't, and if you think you are, your career is likely not going to last that long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can understand Childs ' frustration with some managers - but IT folks do n't set corporate or city policy .
Sometimes we are asked to write a draft policy for security - or participate in organizational efforts to draft one - but we do n't get to arbitrarily impose one.In particular , sitting on all access and passwords and refusing to share or divulge them is effectively the last refuge of someone who 's on a power trip , or about to get let go and is trying to delay that.They are n't your systems .
The people who paid for them - the city , and its elected and hired management , the company , the shareholders of the company and their hired execs and management - they own the systems .
When IT starts to assert ownership , it 's wrong.We need to assert responsibility - and that includes not giving out the passwords and access controls inappropriately .
But appropriate sharing of that information is required .
Any of us could have a heart attack or be hit by a bus tomorrow .
If you have n't thought through the impact of the " Bus Test " on each of your coworkers , and yourself , then you 're not doing your job .
Your boss absolutely must be able to tell your emergency replacement how to do their job .
If they ca n't do their job , or take an inordinate amount of time hacking in to everything to get access that you did n't share , you did your job wrong.I do n't think he should have been charged as he was .
But he did wrong .
He probably deserved to be suspended or fired for doing it as persistently as he did , even if his bosses were bozos ( and I have no personal knowledge or opinion on that point ) .
If he thought his bosses were doing wrong , he should have escalated within his management chain , ultimately to the mayor .
But just saying no , until arrested , is n't responsible or reasonable.Unless security policy already says " do n't tell managers this " and management has already signed off on that - and there 's another techie , or a envelope in the safe with the info , in case of Bus - when managers in the management chain insist on it , you give it up , or immediately escalate to more senior management .
Period. Even if you think it 's going to be a disaster .
You are not the last and final judge of who gets it and who does n't , and if you think you are , your career is likely not going to last that long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can understand Childs' frustration with some managers - but IT folks don't set corporate or city policy.
Sometimes we are asked to write a draft policy for security - or participate in organizational efforts to draft one - but we don't get to arbitrarily impose one.In particular, sitting on all access and passwords and refusing to share or divulge them is effectively the last refuge of someone who's on a power trip, or about to get let go and is trying to delay that.They aren't your systems.
The people who paid for them - the city, and its elected and hired management, the company, the shareholders of the company and their hired execs and management - they own the systems.
When IT starts to assert ownership, it's wrong.We need to assert responsibility - and that includes not giving out the passwords and access controls inappropriately.
But appropriate sharing of that information is required.
Any of us could have a heart attack or be hit by a bus tomorrow.
If you haven't thought through the impact of the "Bus Test" on each of your coworkers, and yourself, then you're not doing your job.
Your boss absolutely must be able to tell your emergency replacement how to do their job.
If they can't do their job, or take an inordinate amount of time hacking in to everything to get access that you didn't share, you did your job wrong.I don't think he should have been charged as he was.
But he did wrong.
He probably deserved to be suspended or fired for doing it as persistently as he did, even if his bosses were bozos (and I have no personal knowledge or opinion on that point).
If he thought his bosses were doing wrong, he should have escalated within his management chain, ultimately to the mayor.
But just saying no, until arrested, isn't responsible or reasonable.Unless security policy already says "don't tell managers this" and management has already signed off on that - and there's another techie, or a envelope in the safe with the info, in case of Bus - when managers in the management chain insist on it, you give it up, or immediately escalate to more senior management.
Period.  Even if you think it's going to be a disaster.
You are not the last and final judge of who gets it and who doesn't, and if you think you are, your career is likely not going to last that long.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340674</id>
	<title>Re:Men like these...</title>
	<author>jdpars</author>
	<datestamp>1267553280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Something tells me that at the very heart of this entire matter is someone's porn stash hidden on a city computer. Probably the mayor's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something tells me that at the very heart of this entire matter is someone 's porn stash hidden on a city computer .
Probably the mayor 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something tells me that at the very heart of this entire matter is someone's porn stash hidden on a city computer.
Probably the mayor's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341300</id>
	<title>Re:System incapable of Justice.</title>
	<author>Arguendo</author>
	<datestamp>1267559160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In California, most defendants have a right to trial within 60 days.  (<a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&amp;group=01001-02000&amp;file=1381-1388" title="ca.gov">Cal. Penal Code section 1382</a> [ca.gov].)  I'm not familiar with the details of this case, but he almost certainly waived his right to a speedy trial so that he could prepare.  That's typical for defendants in high stakes cases, especially in highly technical cases or when you have an overworked public defender.  You'd rather make sure you can get it right than push for trial and end up spending a lot longer behind bars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In California , most defendants have a right to trial within 60 days .
( Cal. Penal Code section 1382 [ ca.gov ] .
) I 'm not familiar with the details of this case , but he almost certainly waived his right to a speedy trial so that he could prepare .
That 's typical for defendants in high stakes cases , especially in highly technical cases or when you have an overworked public defender .
You 'd rather make sure you can get it right than push for trial and end up spending a lot longer behind bars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In California, most defendants have a right to trial within 60 days.
(Cal. Penal Code section 1382 [ca.gov].
)  I'm not familiar with the details of this case, but he almost certainly waived his right to a speedy trial so that he could prepare.
That's typical for defendants in high stakes cases, especially in highly technical cases or when you have an overworked public defender.
You'd rather make sure you can get it right than push for trial and end up spending a lot longer behind bars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341160</id>
	<title>Re:Both sides behaved terribly</title>
	<author>denobug</author>
	<datestamp>1267557600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But Childs himself behaved terribly as well. None of those passwords were his. None of those systems were his. It doesn't matter if his employers were competent or not; he should have let them have access to their own property. If he thought they were going to ruin things, speak out.</p></div><p>I beg to disagree.  As an engineer public safety is top of our concerns and it is part of the ethics I abide by everyday.  A safety concern overrides everything else, until the concerns has been addressed.  I still remember I had a discussion with my boss basically he went "I won't stop you from doing anything unless it is unsafe or you are about to make a major mistake", and my reply was simply "I won't follow your order if I know in full will that it will creat an unsafe environment."  He agreed with me that that is what I get paid to do, to do things right and make sure no one gets hurt.
<br> <br>
I see Mr Childs did just that.  Properly secure the network and only give the password to somone who can truely be trusted, when he knows in full will that his immediate supervisor and related management team has no clue and unqualified to make technical decision and is about to creat a major security vulnerability over major accounting information that should have been kept under guards!  In a sense he IS protecting public safety and therefore should not, and truely cannot be tried to keep public safe and secure.  Too bad that the jury probably won't truely understand it and Child will most likely be sentenced for a very long time with the keys thrown into the pacific ocean.
<br> <br>
How ironic that this happens to the most liberal city of United States and is the hometown of our Speaker of the House, Nancy Peloci.  I don't see her standing out to protect the weak who are truely in need in this incident.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But Childs himself behaved terribly as well .
None of those passwords were his .
None of those systems were his .
It does n't matter if his employers were competent or not ; he should have let them have access to their own property .
If he thought they were going to ruin things , speak out.I beg to disagree .
As an engineer public safety is top of our concerns and it is part of the ethics I abide by everyday .
A safety concern overrides everything else , until the concerns has been addressed .
I still remember I had a discussion with my boss basically he went " I wo n't stop you from doing anything unless it is unsafe or you are about to make a major mistake " , and my reply was simply " I wo n't follow your order if I know in full will that it will creat an unsafe environment .
" He agreed with me that that is what I get paid to do , to do things right and make sure no one gets hurt .
I see Mr Childs did just that .
Properly secure the network and only give the password to somone who can truely be trusted , when he knows in full will that his immediate supervisor and related management team has no clue and unqualified to make technical decision and is about to creat a major security vulnerability over major accounting information that should have been kept under guards !
In a sense he IS protecting public safety and therefore should not , and truely can not be tried to keep public safe and secure .
Too bad that the jury probably wo n't truely understand it and Child will most likely be sentenced for a very long time with the keys thrown into the pacific ocean .
How ironic that this happens to the most liberal city of United States and is the hometown of our Speaker of the House , Nancy Peloci .
I do n't see her standing out to protect the weak who are truely in need in this incident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Childs himself behaved terribly as well.
None of those passwords were his.
None of those systems were his.
It doesn't matter if his employers were competent or not; he should have let them have access to their own property.
If he thought they were going to ruin things, speak out.I beg to disagree.
As an engineer public safety is top of our concerns and it is part of the ethics I abide by everyday.
A safety concern overrides everything else, until the concerns has been addressed.
I still remember I had a discussion with my boss basically he went "I won't stop you from doing anything unless it is unsafe or you are about to make a major mistake", and my reply was simply "I won't follow your order if I know in full will that it will creat an unsafe environment.
"  He agreed with me that that is what I get paid to do, to do things right and make sure no one gets hurt.
I see Mr Childs did just that.
Properly secure the network and only give the password to somone who can truely be trusted, when he knows in full will that his immediate supervisor and related management team has no clue and unqualified to make technical decision and is about to creat a major security vulnerability over major accounting information that should have been kept under guards!
In a sense he IS protecting public safety and therefore should not, and truely cannot be tried to keep public safe and secure.
Too bad that the jury probably won't truely understand it and Child will most likely be sentenced for a very long time with the keys thrown into the pacific ocean.
How ironic that this happens to the most liberal city of United States and is the hometown of our Speaker of the House, Nancy Peloci.
I don't see her standing out to protect the weak who are truely in need in this incident.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340704</id>
	<title>Re:Both sides behaved terribly</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1267553580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He did. There was a written policy from his employer that he was not to disclose those passwords under any circumstances and he followed that policy to the letter.</p><p>If that's not what was wanted, I guess it shouldn't have been the policy. Note that the incident where he was finally jailed was when he refused to disclose them on a conference call where he couldn't possibly know who might be listening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He did .
There was a written policy from his employer that he was not to disclose those passwords under any circumstances and he followed that policy to the letter.If that 's not what was wanted , I guess it should n't have been the policy .
Note that the incident where he was finally jailed was when he refused to disclose them on a conference call where he could n't possibly know who might be listening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He did.
There was a written policy from his employer that he was not to disclose those passwords under any circumstances and he followed that policy to the letter.If that's not what was wanted, I guess it shouldn't have been the policy.
Note that the incident where he was finally jailed was when he refused to disclose them on a conference call where he couldn't possibly know who might be listening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341072</id>
	<title>Re:Disagreeing with the majority here...</title>
	<author>eosp</author>
	<datestamp>1267556820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul>
<li>He gave the password to the only person allowed by his contract, the mayor.</li><li>He did not give the password over the speakerphone to a room full of other people, including quite possibly some people to whom he was not allowed to give the password. This was the incident that got him arrested.</li><li>A supervisor should have had the password all along. If he was innocently hit by a bus, then the city's network would really be hurting. IT people need to learn that refusal to document does not make job security.</li><li>All people involved are asshats.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>He gave the password to the only person allowed by his contract , the mayor.He did not give the password over the speakerphone to a room full of other people , including quite possibly some people to whom he was not allowed to give the password .
This was the incident that got him arrested.A supervisor should have had the password all along .
If he was innocently hit by a bus , then the city 's network would really be hurting .
IT people need to learn that refusal to document does not make job security.All people involved are asshats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
He gave the password to the only person allowed by his contract, the mayor.He did not give the password over the speakerphone to a room full of other people, including quite possibly some people to whom he was not allowed to give the password.
This was the incident that got him arrested.A supervisor should have had the password all along.
If he was innocently hit by a bus, then the city's network would really be hurting.
IT people need to learn that refusal to document does not make job security.All people involved are asshats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31349172</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1267648200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>'Just because you give someone a password doesn't mean that person knows how to use it. Childs's security measures would have included access lists that blocked attempted logins from non-specified IP addresses or subnets. I
Don't use a non-specified IP address.

Or more specifically: graph a console cable, plug it into the device, and do what you need to do.

That an unskilled individual would not necessarily be able to easily use them does not mean Childs did anything wrong.

In fact, this is exactly how things should be </strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Just because you give someone a password does n't mean that person knows how to use it .
Childs 's security measures would have included access lists that blocked attempted logins from non-specified IP addresses or subnets .
I Do n't use a non-specified IP address .
Or more specifically : graph a console cable , plug it into the device , and do what you need to do .
That an unskilled individual would not necessarily be able to easily use them does not mean Childs did anything wrong .
In fact , this is exactly how things should be</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Just because you give someone a password doesn't mean that person knows how to use it.
Childs's security measures would have included access lists that blocked attempted logins from non-specified IP addresses or subnets.
I
Don't use a non-specified IP address.
Or more specifically: graph a console cable, plug it into the device, and do what you need to do.
That an unskilled individual would not necessarily be able to easily use them does not mean Childs did anything wrong.
In fact, this is exactly how things should be </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31355774</id>
	<title>Re:Men like these...</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1267696380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The difference in your car analogy is that the Hummer doesn't belong to you. It's more like leaving the vehicle with a valet.  When you go to pick up the vehicle, the valet refuses because he doesn't think you can handle driving it.</p></div><p>I think it's more like the valet refusing to hand the keys to his drunk idiot boss. At least, I think that's what it felt like to Terry Childs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>    The difference in your car analogy is that the Hummer does n't belong to you .
It 's more like leaving the vehicle with a valet .
When you go to pick up the vehicle , the valet refuses because he does n't think you can handle driving it.I think it 's more like the valet refusing to hand the keys to his drunk idiot boss .
At least , I think that 's what it felt like to Terry Childs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    The difference in your car analogy is that the Hummer doesn't belong to you.
It's more like leaving the vehicle with a valet.
When you go to pick up the vehicle, the valet refuses because he doesn't think you can handle driving it.I think it's more like the valet refusing to hand the keys to his drunk idiot boss.
At least, I think that's what it felt like to Terry Childs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31346322</id>
	<title>Re:Men like these...</title>
	<author>DwySteve</author>
	<datestamp>1267635180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
  The difference in your car analogy is that the Hummer doesn't belong to you. It's more like leaving the vehicle with a valet.  When you go to pick up the vehicle, the valet refuses because he doesn't think you can handle driving it.</p></div><p>
Like if you were obviously drunk?  He'd be well within his rights to withhold the keys in that situation - so it's not always wrong.  Need a better analogy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference in your car analogy is that the Hummer does n't belong to you .
It 's more like leaving the vehicle with a valet .
When you go to pick up the vehicle , the valet refuses because he does n't think you can handle driving it .
Like if you were obviously drunk ?
He 'd be well within his rights to withhold the keys in that situation - so it 's not always wrong .
Need a better analogy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  The difference in your car analogy is that the Hummer doesn't belong to you.
It's more like leaving the vehicle with a valet.
When you go to pick up the vehicle, the valet refuses because he doesn't think you can handle driving it.
Like if you were obviously drunk?
He'd be well within his rights to withhold the keys in that situation - so it's not always wrong.
Need a better analogy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31346246</id>
	<title>Re:The city is in it deep now.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267635000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is amusing in itself, because that state is totally fucking bankrupt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is amusing in itself , because that state is totally fucking bankrupt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is amusing in itself, because that state is totally fucking bankrupt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340834</id>
	<title>Re:Sure they could have been readily used.</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1267555080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He might have foregone AAA on some critical devices,  since he was not distributing access to many people  but keeping it solely to himself...  or (rather) since he [was] the only person who had all the keys.   The prosecution's theory would kind of fall apart, if he was using AAA on the network, and admins'  could add additional router admins at any time...
</p><p>
Reportedly an initial issue was childs' use of <b>no service password-recovery</b>.
As a security compromise to his preference of leaving startup config blank on certain devices, for security reasons.
</p><p>
If they had suspected he did this on the core routers,  then there's no way they could risk rebooting them,  without a lot of acceptable downtime and one hell of a disaster recovery plan...
</p><p>
However, that was likely a one-sided few favoring the prosecution.  If Childs' in fact did not do that (and never said he did)  remove startup configs or 'no service password-recovery' on physically secured core equipment,  then their fears are not his fault..
</p><p>
Childs may have only told them what he was able to think about to mention.. kind of tough to fill someone in when you don't know what exactly they don't know, what they need to know, etc, etc, and they are impatient / arrogant  (as many manager types can act, esp. when they think they are not getting what they want).
</p><p>
Also, you can't exactly search through your own notes, and write usable notes with access details intended for someone else, while sitting in a jail cell.
</p><p>
In other words,  by overreacting, grabbing him, and throwing him in jail,  they probably made it more difficult, or even impossible for him to provide  the very type of information they were wanting....
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He might have foregone AAA on some critical devices , since he was not distributing access to many people but keeping it solely to himself... or ( rather ) since he [ was ] the only person who had all the keys .
The prosecution 's theory would kind of fall apart , if he was using AAA on the network , and admins ' could add additional router admins at any time.. . Reportedly an initial issue was childs ' use of no service password-recovery .
As a security compromise to his preference of leaving startup config blank on certain devices , for security reasons .
If they had suspected he did this on the core routers , then there 's no way they could risk rebooting them , without a lot of acceptable downtime and one hell of a disaster recovery plan.. . However , that was likely a one-sided few favoring the prosecution .
If Childs ' in fact did not do that ( and never said he did ) remove startup configs or 'no service password-recovery ' on physically secured core equipment , then their fears are not his fault. . Childs may have only told them what he was able to think about to mention.. kind of tough to fill someone in when you do n't know what exactly they do n't know , what they need to know , etc , etc , and they are impatient / arrogant ( as many manager types can act , esp .
when they think they are not getting what they want ) .
Also , you ca n't exactly search through your own notes , and write usable notes with access details intended for someone else , while sitting in a jail cell .
In other words , by overreacting , grabbing him , and throwing him in jail , they probably made it more difficult , or even impossible for him to provide the very type of information they were wanting... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He might have foregone AAA on some critical devices,  since he was not distributing access to many people  but keeping it solely to himself...  or (rather) since he [was] the only person who had all the keys.
The prosecution's theory would kind of fall apart, if he was using AAA on the network, and admins'  could add additional router admins at any time...

Reportedly an initial issue was childs' use of no service password-recovery.
As a security compromise to his preference of leaving startup config blank on certain devices, for security reasons.
If they had suspected he did this on the core routers,  then there's no way they could risk rebooting them,  without a lot of acceptable downtime and one hell of a disaster recovery plan...

However, that was likely a one-sided few favoring the prosecution.
If Childs' in fact did not do that (and never said he did)  remove startup configs or 'no service password-recovery' on physically secured core equipment,  then their fears are not his fault..

Childs may have only told them what he was able to think about to mention.. kind of tough to fill someone in when you don't know what exactly they don't know, what they need to know, etc, etc, and they are impatient / arrogant  (as many manager types can act, esp.
when they think they are not getting what they want).
Also, you can't exactly search through your own notes, and write usable notes with access details intended for someone else, while sitting in a jail cell.
In other words,  by overreacting, grabbing him, and throwing him in jail,  they probably made it more difficult, or even impossible for him to provide  the very type of information they were wanting....
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31345346</id>
	<title>Re:Men like these...</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1267631160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem was that a person he did not previously know was his superior (I may be mistaken on this point, but the rest holds) arrived with one or more others and demanded he turn over the network passwords. The problem was that even if the person who was demanding to be told the passwords was authorized to know them the other people were explicitly listed (by category, not name) in city security policies as people who should never have access to the passwords. <br>
As I have heard the story, he did not handle this situation correctly by carefully explaining why he could not divulge the passwords in tha situation and how to manage things so that he could divulge them. However, that requires a certain level of people skills that are irrelevant to the job duties he was originally hired to perform. Even with those people skills it also requires a certain degree of level headedness that would probably be hard to maintain in a situation such as he found himself. <br>
Did he handle the situation badly? Yes. But it was a situation in which he should not have been placed. It was his superior's job to make sure he was not placed in such a situation, and the people skills necessary to make that work right <strong>are</strong> important for someone in his superior's position (his superior should not have been given the job if he/she lacked them).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem was that a person he did not previously know was his superior ( I may be mistaken on this point , but the rest holds ) arrived with one or more others and demanded he turn over the network passwords .
The problem was that even if the person who was demanding to be told the passwords was authorized to know them the other people were explicitly listed ( by category , not name ) in city security policies as people who should never have access to the passwords .
As I have heard the story , he did not handle this situation correctly by carefully explaining why he could not divulge the passwords in tha situation and how to manage things so that he could divulge them .
However , that requires a certain level of people skills that are irrelevant to the job duties he was originally hired to perform .
Even with those people skills it also requires a certain degree of level headedness that would probably be hard to maintain in a situation such as he found himself .
Did he handle the situation badly ?
Yes. But it was a situation in which he should not have been placed .
It was his superior 's job to make sure he was not placed in such a situation , and the people skills necessary to make that work right are important for someone in his superior 's position ( his superior should not have been given the job if he/she lacked them ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem was that a person he did not previously know was his superior (I may be mistaken on this point, but the rest holds) arrived with one or more others and demanded he turn over the network passwords.
The problem was that even if the person who was demanding to be told the passwords was authorized to know them the other people were explicitly listed (by category, not name) in city security policies as people who should never have access to the passwords.
As I have heard the story, he did not handle this situation correctly by carefully explaining why he could not divulge the passwords in tha situation and how to manage things so that he could divulge them.
However, that requires a certain level of people skills that are irrelevant to the job duties he was originally hired to perform.
Even with those people skills it also requires a certain degree of level headedness that would probably be hard to maintain in a situation such as he found himself.
Did he handle the situation badly?
Yes. But it was a situation in which he should not have been placed.
It was his superior's job to make sure he was not placed in such a situation, and the people skills necessary to make that work right are important for someone in his superior's position (his superior should not have been given the job if he/she lacked them).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340884</id>
	<title>No, he just followed the contract</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267555440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was in his contract that only the mayor was authorized root access to everything. He repeatedly asked for the mayor to come, and he would share the information.</p><p>It is not his job to do his boss' job. If he gets hit by a bus, you can't sue a dead body for missing passwords.<br>His boss didnt do his job according to the contract (secure access controls and mitigation plans), but that is hardly this IT guy's fault.</p><p>He got fired. Then the unauthorized people starts asking him for passwords in the POLICE STATION.<br>When the mayor showed up on his request, he shared all the required passwords, even after having been fired (pure luxury on the city's behalf as he is free of any obligations at that point).</p><p>Of course if they were competent, the city would have made sure they got the access and authorizations BEFORE they fired him.<br>Heck, they would KEEP him instead, and not try to fire him illegally in the first place.</p><p>This mayor is criminal, and the city should be charged with false criminal complaint, and injustice of having imprisoned an innocent man for 2 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was in his contract that only the mayor was authorized root access to everything .
He repeatedly asked for the mayor to come , and he would share the information.It is not his job to do his boss ' job .
If he gets hit by a bus , you ca n't sue a dead body for missing passwords.His boss didnt do his job according to the contract ( secure access controls and mitigation plans ) , but that is hardly this IT guy 's fault.He got fired .
Then the unauthorized people starts asking him for passwords in the POLICE STATION.When the mayor showed up on his request , he shared all the required passwords , even after having been fired ( pure luxury on the city 's behalf as he is free of any obligations at that point ) .Of course if they were competent , the city would have made sure they got the access and authorizations BEFORE they fired him.Heck , they would KEEP him instead , and not try to fire him illegally in the first place.This mayor is criminal , and the city should be charged with false criminal complaint , and injustice of having imprisoned an innocent man for 2 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was in his contract that only the mayor was authorized root access to everything.
He repeatedly asked for the mayor to come, and he would share the information.It is not his job to do his boss' job.
If he gets hit by a bus, you can't sue a dead body for missing passwords.His boss didnt do his job according to the contract (secure access controls and mitigation plans), but that is hardly this IT guy's fault.He got fired.
Then the unauthorized people starts asking him for passwords in the POLICE STATION.When the mayor showed up on his request, he shared all the required passwords, even after having been fired (pure luxury on the city's behalf as he is free of any obligations at that point).Of course if they were competent, the city would have made sure they got the access and authorizations BEFORE they fired him.Heck, they would KEEP him instead, and not try to fire him illegally in the first place.This mayor is criminal, and the city should be charged with false criminal complaint, and injustice of having imprisoned an innocent man for 2 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340464</id>
	<title>Sure they could have been readily used.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267551180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<em> 'Just because you give someone a password doesn't mean that person knows how to use it. Childs's security measures would have included access lists that blocked attempted logins from <b>non-specified IP addresses or subnets</b>. I</em> </p><p>
Don't use a non-specified IP address.
</p><p>
Or more specifically: graph a console cable, plug it into the device, and do what you need to do.
</p><p>
That an unskilled individual would not necessarily be able to easily use them does not mean Childs did anything wrong.
</p><p>
In fact, this is exactly how things should be --
in case the password is compromised, there should be additional layers of defense (IP access lists),
to prevent convert abuse of accidentally leaked passwords.
</p><p>
No one password should ever give anyone free reign over a critical network,  without at least also having physical access or passing through a designated management point.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Just because you give someone a password does n't mean that person knows how to use it .
Childs 's security measures would have included access lists that blocked attempted logins from non-specified IP addresses or subnets .
I Do n't use a non-specified IP address .
Or more specifically : graph a console cable , plug it into the device , and do what you need to do .
That an unskilled individual would not necessarily be able to easily use them does not mean Childs did anything wrong .
In fact , this is exactly how things should be -- in case the password is compromised , there should be additional layers of defense ( IP access lists ) , to prevent convert abuse of accidentally leaked passwords .
No one password should ever give anyone free reign over a critical network , without at least also having physical access or passing through a designated management point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
 'Just because you give someone a password doesn't mean that person knows how to use it.
Childs's security measures would have included access lists that blocked attempted logins from non-specified IP addresses or subnets.
I 
Don't use a non-specified IP address.
Or more specifically: graph a console cable, plug it into the device, and do what you need to do.
That an unskilled individual would not necessarily be able to easily use them does not mean Childs did anything wrong.
In fact, this is exactly how things should be --
in case the password is compromised, there should be additional layers of defense (IP access lists),
to prevent convert abuse of accidentally leaked passwords.
No one password should ever give anyone free reign over a critical network,  without at least also having physical access or passing through a designated management point.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341740</id>
	<title>Re:Men like these...</title>
	<author>The\_mad\_linguist</author>
	<datestamp>1267649220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's more like leaving your car with a valet.  Then, when your nephew comes to pick up the vehicle, he refuses because your nephew isn't you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's more like leaving your car with a valet .
Then , when your nephew comes to pick up the vehicle , he refuses because your nephew is n't you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's more like leaving your car with a valet.
Then, when your nephew comes to pick up the vehicle, he refuses because your nephew isn't you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340860</id>
	<title>Re:System incapable of Justice.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267555260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that Kevin Mitnick proved that the 6th was no longer in effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that Kevin Mitnick proved that the 6th was no longer in effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that Kevin Mitnick proved that the 6th was no longer in effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340532</id>
	<title>Re:Both sides behaved terribly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267551780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree.  Technically, doesn't that property belong to the citizens of San Fran?  I believe he has partial ownership too.  So if you joint own a house and you know one party just keeps leaving the door open all the time and letting random hippies (corporations) in, wouldn't you change the locks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
Technically , does n't that property belong to the citizens of San Fran ?
I believe he has partial ownership too .
So if you joint own a house and you know one party just keeps leaving the door open all the time and letting random hippies ( corporations ) in , would n't you change the locks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
Technically, doesn't that property belong to the citizens of San Fran?
I believe he has partial ownership too.
So if you joint own a house and you know one party just keeps leaving the door open all the time and letting random hippies (corporations) in, wouldn't you change the locks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340682</id>
	<title>Re:Both sides behaved terribly</title>
	<author>Nikker</author>
	<datestamp>1267553340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>He would have been liable if he gave it to anyone else so in this world of lawsuits he said the right answer, no.  He gave them to the mayor so why didn't the proper owners come by and pick them up?  Was the mayor involved in a conspiracy of some kind?  You have to realize there are many contracts and legalities involved with a job like this so if he couldn't find someone that could be liable as per his contract and the mayor couldn't find anyone then who is legally responsible for them?  The mayor is saying since he doesn't know how to administer the system there was nothing he could do with the passwords.  This happened on July 12/08 and the mayor was given the passwords a week later.  If he did just give them out and some data loss occurred he would be held liable on a federal level.  So what would you do in that situation?</htmltext>
<tokenext>He would have been liable if he gave it to anyone else so in this world of lawsuits he said the right answer , no .
He gave them to the mayor so why did n't the proper owners come by and pick them up ?
Was the mayor involved in a conspiracy of some kind ?
You have to realize there are many contracts and legalities involved with a job like this so if he could n't find someone that could be liable as per his contract and the mayor could n't find anyone then who is legally responsible for them ?
The mayor is saying since he does n't know how to administer the system there was nothing he could do with the passwords .
This happened on July 12/08 and the mayor was given the passwords a week later .
If he did just give them out and some data loss occurred he would be held liable on a federal level .
So what would you do in that situation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He would have been liable if he gave it to anyone else so in this world of lawsuits he said the right answer, no.
He gave them to the mayor so why didn't the proper owners come by and pick them up?
Was the mayor involved in a conspiracy of some kind?
You have to realize there are many contracts and legalities involved with a job like this so if he couldn't find someone that could be liable as per his contract and the mayor couldn't find anyone then who is legally responsible for them?
The mayor is saying since he doesn't know how to administer the system there was nothing he could do with the passwords.
This happened on July 12/08 and the mayor was given the passwords a week later.
If he did just give them out and some data loss occurred he would be held liable on a federal level.
So what would you do in that situation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340686</id>
	<title>System incapable of Justice.</title>
	<author>Zaphod-AVA</author>
	<datestamp>1267553340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.<br>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."</p><p>Sitting in jail waiting 2 years for a trial is not something that should happen in our country. The system is broken and needs to be fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial , Confrontation of Witnesses.In all criminal prosecutions , the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial , by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed , which district shall have been previously ascertained by law , and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation ; to be confronted with the witnesses against him ; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor , and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence .
" Sitting in jail waiting 2 years for a trial is not something that should happen in our country .
The system is broken and needs to be fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
"Sitting in jail waiting 2 years for a trial is not something that should happen in our country.
The system is broken and needs to be fixed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31347972</id>
	<title>Re:Men like these...</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1267642380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I worked at a company for 8 years. I had set a policy that passwords were given to management in case something happened to me and my IT group. When they laid me off, I was locked out of everything, according to my own plan. The plan stated that if any admin with substantial rights were to leave the company, all keys and passwords must be changed immediately, preferably between the time they were brought into the office to told they were gone, and the time they walked out.</p></div></blockquote><p>So you mean that someone who wasn't authorized to have the passwords didn't ask you to hand them over while on a speakerphone conversation with an unknown number of potentially unauthorized people on the other end? All totally in contravention of your password policy? Because that's what happened to Terry Childs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked at a company for 8 years .
I had set a policy that passwords were given to management in case something happened to me and my IT group .
When they laid me off , I was locked out of everything , according to my own plan .
The plan stated that if any admin with substantial rights were to leave the company , all keys and passwords must be changed immediately , preferably between the time they were brought into the office to told they were gone , and the time they walked out.So you mean that someone who was n't authorized to have the passwords did n't ask you to hand them over while on a speakerphone conversation with an unknown number of potentially unauthorized people on the other end ?
All totally in contravention of your password policy ?
Because that 's what happened to Terry Childs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked at a company for 8 years.
I had set a policy that passwords were given to management in case something happened to me and my IT group.
When they laid me off, I was locked out of everything, according to my own plan.
The plan stated that if any admin with substantial rights were to leave the company, all keys and passwords must be changed immediately, preferably between the time they were brought into the office to told they were gone, and the time they walked out.So you mean that someone who wasn't authorized to have the passwords didn't ask you to hand them over while on a speakerphone conversation with an unknown number of potentially unauthorized people on the other end?
All totally in contravention of your password policy?
Because that's what happened to Terry Childs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340752</id>
	<title>Re:Sure they could have been readily used.</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1267554060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>graph a console cable</p></div><p>What is its function?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>graph a console cableWhat is its function ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>graph a console cableWhat is its function?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340464</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31355774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31345716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31352572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31354782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31351818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31346246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31345346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31351722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31347972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31354378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31347522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31346002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31343222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31345884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31350652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31346108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31342128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31342944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31346322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31350884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31344708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31349500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2238231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2238231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2238231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31350884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2238231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31342944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341162
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341740
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31346002
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31346322
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31355774
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31345346
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31349500
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31347972
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31345884
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31343222
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31344708
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31345716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31342128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31354782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2238231.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31346108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31350652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2238231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2238231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31352572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2238231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2238231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2238231.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2238231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31341502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31346246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31351818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2238231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31347522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31354378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2238231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2238231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31351722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2238231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2238231.31340914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
