On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:15 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
So if you want to make an analogy, it's more like taking the keys away from a drunk so they can't drive. Good luck finding a DA who will indict you for grand theft auto for taking the keys to prevent a DWI.
According to news reports in this case it was not a charge of theft, but a charge of criminal Denial of Service. The service denied being the ability to administer their network devices by their authorized admins: in this case that Childs had been ordered by people with management authority over him on various occasions to provide some access to equipment they owned, and he had refused on all occasions, or deceived them by intentionally providing incomplete or useless access details. It was well within management's authority to demand this, and not in violation of any laws (not equivalent to DWI). It may be of concern to some individuals, but the operational impact to well-managed networks should be zero. Make sure the collective management of the organization that owns the network has a means of directly conveying full access at all times to any user they authorize, that is provided on demand, or that there is a clear password policy that ensures that administration cannot be denied to authorized users ? "Theft" of keys does not equal theft of vehicle, and restraining someone who is not acting rationally and is intent upon committing a crime, directly endangering lives, is completely different Courts might take a much more dim view towards a valet/driver re-assigned to a different job refusing to surrender the keys to the owner's new valet, out of fear the vehicle might get treated in a way they considered poor or reckless. -- -J