Two problems with your analogy:

1. Passwords to network equipment are typically not necessary for their day-to-day functions (e.g. routing or switching packets), only for troubleshooting, upgrades or changes to the network architecture/topology. The network in question could probably have -- and, according to some reports, did -- run for weeks or months just fine, even if no-one had the passwords.
2. There is no evidence in the record, of which I'm aware, that Terry intentionally changed the passwords in order to prevent certain individuals from accessing the equipment, and in anticipation of being terminated. The people demanding the passwords, I believe, had never previously had them, so this would have been an expansion of the access that they had previously been granted, if any. This makes it very different from the analogy you presented, where someone had a "settled expectation" of access, which was then deliberately and explicitly revoked/denied by the perpetrator. When accusing someone of "denying service", one needs to be careful to define what actually constitutes "service" in a particular context. Making a PC unusable that someone was using regularly as a normal part of their job, is clearly a denial of service. Refusing to open up access to critical network infrastructure, to persons unknown or of questionable qualifications and trust, and potentially (as some have alleged) in direct violation of the employer's own published policies and procedures, is hardly "denial of service". At most, it's a preservation of the status quo, and in fact, keeping that access restricted may be the most service-enhancing option available.

You've obviously already prejudged him. "He committed a crime".

But it's an open question, legally, whether refusing to divulge passwords constitutes "denying service ... to authorized users" of that network. The "denying service" charge is, after all, the only one of the original charges that hasn't been thrown out by the judge.

I think everyone agrees that the employment separation could have been handled more calmly and professionally. But what's of more legal importance are the post-separation consequences of Terry refusing to hand over the passwords. Was there a "denial of service"? Or not? If Terry's former managers wanted to minimize the "denial(s) of service", presumably they could have carefully reset-to-default and reconfigured the pieces of the network infrastructure for which they didn't have passwords. Sure, that might be costly and time-consuming, but that's what you get when you force out your main network wizard under tumultuous circumstances. Maybe they'll think twice about it next time...

Of secondary importance, I would think, would be Terry's intent in refusing to hand over the passwords. Did he intend, by doing so, to cause a "denial of service"? Or, did he have a good faith belief that divulging the passwords, to the person or persons requesting them, would actually cause more harm to the network -- more "denials of service" -- than keeping them secret?

Let's not forget that Terry did eventually divulge the passwords to the mayor. So it was really more a question of "who" and "when", than "whether" he would eventually give them up. He may have believed that Gavin Newsom was the only person in the city administration with enough clout to hold the network staff responsible if they took those passwords and used them to make a complete mess of the network that Terry worked so hard to build up.

The progress of the trial should be quite interesting. Despite circletimessquare's superficial analysis, there are some important legal and ethical issues being tested here.

Actually, it makes perfect sense. "Bad" content falls under Consumer Protection, regardless of how that content is accessed. The FCC only has some specific mandates relating to digital content, e.g. "broadcast decency".

If I had a nickel for every time someone in our enterprise said "it's just for private communication", then next thing I know they're wanting to talk to a business partner, needing firewall rules opened up, name resolution, etc.

It's just a number. Pick a reasonable one. It's not that difficult...

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment here, and with the usual IANAL disclaimer...

If one disregards the statement by Mark Hecht -- which carries no legal weight whatsoever -- this decision appears to condone "luring" as an stacked charge, i.e. a charge that's added to another charge, like "committing a felony with a firearm" is added to an ordinary felony charge.

If so, then all of these civil-liberties concerns about all conversations between adults and children being criminalized, are overblown. If one is found guilty of abusing or exploiting a child, and if evidence of past contact with the child over the Internet is found, then that contact can (retroactively) be charged as "luring", along with the regular prosecution of the abuse or exploitation. But, in the usual case of an adult talking to a child, that's still perfectly legal. Despite what the mainstream media would have us believe, most adults who talk to children, don't end up exploiting or abusing them.

And Mark Hecht should STFU until he has something intelligent to say

Port 54 is assigned by IANA for "XNS Clearinghouse". See http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers.

It would be safer to pick something that isn't already assigned. If everyone just picked arbitrary ports for their "private" communications, there would be pandemonium. Sniffers also use this registry for displaying packets properly in "user-friendly" formats. The IANA registry exists for a reason.

The mother crocodile reacts because she thinks you are going to harm her young in some tangible, concrete way

Most of these "child-protection" measures exist because there is a social stigma attached to adults having sex with children

The former is driven by a biological imperative, the latter is not; it's socially-constructed

In fact, one could argue that the general biological imperative for the male of the species to spread his genetic code far and wide actually explains why many/most adult males are aroused by the sight/thought/presence of nubile teen females, and some percentage of those will, despite the social taboos, act on those impulses.So, when viewed through the narrow lens of "biological imperatives", it's actually more expected that these liaisons occur than for them to be prevented. More "natural", as it were.

(I'm sure those who read this casually, or selectively, will be aghast at the thought that Wowlapalooza is claiming that raping children is "natural". But that misses the point that I'm trying to make here; that viewing a complex, multi-variable issue like protecting children from abuse, from one limited, academic perspective like "biological imperatives", is superficial, does a disservice to both sides of the debate, and can lead to surprising, perhaps even repugnant conclusions. This reductio ad absurdum is offered in direct opposition to circletimessquare's approach, to which I was directly responding.)

Google has a special "Cluefulness Test" when it comes to IPv6: http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/. In order to get IPv6 resolution, you need to register the source addresses of your nameservers with them, and claim/prove that you and your provider have "good" IPv6 connectivity to Google. You're also expected to troubleshoot any IPv6 problems that may occur, as opposed to your clueless users bugging Google directly about it.

If you don't meet those criteria, you're still welcome to use ipv6.google.com for searches, of course. But that's not the whole suite of Google tools/products, and the URL is just not as convenient...

• There's nothing gender-specific about the term "fanboy", really. It's a state of mind or -- as some may prefer to characterize it -- a mental defect.
• Yes, I know the meaning of the word "wench". A minor in English Lit takes cares of such details.
• I have long since abandoned the practice of trying to divine a person's actual gender from their username/screenname.
• Trade chat is usually sophmoric, inane, puerile, but it does have its moments, the occasional pearl amidst the swine. Kind of like Slashdot comments, really...

Nyhm fanboys are total losers and should stay far away from the Horde trade channel of Alleria, unless they're masochists looking for a fresh round of verbal abuse from us "locals". IMO, there should be an achievement for successfully driving clueless noobs from a server.

One derivation I found for the word "nacent" was Scottish "na-cent", i.e. "not a cent", i.e. poor.

I don't think the Slashdot article submitter meant to imply that ChromeOS was "poor". Methinks they meant "nascent". That would make a lot more sense (cents?)..

Halp! Halp! I'm being groomed online!

Oh, wait, I just remembered I'm a forty-something guy, instead of a 12-year-old girl. Maybe I just misinterpreted something somebody said, or maybe my luck is actually turning for the better...

, which is engaging and critically-important to the whole game experience, would we still call it a "video game" (a label I've never been fond of attaching to, say, RPGs)? Seems like "video game" refers to a game which is mainly about, er, the video. In this sense, it's an oxymoron to have a "video game" with a strong and central storyline.

Discuss

Well, we don't know for sure exactly what was said to this guy, that might have caused him to quit, but it might have amounted to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal. Don't get too hung up on who -- employer or employee -- formally initiated the "separation of employment", since oftentimes the law is actually capable of looking beyond formalities to the truth of the situation. It's quite possible that he was threatened with consequences that would have made his continued employment at the school unbearable and/or intolerable.

BZZZZZT! Wrong. That verbiage is found in the "Compliance with Legal Process" section, and it is stated previously that they would only disclose the information to "legal officials" if necessary for "Compliance with Legal Process". So, unless you want to argue that the network admin of the school qualifies as a "legal official", your point is invalid