791
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
791 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
59312 readers
5261 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
As much as I love the sounds of that it seems like a good way to get arrested under some anti-hacking laws.
lol. you think any judge or jury is going to understand the nuances of how a kill switch works?
"did you implement a kill switch that harmed my clients interests?" -- "I have no idea what you're talking about, and furthermore had your client not broken anti-union laws and came to negotiations, staff could have been available to identify and resolve the issues your client allowed to happen through their own willful negligence."
The Judge and Jury don't have to know how a kill switch works. The Judge and Jury have to believe the expert testimony that one was placed and caused damage.
Sam Bankman Freed didn't get jail time because the judge and jury understood the nuances of cryptocurrency and financial scams.
I think the key here is intent. kill switch or not, proving you had the intent to harm is what you're found guilty of.
can't prove intent on code that's had all history wiped from it and sat in prod for several years.
"why does this code exist?" -- "IDK" "in your expert opinion why does this exist?" -- "I cannot express my expert opinion because of a lack of evidence"
That feels like a very... hopeful interpretation. Instead of "In my expert opinion there is no non-malicious use of this component, and SysadminX was the only one with possible access."
Intent is not always necessary, it depends on the charges.
Computer Forensics isn't a new discipline at this point. People have literally gone to jail for putting in kill switches. It's possible SysadminX is actually smarter than teams of people that are dissecting what happened after they were fired and is a real life Keyser Soze, but it's extremely unlikely.
Honestly, you don't have to create a kill switch. Most stuff will fall apart due to dependency on manual intervention. Usually because there isn't enough staff to automate it. Tech debt comes for everyone.
Ab-so-fucking-lutely.
For a job that requires a lot of reminding people "that's not your laptop, that's the companies' laptop", a lot of people get awful invested in "their servers". Just let it go.
I know their business decision, however misguided, was very personal. Prove their mistake, which they will never know or care about, by moving on to the next job. Not by trying to be the sub-villain in a B-movie.
Yes, I do think that.