←back to thread

988 points heavyset_go | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
tptacek ◴[] No.45261951[source]
For whatever it's worth, the Reddit story here says that the federal courts used "fraudulent warrants to jail my husband again". Maybe! The other side of that story, via PACER, is a detailed parole violation warrant (you can hear the marshal refer to it in the video); the violations in that warrant:

1. Admitting to using cannabis during supervised release

2. Failing to make scheduled restitution payments and to cooperate with the financial investigation that sets restitution payment amounts.

3. Falling out of contact with his probation officer, who attempted home visits to find him.

4. Opening several new lines of credit.

5. Using an unauthorized iPhone (all his Internet devices apparently have keyloggers as a condition of his release).

These read like kind of standard parole terms? I don't know what the hell happened to get him into this situation in the first place, though.

replies(13): >>45261987 #>>45262004 #>>45262031 #>>45262032 #>>45262053 #>>45262096 #>>45262107 #>>45262359 #>>45262427 #>>45262489 #>>45262691 #>>45263190 #>>45263322 #
tptacek ◴[] No.45262053[source]
OK, I think I found the original thing Rockenhaus was convicted of.

Back in 2014, Rockenhaus worked for a travel booking company. He was fired. He used stale VPN access to connect back to the company's infrastructure, and then detached a SCSI LUN from the server cluster, crashing it. The company, not knowing he was involved, retained him to help diagnose and fix the problem. During the investigation, the company figured out he caused the crash, and terminated him again. He then somehow gained access to their disaster recovery facility and physically fucked up a bunch of servers. They were down a total of about 30 days and incurred $500k in losses.

(He plead this case out, so these are I guess uncontested claims).

replies(12): >>45262123 #>>45262144 #>>45262161 #>>45262367 #>>45262384 #>>45262386 #>>45262724 #>>45262818 #>>45262976 #>>45263837 #>>45263945 #>>45264601 #
kstrauser ◴[] No.45262386[source]
Good grief. This is also part of the reason why I have a pact with my coworkers: if I’m terminated, kill my access immediately and universally, and I’ll do the same for them. I don’t even want to have the ability to look at stuff anymore. Remove any shred of possibility that I could get into shenanigans later.
replies(3): >>45262488 #>>45262671 #>>45263176 #
dsr_ ◴[] No.45262488[source]
That shouldn't require a pact, that should be part of the standard check list for ending employment. (The list is longer for those who have root, but it should still be a list.)
replies(1): >>45262758 #
kstrauser ◴[] No.45262758[source]
For sure, and I’m often the one who makes the list, and one with root. But the big thing is to do it quickly, like within the hour, and diligently. Don’t say, oh, I’ll give him a chance to access his email and download stuff, or whatever. No! Like, cut me off completely right now.

Then, if something breaks down the road, there’s no temptation for them to wonder if I had anything to do with that weird failure.

(And obviously, don’t freaking hack your ex employers! But also don’t even leave the impression that you could.)

replies(2): >>45264025 #>>45264073 #
terminalshort ◴[] No.45264025[source]
I agree with the overall point. (And WTH would you ever have things you need to download in your work email?) But there's not an employer I have ever left that I couldn't have done extensive damage to without any permissions at all. Not that I would ever add a felony charge to even the most bitter firing, but I could.
replies(2): >>45264265 #>>45264550 #
1. nerdsniper ◴[] No.45264550{3}[source]
> And WTH would you ever have things you need to download in your work email?

Because you got a university email as a student 20-30 years ago back when .edu emails were "for life". Then you started working at the university as a staff-person under the same email. Then 20-30 years later you're leaving, and much of your digital identity is inextricably linked to that old "personal" email.

replies(1): >>45269061 #
2. terminalshort ◴[] No.45269061[source]
There was a time when I could be sympathetic to that, but it's long past.