• @GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    03 months ago

    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”

    • @turmacar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      33 months ago

      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.

      • @Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        23 months ago

        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.

        • @turmacar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          23 months ago

          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.