I'm not "siding" with anyone. I'm pointing out how this story leads organizations -- including organizations that have no desire to be criminal -- to steer clea

I'm not "siding" with anyone. I'm pointing out how this story leads organizations -- including organizations that have no desire to be criminal -- to steer clear of this individual. Cheap rhetoric by the peanut gallery about how eager they would be to hire this person rings incredibly hollow. So I guess their job problems are solved. Quite aside from what looks like a gross abuse of access (again, and maybe the article is representing it wrong, but I'm pointing out why the article does them no favors), which itself is ironically criminal, society in general looks unfavorably on "tattle tales" for a reason. If you didn't cross all t's and dot all i's when creating your DR strategy, will they call the BSA on you? If a painter's van partly blocks a handicap space, will they report you to the city? Etc. Everyone breaks the law to some degree. If this person were your passenger on a commute and they called 911 to report that you were 10 over, would you say "Well that's fair. I understand why they don't side with the criminal.". Again, my core point is how this article does them no favors.