3 ms·
How do you know that he intended to interfere with the company's ability to do business? Sure, that's what the FBI said (channeled, presumably, from YouSendIt)
by snowmaker 15y ago
How do you know that he intended to interfere with the company's ability to do business? Sure, that's what the FBI said (channeled, presumably, from YouSendIt), but he could have just been running apache benchmark as a simple test to see how the server would respond.
In fact, the allegation doesn't really make sense, because as the former CTO, if he had really wanted to interfere with the company's ability to do business, you'd think he could have found much better ways to do so. Logging in and deleting the company's data, turning employees/investors against them, or writing negative articles about them would have had a far greater consequence on their business than running an apache benchmark program.
To be clear, I'm not claiming to know what happened; I'm just saying that this press release is a deeply one-sided view of the story, and that the situation smells funny.
- tomkarlo 15y agoWell, at this point, that's what he himself has said, since it was a guilty plea. Presumably he had to admit not just his actions but his intent / malice.
- enjo 15y agoWhile I tend to agree with you that he likely did something malicious, a guilty plea in this day and age doesn't really tell you that. He may have been taking a plea bargain out of fear of much worse?
- Stormbringer 15y agoThe problem with pleading guilty, is that then everyone thinks that you're guilty.
- tomkarlo 15y agoWhile he might have taken a plea to avoid a more serious charge, last time I checked you still have to be guilty of whatever lesser crime you're pleading to, as well. You're not allowed to make up a lesser crime in the name of bargaining down.