

Why Mahalo employed a felon hacker - azharcs
http://calacanis.com/2009/03/05/why-i-employed-a-felon/

======
tptacek
There are things that I don't understand about this story.

I don't understand why Calacanis' choice was between firing his trusted CTO
and retaining a convicted computer felon.

I don't understand how Mahalo could have checked any reference, let alone 3-5,
and not found out that Schiefer is one of the most famous computer felons in
California.

I don't understand why Calacanis is characterizing something that Schiefer did
in 2005, in his mid-20's, as the actions of a "stupid kid".

I don't understand how Calacanis arrives at his estimation that Schiefer did
only 0.0000001% of the damage he could have with his botnet. Schiefer stole
random Paypal accounts and used them to buy things, and passed stolen Paypal
accounts on to his acquaintances. What's the "worse" thing you can do with a
botnet? At least the DDoS extortion botnets target gambling sites, and not
your mom.

For that matter, I don't understand how Calacanis can equate what Schiefer did
to the dumb things lots of teenagers do on computer networks (and, for that
matter, on conference room floors). Schiefer wasn't a "hacker". He's a carder.

(As a side-note to Calacanis: sniffing people's passwords at conferences? Also
illegal!)

Calacanis says Schiefer was supervised in his work at Mahalo. Is there someone
who isn't supervised there? I don't understand how Mahalo believes they had
the capability to supervise someone who can manage a 250,000-host botnet.

Unfortunately, I do understand why Calacanis thinks he doesn't handle
sensitive information. He doesn't see the link between tens of thousands of
email-password pairs and those people's bank accounts. Just a wild guess, but
I'm thinking the guy who steals the Paypal accounts out of bot-infected
Windows boxes can make that leap.

This is just such a weird post. I guess I can understand not seeing
"contrition". But Calacanis seems proud that this happened. It's just head-
explody weird.

~~~
dag
Re: "choice was between firing his trusted..."

Option 1: fire him (good PR), 2: Fire him and fire the guy who hired him
(overkill PR stunt), 3: keep both (bad PR)

------
whatsreal
Calacanis' reaction is an interesting one. As he states himself it was the
risky, not socially acceptable, decision to make. His telling of the story
makes it seem that he made the right decision. I would agree. A little grace,
which by definition can only be shown to someone completely unworthy of it, is
encouraging. I am fascinated by my own reaction when I read stories like this.
Why is it that justice waived produces such a positive response in me? I think
it is because my experience shows that I too need grace more often than not.
Whether its something as small as being allowed to turn in an assignment late,
or a boss who overlooks a broken rule that they had every right to enforce, I
need a measure of grace on an almost daily basis. So to Mr. Calacanis: Thank
you for reminding us that there is grace out there when we need it.

------
nihilocrat
I'm sad to think that they would have cut him out of the process if they had
known.

I sort of hate our culture which demonizes anyone who has ever been prosecuted
by the justice system and quickly shuffles them into a corner of "people who
we can't legally round up and gas but are just as worthless". It's really
unhealthy to think that decent, worthwhile people can't ever make mistakes in
judgement (and learn from them!) and to presume that the law is always morally
correct. It's really a great disservice to the idea that we are trying to
rehabilitate people.

~~~
tptacek
Rehabilitate people? He was sentenced _this week_. The investigation started
in 2005; he didn't even cop a plea until 2007. I'm all for rehabilitation, but
if you can't make a judgement call not to put a convicted computer felon in a
sysadmin role when he's still pending sentencing, when can you? The relativism
here is just dizzying.

~~~
nihilocrat
This particular case makes sense, it's the same as not hiring someone because
they are definitely going to have to quit relatively soon, especially if they
knowingly withheld that information. However, the article and its title
strongly suggest that if he were an ex-convict, they would have cut him out of
the process with no second thoughts. Of course all ex-cons are subhuman
murderous animals!

That's what I'm really annoyed about, so maybe this situation really just
doesn't fit, but I still felt it had to be said.

~~~
Tichy
When do you know that somebody can be trusted again? Serious question - I am
not sure about the best way to go about it.

A spontaneous feeling would be that maybe someone should earn the trust
somehow, so I wouldn't necessarily simply put them in a position where they
can do the same things they did before. (Like not employing child abusers in
child care). Anyway, it is hard to tell without knowing more about the person
in question.

~~~
cellis
Trust: hard to earn, easy to lose and impossible to get back.

~~~
wynand
That's a problem with our society.

One can only have a morally superior attitude that denies the restoration of
trust if you imagine that you'll never make a mistake.

------
henning
Turning a hiring mistake into linkbait -- you stay classy, JCal.

~~~
allocativeeffic
Ok, that was completely unjustified. How did he turn it into "linkbait"? He
has stopped blogging except for the occasional post which he deems enough to
re-post to his blog. It seemed like a very insightful entry showing compassion
and understanding for others -- something your comment was not.

~~~
henning
Oh, please. Jason Calacanis does not need my compassion.

It seemed clear to me that the title was deliberately worded to be
provocative. This is a common characteristic of linkbait.

Given Calacanis' past history of search engine spamming, I'm far less
forgiving with him than I would be with someone else. Forgive me for
"misinterpreting" his intent.

------
cmos
Actually, people with a criminal past (or general oddities that are looked
down upon by corporate americal) are often a good choice for a small startup
trying to save money. My company often would be someone's 'opportunity' to
prove themselves after a major setback in life.

They are motivated, willing to work for cheap, and appreciate the opportunity
so much more than someone 'willing to take a paycut' to join your startup. And
when times get tough they will be your most loyal employees.

In a startup where cash is tight and the outlook is 'hazy', an employees
loyalty is priceless.

~~~
comatose_kid
'My company': Care to share which company that would be?

------
jonknee
Humorous that a search company doesn't run a search on their hires but still
believes they have a "rigorous hiring process".

------
ObieJazz
The whole story looks like it's been voted down to -2. The low contrast line
needs to be drawn somewhere.

~~~
unexpected
Seriously. I'm tired of this. Does anyone know of a Greasemonkey script that
can turn all low contrast into black?

Calcanis just took years away from my eyes with that color.

~~~
acangiano
Readability: <http://lab.arc90.com/2009/03/readability.php>

------
Tichy
Not that I am against giving people a second chance (and hey, abused youth and
all), but to explain it by saying we are all criminals anyway so it is no
biggie doesn't really raise my level of trust.

~~~
tptacek
Every year, more than 130,000 people are convicted on felony charges for basic
drug possession, a crime that hurts nobody and which is by a commanding
majority of surveyed public opinion regarded as a crime that should not
actually be a crime. All of these people are going to fail the criminal
background checks applied across a good swath of the Fortune 500.

That's a clear injustice.

Is this?

~~~
ojbyrne
I think Google is in the fortune 500. Anyway they seem to go out of their way
to not treat basic drug possession as a black mark. I interviewed there, and
on the application form they had a question like "Have you ever been convicted
of a crime (do not include basic drug possession)?"

~~~
tptacek
It's good to know Google is reasonable about this, but you should consider
that the overwhelming majority of possession arrests/convictions are
misdemeanors. But the ONDCP had a breakdown (from several years ago) of
_felony_ convictions for possession; over 130,000. Companies are probably less
tolerant of felonies.

------
ilamont
I wonder if he feels differently about point #16 in his famous "How to save
money running a startup" ( [http://calacanis.com/2008/03/07/how-to-save-money-
running-a-...](http://calacanis.com/2008/03/07/how-to-save-money-running-a-
startup-17-really-good-tips/) ) from last year:

16) Don’t waste money on recruiters. Get inside of linkedin and Facebook and
start looking for people -- it works better anyway.

~~~
anthonyrubin
Have you dealt with many recruiters? I seriously doubt that most recruiters
would have done a better job in this situation.

~~~
eli
Second that. It's a miracle if the recruiter has actually read the entire
resume (beyond searching for keywords)

------
okeumeni
Bravo Jason, I’m glad you let John keep his job; we need more understanding
and forgiveness in this society. We’re all human we all make mistake.

Just one question, Why use John real name in your post? That is one more
Google entry into poor John record book.

------
vaksel
how can you skip doing a Google search when you are employing someone?

~~~
barredo
The only reason is because it was 1997 when they hired him

~~~
jsrfded
Mahalo was founded in 2007.

~~~
barredo
I was making a joke... you know... with Google not-existing back in 1997 :-(

------
dawie
Knowingly having a hacker in an organization is a very difficult predicament.
Yes people should be given a second chance, but is it worth all the possible
negative press. I would not have kept him on. I don't know the guys though.

~~~
cookiecaper
I don't think that your incorrect usage of "hacker" is going to win many good
feelings here on "Hacker News".

~~~
tptacek
Rekindling the "hacker" vs. "cracker" debate will probably earn you even fewer
good feelings.

------
utnick
I know 'innocent until proven guilty' and all that, but I'm still pretty
surprised that a judge would allow someone who is about to go on trial for
computer fraud and hacking find work at a computer company and use the
internet.

~~~
jpd
Are shoplifters banned from shopping?

~~~
calvin
In many cases they are banned from the stores where they shoplifted -- both by
the company explicitly, and sometimes restraining orders are filed with the
local municipality.

------
Paul_Johnson
Not running a Google search on a job candidate is actually a reasonable thing
to do. The fact that the name matches with a felon, or that people have posted
nasty accusations, is no evidence of anything.

------
tptacek
Has this story hit TechCrunch yet? It's huge news everywhere else.

