|
Not knowing the details, it becomes difficult to analyze fully and fairly. Still, if you get a request in writing, from a superior, which would exculpate you from possible negligence for allegedly improperly divulging information, if that's what he truly believed, that should have alleviated the issue. Instead, from the outside, at least, it seemed as if he was unreasonably steadfast in his stance, despite pleas from the mayor (pre-jailhouse visit). It was as though he thought his interpretation of policy superseded the authority of the people or office who/which set out the policy. As I recall the events, it was almost as though he became a prisoner of his own doing. Once he made a stance, it become very difficult for him to back down. As if saving face was a very important aspect of the ordeal. Of course, that's just my personal projection, perhaps. Four years and 1.5 million is too harsh, in my view. Yet, he did deserve some punishment for his actions. |
>It was as though he thought his interpretation of policy superseded the authority of the people or office who/which set out the policy.
It's worse than that. According to the juror in the interview, there was no policy on who could get the passwords. So it wasn't a matter of interpretation; it was purely pulled out of his posterior data storage unit.
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2588689