I get the feeling that Terry Childs subscribed to this theory, and at some point felt that there was nobody else that could be trusted to understand what he had built. As the lone CCIE, he was apparently well beyond his peers in skills and knowledge, and felt that he, and only he, could handle what he had created. Of course, this should have been noticed by his colleagues and dealt with by his superiors, but it obviously wasn't. If it was widely known that he was the only one with the logins to the FiberWAN network, then I find it very disturbing that this particular problem hadn't been solved well before now.
Also at issue is the way that the city dealt with the problem once it finally noticed. Generally speaking, you don't have your highest-level network administrator jailed for computer tampering if no actual damage has been done. Even a civil proceeding seems harsh given the circumstances, but to bring criminal charges? Unless there are large parts of this story still to be told, that seems like a very extreme measure to take for what appears to be simple insubordination. I would also think it unadvisable to make public statements claiming "millions of dollars" in damages and consistently confusing the network with the services, applications and data that ride on top of it.
To reiterate the technical details as I understand them, the city's network is functioning normally. There are some number of network devices that cannot be accessed by administrators, but all of the applications, data, and services that the network supports are fully operational. I want to make this perfectly clear: The actions of Terry Childs do not appear to have caused any disruption in normal operation of any city resources. Obviously the lack of access is a significant problem, but it is not impairing the normal functions of the city at this time.
However, I have received some more information that may change a few minds. It may be the case that Childs did in fact modify the logins for other routers and switches within the city network, not just those under his direct purview. If this is true, and he did this in order to prove a point or in retribution for some perceived wrong, then the case may take on a different light. I have no hard proof of this one way or the other, and my original source has been silent, presumably due to the publicity surrounding this case and this story.
This brings me to my questions. I have quite a few: