6 ms·
My favorite thing about this case is how she bragged to her lead engineer she wouldn't go to prison, "“Don’t worry — I don’t want to end up in an orange jumpsui
by randycupertino 1y ago
My favorite thing about this case is how she bragged to her lead engineer she wouldn't go to prison, "“Don’t worry — I don’t want to end up in an orange jumpsuit" when she was trying to convince the engineer to fabricate their user data.
From the complaint:
> In particular, CC-1 and JAVICE asked Engineer-1 to supplement a list of Frank’s website visitors with additional data fields containing synthetic data.
> Engineer-1 was uncomfortable with the request and stated, in sum and substance,
“I don’t want to do anything illegal.” JAVICE and CC-1 claimed to Engineer-1 that it was legal. JAVICE stated to Engineer-1, in sum and substance, “We don’t want to end up in orange jumpsuits.” Engineer-1 declined the request from JAVICE and CC-1.
> shortly after Engineer-1 had declined the request to create a synthetic
data set—CHARLIE JAVICE, the defendant, contacted Scientist-1 and asked him to create the synthetic data set. In JAVICE’s communications with Scientist-1, she falsely represented that the data she provided to Scientist-1 was a random sample of a much larger database of Frank users.
> Also on or about August 3, 2021, JAVICE forwarded to Scientist-1 the Access Link
Email sent to her by Engineer-1. JAVICE wrote, “here is the link. will share credentials offline.” Based on Scientist-1’s communications with JAVICE, Scientist-1 understood that the data available via the Access Link Email—a data set of approximately 142,000 people—was a random sample of a larger database which contained data for approximately 4 million people.
source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1577861/dl https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1577861...
- ajross 1y ago> she bragged to her lead engineer she wouldn't go to prison So... obviously she was wrong. But the line between "just cutting a few corners" and prosecutable criminality isn't nearly as bright as we in the peanut gallery like to think. Lots of very successful startup launches (Uber and AirBnB are famous examples) were kinda/sorta/prettymuch illegal by the plain language of the laws they were (not) operating under. And they got stinking rich! PG himself has an example in one of the very early essays about how Viaweb kinda just skipped most of the early bureaucracy and accounting they were supposed to have been doing, figuring it would all just work out. And it did. Kids see those examples and figure that a little cheating here or there probably isn't going to send them to jail. And it usually doesn't. Except when it does. And the distinction, for a lot of people in this community and right here on this forum, is very much a "There but for the grace of God go I" phenomenon. Startup culture tells you to cheat, basically. Knowing how not to cheat isn't in the instruction manual.
- giancarlostoro 1y agoI guess it all depends on how you're cheating. Are you defrauding others in your cheating? Or are you just bypassing bureaucracy like not having a Taxi service license?
- ajross 1y agoPotato/potatoe. Existing taxi medallion holders were absolutely harmed by Uber. Existing licensed hotel operators were absolutely harmed by AirBnB. And we all celebrated that to great effect here. But it was breaking the rules. We just think THOSE rules were bad but THESE rules are good. Well, it's not our call to make, it's the prosecutors'. And you (yes, you personally) aren't nearly as insulated from this kind of risk as you think.
- Scaevolus 1y agoThe clear takeaway is to ensure that the people you are harming while breaking the law do not have an abundance of money and lawyers.
- giancarlostoro 1y agoDid they sue for damages? JP Morgan did not waste time.
- paxys 1y agoWhat was the fraud? Limo services were always allowed in NYC, and didn't have to abide by the medallion system. All Uber did was make it more efficient to find and book a Limo.
- saalweachter 1y agoLimo services are also regulated by the TLC in NYC. The rules are different between taxis and black cars, but there are still rules.
- 1y ago
- teraflop 1y agoOn top of everything else, Scientist-1 doesn't come off looking too good. He was contracted to make a synthetic dataset, based on a small set of records which were supposedly randomly sampled from a larger original dataset. He didn't really have any way of knowing he was being lied to at that point, or what his work would be used for. But when he invoiced $13k for his services, including a detailed breakdown of what he did, Javice came back and offered him an extra $5k if he would change the invoice to a one-liner that just said "data analysis services". And he immediately agreed. I find it hard to believe someone could get that request and not understand that they were being asked to be complicit in fraud. At best, it's really poor judgment.
- ilya_m 1y agoI am sure if she could pull the wool of JP Morgan's eyes, she could convince Scientist-1 that it was legit. "I want to expense it under Marketing not R&D, which would let us pay you more. My CPA's eyes glaze over, can you uplevel it?" or something
- teraflop 1y agoYou could imagine something like that happening, but from the email conversation quoted in the indictment, it doesn't seem like there was even a token attempt at justifying it.
- HWR_14 1y agoThat was after he generated the data. It's not like Scientist-1 could just not do the work at that point.
- dboreham 1y agoI've done consulting work a bit like this. Being asked to change the invoice: consolidate lines and change the description, is very common. If I were asked to do that I'd just do it, without questioning the reason. Being asked to do that in exchange for extra money is...very odd. Like she did something completely unnecessary that signals wrongdoing. Was she trying to get caught?
- 1y ago
- ryandrake 1y agoThis is why, as an engineer, it seems futile to make an ethical stand against something. They'll just find someone else to do it. Early in my career I was asked to write code to cheat a benchmark, essentially to make it seem our software performed better than it really did. I agonized over it because I was a junior developer just starting out my career, and eventually got the courage to tell my manager I wouldn't do it. He said, that's OK and then assigned it to Bob, three cubicles down who didn't have any problem with it and finished the cheat in a few days.
- mwambua 1y agoThe ethical stand serves the dual purpose of: a) trying to make sure the company does the right thing, and b) avoiding liability. Seems like Engineer-1 failed at stopping her, but managed to avoid taking any blame at the end of the day.
- titanomachy 1y agoIt's worth it just for sleeping better at night.
- lemonlearnings 1y agoMattresses tend to be better at home than in prisons
- dboreham 1y agoGaming a benchmark seems pretty small beer to be honest. Usually such things are presented with small print that tips off the customer, who will do their own benchmarks if they are not dumb. Perhaps better to draw the line at things that are potentially illegal or break some obvious fiduciary duty.
- xnorswap 1y ago> Gaming a benchmark seems pretty small beer to be honest Not if the benchmark is "What emissions does your diesel engine produce?"
- duxup 1y agoReminds me of the old "I did not go to jail" story: https://a16z.com/why-i-did-not-go-to-jail/ https://a16z.com/why-i-did-not-go-to-jail/ Sometimes getting outside advice is a good idea.
- lemonlearnings 1y agoNice. Find accomplices by leveraging the power gradient of employment. Giving them legal advice to boot. Think that should add more time. It's an evil thing to do.