4 ms·

The guy was ... taking his software to another firm where he was going to make well over $1m a year. That's the takeaway Goldman would like you to have -- that

The guy was ... taking his software to another firm where he was going to make well over $1m a year. That's the takeaway Goldman would like you to have -- that he was "making off with the crown jewels." Unfortunately, it was basically a concoction: turns out the code he took was quite innocuous, and offered no special business advantage. Yet out of either incompetence or vindictiveness, Goldman proffered the line that he had taken the "crown jewels". And that he should be hauled to jail, and have his reputation ruined and his marriage destroyed for it.

melling 12y ago
I don't know the importance of the code he stole. Can you post links? You're just providing your opinion. All I know for sure is that a very smart programmer who worked at a firm where he knew his systems were monitored, felt the need to take the code with him to his next job. He did try to cover his tracks, right? Seems like a lot of effort and risk for "innocuous code".
- dreamweapon 12y ago
  You're just providing your opinion. Umm, no. It was the opinion of the court that ordered his conviction reversed, as well as of the court that rejected the appeal to have his charged re-tried. From WP: On June 20, 2014, upon reviewing the evidence, Justice Ronald Zweibel published a 71-page opinion in which the court ruled that F.B.I. “did not have probable cause to arrest defendant, let alone search him or his home.” The arrest was “illegal,” and Mr. Aleynikov’s “Fourth Amendment rights were violated as a result of a mistake of law.” Really now -- it's not too hard to find information about important events (before simply making up facts about them), these days. You should give it a try sometime.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    That says nothing about the importance of the code. The arrest was illegal because the FBI didn't follow proper procedures (getting warrants, etc), not because of his innocence or lack of thereof, which wasn't decided upon.
    - dreamweapon 12y ago
      His innocence "wasn't decided upon"? Per the 2012 appellate court decision that freed him, "his conduct did not constitute an offense under either statute" for which he was charged. It's hard to find a clearer statement of innocence than that -- which is why the judge ordered that his conviction be reversed, and that he be immediately released.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        His innocence "wasn't decided upon"? I meant on the court order you mentioned. Per the 2012 appellate court decision that freed him, "his conduct did not constitute an offense under either statute" for which he was charged. It's hard to find a clearer statement of innocence than that -- which is why the judge ordered that his conviction be reversed, and that he be immediately released. You're confusing the issues. The 2012 decision was a federal court, the 2014 decision was a NY State court, where he was charged under a different law. The two are unrelated. In a related note, the only reason he was freed in 2012 was because the system from where he copied the code wasn't developed for interstate and/or international purposes - it had nothing to do with the code being unimportant. That was considered an oversight of the law, and Congress in response of his appeal has since changed it, so had he done the same now, he wouldn't have been released.
        dreamweapon 12y ago
        I meant on the court order you mentioned. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully, then.
        icebraining 12y ago
        While that is true generally, I don't agree in this particular case; I think context made it clear. Furthermore, it's factually true - he hasn't been ruled innocent (or rather, not guilty) of the crimes he is accused as of 2014, which are not the same as those from 2012.
  - melling 12y ago
    And what I said stands. The rules are well-defined and easy to follow. The guy knew he was doing something wrong. In general when committing a white-collar crime, better consider where you're doing it. Building a git repo and sneaking it out of the company could lead to a lot of pain. But hey, if you're an honest person, maybe you'll be a good fit. By the way, I'm not arguing for/against what happened to him once he crossed the line. I'm merely pointing out that he did knowingly cross a legal line, which as we know can get quite messy.
    - dreamweapon 12y ago
      The guy knew he was doing something wrong. It seems you don't quite understand how our justice system actually works. We don't just put people in jail because we feel that they "did something wrong." We have to prove that their conduct violated specific statutes. The courts found that in Alyenikov's case, it did not. Not only that: even as alleged, it did not violate the statutes under which he was accused.
      - melling 12y ago
        I'm arguing that he knowingly committed a crime and you're arguing that the actions and punishment were too severe. Not sure how we're going to come together on that one. My only advice is don't commit the crime in the first place l because it might turn out to be more than you bargained for. Also, please follow up with the others who are correcting you. You seem to be confusing the facts. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8609023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8609023 That's why its best if you use links for references in your claims. It's really starting to sound like some guy committed white-collar crime and got off on a technicality.
        dreamweapon 12y ago
        I'm arguing that he knowingly committed a crime and you're arguing that the actions and punishment were too severe. Not sure how we're going to come together on that one. No, I'm just pointing out to you that the courts found that he did not commit a crime, and that the FBI acted too aggressively. What you do with that information is up to you. We certainly don't have to be on the same page about it.
- chrisbennet 12y ago
  He did try to cover his tracks, right? Seems like a lot of effort and risk for "innocuous code". No, he did not try to "cover his tracks". He was clearing his bash history because it also had his password. I'm not a Linux guy so I don't know details.
  - dreamweapon 12y ago
    That's my recollection from the original VF article, yes. And yes, his explanation was perfectly plausible. If I were in charge of loss prevention at GS, I'd be more worried about folks who don't clear their shell history when sensitive passwords are used.
- chrisbennet 12y ago
  He did try to cover his tracks, right? Seems like a lot of effort and risk for "innocuous code". No, he did not try to "cover his tracks". He was clearing his bash history because it also had his password. I'm not a Linux guy so I don't know details.

melling 12y ago

I don't know the importance of the code he stole. Can you post links? You're just providing your opinion. All I know for sure is that a very smart programmer who worked at a firm where he knew his systems were monitored, felt the need to take the code with him to his next job. He did try to cover his tracks, right? Seems like a lot of effort and risk for "innocuous code".

dreamweapon 12y ago
You're just providing your opinion. Umm, no. It was the opinion of the court that ordered his conviction reversed, as well as of the court that rejected the appeal to have his charged re-tried. From WP: On June 20, 2014, upon reviewing the evidence, Justice Ronald Zweibel published a 71-page opinion in which the court ruled that F.B.I. “did not have probable cause to arrest defendant, let alone search him or his home.” The arrest was “illegal,” and Mr. Aleynikov’s “Fourth Amendment rights were violated as a result of a mistake of law.” Really now -- it's not too hard to find information about important events (before simply making up facts about them), these days. You should give it a try sometime.
- icebraining 12y ago
  That says nothing about the importance of the code. The arrest was illegal because the FBI didn't follow proper procedures (getting warrants, etc), not because of his innocence or lack of thereof, which wasn't decided upon.
  - dreamweapon 12y ago
    His innocence "wasn't decided upon"? Per the 2012 appellate court decision that freed him, "his conduct did not constitute an offense under either statute" for which he was charged. It's hard to find a clearer statement of innocence than that -- which is why the judge ordered that his conviction be reversed, and that he be immediately released.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      His innocence "wasn't decided upon"? I meant on the court order you mentioned. Per the 2012 appellate court decision that freed him, "his conduct did not constitute an offense under either statute" for which he was charged. It's hard to find a clearer statement of innocence than that -- which is why the judge ordered that his conviction be reversed, and that he be immediately released. You're confusing the issues. The 2012 decision was a federal court, the 2014 decision was a NY State court, where he was charged under a different law. The two are unrelated. In a related note, the only reason he was freed in 2012 was because the system from where he copied the code wasn't developed for interstate and/or international purposes - it had nothing to do with the code being unimportant. That was considered an oversight of the law, and Congress in response of his appeal has since changed it, so had he done the same now, he wouldn't have been released.
      - dreamweapon 12y ago
        I meant on the court order you mentioned. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully, then.
        icebraining 12y ago
        While that is true generally, I don't agree in this particular case; I think context made it clear. Furthermore, it's factually true - he hasn't been ruled innocent (or rather, not guilty) of the crimes he is accused as of 2014, which are not the same as those from 2012.
- melling 12y ago
  And what I said stands. The rules are well-defined and easy to follow. The guy knew he was doing something wrong. In general when committing a white-collar crime, better consider where you're doing it. Building a git repo and sneaking it out of the company could lead to a lot of pain. But hey, if you're an honest person, maybe you'll be a good fit. By the way, I'm not arguing for/against what happened to him once he crossed the line. I'm merely pointing out that he did knowingly cross a legal line, which as we know can get quite messy.
  - dreamweapon 12y ago
    The guy knew he was doing something wrong. It seems you don't quite understand how our justice system actually works. We don't just put people in jail because we feel that they "did something wrong." We have to prove that their conduct violated specific statutes. The courts found that in Alyenikov's case, it did not. Not only that: even as alleged, it did not violate the statutes under which he was accused.
    - melling 12y ago
      I'm arguing that he knowingly committed a crime and you're arguing that the actions and punishment were too severe. Not sure how we're going to come together on that one. My only advice is don't commit the crime in the first place l because it might turn out to be more than you bargained for. Also, please follow up with the others who are correcting you. You seem to be confusing the facts. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8609023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8609023 That's why its best if you use links for references in your claims. It's really starting to sound like some guy committed white-collar crime and got off on a technicality.
      - dreamweapon 12y ago
        I'm arguing that he knowingly committed a crime and you're arguing that the actions and punishment were too severe. Not sure how we're going to come together on that one. No, I'm just pointing out to you that the courts found that he did not commit a crime, and that the FBI acted too aggressively. What you do with that information is up to you. We certainly don't have to be on the same page about it.
chrisbennet 12y ago
He did try to cover his tracks, right? Seems like a lot of effort and risk for "innocuous code". No, he did not try to "cover his tracks". He was clearing his bash history because it also had his password. I'm not a Linux guy so I don't know details.
- dreamweapon 12y ago
  That's my recollection from the original VF article, yes. And yes, his explanation was perfectly plausible. If I were in charge of loss prevention at GS, I'd be more worried about folks who don't clear their shell history when sensitive passwords are used.
chrisbennet 12y ago
He did try to cover his tracks, right? Seems like a lot of effort and risk for "innocuous code". No, he did not try to "cover his tracks". He was clearing his bash history because it also had his password. I'm not a Linux guy so I don't know details.