9 ms·

While the article gives some background, here is a bit more from the wikipedia article about Sergey Aleynikov [1]: >Sergey Aleynikov is a former Goldman Sachs

by josu 12y ago

While the article gives some background, here is a bit more from the wikipedia article about Sergey Aleynikov [1]: >Sergey Aleynikov is a former Goldman Sachs computer programmer. In December 2010 he was wrongfully convicted of two counts of theft of trade secrets and sentenced to 97 months in prison. In February 2012 his conviction was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that entered a judgement of acquittal, reversing the decision of the District court. The main reason why he is suing the FBI is beacause: >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.”[2] Besides finding that he was arrested illegally without probable cause, the court blocked the majority of evidence passed by the F.B.I. to prosecutors at the NY State DA's office, as that property was supposed to be returned to Mr. Aleynikov upon his acquittal. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Aleynikov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Aleynikov [2] http://dealbook.nytimes.com//2014/06/20/judge-throws-out-evidence-in-sergey-aleynikovs-code-theft-case/ http://dealbook.nytimes.com//2014/06/20/judge-throws-out-evi...

lkurtz 12y ago
You mean Goldman calling up a friend at the FBI doesn't count as probable cause??
- hnnewguy 12y ago
  Goldman Sachs was entirely within their rights to contact the FBI if they believed proprietary information was stolen from them by an ex-employee. It's the government (read: FBI) that screwed up here, as is most often the case.
  - emodendroket 12y ago
    Well, yes, the problem isn't necessarily that they contact the authorities but that they apparently have their ears.
    - tertius 12y ago
      I personally think that large financial organizations should have this privilege given their role in the financial markets. They are prone to fraud and theft, i.e. a large target. Except if you have some information that I don't outside of the scope of my comment above.
      - kpil 12y ago
        Just because a bank says you're stealing doesn't make it so. Especially when the case relates to intellectual property, they have no special position in the society, and the crime may not be a crime but a civil case.
        hnnewguy 12y ago
        >Just because a bank says you're stealing doesn't make it so. Of course it doesn't. That's the job of the FBI and legal system to determine.
      - emodendroket 12y ago
        I think that's fine, but they shouldn't just take everything GS says on faith.
      - chrisbennet 12y ago
        Goldman ("given their role in the financial markets") is effectively above the law.
    - hnnewguy 12y ago
      >but that they apparently have their ears. How so? Anybody can contact the FBI. And when that "someone" happens to be a massive, multi-billion dollar bank reporting a "crime", then I sure hope that they have the FBI's ears.
      - emodendroket 12y ago
        Well, that was a poor choice of words, but what I mean is that I hope the FBI would exercise more skepticism when they receive a report like this.
  - SilasX 12y ago
    I've reported a crime to the relevant FBI division, in which I could point out exactly where the money was went (same city, local bank) and provide proof of the fraud. Action taken: none.
    - hnnewguy 12y ago
      >I've reported a crime Your unverifiable anecdote doesn't hold much weight, I'm afraid. But do you really believe random-guy calling the FBI should warrant as much attention as multi-national financial institution reporting a potential crime? People are complaining as if GS putting the FBI on people is rampant. As far as I'm aware it has happened this once (though I'm open to other tales) and an over-zealous investigator tried to make a name for himself and messed it up royally. I agree, what they did to this poor fellow is disgraceful, but let's not pretend that the justice system doesn't have a habit of railroading people when they desire a suspect. That's the real tragedy.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > But do you really believe random-guy calling the FBI should warrant as much attention as multi-national financial institution reporting a potential crime? Well, yeah, if corporations are people with equal rights, that means that the law should treat them equally to other people.
        sliverstorm 12y ago
        Right, so just like with people the famous rich one with a big reputation is lent more initial credence than the anonymous one you've never heard of. Or would you put just as much faith in Joe Programmer as you would in Steve Woz?
        SilasX 12y ago
        So you need to be the Steve Woz of crime victims before you should expect any law enforcement action whatsoever on a crime with an enormous paper trail?
- Someone1234 12y ago
  The US is a pretty strange place when Bank of America can literally break into someone's home, steal everything they own, and never suffer either financially or criminally, but all a corporation has to do is point their finger at an individual and that individual will be arrested and prosecuted. It also reminds me of the AT&T case where someone accessed records on public URLs and instead of AT&T getting a black eye for being so incompetent the dude went to jail. When will a corporation metaphorically go to jail? They steal, they lie, they cheat, they launder money, but yet they're always "too big to prosecute."
  - mattdotc 12y ago
    >the AT&T case where someone accessed records on public URLs For those not in the know, that someone was weev [1]. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#AT.26T_data_breach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#AT.26T_data_breach
    - NickNameNick 12y ago
      Weev is a dick, but what he did in that specific case shouldn't have been a interpreted as a crime, and I would have preferred his conviction be overturned on that basis, rather than the venue issue.
    - dredmorbius 12y ago
      That somebody was Jackson Games in 1993 somewhat earlier: http://www.sjgames.com/SS/topten.html http://www.sjgames.com/SS/topten.html (Not quite public URLs as the WWW was quite new at the time, but public information all the same.)
  - emodendroket 12y ago
    While I don't think weev should have gone to jail, I can't help but think there was a sense of "we have to get this guy for something," like locking up Al Capone for cheating on his taxes.
    - sp332 12y ago
ChuckMcM 12y ago
While I agree it was egregious I think people may be missing the point. The FBI is getting a huge black eye here, Goldman is already losing out. This is how our system works. Goldman over reached and through their efforts got this guy arrested. That they could do that, is a problem, but now everyone involved has been thoroughly spanked (with some bonus civil case spanking as well it seems). So the next time Goldman call's the FBI, they are going to be treated much more skeptically and the agents in charge are going to be unwilling to do anything based on Goldman's "word". Because the agents will remember this and they do not want to be the butt of interagency jokes, or up on civil liability.
- loopholeclosed 12y ago
  http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/215714/employee+rights+labour+relations/Understanding+The+New+Theft+Of+Trade+Secrets+Clarification+Act+Of+2012 http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/215714/employee+rights+... They've already "clarified" and "closed" that loophole. Next time, the programmer actually would go to jail.
  - ChuckMcM 12y ago
    In a meta sense I'm curious why you had to create a new account just to post this, although I know the position that the system we have in place actually does work [1] is unpopular. The system is messy, it doesn't travel in a straight line from broken to fixed, and it takes a lot of time and energy to get right. Consider Prohibition for a moment, it was freaking unconstitutional to drink for a while there. Yes it was broken, yes it got fixed. Just like Marijuana use is getting fixed, slowly, inexorably, fixed. Martin Luther King was jailed by a broken system, and slowly, over time, it has been getting fixed. You cannot see a tree grow, but it does. And many people cannot see that our system of governing is working, but it does. As long as you take the long view, it will. Believe that you are a helpless pawn and all is lost, and it won't. [1] Rights for same sex marriage anyone? Used strong encryption in email?
    - loopholeclosed 12y ago
      > In a meta sense I'm curious why you had to create a new account just to post this Events led me to conclude that using the same account consistently was a bad idea from an employment standpoint. It has nothing to do with this. It is just what I do now. Hell, the password for this account should be easy to guess if you start with the letter a and work your way to the right. > You cannot see a tree grow, but it does. And many people cannot see that our system of governing is working, but it does. As long as you take the long view, it will. Believe that you are a helpless pawn and all is lost, and it won't. It is my belief that wealthy people can (usually) get away with passing whatever crap they want through Congress. The only tool I have at my disposal is point out when this happens and hope people get outraged enough to do something. I'm confused why you view that with a belief that I'm helpless? P.s. Given that I basically gave away the password, this is the last time I'll use the account.

by josu 12y ago

lkurtz 12y ago

You mean Goldman calling up a friend at the FBI doesn't count as probable cause??

hnnewguy 12y ago
Goldman Sachs was entirely within their rights to contact the FBI if they believed proprietary information was stolen from them by an ex-employee. It's the government (read: FBI) that screwed up here, as is most often the case.
- emodendroket 12y ago
  Well, yes, the problem isn't necessarily that they contact the authorities but that they apparently have their ears.
  - tertius 12y ago
    I personally think that large financial organizations should have this privilege given their role in the financial markets. They are prone to fraud and theft, i.e. a large target. Except if you have some information that I don't outside of the scope of my comment above.
    - kpil 12y ago
      Just because a bank says you're stealing doesn't make it so. Especially when the case relates to intellectual property, they have no special position in the society, and the crime may not be a crime but a civil case.
      - hnnewguy 12y ago
        >Just because a bank says you're stealing doesn't make it so. Of course it doesn't. That's the job of the FBI and legal system to determine.
    - emodendroket 12y ago
      I think that's fine, but they shouldn't just take everything GS says on faith.
    - chrisbennet 12y ago
      Goldman ("given their role in the financial markets") is effectively above the law.
  - hnnewguy 12y ago
    >but that they apparently have their ears. How so? Anybody can contact the FBI. And when that "someone" happens to be a massive, multi-billion dollar bank reporting a "crime", then I sure hope that they have the FBI's ears.
    - emodendroket 12y ago
      Well, that was a poor choice of words, but what I mean is that I hope the FBI would exercise more skepticism when they receive a report like this.
- SilasX 12y ago
  I've reported a crime to the relevant FBI division, in which I could point out exactly where the money was went (same city, local bank) and provide proof of the fraud. Action taken: none.
  - hnnewguy 12y ago
    >I've reported a crime Your unverifiable anecdote doesn't hold much weight, I'm afraid. But do you really believe random-guy calling the FBI should warrant as much attention as multi-national financial institution reporting a potential crime? People are complaining as if GS putting the FBI on people is rampant. As far as I'm aware it has happened this once (though I'm open to other tales) and an over-zealous investigator tried to make a name for himself and messed it up royally. I agree, what they did to this poor fellow is disgraceful, but let's not pretend that the justice system doesn't have a habit of railroading people when they desire a suspect. That's the real tragedy.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > But do you really believe random-guy calling the FBI should warrant as much attention as multi-national financial institution reporting a potential crime? Well, yeah, if corporations are people with equal rights, that means that the law should treat them equally to other people.
      - sliverstorm 12y ago
        Right, so just like with people the famous rich one with a big reputation is lent more initial credence than the anonymous one you've never heard of. Or would you put just as much faith in Joe Programmer as you would in Steve Woz?
        SilasX 12y ago
        So you need to be the Steve Woz of crime victims before you should expect any law enforcement action whatsoever on a crime with an enormous paper trail?
Someone1234 12y ago
The US is a pretty strange place when Bank of America can literally break into someone's home, steal everything they own, and never suffer either financially or criminally, but all a corporation has to do is point their finger at an individual and that individual will be arrested and prosecuted. It also reminds me of the AT&T case where someone accessed records on public URLs and instead of AT&T getting a black eye for being so incompetent the dude went to jail. When will a corporation metaphorically go to jail? They steal, they lie, they cheat, they launder money, but yet they're always "too big to prosecute."
- mattdotc 12y ago
  >the AT&T case where someone accessed records on public URLs For those not in the know, that someone was weev [1]. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#AT.26T_data_breach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#AT.26T_data_breach
  - NickNameNick 12y ago
    Weev is a dick, but what he did in that specific case shouldn't have been a interpreted as a crime, and I would have preferred his conviction be overturned on that basis, rather than the venue issue.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    That somebody was Jackson Games in 1993 somewhat earlier: http://www.sjgames.com/SS/topten.html http://www.sjgames.com/SS/topten.html (Not quite public URLs as the WWW was quite new at the time, but public information all the same.)
- emodendroket 12y ago
  While I don't think weev should have gone to jail, I can't help but think there was a sense of "we have to get this guy for something," like locking up Al Capone for cheating on his taxes.
  - sp332 12y ago

ChuckMcM 12y ago

While I agree it was egregious I think people may be missing the point. The FBI is getting a huge black eye here, Goldman is already losing out. This is how our system works. Goldman over reached and through their efforts got this guy arrested. That they could do that, is a problem, but now everyone involved has been thoroughly spanked (with some bonus civil case spanking as well it seems). So the next time Goldman call's the FBI, they are going to be treated much more skeptically and the agents in charge are going to be unwilling to do anything based on Goldman's "word". Because the agents will remember this and they do not want to be the butt of interagency jokes, or up on civil liability.

loopholeclosed 12y ago
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/215714/employee+rights+labour+relations/Understanding+The+New+Theft+Of+Trade+Secrets+Clarification+Act+Of+2012 http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/215714/employee+rights+... They've already "clarified" and "closed" that loophole. Next time, the programmer actually would go to jail.
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  In a meta sense I'm curious why you had to create a new account just to post this, although I know the position that the system we have in place actually does work [1] is unpopular. The system is messy, it doesn't travel in a straight line from broken to fixed, and it takes a lot of time and energy to get right. Consider Prohibition for a moment, it was freaking unconstitutional to drink for a while there. Yes it was broken, yes it got fixed. Just like Marijuana use is getting fixed, slowly, inexorably, fixed. Martin Luther King was jailed by a broken system, and slowly, over time, it has been getting fixed. You cannot see a tree grow, but it does. And many people cannot see that our system of governing is working, but it does. As long as you take the long view, it will. Believe that you are a helpless pawn and all is lost, and it won't. [1] Rights for same sex marriage anyone? Used strong encryption in email?
  - loopholeclosed 12y ago
    > In a meta sense I'm curious why you had to create a new account just to post this Events led me to conclude that using the same account consistently was a bad idea from an employment standpoint. It has nothing to do with this. It is just what I do now. Hell, the password for this account should be easy to guess if you start with the letter a and work your way to the right. > You cannot see a tree grow, but it does. And many people cannot see that our system of governing is working, but it does. As long as you take the long view, it will. Believe that you are a helpless pawn and all is lost, and it won't. It is my belief that wealthy people can (usually) get away with passing whatever crap they want through Congress. The only tool I have at my disposal is point out when this happens and hope people get outraged enough to do something. I'm confused why you view that with a belief that I'm helpless? P.s. Given that I basically gave away the password, this is the last time I'll use the account.