9 ms·

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 gov

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?

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?