5 ms·

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/215714/employee+rights+labour+relations/Understanding+The+New+Theft+Of+Trade+Secrets+Clarification+Act+Of+2012 http://www.m

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.
  - loopholeclosed 12y ago
    Upon further reflection, maybe I should just keep using it. Demonstrating that multiple people could have access to the account makes an excellent case for plausible deniability. In the right circumstances a court could compel HN to distinguish between these users (or at least, prove that the "multiple" aspect is a fiction), but the existence of doubt minimalizes the professional risk. This feels like about the right level of security for unpopular political meta-comments of this sort.
    - gandalfu 12y ago
      So you claim!
      - loopholeclosed 12y ago
        I agree with them. Whoever they happen to be!
    - loopholeclosed 12y ago
      Ah, but are we paranoid or in possession of multiple personalities? Then again, the risk of a court is never really a risk. This is perfectly legal. :P
      - loopholeclosed 12y ago
        >Ah, but are we paranoid or in possession of multiple personalities? Maybe for the former, the latter is true without a doubt.
  - ChuckMcM 12y ago
    > It is my belief that wealthy people can (usually) > get away with passing whatever crap they want > through Congress. And you will get a lot of reinforcement of that belief from a variety of sources. That said, the belief doesn't preclude non-wealthy people from getting away with passing whatever crap they want, it just says "People who engage with Congress, (usually) get away with passing what ever crap they want." If you are wondering how to "engage with Congress" the easy way is during election season but you can also visit them in Washington or at their office in your district. While some districts are quite gerrymandered by their nature the local office is often within driving distance. They also host fund raisers and that while there are some expensive ones, there are also cheap ones (like $25 or $50 a "plate") since every dollar counts in a war chest. You can meet their staff at these (often quite accessible) and if you're at all reasonable develop something of a "relationship" with your elected representative. And even if you dislike their point of view until the next go-round they are your representative. If you talk with other donors at the event you may find other donors who share your point of view on a particular issue and with some persuasion you may be able to develop a coalition of donors who think like you do, bringing even more attention to your issues. Politics is people, and it is always local. You don't need to be wealthy to get access, you just need to be reasonable.
- srj 12y ago
  I would argue that it's not working in this case. A company was harmed financially so let them sue him. It does not need to be a criminal matter.
spinlock 12y ago
These seem to be 2 separate points. The original post said that he was exonerated because the FBI didn't have probable cause to search him. The article you linked said he was exonerated because the statute didn't cover HFT systems. I guess that makes sense if the reason the FBI didn't have probably cause was because they should have known that, even if everything Goldman alleged, he still wouldn't have broken any laws.
- loopholeclosed 12y ago
  That seems to be the opinion espoused in the article. It was legal due to a "loophole". > I guess that makes sense if the reason the FBI didn't have probably cause was because they should have known that, even if everything Goldman alleged, he still wouldn't have broken any laws. From the article: > On December 28, 2012, President Obama enacted the Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012, which clarifies the scope of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-39). The newly enacted amendments are intended to reverse the recent Second Circuit decision in United States v. Aleynikov, 676 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2012). The only way that statement makes sense is if the author believed that the FBI failed due to a lack of the acts alleged by Goldman Sachs being a crime. Imo, anyway.
  - spinlock 12y ago
    I think you're right. That's the only consistent way to read this anyway.

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.
- loopholeclosed 12y ago
  Upon further reflection, maybe I should just keep using it. Demonstrating that multiple people could have access to the account makes an excellent case for plausible deniability. In the right circumstances a court could compel HN to distinguish between these users (or at least, prove that the "multiple" aspect is a fiction), but the existence of doubt minimalizes the professional risk. This feels like about the right level of security for unpopular political meta-comments of this sort.
  - gandalfu 12y ago
    So you claim!
    - loopholeclosed 12y ago
      I agree with them. Whoever they happen to be!
  - loopholeclosed 12y ago
    Ah, but are we paranoid or in possession of multiple personalities? Then again, the risk of a court is never really a risk. This is perfectly legal. :P
    - loopholeclosed 12y ago
      >Ah, but are we paranoid or in possession of multiple personalities? Maybe for the former, the latter is true without a doubt.
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  > It is my belief that wealthy people can (usually) > get away with passing whatever crap they want > through Congress. And you will get a lot of reinforcement of that belief from a variety of sources. That said, the belief doesn't preclude non-wealthy people from getting away with passing whatever crap they want, it just says "People who engage with Congress, (usually) get away with passing what ever crap they want." If you are wondering how to "engage with Congress" the easy way is during election season but you can also visit them in Washington or at their office in your district. While some districts are quite gerrymandered by their nature the local office is often within driving distance. They also host fund raisers and that while there are some expensive ones, there are also cheap ones (like $25 or $50 a "plate") since every dollar counts in a war chest. You can meet their staff at these (often quite accessible) and if you're at all reasonable develop something of a "relationship" with your elected representative. And even if you dislike their point of view until the next go-round they are your representative. If you talk with other donors at the event you may find other donors who share your point of view on a particular issue and with some persuasion you may be able to develop a coalition of donors who think like you do, bringing even more attention to your issues. Politics is people, and it is always local. You don't need to be wealthy to get access, you just need to be reasonable.
srj 12y ago
I would argue that it's not working in this case. A company was harmed financially so let them sue him. It does not need to be a criminal matter.

spinlock 12y ago

These seem to be 2 separate points. The original post said that he was exonerated because the FBI didn't have probable cause to search him. The article you linked said he was exonerated because the statute didn't cover HFT systems. I guess that makes sense if the reason the FBI didn't have probably cause was because they should have known that, even if everything Goldman alleged, he still wouldn't have broken any laws.

loopholeclosed 12y ago
That seems to be the opinion espoused in the article. It was legal due to a "loophole". > I guess that makes sense if the reason the FBI didn't have probably cause was because they should have known that, even if everything Goldman alleged, he still wouldn't have broken any laws. From the article: > On December 28, 2012, President Obama enacted the Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012, which clarifies the scope of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-39). The newly enacted amendments are intended to reverse the recent Second Circuit decision in United States v. Aleynikov, 676 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2012). The only way that statement makes sense is if the author believed that the FBI failed due to a lack of the acts alleged by Goldman Sachs being a crime. Imo, anyway.
- spinlock 12y ago
  I think you're right. That's the only consistent way to read this anyway.