3 ms·

I'm new to this but after reading up on the background I think this case is being somewhat mischaracterized in the comments here. I know we are all anti-authori

by abalone 12y ago

I'm new to this but after reading up on the background I think this case is being somewhat mischaracterized in the comments here. I know we are all anti-authoritarian hackers at heart but HN also stands for accuracy and fairness. I would say the general tone here is "jack-booted FBI thugs falsely arrest hacker because their pal at Goldman Sachs pulled some strings". The implication being that this has all unravelled and he is now suing the government for corrupt trampling his constitutional rights. After reading up, I would say a fairer characterization is "guy who got caught stealing proprietary code got off on a technicality because the law doesn't actually cover HFT code due to shortsighted phrasing". Before you hit that downvote button, here's my support: the judge who overturned it called this out and Congress passed a law in 2012 to close the loophole through which he got his conviction overturned. From the Congressional Record[1]: Quoting the appeals court, "just before his going-away party, Aleynikov encrypted and uploaded to a server in Germany more than 500,000 lines of source code for Goldman's HFT system ..... On June 2, 2009, Aleynikov flew ..... to Chicago to attend meetings at Teza. He brought with him a flash drive and a laptop containing portions of the Goldman source code. When Aleynikov flew back the following day, he was arrested by the FBI .....''" In his concurring opinion, Judge Calabresi [Cal-abress-E] directly called upon Congress to clarify the scope of the EEA [Electronic Espionage Act] as he wrote: [I]t is hard for me to conclude that Congress, in [the EEA], actually meant to exempt the kind of behavior in which Aleynikov engaged ..... [n]evertheless, while concurring [in the opinion], I wish to express the hope that Congress will return to the issue and state, in appropriate language, what I believe it meant to make criminal in the EEA. Specifically the EEA used to say "included in a product that is produced for or placed in" interstate commerce, which the court thought didn't technically cover HFT code, and now reads "a product or service used in or intended for use in". That's it. That's the loophole. If there ever was a case of violating the spirit, but not the letter of the law, this is it. [1] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r112:H18DE2-0051 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r112:H18DE2-0051:

Lewton 12y ago
I really recommend you read the vanity fair article posted earlier. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman-sachs-programmer http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman... It is quite clear that he did not violate the spirit of the law. There was no clear intent to steal any "trade secrets" from Goldman Sachs, and the analogy brought up in the last part of the article that compares it to taking home a notebook you've used for scribbling down thoughts after you've quit your job, is apt
- abalone 12y ago
  "It is quite clear that he did not violate the spirit of the law." Very, very clearly, everyone from the legislature to the judiciary is in agreement that he violated the spirit of the law. Even the judge who overturned the conviction said it was hard for him to believe that Congress didn't mean for the law to make his actions criminal. And then Congress immediately updated the letter of the law, unanimously, all the while explaining how it's unfortunate the previous letter of the law didn't capture the spirit of what they intended, specifically mentioning this case. Also, the "it's just a notebook with scribbled down thoughts" analogy is poor. That implies that it's just his own thoughts he took. He uploaded 500,000+ lines of source code, then tried to cover up his tracks. That is exfiltrating extensive, proprietary trade secrets and was repeatedly cited by Congress as just the sort of activity they wished to criminalize in the Economic Espionage Act. By the way, I don't think he should serve any more time. The sentence was too harsh IMO. But there is no question it is (now) illegal activity, because Congress specifically updated the law to make his exact actions illegal, naming him personally. (Of course, they weren't technically illegal at the time he did them, according to the appellate court, which is why he was set free.)
  - Lewton 12y ago
    He did not "try to cover up his tracks", he did what he'd do basically every day as a normal software developer doing his job. The "encrypted it and uploaded it to a server in Germany" is a red herring that shows exactly how inept the judiciary was in interpreting his actions. Why does it matter that the server was in Germany? Isn't it common sense that he would encrypt any data he uploads? And it's nonsensical to not try and interpret exactly what it is he copied and why he did so. As the vanity fair article points out, he did not in fact copy any of the vast amounts of valuable data he had access to. (He had access to everything!). But he chose tedious infrastructure code instead, to get a sense of what non-proprietary libraries that were used
    - abalone 12y ago
      > he chose tedious infrastructure code instead, to get a sense of what non-proprietary libraries that were used That is a generous speculation regarding his motives. As GS notes in their response to Vanity Fair, "While some of those files included open source software, the Court determined that 'a substantially greater number of the uploaded files contained proprietary code.'" (emphasis mine) But as far as whether what he did violated the spirit, and now letter of the law we have a conclusive answer direct from Congress: Yes, he did.

by abalone 12y ago

Lewton 12y ago

I really recommend you read the vanity fair article posted earlier. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman-sachs-programmer http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman... It is quite clear that he did not violate the spirit of the law. There was no clear intent to steal any "trade secrets" from Goldman Sachs, and the analogy brought up in the last part of the article that compares it to taking home a notebook you've used for scribbling down thoughts after you've quit your job, is apt

abalone 12y ago
"It is quite clear that he did not violate the spirit of the law." Very, very clearly, everyone from the legislature to the judiciary is in agreement that he violated the spirit of the law. Even the judge who overturned the conviction said it was hard for him to believe that Congress didn't mean for the law to make his actions criminal. And then Congress immediately updated the letter of the law, unanimously, all the while explaining how it's unfortunate the previous letter of the law didn't capture the spirit of what they intended, specifically mentioning this case. Also, the "it's just a notebook with scribbled down thoughts" analogy is poor. That implies that it's just his own thoughts he took. He uploaded 500,000+ lines of source code, then tried to cover up his tracks. That is exfiltrating extensive, proprietary trade secrets and was repeatedly cited by Congress as just the sort of activity they wished to criminalize in the Economic Espionage Act. By the way, I don't think he should serve any more time. The sentence was too harsh IMO. But there is no question it is (now) illegal activity, because Congress specifically updated the law to make his exact actions illegal, naming him personally. (Of course, they weren't technically illegal at the time he did them, according to the appellate court, which is why he was set free.)
- Lewton 12y ago
  He did not "try to cover up his tracks", he did what he'd do basically every day as a normal software developer doing his job. The "encrypted it and uploaded it to a server in Germany" is a red herring that shows exactly how inept the judiciary was in interpreting his actions. Why does it matter that the server was in Germany? Isn't it common sense that he would encrypt any data he uploads? And it's nonsensical to not try and interpret exactly what it is he copied and why he did so. As the vanity fair article points out, he did not in fact copy any of the vast amounts of valuable data he had access to. (He had access to everything!). But he chose tedious infrastructure code instead, to get a sense of what non-proprietary libraries that were used
  - abalone 12y ago
    > he chose tedious infrastructure code instead, to get a sense of what non-proprietary libraries that were used That is a generous speculation regarding his motives. As GS notes in their response to Vanity Fair, "While some of those files included open source software, the Court determined that 'a substantially greater number of the uploaded files contained proprietary code.'" (emphasis mine) But as far as whether what he did violated the spirit, and now letter of the law we have a conclusive answer direct from Congress: Yes, he did.