5 ms·

Yes. The FBI has technical specialists on staff that could very quickly say, "Yes, this complaint checks out." The problem here is that the agent apparently ju

by s_q_b 12y ago

Yes. The FBI has technical specialists on staff that could very quickly say, "Yes, this complaint checks out." The problem here is that the agent apparently just took Goldman at their word, and didn't conduct an independent investigation of Goldman's claims, which is kind of their entire job. This is especially relevant because the value of stolen property can seriously affect charging and sentencing. If you or I called the FBI and said "An employee stole proprietary code worth millions," there's no way the FBI would take that at face value, if you could even get their attention. When the Federal government treats powerful corporations differently, to the point of effectively outsourcing its investigation, that severely undermines the principle of equality before the law.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rhino369 12y ago
They confirmed that the guy took a ton of source code right? Taking Goldman at their word that it was their IP isn't a huge stretch. Taking the time to confirm that the code itself is a trade secret is a monumental task, one that isn't needed to determine if there was probable cause.
- s_q_b 12y ago
  His argument was that most of it was open source, or modified open source with licenses that required contributing back the source code. Basically, it sounds like he grabbed his stuff because he wanted to get his utility functions and open source modifications. Here's the piece in Vanity Fair where the general consensus was that what his actions indicate his intent was defintely not to steal valuable IP. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman-sachs-programmer http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman... Witness this exchange: “Did you take the strats?” asked one (meaning Goldman’s trading strategies). “No,” said Serge. That was one thing the prosecutors hadn’t accused him of. “But that’s the secret sauce, if there is one,” said the juror. “If you’re going to take something, take the strats.” “I wasn’t interested in the strats,” said Serge. “But that’s like stealing the jewelry box without the jewels,” said another juror. “You had super-user status!” said the first. “You could easily have taken the strats. Why didn’t you?” “To me, the technology really is not interesting,” said Serge. “You weren’t interested in how they made hundreds of millions of dollars?” asked someone else. “Not really,” said Serge. “It’s all one big gamble, one way or another.” So if the essence of the crime is theft of a trade secret, then you absolutely have to conduct an independent investigation that a trade secret was involved, and that it was stolen to have probable cause. The precedent here is a large corporation can use the government as an enforcement arm, and will be taken completely at face value. Simple allegations by individuals are subject to investigation prior to arrest, as should be all allegations. This boiled down to Goldman calling the FBI, and less than forty-eight hours later arresting the person Goldman told them to arrest. They didn't interview any witnesses or consult with any experts other than Goldman employees. That's terrifying.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > His argument was that most of it was open source, or modified open source with licenses that required contributing back the source code. Basically, it sounds like he grabbed his stuff because he wanted to get his utility functions and open source modifications. That was his defense. But the jury found that he had in fact grabbed valuable proprietary software, and the Second Circuit agreed that the 500,000 lines that he uploaded were mostly proprietary, valuable code. > So if the essence of the crime is theft of a trade secret, then you absolutely have to conduct an independent investigation that a trade secret was involved, and that it was stolen to have probable cause. > The precedent here is a large corporation can use the government as an enforcement arm, and will be taken completely at face value. Simple allegations by individuals are subject to investigation prior to arrest, as should be all allegations. Probable cause does not require a mini-trial before an arrest. Goldman didn't make "simple allegations." They backed up those allegations with evidence of Aleynikov having sent himself 500,000 lines of code, under suspicious circumstances (not just erasing his bash history, but doing so on his last day, doing so contrary to company policy, and doing so right before going to work at a competitor). The FBI didn't take any allegations at face value, and when Aleynikov was acquitted, it wasn't because the software he copied wasn't actually proprietary and valuable.
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      >under suspicious circumstances (not just erasing his bash history, but doing so on his last day, According to Michael Lewis, Aleynikov was in the habit of exporting his svn repo weekly. So, not really suspicious at all. >>He sent the files the same way he had sent himself files nearly every week, since his first month on the job at Goldman. source: http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2013/08/01/michael-lewis-retries-former-goldman-sachs-programmer-sergey-aleynikov/ http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2013/08/01/michael-lewi...
      - jholman 12y ago
        I'm confused, fnordfnordfnord; what is it you (and others in this thread) think you're arguing about? You and rayiner and Aleynikov all agree that it's fine and reasonable that Aleynikov was pardoned. There's no argument to be had about that. Aleynikov thinks that the FBI agents who arrested him did so improperly. rayiner is doubtful, and would like to hear if anyone can convince him. Your arguments for why the FBI agents acted improperly amount to "yeah, but it turns out that ....". This arguments are not a good reason to not arrest someone. They're a good reason to find someone innocent after trying them. Sometimes circumstances are such that an innocent person looks highly suspicious to reasonable people with a reasonable amount of evidence. In those cases, it's reasonable, though unfortunate, that law enforcement arrest and charge that innocent person. Isn't it? As far as I can tell, rayiner is right.... we have no evidence that Aleynikov was arrested improperly.
- bobwaycott 12y ago
  >> Taking the time to confirm that the code itself is a trade secret is a monumental task, one that isn't needed to determine if there was probable cause. And yet the finding here is there was no probable cause.

by s_q_b 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

rhino369 12y ago

They confirmed that the guy took a ton of source code right? Taking Goldman at their word that it was their IP isn't a huge stretch. Taking the time to confirm that the code itself is a trade secret is a monumental task, one that isn't needed to determine if there was probable cause.

s_q_b 12y ago
His argument was that most of it was open source, or modified open source with licenses that required contributing back the source code. Basically, it sounds like he grabbed his stuff because he wanted to get his utility functions and open source modifications. Here's the piece in Vanity Fair where the general consensus was that what his actions indicate his intent was defintely not to steal valuable IP. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman-sachs-programmer http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman... Witness this exchange: “Did you take the strats?” asked one (meaning Goldman’s trading strategies). “No,” said Serge. That was one thing the prosecutors hadn’t accused him of. “But that’s the secret sauce, if there is one,” said the juror. “If you’re going to take something, take the strats.” “I wasn’t interested in the strats,” said Serge. “But that’s like stealing the jewelry box without the jewels,” said another juror. “You had super-user status!” said the first. “You could easily have taken the strats. Why didn’t you?” “To me, the technology really is not interesting,” said Serge. “You weren’t interested in how they made hundreds of millions of dollars?” asked someone else. “Not really,” said Serge. “It’s all one big gamble, one way or another.” So if the essence of the crime is theft of a trade secret, then you absolutely have to conduct an independent investigation that a trade secret was involved, and that it was stolen to have probable cause. The precedent here is a large corporation can use the government as an enforcement arm, and will be taken completely at face value. Simple allegations by individuals are subject to investigation prior to arrest, as should be all allegations. This boiled down to Goldman calling the FBI, and less than forty-eight hours later arresting the person Goldman told them to arrest. They didn't interview any witnesses or consult with any experts other than Goldman employees. That's terrifying.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > His argument was that most of it was open source, or modified open source with licenses that required contributing back the source code. Basically, it sounds like he grabbed his stuff because he wanted to get his utility functions and open source modifications. That was his defense. But the jury found that he had in fact grabbed valuable proprietary software, and the Second Circuit agreed that the 500,000 lines that he uploaded were mostly proprietary, valuable code. > So if the essence of the crime is theft of a trade secret, then you absolutely have to conduct an independent investigation that a trade secret was involved, and that it was stolen to have probable cause. > The precedent here is a large corporation can use the government as an enforcement arm, and will be taken completely at face value. Simple allegations by individuals are subject to investigation prior to arrest, as should be all allegations. Probable cause does not require a mini-trial before an arrest. Goldman didn't make "simple allegations." They backed up those allegations with evidence of Aleynikov having sent himself 500,000 lines of code, under suspicious circumstances (not just erasing his bash history, but doing so on his last day, doing so contrary to company policy, and doing so right before going to work at a competitor). The FBI didn't take any allegations at face value, and when Aleynikov was acquitted, it wasn't because the software he copied wasn't actually proprietary and valuable.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    >under suspicious circumstances (not just erasing his bash history, but doing so on his last day, According to Michael Lewis, Aleynikov was in the habit of exporting his svn repo weekly. So, not really suspicious at all. >>He sent the files the same way he had sent himself files nearly every week, since his first month on the job at Goldman. source: http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2013/08/01/michael-lewis-retries-former-goldman-sachs-programmer-sergey-aleynikov/ http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2013/08/01/michael-lewi...
    - jholman 12y ago
      I'm confused, fnordfnordfnord; what is it you (and others in this thread) think you're arguing about? You and rayiner and Aleynikov all agree that it's fine and reasonable that Aleynikov was pardoned. There's no argument to be had about that. Aleynikov thinks that the FBI agents who arrested him did so improperly. rayiner is doubtful, and would like to hear if anyone can convince him. Your arguments for why the FBI agents acted improperly amount to "yeah, but it turns out that ....". This arguments are not a good reason to not arrest someone. They're a good reason to find someone innocent after trying them. Sometimes circumstances are such that an innocent person looks highly suspicious to reasonable people with a reasonable amount of evidence. In those cases, it's reasonable, though unfortunate, that law enforcement arrest and charge that innocent person. Isn't it? As far as I can tell, rayiner is right.... we have no evidence that Aleynikov was arrested improperly.
bobwaycott 12y ago
>> Taking the time to confirm that the code itself is a trade secret is a monumental task, one that isn't needed to determine if there was probable cause. And yet the finding here is there was no probable cause.