4 ms·

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 li

by 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.
    - s_q_b 12y ago
      My concern is that the investigation of the incident relied solely upon the word of Goldman Sachs. An agent essentially parroted back what Goldman employees told him, putting it in the form of a criminal complaint, and without further investigation, had him arrested. My challenge to the validity of the arrest is that there was no independent investigation performed prior. This wasn't just contempt prior to investigation, it was arrest prior to investigation. Now, I will acknowledge that probable cause is a very low standard, and it is likely that there isn't a legal course of action here.
danielweber 12y ago
or modified open source with licenses that required contributing back the source code Which license does that?
- kragen 12y ago
  No open source licenses require that. An early version of the Emacs license did require that (I think TECO Emacs and not GNU Emacs), and there may be other licenses, but both the Debian Free Software Guidelines and the Open Source Definition based on them are careful not to require that people contribute modifications they’ve made privately. The reasons for this are discussed in the DFSG FAQ: https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#dissident https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#dissident

by s_q_b 12y ago

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.
  - s_q_b 12y ago
    My concern is that the investigation of the incident relied solely upon the word of Goldman Sachs. An agent essentially parroted back what Goldman employees told him, putting it in the form of a criminal complaint, and without further investigation, had him arrested. My challenge to the validity of the arrest is that there was no independent investigation performed prior. This wasn't just contempt prior to investigation, it was arrest prior to investigation. Now, I will acknowledge that probable cause is a very low standard, and it is likely that there isn't a legal course of action here.

danielweber 12y ago

or modified open source with licenses that required contributing back the source code Which license does that?

kragen 12y ago
No open source licenses require that. An early version of the Emacs license did require that (I think TECO Emacs and not GNU Emacs), and there may be other licenses, but both the Debian Free Software Guidelines and the Open Source Definition based on them are careful not to require that people contribute modifications they’ve made privately. The reasons for this are discussed in the DFSG FAQ: https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#dissident https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#dissident