6 ms·

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 tol

by 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.

tptacek 12y ago
People keep explaining how that isn't true, and that there was much more than GS's word backing the charges up, so much so that Aleynikov had to rely on a technicality to evade a conviction, one that was closed immediately after he used it: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2012/11/27/senate-section/article/S6978-3 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2012/11/27/sen...
- s_q_b 12y ago
  We're arguing past one another. I am discussing the investigation and arrest, not the subsequent trial or any evidence brought to light therein. If you read the complaint, the trial transcript, or even the top post here, it's abundantly clear the so-called investigation relied solely upon the word of Goldman Sachs's employees. The FBI agent even admitted that he did not understand the nature of the crime at the time he filed the complaint. >"McSwain later conceded that he didn’t seek out independent expert advice to study the code Serge Aleynikov had taken. (“I relied on statements from Goldman employees.”) He himself had no idea of the value of the stolen code (“Representatives of Goldman told me it was worth a lot of money”) or if any of it was actually all that special (he based his belief that the code contained trade secrets on “representations made by members of Goldman Sachs”)...The F.B.I.’s investigation before the arrest consisted of trusting Goldman’s explanation of some extremely complicated stuff, and 48 hours after Goldman called the F.B.I., Serge was arrested." Your argument amounts to: "Sure, but the guy was guilty and only got off on a technicality, so who cares." People keep explaining the dire problems with this viewpoint, and I don't know why it needs to be continually repeated.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    If someone steals a million dollar painting from a private gallery, you think the police should need a statement from a 3rd party art historian in order to make an arrest?
    - s_q_b 12y ago
      If someone steals a donut from a donut shop, do you think the police need a statement from a third party donut vendor to make an arrest? Silly analogies lead to silly conclusions, because they inherently obscure essential facts in the comparison. This wasn't a piece of tangible property, which the agent could understand. This was an immensely complicated issue to a lay person who admitted that he didn't really understand what had been stolen or how much it was worth. He just listened to Goldman Sachs say trust us and made an arrest within 48 hours. If you don't understand why its disturbing that the FBI blindly did the bidding of one of the most powerful corporations on Earth, there's simply no point in continuing to debate the issue.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        Unlike donuts, art is incredibly difficult to value, so much so that there's a whole profession dedicated to that problem. Must the FBI engage one of those professionals before deciding to arrest someone who steals a painting?
        s_q_b 12y ago
        Before deciding the value of the theft to attach to the charge? Certainly. That would be one reason the FBI employs art specialists as well. Absent a fleeing felon, I would definitely expect the FBI to consult with an art specialist.
        tptacek 12y ago
        You're moving the goalposts. First, Aleynikov is "arrested" on GS's say-so. Now he's being prosecuted on their say-so. By the time Aleynikov is arraigned, expertise has been engaged. What makes this an especially pointless debate is that the trial uncovers that he did in fact take valuable source code!

by s_q_b 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago

People keep explaining how that isn't true, and that there was much more than GS's word backing the charges up, so much so that Aleynikov had to rely on a technicality to evade a conviction, one that was closed immediately after he used it: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2012/11/27/senate-section/article/S6978-3 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2012/11/27/sen...

s_q_b 12y ago
We're arguing past one another. I am discussing the investigation and arrest, not the subsequent trial or any evidence brought to light therein. If you read the complaint, the trial transcript, or even the top post here, it's abundantly clear the so-called investigation relied solely upon the word of Goldman Sachs's employees. The FBI agent even admitted that he did not understand the nature of the crime at the time he filed the complaint. >"McSwain later conceded that he didn’t seek out independent expert advice to study the code Serge Aleynikov had taken. (“I relied on statements from Goldman employees.”) He himself had no idea of the value of the stolen code (“Representatives of Goldman told me it was worth a lot of money”) or if any of it was actually all that special (he based his belief that the code contained trade secrets on “representations made by members of Goldman Sachs”)...The F.B.I.’s investigation before the arrest consisted of trusting Goldman’s explanation of some extremely complicated stuff, and 48 hours after Goldman called the F.B.I., Serge was arrested." Your argument amounts to: "Sure, but the guy was guilty and only got off on a technicality, so who cares." People keep explaining the dire problems with this viewpoint, and I don't know why it needs to be continually repeated.
- tptacek 12y ago
  If someone steals a million dollar painting from a private gallery, you think the police should need a statement from a 3rd party art historian in order to make an arrest?
  - s_q_b 12y ago
    If someone steals a donut from a donut shop, do you think the police need a statement from a third party donut vendor to make an arrest? Silly analogies lead to silly conclusions, because they inherently obscure essential facts in the comparison. This wasn't a piece of tangible property, which the agent could understand. This was an immensely complicated issue to a lay person who admitted that he didn't really understand what had been stolen or how much it was worth. He just listened to Goldman Sachs say trust us and made an arrest within 48 hours. If you don't understand why its disturbing that the FBI blindly did the bidding of one of the most powerful corporations on Earth, there's simply no point in continuing to debate the issue.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      Unlike donuts, art is incredibly difficult to value, so much so that there's a whole profession dedicated to that problem. Must the FBI engage one of those professionals before deciding to arrest someone who steals a painting?
      - s_q_b 12y ago
        Before deciding the value of the theft to attach to the charge? Certainly. That would be one reason the FBI employs art specialists as well. Absent a fleeing felon, I would definitely expect the FBI to consult with an art specialist.
        tptacek 12y ago
        You're moving the goalposts. First, Aleynikov is "arrested" on GS's say-so. Now he's being prosecuted on their say-so. By the time Aleynikov is arraigned, expertise has been engaged. What makes this an especially pointless debate is that the trial uncovers that he did in fact take valuable source code!