4 ms·

The double jeopardy aspect of this case is what troubles me. He was cleared by a federal court of the crime, but they found an obscure statute under which to ch

by exelius 12y ago

The double jeopardy aspect of this case is what troubles me. He was cleared by a federal court of the crime, but they found an obscure statute under which to charge him at another level of law for what was essentially the same action. The only reason this was successful is because Goldman Sachs is, well, Goldman Sachs and the amount of power they wield is frightening (even to a federal judge). But that's beside the point: this article is presented not as an honest retelling of the facts, but as a window into how engineers might perceive this case, and the impacts that perception has on banks' abilities to recruit the best talent. And from that perspective, it's spot on: it drags into the open a lot of poor practices that banks have and how they're a poor fit for the hacker culture present at the top level of engineering talent. Even if that doesn't represent reality, it reinforces that perception: young engineers graduating from college and looking for a job have a certain negative connotation with banks as a result.

tedunangst 12y ago
> Even if that doesn't represent reality, it reinforces that perception Is that a good thing?
sigmar 12y ago
>He was cleared by a federal court of the crime, but they found an obscure statute under which to charge him at another level of law for what was essentially the same action. I am not knowledgeable about the specifics of this case, but the way that you stated the situation, this isn't double jeopardy. Double jeopardy concerns trying someone for the same crime. If it is a different law that he is charged with (even for the same 'action' as previously charged), it isn't double jeopardy.
- derekp7 12y ago
  I thought there were rules to prevent this. Otherwise, if someone gets acquitted of, say, a murder charge, the prosecutor could go for it again but with a manslaughter charge instead.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    Generally true, but state law and federal law are considered "dual sovereignty".
    - derekp7 12y ago
      Ah, so it's just like how someone could be acquitted of murder, but still face a civil wrongful death suit?
      - tptacek 12y ago
        Double jeopardy doesn't apply to civil cases.
- exelius 12y ago
  Yeah, my problem with it is that the US has so many laws that pretty much anything we do is illegal in a couple of different ways. Especially with computer crimes, where a judge/jury (and sometimes the lawyers involved) may not have the technical understanding to comprehend what's going on. It defeats the purpose of double jeopardy protection if prosecutors can just go back, find another law that was passed 200 years ago but maybe applies in some theoretical sense, and charge you under that law. The entire basis of the US criminal system is that in the case of prosecutorial misconduct / incompetence, the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused. It's better to let a guilty man go free than to lock up an innocent one. If we're eroding that basic premise through an increasingly opaque legal system, that's a big problem.
lewisl9029 12y ago
This reminds me of an epiphany I had at my first programming job at a major bank: If you want to work in software, try to go for companies whose main product is software. These are the companies that will take software quality seriously because their bottom line depends on it. These are the companies that will constantly try to improve their craft by exploring new technologies because it helps them maintain their competitive advantage. These are the companies that will truly value talented software engineers because they have the potential to make a positive impact in the products that define the company. If the company's focus is on anything other than software, whatever you're working on becomes a means to another, more important end. Your work then becomes that much less valuable, and you, that much more replaceable, to the company because they're only looking for the bare minimum functionality out of the software you develop to enable whatever it is the company does that really brings home the bacon. I realize this is probably an over-generalization, and exceptions will definitely exist, but so far from my experiences in job searching, this seems to hold in an overwhelming majority of cases.
- tsotha 12y ago
  >If you want to work in software, try to go for companies whose main product is software. I used to think this before I worked at a software company. The problem is software companies have far more time pressure, particularly small and medium sized companies. "We'll go out of business if we miss this deadline" doesn't result in high quality code. The best code I've seen was written for a telecom. The company had the resources and the patience to do it right, and (more importantly) the people in charge knew what they were doing.
  - lmg643 12y ago
    I agree. A large business that uses software for a core revenue-producing source, is capable of doing fantastic work on that source. A software company providing that same product as a vendor, would be unlikely to have the motivation and focus to do it the same way. Key for me, is the principal/agent distinction. If you are using something as principal, for revenue, your motivations are very strong. If you are producing it as agent, for someone else's revenue, trickier. By definition, less money for you to get it right as agent for someone else. That said, there may be dozens to hundreds of ancillary software processes at a large business which are done very poorly, but any smart business of size will take great care of where the money comes from.

by exelius 12y ago

tedunangst 12y ago

> Even if that doesn't represent reality, it reinforces that perception Is that a good thing?

sigmar 12y ago

>He was cleared by a federal court of the crime, but they found an obscure statute under which to charge him at another level of law for what was essentially the same action. I am not knowledgeable about the specifics of this case, but the way that you stated the situation, this isn't double jeopardy. Double jeopardy concerns trying someone for the same crime. If it is a different law that he is charged with (even for the same 'action' as previously charged), it isn't double jeopardy.

derekp7 12y ago
I thought there were rules to prevent this. Otherwise, if someone gets acquitted of, say, a murder charge, the prosecutor could go for it again but with a manslaughter charge instead.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  Generally true, but state law and federal law are considered "dual sovereignty".
  - derekp7 12y ago
    Ah, so it's just like how someone could be acquitted of murder, but still face a civil wrongful death suit?
    - tptacek 12y ago
      Double jeopardy doesn't apply to civil cases.
exelius 12y ago
Yeah, my problem with it is that the US has so many laws that pretty much anything we do is illegal in a couple of different ways. Especially with computer crimes, where a judge/jury (and sometimes the lawyers involved) may not have the technical understanding to comprehend what's going on. It defeats the purpose of double jeopardy protection if prosecutors can just go back, find another law that was passed 200 years ago but maybe applies in some theoretical sense, and charge you under that law. The entire basis of the US criminal system is that in the case of prosecutorial misconduct / incompetence, the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused. It's better to let a guilty man go free than to lock up an innocent one. If we're eroding that basic premise through an increasingly opaque legal system, that's a big problem.

lewisl9029 12y ago

This reminds me of an epiphany I had at my first programming job at a major bank: If you want to work in software, try to go for companies whose main product is software. These are the companies that will take software quality seriously because their bottom line depends on it. These are the companies that will constantly try to improve their craft by exploring new technologies because it helps them maintain their competitive advantage. These are the companies that will truly value talented software engineers because they have the potential to make a positive impact in the products that define the company. If the company's focus is on anything other than software, whatever you're working on becomes a means to another, more important end. Your work then becomes that much less valuable, and you, that much more replaceable, to the company because they're only looking for the bare minimum functionality out of the software you develop to enable whatever it is the company does that really brings home the bacon. I realize this is probably an over-generalization, and exceptions will definitely exist, but so far from my experiences in job searching, this seems to hold in an overwhelming majority of cases.

tsotha 12y ago
>If you want to work in software, try to go for companies whose main product is software. I used to think this before I worked at a software company. The problem is software companies have far more time pressure, particularly small and medium sized companies. "We'll go out of business if we miss this deadline" doesn't result in high quality code. The best code I've seen was written for a telecom. The company had the resources and the patience to do it right, and (more importantly) the people in charge knew what they were doing.
- lmg643 12y ago
  I agree. A large business that uses software for a core revenue-producing source, is capable of doing fantastic work on that source. A software company providing that same product as a vendor, would be unlikely to have the motivation and focus to do it the same way. Key for me, is the principal/agent distinction. If you are using something as principal, for revenue, your motivations are very strong. If you are producing it as agent, for someone else's revenue, trickier. By definition, less money for you to get it right as agent for someone else. That said, there may be dozens to hundreds of ancillary software processes at a large business which are done very poorly, but any smart business of size will take great care of where the money comes from.