4 ms·

OK, you guys got me. I'm not a lawyer. So the legal definition of theft does depend to some degree on intent. I've learned something today. In that case, al

by o_nate 11y ago

OK, you guys got me. I'm not a lawyer. So the legal definition of theft does depend to some degree on intent. I've learned something today. In that case, allow me to reframe my argument. I'll be generous and replace the term "intent to permanently deprive" with "intent to harm". Still, proving intent to harm is (or should be) much more difficult in cases when you have only made a virtual copy of something, and I think the bar is being set too low in some of these cases. So I think there is some validity to the argument that these financial firms are shooting themselves in the foot by being too zealous in persecuting behavior that can (or should) fall into a grey area.

res0nat0r 11y ago
Encrypting and uploading code offsite, that you know is proprietary and against your employment contract should be a pretty clear black and white issue of why it is illegal, especially in the surrounding context of this case.
- o_nate 11y ago
  I don't really get what encrypting has to do with anything in this context. In any case, I'm less interested in the specific facts of this case than in other similar but less publicized cases where companies have gone after people who had copies on their home computers or had emailed code to themselves. Both maybe against company policy, but certainly an understandable misstep if you frequently work from home.
  - res0nat0r 11y ago
    Sure, but in this case it wasn't an accidental misstep, it was deliberate. Other cases would also have to prove intentional harm vs. some harmless oversight.
- neonbat 11y ago
  You're wrong bud ;) 1. Even if he violated his contract that's a civil lawsuit between two contracted parties, not a criminal matter involving the government. 2. The intent was pretty unclear. Since this somehow ended up as a criminal lawsuit. Typically what we see in a criminal lawsuit 95% standard of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt). You can't really prove he knew that it was proprietary code and you can't really prove his intent to steal it. When there's uncertainty below the standard of proof the defendant walks free. That's how it's supposed to work. 3. This case was overturned at the federal level. He's now being convicted at the state level, he might get convicted just because the state courts kind of suck. My personal opinion is that there's just not enough evidence to prove that he had intent to steal, it's just not there. It looks like double jeopardy and the judge just threw out the vast majority of the prosecution's evidence which was illegally obtained. My prediction: He walks free.

by o_nate 11y ago

res0nat0r 11y ago

Encrypting and uploading code offsite, that you know is proprietary and against your employment contract should be a pretty clear black and white issue of why it is illegal, especially in the surrounding context of this case.

o_nate 11y ago
I don't really get what encrypting has to do with anything in this context. In any case, I'm less interested in the specific facts of this case than in other similar but less publicized cases where companies have gone after people who had copies on their home computers or had emailed code to themselves. Both maybe against company policy, but certainly an understandable misstep if you frequently work from home.
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  Sure, but in this case it wasn't an accidental misstep, it was deliberate. Other cases would also have to prove intentional harm vs. some harmless oversight.
neonbat 11y ago
You're wrong bud ;) 1. Even if he violated his contract that's a civil lawsuit between two contracted parties, not a criminal matter involving the government. 2. The intent was pretty unclear. Since this somehow ended up as a criminal lawsuit. Typically what we see in a criminal lawsuit 95% standard of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt). You can't really prove he knew that it was proprietary code and you can't really prove his intent to steal it. When there's uncertainty below the standard of proof the defendant walks free. That's how it's supposed to work. 3. This case was overturned at the federal level. He's now being convicted at the state level, he might get convicted just because the state courts kind of suck. My personal opinion is that there's just not enough evidence to prove that he had intent to steal, it's just not there. It looks like double jeopardy and the judge just threw out the vast majority of the prosecution's evidence which was illegally obtained. My prediction: He walks free.