Slashdot Mirror
Goldman Sachs Code Theft Not Quite So Cut and Dried
The New York Times has some interesting details that are surfacing about the recent charges brought against Sergey Aleynikov, the programmer who allegedly stole code from Goldman Sachs on his way out the door to another job. "This spring, Mr. Aleynikov quit Goldman to join Teza Technologies, a new trading firm, tripling his salary to about $1.2 million, according to the complaint. He left Goldman on June 5. In the days before he left, he transferred code to a server in Germany that offers free data hosting. [...] After his arrest, Mr. Aleynikov was taken for interrogation to F.B.I. offices in Manhattan. Mr. Aleynikov waived his rights against self-incrimination, and agreed to allow agents to search his house. He said that he had inadvertently downloaded a portion of Goldman's proprietary code while trying to take files of open source software — programs that are not proprietary and can be used freely by anyone. He said he had not used the Goldman code at his new job or distributed it to anyone else, and the criminal complaint offers no evidence that he has."
Here's the thing, Open source or not, taking it directly from his employer was a bad idea. If you modify a piece of software for in house use and don't distribute it outside, you don't have to distribute the source. If he wanted open source software, i know of a few places where he might find copies. (no links because you should know about google and source forge by now). So, if the source code HAD to have been taken from GS's servers, then it probably had proprietary in house changes which may not be re-licensed under the gpl (the gpl is a distribution license and kicks into effect as soon as GS starts distributing). That might still be theft of in house IP, which is bad.
Anywho, in summary, weak sauce excuses are weak sauce.
Criminally negligent carelessness or a clever disguise for future criminal intent? Short of reading his mind, we may never know.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Can you really "waive your rights against self-incrimination"? Like, now that he's waived his rights, he's required to incriminate himself?
Breakfast served all day!
I'm in the wrong industry vertical.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
He said that he had inadvertently downloaded a portion of Goldman's proprietary code while trying to take files of open source software
Why try to take open source software instead of downloading it when you need it?
He said he had not used the Goldman code at his new job or distributed it to anyone else.
It sounds like maybe he wanted to keep it around for possible later reference. Not uncommon, but not innocent either.
Keep your personal business and your company's business separate. For instance, I have a separate banking account whose sole purpose is to hold expense reimbursements until I pay the ccard. Why? Because it's just too damned easy to screw up and cause yourself trouble all out of proportion to the original mistake.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
He is a developer so by definition he is computer literate; you don't "accidentally" copy the wrong files (especially since they have BASH LOGS of what he did). However, even if what he says is true WHY IN THE NAME OF FUCK would you copy Open Source Software from your development machine instead of directly from the source? The potential for the appearance of impropriety is bad enough. On top of that, according to the original Slashdot article a while back he also encrypted the files. WHY IN THE NAME OF FUCK would you bother to encrypt Open Source Software files? While everything he said is technically plausible, it just comes off as fraudulent in the same manner as Hans Reiser's defense; i.e. "I'm so smart and I have an answer for everything". I suspect the next thing we hear about this story will involve a plea deal.
Why would you be shocked?
I mean, I not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but have you looked at how many ex-Goldman Sachs employees are employed in the highest levels of the US and several state governments?
And I'm not just talking about Treasury Department appointments... also in the SEC, in elected office, etc. There's a joke I've heard that the SEC doesn't sneeze if they haven't asked GS for permission first.
At any rate, the funniest thing I've heard about the whole deal is that GS told the authorities that with this software, the guy who stole it could manipulate markets and gain an unfair advantage in trade, and disrupt global markets. And yet somehow those potentials are not possible with GS being the only part holding the software?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
He's a f*cking idiot, and probably watched too much CSI and other cop shows where they always show people talking without their lawyer. Don't talk to the police, or the FBI, or any authority without your lawyer. Doesn't matter if you are innocent, doesn't matter if you have an explanation, an alibi, whatever. Just don't do it, because you can and will say something that can be used against you in a court of law.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
The interesting part of the article is actually in paragraph 3 (i.e., before anything the submitter thought was important):
Of course, it's perfectly fine that Goldman-Sachs management and traders have code that could be used to "unfairly manipulate" stock prices. But when a private citizen gets their hands on something like that, look out! God knows we wouldn't want the hoi-polloi to have the same chance to "unfairly manipulate" stock prices that the big boys have.
That is all.