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.
I'm in the wrong industry vertical.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Yeah, phrased weirdly, but I assume it means something like, "he incriminated himself even after being advised of his Miranda right to remain silent". It might mean something stronger, though, like police actively asked him if he was waiving his right not to incriminate himself, and he confirmed that he was--- police sometimes do this so that the recorded interview is absolutely clear that the suspect knew what his rights are and was consciously waiving them, rather than speaking accidentally or because he was tricked into incriminating himself.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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