Slashdot Mirror
Former Goldman Sachs Programmer Arrested and Charged Again For Code Theft
hypnosec writes with news that Sergey Aleynikov, once a programmer for Goldman Sachs, has been arrested and charged again for stealing code from his employer in 2009. Aleynikov was originally charged for the crime in 2009. He was convicted in 2010 and sentenced to 97 months in prison, but an appeals court overturned the verdict, saying the corporate espionage laws were misapplied. Manhattan District Attorney Cryus Vance said, "This code is so highly confidential that it is known in the industry as the firm's 'secret sauce.' Employees who exploit their access to sensitive information should expect to face criminal prosecution in New York State in appropriate cases." The Fifth Amendment's "double jeopardy" clause is unlikely to stop this case because it's within a different jurisdiction — the earlier trial was in federal court, and this one is in New York State court.
We can't have people robbing and stealing with impunity. It's time someone from the finance industry is punished with extreme prejudice. /troll
"I'll take Undermining the Bill of Rights for $500 Alex"
Feds walk away from prosecuting Goldman, SEC misses Madoff, but this guy needs to be prosecuted - twice!
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Actually be the government, that's the best way to steal.
Proof: US Senators are allowed to commit insider trading.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Once we get that evil bastard Bush out, things are going to be a lot better.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
What he should have done was follow the lead of Goldman Sacks executives. Then he wouldn't be prosecuted for anything.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Double Jeopardy does not apply because of a different jurisdiction.
Funny, I don't see that exception in the Constitution anywhere. This is what we traditionally call an "end run around the Constitution". Legalistic bullshit used to cover up a blatant violation of the highest law of the land. It's indefensible and you should be ashamed of your self for trying.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Wow, I think I have finally witnessed the last straw.
Interestingly, I attended last night, a debate at a group known as "Drinking Liberally" where the president of the local group stated that he could not vote for Obama, because the administration has a kill-list, has not been transparent, has not closed Guantanamo, and has continued many of the Bush Policies that we had hoped to change. The Woman debating him stated that NOT voting for Obama was voting for Romney who will be worse. That didn't change the mind of the group leader who said he would be voting Green Party.
Now, I am wondering myself about this in the context of this blatant attempt to subvert the law so that the 1% can get what they want, and the lawyers and politicians are clearly on the side of the 1% and not looking out for the rights of the people.
We are truly borked as nation. There's no going back from this kind of corruption. If this even goes to COURT, it's a complete breakdown of our "justice" system (and I use that term loosely.
Tell me Mr. Prosecutor; how many arrests have you made from the financial boondoggle of 2008? How many arrests have you made from the Robo-Foreclosure scandal? But you're supporting the whims of the very crooks who have robbed our nation? Why not just start working for the Mafia? I hear they pay good as well.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
"After a yearlong investigation, the Justice Department said Thursday that it won't bring charges against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. or any of its employees for financial fraud related to the mortgage crisis."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443537404577579840698144490.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
"But Goldman, as the Levin report makes clear, remains an ascendant company precisely because it used its canny perception of an upcoming disaster (one which it helped create, incidentally) as an opportunity to enrich itself, not only at the expense of clients but ultimately, through the bailouts and the collateral damage of the wrecked economy, at the expense of society. The bank seemed to count on the unwillingness or inability of federal regulators to stop them - and when called to Washington last year to explain their behavior, Goldman executives brazenly misled Congress, apparently confident that their perjury would carry no serious consequences. Thus, while much of the Levin report describes past history, the Goldman section describes an ongoing? crime - a powerful, well-connected firm, with the ear of the president and the Treasury, that appears to have conquered the entire regulatory structure and stands now on the precipice of officially getting away with one of the biggest financial crimes in history."
"To recap: Goldman, to get $1.2 billion in crap off its books, dumps a huge lot of deadly mortgages on its clients, lies about where that crap came from and claims it believes in the product even as it's betting $2 billion against it. When its victims try to run out of the burning house, Goldman stands in the doorway, blasts them all with gasoline before they can escape, and then has the balls to send a bill overcharging its victims for the pleasure of getting fried."
"So let's move on to something much simpler. In the spring of 2010, about a year into his investigation, Sen. Levin hauled all of the principals from these rotten Goldman deals to Washington, made them put their hands on the Bible and take oaths just like normal people, and demanded that they explain themselves. The legal definition of financial fraud may be murky and complex, but everybody knows you can't lie to Congress.
""Article 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001," says Loyola University law professor Michael Kaufman. "There are statutes that prohibit perjury and obstruction of justice, but this is the federal statute that explicitly prohibits lying to Congress."
The law is simple: You're guilty if you "knowingly and willfully" make a "materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation." The punishment is up to five years in federal prison."
"Lloyd Blankfein went to Washington and testified under oath that Goldman Sachs didn't make a massive short bet and didn't bet against its clients. The Levin report proves that Goldman spent the whole summer of 2007 riding a "big short" and took a multibillion-dollar bet against its clients, a bet that incidentally made them enormous profits. Are we all missing something? Is there some different and higher standard of triple- and quadruple-lying that applies to bank CEOs but not to baseball players?"
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511?print=true
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I noticed that the Wikipedia entries on Bernanke and Goldman both curiously (one might even say "conspicuously") fail to make any mention of his acting as their CEO prior to handing them a juicy government bailout.
I assume you're confusing Paulson and Bernanke. The former (then at the Treasury) was a former GS CEO; the latter was, to the best of my knowledge anyway, a carrier academic. (Who, it might be suggested, doesn't have the slightest clue of how a real business operates as a result.)
How is this not blackmail?
what the AC proposed as what he should have done is indeed blackmail.
But, would anything else work with Goldman Sachs?
The secret sauce isn't probably that secret even, it's just that if it was out in the wild it would be a liability - you see, on paper it's valued on their sheets in millions if not in hundreds of millions as an asset.. that they can then borrow money against.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
10 SCREW CUSTOMER
20 MAKE PROFIT
30 GOTO 10
So even if he is the original author of the software, (he carries the details and inspiration in his head), and the software came out of his mind, he is still a criminal for telling/selling his idea to someone else.
In some circumstances, absolutely.
Most software developers sign agreements that stipulate that any software or other intellectual property created for the company and on company time belongs to the company, not the developer. Some even go as far as to take ownership of anything you develop *even on your own time.* Many employers will also make you sign a non-compete agreement that basically says when you leave the company, you will not engage in competitive behavior against the company, which could also be construed as developing a similar algorithm for a competitor, at least within a specified period of time.
In my career as a developer I've signed a number of these types of agreements, and just for "ordinary" corporate jobs. Given the highly competitive and secretive financial industry and the money at stake, it wouldn't surprise me if their agreements are far more complex and specific. Especially due to the very high degree of specialization required in financial services programming, particularly in trading software where milliseconds can mean a difference between millions of dollars, they tend to be pretty protective of their IP (and thus why those programmers make hundreds of thousands a year in salary, way beyond your garden-variety corporate developers).
Now of course a developer with a specialized skillset and experience, barring a non-compete agreement or a patent that would specifically prohibit it, could certainly go to work for another company and re-create a similar algorithm from scratch, and it would be very difficult to litigate against as long as it's based upon memory/experience and not by taking the actual source code with him. It would largely hinge on whether the concept was generic or common across the industry, or whether it was a unique and highly-specific concept that had never existed outside the original company, and then suddenly shows up in a pretty obvious way at a competitor which just happened to recently hire your former employee.
pretty basic, no?
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT