Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Insider Trader Arrested After He Googled 'Insider Trading,' Authorities Allege

Posted by BeauHD on from the breadcrumb-trail dept.

Spy Handler writes: Fei Yan, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and 31-year-old Chinese citizen, was arrested by federal authorities on Wednesday on insider trading charges. Mr. Yan used Google to search for phrases such as "how sec detect unusual trade" and "insider trading with international account." He also allegedly read an article titled "Want to Commit Insider Trading? Here's How Not to Do It," according to the U.S. attorney prosecuting the case. Further reading: Associated Press, CNBC, USA Today

124 comments

  1. So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Really? Waiting for the crime here....

    1. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fuck. I just got arrested for clicking on this story.

    2. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by Cyberglich · · Score: 4, Informative

      RTFA he made bank on 2 mergers last year that is wifes firm was involved in . Thats sketchy as hell. Add the searches to that and you have probable cause to do some major digging.

    3. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 0

      My question is, where was the probable cause to link the searches to a name at all?

    4. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      He did trades on two different companies that were acquired. And presumably that's the only trades that account has done. And both were immediately very profitable. These are then flag as suspicious by SEC data analysis.
      The only connection they can find between the two is that the same law firm handled the acquisitions. They then find that the account is owned by a family member of someone at the law firm. They now have probably cause to issue warrants and get the search results?
      Ie. the search results are what are flagged him, not his wife, but the fact that insider trading was going on was discovered long before the search results.
      My impression of how it went anyway.

    5. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by will_die · · Score: 5, Informative

      Data analysis came up that investments made by some lady who lives in China were weird. Checking the phone calls to the brokerage company found they were coming from his phone. From there they found them being mother and son and then he was married to a lawyer involved in the legal work. Then they subpoenaed his searches from yahoo and google.

    6. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      He was also arrested after eating breakfast.

    7. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Thou shalt not steal... the gutter-mint don't like no competition.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    8. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

      Ah, seams reasonable. Admittedly I only read one of the articles, but it sounded like the searches triggered the investigation.

    9. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The lawyer will have a field day with searches for insider trading. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse (then why isn't everyone treated as a lawyer) so he had information which he thought might have been insider trading, so they did searches on the internet to make sure the trades they did would not break the law and well, they got it wrong. What authorities are claiming is if you are doing legal searches to not break the law, then you are breaking the law because the law claims no citizen has ignorance of any law or it's details or it's legal interpretation which by law are of equal skill to judges of the highest appointments. To search the law is not breaking the regardless of the absurdity of 'ignorance of the law is not excuse' no matter how obscure the law.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So... he was charged with reading?

      If so then clearly you have nothing to worry about.

    11. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You were so right until about half way, then you turned into a shitpost.
      Authorities are claiming if you break the law, regardless of prior knowledge of the law, you broke the law. And that's it. You can try and argue about his intent here but if he had good intentions he would not have broke the law after reading about it. He had enough doubt about the legality of his actions that he searched it out online instead of getting real legal advice. Because he knew a real lawyer would call him out.

      This is why I said you shitpost. Because you brought in a secondary argument that has very little relevance and you resorted to basically rewording the same bad argument in a crazy run-on sentence followed by another confused sentence that says the same damn thing.

      Also, if you represent yourself you will be treated like a lawyer. You just won't know how to act like one. So you'll think they're treating you differently but in reality they would come down on an unprepared or incompetent lawyer just as bad.

    12. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      would you have clicked on the article if it had made that clear?

    13. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"

      - J. Stalin

    14. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The linked story said he made 120k from insider information he got from his Wife who is a lawyer working in a law firm.

      Quite clear cut. The searches he did is proof of intent. The search is not the crime.

    15. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was not the crime. He was already suspected of doing some highly suspect transactions, using info his wife had. It just proved intent.

      I think every trader or someone working in finance has read articles on insider trading. Heck I have and I'm not in this market at all.

    16. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      He was also arrested after eating breakfast.

      Because he was a cereal killer?

    17. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      And you were so right, but someone modded you into oblivion.
      It's like he got up halfway though writing the post to take a shit and when he got back he brought the shit with him. Would also help if you didn't post as AC.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    18. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      "Yanâ(TM)s wife worked as an associate at the international firm Linklaters, which is based in London. Linklaters was working on acquisition deals involving the two companies Yan profited from"

      He made $120,000 by trading on firms that were involved in acquisitions that his wife was handling. And then he searched for ways to get away with insider trading.

      What part of that doesn't look like a goddamn crime to you?

    19. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by hesiod · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've also read quite a bit about nuclear and biological weapons...

      If you read that and then promptly created some biological weapons, it definitely DOES prove intent.

    20. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by espre · · Score: 1

      So... he was charged with reading?

      If so then clearly you have nothing to worry about.

      Huh, the person may not comprehend your sarcasm either! :)

    21. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Straight from the CNBC article: "Prosecutors say Yan searched "how sec detect unusual trade" before he bought numerous stocks and options that netted him around $120,000 in illicit profits."

      Fucking "Spy Handler" and BeauHD left that important bit out of the clickbait summary just to make things sound a whole lot more inflammatory than they really are and get some views and outraged comments onto this once-popular but now dying former tech news site.

    22. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thought. He might have thought about committing a crime. Gotta keep the prison economy... ow ow hey stop no no...

    23. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      "... it definitely DOES prove intent." Or curiosity.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    24. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      He's also an inside trader, you insensitive clod!

    25. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by whitlocktj · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps his insinuation is that this guy clearly didn't read the article.

    26. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Studies show that criminals eat breakfast. It was obvious that he's guilty.

    27. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by martinX · · Score: 1

      The real crime was the story summary posted on Slashdot. For crimes against communication like this, the people need to be represented by two separate, yet equally important, groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    28. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"

      Unless you are a cop!

      https://cmlawfirm.com/ignorance-law-excuse-unless-police-officer-bill-mitchell/

    29. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they subpoenaed his searches from yahoo and google.

      Guess he should have used Bing.

      CAPTCHA: obsolete

  2. How did they get his searches? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's what I want to know. Just like that missing person case in PA unfolding right now where it turns they caught the guy because they had him and his victims recorded in a license plate recorder somewhere.

    1. Re:How did they get his searches? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      They got them after seizing his computer, after he was arrested on the charges. He wasn't arrested because of the searches.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  3. What did he DO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He read articles? That's a crime? Didn't this sort of thing get ruled as covered by first amendment back in the 60s with the "Anarchist Cookbook"?

    1. Re: What did he DO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well you know if you read the book and made a bomb and blew up the neighbors mailvox with it, you'd probably get in trouble for it. Just like how this guy looked up how to cover up insider trading and went ahead and made 2 insider trades that he profited from.

      I swear the /. commenters get dumber each day.

    2. Re:What did he DO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These are click-bait submissions, lovingly crafted to incite our holy anger towards the transgressions against the rule of law.

    3. Re:What did he DO? by Desler · · Score: 0

      No, dumbass. The crime was committing insider trading.

    4. Re:What did he DO? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      our holy anger towards the transgressions against the rule of law.

      It's 2017. Rule of Law is an outdated concept.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re: What did he DO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I swear the /. commenters get dumber each day.

      No they don't. âRTFArticle" has always been a meme around here.

    6. Re:What did he DO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Rule of Law went out the window in 1999.

      We had a president on video tape committing a felony and he was acquitted for political reasons.

      This is nothing new.

    7. Re: What did he DO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What DIDN'T you do? Same as him - read the article.

    8. Re: What did he DO? by subanark · · Score: 1

      That's a bad analogy. Try this one:

      A person's house caught on fire, and they filed for an insurance claim. An investigation found the person had checked out a book titled "Plausible Deniability - How to get money from insurance". An example in the book matched the house fire. The fact the book was checked out is used as evidence that the house fire was not an accident.

  4. He's a research SCIENTIST by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Maybe he was doing it for, you know, science, and not business?

    1. Re: He's a research SCIENTIST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps the son of a bitch was engaging in illegal insider trading. The authorities might know more than they're telling the stupid public. Did you ever consider that possibility, dumbshit? Of course not, because it doesn't fit with the fucking echo chamber on this shithole piece of shit website.

    2. Re:He's a research SCIENTIST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The arrest was for insider trading, so presumably he was insider trading, the Google searches are just part of the evidence. I'd like to think we still live in a world where the search history was obtained as a result of a warrant in an investigation that was already underway based on other credible evidence. But who knows these days, the government seems to have a conduit into the major internet companies, and they may have triggered the investigation based on the searches.

    3. Re: He's a research SCIENTIST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Maybe he was doing it for, you know, science, and not business?"

      Or maybe this is clickbait bullshit that purposely omitted the fact that he was actually arrested FOR ALLEGED INSIDER TRADING, *not* for googling "insider trading".

    4. Re:He's a research SCIENTIST by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      The arrest was for insider trading, so presumably he was insider trading, the Google searches are just part of the evidence. I'd like to think we still live in a world where the search history was obtained as a result of a warrant in an investigation that was already underway based on other credible evidence. But who knows these days, the government seems to have a conduit into the major internet companies, and they may have triggered the investigation based on the searches.

      The headline is correct, he was arrested after the made those searches, which he did before he apparently committed the crime which drew enough suspicion for him to be investigated. I find it amusing to read the posts of idiots who fall for the headline without even the slightest hint of critical thinking.

    5. Re:He's a research SCIENTIST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The headline is factually correct, but misleading. He was arrested after he googled about insider trading, but he was not arrested for googling about insider trading. TFA makes it clear that he was arrested after he was suspected of insider trading in companies his wife was connected to, using an account in his mother's name.

  5. Why did Google turn him in? by drnb · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why did Google report the searches to the SEC? Did he short their stock or something? ;-)

    1. Re:Why did Google turn him in? by dunkindave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why did Google report the searches to the SEC? Did he short their stock or something? ;-)

      Google didn't report it, they found that he did those searches after they were already looking at him, at least that is what the article implies since it is scant on details. My question though is how they know about the searches? Was it forensics on his computer, or did they get the search history from Google? I'm betting the former.

    2. Re:Why did Google turn him in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good point. The police likely found the search queries in his browser history.

      I hope that was the case. Because the alternative that anyone under investigation is granted a search warrant to look through the petabytes of information Google collects on all of us would be really over the top.

    3. Re:Why did Google turn him in? by will_die · · Score: 2

      After tracing the trades to him. He made phone calls to the brokerage firm and they found that the name on the account was his mother. They subpoenaed his search results on google and yahoo. I would guess that is now standard procedure.

    4. Re:Why did Google turn him in? by will_die · · Score: 2

      Look at https://myactivity.google.com/... if given a user name does not look like it is hard for google to display what you did.

    5. Re:Why did Google turn him in? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Look at https://myactivity.google.com/... if given a user name does not look like it is hard for google to display what you did.

      No, but Google won't provide that data without a search warrant or subpoena, properly issued by a court. In a criminal case like this, they'd have to have probable cause to think there's evidence in his search history before the court would issue the warrant needed to get it from Google.

      It's more likely they got a warrant to search his computer, and found the searches in the browser history.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  6. Okay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just stated. What about the actual story? This information is public data? Not that I would ever use Google Search, but still... zero details. It's just assumed that this data is handed out (and is possible to hand out) to anyone asking for it?

  7. Based on what I read on the Internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any moment now the cops will bust down the door and arrest me for all the boobies I look at on the Internet and all the searches for " nude".

    Oh wait, someone's at the door, BRB...

    1. Re:Based on what I read on the Internet... by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      He's dead now.

  8. SEC suspicious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "After flagging the trades as suspicious through data analysis, the SEC traced them back to Yan."
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/07/12/want-get-away-insider-trading-dont-do-this/473496001/

  9. Re:No one gives a flying fuck about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > Answer the goddamn question instead of modding me down

    Why not both?

    > Why should I or anyone else give a fuck that this stupid shit got arrested?

    Because it shows that searches can be snooped through, and during an investigation, are. Because standards about privacy and technology that start out being used against the worst criminals are then used against all criminals and then later against non-criminals, and we are in stage 2 of 3. It is a solid argument for a secure connection to a search engine, possibly through a VPN or other anonymizer. Because a search engine log is thought by most to be simply an interface to find something out, instead of an ironclad Log Of Your Intentions. Because it requires readers to think about this before doing things that are perfectly legal.

  10. Yeah by Ryanrule · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We need a new dilbert cartoon. The creator can fuck off though.

    1. Re:Yeah by Dwedit · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://dilbert.com/strip/2011-...

    2. Re:Yeah by ckatko · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, I also hate people who don't believe the exact things I do. They always challenge my worldview by bringing their "alternative facts" into the discussion. I'm smart. If I was wrong, I'd already know it.

    3. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony is that there's probably a Dilbert cartoon about the PHB or perhaps some marketing person bringing up the equivalent of "alternative facts" and causing no end of frustrating.

    4. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate people whose actions and opinions harm me and those who I hold dear. Am I wrong?.

    5. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate people whose actions and opinions harm me and those who I hold dear. Am I wrong?.

      Your view is completely reasonable. People having the wrong opinions (i.e. ones that you personally disagree with) is a crime against humanity, and quite literally violent oppression. /s

    6. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how a man can go from widely loved to in fear of violence just by posting on his blog. Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, had to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton out of fear for his own physical safety.

    7. Re:Yeah by gumbi+west · · Score: 2

      Is this ironic or not?

      There are so many possible ways so interpret it.

    8. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he didn't. He's just shitting with you. He sarcastically endorsed Hillary to raise controversy and get people on both sides riled up. He doesn't give a fuck who won.

    9. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too right.

    10. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From this kneejerk reaction I'm guessing you haven't actually listened to his opinion.

      If you have, and you still feel direct harm from it, you're an idiot.

    11. Re:Yeah by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      opinions harm me

      Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the liberal snowflake.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ryanrule, did your hugely inflated ponko ego got bruised? Awww... Resist

    13. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opinion:

      "Schopenhauer called the Jew "The Great Master of Lies". Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth to prevail."

      - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

    14. Re:Yeah by Raenex · · Score: 1

      He doesn't give a fuck who won.

      I've been reading/watching him for a while, and he clearly favored Trump. He even explicitly endorsed him.

    15. Re:Yeah by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Scott Adams is more interesting than Dilbert. It's still a good comic, but it's old hat.

    16. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As he should have. People who did not endorse or support Hillary Clinton are deplorable subhumans and should be killed on sight. I would personally skin alive any of those vermin if so ordered by the legitimate President of the United States, Hillary Clinton. If anything this disgrace of an election has shown that people need to be told what to think and what to do all the time and be made to suffer consequences for political heterodoxy. Like in Europe.

  11. Title is misleading. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Informative

    After flagging the trades as suspicious through data analysis, the SEC traced them back to Yan.

    The SEC was already on his trail by the time they found out about his search history.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Title is misleading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was probably parallel construction. This is just their cover.

    2. Re:Title is misleading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Trump voter. I believe in alternative facts. Like that everyone is out to get me and reading my google searches.

    3. Re:Title is misleading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After flagging the trades as suspicious through data analysis, the SEC traced them back to Yan.

      The SEC was already on his trail by the time they found out about his search history.

      then it should be safe for you to google "insider trading", right? well, why don't you try it and see? go ahead. we're waiting.

    4. Re:Title is misleading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA DOES read your Google searches, and if they believe you're a drug trafficker, they share that fact with the DEA so they can manufacture a contrived circumstance to "discover" incriminating evidence innocently. This is public knowledge, not a conspiracy theory.

    5. Re:Title is misleading. by swillden · · Score: 1

      After flagging the trades as suspicious through data analysis, the SEC traced them back to Yan.

      The SEC was already on his trail by the time they found out about his search history.

      then it should be safe for you to google "insider trading", right? well, why don't you try it and see? go ahead. we're waiting.

      Okay, I did. I got a dictionary definition, plus Investopedia and Wikipedia links to explanations of it. I clicked those. I didn't bother with any of the other links.

      Just to be sure I googled "How to get away with insider trading" and "How to cover up evidence of insider trading", and clicked some of those links, too.

      Now what?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  12. Re: No one gives a flying fuck about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't feed the troll.
    I know they're cute and all but he is lost and needs to find his bridge. Don't keep him here by feeding him.

  13. Remember kiddos by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it's not insider trading if a member of Congress did it (or if it happens at a Country Club). Those billionaire investors are just really, really skilled and you're just jealous. Above all the game is not rigged. Nothing to see. Move along.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Remember kiddos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. If a law doesn't apply to everyone then it shouldn't apply to anyone. Otherwise, you don't have rule of law.

    2. Re:Remember kiddos by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      If wanna get in on the billionaire insider action, just buy Berkshire Hathaway shares. Warren Buffet knows a lot of shit that you don't, he's got connections. So when he makes money, YOU make money.

    3. Re:Remember kiddos by nctritech · · Score: 1

      That statement reminds me of Congressional healthcare plans. I bet the wacky laws regarding healthcare with no solution in sight get fixed real fast if Congress has to purchase theirs through the Obamacare exchanges like every other citizen.

    4. Re:Remember kiddos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, I can't help but suspect the reason we're hearing about this 31 year old MIT research guy because was just an _easy_target_ for an SEC investigator to show that they're doing their job. Minimum amount of effort required to prove, investigate, and prosecute I'd imagine. Not that I'm implying he didn't DO it; I'm sure he did. I'm just saying the big fish chases the little fish. Going after a big time Wallstreet criminal would make the SEC's job way more difficult; it would be real _work_ and they'd be giving America a taste of the justice we deserve to see on TV for once. They're not gonna spoil us like that.

    5. Re:Remember kiddos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know the GOP had exactly 1 clause of input into Obamacare. It was that Congress had to follow the same rules as everyone else. It was in the final passed law.

      Once passed, Congress complained that if subjected to that law all the assistants for Congress would quit because it was so bad (yes, the DNC who forced the law on you said it was bad for them). They complained so much that it was decided Congress doesn't have to follow the same rules, despite it being in the law.

      So, yea the GOP had the same idea as you. But we learned that even if it is written into law, Congress still doesn't have to follow it if it screws them over too bad, and they don't care if it does the same to you.

    6. Re:Remember kiddos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They complained so much that it was decided Congress doesn't have to follow the same rules, despite it being in the law.

      Except that never happened and was debunked over four years ago.

      So, yea the GOP had the same idea as you. But we learned that even if it is written into law, Congress still doesn't have to follow it if it screws them over too bad, and they don't care if it does the same to you.

      So here's where is gets really nuts. The GOP is trying to except congress. Talk about getting the story entirely backwards. Never in my life has the right seemed so crazy.

  14. The best way to get away with insider trading... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Become a member of Congress or an assistant to a member of Congress.

  15. Want to Commit Insider Trading? Here's How Not to! by locater16 · · Score: 2

    Step 1: Don't use your standard work or personal computer, in non incgonito or otherwise browser history tracking mode, to Google, with your google account signed in, phrases such as "Insider trading", "how sec detect unusual trade", or however it is you googled this article to begin with... you dumbass.

  16. Re:Want to Commit Insider Trading? Here's How Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just don't.

  17. Re:No one gives a flying fuck about this by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

    >How the fuck is this news? Why should I or anyone else give a fuck that this stupid shit got arrested?

    So why did you click on the post, and why did you go through the effort to post this rant?

    Seems you care more than you thought. :)

  18. Hmmm by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    It's a good thing I'm not a criminal, because if they look at my search history over the years they will find all sorts of queries that any reasonably intelligent and therefore curious person could make. I guess this is just the prosecutor trick of finding every single scrap of dirt on the guy being prosecuted and building a case, but I'm pretty sure that not everyone who hypothetically looks up how to make explosives actually makes explosives... otherwise this planet is in deep trouble.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Hmmm by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      https://www.theatlantic.com/na... He googled at work and they turned him in.

  19. This is a FUCKING bad headline and summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has the usual conspiracy theory implication: "He was arrested just because he happened to be curious about insider trading".

    Go read paragraphs 2-5 of TFA. I'm not going to cut and paste it.

  20. Re:No one gives a flying fuck about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy is delusional and needs mental checkup. No matter what you answer, he will bitch onto it.

  21. Didn't work for Bernie Ward. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Maybe he was doing it for, you know, science, and not business?

    Claiming he was doing "research on a book about hypocrisy in America" didn't keep Bernie Ward from being convicted of distributing child pornography.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  22. Re:No one gives a flying fuck about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modding you down, you need to work on your delivery.

  23. Lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This whole thing is lame. The guy was a student at MIT and got some info from his wife about a company and made some money off of it. They need to be more concerned with the large firms that are placing trades based on tens of millions of dollars. Seems like they are going after small fish because they aren't capable of going after the real criminals. Then again, majority of the SEC people go on to work for those companies that are doing the insider trading, so I guess it's easier to bully people who can't defend themselves.

      As for using the guy's Google and Yahoo searches that's just dumb and I'm doubtful that will hold up in court. It's purely speculative. My guess is that this is just a stunt to try and gain support for violating peoples privacy.

  24. He Has A Second Charge Against Him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's also charged with looking up "money laundering" in the dictionary.

    1. Re: He Has A Second Charge Against Him by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You should look up the word "encyclopedia" in the dictionary.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re: He Has A Second Charge Against Him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh.

      It's a good thing your nick is "Zero_Kelvin", being that you have Zero IQ.

    3. Re: He Has A Second Charge Against Him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HUGE WOOOSH. You should probably petition for his Nick if that's the case.

    4. Re: He Has A Second Charge Against Him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, dolt.

      Hah. CAPTCHA was "perverts" Slashdot knew I was replying to you.

  25. Re:Want to Commit Insider Trading? Here's How Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Step 2: don't click this link
    http://bfy.tw/Cpcb

  26. Re: No one gives a flying fuck about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boring try-hard.

  27. Future Crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This story puts a damper on my summer online research projects.
    Can anybody recommend some good library books that cover topics like:
    - - How to kill your partner for the insurance and make it look like an accident
    - - How to get your elderly (but healthy) parents committed quickly, to inherit their property
    - - How to dispose of various bodies without getting caught.

    Best not to reply on this forum. . . . . use my PO Box. Message me for details. . . . .
     

  28. Priorities priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prevent financial crimes by non-rich poeple is more important than fix the banking system.

  29. Hang on a minute by waynemcdougall · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll read the fine article as a nice break from my assignment on file system design.

    I'll just close this tab on "Everything Hans Reiser Did Wrong and What to Avoid"

    --
    Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
  30. curiosity... wat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Curiosity killed the cat?

  31. Re:No one gives a flying fuck about this by nctritech · · Score: 1

    It also shows that the government routinely uses third parties to get around your constitutional rights and collect information on you. This is why laws that make your data your property (for search and seizure and legal proceeding purposes) even when on someone else's server are needed. Your internet search history being demanded is something that they should have to let you defend against, not a third party like Google that has no interest in the matter.

  32. Better sources by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    https://www.reuters.com/articl...

    https://www.sec.gov/litigation...

  33. Re:The best way to get away with insider trading.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well in that case you wouldn't be "getting away" with anything because insider trading is perfectly legal for members of Congress.

  34. These shitbags will never figure it out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just wish cancer on the lot of them.

  35. Re:No one gives a flying fuck about this by Jack9 · · Score: 1

    > a search engine log is thought by most to be simply an interface to find something out, instead of an ironclad Log Of Your Intentions

    Thank you for the succinct insight.

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
  36. Re: No one gives a flying fuck about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ate her asshole? Because your mouth is filthy....

    Clean it up, orbits!!!

  37. It's good to be the king. by hord · · Score: 0

    Was it a member of Congress? Oh wait... they are expressly exempt from being penalized for insider trading and enjoy a rate of return on their investments of twice the average. It would be a crime if it weren't law written by the same people.