Comment by josu | Hacker News Reader

Comment by josu | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

While the article gives some background, here is a bit more from the wikipedia article about Sergey Aleynikov [1]:

>Sergey Aleynikov is a former Goldman Sachs computer programmer. In December 2010 he was wrongfully convicted of two counts of theft of trade secrets and sentenced to 97 months in prison. In February 2012 his conviction was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that entered a judgement of acquittal, reversing the decision of the District court.

The main reason why he is suing the FBI is beacause:

>On June 20, 2014, upon reviewing the evidence, Justice Ronald Zweibel published a 71-page opinion in which the court ruled that F.B.I. “did not have probable cause to arrest defendant, let alone search him or his home.” The arrest was “illegal,” and Mr. Aleynikov’s “Fourth Amendment rights were violated as a result of a mistake of law.”[2] Besides finding that he was arrested illegally without probable cause, the court blocked the majority of evidence passed by the F.B.I. to prosecutors at the NY State DA's office, as that property was supposed to be returned to Mr. Aleynikov upon his acquittal.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Aleynikov [2] http://dealbook.nytimes.com//2014/06/20/judge-throws-out-evi...

While I agree it was egregious I think people may be missing the point. The FBI is getting a huge black eye here, Goldman is already losing out. This is how our system works.

Goldman over reached and through their efforts got this guy arrested. That they could do that, is a problem, but now everyone involved has been thoroughly spanked (with some bonus civil case spanking as well it seems). So the next time Goldman call's the FBI, they are going to be treated much more skeptically and the agents in charge are going to be unwilling to do anything based on Goldman's "word". Because the agents will remember this and they do not want to be the butt of interagency jokes, or up on civil liability.

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/215714/employee+rights+...

They've already "clarified" and "closed" that loophole. Next time, the programmer actually would go to jail.

In a meta sense I'm curious why you had to create a new account just to post this, although I know the position that the system we have in place actually does work [1] is unpopular.

The system is messy, it doesn't travel in a straight line from broken to fixed, and it takes a lot of time and energy to get right. Consider Prohibition for a moment, it was freaking unconstitutional to drink for a while there. Yes it was broken, yes it got fixed. Just like Marijuana use is getting fixed, slowly, inexorably, fixed.

Martin Luther King was jailed by a broken system, and slowly, over time, it has been getting fixed.

You cannot see a tree grow, but it does. And many people cannot see that our system of governing is working, but it does. As long as you take the long view, it will. Believe that you are a helpless pawn and all is lost, and it won't.

[1] Rights for same sex marriage anyone? Used strong encryption in email?

> In a meta sense I'm curious why you had to create a new account just to post this

Events led me to conclude that using the same account consistently was a bad idea from an employment standpoint. It has nothing to do with this. It is just what I do now. Hell, the password for this account should be easy to guess if you start with the letter a and work your way to the right.

> You cannot see a tree grow, but it does. And many people cannot see that our system of governing is working, but it does. As long as you take the long view, it will. Believe that you are a helpless pawn and all is lost, and it won't.

It is my belief that wealthy people can (usually) get away with passing whatever crap they want through Congress.

The only tool I have at my disposal is point out when this happens and hope people get outraged enough to do something. I'm confused why you view that with a belief that I'm helpless?

P.s. Given that I basically gave away the password, this is the last time I'll use the account.

   > It is my belief that wealthy people can (usually) 
   > get away with passing whatever crap they want 
   > through Congress.

And you will get a lot of reinforcement of that belief from a variety of sources. That said, the belief doesn't preclude non-wealthy people from getting away with passing whatever crap they want, it just says "People who engage with Congress, (usually) get away with passing what ever crap they want."

If you are wondering how to "engage with Congress" the easy way is during election season but you can also visit them in Washington or at their office in your district. While some districts are quite gerrymandered by their nature the local office is often within driving distance. They also host fund raisers and that while there are some expensive ones, there are also cheap ones (like $25 or $50 a "plate") since every dollar counts in a war chest. You can meet their staff at these (often quite accessible) and if you're at all reasonable develop something of a "relationship" with your elected representative. And even if you dislike their point of view until the next go-round they are your representative.

If you talk with other donors at the event you may find other donors who share your point of view on a particular issue and with some persuasion you may be able to develop a coalition of donors who think like you do, bringing even more attention to your issues.

Politics is people, and it is always local. You don't need to be wealthy to get access, you just need to be reasonable.

> They also host fund raisers and that while there are some expensive ones, there are also cheap ones (like $25 or $50 a "plate") since every dollar counts in a war chest.

For a household making above the median, this might be viable.

You do have to admit people who have large families, single earner households due to disabled SO, etc. are going to have trouble justifying the expense of spending $200 a year "networking" in political circles.

Are you saying that you cannot represent the interests of those people? And I am not sure where you computed $200, one fund raiser is one fundraiser, no additional donation required.

If a homeless man says to you, "Mr. Loop, I am homeless and a veteran, and an alcoholic, and a deadbeat father, I deserve help from the government I fought for." You would tell him, "Well good luck with that." Or would you say, "I will see about getting your requirements heard."

The point is why is it "their" problem that they can't talk to the government effectively? Aren't they also citizens in this land?

I completely agree that for people who, for what ever reason, are unable to participate in the governance of the country, will be unable, by their very circumstance, to affect change. And you may very well be a member of that group. But if you are not, is there any reason that you couldn't be their voice if you chose to?

The way our system works is you get out what you put in. And there are people who are unable to put in, but there are also people who can put in for them and serve as their "influence" in the bigger picture. People and even the news media will tell you that they don't exist, and that the world is full of corruption and greed. That sells more newspapers I guess. But have you met your city council? Talked with them? Your county supervisors? If you haven't because you've been told it won't make a difference you have been lied to. And you can put that lie to the test by seeking those people out and putting yourself out there to help.

Yes, there are people with bogus motives in office. And there are good people in office. You can't really tell who is who without talking to them though. And when you find the bogus ones and get them removed, well that helps everyone.

And, as I started this conversation, it takes time. And there are set backs, and sometimes the bozos win one. But you take the long view, the commitment that you will continue to push for a better version of the world. You may find more support than you expect.

Upon further reflection, maybe I should just keep using it.

Demonstrating that multiple people could have access to the account makes an excellent case for plausible deniability. In the right circumstances a court could compel HN to distinguish between these users (or at least, prove that the "multiple" aspect is a fiction), but the existence of doubt minimalizes the professional risk. This feels like about the right level of security for unpopular political meta-comments of this sort.

Ah, but are we paranoid or in possession of multiple personalities?

Then again, the risk of a court is never really a risk. This is perfectly legal. :P

>Ah, but are we paranoid or in possession of multiple personalities?

Maybe for the former, the latter is true without a doubt.

So you claim!

I agree with them. Whoever they happen to be!

I would argue that it's not working in this case. A company was harmed financially so let them sue him. It does not need to be a criminal matter.

These seem to be 2 separate points. The original post said that he was exonerated because the FBI didn't have probable cause to search him. The article you linked said he was exonerated because the statute didn't cover HFT systems. I guess that makes sense if the reason the FBI didn't have probably cause was because they should have known that, even if everything Goldman alleged, he still wouldn't have broken any laws.

That seems to be the opinion espoused in the article. It was legal due to a "loophole".

> I guess that makes sense if the reason the FBI didn't have probably cause was because they should have known that, even if everything Goldman alleged, he still wouldn't have broken any laws.

From the article:

> On December 28, 2012, President Obama enacted the Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012, which clarifies the scope of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-39). The newly enacted amendments are intended to reverse the recent Second Circuit decision in United States v. Aleynikov, 676 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2012).

The only way that statement makes sense is if the author believed that the FBI failed due to a lack of the acts alleged by Goldman Sachs being a crime. Imo, anyway.

I think you're right. That's the only consistent way to read this anyway.

"the next time Goldman calls the FBI, they are going to be treated much more sceptically...."

maybe. but I sort of doubt it.

You mean Goldman calling up a friend at the FBI doesn't count as probable cause??

The US is a pretty strange place when Bank of America can literally break into someone's home, steal everything they own, and never suffer either financially or criminally, but all a corporation has to do is point their finger at an individual and that individual will be arrested and prosecuted.

It also reminds me of the AT&T case where someone accessed records on public URLs and instead of AT&T getting a black eye for being so incompetent the dude went to jail. When will a corporation metaphorically go to jail? They steal, they lie, they cheat, they launder money, but yet they're always "too big to prosecute."

>the AT&T case where someone accessed records on public URLs

For those not in the know, that someone was weev [1].

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#AT.26T_data_breach

That somebody was Jackson Games in 1993 somewhat earlier:

http://www.sjgames.com/SS/topten.html

(Not quite public URLs as the WWW was quite new at the time, but public information all the same.)

Weev is a dick, but what he did in that specific case shouldn't have been a interpreted as a crime, and I would have preferred his conviction be overturned on that basis, rather than the venue issue.

While I don't think weev should have gone to jail, I can't help but think there was a sense of "we have to get this guy for something," like locking up Al Capone for cheating on his taxes.

Weev probably should be in jail, just not for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#Trolling I probably would have been OK with them nailing him for "something", but the AT&T case set a bad precedent.

I'm uncomfortable with allowing prosecutors the leeway to just kind of decide who should be in jail based on gut judgements but I'm clearly in the minority because that's not the way the law or politics are moving (like look at the guys getting nailed for mail fraud because of Massachusetts patronage scandals that technically were probably not illegal).

>Bank of America can literally break into someone's home, steal everything they own

I searched but didn't find anything about BoA home invasion. Link to story?

He's referring to several cases where they "foreclose" on the incorrect home. They break into homes, take everything in them, and auction it off and throw away anything they can't sell.

While malicious intent may be absent, to the victims that does not matter one iota.

Can you cite an example for the Bank of America mention? Is it hyperbole?

No, not at all. And they did it multiple times too(!). Here's just one example: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-sued-foreclosing...

And when they do get prosecuted, the punishment is laughable, typically a fine equal to weeks of profit, maybe months if it's something really terrible.

I'd like to see how corporate behavior changes if "jail" was a real possibility. For a crime that an individual would get two years in prison, shut down the company for two years. They can try to pick up the pieces after that period, just like the individual.

The problem with that is it would put lots of innocent employees out of work. You'd have to sell the company to a competitor or something so that the operation kept going but shareholders got wiped out. Make shareholders feel the pain and the behavior will change.

I think at a minimum firing all CXX level employees and the loss of all stock options/pending bonuses is a good compromise. Fines harm investors, but the actual people that decide to break the law are rarely impacted.

Investors should be harmed if they invest in enterprises that engage in criminal acts. Perhaps then there will be a bit more appetite for some ethics at the expense of a little profit.

Not only that but you'll get shorts interested in criminal companies because they can profit by exposing wrong-doing. And, on the other side, the market will discount a company's stock if it is criminal which kills the executives incentives to take these actions.

Hamstringing the company is going to do a lot of collateral damage to innoccents. I mean, if all CXX level people are guilty then so be it- but purely punitive beheading of a company's leadership? Come on.

Force the company to issue new shares up to some proportion of their value and give them to whoever is deemed appropriate?

The same sort of thing happens when individuals go to jail. Family members lose their means of support, children lose their parents, etc. One person going to jail can potentially devastate an entire innocent extended family. That doesn't stop us.

If your actions are destroying other people's lives and unlawfully disposessing them of their homes, then the word you're looking for is "criminally negligent". Not "innocent".

Nazi guards tried that defense. Didn't work for them either.

(Some of them were relatives of mine.)

I'm talking about people like [Schindler](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Schindler) who was a Nazi but obviously not following orders. In a corporation with tens of thousands of employees, not all of them will have conspired to break the law. Those are the people that shouldn't be subject to putative measures.

A much better idea than that is to actually imprison all the top level executives of the company if their company commits a crime that would get an individual thrown in prison.

Nono, those corporations are just rational actors, as the book of the free market tells us.

Goldman Sachs was entirely within their rights to contact the FBI if they believed proprietary information was stolen from them by an ex-employee. It's the government (read: FBI) that screwed up here, as is most often the case.

Well, yes, the problem isn't necessarily that they contact the authorities but that they apparently have their ears.

I personally think that large financial organizations should have this privilege given their role in the financial markets. They are prone to fraud and theft, i.e. a large target.

Except if you have some information that I don't outside of the scope of my comment above.

Just because a bank says you're stealing doesn't make it so.

Especially when the case relates to intellectual property, they have no special position in the society, and the crime may not be a crime but a civil case.

>Just because a bank says you're stealing doesn't make it so.

Of course it doesn't. That's the job of the FBI and legal system to determine.

Goldman ("given their role in the financial markets") is effectively above the law.

I think that's fine, but they shouldn't just take everything GS says on faith.

>but that they apparently have their ears.

How so? Anybody can contact the FBI.

And when that "someone" happens to be a massive, multi-billion dollar bank reporting a "crime", then I sure hope that they have the FBI's ears.

Well, that was a poor choice of words, but what I mean is that I hope the FBI would exercise more skepticism when they receive a report like this.

I've reported a crime to the relevant FBI division, in which I could point out exactly where the money was went (same city, local bank) and provide proof of the fraud.

Action taken: none.

>I've reported a crime

Your unverifiable anecdote doesn't hold much weight, I'm afraid. But do you really believe random-guy calling the FBI should warrant as much attention as multi-national financial institution reporting a potential crime?

People are complaining as if GS putting the FBI on people is rampant. As far as I'm aware it has happened this once (though I'm open to other tales) and an over-zealous investigator tried to make a name for himself and messed it up royally.

I agree, what they did to this poor fellow is disgraceful, but let's not pretend that the justice system doesn't have a habit of railroading people when they desire a suspect. That's the real tragedy.

> But do you really believe random-guy calling the FBI should warrant as much attention as multi-national financial institution reporting a potential crime?

Well, yeah, if corporations are people with equal rights, that means that the law should treat them equally to other people.

Magnitude of crime is different. If somebody breaks into my car in San Francisco and steals a bag, I totally expect police to laugh at me if I ask if they plan to investigate it.

On the other hand if young female student is raped, her newborn daughter brutally murdered and house burned to the ground, I expect half the police to be on high alert and FBI to get involved.

GS report of theft of software that produces billions in profits falls somewhere between these two extremes. Police/FBI does not have resources to investigate all crimes equally so they have to prioritize. The same way as browse remote-execution exploit is fixed way faster than small UI glitch.

> Magnitude of crime is different.

The question wasn't "should a person reporting a potentially wide-ranging crime doing lots of damage and impacting potentially large number of victims be treated differently than a person reporting a crime with lesser impacts".

There is a difference between asking if the magnitude of the crime reported should result in a different response and what actually was asked, which was whether who is reporting the crime should result in a different response.

>Magnitude of crime is different. If somebody breaks into my car in San Francisco and steals a bag, I totally expect police to laugh at me if I ask if they plan to investigate it.

Except that I could provide a complete paper trail of where the money went (to a local scam artist) -- that's how the financial system works.

It would be analogous to providing and end-to-end video of a car being stolen to a previously unknown chop shop.

What the police actually did would be analogous to ignoring that video but then arresting a car thief on a GS executive's say-so.

Right, so just like with people the famous rich one with a big reputation is lent more initial credence than the anonymous one you've never heard of.

Or would you put just as much faith in Joe Programmer as you would in Steve Woz?

If I wanted someone to design me a cheap disk controller - possibly not.

But in an account of a burglary - yes I would.

It seems you've accepted that justice favors those with high status over those with low status.

Perhaps you don't find that troubling. I do.

Huh? My parent is upset that Joe-Random has less clout. My point is Joe-Random has no credence, which has absolutely nothing to do with "high status". Woz has credence about disk controllers. Big banks have credence about finance and trading. That is as it should be. Joe-Random does not deserve equal clout on matters of disk controllers, finance, or trading.

So you need to be the Steve Woz of crime victims before you should expect any law enforcement action whatsoever on a crime with an enormous paper trail?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com