Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Did Goldman Overstep in Criminally Charging Its Ex-Programmer?

vanityfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 228 posts

Re: Did Goldman Overstep in Criminally Charging Its Ex-Programmer?

#131

Post by cupcake-unicorn »

jmaygarden wrote: post #128
cupcake-unicorn wrote: post #123

I don't have anything useful to say, but: "Serge figured, it was a matter of unfolding the box, turning a three-dimensional object into a one-dimensional surface" Now how does one do that? :) And he shouldn't have had to used the Pythagorean theorem on just a one dimensional line... Sigh. Just thought it was funny, since the article was about how programming/technical jargon goes over the heads of jurors, the FBI, et…

There are multiple ways to unfold a box into 2 dimensions. For example, see this printable pattern that you can try at home [1]. Also, how else would you determine the distance between two coordinates in a plane without using the Pythagorean theorem [2]? It's not like he could use a measuring tape in an imaginary, unfolded room. EDIT: I reread your post and see that you are pointing out a typo. The phrase "one-dimens…

Yes, sorry - I was pointing out the "one dimensional" typo.

Re: Did Goldman Overstep in Criminally Charging Its Ex-Programmer?

#132

Post by cupcake-unicorn »

ErikAugust wrote: post #13
ImJasonH wrote: post #2

My favorite part of all of this is the scare-quotes around "subversion repository"

You think if they chose to use Git for version control the agent would have not thought anything of it? Subversion just sounds too menacing?

Well, I'm sure they'd find some other, equally ridiculous way to interpret "Git" - obviously the programmer was making a statement about the stupid "gits" in charge of the company...

Re: Did Goldman Overstep in Criminally Charging Its Ex-Programmer?

#133

Post by s_q_b »

sneak wrote: post #26

I haven't clicked through, but only the government (via prosecutors) can charge anyone with criminal offenses. Additionally, while private people can suggest charges or report crimes, ultimately they have zero say one way or the other if charges actually get filed. See also: Apple/DoJ/Gawker, ATT/Apple/DoJ/weev, JSTOR/MIT/aaronsw

>only the government (via prosecutors) can charge anyone with criminal offenses.

That's almost universally true, but some states still do in fact have the right of private prosecution. E.g. New Jersey allows you to swear out a criminal complaint directly to a magistrate, and there isn't a damn thing the police or a prosecutor can do about it.

Private prosecutions used to be the norm. It's actually a very powerful force against police corruption, and I wish it hadn't gone away in so many states.

Also, in cases like this, the prosecutors will generally defer to the desires of the victim, especially when the victim is one of the world's most powerful corporations.

Re: Did Goldman Overstep in Criminally Charging Its Ex-Programmer?

#134

Post by imsofuture »

While stupidity isn't a crime, people like Serge manage to find their way around that obstacle.

It's pretty obvious he didn't have any malicious or illegal intent, but he definitely followed the checklist of 'things not to do when leaving a job'. Emailing yourself code? Seriously?

The whole thing is a travesty, but he walked right into it.

Re: Did Goldman Overstep in Criminally Charging Its Ex-Programmer?

#135

Post by BWStearns »

msandford wrote: post #110
pdovy wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think this would be common sense at any job - unless otherwise specified in your contract the work that you do for your employer belongs to your employer, full stop. According to the article he freely admits that what he took included proprietary code - that is theft. Now, was Goldman reasonable here? No, we can probably all agree that Goldman and the government overstepped a lot of bounds chasing this guy do…

That might be, but it's a CIVIL issue not a CRIMINAL one.

The commercial espionage laws might justify bringing it into a criminal case, although (and I'm only on page 7 here) it doesn't seem like they proved, or even attempted to, that the removal of the code was in the interest of using it in his new endeavor. From the sounds of it he was primarily interested in bringing out some modified libraries. So while incidentally bringing out the proprietary code might well qualify him for the civil case, the commercial espionage accusation seems pretty damned weak, especially since the laws are designed to protect trade secrets (the formula for new coke anyone?) as opposed to this blatantly more mundane potential piece of IP. Also depending on the licenses of the open source stuff (as hinted at in a prior comment), it may not have been within the guy's legal authority to hand over IP rights to GS for some of the code.

Re: Did Goldman Overstep in Criminally Charging Its Ex-Programmer?

#136

Post by gd1 »

defen wrote: post #129
gd1 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His 'second jury' were comical. "Most were surprised by how little he had taken in relation to the whole: eight megabytes in a platform that consisted of an estimated one gigabyte of code. " Really? One gigabyte of code? Or one gigabyte of third party binaries, precompiled libraries, documentation etc.? All you need are the source files, and those language keywords compress nicely. Exactly how much plain text do you…

> In even the worst codebase there will be nuggets of usefulness that will accelerate the process. Isolated parts of the system that you've perfected. Exchange message decoders for example (ITCH, FIX/FAST, etc.). This is especially true when you, the genius who will be starting from scratch, has worked on it for a few years. I assume he was doing something useful in his time at Goldman. The new system was going to be…

And? How does that make it any less useful to have the existing code as a guide?

Re: Did Goldman Overstep in Criminally Charging Its Ex-Programmer?

#137

Post by thufry »

JonnieCache wrote: post #28

Side question: how do these people with "only the vaguest interest in his fellow human beings" end up with a wife and three kids? It seems to be a common theme amongst articles like this. They always paint the hero-programmer as some kind of rainman figure and then it turns out he has a loving family. Just the usual fictional press nonsense I guess. EDIT: should always read on before commenting: "He married a girl an…

I am someone who has only the vaguest interest in my fellow human beings, and has a great, loving relationship with my girlfriend. Different people want different things. I enjoy my girlfriend's company and enjoy spending time with her and a few other friends but in general I detest the presence of other people in my physical vicinity.

Re: Did Goldman Overstep in Criminally Charging Its Ex-Programmer?

#138

Post by rhizome »

psychometry wrote: post #124
rhizome wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even more on point: ALWAYS record interactions with the FBI: http://jonathanturley.org/2013/05/11/why-the-fbi-doesnt-reco... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-w... http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/05/10/beware-fbi-whe... http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070402_FBI_Me...

Unless you live in a multiple-party wiretap consent state, in which case you've committed additional crimes.

None of those articles promote surreptitious recording. You tell them you will only speak while being recorded (with a lawyer, natch), then they go away.

Re: Did Goldman Overstep in Criminally Charging Its Ex-Programmer?

#139

Post by gamblor956 »

sneak wrote: post #27
waffle_ss wrote: post #20

On the night of the arrest—without an arrest warrant—Serge waived his right to call a lawyer. He phoned his wife and told her what had happened and that a bunch of F.B.I. agents were on the way to their home to seize their computers, and to please let them in—though they had no search warrant, either. Then he sat down and politely tried to clear up the F.B.I. agent's confusion. "He was completely not interested in th…

That video is right up there with knowing about 83b elections as some of the most valuable information one can possibly possess. I rewatch it annually and send out mass emails to all my friends and family when I do reminding them to do so as well.

Tell that to all the Zynga employees who made 83(b) elections and are now underwater! 83(b) entails being taxed on the value of stock/options when purchased/received (i.e., as compensation), rather than when vested or when exercised. It's great if the value of the stock increases, but you're substantially worse off economically (taking the time value of money into account) if the value of the stock decreases.

Re: Did Goldman Overstep in Criminally Charging Its Ex-Programmer?

#140

Post by biero »

RockyMcNuts wrote: post #114
aqme28 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he's arguing that he worked on open-source code, which isn't something he is legally able to sign over the rights of.

whatever he or anyone at Goldman did on that open-source code, belongs to Goldman, and he can't assign the rights of or share it, either, it's up to Goldman (and the terms of the license).

> it's up to Goldman (and the terms of the license).

It is really up to the license, Goldman either selected licenses where they could legally avoid sending upstream changes or planned to violate the law in secrecy. If they did the latter on just one license, then he should qualify as a whistle blower.

Post reply on HN