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 work for a linux vendor that does business in the finance industry, and you would be amazed at how many patches for software come through these firms. Of course it never appears that way, because the code is copyright Goldman or Morgan or whatever, and it can't be licensed under the GPL without jumping through a million hoops. The Lawyers don't get it, so people in the field wind up sending the patches out email and stuff. Technically any of these people could get picked up the same way.
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.
Agreed. It might well be argued that knowing which open source packages were used is in itself proprietary, and therefore the mere copying of the packages from his employer, demonstrating a clear and discerning knowledge of valuable operational information, is sufficient for prosecution. Assuming he is just stupid and is not lying, he should just have waited until he was at his new job to grab the code from the original distributor (SourceForge, or wherever).
I'm disinclined to believe that the copying was innocent. A number of my friends, and my spouse, work in the financial industry, and nearly every action taken in life is scrutinized. Exiting a position, doubly so. Everyone knows this, and there is a good reason: when salaries are in the 7-digit range, people's motivations become rightfully suspect.
Assuming he is just stupid and is not lying, he should just have waited until he was at his new job to grab the code from the original distributor (SourceForge, or wherever).
It's lovely, seeing with 20-20 hindsight, isn't it?
I think everyone (or almost everyone) is missing the larger point here. This software, from Goldman Sachs, is what they are using to get the jump on everyone as part of their HFT (high frequency trading gambit). What they are doing is technically fraudulent and illegal, which was why they used their extraordinary influence with the US Government - which they, and the rest of the banksters now officially own - to IMMEDIATELY have Sergey arrested.
Also, all the Euro papers and blogs I perused stated that the code was originally uploaded to a server in London, United Kingdom. Something appears amiss here (and the game is still afoot, BTW).
What he did was wrong, but not for the reasons you think.
Superfast trading puts all other traders at a disadvantage and essentially lets day traders manipulate the market. The SEC doesn't see fit to step in and stop the madness. They're a leech on the market and the frequency and volume of their trades hampers the ability for real investors(meaning people) to determine the volatility and legitimate trade volume of a stock.
Some day the SEC will pull their head out of their ass and put a mandatory ownership period on all stock purchases of 48 hours or something. Addicted day traders might stop gambling away their retirement and it might put an end to these fast traders.
fail. if it's sitting on the companys computers and you've been working on it in company time, they own it. i can't fathom a reason he would copy personal projects onto company hardware if it wasn't to work on it.
this is something that scares me a bit about the work i do. i've had employers get really pissed off at me leaving before, my greatest fear is that one day they might pursue me in this kind of manner out of spite. a perfect example was one of my early gigs - a fully automated laboratory system that ran linux. i developed it, supported it 24/7 and saved the company a fortune. in 3 years they never gave me a single pay rise. so i was forced to leave to better my financial situation, and my god my last 2 weeks consisted of snide remarks and petty shots at my work. I handled it by just going about my work as normal and tieing up as many loose ends as possible, not taking the bait at their attempts at rattling me. once my notice was up i offered them a very fair rate if they ever wanted me back as a contractor to fix things or do new developements, and it was turned down without even a moments consideration.
the fearful part comes from how much work i took home with me, a really committed employee who enjoys his work will tend to wrap his life around his work. at that time it would have been hard to separate personal life from work. i don't think anyone should be penalised for that.
I used to work at Lehman Brothers years ago. I was developing new trading software. Once a buddy brought me a PC game. He put a CD in a drive, copied the files to his PC and burned it to a new blank CD.
The network admins got an alert from the CD burning and within 15 minutes security was making sure nobody entered or left the section we were in. We both almost got fired from the shit-storm that followed. They didn't overreact one bit. We were wrong. We were being paid good money to know better than to copy our personal files on the same network as proprietary company software. It was a good thing they reacted so quickly so we could hand them both CDs to prove we hadn't been stealing the company's proprietary competitive advantage to sell it to a competitor. That kind of inter-company espionage goes on ALL THE TIME.
No offense, but they were idiots then. Why did they have CD burning capabilities in these PCs and why did they trust that the CD you handed them was the one you just burnt and you hadn't palmed one under your desk with the actual stolen code.
The first part would still stand, obviously any burning was unauthorized, and they still sell "read only" CD drives today.
The second part, with your jusification, would imply that they knew what was being copied and thus should have been able to simply determine that this wasn't something they cared about.
Unless they half-assed it.
Which given they appearently went to all the effort of coming up with a system to detect file copies without going the full nine yards of removing the actual ability to copy files off the system, isn't that hard to believe. But it still gives them the stupid label.
If the burners were needed during the course of business, it may have been impossible to disable them without costing more in the long run.
I find it funny when people say "they should have disabled it" instead of the employee knows the rules and shouldn't have done X. I mean is it the employers fault that the employee was surfing porn at work because the sites he visited wasn't blocked by the content controls? Is it the employers fault for not putting the printing paper or pens under lock and key when the employees start taking it home for personal use? No, it's the employees fault for not following the rules. When employees cannot follow the rules, they need to become ex-employees instead of having the employer jump though hoops locking crap down.
I vote for "clever disguise", but only because "stupid disguise" was not given as an option.
Why would a developer who's apparently worth US$ 400,000.- copy open source sourcecode from his employer's code repository whilst he could have just as easily copied the exact same code from the actual origin? Can anybody tell me a good reason why his claimed actions are in any way preferable to the obvious way of obtaining the source code?
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.
For those who are interested, the Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org] has put together a Surveillance Defense Project [eff.org] manual which discusses the basics of government search and seizure powers in the United States (among other things). There are other sources available on the same and related topics (the searches are left as an exercise to the reader), but basically the only way to completely preserve one's rights when dealing with the authorities is to refuse any cooperation, other than name and id, from the very start and continue that refusal until one's attorney is present and one is acting under advice from that attorney. Of course, our individual rights are being constantly diminished in this country so your mileage may vary, but at least in theory if you want to protect your 5th amendment right against self incrimination you must never cooperate, not even partially, until you are acting under the advice of your attorney, even if you have not yet been arrested or detained (i.e. this applies to any interactions with the authorities under any circumstances).
Well it's a bit weird in the wording, but it makes sense. The "right against self-incrimination" is spelled out in the 5th amendment, which includes the text, "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". This is the part that makes it so police have to tell you that you have the right to remain silent. You can, however, waive that right and talk to the police anyhow, thereby "waiving your right against self-incrimination."
Can you really "waive your rights against self-incrimination"?
Yes.
Like, now that he's waived his rights, he's required to incriminate himself?
No, it means that once he made the waiver, the statements he made to law enforcement can be used against him in a court of law and he cannot assert his Constitutional right against self-incrimination to have those statements excluded from evidence at trial (or, at least, provided that evidence shows that he did in fact waive those rights, an attempt to do so would fail.)
It's not worth it. It's just not worth it. I have never been more miserable than when working in such an establishment. I never, ever, ever thought I could get used to being called an a-hole to my face for, well, anything...that's just how you referred to. And while the executive offices were likely very nice, I sat in a cube with ripped fabric, working under a flickering florescent light.
In addition to what others have said, insanely long hours, unbelievable pressure (I was told that if I didn't have something working in production by Sunday night that I should just assume I'm fired), I can say that in 1996 I took 3 days off: New Years, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. I worked every other day.
Thank you, Good Citizen pod, you are outstandlingly, enlightenly correctimondo--- corect, correct, correct.
Goldman Sachs alumni also found at World Bank and IMF, as well as at least ten people in the Obama Administration (probably even more than that).
GS doesn't have a statistically impossible earnings record with HFT because they are smart, it's called cheating..cheating...cheating....what they have always excelled at. Didn't anyone read Matt Taibbi's outstanding article in the Rolling Stone [rollingstone.com] mag the other month? Geez, they have their hardware positioned exactly right to make a killing -- no brains involved -- plus they own all the frigging exchanges (via a series of holding companies, 'natch). You others here, catch a clue, doods....
Well, you earn it. My sister used to work on wall st; got all sorts of perks. Catered dinners and a chauffeur home when she worked late, that sort of thing.
Thing is, the late nights, killer pressure, and absurdly long weeks were the norm.
Me, I make probably a tenth of what she did, but I show up at 7:30 and leave at 4, and sleep at night. I have time for my kids and family. I've never worked on a weekend on this job.
So yup, you can make $millions; you can also lose your soul.
My time with my son is priceless. I don't know that I could deal with not seeing him except after he'd already gone to sleep. On the other hand, being able to be financially stable for the rest of my life, my wife's life, and being able to comfortably fund my kids' education has a certain appeal, too. Being able to work less later in life, when my kids want to go backpacking, or play soccer, or go to museums, that is pretty valuable time too.
For GS, he was making approx 400k. That's not outlandish for the kind of optimized programming on optimized hardware required for automatic trade execution, which is highly time-sensitive.
But it's not just the programming skills that demand that much pay. There's lots of specialized knowledge, and some ability that likely you or I are not capable of[1].
1.2 MM for a different company? Likely the extra $800k was for the inside knowledge of what GS was doing.
[1] I don't know what your abilities are. But given my own geek-normal tendencies to overestimate my own abilities, I think it's quite possible that others do the same:)
I guess that million-dollar salary is evidence of their desperation.
At least every day for the past three or four years I've gotten inquiries from recruiters for Solomon-Page and Bloomberg, and occasionally other New York City investment firms. They specifically want C++ coders, which is what I'm best at.
If I respond at all, it's to say that I don't want to live in new york city.
However, the last time any of them named a specific salary potential was back in 2002 or so. I guess the pay scale has inc
Keep your personal business and your company's business separate. For instance, I have a separate banking account whose sole purpose is to hold expense reimbursements until I pay the ccard. Why? Because it's just too damned easy to screw up and cause yourself trouble all out of proportion to the original mistake.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday August 24, @04:46PM (#29178553)
He is a developer so by definition he is computer literate; you don't "accidentally" copy the wrong files (especially since they have BASH LOGS of what he did). However, even if what he says is true WHY IN THE NAME OF FUCK would you copy Open Source Software from your development machine instead of directly from the source? The potential for the appearance of impropriety is bad enough. On top of that, according to the original Slashdot article a while back he also encrypted the files. WHY IN THE NAME OF FUCK would you bother to encrypt Open Source Software files? While everything he said is technically plausible, it just comes off as fraudulent in the same manner as Hans Reiser's defense; i.e. "I'm so smart and I have an answer for everything". I suspect the next thing we hear about this story will involve a plea deal.
Exception handling used for process control. Functions with 27 exit points. GUI threads running I/O. Databases with tens of thousands of tables with no referential integrity.
Odds are this guy is a 110'er. "Smart" enough to copy his code. Dumb enough to do it over the network.
I don't know, if I copy my "c:\java" folder at work I end up with literally gigabytes of open source libs, API's etc. all neatly arranged. It would take quite some time to get them back. Some sources are even hard to trace, I've got a open source Java version of the linux/GNU "file" command somewhere, taken from a media server or such. Can't find it anymore. If I would copy that folder I would have some general purpose libs that I compiled myself as well. Yes, I could just take the directory tree and be done with it, but why not copy the folder minus the company libs? And after that a mistake is easy to make.
Not that I would do such a thing, (besides being unable to move this much info from my system anyway), but I could imagine that it is likely that people do such things. Hey, maybe he was even developing the O/S software. Encryption? I am so used to encrypting *any* application that I am sending out of the door that I would probably do it automatically. If only to confuse the company virus scanner.
No evidence of wrongdoing has really been presented. The article (I did RTFA) seemed to say that because some files went out, the company immediately began legal proceedings without even knowing what they were. It seems like PHBs are declaring what the "valuable" files are. I'm also shocked the way the FBI has handled this - there has to be more than we're seeing.
Having said all of that - it does look like (at least the article makes it look this way) the established firms are manipulating the legal system to prevent new competitors from getting on their feet. Slap suits used to be civil only - I would think that attempting criminal slap suits would have some legal consequences for the one filing the false (or should have known they were false) charges.
From the article: "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." Not to mention that 2.6% of a program (the amount he was quoted to have, including the OSS that is not proprietary) is a bit weak in my opinion.
Apparently I'm not alone (again, from the article): Harvey A. Silverglate, a criminal defense lawyer in Boston not involved in the case, said he was troubled that the F.B.I. had arrested Mr. Aleynikov so quickly, without evidence that he had made any effort to use or sell the code. Such disputes are generally resolved civilly rather than criminally, Mr. Silverglate said.
Possession of proprietary data happens every time one of these guys leaves a company - they have it between their ears. Using it is where they get nailed. The reason I'm so surprised at the FBI is that I know they're smart enough to not spring the trap before they have the guy dead-to-rights. Failing to do that is how perps walk and I expect more from our country's premier law enforcement agency.
The stamping out part is about Citadel, not GS and certainly not the FBI. (You may want to read the article - it's a pretty quick read)
Citadel and GS are either going off half-cocked or we don't have all the pieces.
Mr. Aleynikov waived his rights against self-incrimination, and agreed to allow agents to search his house.
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 [youtube.com], 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.
The interesting part of the article is actually in paragraph 3 (i.e., before anything the submitter thought was important):
At a bail hearing three days later, a federal prosecutor asked that Mr. Aleynikov be held without bond because the code could be used to "unfairly manipulate" stock prices.
Of course, it's perfectly fine that Goldman-Sachs management and traders have code that could be used to "unfairly manipulate" stock prices. But when a private citizen gets their hands on something like that, look out! God knows we wouldn't want the hoi-polloi to have the same chance to "unfairly manipulate" stock prices that the big boys have.
No effort is spared in government to protect the dishonest business practices of these sheisters, and no effort is spared in the media to disguise it as the parent companies of the major media outlets benefit greatly from keeping the public in the dark.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. research analyst Marc Irizarry's published rating on mutual-fund manager Janus Capital Group Inc. was a lackluster "neutral" in early April 2008. But at an internal meeting that month, the analyst told dozens of Goldman's traders the stock was likely to head higher, company documents show.
Nothing like selling bonds out the front door and shorting them on your prop desk, right? Oh wait, Goldman did that too!
Securities laws require firms like Goldman to engage in "fair dealing with customers," and prohibit analysts from issuing opinions that are at odds with their true beliefs about a stock. Steven Strongin, Goldman's stock research chief, says no one gains an unfair advantage from its trading huddles, and that the short-term-trading ideas are not contrary to the longer-term stock forecasts in its written research.
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?
It is illegal front running IF it looks at their brokerage business order flow and trades ahead of that. Do you have evidence that they are doing that? If so, you should be talking to the SEC, not posting on Slashdot.
Lots of firms implement high frequency trading strategies based on statistical probabilities of short term market movements, and order book depth analysis. These strategies are usually capital constrained, and a lot of work to implement and maintain, but can be levered up and earn a relative huge return on a modest amount of capital utilized, when implemented properly.
Of course, they can also fail to get timely execution of orders if there are 5 people going after the same trades, in which case 4 of you are likely to lose your arses. Unlike other areas, high frequency strategies are often (though not always) a winner-takes-all world where your network latency and code execution speed are measured in microseconds, not seconds, or even milliseconds.
open source... Likely defence (Score:5, Insightful)
Anywho, in summary, weak sauce excuses are weak sauce.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not t
Re:open source... Likely defence (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Agreed. It might well be argued that knowing which open source packages were used is in itself proprietary, and therefore the mere copying of the packages from his employer, demonstrating a clear and discerning knowledge of valuable operational information, is sufficient for prosecution. Assuming he is just stupid and is not lying, he should just have waited until he was at his new job to grab the code from the original distributor (SourceForge, or wherever).
I'm disinclined to believe that the copying was innocent. A number of my friends, and my spouse, work in the financial industry, and nearly every action taken in life is scrutinized. Exiting a position, doubly so. Everyone knows this, and there is a good reason: when salaries are in the 7-digit range, people's motivations become rightfully suspect.
Parent
Re:open source... Likely defence (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming he is just stupid and is not lying, he should just have waited until he was at his new job to grab the code from the original distributor (SourceForge, or wherever).
It's lovely, seeing with 20-20 hindsight, isn't it?
Parent
Missing the point by a light year (Score:4, Interesting)
I think everyone (or almost everyone) is missing the larger point here. This software, from Goldman Sachs, is what they are using to get the jump on everyone as part of their HFT (high frequency trading gambit). What they are doing is technically fraudulent and illegal, which was why they used their extraordinary influence with the US Government - which they, and the rest of the banksters now officially own - to IMMEDIATELY have Sergey arrested.
Also, all the Euro papers and blogs I perused stated that the code was originally uploaded to a server in London, United Kingdom. Something appears amiss here (and the game is still afoot, BTW).
Parent
Re:open source... Likely defence (Score:5, Insightful)
What he did was wrong, but not for the reasons you think.
Superfast trading puts all other traders at a disadvantage and essentially lets day traders manipulate the market. The SEC doesn't see fit to step in and stop the madness. They're a leech on the market and the frequency and volume of their trades hampers the ability for real investors(meaning people) to determine the volatility and legitimate trade volume of a stock.
Some day the SEC will pull their head out of their ass and put a mandatory ownership period on all stock purchases of 48 hours or something. Addicted day traders might stop gambling away their retirement and it might put an end to these fast traders.
Parent
Re:open source... Likely defence (Score:5, Interesting)
this is something that scares me a bit about the work i do. i've had employers get really pissed off at me leaving before, my greatest fear is that one day they might pursue me in this kind of manner out of spite. a perfect example was one of my early gigs - a fully automated laboratory system that ran linux. i developed it, supported it 24/7 and saved the company a fortune. in 3 years they never gave me a single pay rise. so i was forced to leave to better my financial situation, and my god my last 2 weeks consisted of snide remarks and petty shots at my work. I handled it by just going about my work as normal and tieing up as many loose ends as possible, not taking the bait at their attempts at rattling me. once my notice was up i offered them a very fair rate if they ever wanted me back as a contractor to fix things or do new developements, and it was turned down without even a moments consideration.
the fearful part comes from how much work i took home with me, a really committed employee who enjoys his work will tend to wrap his life around his work. at that time it would have been hard to separate personal life from work. i don't think anyone should be penalised for that.
Parent
Re:open source... Likely defence (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to work at Lehman Brothers years ago. I was developing new trading software. Once a buddy brought me a PC game. He put a CD in a drive, copied the files to his PC and burned it to a new blank CD.
The network admins got an alert from the CD burning and within 15 minutes security was making sure nobody entered or left the section we were in. We both almost got fired from the shit-storm that followed. They didn't overreact one bit. We were wrong. We were being paid good money to know better than to copy our personal files on the same network as proprietary company software. It was a good thing they reacted so quickly so we could hand them both CDs to prove we hadn't been stealing the company's proprietary competitive advantage to sell it to a competitor. That kind of inter-company espionage goes on ALL THE TIME.
Parent
Re:open source... Likely defence (Score:5, Insightful)
No offense, but they were idiots then. Why did they have CD burning capabilities in these PCs and why did they trust that the CD you handed them was the one you just burnt and you hadn't palmed one under your desk with the actual stolen code.
Parent
Re:open source... Likely defence (Score:4, Insightful)
The first part would still stand, obviously any burning was unauthorized, and they still sell "read only" CD drives today.
The second part, with your jusification, would imply that they knew what was being copied and thus should have been able to simply determine that this wasn't something they cared about.
Unless they half-assed it.
Which given they appearently went to all the effort of coming up with a system to detect file copies without going the full nine yards of removing the actual ability to copy files off the system, isn't that hard to believe. But it still gives them the stupid label.
Parent
Re:open source... Likely defence (Score:5, Insightful)
We both almost got fired from the shit-storm that followed. They didn't overreact one bit. We were wrong.
You appear to have a form of Stockholm syndrome.
Parent
Re:open source... Likely defence (Score:4, Insightful)
If the burners were needed during the course of business, it may have been impossible to disable them without costing more in the long run.
I find it funny when people say "they should have disabled it" instead of the employee knows the rules and shouldn't have done X. I mean is it the employers fault that the employee was surfing porn at work because the sites he visited wasn't blocked by the content controls? Is it the employers fault for not putting the printing paper or pens under lock and key when the employees start taking it home for personal use? No, it's the employees fault for not following the rules. When employees cannot follow the rules, they need to become ex-employees instead of having the employer jump though hoops locking crap down.
Parent
Re:open source... Likely defence (Score:4, Insightful)
a) tell the jury that
b) how often does "but I didn't mean to steal it!" work in real-world (as opposed to academic or TV) court?
Parent
Mountain or molehill? (Score:4, Insightful)
Criminally negligent carelessness or a clever disguise for future criminal intent? Short of reading his mind, we may never know.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I vote for "clever disguise", but only because "stupid disguise" was not given as an option.
Why would a developer who's apparently worth US$ 400,000.- copy open source sourcecode from his employer's code repository whilst he could have just as easily copied the exact same code from the actual origin? Can anybody tell me a good reason why his claimed actions are in any way preferable to the obvious way of obtaining the source code?
Weird phrase (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you really "waive your rights against self-incrimination"? Like, now that he's waived his rights, he's required to incriminate himself?
Re:Weird phrase (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, that's a good piece of info. You know of a case where the police did that?
Never let the cops use your toilet.
Re:Weird phrase (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well it's a bit weird in the wording, but it makes sense. The "right against self-incrimination" is spelled out in the 5th amendment, which includes the text, "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". This is the part that makes it so police have to tell you that you have the right to remain silent. You can, however, waive that right and talk to the police anyhow, thereby "waiving your right against self-incrimination."
Re:Weird phrase (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless of course it's a password to your laptop that the police want. Then you can go to jail for not providing it apparently.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/court-self-incrimination-privilege-stops-with-passwords.ars [arstechnica.com]
Parent
Re:Weird phrase (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes.
No, it means that once he made the waiver, the statements he made to law enforcement can be used against him in a court of law and he cannot assert his Constitutional right against self-incrimination to have those statements excluded from evidence at trial (or, at least, provided that evidence shows that he did in fact waive those rights, an attempt to do so would fail.)
Parent
Holy JESUS (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm in the wrong industry vertical.
Re:Holy JESUS (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Holy JESUS (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not worth it. It's just not worth it. I have never been more miserable than when working in such an establishment. I never, ever, ever thought I could get used to being called an a-hole to my face for, well, anything...that's just how you referred to. And while the executive offices were likely very nice, I sat in a cube with ripped fabric, working under a flickering florescent light.
In addition to what others have said, insanely long hours, unbelievable pressure (I was told that if I didn't have something working in production by Sunday night that I should just assume I'm fired), I can say that in 1996 I took 3 days off: New Years, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. I worked every other day.
Not worth it. Absolutely not.
Parent
Finally, INTELLIGENCE! (Score:5, Interesting)
Goldman Sachs alumni also found at World Bank and IMF, as well as at least ten people in the Obama Administration (probably even more than that).
GS doesn't have a statistically impossible earnings record with HFT because they are smart, it's called cheating..cheating...cheating....what they have always excelled at. Didn't anyone read Matt Taibbi's outstanding article in the Rolling Stone [rollingstone.com] mag the other month? Geez, they have their hardware positioned exactly right to make a killing -- no brains involved -- plus they own all the frigging exchanges (via a series of holding companies, 'natch). You others here, catch a clue, doods....
Parent
Re:Holy JESUS (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of programmers work those kinds of insane hours without the $1.2 million salary. Indeed, the average game programmer does it for around $80K.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I confirm.
This girl was DEFINITELY in the right horizontal!
(And a pretty good vertical too)
Re:Holy JESUS (Score:5, Interesting)
How much is 3 years of missing 16 hours/day of your kids lives worth, versus 20 years of missing 8 hours/day?
Parent
Re:Holy JESUS (Score:4, Insightful)
That's an interesting question.
My time with my son is priceless. I don't know that I could deal with not seeing him except after he'd already gone to sleep. On the other hand, being able to be financially stable for the rest of my life, my wife's life, and being able to comfortably fund my kids' education has a certain appeal, too. Being able to work less later in life, when my kids want to go backpacking, or play soccer, or go to museums, that is pretty valuable time too.
Parent
Re:Holy JESUS (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Holy JESUS (Score:5, Interesting)
But it's not just the programming skills that demand that much pay. There's lots of specialized knowledge, and some ability that likely you or I are not capable of[1].
1.2 MM for a different company? Likely the extra $800k was for the inside knowledge of what GS was doing.
[1] I don't know what your abilities are. But given my own geek-normal tendencies to overestimate my own abilities, I think it's quite possible that others do the same
Parent
The Quants are desperate for good coders (Score:3, Interesting)
At least every day for the past three or four years I've gotten inquiries from recruiters for Solomon-Page and Bloomberg, and occasionally other New York City investment firms. They specifically want C++ coders, which is what I'm best at.
If I respond at all, it's to say that I don't want to live in new york city.
However, the last time any of them named a specific salary potential was back in 2002 or so. I guess the pay scale has inc
sounds fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
He said that he had inadvertently downloaded a portion of Goldman's proprietary code while trying to take files of open source software
Why try to take open source software instead of downloading it when you need it?
He said he had not used the Goldman code at his new job or distributed it to anyone else.
It sounds like maybe he wanted to keep it around for possible later reference. Not uncommon, but not innocent either.
Print sceen (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Print sceen (Score:5, Funny)
My print screen button gives me a paper printout.
As soon as I rip off the perforated guide hole strips, I'll yell at you to get off my lawn.
Parent
Separation (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep your personal business and your company's business separate. For instance, I have a separate banking account whose sole purpose is to hold expense reimbursements until I pay the ccard. Why? Because it's just too damned easy to screw up and cause yourself trouble all out of proportion to the original mistake.
I don't buy it. (Score:4, Insightful)
He is a developer so by definition he is computer literate; you don't "accidentally" copy the wrong files (especially since they have BASH LOGS of what he did). However, even if what he says is true WHY IN THE NAME OF FUCK would you copy Open Source Software from your development machine instead of directly from the source? The potential for the appearance of impropriety is bad enough. On top of that, according to the original Slashdot article a while back he also encrypted the files. WHY IN THE NAME OF FUCK would you bother to encrypt Open Source Software files? While everything he said is technically plausible, it just comes off as fraudulent in the same manner as Hans Reiser's defense; i.e. "I'm so smart and I have an answer for everything". I suspect the next thing we hear about this story will involve a plea deal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So what? Regardless of what his intentions were if he didn't sell or give away the code to anyone he didn't commit a crime.
Dumb people write code every day (Score:3, Insightful)
I have proof!
Exception handling used for process control.
Functions with 27 exit points.
GUI threads running I/O.
Databases with tens of thousands of tables with no referential integrity.
Odds are this guy is a 110'er. "Smart" enough to copy his code. Dumb enough to do it over the network.
-Rick
Re:I don't buy it. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know, if I copy my "c:\java" folder at work I end up with literally gigabytes of open source libs, API's etc. all neatly arranged. It would take quite some time to get them back. Some sources are even hard to trace, I've got a open source Java version of the linux/GNU "file" command somewhere, taken from a media server or such. Can't find it anymore. If I would copy that folder I would have some general purpose libs that I compiled myself as well. Yes, I could just take the directory tree and be done with it, but why not copy the folder minus the company libs? And after that a mistake is easy to make.
Not that I would do such a thing, (besides being unable to move this much info from my system anyway), but I could imagine that it is likely that people do such things. Hey, maybe he was even developing the O/S software. Encryption? I am so used to encrypting *any* application that I am sending out of the door that I would probably do it automatically. If only to confuse the company virus scanner.
Parent
Wow - this seems assinine (Score:3, Interesting)
Having said all of that - it does look like (at least the article makes it look this way) the established firms are manipulating the legal system to prevent new competitors from getting on their feet. Slap suits used to be civil only - I would think that attempting criminal slap suits would have some legal consequences for the one filing the false (or should have known they were false) charges.
Re:Wow - this seems assinine (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently I'm not alone (again, from the article): Harvey A. Silverglate, a criminal defense lawyer in Boston not involved in the case, said he was troubled that the F.B.I. had arrested Mr. Aleynikov so quickly, without evidence that he had made any effort to use or sell the code. Such disputes are generally resolved civilly rather than criminally, Mr. Silverglate said.
Possession of proprietary data happens every time one of these guys leaves a company - they have it between their ears. Using it is where they get nailed. The reason I'm so surprised at the FBI is that I know they're smart enough to not spring the trap before they have the guy dead-to-rights. Failing to do that is how perps walk and I expect more from our country's premier law enforcement agency.
The stamping out part is about Citadel, not GS and certainly not the FBI. (You may want to read the article - it's a pretty quick read)
Citadel and GS are either going off half-cocked or we don't have all the pieces.
Parent
He's an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [youtube.com], 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.
Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
The interesting part of the article is actually in paragraph 3 (i.e., before anything the submitter thought was important):
Of course, it's perfectly fine that Goldman-Sachs management and traders have code that could be used to "unfairly manipulate" stock prices. But when a private citizen gets their hands on something like that, look out! God knows we wouldn't want the hoi-polloi to have the same chance to "unfairly manipulate" stock prices that the big boys have.
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Informative)
No effort is spared in government to protect the dishonest business practices of these sheisters, and no effort is spared in the media to disguise it as the parent companies of the major media outlets benefit greatly from keeping the public in the dark.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. research analyst Marc Irizarry's published rating on mutual-fund manager Janus Capital Group Inc. was a lackluster "neutral" in early April 2008. But at an internal meeting that month, the analyst told dozens of Goldman's traders the stock was likely to head higher, company documents show.
Nothing like selling bonds out the front door and shorting them on your prop desk, right? Oh wait, Goldman did that too!
Securities laws require firms like Goldman to engage in "fair dealing with customers," and prohibit analysts from issuing opinions that are at odds with their true beliefs about a stock. Steven Strongin, Goldman's stock research chief, says no one gains an unfair advantage from its trading huddles, and that the short-term-trading ideas are not contrary to the longer-term stock forecasts in its written research.
Riiiight. And I'm the Easter Bunny.
Parent
Re:the Goldman Sachs Code is illegal front running (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:the Goldman Sachs Code is illegal front running (Score:5, Informative)
It is illegal front running IF it looks at their brokerage business order flow and trades ahead of that. Do you have evidence that they are doing that? If so, you should be talking to the SEC, not posting on Slashdot.
Lots of firms implement high frequency trading strategies based on statistical probabilities of short term market movements, and order book depth analysis. These strategies are usually capital constrained, and a lot of work to implement and maintain, but can be levered up and earn a relative huge return on a modest amount of capital utilized, when implemented properly.
Of course, they can also fail to get timely execution of orders if there are 5 people going after the same trades, in which case 4 of you are likely to lose your arses. Unlike other areas, high frequency strategies are often (though not always) a winner-takes-all world where your network latency and code execution speed are measured in microseconds, not seconds, or even milliseconds.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So "Troll -1" and "Flamebait -1" should be folded into "Offtopic -1" and "Redundant -1"?