Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Crime Programming Your Rights Online

Former Goldman Sachs Programmer Arrested and Charged Again For Code Theft 176

Posted by Soulskill
from the round-two-starts-now dept.
hypnosec writes with news that Sergey Aleynikov, once a programmer for Goldman Sachs, has been arrested and charged again for stealing code from his employer in 2009. Aleynikov was originally charged for the crime in 2009. He was convicted in 2010 and sentenced to 97 months in prison, but an appeals court overturned the verdict, saying the corporate espionage laws were misapplied. Manhattan District Attorney Cryus Vance said, "This code is so highly confidential that it is known in the industry as the firm's 'secret sauce.' Employees who exploit their access to sensitive information should expect to face criminal prosecution in New York State in appropriate cases." The Fifth Amendment's "double jeopardy" clause is unlikely to stop this case because it's within a different jurisdiction — the earlier trial was in federal court, and this one is in New York State court.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Former Goldman Sachs Programmer Arrested and Charged Again For Code Theft

Comments Filter:
  • If you play with fire, you are gonna get burned - Vincent Vega
    • by sycodon (149926) on Friday August 10, 2012 @02:25PM (#40949213)

      What he should have done was follow the lead of Goldman Sacks executives. Then he wouldn't be prosecuted for anything.

      • by pla (258480) on Friday August 10, 2012 @02:55PM (#40949721) Journal
        What he should have done was follow the lead of Goldman Sacks executives. Then he wouldn't be prosecuted for anything.

        But... How many useless Federal Reserve Chairmen can we have at a time, though?

        As an interesting side-note, in looking up one detail of what I wanted to post here, I noticed that the Wikipedia entries on Bernanke and Goldman both curiously (one might even say "conspicuously") fail to make any mention of his acting as their CEO prior to handing them a juicy government bailout. Looks like someone wants to do some "oops I fucked the country" damage control... ;)
      • by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Friday August 10, 2012 @03:01PM (#40949809) Homepage Journal

        "After a yearlong investigation, the Justice Department said Thursday that it won't bring charges against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. or any of its employees for financial fraud related to the mortgage crisis."

        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443537404577579840698144490.html?mod=googlenews_wsj [wsj.com]

        "But Goldman, as the Levin report makes clear, remains an ascendant company precisely because it used its canny perception of an upcoming disaster (one which it helped create, incidentally) as an opportunity to enrich itself, not only at the expense of clients but ultimately, through the bailouts and the collateral damage of the wrecked economy, at the expense of society. The bank seemed to count on the unwillingness or inability of federal regulators to stop them - and when called to Washington last year to explain their behavior, Goldman executives brazenly misled Congress, apparently confident that their perjury would carry no serious consequences. Thus, while much of the Levin report describes past history, the Goldman section describes an ongoing? crime - a powerful, well-connected firm, with the ear of the president and the Treasury, that appears to have conquered the entire regulatory structure and stands now on the precipice of officially getting away with one of the biggest financial crimes in history."

        "To recap: Goldman, to get $1.2 billion in crap off its books, dumps a huge lot of deadly mortgages on its clients, lies about where that crap came from and claims it believes in the product even as it's betting $2 billion against it. When its victims try to run out of the burning house, Goldman stands in the doorway, blasts them all with gasoline before they can escape, and then has the balls to send a bill overcharging its victims for the pleasure of getting fried."

        "So let's move on to something much simpler. In the spring of 2010, about a year into his investigation, Sen. Levin hauled all of the principals from these rotten Goldman deals to Washington, made them put their hands on the Bible and take oaths just like normal people, and demanded that they explain themselves. The legal definition of financial fraud may be murky and complex, but everybody knows you can't lie to Congress.

        ""Article 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001," says Loyola University law professor Michael Kaufman. "There are statutes that prohibit perjury and obstruction of justice, but this is the federal statute that explicitly prohibits lying to Congress."

        The law is simple: You're guilty if you "knowingly and willfully" make a "materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation." The punishment is up to five years in federal prison."

        "Lloyd Blankfein went to Washington and testified under oath that Goldman Sachs didn't make a massive short bet and didn't bet against its clients. The Levin report proves that Goldman spent the whole summer of 2007 riding a "big short" and took a multibillion-dollar bet against its clients, a bet that incidentally made them enormous profits. Are we all missing something? Is there some different and higher standard of triple- and quadruple-lying that applies to bank CEOs but not to baseball players?"

        http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511?print=true [rollingstone.com]

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by cpu6502 (1960974)

          This article is high on chest-beating and low on actual facts: "When its victims try to run out of the burning house, Goldman stands in the doorway, blasts them all with gasoline before they can escape, and then has the balls to send a bill overcharging its victims for the pleasure of getting fried." --- Really? Sets people aflame with gasoline?!?!? Was this the WSJ with Alex Jones filling-in as a reporter? (Here's a thought: Tell us what Goldman ACTUALLY did wrong instead of using hyperbole that makes

          • by sycodon (149926)

            He should have to something civilized and accepted these days, like accusing Goldman of giving some woman cancer.

          • by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Friday August 10, 2012 @03:55PM (#40950497) Homepage Journal

            What. Outright perjuring Congress is not explicit enough for you?

            Howzabowt Levin's report:

            "Using their own words in documents subpoenaed by the Subcommittee, the report discloses how financial firms deliberately took advantage of their clients and investors,"

            "New documents and information detail how Goldman recommended four CDOs, Hudson, Anderson, Timberwolf, and Abacus, to its clients without fully disclosing key information about those products, Goldmanâ(TM)s own market views, or its adverse economic interests. For example, in Hudson, Goldman told investors that its interests were "aligned" with theirs when, in fact, Goldman held 100% of the short side of the CDO and had adverse interests to the investors, and described Hudsonâ(TM)s assets were "sourced from the Street," when in fact, Goldman had selected and priced the assets without any third party involvement.

            New documents also reveal that, at one point in May 2007, Goldman Sachs unsuccessfully tried to execute a "short squeeze" in the mortgage market so that Goldman could scoop up short positions at artificially depressed prices and profit as the mortgage market declined."

            https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/04/14-2 [commondreams.org]

          • (Here's a thought: Tell us what Goldman ACTUALLY did wrong instead of using hyperbole that makes them sound like the darkest, meanest SS officer in the camps.)

            Here's the thing. The misdeeds of Goldman and others would normally be revealed if any of these investigations resulted in a trial. Unfortunately the current practice is to settle with the bank in question after payment of a small fine, after which the records of the investigation are summarily deleted,

            If you choose to report the findings of any such

        • "Are we all missing something? Is there some different and higher standard of triple- and quadruple-lying that applies to bank CEOs but not to baseball players?"

          Yes. As long as "corporations are people" and can line the coffers of Congress' re-election funds, they won't be called on anything. This is why corporations are NOT people.

      • by flyingsquid (813711) on Friday August 10, 2012 @03:16PM (#40949991)
        Incidentally, here's the secret, proprietary code he stole:

        10 SCREW CUSTOMER
        20 MAKE PROFIT
        30 GOTO 10

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10, 2012 @01:50PM (#40948629)

    We can't have people robbing and stealing with impunity. It's time someone from the finance industry is punished with extreme prejudice. /troll

  • Out of his mind (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    So even if he is the original author of the software, (he carries the details and inspiration in his head), and the software came out of his mind, he is still a criminal for telling/selling his idea to someone else.

    • Re:Out of his mind (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dmorris68 (1532203) on Friday August 10, 2012 @03:45PM (#40950359)

      So even if he is the original author of the software, (he carries the details and inspiration in his head), and the software came out of his mind, he is still a criminal for telling/selling his idea to someone else.

      In some circumstances, absolutely.

      Most software developers sign agreements that stipulate that any software or other intellectual property created for the company and on company time belongs to the company, not the developer. Some even go as far as to take ownership of anything you develop *even on your own time.* Many employers will also make you sign a non-compete agreement that basically says when you leave the company, you will not engage in competitive behavior against the company, which could also be construed as developing a similar algorithm for a competitor, at least within a specified period of time.

      In my career as a developer I've signed a number of these types of agreements, and just for "ordinary" corporate jobs. Given the highly competitive and secretive financial industry and the money at stake, it wouldn't surprise me if their agreements are far more complex and specific. Especially due to the very high degree of specialization required in financial services programming, particularly in trading software where milliseconds can mean a difference between millions of dollars, they tend to be pretty protective of their IP (and thus why those programmers make hundreds of thousands a year in salary, way beyond your garden-variety corporate developers).

      Now of course a developer with a specialized skillset and experience, barring a non-compete agreement or a patent that would specifically prohibit it, could certainly go to work for another company and re-create a similar algorithm from scratch, and it would be very difficult to litigate against as long as it's based upon memory/experience and not by taking the actual source code with him. It would largely hinge on whether the concept was generic or common across the industry, or whether it was a unique and highly-specific concept that had never existed outside the original company, and then suddenly shows up in a pretty obvious way at a competitor which just happened to recently hire your former employee.

      • *Attempt* to take ownership of the things you developed on your own time.

        As for going to another employer, in theory, so long as it is a different (enough) implementation of the same algorithm, intellectual property laws say it is good to go.

      • The big threat with specialized workers moving to a competitor isn't really in re-creating a system created at the prior place of employment... hopefully they're on the ball enough that some other coder has already improved upon the original design by the time the developer gets up to speed at the new location.

        The big threat is that the developer also knows the previous employer's weaknesses, and can exploit those when starting from scratch on a new system. This means that if they happen to know a specific

    • Nonsense. His previous employers own the implementation that they paid for, they do not own the idea itself.

      Were such a thing possible, web developers would be up to their eyes in lawsuits, as every implementation of a website after the first one would be grounds for a case.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Nitewing98 (308560)

      "So even if he is the original author of the software, (he carries the details and inspiration in his head), and the software came out of his mind, he is still a criminal for telling/selling his idea to someone else."

      Yep. As long as he was being paid by GS to write that code, it belongs to them. I know that most programmers don't like this idea, but that's the way IP works in this world. I think it sucks too. But from a business perspective, how else do they "get an edge" on their competitors, if they have

      • by Smauler (915644)

        Yep. As long as he was being paid by GS to write that code, it belongs to them. I know that most programmers don't like this idea, but that's the way IP works in this world. I think it sucks too. But from a business perspective, how else do they "get an edge" on their competitors, if they have the same software?

        I consider myself relatively extreme in terms of what I think copyright laws should be - but surely if someone pays you to write code for them, that code is theirs. If you write something for some

        • Valid point. I guess my problem with computer code as IP is: At what point does something become too trivial to matter? A shorter method, a better-laid out object, entire modules, etc. Any computer language has a finite number of combinations (within a given length) that are valid code. If you and I write the same method, who decides if you wrote it first or I did?

          Also, to be fair, I'm coming at this from the standpoint of a math major, not a business major. From a math standpoint, once a routine is written

  • by Eldragon (163969) on Friday August 10, 2012 @01:51PM (#40948645)

    "I'll take Undermining the Bill of Rights for $500 Alex"

    • Re:I'll Take.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by dkleinsc (563838) on Friday August 10, 2012 @01:57PM (#40948751) Homepage

      Alas, the Double Jeopardy Clause, which sure seems like it would apply here, does not because the conviction was overturned on appeal rather than acquitted by the trial court. Of course, the real point is clear enough: Mess with Goldman Sachs, and they will ruin your life.

      And in other news, Goldman Sachs is not going to be investigated for further crimes, like, oh, I don't know, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of fraud.

      • by JDG1980 (2438906)

        Alas, the Double Jeopardy Clause, which sure seems like it would apply here, does not because the conviction was overturned on appeal rather than acquitted by the trial court.

        That would be true if it was the federal government that wanted to re-try him. However, in this case, the reason double jeopardy doesn't apply is because of the dual sovereignty doctrine [wikipedia.org] – the state prosecution is considered legally separate from the federal prosecution. It's another weird bit of legacy code from the US's obsol

        • Re:I'll Take.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by whoever57 (658626) on Friday August 10, 2012 @02:58PM (#40949757) Journal

          That would be true if it was the federal government that wanted to re-try him. However, in this case, the reason double jeopardy doesn't apply is because of the dual sovereignty doctrine

          I doubt that the framers of the constitition intended the double jeopardy clause to work this way.

          • by gatkinso (15975)

            It is an interesting situation.

            IIRC the State of Oklahoma going to use this tactic against Timothy McVeigh (---sucks cocks in Hell), but there was no need since the federal court imposed the death penalty.

        • by gl4ss (559668)

          and educate me on the US system but isn't there civil court then too? like with oj.

          soo.... what's the point of double jeopardy that's supposedly a big deal if it's in reality triple-sueability?

          in the rest of the world if you find new evidence you can usually prosecute again

        • by cpu6502 (1960974)

          >>>the US's obsolete federal system, which should have died at Appomatox in 1865

          No it shouldn't. Didn't you study "checks and balances" in school? Or even look at how the EU operates? (Also a federal system.) The lower-level member states of the union act as a check against the central authority. It is a balance that helps curb the tyranny that history shows is inevitable when all the land falls under one single authority.

          • by JDG1980 (2438906)

            No it shouldn't. Didn't you study "checks and balances" in school?

            You're talking to someone with a Bachelor's in Political Science. Of course I am aware of the standard civics-textbook account. I just don't buy it, and it was my studies that led me to the conclusion I stated above. Specifically, the writings of Sanford Levinson [amazon.com] and Robert Dahl [amazon.com] (see also this book review [newyorker.com] by Hendrik Hertzberg) led me to agree with those authors that the Constitution and the federal system it sets up are deeply flawed in man

            • by cpu6502 (1960974)

              Well I agree the Constitution has flaws (and that's why it has been amended multiple times), but don't agree we should abandon federalism and put all the power into a single government. As I said, that is the road to tyranny and LESS democracy.

              Power should be as close the people represented as possible, in the State government just a few miles away & your representative just down the street or on the next block so you can talk to him. NOT 1500 miles away in some central capitol where the people's voic

      • No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment [cornell.edu]

        The constitutional prohibition against ‘double jeopardy’ was designed to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense. . . . The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo–American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individua

      • by Hatta (162192)

        Alas, the Double Jeopardy Clause, which sure seems like it would apply here, does not because the conviction was overturned on appeal rather than acquitted by the trial court.

        I don't see that exception in the Constitution anywhere.

      • Negative, ghost rider. The Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to actions brought by separate sovereigns. The federal government and the state are two entities and they can each bring charges without being precluded by the other's actions.

    • Re:I'll Take.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10, 2012 @01:59PM (#40948795)

      "I'll take Undermining the Bill of Rights for $500 Alex"

      I don't think so. However, perhaps the defense is allowed to ask the following question during Voir Dire:

      "Did you view any news coverage of the federal prosecution of my client for the exact same offense? If so, did you view any news coverage of a federal appellate judge throwing out the charges on the ground that the law did not apply in this case?"

      We don't want a biased jury, after all.

    • by cpu6502 (1960974)

      Nothing is undermined. It is routine for people to be charged twice by two different governments. For example in the Paypal litigation they were charged by ~35 Member States plus the U.S. DOJ. Same thing happened with Toyota which was found guilt-free by the U.S. government but is still being charged by State governments (for failing to honor engine warranties when they died at just 15-25,000 miles).

      • Litigation is civil. Double jeopardy is for criminal cases--prosecution.
        • by cpu6502 (1960974)

          Both paypal and toyota were/are involved in criminal prosecution. Paypal had broken banking laws, and Toyota violated consumer protection laws that oblige them to honor the advertised warranty.

        • by shentino (1139071)

          Res judicata functions as double jeopardy for civil cases.

      • by sjames (1099)

        Yes. It *WAS* undermined, now it has fully collapsed.

    • don't forget that in Double Jeopardy the amounts are Doubled so you can't take anything for an odd amount in DJ.

      nice twist on the normal "its not DJ because this is a Civil Suit" thing

      • Actually, you can find $1000 in the Jeopardy! round now - they doubled the amounts a few years ago, so Double Jeopardy! amounts are $400, $800, $1200, $1600, or $2000.
  • double this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alphatel (1450715) * on Friday August 10, 2012 @01:53PM (#40948683)
    Feds walk away from prosecuting Goldman [wsj.com], SEC misses Madoff [ft.com], but this guy needs to be prosecuted - twice!
    • by llebegue (40129)

      Easier to strike the small fish than the big ones

      • by sycodon (149926)

        Easier to strike the small fish than the big ones with connections in the White House and the Justice Department.

        Fixed.

    • This is by design.
    • Re:double this (Score:5, Informative)

      by roman_mir (125474) on Friday August 10, 2012 @02:10PM (#40948999) Homepage Journal

      Sure, SEC 'missed' Madoff. They were only warned about him for almost a decade. [cnn.com]

      SEC was warned about NIA multiple times as well [slashdot.org], but you see, NIA's clients don't matter and Madoff was a 'respected' individual, used to have strong ties in government.

      The gov't doesn't care about people it also doesn't look into its own people, the gov't is there to steal money from people, companies who do legitimate business. It's a racket, nothing more. If you are doing legitimate business - you are a target. You have a legitimate business, legitimate clients, real earnings, you are satisfying market demand - you are a target.

      You are stealing? Who gives a shit, you can't be used to make consistent profits from, you aren't buying licenses, you aren't going to pay untold amounts of money because of all the audits, the compliance costs, nobody cares about you.

      Here is a thing: you can steal, just don't steal too little, like this guy in the story. You can run a pump and dump scam, SEC doesn't care, it's not there to do anything about it, this should be obvious by now. Enron, Madoff and such (NIA is small potatoes, only maybe 10-20 million has been stolen so far).

      SEC, FINRA... they exist to prevent competition to the banks and large investment firms, they don't exist to prevent fraud, don't be mistaken thinking that.

      • by dkleinsc (563838)

        Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from people who mattered. As long as you're stealing from poor people, it's A-ok.

        • by roman_mir (125474)

          Yeah, but realise that even then Madoff wasn't on SEC radar, even though he was stealing from the wealthier individuals. In fact his fund was seen as something exclusive, people didn't dare to pull money out because they thought they wouldn't be able to get back in.

          One interesting thing is that he never provided his clients with an online interface to check their balances, I wonder why not? He could have faked the transactions there, he could have faked their balance information and as long as they saw a

          • You do realize Social Security pays survivor benefits, right? Usually to the surviving spouse, but it can also go to surviving children or even surviving parents, and it can be a substantial and ongoing payout. See http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html/#a0=1 [ssa.gov]

  • by Greyfox (87712) on Friday August 10, 2012 @01:59PM (#40948783) Homepage Journal
    Being arrested and tried twice for the same crime sounds like the definition of double jeopardy to me, but I'd probably be excluded from most juries for knowing more than two amendments.
    • but I'd probably be excluded from most juries for knowing more than two amendments.

      No, they would want you on a jury because you don't grasp what jurisdiction is. As the blurb states, this is being tried in State court, not Federal where the first trial was held. Double Jeopardy does not apply because of a different jurisdiction.

      You can be tried for the same crime so long as it is done in a different jurisdiction or in a different proceeding. It's similar to someone being brought to trial for a
      • by Hatta (162192) on Friday August 10, 2012 @02:28PM (#40949261) Journal

        Double Jeopardy does not apply because of a different jurisdiction.

        Funny, I don't see that exception in the Constitution anywhere. This is what we traditionally call an "end run around the Constitution". Legalistic bullshit used to cover up a blatant violation of the highest law of the land. It's indefensible and you should be ashamed of your self for trying.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by maroberts (15852)

        Double jeopardy applies only to criminal cases, and nothing is said in the constitution about jurisdiction - he's still been tried on the same charge for the same actions. I'm fairly certain that any conviction would be overturned

        No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

        Nothing about jurisdiction in there, is there? Even the fact that the court overturned the trial verdict does not mean the trial never occurred.
        Sergey Aleynikov may have performed dubious actions and got off due to the techicalities of the law, but that should be sufficient.

      • I don't care about the technical excuse, it is being put into court more than 1 time for the same crime and possibly being punished more than once. The state exists within the federal - like a hierarchy and should not be the same as two different states. I have no problem if the crime differs but for the SAME crime the federal case should prevent the state case. Given how many laws there are I'm sure they can find other charges and string them out to keep him on trial for decades... at least that is not

        • by multiplexo (27356)
          Right On! You've hit the nail on the head with this one. Brilliant post. I would mod you up if I had points but I don't, so I'll have to give you a blowjob instead. Let's look at the "two different jurisdictions" claim. Is there anyone who doubts that there is not cooperation between the Department of Justice and the Manhattan District Attorney's office on this case? Does anyone who is a lawyer (IANAL, oh, and I'm not a lawyer either) know if it would be possible for Aleynikov's attorney to make the case th
  • a lesson (Score:2, Interesting)

    by roman_mir (125474)

    While the government protects the preferred banks, gives them infinite credit, while destroying the currency, the person who is punished is a guy that 'stole' some source code.

    While the banks are using the infinite credit and fake insurance by the government to pump one credit bubble after another, from stocks, to house prices, to bonds and dollars themselves, the person who gets busted is somebody who doesn't have anything to do with any financial transactions.

    The lesson is - if you steal, steal huge and m

  • Can it get much more bogus than that?

    Oh, well, thank god they got this guy. I feel so much safer now, especially now that Goldman was just let off the hook once again [reuters.com]. The SEC was obviously on a witch hunt designed to tear down one of our great pillars of society.

  • by Vinegar Joe (998110) on Friday August 10, 2012 @02:12PM (#40949029)

    Once we get that evil bastard Bush out, things are going to be a lot better.

    • by Dunbal (464142) * on Friday August 10, 2012 @02:23PM (#40949197)
      The problem isn't Bush or Obama - it's the system. The whole damned machine. It's no longer working for the people, it's working to feed itself from the people. The next step is that it starts eating people directly, seizing their assets and imprisoning/shooting their bodies. And it's not just the US government either - I can't believe the amount of bullshit that has been going on for the past 20 years, and especially since 9/11 because, you know, terrorism.
      • by Mitreya (579078)

        The problem isn't Bush or Obama - it's the system.

        Well, Obama is actually part of the problem here.
        The same Goldman Sachs that just got cleared of the sub-prime mortgage issue provided a good part of Obama's administration [firedoglake.com]. A conflict of interest is absolutely guaranteed.

      • by Kergan (780543)

        The next step is that it starts eating people directly, seizing their assets and imprisoning/shooting their bodies.

        You mean like during the subprime crisis [wikipedia.org] and thereafter, when heaps of Americans lost everything, or as in private-sector prison profiteering [guardian.co.uk]?

        And it's not just the US government either.

        Actually... I nearly only is.

    • It's going to take a long time to clean up the damage he did.

      Sorry.
  • So... who exactly would want Goldman Sachs software, which directed them to engage in illegal practices? I mean, other than federal prosecutors, who have decided not to prosecute anyway?

  • If they're gonna be frying him like this, why don't he let everyone get a peek at what's so important? They're gonna keep hammering him til something sticks, why not spill the beans?
  • Probably the reason they are coming down on him so hard is that the code has something embarressing, incriminating, illegal, unethical or all of the above and more for Goldman Sacks. They are just trying to suppress more evidence against them, and since they seem to own the governmnet and courts, that seems the best way to do it.

    Probably using the procedure names "Money Laundering", "investment fraud", etc... wasn't a wise idea.

  • or is it copyright infringement?

  • by tekrat (242117) on Friday August 10, 2012 @02:49PM (#40949629) Homepage Journal

    Wow, I think I have finally witnessed the last straw.

    Interestingly, I attended last night, a debate at a group known as "Drinking Liberally" where the president of the local group stated that he could not vote for Obama, because the administration has a kill-list, has not been transparent, has not closed Guantanamo, and has continued many of the Bush Policies that we had hoped to change. The Woman debating him stated that NOT voting for Obama was voting for Romney who will be worse. That didn't change the mind of the group leader who said he would be voting Green Party.

    Now, I am wondering myself about this in the context of this blatant attempt to subvert the law so that the 1% can get what they want, and the lawyers and politicians are clearly on the side of the 1% and not looking out for the rights of the people.

    We are truly borked as nation. There's no going back from this kind of corruption. If this even goes to COURT, it's a complete breakdown of our "justice" system (and I use that term loosely.

    Tell me Mr. Prosecutor; how many arrests have you made from the financial boondoggle of 2008? How many arrests have you made from the Robo-Foreclosure scandal? But you're supporting the whims of the very crooks who have robbed our nation? Why not just start working for the Mafia? I hear they pay good as well.

    • by GSloop (165220)

      An interesting side note:

      If Romney was pres, would Dems stand up and complain loudly [and with maximum hypocrisy] about Romney's transgressions on civil liberties?
      Probably yeah.

      And if we'd had nursing-home-fodder McCain instead of B.O. - would have Dems done that [complained vigorously]? Yup - they sure would have.

      And the result would have been that violating civil liberties [what a meek description for a "kill/murder your own citizens without any judicial oversight," among other things.] would have been a

  • Let's see, we've got Federal civil rights violations (not murder, so it's a separate charge). We've got civil cases (lower standard of proof, no jail but stripping of assets). Now we've got jurisdiction shopping.

    How many licks does it take to get to the chewy center of oppression in the Constitutional Tootsie-Pop? A one... A two... CRUNCH! Three?

  • So a Federal judge is below a state judge?

    How can the state prosecute if a federal court has thrown it out?
  • He used Open Source to write the original app and on leaving the company took his own code with him.

    "The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Sergey Aleynikov, a naturalized US citizen from Russia, was not guilty of stealing computer code under the Economic Espionage Act (EEA)". link [theregister.co.uk] Feb 2012

    "A defense lawyer, Kevin Marino, argued in his opening statement that Aleynikov intended to strip out pieces of open- source software" link [bloomberg.com]

    "During a two-week trial, Marino told jurors that his client was

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.

Working...