Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Former Goldman Sachs Programmer Arrested and Charged Again For Code Theft

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the round-two-starts-now dept.

The Courts 176

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.

cancel ×

176 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This come to mind... (1)

bigredradio (631970) | about 2 years ago | (#40948615)

If you play with fire, you are gonna get burned - Vincent Vega

Re:This come to mind... (5, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | about 2 years ago | (#40949213)

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

Re:This come to mind... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40949269)

What he should have done is put it in bittorrent in an encrypted file, and blurted the word out in the trial.

Re:This come to mind... (1)

ameoba (173803) | about 2 years ago | (#40950131)

Very Johnny Mnemonic.

Re:This come to mind... (3, Informative)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#40949721)

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... ;)

Re:This come to mind... (4, Informative)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#40949817)

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.

I assume you're confusing Paulson and Bernanke. The former (then at the Treasury) was a former GS CEO; the latter was, to the best of my knowledge anyway, a carrier academic. (Who, it might be suggested, doesn't have the slightest clue of how a real business operates as a result.)

Re:This come to mind... (3, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#40949933)

Ah, yep. You have it right. Mixed up my conflicts of interest.

Damn, gotta go wipe that egg off my face now... :)

US Not Seeking Goldman Charges (5, Informative)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#40949809)

"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:US Not Seeking Goldman Charges (1, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40950173)

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 them sound like the darkest, meanest SS officer in the camps.)

Re:US Not Seeking Goldman Charges (1)

sycodon (149926) | about 2 years ago | (#40950301)

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

Re:This come to mind... (5, Funny)

flyingsquid (813711) | about 2 years ago | (#40949991)

Incidentally, here's the secret, proprietary code he stole:

10 SCREW CUSTOMER
20 MAKE PROFIT
30 GOTO 10

Re:This come to mind... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40950305)

And where would he get the cash stuffed envelopes to deliver to the right people to get his problem to go away?

Finally, justice in New York (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#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

It is true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40950313)

"Rights" only exist to protect the people who matter (and many such rights are unwritten and generally unspoken, but actively protected by our government nonetheless). The people who do not matter seem to think they are entitled to these rights as well, which they are not. The justice system sometimes plays along with this outrageous sense of entitlement, but only when the people who do not matter are being threatened by other people who do not matter.

When people who do not matter irritate people who matter, expect retribution (possibly, but not always, with a token gesture of justice in the form of a temporary posturing towards due process).

Out of his mind (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40948641)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40948771)

He should just threaten to release the code into the wild if they try to follow through again. After all, they will try to pin a huge civil liability suit after the criminal one, so he's facing XX years in prison and bankruptcy. He has nothing to lose by letting *everyone* see behind the curtain if they keep on this path.

Not saying he's being persecuted but if he's the originator of the code then he's entitled to leverage *his* knowledge after leaving the company unless they are willing to fairly compensate him to sit on the sidelines.

Re:Out of his mind (3, Insightful)

Talderas (1212466) | about 2 years ago | (#40949479)

How is this not blackmail?

Re:Out of his mind (4, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#40949847)

How is this not blackmail?

what the AC proposed as what he should have done is indeed blackmail.
But, would anything else work with Goldman Sachs?

The secret sauce isn't probably that secret even, it's just that if it was out in the wild it would be a liability - you see, on paper it's valued on their sheets in millions if not in hundreds of millions as an asset.. that they can then borrow money against.

Re:Out of his mind (1)

Thorodin (1999352) | about 2 years ago | (#40949429)

Not if he signed a contract that anything he developed while in GS employ belongs to GS (as long as they can show he developed it on their time). I'm sure there's a ton of programmers on /. that have to sign something like that.

I'll Take.... (4, Funny)

Eldragon (163969) | about 2 years ago | (#40948645)

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

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

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#40948751)

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.

Re:I'll Take.... (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 2 years ago | (#40949625)

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 obsolete federal system, which should have died at Appomatox in 1865.

Re:I'll Take.... (4, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | about 2 years ago | (#40949757)

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.

Re:I'll Take.... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#40949793)

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

overturned != acquitted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40950135)

overturned != acquitted

Double Jeopardy does not apply to overturned convictions.

Re:I'll Take.... (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40950289)

>>>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.

Re:I'll Take.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40949797)

Double jeopardy may not apply but it should. Far too many people are punished, in effect, without being convicted or even put on trial. Just the term person of interest can ruin a person's life, cause loss of income, break families and maybe even be worse in its effects that going to prison. Worse yet Florida home owners have even been denied public defenders unless they sign over their homes to lawyers or get a relative to buy the home.
                      Wealth and justice should not have any relationship at all and frankly the rich are far less likely to be punished.

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

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:I'll Take.... (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40948823)

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).

Re:I'll Take.... (2)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 years ago | (#40948903)

Litigation is civil. Double jeopardy is for criminal cases--prosecution.

Re:I'll Take.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40949123)

It is still common. If you rob a bank you can be charged for doing so by the feds and also be charged with armed robbery by the state for the same crime.

Re:I'll Take.... (2)

tmosley (996283) | about 2 years ago | (#40949265)

Two charges isn't double jeopardy. Bing acquitted, or having your conviction overturned, then being charged for the same thing again IS.

But laws don't apply to the authorities in a police state.

Re:I'll Take.... (2)

damien_kane (519267) | about 2 years ago | (#40949417)

Bing acquitted

Bing should never be acquitted

Re:I'll Take.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40950121)

Two charges isn't double jeopardy.

Two different charges, sure. But being charged twice for the same crime, well, unless I am misreading it [wikipedia.org] , I see nothing which says "only applies if acquitted the first time".

Re:I'll Take.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40948923)

Nothing is undermined. It is routine

I wonder if that same argument could be used to justify the TSA...

Re:I'll Take.... (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#40949431)

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

Re:I'll Take.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40948915)

As TFS states, double jeopardy doesn't apply here because it's a different law. You can't be tried for the same law twice for the same actions, but there's no reason you can't be tried for different laws for the same actions. In fact, the trials could have even been concurrent (legally, not practically).

Let's say you are a hired hitman, so somebody pays you to murder someone. They try you for murder, but the jury returns a not guilty verdict. They can't come back and try you again for murder, but they can argue that you didn't report your earnings from the hit and try you for tax evasion.

In this case, the two jurisdictions effectively have different laws so there's no problem putting him on trial again.

dom

Re:I'll Take.... (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#40949103)

Yep, there are so many laws nowadays even the lawyers aren't sure any more. So they just wing it. If the man wants you in jail, he has the time and resources to keep this shit up until you are either in jail or put a bullet in your own head. Welcome to the real world. And people look at me funny when I say I am anti-government. And please don't give me this republican/democrat/liberal/conservative bullshit. All that means is you're sitting on a different turd, but you're still in the septic tank.

Re:I'll Take.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40949227)

that's why as soon as you get past the appeal you should automatically move to a non-extradition country and live under an alias if at all possible. Our government is so corrupt at this point that you really have no choice but to cover your ass even after you are set free.

Re:I'll Take.... (5, Funny)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#40949781)

that's why as soon as you get past the appeal you should automatically move to a non-extradition country

That just makes the paperwork to approve the drone strike so much easier for them, Terrorist.

$400 or $800 (1)

MatrixCubed (583402) | about 2 years ago | (#40949385)

That's Double Jeopardy. Entries start at $200, and are for even-numbered amounts.

Re:$400 or $800 (1)

MatrixCubed (583402) | about 2 years ago | (#40949415)

That should read $400 or $600. :-)

you need for $400 or for $1000 (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 years ago | (#40950199)

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

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40948659)

Disproof of all apk's statements: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946043

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, She is Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.

Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

Trade Secret laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40948677)

Can't they apply theft of trade secret laws? or does that fall under the corporate espionage umbrella?

double this (5, Insightful)

alphatel (1450715) | about 2 years ago | (#40948683)

Feds walk away from prosecuting Goldman [wsj.com] , SEC misses Madoff [ft.com] , but this guy needs to be prosecuted - twice!

Re:double this (2)

llebegue (40129) | about 2 years ago | (#40948715)

Easier to strike the small fish than the big ones

Re:double this (2)

sycodon (149926) | about 2 years ago | (#40949279)

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

Fixed.

Re:double this (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about 2 years ago | (#40948867)

This is by design.

Re:double this (5, Informative)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#40948999)

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.

Re:double this (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#40949481)

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

Re:double this (2)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#40949921)

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 good consistent return, they wouldn't have ever tried to pull the money out. Why? They didn't need the money to spend it, they needed a good investment opportunity, and Madoff was giving them an impression of a good return. Sometimes somebody needed the money for whatever reason and they could always cash out, as long as it wasn't everybody at the same time, as long as there were new people getting into it.

That's a private ponzi scheme. Governments run this type of scheme constantly with pension funds, SS and Medicare are a good example of this same thing.

You THINK you have something, in reality it's all bonds - just IOUs. Think about this: there is no difference to the government whether there are bonds in the so called SS 'fund' or there are no bonds there, because in order to make payments they have to sell bonds anyway. There is no material difference in how the payments are funded, now that the taxes don't cover the payouts. The thing is bankrupt, it's broke and there is no difference whether the bonds are IN the so called 'fund' or not, there is no difference as to how the money is paid out.

So now think about this: government takes your payroll tax (both, your part and the part that the employer pays if you are an employee) and it spends all of it, it's not invested in anything as it could have been with real insurance or if you just managed your money yourself. You are presented with some statement that says: here is what you will get eventually IF you live to that age of 65 or whatever (and the age is going to be raised obviously).

WHAT IF YOU DIE?

If you had that money invested all on your own, your family would have that money. If you are dead, they are not going to see a cent of it. It's your money and now it's gone.

Now how about this: in 1971 one ounce of gold was 35 bucks, today it's 1615 or something like that, so if you had your own money invested with a strategy of 25% stocks, 25% bonds, 25% gold, 25% cash, then even just on GOLD ALONE you are WAY AHEAD of anything that the government promises to give you, and you ACTUALLY HAVE IT as opposed to not having it.

SS is a huge scam, much bigger than Madoff's scam, and who is running it? Right.

Re:double this (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40949027)

Feds walk away from prosecuting Goldman [wsj.com] , SEC misses Madoff [ft.com] , but this guy needs to be prosecuted - twice!

That's the way it works in our plutocracy. The big fish get away scot free with the little guys get it up the ass.

Run up billions of dollars in debt and can't pay it back? The government steps in, covers it, pay yourself a big bonus, and everyone pats you on the back for being a financial whiz and a "job creator".

In the meantime, a peon who does the right thing and gets educated and pays with student loans is stuck with them for life unless he pays them back - no free ride like the plutocrats get. And to add insult to injury, you have some very ignorant people who think that only folks who majored in liberal or fine arts have that problem and that they deserved what they got - not true, BTW, folks with nursing, accounting, CS and engineering degrees are also having horrible times. Or they accuse those folks of going to expensive private schools - which isn't always true either considering state schools are quite pricey themselves.

And to anyone who posts that they worked 2 jobs, held a 3.0+ GPA and graduated in 4 years with a CS or engineering degree without any debt, I call bullshit. I will never beleive that.

Anyone who defends this system is either in on it or has this illusion that they can with enough "hard work", some "risk taking" and some "brains" that they to can join the 1%; you'll have a better luck winning the lottery.

Re:double this (1)

Thorodin (1999352) | about 2 years ago | (#40949381)

I have an Associates degree in CS and I'm doing okay. In fact, those with nursing degrees and a good grasp of computers are really doing okay due to Meaningful Use (part of the ARRA act. In fact, one of our clinical analysts was offered a job by a consultant (she gets about one call a week on average) with M-Th travel and a six figure salary. Due some research before posting blanket statements.

Re:double this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40949795)

Read up on your civics, folks: this is Federalism at work. ("Dual sovereigns")

If you're accused of breaking a Federal law and by the same conduct have also violated a state statute, the 5th amendment double jeopardy clause does not apply to the state prosecution, and you can generally still be charged and convicted at the state level. Interestingly, there are situations where the reverse is not true by statute or by the Petite policy outlined in the US attorney's manual.

Moral of the story: This is a NY state issue, and state politicians^W prosecutors will do what makes them look good.

Double Jeopardy, except not (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40948697)

Is anyone else sick of the Tyrant Lords subverting the legal system to violate the clear intentions in the Constitution? I highly doubt the intentions of the 5th Amendment's Double Jeopardy were to become Null & Void from a simple jurisdictional venue swap.

Oblig: IANAL
Oblig: I am a Federalist Republican Proletariat.
Oblig: They can pry my shotgun from my cold dead fingers.

Re:Double Jeopardy, except not (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40948767)

Oblig: They can pry my shotgun from my cold dead fingers.

Oblig: Your proposal is acceptable.

Re:Double Jeopardy, except not (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40949087)

Why are you peasants so revolting?

Re:Double Jeopardy, except not (1)

damien_kane (519267) | about 2 years ago | (#40949455)

Why are you peasants so revolting?

Must not have gotten their cake >.>

Sounds Like It To Me (2)

Greyfox (87712) | about 2 years ago | (#40948783)

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.

Re:Sounds Like It To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40948897)

the only problem is that the first arrest "vanished" via judicial judo

Re:Sounds Like It To Me (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 2 years ago | (#40948907)

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 criminal case, then going back to court for essentially the same thing in civil court. Think OJ Simpson. He was found not guilty in the criminal case, but lost the civil case.

Re:Sounds Like It To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40949137)

Sadly, the City of New York is preparing to follow up with their own prosecution in their jurisdiction if the State's trial is also overturned. The smaller "financial district" jurisdiction is continuing to review their options at this time.

In many ways Justice in this country has turned into "if they want you they'll get you somehow". Gone is actual justice, it's been replaced by revenge.

Re:Sounds Like It To Me (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about 2 years ago | (#40949163)

You're right, but the doctrine is wrong. It's nowhere in the Constitution and is an interpretation of the fifth amendment that is contrary to both its spirit and its wording.

"Can't get him in State court? Try him anyway, drag it out for two years. Then when he's acquitted, let's try him in Federal court - drag that out for two years. Then we can cleverly claim since some of the money was from people in other states, they can charge him in those states too. We'll ruin his life completely and there's nothing he can do about it, it's pretty sweet..."

It's a fucking joke.

Re:Sounds Like It To Me (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40949261)

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:Sounds Like It To Me (3, Insightful)

maroberts (15852) | about 2 years ago | (#40949575)

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.

And that is stupid. (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about 2 years ago | (#40949759)

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 as cheap.

OJ: If you are NOT convicted on a criminal case you should not be open to civil cases on the SAME crime even if they rename "murder' to "wrongful death." If he was convicted then maybe he could be sued in civil court for damages such as lost income etc. although I think the criminal case should handle such issues as well. Simply for the family to sue for blood money (makes me think of Sharia law) is not reasonable. Revenge is not justice.

The real story is how Goldman is untouchable.

Re:Sounds Like It To Me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40949943)

The doublethink is strong with this one.

They are both trials by the government for the same crime committed in the same location.

Perhaps you would bo okay if the government invented 20 new agencies, and gave them all their own little court systems so that they could claim their own "jurisdiction." What double jeopardy? The previous trial was in personal household financing court. This new trial is in individual family commercial court. It's a totally different jurisdiction.

a lesson (2, Interesting)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#40948841)

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 make sure that you have strong government protection and cover. Actually be the government, that's the best way to steal. Have ties to all the governments in the world, finance wars and government debt by using central credit from the central banks. In fact just steal individual customer funds, if you are somebody like Corzine.

But if you are a schmuck who decides to steal pencils from the bank, you are going to be made example of.

Re: a lesson (4, Insightful)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 2 years ago | (#40948961)

Actually be the government, that's the best way to steal.

Proof: US Senators are allowed to commit insider trading.

Re: a lesson (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#40949101)

Of-course. And that's just one way they steal legally. There are untold number of ways they steal. Gov't contracts... Who is running welfare schemes? Who is running food stamps? It's JPMorgan. I mean, think about this: the unlimited credit that the central bank provides to the preferred institutions. It's given out at no cost and the Treasury needs the money, so this is legal money laundering - using the infinite Fed's fake credit line to finance the Treasury through the intermediary, so that the intermediary can front run the deals (the Treasury announces what it's going to buy and at what price upfront!)

  This is freaking madness and it's all legal. Military contracts and undeclared wars. ALL government contracts. Infrastructure? It's child's play.

Re: a lesson (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40949195)

Or if you're a certain senator from Nevada, you could buy inaccessible, worthless land outside of Las Vegas. Then get federal money to build access to that land and make a huge profit.

Re: a lesson (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#40949251)

Actually be the government, that's the best way to steal.

Proof: US Senators are allowed to commit insider trading.

Also worth noting, the Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned company, [factcheck.org] not a government institution.

Maybe not for much longer (1)

kiwimate (458274) | about 2 years ago | (#40949965)

See link [cbsnews.com]

Re:a lesson (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#40949153)

Actually be the government, that's the best way to steal.

Well if you're the government, then it's not stealing. It's called tax. Levy. Fee. Tariff. Fine. Licence. But not stealing. It's perfectly legal, see how it says so here on this piece of paper I agreed to and signed, on your behalf?

Re:a lesson (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#40950083)

Yeah, here is a list of crimes that gov't is involved with [slashdot.org] , and 'social contract' is one of those crimes.

How about that social contract?

Both Romney and Obama are running on the platform of tax cuts. Romney wants to cut taxes for all and Obama wants to cut taxes for the people who are not 1%, so I supposed the 99%, right?

Obama is accusing Romney of 'Romneyhood' - taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich, but what does he mean by that? He means that Romney will have all these tax cuts, including the tax cuts for the rich and the poor will end up paying for that.

But wait just a second, Obama also proposes tax cuts, and in his version of tax cuts, who is going to be paying for them?

In order to have real tax cuts government must cut spending, otherwise it's not a tax cut (that's why Bush didn't really have tax cuts, he grew spending, and spending is the real tax, it's the future tax + interest, somebody must pay).

Obama is clearly not interested in cutting government spending, but really then how can he say that Romney is going to grow taxes on the middle class and the poor by ALSO cutting taxes on middle class and the poor while also cutting tax on the top 1%.

See, it's sleight of hand here as well, Obama is doing the same thing as Romney - promising tax cuts and the difference is that Obama is not going to cut spending. Romney IS talking about cutting spending, whether he'll do it ........ (that's why I am pro Ron Paul or Garry Johnson, not any of these other clowns).

So back to the topic - here is the gist of this social contract - politicians promise the voters something NOW and they are promising NOT to tax for it. So the government spending continues and grows, and taxes are cut, so nothing is balanced.

And this is the 'social contract' - it is the FUTURE that ends up with the bill. It's the credit, it's the tab. The future (whoever that is) is NOT voting in the elections. The future isn't being promised anything, but they are getting stuck with whatever the bill is.

Of-course AFAIC the future is now, there is no future, the generations that are alive today will be paying for all this economic catastrophe that is happening today.

different jurisdiction? (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#40948853)

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.

Fifth amendment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40948881)

"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.

And so what? Doesn't the fifth apply both in federal and state court? I shudder at the precedent it will set if indeed he can be prosecuted twice, NEVER MIND that it is under different jurisdictions. He's already been tried. Give it up. This would open the doors to prosecuting ANYONE multiple times. That, in my opinion, is FAR worse than some petty software thief getting away with some stolen code.

Really now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40948971)

Well, guess we know who pays Cryus Vance's bills.

I can't wait for the November election (5, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 2 years ago | (#40949029)

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

Re:I can't wait for the November election (4, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:I can't wait for the November election (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40949569)

The problem is the people who let it happen when the fathers of the constitution warned you all about it years ago.

But carry on just pointing fingers at somebody else.

Re:I can't wait for the November election (3)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#40949673)

"Let it happen"? How would you stop it - do tell. I'm not finger-pointing. I'm merely observing that there is a cycle to human history, and it's pretty obvious towards which end of the cycle we are headed. We call ourselves smart, but really I don't think there's anything we can do to stop it. Not individually and not collectively. Because the greed and corruption is part of our nature, as is our lazyness and our tolerance. So we go with the flow, while the immoral work their secret plots and plunder the wealth of society right in front of our eyes, until it reaches a point where we can take no more. Then we rise up, and smash the yoke that turned into a noose to strangle us. And then immediately settle our heads into a different yoke... But if all you're thinking is "republican/democrat/socialist/neocon" then you sir, can't see the wood for the trees.

Re:I can't wait for the November election (1)

Mitreya (579078) | about 2 years ago | (#40949815)

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.

Re:I can't wait for the November election (1)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#40949949)

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.

Re:I can't wait for the November election (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40949603)

Electing Romney is really going to help things like this isn't it.

Re:I can't wait for the November election (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 2 years ago | (#40949803)

He fights for the little guy every time!

(Of course, that's because their meat is usually more tender and goes well with a Pernod-Ricard Perrier-Jouet)

Can I ask a question? (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 2 years ago | (#40949067)

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?

Simple Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40949201)

Just lobotomize anyone when they leave your company, then its not an issue of them stealing your secrets

Leak the code! (1)

dontbgay (682790) | about 2 years ago | (#40949271)

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?

Re:Leak the code! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40950207)

Sure would be a shame if that code ended up on TPB or some server in China somewhere, hm? Granted, that would make his jail time even worse when he's convicted (and he will be, the forces against him have way too much money and influence). But if you're going to go down, go down in a blaze of glory.

But at the same time, if he DID do something illegal, he should be punished appropriately. We do have laws for a reason. The laws may be inane sometimes, but as terrible as they may be, we should follow them while we work very hard to get the changed or removed entirely.

Secret Sauce! (1)

DarthVain (724186) | about 2 years ago | (#40949339)

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.

Is it theft (1)

houghi (78078) | about 2 years ago | (#40949413)

or is it copyright infringement?

We are borked as a nation (4, Insightful)

tekrat (242117) | about 2 years ago | (#40949629)

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.

Re:We are borked as a nation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40950279)

This resonates with me. I too feel that Obama has failed in many ways. The deficit is getting out of control our civil rights are being eroded. No prosecutions for the banking fraud or the wiretapping. And I also feel that Romney will be even worse. I am certain that neither side will fix the deficit or eliminate the illegal wire tapping. Apparently the executive branch can do anything it really wants, because it has sovereign immunity and there is no organization with the power to check it. Hence the illegal wire tapping continues. Congress passes a law preventing prosecution of the telcos for helping out and the ninth circuit court says go ahead and wiretap, there is nothing anything anybody can do to stop it.

Double jeapordy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40949843)

This IS double jeopardy because it is the same "crime" and same set of facts. If for any reason this case is refiled, or tried, or convicted, all the freedom advocates should taker all the way to whatever court is needed to set a precedent that state and federal "jurisdiction shopping" cannot be used to bypass a lower court ruling, particularly one that exonerates the perp. Also it should be made clear double jeopardy is a federal standard that applies to all subdivisions of the government. Also since our government now jurisdiction shops other countries (New Zealand) and legal systems (UN), this is an important standard that needs to be protected not neutered.

Remember, justice is blind. Not retributional or fixated. It is the police, prosecutors and politicians that are retributional and fixated. That's why we need a constitution to begin with!

JJ

Black-Scholes is a secret sauce? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40949859)

Since when are Black-Scholes and insider trading a secret sauce?

high frequency trading, criminal activity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40950067)

I for one really wish I understood what this high frequency trading was actually doing. The algorithms cannot be working on a concept of "true value" because the "true value" of an asset does not change every millisecond. The algorithms could be working on predicting price momentum. That is the current price direction is likely to continue for some period of time. This type of algorithm only bothers me a little bit, since I think almost all people putting money in the market are playing a momentum game over some period of time. I have a feeling that it may be impossible to predict price momentum. I mean if you have enough high frequency trading computers trying to predict how long a price trend will last and making bets on this, I think you will end up with random price changes, and this is not predictable. Thus there is no money to be made with this scheme. This leaves the third category of exploiting inefficiency between multiple exchanges or exploiting some other feature of the trading system. I believe this to be an illegal activity, resulting in money being stolen. I once wrote a program to analyze buying/selling based upon moving averages. Buying at the moving average minima, and selling at its maxima. This was a losing strategy for all relatively short moving averages. I forget where positive territory was, somewhere around 360 day moving averages, but these did not beat buy and hold. I could pick a different algorithm and try again. There is a method for using candlesticks or fibonnaci sequences. I suspect these won't work either, but I haven't tried yet.

So. Another way around the 5th. (1)

istartedi (132515) | about 2 years ago | (#40950283)

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?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>