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!

Ex-Microsoft Employee Arrested For Leaking Windows 8

Unknown Lamer posted about 7 months ago | from the that'll-show-them dept.

Microsoft 197

SmartAboutThings (1951032) writes "Alex Kibkalo, a former Microsoft employee has been arrested yesterday for stealing and leaking company secrets. The former software architecture engineer is accused of leaking early Windows 8 builds to a French tech blogger with whom he was communicating inside a forum. The ex-Microsoft employee also stands accused of leaking some Windows 7 program files and also an internal system meant to protect against software piracy. Kibkalo is said to have leaked the Windows 8 code in the middle of 2012 because he was angry over a poor performance review."

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

Stealing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46533225)

A developer stole the code he was working on? How does that work?

Re:Stealing? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46533281)

A developer stole the code he was working on? How does that work?

Because his work is not really his. It belongs to the corporation. Everything belongs to the corporation. Space, time, all matter and all energy belong to the corporation according to the corporation. They got the lawyers to make it happen. He doesn't.

Re:Stealing? (5, Insightful)

flagg9483 (940242) | about 7 months ago | (#46533691)

Yeah, blah, blah, corporations are evil and holding down the poor hard working honest guy. Nonsense. If I start a small corner store business making widgets, then hire you to help. I instruct you have to make my widgets, give you the tools and material to do it, pay you as we agreed, then you steal my inventory and give/sell it to someone then you are a THIEF. Just because it is software doesn't make it belong to you, and just because it is a corporation doesn't give you moral superiority.

Re:Stealing? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46534229)

Yeah, blah, blah, corporations are evil and holding down the poor hard working honest guy.

The following is my opinion.

Greed is when you place making money above all else and don't care about the harm you do to others to achieve that. Problem is, publically traded corporations have a legal obligation to increase profits every legal way possible.

That's why publically traded food companies get to pick from over 15,000 chemicals they can add to food that DOES NOT need to be listed on the label. These chemicals are often addictive, increase appetite, and have a lot to do with all the fatasses in the USA. Fat people eat more food and buy more food. Note that most of Europe doesn't allow these additives. But that's okay, because regulatory capture means the FDA allows whatever the corporations want, and that increases profits! Oh and there's the revolving door between employment at these corporations and cushy positions at the FDA. It's corrupt to the fucking core man.

Oh did you know most "diet food" will make you GAIN weight? Research it yourself. What did you expect when profits matter more than anything else?

I don't know if all corporations are evil. I do know that when corporations control things that are far too important, evil always seems to happen. Maybe it is like government. Not inherently evil, but evil people really just love positions of power. Power and control and money are about the only things sociopaths get off on.

Re: Stealing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46534969)

All those evil chemicals. It is such a scary word when you pretend that water is not a chemical. I'm so tired of hearing these conspiracy theories based on anecdotal evidence and flawed research which disagrees with the vast majority of independent and governmental research. But of course anyone who disagrees with you is just a shill right?

baby poop in french food (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46535429)

...and chemicals that made rats go crazy at 17 times what wold drive the rats crazy, cheese that isnt even cheese......640 more examples of british food that is badly labeled or not properly labeled ....from a study of 900 foods

ya wonder why ukraine is in the news thats one reason and the other was the leak in britain these spies are storing kiddy pron

NOT A PEEP in any western media about it.....DISGUSTING

Re:Stealing? (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 7 months ago | (#46535343)

The following is my opinion.

Greed is when you place making money above all else and don't care about the harm you do to others to achieve that. Problem is, publically traded corporations have a legal obligation to increase profits every legal way possible.

Problem is, you are totally wrong in a corporation's legal obligation. I've read the lawsuit someone used to bullshit you with. It actually says the exact opposite of your claim. Corporations have the obligation to pay dividends to shareholders based on profits, but have no government-enforced mandate to make those profits larger.

The corporation, or the majority shareholder in the case of Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., can't squander profits just because they want to. Especially in the Ford case, where Henry Ford also wanted to keep shareholders from getting a large sum of money that was going to be used to set up a competing car company.

Here is a link to the pdf of the decision. It's nine pages long, and doesn't take too long to read.
http://www.businessentitiesonl... [businessen...online.com]

Re:Stealing? (2, Interesting)

gnupun (752725) | about 7 months ago | (#46534697)

If I start a small corner store business making widgets, then hire you to help. I instruct you have to make my widgets, give you the tools and material to do it, pay you as we agreed, then you steal my inventory and give/sell it to someone then you are a THIEF.

Everything you say is true when we're talking about general production of physical widgets -- the raw material and production equipment belong to you and your employee performs simple repetitive, non-creative actions to build the widget for you. But does that analogy also apply to intellectual property, like software? In this case, the employer pays for a chair, a desk, electricity, cube/office, and a computer with software. None of these items are terribly expensive and are one-time investments. A developer can easily purchase them himself.

The employer then essentially provides a spec (which is often just a extremely vague set of requirements) and a monthly salary. We can therefore say that most of the software is created by the creative talent and skill (the raw material and machines in your analogy) of the developers. Does the work created by the software dev still completely belong to the employer for a few thousand dollars because of a few words written in the employment contract? I think not! Most of software is written by developers with little contribution from the employer and therefore should be licensed to the employer the same way a song is licensed by the musicians to record labels, how writers license their books to publishers etc.

Re:Stealing? (3, Insightful)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 7 months ago | (#46535043)

The employer then essentially provides a spec (which is often just a extremely vague set of requirements) and a monthly salary. We can therefore say that most of the software is created by the creative talent and skill (the raw material and machines in your analogy) of the developers. Does the work created by the software dev still completely belong to the employer for a few thousand dollars because of a few words written in the employment contract? I think not! Most of software is written by developers with little contribution from the employer and therefore should be licensed to the employer the same way a song is licensed by the musicians to record labels, how writers license their books to publishers etc.

That sounds great, except that's not the contract that was agreed upon. If the agreement states that the developer is licensing the code to the employer, then great. But if a developer chooses to enter into what is currently the standard contract, then no, it doesn't work that way. If the developer enters into this type of agreement, then they can't simply decide it's going to work the other way. They can renegotiate with the employer for a different contract or leave the company.

And there is a considerable investment by the company. Not only do they need to pay for the items that you describe, but software, network expenses, and keeping those computer up to date. Chairs and desks do wear out. And rent and electricity are not one time investments. However the real expenses are in the marketing, packaging, support of the product, etc. If it was as simple as one guy sitting at a computer and coding all day, then every developer would have their own business. But it's not that simple. How many software companies go under and lose all of the invested money? Someone has to finance it all, so they are taking a big risk. If you think otherwise, you are even more naive than I would have guessed.

Re:Stealing? (1)

cusco (717999) | about 7 months ago | (#46535271)

Don't forget support staff, project managers, meeting rooms, collaboration software, networks, servers, version control software, backups, accountants, HR staff, janitors, and security guards.

Re:Stealing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46535299)

Most of software is written by developers with little contribution from the employer and therefore should be licensed to the employer the same way a song is licensed by the musicians to record labels, how writers license their books to publishers etc.
 
That's why you should develop software on your own and license it out. Otherwise you're agreeing to the terms of your employment. You don't like that agreement? You think your work is worth more? That's fine, just don't let the door hit you on your way out.
 
There's tons of people right here on Slashdot who think your time and money invested in producing digital media isn't worth the licensing cost because "it's just a copy"... Given your attitude, you're probably one of them. Don't let that little fact stand in your way. Go out and produce something and see how far you can get. I honestly wish you the best, you could make a ton. But if you fail don't cry to anyone about it. After all, "a chair, a desk, electricity, cube/office, and a computer with software. None of these items are terribly expensive and are one-time investments. A developer can easily purchase them himself. " Right?
 
Here's your big chance to prove to us that you can do it.

Re:Stealing? (4, Informative)

HairOfTheBambit (1281718) | about 7 months ago | (#46535329)

The employer is paying the software developer for the work he's doing while he is there. If you want to have your work licensed, free lance, and then license your code. Do it without the tools and time and resources provided by an employer during working hours. There are lots of projects and people who do this. Specify it in the contracts you create.

I've been in all the different stages. Started out as a developer for companies, went to independent contractor, started my own business and hiring programmers who work under me. I am paying them for their time and their skills and their creative talent, and the result of their work. Why is a programmer more entitled to something than a welder? Because one is using creativity in their brain? Then how about an engineer designing bridges or planes or cars? Should they have everything they do be licensed also?

A company that wants to keep the best and most creative people offer good benefits, the right tools and appropriate salaries. Some may get stock or profit sharing. These are the rewards, payment, for the services rendered. Now, the one point I will make is that things you do on your own time (at home, after hours, on vacation) should most certainly belong to you. I remember a case where some big company said something the engineer did on their own time belonged to them, and I find that rather repugnant.

Re:Stealing? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46533707)

In that case you just stole my comment right there. If I had lawyers I could make you go to prison. Right?
Of course I know the code wasn't his. But is this theft?

Re:Stealing? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#46534099)

Theft is in nearly every jurisdiction that I could think of defined as taking something movable from the possession of someone else with the intent to keep and the intent to deprive the original possessor of its use.

So, no. The only part that might be fulfilled is the "intent to keep", but that's not enough (if that would stick, buying something would constitute theft, because people usually buy stuff with the intent to keep).

Re:Stealing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46534323)

That's larceny.

Re:Stealing? (2)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 7 months ago | (#46535069)

In that case you just stole my comment right there. If I had lawyers I could make you go to prison. Right? Of course I know the code wasn't his. But is this theft?

Tell that to all those who lost their bitcoins at Mt. Gox. It wasn't real currency, it was simply 1's and 0's right?

Re:Stealing? (5, Informative)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 7 months ago | (#46533283)

Work for hire. It isn't his to begin with. Plus he probably had code he did not write there too.

Re:Stealing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46534563)

Work for hire. It isn't his to begin with. Plus he probably had code he did not write there too.

Pretty much 99% of the contracts you see in the programming world (and a lot of other industries) state that anything you develop while on company dollar you don't own nor can you take it with you. Sometimes you might even have a clause that states you can't develop anything off company time unless you get legal permission from your employer before hand.

Re:Stealing? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 7 months ago | (#46535249)

Right. "work for hire" is the efficient way of sating that.

Re: Stealing? (1, Insightful)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 7 months ago | (#46533289)

It wasn't solely his work.

Re:Stealing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46533377)

I assumed it was more along the lines of crimes against humanity.

Re:Stealing? (3, Informative)

nbritton (823086) | about 7 months ago | (#46534069)

The developer stole nothing, one element necessary for theft is intentionally depriving the owner of their property and the owner was never deprived of their property. This is conversion [wikipedia.org]

There was not loss... at all... (1)

taikedz (2782065) | about 7 months ago | (#46534465)

Indeed, by physical standards he stole nothing as the owner (licensor) of the software still has it.

Normally software theft can be counted in lost sales due to leakage...

.... and let's face it. Microsoft lost nothing from the leak itself.

Re:Stealing? (2)

DaMattster (977781) | about 7 months ago | (#46534485)

The developer stole nothing, one element necessary for theft is intentionally depriving the owner of their property and the owner was never deprived of their property. This is conversion [wikipedia.org]

In an interesting sense, you are technically correct because the owner is not being deprived of anything. The owner, Microsoft, still has the code and is thus deprived of nothing. This fits better under industrial espionage law. Unfortunately, case law precedent makes it possible to prosecute the actor under theft statutes.

Re:Stealing? (4, Insightful)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 7 months ago | (#46534647)

The developer stole nothing, one element necessary for theft is intentionally depriving the owner of their property and the owner was never deprived of their property. This is conversion [wikipedia.org]

In an interesting sense, you are technically correct because the owner is not being deprived of anything. The owner, Microsoft, still has the code and is thus deprived of nothing. This fits better under industrial espionage law. Unfortunately, case law precedent makes it possible to prosecute the actor under theft statutes.

Theft of secrets. Yes, the original blueprints, code, whatever, remains with the original owner. What has been stolen, however, was the exclusivity of the trade secrets. And trade secrets are only protected as long as they are secret.

This being Windows, 8, probably the most applicable route to prosecution is Illegal Disposal of Toxic Waste, but nevertheless...

Re:Stealing? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | about 7 months ago | (#46534707)

The exclusivity of the trade secrets was not stolen, neither party has exclusivity anymore...
The exclusivity was destroyed, since no noone has exclusivity.

Re:Stealing? (1)

k8to (9046) | about 7 months ago | (#46535125)

"Theft of trade secret" is a thing.

It's kind of an odd concept. When you accept that exclusive ownership of something is a intellectual property thing, then someone who shares it while under a contract to not do so is depriving you of that exclusion. Your trade secret is no longer secret and your advantage is taken away from you.

This stuff stems from guild laws, like the secrets of making good parmigiano-reggiano or whatever that were supposed to be kept within the organization and were only shared with you if you agreed to abide by these terms.

Personally, it seems quite awkward to use the verb "theft" in this context, and I would not choose to do so, but it is established usage. Additionally, I find the whole protected trade secret concept sort of awkward, but I might not fully grasp what it is needed to protect in a modern context.

Re:Stealing? (1)

flanders123 (871781) | about 7 months ago | (#46534497)

A developer stole the code he was working on? How does that work?

The same way it works if a mechanic that works on your car doesn't own your car, and the carpenter that builds my house doesn't own my house.*

*This analogy applies to everyone except Mark Zuckerberg.

That makes sense (5, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 months ago | (#46533269)

That makes sense. I mean, if you were driving down the road leaking botulism toxin or liposuction reclamation material, you'd get arrested...

Re:That makes sense (4, Funny)

Spense4Hire (3585263) | about 7 months ago | (#46533309)

Yeah, bad enough Microsoft has inflicted this on the public; this guy thought it was a good idea to start beating us with it *early*.

Re:That makes sense (1)

dimeglio (456244) | about 7 months ago | (#46534043)

Are you saying he should counter sue Microsoft?

Re:That makes sense (1)

Lazere (2809091) | about 7 months ago | (#46534107)

No, then he'd go to jail for endangering the public.

Re:That makes sense (1)

McGruber (1417641) | about 7 months ago | (#46534237)

Maybe he was trying to be the Paul Revere of Software?

Re:That makes sense (1)

FearTheDonut (2665569) | about 7 months ago | (#46535297)

If you were leaking Botulism Toxin, they'd never know it when you were driving down the road. BT is has an incredibly high potency at almost untraceable levels. Especially in real-time. And it would take some time for your acetylcholine receptors to get blocked. That being said, if I caught you driving down the road dripping liposuction reclamation material, I'd beat you senseless...

Which is it? (4, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | about 7 months ago | (#46533291)

Summary says he released early builds, then it says he leaked "Windows 8 code". Code and builds aren't the same thing. So which was it?

Re:Which is it? (-1, Flamebait)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 7 months ago | (#46533327)

Stop being pedantic. He took something which wasn't his and gave it to someone who shouldn't have had access to it. It doesn't matter if the terms are interchanged or not, the underlying principle is still the same.

Re:Which is it? (4, Insightful)

McWilde (643703) | about 7 months ago | (#46533449)

Not really. The early build is probably a lot like the release build that came after. You might see some bugs that were later fixed, but I wouldn't think it comprises any company secret. The code on the other hand is secret. And the early code will also be a lot like later code, so you could now roll your own Windows 8 from this code (if you did your own bug fixing as well).

Re:Which is it? (-1, Flamebait)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 7 months ago | (#46533517)

It wasn't his information to give. It doesn't matter if it's raw code, a build, a beta or anything else, the underlying and overriding principle is it wasn't his to do anything with.

Period.

Re:Which is it? (5, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | about 7 months ago | (#46533833)

It matters if you're reporting A happened and actually it was B. Yes, in both cases something happened, and we can agree perhaps that they both fall into the "bad" category. But..so what? How does that make the story more accurate?

Oh, and "period".

Re:Which is it? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46534007)

So, according to you, releasing all the CAD drawings and engineering specs for, say, the Mercedes C and handing Geely a Mercedes C off the factory floor are exactly the same thing, no difference at all?

They're both illegal. One represents Geely getting to drive around in a nice car, instead of a Merrie 300. The other represents Geely basically crushing any possible Chinese sales of the Mercedes C.

I hope the difference in the level of damage done is clear now with the typical slashdot car analogy having been given. And thus you understand why someone would like to know which one actually happened. :P

Re:Which is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46533933)

Just one correction - internal builds are typically debug builds.
They usually carry a lot more debugging information and happily give detailed reports about what's happening on under the hood. All to help developers figure out what's going on.

Production builds on the other hands all debugging info is stripped down and it's handed to the user as a black box - input something, get result, don't poke under the hood.

True this is a breach of contract, but still calling this "leaking code and company secrets" feels like stretching it a bit.

Re:Which is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46533485)

Why? Words have meanings for a reason. People like you are why words become useless because specific terms get used for something completely different.

Apple vs Tree? (4, Insightful)

tomxor (2379126) | about 7 months ago | (#46533511)

It's not pedantic there's a huge difference... take your ignorance and leave.

Re:Apple vs Tree? (-1, Flamebait)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 7 months ago | (#46533567)

No, there is not huge difference. As I said a bit further up, it wasn't his to take. It doesn't matter what it was, it wasn't his. Period.

Call it what you will, the software, in whatever form, was Microsoft's. Not his. He had absolutely no right to it any way, shape or form other than to work on it.

The only ignorance is people like you who think they have a right to something from someone else and do whatever they feel like, just because they can.

How about this. You work on a piece of software, I'll take the code in whatever form I feel and give it to a big company who will make billions off it, leaving you with squat.

That would be fine with you, right?

Re:Apple vs Tree? (0)

iggymanz (596061) | about 7 months ago | (#46533699)

so you buy into the farce that information can be "owned". that of course is nonsense, this employee proved it.

Re:Apple vs Tree? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46533785)

How about this. You work on a piece of software, I'll take the code in whatever form I feel and give it to a big company who will make billions off it, leaving you with squat.

That would be fine with you, right?

If you take the code, no - not fine.

If you take a build, yes - fine!

I think you illustrated your oppositions point here quite clearly. Build and code are quite different. The ramifications of having source code access are so much more damaging.

Re:Apple vs Tree? (2)

Collective 0-0009 (1294662) | about 7 months ago | (#46533869)

How about this. You work on a piece of software, I'll take the code in whatever form I feel and give it to a big company who will make billions off it, leaving you with squat. That would be fine with you, right?

Depends if you took a line of code, or the whole thing. Or if you just took an exe. Now you see the difference? No, of course not.

Do you think it would be the same if I took $100 from you, or emptied out your entire life savings? There are scales of bad. Littering is bad. But not as bad as dumping chemicals in a river. Or do you really think we should have the same punishment for littering and mega-corps dumping waste? "It doesn't matter what it was, it wasn't to be dumped in that place", right?

Re:Apple vs Tree? (2)

gnick (1211984) | about 7 months ago | (#46534501)

Well put. I actually have a copy of the entire source right here. Here's a piece:

e

All that's left is to fill in the blanks around it. Doesn't really pack the same wallop as seeing the entire source in context though, does it?

Re:Apple vs Tree? (1)

worf_mo (193770) | about 7 months ago | (#46534925)

GP never said it was right to take code in whatever form. Leaking a released build so that some "journalist" could publish a sensationalist headline and a few screenshots is one thing. No company can "make billions" off that. OTOH, leaking the source code of a proprietary OS could yield some money. Both ain't right (from a moral and a legal standpoint), but the distinction is important in order to assess the damage done.

To answer your question: If you give one of my software projects in binary form to a company I might be miffed. If you give them my source code rest assured I will be seriously pissed.

Re:Apple vs Tree? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 7 months ago | (#46535075)

Exactly, the whole thing is about punishing someone that dared to challenge a rich corporation.

If the Law was about being fair and just, he would be fined for 120% of what he gained from it, and court costs (Court, NOT overpaid lawyers)

but the law in the USA has nothing at all about being right and just. It's all about punishment and ruining peoples lives.

Re:Apple vs Tree? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46534033)

Slashdot, land of the pedants. Sigh.

Re:Re:Which is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46533523)

I don't think it's a dumb question. Releasing a build is simple theft. Releasing the code is probably has some civil consequences. As a programmer, I would readily admit that releasing code is far worse than releasing an early build. Releasing code is releasing a customer's trade secrets which is their bread and butter.

Re:Re:Which is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46535065)

Unauthorized releasing of a build is theft!

Re:Which is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46533583)

Not really. There are degrees, you know. Leaking a build is not anywhere near the same thing as leaking the source.

Re:Which is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46533759)

wtf? being interested in the details is not being pedantic

Re:Which is it? (1, Insightful)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 7 months ago | (#46533763)

Stop being pedantic. It doesn't matter if the terms are interchanged or not, the underlying principle is still the same.

Source Code and Compiled Code are every so slightly not the same.
Considering the impact and difference in both, lets at least get the correct information from these "stories".

On the funny side, this will be the 1st person to be arrested on the charge of "leaking shit" :)

Re:Which is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46535219)

taking your companies source code and giving it to someone and taking your companies compiled code and giving it to someone is both wrong (and wrong for the same reason. giving something you do not have the right to give)

You "kind of code" argument is irrelevant to that point, as indeed, a wrongdoing was done either way.

But thats not to say it is not interresting or relevevant if you dig deeper or if you discuss what the punishment should be.

Re:Which is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46533875)

What are you talking about? We want to know if the Windows 8 source code has been leaked. That's a pretty damn important question.

Re:Which is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46534419)

Relax. I think he was simply commenting on the poor journalism.

Re:Which is it? (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 7 months ago | (#46534597)

So, if the story had been ex-Sears employee leaks Windows NT builds in 2016... well... close enough, right?

The underlying principle is the same even if the facts ... well... aren't.

Re:Which is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46534963)

Both are illegal. Both may have caused damage to the Microsoft Corporation. But the two things are neither equally damaging, nor therefore "equally illegal." The illegal release of a build is nowhere near as damaging as the source code itself.

Beating up a random stranger on the street and sending him to the hospital is illegal and damaging. But shooting that same person with an AK-47 and landing him in the morgue is much more damage done, and will land the perpetrator in jail much longer (if he is expected to ever come out of jail alive, to begin with).

So, yes, the distinction is important alright.

Re:Which is it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46533741)

You compile source code into object code. How old are you?

Re:Which is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46534413)

"Early builds" refers to the specific stage of development of what he allegedly "stole and leaked". "Code" might refer either to the source code used in the build, or object code produced by the build.

Disgruntled Current/Former Employee Leaker (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 7 months ago | (#46533307)

I am not surprised these stories don't show up more often.

Many prefer to keep these leaks in house, lest current disgruntled employees get the -itis.

In the form of a question, Alex, "Which former Microsoft employee is not up for a Snowden award?"

Re:Disgruntled Current/Former Employee Leaker (5, Funny)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 7 months ago | (#46533631)

Many prefer to keep these leaks in house, lest current disgruntled employees get the -itis.

Microsoft publicized this to demonstrate to the world that there is someone that actually wanted Windows 8.

Re:Disgruntled Current/Former Employee Leaker (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 7 months ago | (#46535157)

Most people who leak things are smart enough to keep their mouth shut and NOT tell anyone who they are. This idiot was trying for glory and "street cred".

If you want to leak something you cover your ass and leak it in a way that is as untraceable as you can get. MSFT employee leaking windows 10.1? you go to a starbucks in a different town that you never visit and upload it to a dead drop. I suggest using a secure CD or thumb drive based OS like linux to do it as well so you can change the mac address easily so in case that starbucks has a high end security logging router, wear sunglasses and a baseball cap, maybe a fake beard.

The problem is all the ones you hear of are from people trying to get credit for it or to build a reputation for some wierd technomancer novel they think life is. Manning was a dipshit bragging about it trying to get himself some strange, Mitnick bragged about EVERYTHING, etc...

Torrent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46533353)

Subject says it all. Where's the torrent of the internal system? :)

MICROSOFT SAID IT... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46533367)

...SO IT *MUST* BE TRUE!!

GENIUS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46533375)

Let's USE hotmail to leak Microsoft code.

The irony of his new job title Product Management for Security

Stack and yank strikes again (0)

benjfowler (239527) | about 7 months ago | (#46533417)

So how's that working out for you, Microsoft?

Leaking Windows 8? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46533427)

Win8 needed more leaking so that Microsoft could have learned how awful it is before trying to sell it. They could have added the start button in the very beginning for those of us not "charmed & tiled".

Should arrest that guy that *designed* Windows 8 (5, Funny)

walterbyrd (182728) | about 7 months ago | (#46533531)

Another Microsoft injustice.

Re:Should arrest that guy that *designed* Windows (2)

bobjr94 (1120555) | about 7 months ago | (#46534263)

Now, they can't give away full copies of Win 8. The #1 faq on HP support for my bosses new laptop I was working on 2 weeks was, can I downgrade my operating system on my laptop and install my own copy ?

"...he was angry over a poor performance review." (5, Funny)

Air-conditioned cowh (552882) | about 7 months ago | (#46533557)

They told him he performed like Windows 8?

Re:"...he was angry over a poor performance review (1)

Squidlips (1206004) | about 7 months ago | (#46534557)

Given MS's management organizations and work teams, this is not surprising

Re:"...he was angry over a poor performance review (2)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | about 7 months ago | (#46534609)

They told him he performed like Windows 8?

The words they used were worse than Windows 8. That's what really stung! :D

Re:"...he was angry over a poor performance review (1)

Dareth (47614) | about 7 months ago | (#46534695)

He really didn't like having to wear the Window 8.1 "Start Menu" flair!

Crimes against humanity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46533697)

Microsoft should be arrested (or even better, taken out back and shot) for crimes against humanity for releasing the turd known as windows 8 into the world.

Nothing this guy did.... (2)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 7 months ago | (#46533793)

could possibly be as bad as what Microsoft's own management is doing to Microsoft every day.

This is not theft, it's conversion. (3, Interesting)

nbritton (823086) | about 7 months ago | (#46533965)

This is ridiculous. He did not deprive the owner of their property, the elements of theft have not been met. This should have been handled as a conversion claim in civil court. What I think is criminal is the corporation using their power to influence the criminal justice system.

Re:This is not theft, it's conversion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46534187)

This is ridiculous. He did not deprive the owner of their property, the elements of theft have not been met.

Idiots like you think the world is ridiculous because you are too stupid
and too lazy to understand how things the the law work.

You need to educate yourself and quit spewing nonsense.

The Microsoft employee stuck his hand in the meat grinder.
Injuries followed. There now, does that make it easy for your tiny little brain
to understand ?

Re:This is not theft, it's conversion. (1)

u38cg (607297) | about 7 months ago | (#46535319)

Doesn't say where in the world he was arrested. Legal codes are not all the same, especially European laws based on Roman codes.

The bigger issue in the story is the suggestion that Microsoft simply opened up his Hotmail account and read his email. That is a much bigger issue, to me.

Copyright or Trade Secret? Pick One (4, Interesting)

organgtool (966989) | about 7 months ago | (#46534019)

On Slashdot, we often talk about how ridiculous it is that software is covered by copyright AND patents, but no one addresses the fact that source code is also covered under trade secret law. This is a conflict of interest and shows how screwed up our intellectual property system is. The intent of copyright is that you get protection in return for making your works public. But in the case of source code, companies get all of the protections of copyright law on that code without being required to ever actually release the code to the public. That is made evident by this exact case.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting that every software development company should be forced to release its code, but I do think they should have to choose between receiving copyright protection by releasing the code or receive no copyright protection and keep the code guarded by trade secret. I can't think of any other industry that gets protection from both copyright and trade secret and I haven't heard anyone suggest why software should be made an exception.

Re:Copyright or Trade Secret? Pick One (0)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 7 months ago | (#46534063)

On Slashdot, we often talk about how ridiculous it is that software is covered by copyright AND patents, but no one addresses the fact that source code is also covered under trade secret law. This is a conflict of interest and shows how screwed up our intellectual property system is. The intent of copyright is that you get protection in return for making your works public. But in the case of source code, companies get all of the protections of copyright law on that code without being required to ever actually release the code to the public. That is made evident by this exact case.

You are confusing patent law and copyright law. The intention of patent law is that you publish the invention and people can improve on it, in exchange for protection. The intention of copyright law is that you write things. There is nothing wrong with writing things and keeping them secret.

Re:Copyright or Trade Secret? Pick One (4, Insightful)

organgtool (966989) | about 7 months ago | (#46534421)

You are confusing patent law and copyright law.

No I am not. Patents and copyright were BOTH set up for the purpose of encouraging people to release their work.

The intention of copyright law is that you write things.

No, the intention of copyright law is to encourage people to make their works available to the public by motivating the creator with the power of monetization. It's the ARTS in the constitutional clause "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

There is nothing wrong with writing things and keeping them secret.

Of course not. But if you want a monopoly on a body of work, you are supposed to actually release that work, not sit on it.

Re:Copyright or Trade Secret? Pick One (1)

DaMattster (977781) | about 7 months ago | (#46534607)

And technically, you aren't correct either. The patent is published to provide legal protection and remedy for the inventor. People cannot necessarily improve on it without violating the law. They can obtain licenses to use and improve on the original product but the patent holder gets compensated.

So who made the arrest? (1)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 7 months ago | (#46534195)

Was it the Metro police?

They should be arrested for WRITING windows 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46534239)

The program is a crime, but at least Ballmer lost his job.

Microsoft access his hotmail account? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46534271)

Did I read that correctly in the article that Microsoft accessed the blogger's hotmail account?

"After realizing that they were dealing with an authentic product, Microsoft’s Trustworthy Computing Investigations tried to track him down and then looked through his Hotmail account where they found incriminating emails and chat logs"

Another reason not to use Hotmail if that is the case.

Re:Microsoft access his hotmail account? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46535355)

No matter where you store your mail, you store your mail there.

My point is that unless you host it yourself the admin can see the headers (metadata) and unless you encrypt your mail they can read it too. this is no diferent on hotmail, gmail, your ISP provided email, the one at a friends server, etc.

So; Another reason to run your own mail server and encrypt mails. because moving to another provider will not fix the underlying issue of the information being available to the server admin.

H-1B? (2, Interesting)

McGruber (1417641) | about 7 months ago | (#46534353)

From the article:

Alex Kibkalo, a former Microsoft employee has been arrested yesterday for stealing and leaking company secrets..... Kibkalo is a Russian national and has worked for Microsoft for seven years; he has joined 5nine Software in August 2013 as Director of Product Management for Security and Management products after quiting his job at Microsoft.

I wonder how he worked for MS for 7 years as H1-B Visas are supposed to be limited to 6 years. [wikipedia.org]

Re:H-1B? (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 7 months ago | (#46534511)

You must be new to the workplace.

Re:H-1B? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46534521)

he isn't even a citizen? Send him back.

Re:H-1B? (1)

k8to (9046) | about 7 months ago | (#46535037)

Maybe he worked abroad at some point?

Re:H-1B? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46535373)

so you're saying he was trying to get married to gain citizenship?

Re:H-1B? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46535315)

Given that the green card process often takes longer than 6 years, the H1-B visa can be extended beyond 6 years if a green card application is active.

Re:H-1B? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 7 months ago | (#46535421)

Well if you read the article it says: "Kibkalo, a Russian national who worked there and in Lebanon for Microsoft . . ." So he spent some time in Seattle and some time in Lebannon.

Re:H-1B? (2)

DigitAl56K (805623) | about 7 months ago | (#46535435)

I wonder how he worked for MS for 7 years as H1-B Visas are supposed to be limited to 6 years. [wikipedia.org]

Because you don't understand immigration law? He could have a greencard, making him a permanent resident but Russian national, or he could have applied for one, in which case he can continue to extend his visa until a determination is made on his application.

Whistle-blower? (4, Funny)

slapout (93640) | about 7 months ago | (#46534837)

Was he trying to warn the world how bad Windows 8 was?

in other news (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46535381)

linux also was leaked ot the blogger and no charges were filed.....

see the misuse yet of your tax money?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?