Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

If someone steals a donut from a donut shop, do you think the police need a statement from a third party donut vendor to make an arrest?

Silly analogies lead to silly conclusions, because they inherently obscure essential facts in the comparison.

This wasn't a piece of tangible property, which the agent could understand. This was an immensely complicated issue to a lay person who admitted that he didn't really understand what had been stolen or how much it was worth.

He just listened to Goldman Sachs say trust us and made an arrest within 48 hours.

If you don't understand why its disturbing that the FBI blindly did the bidding of one of the most powerful corporations on Earth, there's simply no point in continuing to debate the issue.




Unlike donuts, art is incredibly difficult to value, so much so that there's a whole profession dedicated to that problem. Must the FBI engage one of those professionals before deciding to arrest someone who steals a painting?


Before deciding the value of the theft to attach to the charge? Certainly. That would be one reason the FBI employs art specialists as well. Absent a fleeing felon, I would definitely expect the FBI to consult with an art specialist.


You're moving the goalposts. First, Aleynikov is "arrested" on GS's say-so. Now he's being prosecuted on their say-so. By the time Aleynikov is arraigned, expertise has been engaged. What makes this an especially pointless debate is that the trial uncovers that he did in fact take valuable source code!


"Arrested and charged", without independent and investigation, on Goldman Sachs say-so has been consistently my point all along. Nobody moved the goalposts. You just got farther from them.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: