The double jeopardy aspect of this case is what troubles me. He was cleared by a federal court of the crime, but they found an obscure statute under which to charge him at another level of law for what was essentially the same action. The only reason this was successful is because Goldman Sachs is, well, Goldman Sachs and the amount of power they wield is frightening (even to a federal judge).

But that's beside the point: this article is presented not as an honest retelling of the facts, but as a window into how engineers might perceive this case, and the impacts that perception has on banks' abilities to recruit the best talent. And from that perspective, it's spot on: it drags into the open a lot of poor practices that banks have and how they're a poor fit for the hacker culture present at the top level of engineering talent. Even if that doesn't represent reality, it reinforces that perception: young engineers graduating from college and looking for a job have a certain negative connotation with banks as a result.