Two more great links: The, like, inimitable Matt Levine (I know, right?): http:/...

dublinben · on Aug 12, 2015

Is this really insider trading, if none of the alleged perpetrators were insiders, nor was there anyone breaching a duty to protect the information. It seems like they'll have a pretty strong defense on this point.

tptacek · on Aug 12, 2015

"Insider trading" is in this case shorthand; they traded based on information they obtained fraudulently, which is enough for a 17(a)/10b-5 case.

kosievdmerwe · on Aug 12, 2015

It's insider trading if you trade based on non-public information. So if you tell your family that your company is going to do something that will influence the stock price and they trade using that information (no matter how vague that information was) they are guilty of insider trading.

RockyMcNuts · on Aug 12, 2015

Well, I'm not a lawyer but sounds kind of illegal to hack companies to acquire non-public material information and profit from it.

If it's legal, sounds like a promising startup for YC, smart hackers changing the world, they should apply to the next cycle!

andrewchambers · on Aug 12, 2015

Of course the hacks are illegal, he was asking whether using the data should be classified as insider trading.

RockyMcNuts · on Aug 12, 2015

'Of course hacks are illegal', but paying someone to hack and profit from the inside information is OK?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-11/hackers-10...

'Insider trading' is trading on material nonpublic information that was inappropriately acquired from an 'insider'.

There are situations that are gray areas but this does not appear to be one of them.