3 ms·
That makes sense, but do we have info on whether that actually happened? Who's overseeing the overseers? The only theory under which it would make sense to with
by tannhaeuser 9y ago
That makes sense, but do we have info on whether that actually happened? Who's overseeing the overseers? The only theory under which it would make sense to withhold that info I can think of are criminal investigation tactics, but there's no actual info on suspect transactions, is there?
Broadly and vaguely trusting in surveillance isn't convincing at all. The usefulness of surveillance must be weighed and re-evaluated against risks, as demonstrated by this incident.
- HolyLampshade 9y agoI guess by surveillance I was speaking purely transactional surveillance, and typically investigations into transactional behavior takes time, and under certain circumstances would result in criminal prosecution (on top of any regulatory fines/punishment). It also takes time to coordinate investigating multiple different asset class transactions, in the event, say, equity derivatives are used. And no, we don’t have info on what happened and what was taken, and certainly nothing about any regulatory investigations.