5 ms·

But in a series of recent interviews from his $4.5 million home in Dubai, Shah was unrepentant. “Bankers don’t have morals,” the 50-year-old said on a video ca

But in a series of recent interviews from his $4.5 million home in Dubai, Shah was unrepentant. “Bankers don’t have morals,” the 50-year-old said on a video call. “Hedge-fund managers, and so on, they don’t have morals. I made the money legally.” [...] “Prove that any law was broken,” Shah said. “Prove that there was fraud. The legal system allowed it.” At least he's honest in his contempt for normal ethical mores - there's none of the vacillating bull we associate with PR from say, big corporate tax dodgers. Naive, idealistic me has often wondered how possible an abstract law of last resort for prosecuting people who exploit loopholes in what a jury of their peers would consider to be an unethical way; but I guess it would be to open to abuse by dodgy governments and other entities and presumably not compatible with a democratic legal system.

petermcneeley 6y ago
At some point the disease is worse than the cure. You also use this word "democratic" in a way that does not mean "rule by the majority".
- mellosouls 6y ago
  I just meant legal systems as exist in developed democracies but that's more long-winded and potentially open to red-herring discussions on which countries are democratic etc.
  - goodcanadian 6y ago
    Perhaps, "rule of law" is what you were looking for?
    - mellosouls 6y ago
      I think that probably also has room for interpretation. Anyway, hopefully most will have known what I meant.
- Privacy846 6y ago
  > You also use this word "democratic" in a way that does not mean "rule by the majority". I’ll take the bait. “Democratic legal system” is, according to you, an oxymoron because of the “rule by the majority” part? A common sentiment although easily debunked, since there are always rulers in any system with legal codes. In any case this seems pretty off-topic. Another in any case (since I can’t help myself): when political scientists talk about “modern democracies” they mean liberal democracies with rule of law etc. Even though very few modern countries are truely democracies.
  - petermcneeley 6y ago
    I totally agree and questioned if I should just leave that part out. However words are important and are used to disguise what is occurring. Had the parent wrote "presumably not compatible with a non-democratic legal system." they would have been more accurate. Rule of law is not accurate either. Purely democratic states can fall well within rule of law. The issue here is that there is some law that democracies cannot pass because it violates a higher law. Piketty writes about this issue in regard to slavery. To free slaves (in the USA) without compensation was regarded as not following within the higher law which is ~ the law of property. The same issue would be faced with trying to free the "ill gotten gains" of "bankers" from their holdings. The childish subtext of our propertarian legal system is "new rules dont count".
wmf 6y ago
Or we could fix these financial zero-days when they are found instead of letting them run for years.
- gyanchawdhary 6y ago
  “Financial Zero-days” - Excellent analogy :)
  - tehlike 6y ago
    This should be a thing.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- yowlingcat 6y ago
  But think about what that will do to the zero-day market! It will surely crash from such an action!
- SilasX 6y ago
  And further, reward people who responsibly report them early instead of exploiting them.
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
> "Naive, idealistic me has often wondered how possible an abstract law of last resort for prosecuting people who exploit loopholes in what a jury of their peers would consider to be an unethical way" Heaven help those who are unpopular or of a class that is widely discriminated against under such a system.
- OJFord 6y ago
  Perhaps GP meant to account for it by 'of their peers', as in equals. For example, in the UK peers (of the realm) used to have the right to trial by jury of fellow peers (of the realm). They are now the victims of inequality - while commoners have the right to a trial by their commoner peers, peers (of the realm) have only the right to a trial by commoners!
Tronno 6y ago
We have laws like this for computer hackers. No-one ever defends themselves by saying "everything I did was enabled by the poorly designed system, therefore I am not a criminal". Why not for the financial system?
- wmf 6y ago
  The CFAA is a terrible law that has been used to prosecute people over very questionable cases. Let's not bring (any more of) that level of subjectivity to finance.
- majormajor 6y ago
  > No-one ever defends themselves by saying "everything I did was enabled by the poorly designed system, therefore I am not a criminal". This is a pretty common argument, actually, when it comes to questions of "allowed" API access.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  Exploiting loopholes is virtuous for many of the people in the industry. It demonstrates your attentiveness to the rules.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > No-one ever defends themselves by saying "everything I did was enabled by the poorly designed system, therefore I am not a criminal". People charged with hacking defend themselves this way all the time. And other people defend them in the same terms. Recently a guy was charged for accessing public URLs. Sure, they were specifically made available to the public, but the public wasn't supposed to look at them.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    The weev case was a travesty from start to finish. The failure on ATT's part is legendary. The "secret" information was only ever exposed to a professional journalist, who didn't pass it on to anyone. Nothing happened in New Jersey. And of course, as the appellate court found: ...no evidence was advanced at trial that the account slurper ever breached any password gate or other code-based barrier. The account slurper simply accessed the publicly facing portion of the login screen and scraped information that AT&T unintentionally published. [0] [0] http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/weevrulingvacation.pdf http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/weevru...
lmm 6y ago
Ancient Chinese law worked that way; people whose acts were considered blatantly unethical would routinely be charged for violating an imperial decree. Not an actual imperial decree, but everyone acknowledged that the Emperor would have made such a decree if he'd been aware of the circumstances.
- chii 6y ago
  selective application of the law (aka, a lynchmob) has a very chilling effect on the populous. They will not take risks, nor try new innovations for fear of such reprisals. You end up with a "can't go wrong buying IBM" mentality, but for society.
  - lmm 6y ago
    It wasn't a case of lynch mobs - the court administration were properly appointed officials, and there were checks and balances in place (by the standards of the time). But the mentality that the rules had to be written down ahead of time and any loopholes were fair game just wasn't there.

petermcneeley 6y ago

At some point the disease is worse than the cure. You also use this word "democratic" in a way that does not mean "rule by the majority".

mellosouls 6y ago
I just meant legal systems as exist in developed democracies but that's more long-winded and potentially open to red-herring discussions on which countries are democratic etc.
- goodcanadian 6y ago
  Perhaps, "rule of law" is what you were looking for?
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    I think that probably also has room for interpretation. Anyway, hopefully most will have known what I meant.
Privacy846 6y ago
> You also use this word "democratic" in a way that does not mean "rule by the majority". I’ll take the bait. “Democratic legal system” is, according to you, an oxymoron because of the “rule by the majority” part? A common sentiment although easily debunked, since there are always rulers in any system with legal codes. In any case this seems pretty off-topic. Another in any case (since I can’t help myself): when political scientists talk about “modern democracies” they mean liberal democracies with rule of law etc. Even though very few modern countries are truely democracies.
- petermcneeley 6y ago
  I totally agree and questioned if I should just leave that part out. However words are important and are used to disguise what is occurring. Had the parent wrote "presumably not compatible with a non-democratic legal system." they would have been more accurate. Rule of law is not accurate either. Purely democratic states can fall well within rule of law. The issue here is that there is some law that democracies cannot pass because it violates a higher law. Piketty writes about this issue in regard to slavery. To free slaves (in the USA) without compensation was regarded as not following within the higher law which is ~ the law of property. The same issue would be faced with trying to free the "ill gotten gains" of "bankers" from their holdings. The childish subtext of our propertarian legal system is "new rules dont count".

wmf 6y ago

Or we could fix these financial zero-days when they are found instead of letting them run for years.

gyanchawdhary 6y ago
“Financial Zero-days” - Excellent analogy :)
- tehlike 6y ago
  This should be a thing.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
yowlingcat 6y ago
But think about what that will do to the zero-day market! It will surely crash from such an action!
SilasX 6y ago
And further, reward people who responsibly report them early instead of exploiting them.

ThrowawayR2 6y ago

> "Naive, idealistic me has often wondered how possible an abstract law of last resort for prosecuting people who exploit loopholes in what a jury of their peers would consider to be an unethical way" Heaven help those who are unpopular or of a class that is widely discriminated against under such a system.

OJFord 6y ago
Perhaps GP meant to account for it by 'of their peers', as in equals. For example, in the UK peers (of the realm) used to have the right to trial by jury of fellow peers (of the realm). They are now the victims of inequality - while commoners have the right to a trial by their commoner peers, peers (of the realm) have only the right to a trial by commoners!

Tronno 6y ago

We have laws like this for computer hackers. No-one ever defends themselves by saying "everything I did was enabled by the poorly designed system, therefore I am not a criminal". Why not for the financial system?

wmf 6y ago
The CFAA is a terrible law that has been used to prosecute people over very questionable cases. Let's not bring (any more of) that level of subjectivity to finance.
majormajor 6y ago
> No-one ever defends themselves by saying "everything I did was enabled by the poorly designed system, therefore I am not a criminal". This is a pretty common argument, actually, when it comes to questions of "allowed" API access.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
Exploiting loopholes is virtuous for many of the people in the industry. It demonstrates your attentiveness to the rules.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> No-one ever defends themselves by saying "everything I did was enabled by the poorly designed system, therefore I am not a criminal". People charged with hacking defend themselves this way all the time. And other people defend them in the same terms. Recently a guy was charged for accessing public URLs. Sure, they were specifically made available to the public, but the public wasn't supposed to look at them.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  The weev case was a travesty from start to finish. The failure on ATT's part is legendary. The "secret" information was only ever exposed to a professional journalist, who didn't pass it on to anyone. Nothing happened in New Jersey. And of course, as the appellate court found: ...no evidence was advanced at trial that the account slurper ever breached any password gate or other code-based barrier. The account slurper simply accessed the publicly facing portion of the login screen and scraped information that AT&T unintentionally published. [0] [0] http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/weevrulingvacation.pdf http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/weevru...

lmm 6y ago

Ancient Chinese law worked that way; people whose acts were considered blatantly unethical would routinely be charged for violating an imperial decree. Not an actual imperial decree, but everyone acknowledged that the Emperor would have made such a decree if he'd been aware of the circumstances.

chii 6y ago
selective application of the law (aka, a lynchmob) has a very chilling effect on the populous. They will not take risks, nor try new innovations for fear of such reprisals. You end up with a "can't go wrong buying IBM" mentality, but for society.
- lmm 6y ago
  It wasn't a case of lynch mobs - the court administration were properly appointed officials, and there were checks and balances in place (by the standards of the time). But the mentality that the rules had to be written down ahead of time and any loopholes were fair game just wasn't there.