4 ms·

Not just tech; we're seeing this pressure in finance too. Matt Levine joked about this recently: > It really is wild that the SEC’s official position is now th

Not just tech; we're seeing this pressure in finance too. Matt Levine joked about this recently: > It really is wild that the SEC’s official position is now that it is illegal to “use unofficial communications to do things like cut deals, win clients or make trades.” “Conduct their communications about business matters within only official channels”! Imagine if that was really the rule! You can’t have lunch with a client and talk about business, or have beers with your colleagues and gripe about work, because that does not create a searchable archive for the SEC to review. > Of course the SEC does not entirely mean this. Yet. But in like five years, technology — and the SEC’s interpretation of the rules — will have advanced to the point that banks will get fined if their bankers talk about business with clients on the golf course. “You should have been wearing your bank-issued virtual reality headset and recorded the conversation,” the SEC will say, or I guess “you should have played golf in your bank’s official metaverse, which records all golf conversations for compliance review, rather than on a physical golf course.” The golf course is an unofficial channel! No business allowed!

voakbasda 4y ago
I'd be completely in favor of this... if first the politicians, lawmakers, and bureaucrats were all held to the same standard.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  The combination of open records and open meetings laws in many state governments largely do hold state and local officials to rules like this.
  - voakbasda 4y ago
    True, but the practical reality parallels the regulations mentioned above: the rules are not being enforced fully, and there do not appear to be enough real-world consequences to prevent individuals from breaking them.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Is there specific government meeting or record you have in mind, that legally should have been public, but isn't? Generally we have enough proof of politicians doing/saying deplorable things. We don't have enough voters punishing their politicians for misbehaviour.
- KMag 4y ago
  Eventually, Big Brother turns on everyone.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    They created big brother. Creation turns on it's creator.
- gameman144 4y ago
  This seems really interesting to me. The US Constitution was only able to come about due to closed door discussion and debate, and that was one of the most positive outcomes in history for liberal democracy. There are legitimate arguments for open discussions and records, but they can absolutely lead to a stifling of compromise and spur polarization.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > if first the politicians, lawmakers, and bureaucrats were all held to the same standard Then you will have engineered a world free of compromise. Every meeting becomes posturing, because every proposed concession becomes a liability before it can be considered by the other side. (And you know they're similarly constrained.) We're now learning the Cuban missile crisis was not resolved through blind boldness, but through the sort of open dialogue only possible over covert channels [1][2]. [1] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/cuba-cuban-missile-crisis/2022-10-28/cuban-missile-crisis-coverup-kennedy-adlai-stevenson https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/cuba-cuban-missile-c... [2] https://mondediplo.com/2023/02/12cuban-missile-crisis https://mondediplo.com/2023/02/12cuban-missile-crisis
makeitdouble 4y ago
Yes traceability is a thing. I’m more surprised it’s put in a “this is wild” light. This is in the same direction as declaring gifts you receive from your clients, or reporting the expenses of these lunches you’re having in a business setting, along who were there and how much you paid for them. My take on this is, if it’s a business act (a task you did on company time, with company money) it shouldn’t be in a grey “we were just chatting” area and you should be able to report to your company what you did and justify the money spent. I wouldn’t expect full recordings, but at least enough to explain why there was a meeting in the first place and what was discussed. Now I totally understand the SEC wanting more, but they’re probably doing so to move the window and not actually expecting it goes through.

voakbasda 4y ago

I'd be completely in favor of this... if first the politicians, lawmakers, and bureaucrats were all held to the same standard.

dragonwriter 4y ago
The combination of open records and open meetings laws in many state governments largely do hold state and local officials to rules like this.
- voakbasda 4y ago
  True, but the practical reality parallels the regulations mentioned above: the rules are not being enforced fully, and there do not appear to be enough real-world consequences to prevent individuals from breaking them.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Is there specific government meeting or record you have in mind, that legally should have been public, but isn't? Generally we have enough proof of politicians doing/saying deplorable things. We don't have enough voters punishing their politicians for misbehaviour.
KMag 4y ago
Eventually, Big Brother turns on everyone.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  They created big brother. Creation turns on it's creator.
gameman144 4y ago
This seems really interesting to me. The US Constitution was only able to come about due to closed door discussion and debate, and that was one of the most positive outcomes in history for liberal democracy. There are legitimate arguments for open discussions and records, but they can absolutely lead to a stifling of compromise and spur polarization.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> if first the politicians, lawmakers, and bureaucrats were all held to the same standard Then you will have engineered a world free of compromise. Every meeting becomes posturing, because every proposed concession becomes a liability before it can be considered by the other side. (And you know they're similarly constrained.) We're now learning the Cuban missile crisis was not resolved through blind boldness, but through the sort of open dialogue only possible over covert channels [1][2]. [1] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/cuba-cuban-missile-crisis/2022-10-28/cuban-missile-crisis-coverup-kennedy-adlai-stevenson https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/cuba-cuban-missile-c... [2] https://mondediplo.com/2023/02/12cuban-missile-crisis https://mondediplo.com/2023/02/12cuban-missile-crisis

makeitdouble 4y ago

Yes traceability is a thing. I’m more surprised it’s put in a “this is wild” light. This is in the same direction as declaring gifts you receive from your clients, or reporting the expenses of these lunches you’re having in a business setting, along who were there and how much you paid for them. My take on this is, if it’s a business act (a task you did on company time, with company money) it shouldn’t be in a grey “we were just chatting” area and you should be able to report to your company what you did and justify the money spent. I wouldn’t expect full recordings, but at least enough to explain why there was a meeting in the first place and what was discussed. Now I totally understand the SEC wanting more, but they’re probably doing so to move the window and not actually expecting it goes through.