3 ms·

This probably isn't because of litigation holds, actually, this is because finance firms are under SEC record-keeping rules, which require the preservation of A

This probably isn't because of litigation holds, actually, this is because finance firms are under SEC record-keeping rules, which require the preservation of ALL internal written communications, regardless of whether they're currently being sued or not. It's a bit of a different beast. See https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-02-02/the-sec-wants-to-see-more-phones https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-02-02/the-se... which covers some ... interesting recent developments of this rule and its application

pclmulqdq 4y ago
Yeah, as I understand it though, the SEC rules are to allow investigations (and "enforcement actions"/lawsuits) to happen quickly. I saw one of these "investigations" happening at one point and had no idea it was an investigation until I was casually informed that the strange people in the office were from the SEC and they had some questions about some trades, and that it happens all the time.
- GalenErso 4y ago
  > the strange people in the office What made them strange, other than the fact you didn't know who they were?
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    In a 100-person company full of T-shirt wearers, ~4 random men walking around the trading floor in the middle of the day (a big no-no for any sort of guest) in suits is strange.
    - johannes1234321 4y ago
      When I was in a bank we were asked to dress up in times when BaFin (German SEC) was expected in the campus.
      - justinclift 4y ago
        That probably happened the first dozen or so times, until staff got over it. ;)
        bboygravity 4y ago
        Not if it was Deutsche: they actually have things to hide and an appearance to keep up.
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        As I understand it, the bankers and regulators who came around and knew the territory usually dressed down for the occasion (polos and slacks). Asking people to dress up would never have worked at this firm, and the SEC never went past the "investigation" phase anyway, so it wasn't a big deal. People who worked there were never told there were visitors - it apparently was actually a frequent occurrence, but they were using a different conference room that one day. The guy who handled the regulators wore button-down shirts when they were around, and any traders/engineers who had to talk to them often were told to wear a button-down, but that was it. People from "real Wall Street" who joined usually had a phase of dressing up before they adopted full casual dress. One person lasted months before showing up in a t-shirt. I kind of assumed that they were all buying new wardrobes during that period, but there may have been a culture shock of sorts.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    Yes, that is the definition of “strange”.
  - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
    The fact that they were strangers is what makes them strange… For some reason this question is geeking me out, what sort of answer were you expecting?
ncann 4y ago
I knew it was Matt Levine before clicking on the link. His column is always a pleasurable read.
seraphsf 4y ago
Today, we use instant messaging like we use voice conversation - especially for people who work remotely. Banning the use of ephemeral IM is sort of like saying “you need to record all of your discussions, no matter how trivial”. Levine’s article makes a great point: “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.”
- gorgoiler 4y ago
  There’s a difference between avoiding discovery by tacitly moving conversations offline versus saying that you are doing so, in writing, in a discoverable channel, specifically to avoid discovery. The spirit of the latter crosses a line of showing deliberate contempt for the legal process. Doing it in writing seems just as ill advised as discussing sensitive information in writing.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - flakeoil 4y ago
    It just shows how problematic all this "surveillance" (voluntary and involuntary) has become. And it will become even worse. We now have cameras/door cameras at almost every private home/apartment and every street corner. We have cars who record audio and image/video inside and outside of the vehicle. There is almost no real privacy anymore. Everything can be used against you. Honestly, it's getting a bit insane I think. If we cannot communicate digitally in private and we cannot communicate physically in close vicinity to a car or a building, the only place left is in a remote forest. As we have seen with Tesla engineers having access to videos inside cars (how can this even be legal) and we saw the 21 year old who leaked the secret Pentagon data, it's not that there has to be a decision by lawyers or government agencies that the data has to be provided. Any devops or admin can access this kind of data and spread as they like. And how come Tesla and the Pentagon has no precautions in place to stop this kind if abuse? It's really quite crazy on many levels.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

Yeah, as I understand it though, the SEC rules are to allow investigations (and "enforcement actions"/lawsuits) to happen quickly. I saw one of these "investigations" happening at one point and had no idea it was an investigation until I was casually informed that the strange people in the office were from the SEC and they had some questions about some trades, and that it happens all the time.

GalenErso 4y ago
> the strange people in the office What made them strange, other than the fact you didn't know who they were?
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  In a 100-person company full of T-shirt wearers, ~4 random men walking around the trading floor in the middle of the day (a big no-no for any sort of guest) in suits is strange.
  - johannes1234321 4y ago
    When I was in a bank we were asked to dress up in times when BaFin (German SEC) was expected in the campus.
    - justinclift 4y ago
      That probably happened the first dozen or so times, until staff got over it. ;)
      - bboygravity 4y ago
        Not if it was Deutsche: they actually have things to hide and an appearance to keep up.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      As I understand it, the bankers and regulators who came around and knew the territory usually dressed down for the occasion (polos and slacks). Asking people to dress up would never have worked at this firm, and the SEC never went past the "investigation" phase anyway, so it wasn't a big deal. People who worked there were never told there were visitors - it apparently was actually a frequent occurrence, but they were using a different conference room that one day. The guy who handled the regulators wore button-down shirts when they were around, and any traders/engineers who had to talk to them often were told to wear a button-down, but that was it. People from "real Wall Street" who joined usually had a phase of dressing up before they adopted full casual dress. One person lasted months before showing up in a t-shirt. I kind of assumed that they were all buying new wardrobes during that period, but there may have been a culture shock of sorts.
- kortilla 4y ago
  Yes, that is the definition of “strange”.
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  The fact that they were strangers is what makes them strange… For some reason this question is geeking me out, what sort of answer were you expecting?

ncann 4y ago

I knew it was Matt Levine before clicking on the link. His column is always a pleasurable read.

seraphsf 4y ago

Today, we use instant messaging like we use voice conversation - especially for people who work remotely. Banning the use of ephemeral IM is sort of like saying “you need to record all of your discussions, no matter how trivial”. Levine’s article makes a great point: “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.”

gorgoiler 4y ago
There’s a difference between avoiding discovery by tacitly moving conversations offline versus saying that you are doing so, in writing, in a discoverable channel, specifically to avoid discovery. The spirit of the latter crosses a line of showing deliberate contempt for the legal process. Doing it in writing seems just as ill advised as discussing sensitive information in writing.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- flakeoil 4y ago
  It just shows how problematic all this "surveillance" (voluntary and involuntary) has become. And it will become even worse. We now have cameras/door cameras at almost every private home/apartment and every street corner. We have cars who record audio and image/video inside and outside of the vehicle. There is almost no real privacy anymore. Everything can be used against you. Honestly, it's getting a bit insane I think. If we cannot communicate digitally in private and we cannot communicate physically in close vicinity to a car or a building, the only place left is in a remote forest. As we have seen with Tesla engineers having access to videos inside cars (how can this even be legal) and we saw the 21 year old who leaked the secret Pentagon data, it's not that there has to be a decision by lawyers or government agencies that the data has to be provided. Any devops or admin can access this kind of data and spread as they like. And how come Tesla and the Pentagon has no precautions in place to stop this kind if abuse? It's really quite crazy on many levels.