4 ms·

Such a waste of time trying intently to regulate and control communication. People will just get a second private device that is not managed by the organizatio

Such a waste of time trying intently to regulate and control communication. People will just get a second private device that is not managed by the organization, and if there is a mutually beneficial advantage to doing so, the other party will do the same as well. This has been going on forever, I remember when they kicked up a huge fuss when they found out that people were doing direct pin-to-pin messages on the blackberry (was not logged for boss to read at the time).

fidotron 3y ago
Isn't this an argument that doing anything that is illegal but beneficial to the conspirators should be left alone? If it were totally allowed and widespread how would there be any pretence of fairness in the markets? Of course you could say that at least then people would be appreciating the reality of the situation . . .
edmundsauto 3y ago
It’s actually a bit of a trap - if you are caught using secondary devices, it speaks to intent. Similarly, when you deposit money at a bank and they ask you to certify these are not proceeds of a crime: they aren’t expecting to catch people at that step. But if they catch you later, boom you defrauded a bank by lying and have additional charges.
- ghostpepper 3y ago
  How is this different from having laws on the books that ensure all citizens are breaking the law at any given time? Doesn't feel like how laws are meant to be used
  - edmundsauto 3y ago
    Because it applies to certain regulated industries and people who work in those industries. It’s not wide ranging.
- Sunspark 3y ago
  It's not illegal to own a personal device, it's also not illegal to be friends with your coworkers if you trust them. There is no "intent" here. What you are describing is an organized criminal conspiracy which is illegal no matter what device or system you're using. What I am talking about here is whether the employer should get to listen in to all your calls and read all your emails and text messages. Why do you think they like BYOD so much? Because they can get a window into your personal life, what apps you have installed, etc.
  - edmundsauto 3y ago
    I think they like byod because they don’t have to buy a device or service it, but can still get at employees at all hours. It is not illegal to have friends, but if you are in a job that has certain regulations it is illegal to communicate in a non approved way with business partners. This isn’t a wide scope - it’s people who have jobs that are covered by these regulations.
wpietri 3y ago
> Such a waste of time trying intently to regulate and control communication. It's not an overall waste of time, because the goal is to reduce the enormous wastes caused by fraud, crime, and other malfeasance. I know somebody who worked at a bank. The bank had a mandatory vacation policy: you had to be 100% gone for at least two solid weeks every year. When outsiders heard about this, they were often indignant. Who is the company to tell me how I spend my vacation? I know best when I need to rest. Why are they trying to regulate and control so much? But the policy was about preventing crime. There are kinds of fraud where one person can keep it going a long time if they're around to fiddle things manually. But a couple of weeks of absence, plus the cross-training that goes with it, can keep those kinds of frauds from ever happening. And when they do happen, they stay much smaller. As an example of why fighting fraud is vital to a bank, you could look at the failure of Barings Bank. One guy was able to fiddle the accounts to hide his losses, gaining a reputation as a trading genius. He started with a little deception, and it spiraled out of control over the years, eventually destroying a bank that had survived more than two centuries. When compared with the destruction of the bank, making sure that supervisors can see what an employee is getting up to is a pretty small waste in comparison.
- b2337c8ad7bd 3y ago
  > When compared with the destruction of the bank, making sure that supervisors can see what an employee is getting up to is a pretty small waste in comparison. But they can't see this according to the comment to which you're responding; that's the problem.
  - wpietri 3y ago
    They will do it a lot less when it turns out that it's illegal or will get them fired. Which is what the article we're discussing is about.
- ativzzz 3y ago
  Is this one of those cases where it ends up causing death by regulation? Take the pharmaceutical industry in the US. One reason it's so expensive for them to operate is the massive amount of rules and regulations that surround their work and cause them to hire tons more highly skilled personnel in order to meet those regulations just to get work done. Now all those rules exist because someone did something bad and the rules prevent those bad things from happening again, which is a good thing. However, it increases the cost of doing business, and over time, as these rules and regulations pile up, everything gets more and more expensive and complex. It's unfortunate that we as a society now have to pay for the actions of a bad actor in perpetuity. I don't know of a good alternative, because again these rules exist for a reason. Fraud is obviously bad, and people will constantly take advantage of the system until we regulate it more and more, but then normal rule followers pay the price.
everybodyknows 3y ago
> Such a waste of time trying intently to regulate and control communication. Then attempting to enforce antitrust laws is likewise a waste of time.
michaelnik 3y ago
It is actually prohibited to use private devices (on the trading floor).

fidotron 3y ago

Isn't this an argument that doing anything that is illegal but beneficial to the conspirators should be left alone? If it were totally allowed and widespread how would there be any pretence of fairness in the markets? Of course you could say that at least then people would be appreciating the reality of the situation . . .

edmundsauto 3y ago

It’s actually a bit of a trap - if you are caught using secondary devices, it speaks to intent. Similarly, when you deposit money at a bank and they ask you to certify these are not proceeds of a crime: they aren’t expecting to catch people at that step. But if they catch you later, boom you defrauded a bank by lying and have additional charges.

ghostpepper 3y ago
How is this different from having laws on the books that ensure all citizens are breaking the law at any given time? Doesn't feel like how laws are meant to be used
- edmundsauto 3y ago
  Because it applies to certain regulated industries and people who work in those industries. It’s not wide ranging.
Sunspark 3y ago
It's not illegal to own a personal device, it's also not illegal to be friends with your coworkers if you trust them. There is no "intent" here. What you are describing is an organized criminal conspiracy which is illegal no matter what device or system you're using. What I am talking about here is whether the employer should get to listen in to all your calls and read all your emails and text messages. Why do you think they like BYOD so much? Because they can get a window into your personal life, what apps you have installed, etc.
- edmundsauto 3y ago
  I think they like byod because they don’t have to buy a device or service it, but can still get at employees at all hours. It is not illegal to have friends, but if you are in a job that has certain regulations it is illegal to communicate in a non approved way with business partners. This isn’t a wide scope - it’s people who have jobs that are covered by these regulations.

wpietri 3y ago

> Such a waste of time trying intently to regulate and control communication. It's not an overall waste of time, because the goal is to reduce the enormous wastes caused by fraud, crime, and other malfeasance. I know somebody who worked at a bank. The bank had a mandatory vacation policy: you had to be 100% gone for at least two solid weeks every year. When outsiders heard about this, they were often indignant. Who is the company to tell me how I spend my vacation? I know best when I need to rest. Why are they trying to regulate and control so much? But the policy was about preventing crime. There are kinds of fraud where one person can keep it going a long time if they're around to fiddle things manually. But a couple of weeks of absence, plus the cross-training that goes with it, can keep those kinds of frauds from ever happening. And when they do happen, they stay much smaller. As an example of why fighting fraud is vital to a bank, you could look at the failure of Barings Bank. One guy was able to fiddle the accounts to hide his losses, gaining a reputation as a trading genius. He started with a little deception, and it spiraled out of control over the years, eventually destroying a bank that had survived more than two centuries. When compared with the destruction of the bank, making sure that supervisors can see what an employee is getting up to is a pretty small waste in comparison.

b2337c8ad7bd 3y ago
> When compared with the destruction of the bank, making sure that supervisors can see what an employee is getting up to is a pretty small waste in comparison. But they can't see this according to the comment to which you're responding; that's the problem.
- wpietri 3y ago
  They will do it a lot less when it turns out that it's illegal or will get them fired. Which is what the article we're discussing is about.
ativzzz 3y ago
Is this one of those cases where it ends up causing death by regulation? Take the pharmaceutical industry in the US. One reason it's so expensive for them to operate is the massive amount of rules and regulations that surround their work and cause them to hire tons more highly skilled personnel in order to meet those regulations just to get work done. Now all those rules exist because someone did something bad and the rules prevent those bad things from happening again, which is a good thing. However, it increases the cost of doing business, and over time, as these rules and regulations pile up, everything gets more and more expensive and complex. It's unfortunate that we as a society now have to pay for the actions of a bad actor in perpetuity. I don't know of a good alternative, because again these rules exist for a reason. Fraud is obviously bad, and people will constantly take advantage of the system until we regulate it more and more, but then normal rule followers pay the price.

everybodyknows 3y ago

> Such a waste of time trying intently to regulate and control communication. Then attempting to enforce antitrust laws is likewise a waste of time.

michaelnik 3y ago

It is actually prohibited to use private devices (on the trading floor).