7 ms·
Opinion: The SEC wants to spy on your portfolio
- olliej 3y agoI think we should get to see every congress member and senator's portfolio, with a 3 business day lead on any of their trade instructions.
- jschveibinz 3y agoFantastic suggestion. Please make this happen.
- olliej 3y agoI don't have nearly enough money to buy even congress people, let alone senate :D
- CaffeinatedDev 3y agoI'm not entirely sure how people do that archive function, but here's the article in a paste bin: https://pastebin.com/wJQSHr5f https://pastebin.com/wJQSHr5f
- colpabar 3y agohttps://archive.ph/uNp0I https://archive.ph/uNp0I 1. go to archive.ph 2. enter the url you want to archive (in either box, it will do the right thing) 3. if it hasn't been archived, it will do so, otherwise it will present you with the different versions of the page that have already been archived 4. post link on hn
- CaffeinatedDev 3y agoFWIW I assumed the government already had access to this sort of information through some avenue.
- WalterBright 3y agoThe IRS gets it as the brokerages send them your 1099 forms.
- rtkwe 3y agoHowever the IRS has strict limitations on what it can use those forms for, largely they cannot share that with generic prosecutions and can only use it for tax and tax prosecutions. Plus they're under a pretty strict obligation to not share that info like the article claims the SEC will do with the CAT.
- SoftTalker 3y agoTangental thought: But what is Intuit obligated to do with the information and how are they required to protect it, once you give them your 1099s?
- rtkwe 3y agoGiven the state of PII protection laws in the US I'd wager not much legally and they may be open to access by the police under the same old "abandoned" files precedents that give police so much access to your email and other files stored with third parties. That's all speculation though.
- chatmasta 3y agoThose forms only include proceeds from sales. They don't include an itemized accounting of your holdings.
- yieldcrv 3y agoThe SEC relies on brokerages snitching on their customers for further review (aka rubber stamped emergency asset freeze by SEC employed judges)
- myko 3y agoSeems like a function the SEC should perform. What's the issue here?
- ygjb 3y agoWealthy people might be held accountable (at least, that is my read on it :P).
- colpabar 3y agoMy extremely cynical guess is that members of government (or anyone who can, really) who have made tons of money illegally trading on insider information are having their "journalist" friends write pieces to drum up resistance to whatever legislation is being proposed from online privacy activists.
- monero-xmr 3y agoThe people who work for the government are just like us. Giving a government agency searchable access to tons of sensitive data has time and time again resulted in civil liberties abuses. After all why not just give every agency the power to see everything I have ever visited, searched for, posted, liked, etc. in one easy to use tool? Some people may like that, but I reflexively disagree with any tool that gives even more of my private information to a government or private entity. Including and especially my finances.
- SoftTalker 3y ago> why not just give every agency the power to see everything I have ever visited, searched for, posted, liked, etc. in one easy to use tool Google, Facebook, ISPs, etc. are probably already giving it to them.
- cyanydeez 3y agoPeople who work for private companies are just like us. Ok, now make a useful argument.
- slavboj 3y agoFor one, you can assume that data will be compromised and exfiltrated.
- Eumenes 3y agoThe SEC needs to be disbanded, along with most Federal agencies, and at least 90% of Federal employees.
- SteveNuts 3y agoI'd like to hear a list of the ones you'd like to be disbanded please.
- Eumenes 3y agoHere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_agencies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_agencies_in_th...
- SteveNuts 3y agoThanks, what would you suggest in their stead (for each one, please)
- Eumenes 3y agoI think trial and error at first. We'd probably find out that states cover most of these redundant tasks and federal employment is a giant welfare grift for workers, and does not benefit the citizen/taxpayers. For example, we pretty much have 50 Department of Educations for each state + the Federal agency. Seems like a big waste to me. Def benefits the federal workers and their nice benefit/pension packages. Also, they're unionized, which is unjust to the taxpayer. I'd rather have that money stay within the states so they can choose how to use it. As a bonus, if federal income tax was eliminated, people would have more money in their pockets and taxes could be exercised locally/statewide, vs administered in DC, by out of touch advisors.
- johngladtj 3y agoWhy does something need to replace them?
- grpt 3y agoHaven't they been doing this with ARTEMIS for many years? From 2015: https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/remarks-21st-international-institute-securities-enforcement https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/remarks-21st-internationa... "our staff also developed a tool called ARTEMIS, which stands for the Advanced Relational Trading Enforcement Metrics Investigation System. This initiative analyzes suspicious trading patterns and relationships among multiple traders and uses the Division’s electronic database of over 6 billion electronic equities and options trading records."
- neilv 3y agoThis is a rare privacy compromise of which I actually immediately thought "that sounds like a good idea, and I thought it was already done". (I tend to disagree with most other compromises.) I want integrity in investments, I know there are bad actors in finance, and I want them found and smacked down. I see no downside to the SEC knowing exactly what regulated investments I have. I also see no downside to anyone else having the SEC know exactly what regulated investments they have, unless they are involved in some kind of investment fraud or scam, tax evasion, hiding/laundering illegal income, etc. (Yeah, I realize I'm saying "if you have nothing to hide...", which is usually a red flag for a bad idea, but in this case, we're only talking about regulated investments, nothing more, AFAICT.) Am I missing something?
- cyanydeez 3y agoProbably just what timescale you are comfortable with and implementation details. Those are usually where privacy invasion becomes dirty games.
- username332211 3y agoHere's a downside I see: Suppose I want to place a short position on a fraudulent company, and then loudly announce that I've uncovered signs of fraud in it. A pretty standard procedure, right? Saving people's money from a con artist and making some money in the process. Now suppose the CEO of the company golfs with a SEC commissioner. Or there's some other relationship, a less direct one. No matter how strong the ethical rules of the SEC are, they can't ban every potential relation between a commissioner/employee and someone from a public corporation. Suddenly the fraudulent company would know precisely what it needs to do (in terms of manipulating it's own stock price) to force me to close my position.
- neilv 3y agoInteresting, and compelling. Question that might complicate: are those privately-funded exposés of fraud always correct? For example, let's say someone pushes an incorrect exposé, moving the market. When it's found to be incorrect, what are appropriate mechanisms for determining who all was involved (including verbal tips to golfing buddies), and whatever corrective action?
- neonate 3y agohttps://archive.ph/uNp0I https://archive.ph/uNp0I
- ericjmorey 3y agoMy only problem with this is using Social Security Numbers which were explicitly designed not to be good for identification. Why not tie it to well designed ID numbers like Passport or State ID (Real ID compliant) numbers.
- Arainach 3y agoIt's not required to have either. If we had a universal, freely provided Federal ID card it would be ideal, but we have a random mess of state, tribal, military, and other IDs with those same entities controlling who has access to them and how easily they have access.
- ericjmorey 3y agoIt can be a requirement to participate in regulated markets to provide an ID that confirms with the Real ID requirements. Access to IDs should definitely be improved as well.
- gscott 3y agoI am wondering how much this costs to run. Imagine tracking every action of high speed traders, all of them plus everone else. That would be way expensive.
- costco 3y agoAnd if you get more than $10 in interest from your bank in a year, your bank will tell the government the amount of interest earned through the 1099-INT form. This can be used to infer what your average balance was for the year.
- friend_and_foe 3y agoHopefully, one day, the courts will acknowledge that any and all federal reporting requirements violate the 4th amendment.
- dragonwriter 3y agoIt would be somewhat less insane to say the Fifth than the Fourth, but its insane either way.
- friend_and_foe 3y agoI wanted to add the 5th to my statement, self incrimination, except all reporting is not self incrimination. Is it insane? The implications are insane. But it's a fact: the government cannot demand anything material from you whatsoever without a warrant signed by a judge specifying what law you broke and why they suspect you broke it, with tangible reasons to suspect it. They can't force themselves into your life. Mandatory reporting requirements require you to divulge private information about yourself, your life, your property and possessions, under threat of civil or criminal penalty, without a warrant specifying exactly what they expect to find and what law the information proves that you violated. It's unlawful.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Is it insane? Yes. > But it’s a fact: the government cannot demand anything material from you whatsoever without a warrant signed by a judge specifying what law you broke and why they suspect you broke it, with tangible reasons to suspect it. False. First: the fourth amendment applies to searches and seizures, not demands. Demands for the kinds of things for which searches and seizure would be protected by the Fourth Amendment are instead covered by the due process clauses of the 5th (for the federal government) and 14th (for state governments) Amendments. Second: the fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and limits the conditions in which warrants, where necessary, can be issued; it doesn’t explicitly require warrants at all, though the Supreme Court has read into it a presumptive warrant requirement for reasonableness, but has also found several situations where reasonableness doesn’t require a warrant. Third: A requirement to specify “what law you broke and why they suspect you broke it” applies only to arrest warrants. The requirement for search warrants is for what evidence they expect to be found and on what basis they expect the evidence to be found there. > Mandatory reporting requirements require you to divulge private information about yourself, your life, your property and possessions, under threat of civil or criminal penalty, Mandatory reporting requirements are conditions of participation in some activity that is both within Congress’ constitutional regulatory authority and over which it has exercised that authority to impose the requirement. You can choose not to participate in the activity to avoid the requirement. Civil and criminal penalties are the consequence for making the mandatory disclosure, but doing so incorrectly, or for participating in the regulated activity without making the required disclosure.