4 ms·

I don't see any snarl. The law requires disclosure so that companies can't hide material information from investors. The SEC wants all incentives lined up so t

I don't see any snarl. The law requires disclosure so that companies can't hide material information from investors. The SEC wants all incentives lined up so that companies will choose to report. The primary way that the SEC catches them now is that the data showed up somewhere like a data breach. So ultimately, the behavior of the hacker group is the source. This hacker group just cut out several steps in the middle. The SEC verifies it, the company gets punished, and companies are on notice that they really should report. Just like the law says. What WOULD be a problem is if the hacker group got rewarded for reporting...

nickff 3y ago
If the SEC pursues prosecutions based on reports from hackers which uses the threat of SEC reports to extract payments, the SEC will be enabling and enforcing blackmail. The SEC would essentially be an accessory to the crime.
- elefanten 3y ago
  That’s not how the law would see it. Blackmailers incorporating otherwise-legal third party activity into their threat does not add legal liability for that 3rd party. Nor does it excuse any pre-existing liability for the blackmail target.
  - nickff 3y ago
    I'm not sure whether there'd be legal liability; that would probably depend on whether the third-party was aware of the scheme, and how often they 'enabled' it. I doubt that the SEC would be found to be an accessory the first time this happened (unless they'd been specifically warned), but if this happened frequently, I think they'd likely be found guilty by way of 'reckless or wanton negligence'. They might even be subjects of civil actions by victims of these blackmail schemes at a later date (if the circumstances were right).
fooker 3y ago
>What WOULD be a problem is if the hacker group got rewarded for reporting Insider trading? But without being an actual insider.

nickff 3y ago

If the SEC pursues prosecutions based on reports from hackers which uses the threat of SEC reports to extract payments, the SEC will be enabling and enforcing blackmail. The SEC would essentially be an accessory to the crime.

elefanten 3y ago
That’s not how the law would see it. Blackmailers incorporating otherwise-legal third party activity into their threat does not add legal liability for that 3rd party. Nor does it excuse any pre-existing liability for the blackmail target.
- nickff 3y ago
  I'm not sure whether there'd be legal liability; that would probably depend on whether the third-party was aware of the scheme, and how often they 'enabled' it. I doubt that the SEC would be found to be an accessory the first time this happened (unless they'd been specifically warned), but if this happened frequently, I think they'd likely be found guilty by way of 'reckless or wanton negligence'. They might even be subjects of civil actions by victims of these blackmail schemes at a later date (if the circumstances were right).

fooker 3y ago

>What WOULD be a problem is if the hacker group got rewarded for reporting Insider trading? But without being an actual insider.