4 ms·

This is very misleading. The law still applies to the President, Vice-President, members of Congress, and executives requiring Senate confirmation. The law was

by yahelc 14y ago

This is very misleading. The law still applies to the President, Vice-President, members of Congress, and executives requiring Senate confirmation. The law was passed so quickly in a populist fit around the 60 Minutes piece that they didn't do their due diligence about the extent of the coverage of the law. It doesn't seem like they considered the level of disclosure it might require from, say, CIA officials stationed abroad, or the other 28,000 non-political senior government officials who aren't politicians. This still addresses the underlying problem -- insider trading by members of Congress. [1] http://www.federalnewsradio.com/204/3283822/Congress-repeals-STOCK-Act-reporting-requirements-for-senior-execs http://www.federalnewsradio.com/204/3283822/Congress-repeals... [2] http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1007-other/293919-obama-signs-stock-act-step-back http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1007-other/293919-obam...

tptacek 14y ago
Thank you. It's also a pure politics story of the sort that used to be flagged off the site quickly, before HN got so big that any populist story would quickly overwhelm flags. I flagged it anyways.
- gnosis 14y ago
  Political stories have long been a part of HN. Sometimes they do get deleted, but many times not. I'm personally happy that they're on HN. They make it harder for the tech community to bury their heads in the sand and remain in a self-imposed apolitical bubble. Also, if you honestly don't think politics belongs on HN, why do you keep participating in political discussions here?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    You mean the site has long been plagued with political submissions. The site guidelines say: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, [other stuff]". It's literally the first thing he thought to write for "off-topic". I wish he'd have written it more clearly, so we didn't have to endure pointless discussions about what the word "most" means, because any definition that accepted this posting must degenerate to "all" politics.
crag 14y ago
"This still addresses the underlying problem -- insider trading by members of Congress." No it doesn't. Because the only people who'd know about the trade would the government itself. Sure, I suppose a citizen like myself could sue to get the information. Look, if the law effected CIA officials stationed abroad then a simple change in the law excluding them would've made more sense.

by yahelc 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

Thank you. It's also a pure politics story of the sort that used to be flagged off the site quickly, before HN got so big that any populist story would quickly overwhelm flags. I flagged it anyways.

gnosis 14y ago
Political stories have long been a part of HN. Sometimes they do get deleted, but many times not. I'm personally happy that they're on HN. They make it harder for the tech community to bury their heads in the sand and remain in a self-imposed apolitical bubble. Also, if you honestly don't think politics belongs on HN, why do you keep participating in political discussions here?
- tptacek 14y ago
  You mean the site has long been plagued with political submissions. The site guidelines say: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, [other stuff]". It's literally the first thing he thought to write for "off-topic". I wish he'd have written it more clearly, so we didn't have to endure pointless discussions about what the word "most" means, because any definition that accepted this posting must degenerate to "all" politics.

crag 14y ago

"This still addresses the underlying problem -- insider trading by members of Congress." No it doesn't. Because the only people who'd know about the trade would the government itself. Sure, I suppose a citizen like myself could sue to get the information. Look, if the law effected CIA officials stationed abroad then a simple change in the law excluding them would've made more sense.