[gmd63]

It's a rule that upon being broken allows the SEC to fine you, which is why they are paying a bunch of money.

Are you saying that we should not be able to require banks of a certain size to keep records, so that the highway patrol officers of finance can economically pull you over when you're speeding? Or should we allow everyone to use fuzzbusters effectively making the law pointless?

[dahfizz]

> Are you saying that we should not be able to require banks of a certain size to keep records

No. I'm saying this is just some boring, annoying regulation, and your grandstanding about wanting people to feel bad about breaking laws is misguided.

[Invictus0]

No it isn't, the regulation is extremely important and helps keep the financial system following the law. The stakes are extremely high and monitoring records is the bare minimum we should be doing to protect ourselves from criminal financial actors.

Every rule is written in blood. We recently saw guys fixing the LIBOR for a tray of leftover sushi. Thankfully we have records of that.

[ahtihn]

> Every rule is written in blood.

Not really. This rule was written when the only form of written communication was paper mail and office memos.

It wasn't written with instant messaging in mind.

[pasc1878]

True but the rules for bank traders do cover this. The rules cover all traders.

In the 90s we had an IT contracter complaining the bank told him not to use a messaging app as the bank could not read it. The issue is the bank is at risk if communications were not recorded. At the time phones were already all recorded.

[gmd63]

You also claim there were no laws broken. That is a false assertion. We don't know if there were laws broken.

The stakes of financial crime rise as the amount of money at play increases.

Requiring big players to help us ensure that they are playing by the rules is a requisite for preventing larger SVB-like situations from festering.