Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dahfizz 1052 days ago
> 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.
2 comments
Invictus0 1052 days ago
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.

link
ahtihn 1052 days ago
> 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.

link
pasc1878 1052 days ago
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.

link
gmd63 1052 days ago
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.

link