[pjc50]

Does raise the question of whether this also comes with free immunity from prosecution, or whether the NYAG should just pre-emptively say that anyone signing up for this and trading on the results will be prosecuted under NY state law.

(Critical to the whole thing is unfortunately https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in... , where the judge inexplicably decided to waive sentencing for a felony conviction)

[tenthirtyam]

Well, maybe information that is for sale on the open market to anybody that's willing to pay is no longer considered 'insider' information? i.e. trader Jane Doe can't complain that trader John Doe has this info - she could have it too if she wanted.

(edit: not defending this, I find it to be deplorable and disgraces the office of president.)

[tavavex]

She could only have that info if she has the money to pay for it. In every possible interpretation, this is just discriminating based on wealth. There was no paywall before. Now the rich get direct access to better information and more wealth, everyone else is left in the dust. As if they didn't already have that advantage before.

To me this would be similar to an argument that "one dollar = one vote" is democractic because anyone could hypothetically pay more or just earn more money.

[spwa4]

If you want law and policing to work, it needs to be very predictable for everyone. So yes, if there is the least bit of doubt, the NYAG should absolutely say, far in advance, that this will happen.

Because if this isn't the case, then people will be forced to compete by "slightly" violating the law, everyone a little bit more, until the law is a total joke. This has happened in history.

[PunchyHamster]

that comes with extra donations