[HN Gopher] JP Morgan fined by SEC for deleting email records
___________________________________________________________________
JP Morgan fined by SEC for deleting email records
Author : jjgreen
Score : 325 points
Date : 2023-06-26 10:31 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| YChacker100 wrote:
| [dead]
| lockhouse wrote:
| What, like with a cloth?
| [deleted]
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| hahaha took a second.
|
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MaoNDzZ8Mw)
| rvz wrote:
| "accidentally"
|
| Of course they did! /s
| eddyzh wrote:
| The accident is not the deleting but the not having sufficient
| backups.
| TheNewsIsHere wrote:
| A lack of backups designed for "just such an occasion," of
| course.
| gizmo wrote:
| Aggressively deleting all records the moment it's legally
| allowed is the name of the game. Records are a real liability
| for banks so the moment they can go they're gone.
|
| Unless the fines become existential or the c-suite goes
| straight to jail this won't change.
| ranting-moth wrote:
| IANAL but in many countries the judge might draw adverse
| inference and effectively assume what was in that evidence.
|
| That wouldn't be in the deleters interest.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference
| londons_explore wrote:
| > assume what was in that evidence
|
| So, what you're saying is that if the actual evidence shows
| something _worse_ than what the judge will assume it says, then
| you should 'accidentally' delete it.
|
| I think there are plenty of cases of this happening.
| minorninth wrote:
| I believe that can still happen. This was just a fine from the
| SEC, the legal consequences could come later.
|
| Basically a lot of that email was subject to litigation holds.
| If that litigation ends up depending on some email that Chase
| was supposed to retain but failed to, the judge is allowed to
| give a "spoliation inference" instruction to the jury - the
| jury can infer that the evidence would have been unfavorable to
| Chase.
|
| The fact that this may have been due to incompetence rather
| than malice means this is less likely.
| mikeryan wrote:
| I can't tell from the article but JP Morgan may not be the
| defendant or target of investigation, in which case adverse
| interference won't apply.
| danuker wrote:
| The SEC is not in the justice business. It is a puppet of the
| banks themselves. A $4M fine is NOTHING for a company netting
| $12.62B a QUARTER.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| The $4M is a slap on the wrist, but if there's evidence that
| it was done on purpose, and the deleted data is evidence for
| a bigger case, they'd be in much bigger trouble still.
|
| But, innocent until proven guilty; if there's no indication
| of any missing evidence, it'll stay at the failure to retain
| data fine.
| burkaman wrote:
| > In at least twelve civil securities-related regulatory
| investigations, eight of which were conducted by the
| Commission staff, JPMorgan received subpoenas and document
| requests for communications which could not be retrieved or
| produced because they had been deleted permanently.
|
| That is proof of missing evidence.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| > Worse still, the stuffup meant that it couldn't produce
| evidence that that the SEC and others subpoenaed in their
| investigations. "In at least 12 civil securities-related
| regulatory investigations, eight of which were conducted by
| the Commission staff, JPMorgan received subpoenas and
| document requests for communications which could not be
| retrieved or produced because they had been deleted
| permanently," the SEC says.
|
| That would seem to be an indication of missing evidence
| chaostheory wrote:
| No one went to jail for the 2008 crisis, and most of the
| regulatory bodies are private corporations masquerading as
| a public entity. To add salt to the wound, the SEC is very
| discerning as to when to enforce the law
|
| It doesn't matter whether or not the above paragraph is
| reality, because masses perceive it as reality, and trust
| in public institutions continues to dive. If confidence
| isn't restored soon, then things might start to destabilize
| pessimizer wrote:
| > if there's evidence that it was done on purpose
|
| Nobody (who isn't a moron) is going to send an email about
| intentionally doing this, or talk about it with someone who
| wouldn't also be implicated if discovered. If you saw
| everything, kept careful notes, and decided to become a
| whistleblower, your career would be destroyed and your life
| might even be in danger.
| gmd63 wrote:
| I think corporations of "too big to fail" stature should
| have different legal protections than what are offered to
| humans.
|
| Innocent until proven guilty is not quite fair to apply to
| corporations that get bailed out by taxpayers when the
| policemen are driving bicycles trying to enforce the speed
| limit on a highway full of McLarens.
|
| When a company has positioned itself to be a critical organ
| of society, it should be required to function properly. The
| rules of nature do not forgive a well meaning hare that
| didn't intend to be eaten by a lion.
| pnemonic wrote:
| _The rules of nature do not forgive a well meaning hare
| that didn 't intend to be eaten by a lion._
|
| I love this. Consider yourself quoted.
| gmd63 wrote:
| Thank you for the kind words.
| chollida1 wrote:
| > It is a puppet of the banks themselves.
|
| This is ofcourse false. But given how little effort you made
| on this comment i assume nothing will change your mind:(
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/27/business/banks-fined-
| text...
|
| https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-174
|
| https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-206
| deelly wrote:
| Fact that SEC sometimes fine some banks doesn't mean that
| SEC completely safe from influence from big banks. As usual
| its not a black and white picture.
| idiot900 wrote:
| Who works in the SEC? Former bank/finance employees. Where
| will these employees go work if they decide to leave the
| SEC?
| meepmorp wrote:
| What sort of work experience do you think the applicants
| for the jobs at the SEC ought to have?
|
| If you need people people with experience in banking and
| finance, especially the legal and regulatory/compliance
| areas, where would you do your recruiting?
| pessimizer wrote:
| Do you think that only experienced murderers should
| adjudicate murder cases? Should all cops be expected to
| have extensive criminal experience, and should we expect
| them to return to crime after they retire from the
| police?
| chollida1 wrote:
| What you wrote is so far away from a good faith argument
| that it's pretty hard to see it as anything other than
| low effort trolling.
| salawat wrote:
| They are actually making a very powerful point. A
| regulator is expected to at some point operate from an
| "external to industry" perspective. Much like a test
| framework or testing harness must exist out_of_band of
| the system under test.
|
| A regulator that regularly pulls exclusively from
| industry insiders _should_ raise eyebrows. Now whether
| the SEC actually pulls the majority of hires from
| industry insiders, that 's another question I can't
| readily answer. Don't have those figures.
| salawat wrote:
| This. If anything, insider experience tends to dull
| willingness to enforce because "it's how everyone does
| it". As a regulator, the public in a real way depends on
| you to be the lever that looks at how everyone does it,
| and be willing to say "not good enough"
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Who works in the SEC? Former bank /finance employees_
|
| Source? There is a revolving door, but it's as much
| between industry and the SEC as it is between it and the
| rest of the public sector.
| kris_lujanovic wrote:
| As someone who worked in finance I call b.s.
|
| When you need to do any infrastructure change not to mention data
| manipulation it takes million signatures and meetings. Like 13
| meetings to deal with one ex employee corporate cloud folder.
|
| Unless they end up in court. Then somehow million things happen
| on their own in their benefit.
| [deleted]
| justrealist wrote:
| Yes it takes a million meetings, but at the end of the day it's
| just one IT guy making the change.
|
| It's exponentially expensive to eliminate the base-rate of a
| "whoops", and not everyone has NASA-level money to waste on IT.
| Libcat99 wrote:
| JP Morgan does, though.
|
| They likely spend all of it on the million meetings full of
| people who wouldn't actually be executing the change, next to
| none of it on the team and infrastructure where the change
| will be made, and then fire the team who made the change.
| toth wrote:
| Maybe not everyone, but if JPM doesn't then who does?
| hdidvdksv wrote:
| [flagged]
| gmd63 wrote:
| JP Morgan and other similarly acting agents in finance have
| become literal economic cancer tumors, attracting undue
| angiogenesis and convincing the body that excision is fatal all
| while leading it to its demise.
|
| We haven't figured out how to cure cancer in humans because we
| turn a blind eye to it when we create it ourselves.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Also backups.
|
| This is just corporate "The IT dept ate my homework."
|
| It's a ridiculous excuse, "punished" with a trivial fine.
| lwkl wrote:
| Backing up the email database is probably a bad idea for an
| org like this, because they have data that isn't allowed to
| be backed up.
|
| I had a customer that got accidentally sent confidential data
| to the wrong email address and it was backed up for multiple
| months. In the end we left it in there but they considered
| deleting all the backups that contained this email.
|
| That is a good reason for having short lived backups and an
| archiving solution with retention policies emails.
| Cpoll wrote:
| As someone who has done support for finance's IT departments,
| the "this was broken for years and no-one noticed" idea sounds
| bang-on. I've watched the millions of signatures and meetings,
| but none of that matters when someone screws up the
| implementation (but not badly enough that anyone cares to
| complain).
| rossjudson wrote:
| So many people want to be "the person who orders the thing be
| done" and not "the person who does the thing".
|
| Dysfunctional organizations have (somebody-else-is-doing-it /
| im-doing-it) ratios that get way out of control. There's also
| (talking-about-doing-it / doing-it), where dysfunctional orgs
| lose the ability to experiment.
| cirgue wrote:
| Seconding this. You can have all the meetings you want, but
| at the end of the day the core competency of bank management
| is managing money and not managing IT, and banks suck at
| managing IT when it isn't directly in the critical path of
| cash flow, and even then they get it wrong more often than
| anyone wants to admit.
| agentgumshoe wrote:
| That was part of a legal case or publicly reported failure?
| A_Venom_Roll wrote:
| Reminds me of the Dutch government who "accidentally" deleted
| confidential documents that were related to the formation of a
| new government. The process is under investigation, and the
| documents containing transcripts of conversations could be used
| as evidence against some political figures. This is even more
| remarkable, since government bodies are typically very sloppy if
| it comes to document retention.
| nostrfanboi wrote:
| [flagged]
| cosmiccatnap wrote:
| Can we stop using accident to describe the haphazard and often
| disingenuous policies of multi billion $ international
| corporations as though they are freshman writing a merge sort or
| something. It's not an accident when a company does it... it's a
| crime
| [deleted]
| wonderingyogi wrote:
| $4 million feels like chump change. I'd imagine JP Morgan
| globally earns that amount in less than an hour.
| ilyt wrote:
| 177 B in 2022 so ~484 mil/day, 20 mil/hour.
|
| So like the amount of money they earn on coffee break
| timcavel wrote:
| [dead]
| hospitalJail wrote:
| Anyone know what the US law says about stuff like this?
|
| Even if it was a genuine mistake, if anything legal came up, does
| a court need to accept that the evidence is gone and that the
| data was probably guilt-free? (getting some obstruction of
| justice vibes that I had in the US in 2019.......)
| EGreg wrote:
| I believe them
| tsukikage wrote:
| This, but unironically.
|
| When a law requires data to be retained for X time, risk-averse
| companies interpret this as an instruction to immediately
| delete said data as soon as time X passes, and use automated
| tools to this end. Sadly, these tools tend to be ad-hoc
| software written and maintained by internal teams, and thus
| about as buggy as you'd expect.
|
| I've worked in such places, and - in addition to all the other
| issues - the continuous collective loss of corporate knowledge
| makes life pretty miserable.
| EGreg wrote:
| I also meant it unironically, btw. My intuition said the same
| thing
| blitzar wrote:
| I consider retaining documents beyond X time to be
| incompetence at best, negligence at worst.
|
| Tech and their, deleted means we keep it forever but mark it
| as deleted, should take notice.
| duckmysick wrote:
| Are there off-the-shelf solutions for legally mandated data
| retention and deletion? If not, who are the typical go-to
| players in this area?
| subpar wrote:
| We're in the early days of building this over at
| phaselab.co. We've been taking more of a data privacy
| angle, but the product helps folks operationalize all of
| their data lifecycle / governance tasks. There are some
| existing players who work with email/comms, but for
| internal technical systems & user data most orgs are
| rolling their own deletion pipelines.
| vxNsr wrote:
| Additionally it looks like they farmed out the project to a
| third party that was working with FINRA to ensure compliance,
| apparently that consulting agency failed at their task
| miserably.
| djbusby wrote:
| Task failed successfully.
| nashashmi wrote:
| big companies like JPM just don't have the secret networks of
| bad actors at an administrative level to carry out nefarious
| activities like this without someone blowing the whistle.
| ilyt wrote:
| Or the data was in just in a directory of some guy that
| then got shared to everyone else in the project, instead of
| using per-project share.
|
| Then he removed it and everyone else had it gone because of
| that.
| TheNewsIsHere wrote:
| I've been insinuating otherwise playfully in this thread.
|
| But, it is unfortunately absolutely realistic that companies
| are throwing away data the moment they can justify it.
| Ironically, it's not the ones we'd like to forget about us
| most.
|
| Data retention is a liability as much as it is an asset, and
| it's challenging regardless.
|
| If you're a large enough company you will eventually come to be
| frustrated by whatever policies you have (either they're too
| conservative or too liberal). And understandably when you've
| been caught being shady enough, even an honest deletion will
| look shady.
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| Didn't we just have a hedge fund's physical records warehouse
| burn down, too, under such similar accident(s)?
| rekoil wrote:
| Yes, supposedly a shelf fell and knocked the fire-suppression
| system out. I forget if that was the cause of the fire or
| simply the excuse for why the fire-suppression system didn't
| put the fire out and save the documents.
|
| It was TD Ameritrade documents mostly it seems, but it was
| located close to a Citadel-owned building as well.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Wow, what a "coincidence".
| FreshStart wrote:
| Anonymous cynically comically infamously deletions they happen.
| And here I was expect yet another database definition, but got a
| debased definition.
| celtoid wrote:
| It's hard to tell what's worse: a predatory juggernaut like JPM
| or the useless regulators that they've captured.
|
| "72 Hours Before JPMorgan Offered $290 Million to Make Epstein
| Claims Go Away, a Lawyer Disclosed that the Bank Had Withheld
| 1500 Documents" [0]
|
| [0] https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/06/72-hours-before-
| jpmor...
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Must be some juicy things on that pile if they were to choose to
| accidentally delete just at particular chunk
| zackmorris wrote:
| So UBI, unions and social safety nets are bad because they
| encourage people to be lazy and become dependent on handouts? But
| a company can lose millions of potentially legally damaging
| emails and pay a paltry fine that's a rounding error of its
| profits.
|
| I wonder when democracy will arrive in America. Where people
| overpower concentrated wealth through overwhelming majority the
| way we did when we broke from England. Collectively voting to
| break up monopolies, tax the wealthy and imprison the corrupt.
|
| I'm seeing ads on TV now for Vanguard and BlackRock, the
| companies perhaps most responsible for sending rents into the
| stratosphere and killing the dream of home ownership for millions
| of people. The American Dream.
| phoe-krk wrote:
| "Accidentally".
| wunderland wrote:
| Everyone makes mistakes, it's ok. Just try not to delete evidence
| next time.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Meanwhile, the government seems to have accidentally deleted
| its records of your tax payments for the past 12 years.
|
| I'm sure you understand how that can happen.
|
| Pay up.
| scythe wrote:
| >The vendor had apparently assured both JP Morgan and the
| Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) on multiple
| occasions that its media storage complied with the relevant
| Exchange Act rules regarding the 36 month retention period, and
| therefore documents falling within that period were protected
| from deletion.
|
| If this vendor screwed up this badly, why can't we know their
| name?
| dickersnoodle wrote:
| "Accidentally". Right.
| romwell wrote:
| Bonus points for having archival practices that make shooting
| onself in the foot extra easy.
| strangescript wrote:
| "Oopsie Daisy"
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > Worse still, the stuffup meant that it couldn't produce
| evidence that that the SEC and others subpoenaed in their
| investigations
|
| Oopsie, that's too bad. Totally accidental though I swear.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| If an individual does that, they get held in contempt.
|
| But with a corporation all they can do is fine, so it just
| becomes a cost of business :(
| WJW wrote:
| Getting held in contempt of court is usually punished with a
| fine for individuals as well, so how is that different?
| wkat4242 wrote:
| In the US? Here in Europeyou're usually locked up for a
| long until you admit wrongdoing or fix it.
| r13a wrote:
| The difference is that if you were to be held in contempt
| of court, your fine would probably be higher than something
| like 0.01% of your annual earnings.
| andsoitis wrote:
| >The difference is that if you were to be held in
| contempt of court, your fine would probably be higher
| than something like 0.01% of your annual earnings.
|
| Fines are not based ad hoc on how much you're able to
| pay. They're standard and the enforcer can't make you pay
| more - that would be terrible.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > Fines are not based ad hoc on how much you're able to
| pay. They're standard and the enforcer can't make you pay
| more - that would be terrible.
|
| In socialist dictatorship like... _check notes_ ...
| Finland and Switzerland, they are. Those countries are
| indeed notorious for being terrible places to live... /s
|
| (Well, I'm sure the multi-millionaires getting a EUR120k
| speeding tickets hated it:
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/finnish-
| busine...)
|
| > Can you imagine a low wage earning getting away with
| stuff because they can't pay?
|
| But somehow this is OK if that's rich people getting away
| with it...
|
| (Sarcasm aside, nobody prevents the legislator to ad a
| floor to the fine, to avoid this exact issues, and
| unsurprisingly that's what the aforementioned countries
| do)
| mandmandam wrote:
| > that would be terrible.
|
| Lots of countries run fines exactly this way, and it's
| not terrible at all... Finland, Sweden, Germany,
| Switzerland, Denmark etc.
|
| Kinda seems like you feel the concept of equality is
| unfair. Lol.
| lmm wrote:
| Getting thrown in jail for contempt of court is pretty
| routine for individuals.
| SillyUsername wrote:
| $4 million is a day's trading I guess? Got away lightly by the
| sounds of it.
| boffinAudio wrote:
| Maybe Americans should be asking for the NSA's support in
| protecting the rights and freedoms of their country, and give
| Congress the backup they _definitely_ made of all of JP Morgans
| data ..
|
| EDIT: its amazing - not a _mention_ of the fact that JPMorgan is
| under investigation for its relationship with Epstein ..
| NickC25 wrote:
| For sure. This is bad faith 101 from JPMC, and I don't really
| think they'll care if they get a slap on the wrist. 4 million
| dollar fine IIRC. The government's agencies that have this data
| should release it to the American public as a public service.
|
| JMPC is no longer under investigation for Epstein - they paid a
| fine and that's that, sadly. Mr. Dimon doesn't want to testify
| again, because there's a high chance the Feds knew he was lying
| when he claimed in his first testimony that he had never heard
| of the guy and then claimed that he had no idea what Epstein
| was doing. Which if you follow the people involved, you know
| was a bold-faced lie. Yet JMPC will walk away unbothered,
| because they are untouchable.
| cornercasechase wrote:
| > JMPC is no longer under investigation for Epstein.
|
| Yes they are, JPMC is still being sued by the Virgin Islands
| government. They have a settlement that still needs to be
| approved with the victims.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Ah, you're right about that. I thought the 200-million odd
| settlement announced a few weeks back was the same thing.
| It's not.
|
| Hope the USVI gets all they are asking for and then some.
| The way Dimon testified it's so obvious he knew what was up
| - I mean, he worked with Jes Staley for nearly a decade,
| and promoted him to the head of JPMC's investment bank.
| There's no way in hell a guy in such a position who has a
| personal client transacting billions of dollars with former
| and current heads of state (including multiple former or
| future US Presidents), Fortune 50 CEOs, famous academics
| and also was convicted of sex trafficking in 2006 can hide
| that all from his boss. I don't believe that for a second.
| can16358p wrote:
| "Accidentally".
| agilob wrote:
| Opsie daisy, I dropped the database! Oh no. Anyway.
| say_it_as_it_is wrote:
| How many noncompetitive contracts does JP Morgan get to provide
| government-related services? Is there a watchdog group following
| the money?
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Wonder if the Epstein emails were also "accidentally" deleted?
|
| Edit - For those downvoting me:
| https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/06/new-documents-reveal...
| itiswhatitis9 wrote:
| [flagged]
| d0gsg0w00f wrote:
| I work for a large bank and can confirm that I can only see the
| last 6 months of emails.
|
| I assume this archiving rule just got applied too liberally.
| However, I doubt that will assuage the conspiracy theorists.
| Kneecaps07 wrote:
| Everyone thinks it's malicious. I'm more likely to believe it
| was a poorly-trained IT person who thought they were in the
| test environment, or something along those lines.
| gameofcode wrote:
| The archiving could have moved it onto another platform that
| you don't have visibility of.
| [deleted]
| ranting-moth wrote:
| Happened to me twice every week on average last year. I hate when
| it happens.
| orangepanda wrote:
| I automated my accident
| napsterbr wrote:
| That's called devops!
| DonHopkins wrote:
| devoops
| ilyt wrote:
| Continuos Disaster
| systems_glitch wrote:
| Seriously underrated comment chain here.
| thret wrote:
| A $4 million fine? That's so much cheaper than the cost of
| archiving!
| crawsome wrote:
| The price of doing | business | as usual.
| DrBazza wrote:
| It would be ironic if amongst the messages deleted was "Is $4m
| less than what we'd be fined for that other thing we did?"
| DrBazza wrote:
| This attitude is actually common place in the industry. Can
| we make more profit than the fine for market abuse?
| KMnO4 wrote:
| Reminds me of the infamous Fight Club scene
|
| > _Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by
| the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average
| out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If
| X is less than the cost of a recall, we don 't do one._
| salawat wrote:
| ...That's actually textbook business/enterprise risk
| management calculation believe it or not. Not a facsimile
| or artistic exaggeration.
|
| If you want to know why so much shady crap happens, part
| and parcel of that is when we fo catch malicious
| behavior, the fines are so small as to be cost of doing
| business.
| oxfordmale wrote:
| It is probably cheaper than the original fine if they had kept
| the evidence.
| fkarg wrote:
| that's probably true actually
| pamhalpert wrote:
| ouch!
| ssss11 wrote:
| Whoops my bad. Oh well.
| hhh wrote:
| I've made this kind of accident before. Within my first 6 months
| there was a massive internal investigation of someone entering
| the building without authorization, as they had made their own
| keycard.
|
| I had been asked to analyze a machine's event log to see what
| happened, and on a Teams meeting with a dozen people proceeded to
| right click the event log and mistakenly hit clear, unconsciously
| accepting the dialogue box.
|
| That was embarrassing, but I was direct about it.
|
| I always just pull the plug and image the disk since.
| londons_explore wrote:
| > right click the event log and mistakenly hit clear
|
| Had you immediately pulled the plug on the machine at that
| point, you would almost certainly have been able to recover the
| event log. Sure, it would have been many days effort, but
| probably better than failing to get evidence of a suspected
| evil do-er.
| eviks wrote:
| Out of curiosity, were you also the one who made the keycard?
| MengerSponge wrote:
| Whoopsie I'm such a klutz ;P
|
| Look, I didn't mean to do the espionage thingy, especially in
| public -\\_(tsu)_/-
| francisofascii wrote:
| Ha, this comment reminds me of the Robert Hanssen, the
| infamous FBI spy. At one point he was put in charge of the
| internal effort to find "the spy".
| aziaziazi wrote:
| This double as a great PR communication toward any businesses
| that want their data be secured. _Secured_ as in << out of legal
| reach >>
| dghughes wrote:
| Similar to that my provincial Conservative government and other
| Conservative governments in the region don't write down or type
| any meeting minutes. No notes nothing to give FOI requests.
| Dirty tricks!
| aziaziazi wrote:
| Such inspirational, any other institutions shall learn from
| that! Let's teach that technique in business and
| administration schools.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| I prefer to just store the data in /dev/null - so much cheaper
| than using a business to do it for you.
| [deleted]
| daneel_w wrote:
| It's likelier that they ran the numbers of such an "accident" and
| concluded that notwithstanding new fines and more paperwork it
| will end up being the cheaper alternative. They are after all
| bankers.
| BLanen wrote:
| > to a project where the company aimed to delete from its systems
| any older communications and documents that were no longer
| required to be retained.
|
| Literally no reason to do this but for this precise goal.
| billythemaniam wrote:
| Storage costs are an excellent reason as someone else said.
| Another reason is security, less data sitting around to be
| leaked, either accidentally or purposely, the better. Another
| reason is privacy, less data sitting around that can be used
| against you.
| kobalsky wrote:
| you don't owe the information you are not required to keep IF
| you have deleted it.
|
| if you still have it and delete it after you were asked to
| provide it, it will land you in jail.
|
| this is IRS audit 101. I guess they have their own similar
| reasons.
| escapedmoose wrote:
| I was the records retention lead for a bank for a few years.
| Deletion projects are also conducted to reduce storage costs,
| but yes, ensuring that you're not retaining unnecessary
| information that you could be subpoenaed on is a large factor
| as well.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| When I worked for an investment bank (over 2 decades ago), we
| wrote emails to a WORM storage device (I think from EMC) so it
| was literally impossible to accidentally delete emails without
| physically destroying the device (which was backed up to tape and
| replicated to an identical device on the other coast). We
| retrieved sample emails quarterly to prove the device was
| working.
| boredumb wrote:
| This happened because JPMorgan is under investigation for its
| relationship with Jeffrey Epstein the person who invited wealthy
| scientists, politicians and businessmen to come to an island
| where he also raped kids.
|
| It doesn't matter, anyone that even mentions it will eventually
| be relegated to the "her emails" camp and disregarded. Can never
| tell if i'm just getting older and taking more notice or the
| blatant corruption we seem to shrug off is actually growing
| (probably the prior).
| lo_fye wrote:
| LOL @ "accidentally".
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| Why does it feel like general financial law and order has
| completely collapsed in the last few years, and that you can get
| away with pretty much anything with no real punishment?
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Doesn't really matter if this is a mistake or corruption.
|
| When you pretend you have the legitimacy to run something as big
| as JP Morgan then you should not be allowed to screw up that
| much.
|
| You earn that much money, you should demonstrate equal level of
| competency.
|
| They should get jail time either way.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Indeed. Not only are these slaps on the wrist accounted for in
| initial estimations of the cost of doing business, but then
| they're just written off and ironically inconsequential. There
| needs to be real consequences.
| [deleted]
| throwawaaarrgh wrote:
| All enterprises have shitty IT. If you want this not to happen
| again, don't fine them, add a regulation. Regulations are
| literally the only thing that makes enterprises confirm that
| they've done something correctly. Only when an exec VP has their
| bonus or freedom threatened do they take shit seriously.
| boston_clone wrote:
| There are already regulations for data retention during
| attorney-related incidents.
|
| > Only when an exec VP has their bonus or freedom threatened do
| they take shit seriously.
|
| Isn't this a fine, and not a regulation?
| sensanaty wrote:
| If it weren't so depressing it'd be incredibly hilarious how
| blatant and open the corruption here is, as if anyone on planet
| earth is gonna buy this BS story.
|
| The fines for these types of _accidents_ should be starting with
| the letter B and ending with illions, lets see how often these
| types of _mistakes_ happen in the future afterwards.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| I say the penalty should start with J and end with ail.
| latency-guy2 wrote:
| Do establish in what way these fines are at all reasonable or
| appropriate. I don't think you know to what level this data
| loss is if you're being this reactionary.
| sensanaty wrote:
| > reasonable or appropriate
|
| That's the point, they shouldn't be "reasonable" nor
| "appropriate" for an entity as large and with as many
| resources as JPM. Surely with the 300k employees they have
| and the literal infinite well of money they have, there's a
| few competent individuals working there to prevent these sort
| of "mistakes" from happening, and if not then they should
| either find some competent people, or cease to exist.
|
| What's reasonable about charging them 4 million? It's not
| even a drop in the bucket, it's a singular molecule of water
| getting inserted into the bucket if we're talking about JPM.
| agentgumshoe wrote:
| In a regulated industry, the regulator would absolutely issue
| fines and threats of license if gross incompetence led to
| them not upholding their regulatory duties... Well in some
| ideal world that would happen, but ha, not likely.
|
| Instead they'll just have to have some 'extra' meetings with
| the regulator and report on their remediations later.
| [deleted]
| bee_rider wrote:
| No need to fine them, if this stuff is needed in a lawsuit just
| let the other side make adverse inferences by default whenever
| the data could have been deleted.
| amelius wrote:
| Fines? You mean detention.
| subsequentmask wrote:
| Taking away many billions from billionaires is worse for them
| than detention.
| hinata08 wrote:
| no, it's just a cost to do business. They still have
| billions after you charged them billions.
|
| And charging companies with fines is ridiculous IMO. There
| are always humans who made decisions ultimately. And
| charging companies (not them) is just a "get out of jail
| and enjoy Hawaii" card for them.
|
| After they cheated, they probably had the promotions,
| money, golden parachutes, and left the company after
| bleeding it out and hurting it anyway. So why would you
| charge the company a second time ? Why not them ?
| GolfPopper wrote:
| Because a key element of the American corporate/justice
| system is to avoid negative consequences for individuals
| with wealth and connections, so long as they "follow the
| rules" when harming the public for private profit?
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Why not both?
| [deleted]
| aziaziazi wrote:
| Can't you _pay_ to get out of detention in the US?
| [deleted]
| jprete wrote:
| Do you mean bail? The only thing bail does is get the
| defendant out of jail until the trial, and the only
| (Constitutional) reason to jail someone before trial is to
| make sure they show up.
|
| E.g. Elizabeth Holmes got out on bail, but just recently
| went in to serve her sentence.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| Indeed I meant bail. I always thought you can avoid jail
| that way in that country and very pleased you taught me
| I'm wrong, this seems a more fair system.
|
| Not thankful for the downvoters although they probably
| thought I was cynical or something... but hey better have
| knowledge than points.
| Floegipoky wrote:
| > the only (Constitutional) reason to jail someone before
| trial is to make sure they show up
|
| Well cynicism is definitely called for wrt bail, because
| it's regularly used for a very different purpose. It's
| normal for people accused of crimes to have to wait over
| a year for their trial in this country, and the courts
| often intentionally set bail so high that the accused
| can't possibly afford it. They are forced to choose
| between sitting in jail that whole time while their life
| evaporates, or they can plea guilty to a crime they may
| or may not have committed; the actual punishment is often
| less severe than being found innocent at trial. The
| prosecution can repeatedly push back the trial to keep
| the pressure on. Since healthcare access is almost always
| tied to employment, people plead guilty to crimes they
| didn't commit every day in this country so that their
| kids don't lose their access to healthcare. Just the sort
| of systemic, everyday corruption that we're supposed to
| pretend can't happen here.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I find the story or incorrect archive settings/setup to be
| reasonably plausible and even likely. I work in finance and
| misconfiguration of systems are not that uncommon. Testing and
| reviewing archive settings is often not very thorough.
|
| For example, I was working on a system that handles holdings
| and trading information at the fund level which covers AUM that
| starts with a T and ends in rillions. There was an SQL
| injection vulnerability with schema owner access. Luckily this
| was an internal app, but still there are trade desk devs who
| could accidentally paste a drop table statement with a name
| collison. Anyways, I brought all this up to the principal. I
| was told this isn't a real big deal because they have real-time
| backups. I asked if they ever tested the backups... no. Do they
| have procedures for restoring from backups... no. They go nuts
| if there's a 5 minute outage, so how long would it take to
| restore... no idea.
|
| Trust me ignorance is _very_ believable, even in regulated
| industries.
| kindatrue wrote:
| >I asked if they ever tested the backups... no.
|
| THIS.
|
| I briefly worked for a major European bank. There was a
| system that was backed up on tape. The way they checked the
| backups was to visually look at the tape spool - before
| sending the tapes off to a mountain to be preserved.
|
| One day, they needed something from a back up. Sure enough,
| the tapes were simply blank due a bug in the back up script.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "The way they checked the backups was to visually look at
| the tape spool"
|
| Lol
| 36479669thrw wrote:
| > I find the story or incorrect archive settings/setup to be
| reasonably plausible and even likely. I work in finance and
| misconfiguration of systems are not that uncommon. Testing
| and reviewing archive settings is often not very thorough.
|
| GP's point stands: they should be fined to a degree that it
| becomes clear to management that these "not uncommon"
| practices must become very uncommon.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I'm not saying they shouldn't. But it's a leap to attribute
| to malice what is easily explained by ignorance.
| gmd63 wrote:
| 100%
|
| Allowing "smart" individuals to play dumb to benefit
| themselves is not smart at all at a societal level.
|
| Strategists at these companies examine the costs of failure
| or cheating, and simply see that it's worth it to cut
| corners or pile on risk. Just look at JP Morgans history in
| getting fined for market manipulation.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _they should be fined to a degree that it becomes clear
| to management that these "not uncommon" practices must
| become very uncommon_
|
| Why? Fining isn't done for fetish, it's done proportional
| to harm.
|
| The article mentions twelve civil suits (four independent).
| JPMorgan will lose those. Any lawyer worth their salt,
| meanwhile, will be looking for claims which could
| reasonably involve the evidence which was deleted to file.
| In this way, the people actually harmed get compensated
| versus a government agency, which mitigates corruption
| concerns.
| 36479669thrw wrote:
| Don't get stuck on the word "fine'. The fines cans be
| judgment at court. The cost of doing business this way
| must go up, way up, so that these critical institutions
| are legally transparent* and motivated by a strong desire
| to avoid drastic haircuts.
|
| *for example, no more "the dog ate our homework" excuses.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Don 't get stuck on the word "fine'. The fines cans be
| judgment at court._
|
| All fines are subject to court supervision. This sentence
| makes no sense.
|
| > _cost of doing business this way must go up, way up_
|
| We want regulators thinking of the public, not randomly
| increasing the cost of business. This seems more
| motivated by hatred for a thriving industry than claims
| to specific damages. Regulators who pursue this path are
| rightfully overturned by courts for acting capriciously.
| gmd63 wrote:
| Regulators are not thinking of the public when they allow
| corporate sociopaths to neglect societal best interest
| while market fixing / mismanaging records / etc.,
| activities that have demonstrably siphoned wealth from
| the lower class and moved it increasingly to the ivory
| towers of companies that do not deserve the influence
| that makes them "too big to fail".
|
| The wealth inequality gap is widening and it's due to
| pussyfooted enforcement on white collar crime and
| strategic negligence.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _wealth inequality gap is widening_
|
| You can't fine a business just to reduce inequality. Any
| jurisdiction that starts ruling that way fails basic
| definitions for rule of law. (This is in part what ruined
| Argentina.)
|
| Also, in what universe would larger fines for banks
| decrease income inequality? The history of enforcement is
| capricious penalties increase incentives for cover-ups.
| If a record retention mistake means personal bankruptcy,
| you have zero incentive to correct mistakes. In practice,
| this leads to corruption among regulators, who are now
| the _de facto_ commanders of private business.
|
| > _due to pussyfooted enforcement on white collar crime_
|
| Where is the crime here? The SEC investigated and found
| no wilful wrongdoing. Those twelve private plaintiffs are
| going to win judgements, as will everyone else who brings
| claims which could reasonably by covered by the missing
| records.
| gmd63 wrote:
| The crime was identified, which is why JP Morgan was
| fined. Once a corporate entity is operating at a
| sufficient scale, it does not matter if the people inside
| willingly mess up. The organization is required to be run
| properly. The problem is that slaps on the wrist for
| failure do not suffice as environmental stressors for
| corporate evolution.
|
| As for what we can do, the possibilities are endless. We
| shape society however we like, and that is the highest
| form of art humans engage in.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _crime was identified, which is why JP Morgan was
| fined_
|
| The SEC is a civil agency. No crimes.
|
| > _organization is required to be run properly_
|
| It's that easy? Just require good organization and you'll
| get it by diktat? This entire thread seems to require a
| reading of Argentinian and modern Egyptian and Russian
| economic history.
| gmd63 wrote:
| Evidently you don't get well run organizations by simply
| having legislation, which is my point. We do not enforce
| that legislation appropriately.
|
| I'm confused by your point regarding the SEC, how are
| they allowed to fine a company without legal basis? If my
| use of the word "crime" means something different to you,
| I mean "crime" as anything that breaks the law.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _you don 't get well run organizations by simply having
| legislation, which is my point_
|
| Nobody argued as much.
|
| > _I mean "crime" as anything that breaks the law_
|
| This isn't what "crime" means. Painting your house the
| wrong colour may be against code, but it isn't a crime.
| Legally, the difference is starker, as nobody was shown
| to have done anything wrong here beyond the benefit of
| doubt.
| gmd63 wrote:
| > _Just require good organization and you'll get it by
| diktat?_
|
| This is what I was responding to. You seemed to be
| insinuating that I didn't understand that laws or rules
| are not sufficient deterrents.
|
| > _nobody was shown to have done anything wrong here
| beyond the benefit of doubt_
|
| I'm still confused as to how the SEC was able to fine
| someone for not committing any wrongdoing, exact
| definition of the word "crime" which I have clarified I
| used to mean "general rule breaking" aside.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Deleting records that are legally required to be retained
| is not "no wrongdoing".
| gmd63 wrote:
| I agree. From my point of view there is definite
| wrongdoing, and it is not adequately punished. I'm trying
| to understand the other commentor's point of view as to
| how the bank was fined if there was no alleged
| wrongdoing. They had earlier asked "Where is the crime
| here?"
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I'm confused by your point regarding the SEC, how are
| they allowed to fine a company without legal basis?
|
| There is a legal basis: retention requirements of the
| Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
|
| From the SEC order: "As a result of the conduct described
| above, JPMorgan willfully violated Section 17(a) of the
| Exchange Act and Rule 17a-4(b)(4) thereunder, which
| require brokerdealers to preserve for at least three
| years originals of all communications received and copies
| of all communications sent relating to its business as
| such."
| ouid wrote:
| [dead]
| andsoitis wrote:
| Do you really think JP Morgan, which has about 300,000
| employees, has a secret network of corrupt actors at an
| administrative level to carry out something like this on
| purpose without someone blowing the whistle?
|
| I think this is more likely: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-
| release/2021-262
| mulletbum wrote:
| As someone who does this work, I agree. This sounds like a IT
| Operations messed something up on its way to the people who
| do the lawyer work. Never had it happen to us, but I could
| see me handing something off to others in the Operations Org
| and having accidents happen.
| agentgumshoe wrote:
| This sounds like something that would occur in an industry
| _not_ heavily regulated. That 's not JPM.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Regulation =/= Implementation Capability
|
| The implementers and auditors themselves get bogged down
| by red tape and/or the game of telephone between various
| departments, leading to information and Acceptance
| Criterias falling between the cracks.
| chucksta wrote:
| Have a hard time believing you. Do you work in a area
| requiring compliance for PCI or Sarbox? This should never
| "just happen" with any competent team.
| drowsspa wrote:
| How relevant are the 300,000 employees? Do they all had
| access to this information?
| andsoitis wrote:
| The scale of record keeping in a place like JP Morgan is
| enormous. Just payments transactions are about $10 trillion
| a day. Unless documents are ring fenced from the start and
| not many systems and people have access to it, it is highly
| unlikely that someone is able to destroy it in all the
| right places without anybody noticing.
|
| If you read the link in my previous comment, you'll see
| this isn't the first time they got fined for bad record
| keeping practices. In that instance, $125m.
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| On the one hand you're saying it can't be done without
| some whistleblower turning up, on the other hand you
| think that its possible to happen accidentally.
|
| It's kinda either/or. It's either possible that someone
| can get full admin privileges and deletes it off-the-
| record or they've got enough safeguards in place that the
| accidental deletion isn't possible either.
| andsoitis wrote:
| It seems very reasonable that 47 million messages were
| deleted from 8,700 mail boxes by accident, but it seems
| like a stretch of the imagination to say this resulted in
| the intentional deletion of the EXACT evidence that they
| were being subpoenaed for, without forgetting to delete
| SOME of the evidence.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| nobody is claiming intentional deletion of the EXACT
| records being subpoenaed and only those records, and the
| article makes clear that isn't what happened
|
| the thing we're discussing is deleting A LOT of records
| which INCLUDE the ones being subpoenaed, which is
| obviously easily possible, intentionally or otherwise
|
| so, no stretch of the imagination required
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| What? according to the article, all emails were deleted
| in that given timeframe with the excuse "they thought it
| would be impossible to delete records that were still
| required to be kept by regulation"
|
| I don't think your argument works unless the article is
| wrong.
| NBJack wrote:
| Yes.
| agentgumshoe wrote:
| Yes
| alexfromapex wrote:
| There doesn't have to be a "network". This probably reached
| the highest executive levels and a few of them discussed it
| and said let's accidentally delete this and take the fine.
| You're incredibly naive if you think this wasn't intentional.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > highest executive levels and a few of them discussed it
| and said let's accidentally delete this
|
| So you think a _few_ C-level execs went to 8,700 mail boxes
| and deleted 47 million messages to remove the EXACT
| evidence that was being subpoenaed?
| jokowueu wrote:
| Here Is something You Should add to your Vocabulary
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
| wongarsu wrote:
| Presumably they would have gone to some low-level tech
| and told him something to the effect of "We are looking
| for a new team lead, you might be a good fit. Completely
| unrelated: how difficult would it be for emails from the
| last couple years to be 'accidentally' deleted as part of
| routine operations".
|
| I'm not saying that's what happened, I find the sequence
| of events described by JP Morgan believable. But the same
| process issues that allowed this to happen accidentally
| would allow it to happen maliciously.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _they would have gone to some low-level tech and told
| him something to the effect of "We are looking for a new
| team lead_
|
| Part of the SEC's process is peppering these people with
| pamphlets explaining how their testifying this happened
| is a $10+ million whistleblower payday.
| jerf wrote:
| Your mental model is broken in that you seem to think the
| techs have independent models of what is and is not legal
| and will "legal fact check" the executives. In specific
| cases this may occur, but in general, if legal comes to a
| tech and says "we need to delete this", the tech will
| delete this. If you want to mess the tech around, you
| don't fire a guy and promote someone else and hire a
| private investigator to get blackmail on the database
| operator and hire the mafia to rough up the guy holding
| the backup tapes to make sure they get the message. You
| just tell the tech staff that legal says this has to
| happen. The tech staff does all sorts of things because
| legal tells them to, totally routine thing. This would
| not have stood out at all.
|
| I mean, I live this personally. When legal tells me to
| delete or retain something, I don't go get a law degree,
| and then insist that they let me have all the details to
| come to my own independent opinion about whether or not
| we need to delete or retain something. That is every bit
| as nonfunctional as when I tell them that the task
| they're asking for will take three weeks and they go get
| a programming degree and then come over and learn the
| exact environment we are working in so they can verify
| that we are telling them the correct estimate.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > Presumably they would have gone to some low-level tech
| and told him something to the effect of "We are looking
| for a new team lead, you might be a good fit.
|
| Not a chance. NOTHING gets done at JPMorgan without a
| mountain-load of direction and a grip of meetings. This
| would have had to wipe out both the data and records of
| that direction. Because the layers of tape are so thick
| you can't travel floor to floor without an access card
| coding and used to log your time and that even these
| simple systems don't work all the time (which generates
| even more busy work, yay), it's a form of friction
| against any sort of "secret" dealings within the company.
| If your keycard/dev env/database access/wiki edits/etc
| are so chaotically managed, it's unlikely that you will
| leave 0 evidence behind. Note that there was enough
| information to reconstruct what happened, to some degree.
|
| I would bet someone didn't communicate the arcane symbol
| column that meant "do not delete for legal reasons", in
| some SQL. It's that chaotic, which reinforces the
| paranoia about the legal consequences that are foisted on
| every employee, routinely. If you have a shoplifting
| conviction (a record that hasn't been purged), you aren't
| getting hired. Viewed from the inside, it's strangely
| dystopian, but far from subtle.
| lozenge wrote:
| "JPMorgan hit with $200 million in fines for letting
| employees use WhatsApp to evade regulators' reach between
| 2018 and 2020"
|
| How did the bureaucracy let this happen if it's as big
| and bureaucratic as you claim? And there's other examples
| too.
| jon-wood wrote:
| I just don't buy it. Even a C-level has limits, whatever
| was being investigated currently just has the possibility
| of some big fines and maybe losing their job. As soon as
| they start colluding to destroy evidence that turns into
| jail time.
| crhulls wrote:
| I run a very small public company, and can say from first
| hand experience it would be extremely difficult to do
| something like this let alone do it and not get caught.
|
| All emails and code changes are up for discovery and I
| don't work with individual contributors directly so I'm not
| even sure how I would be able to give an instruction like
| this without many people wondering what was up.
|
| In the early days sure, I could go ask X person to access
| things directly but after a couple hundred people it
| doesn't work that way. Think about an org of hundreds of
| thousands with the most strict compliance rules in
| existence.
|
| And doing something willful here would be jail time so why
| would someone already wealthy risk this? Even in a corrupt
| system people balance risk reward. A fine for the bank,
| fine, but life ruined forever stretches credulity given the
| limited upside.
| mandmandam wrote:
| 100% yes. [0], [1], [2], [3], [4], etc.
|
| 0 - https://unlimitedhangout.com/2023/04/investigative-
| series/cr...
|
| 1 - https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/breaking-attorney-
| general-t...
|
| 2 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35959865
|
| 3 - https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8260-20
|
| 4 - https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/09/22/3-count-felon-
| jpmorg...
| andsoitis wrote:
| > https://unlimitedhangout.com/2023/04/investigative-
| series/cr...
|
| Now _there 's_ a reliable source!
| goodbyesf wrote:
| You want "reliable sources"? Many of which were formed by
| bankers themselves?
|
| The problem is that most "reliable sources" aren't very
| reliable on the important topics - war, money, culture,
| etc.
| mandmandam wrote:
| Well, since the number of mainstream outlets
| investigating Epstein's links to the mega-wealthy with
| appropriate depth is precisely _zero_ , we need to adjust
| our standards a bit.
|
| If you can point out anything specific in there that's
| provably wrong, I'd genuinely love to hear it.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > If you can point out anything specific in there that's
| provably wrong, I'd genuinely love to hear it.
|
| While there are many statements one can confirm, such as
| "took up boxing", they are surrounding nuggets like this:
| "After being selected by a mix of powerful businessmen,
| many of whom shared connections to intelligence and/or
| organized crime", a statement which is so vague as to be
| highly suspicious.
|
| And don't even get me started on the author feeling the
| need to point out that all these organized crime and
| banking folks are Jewish - what's the relevance? Only to
| double down on stereotypes - the other people in the
| story aren't called out for their ancestry or religion...
| mandmandam wrote:
| In the entire, very long article, there are only _three_
| references to Jewishness - twice saying that people had
| Jewish immigrant parents, and once in reference to the
| makeup of a particular mob which also references their
| Italian members, putting the lie to your claim that other
| ethnic backgrounds are not mentioned.
|
| Making things out to be anti-semitic when they're not,
| such as happened to Corbyn, is a popular smear tactic.
| It's pretty disgusting though, and many Jewish people
| have pointed out that it's a very harmful and anti-
| semitic thing to do.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| >Making things out to be anti-semitic when they're not,
| such as happened to Corbyn, is a popular smear tactic.
| It's pretty disgusting though, and many Jewish people
| have pointed out that it's a very harmful and anti-
| semitic thing to do.
|
| That ship has long sailed in the US. I don't see this
| behavior stopping in earnest until the greater populace
| stops giving any credibility to the claims due to
| repetitional damage. In fact right now they have become
| emboldened after the 2020 elections. Meanwhile there is a
| real rise in anti-semitism that is likely occurring among
| the far-right.
|
| Change is starting to happen online in that every single
| thread i've been seeing on Reddit/HN that calls out
| Israel also tends to completely swat away the anti-
| Semitic claims thrown out when any criticism of Israel
| typically occurs. Whether this translates into real world
| changes remains to be seen but we are starting to see it
| in the voting patterns of Millennials and Gen-Z(them
| supporting comments made by "the Squad" and electing more
| reps that don't shy away). It very will likely be a
| generational shift as Israel continues to damage its
| reputation in the US due to its tactics.
| roflyear wrote:
| Why mention it at all?
| JPws_Prntr_Fngr wrote:
| She specified their ethnicities and countries of origin
| to describe their relation to the "SuperMob," which was
| apparently "composed mainly of Jewish and Italian
| mobsters and businessmen who rose to power thanks to the
| corruption within the city of Chicago before expanding to
| other areas of the country, particularly the West Coast."
|
| By only denouncing this _Dangerous Anti-Semitism_ and
| ignoring the equally deplorable Anti-Italianism, you 've
| outed yourself as an Anti-Italian Romanophobe whose
| opinions may be summarily dismissed. Checkmate.
| roflyear wrote:
| You realize that isn't how it works, right? It shouldn't
| be OK to make wild claims without evidence that need to
| be backed up. It's the other way: you need good evidence
| to back up wild claims.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I'm not even sure there needs to be a secret network of
| corrupt actors. Investment banking is rotten to the core, has
| been for decades.
|
| https://archive.is/z6Uer
| ly3xqhl8g9 wrote:
| First of all: your current society has no chance at a future,
| AI overlords, mogul trillionaires, climate change and so on
| being the least currently concerning of your issues.
|
| Nevertheless, one counter-intuitive policy which would end
| corporate control [1] (hence will never be implemented, again,
| no future for you) is supra-unitary taxation: effectively, tax
| rates above 100%, ensuring that the corporation has by default
| a lifetime (like a person they wish to be). Once the forever-
| in-debt corporation gets past a certain level of debt, it gets
| liquidated. Of course, corporations affected by this would have
| a certain scale (above $10 trillion, let's say) and a certain
| domain of activity (embedded AI, synthetic biology, nuclear
| fusion, asteroid mining, and similar).
|
| [1] 2023, Claire Provost, Matt Kennard, _Silent Coup. How
| Corporations Overthrew Democracy_ , Bloomsbury Academic,
| https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/silent-coup-9781350270008
| hinata08 wrote:
| Why fines ?
|
| Fines for this type of accident should be the permanent removal
| of the banking license.
|
| What kind of company can you trust if evidence can be deleted
| "by accident" ?
| yehosef wrote:
| Governments do not just "remove the banking license" of JP
| Morgan.
| Ialdaboth wrote:
| Yes, this is precisely the problem.
| hinata08 wrote:
| Shame
|
| I have never just deleted millions of emails and pieces of
| evidence in a listed company, especially one that falls
| under the SOX act (it implies some governance.)
|
| Did they have the IT governance or not ?
| zx8080 wrote:
| Does this sometimes lead to "we are immortals, can do
| whatever we want"?
|
| Actually not whatever. But apparently some borders are
| quite thin.
| meesles wrote:
| JP Morgan is the very definition of 'too big to fail'. Any
| actions against them to that degree would be self-sabotaging
| by any country. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but that's
| the reality right now.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _JP Morgan is the very definition of 'too big to fail'_
|
| If the government revoked the license for a local lawn care
| company on the basis of a records retention mistake, I'm
| fairly sure they'd have a case for reversal in the courts.
| I get we're technically minded, and so technical mistakes
| rank up with mortal sins, but let's keep a sense of
| perspective.
| JoshuaEN wrote:
| JP Morgan is not a local lawn care service, they have the
| funds to not make mistakes like this. Larger companies
| should be held to a higher standard because their actions
| have a wider impact.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Larger companies should be held to a higher standard
| because their actions have a wider impact_
|
| Sure. My point is this has nothing to do with too big to
| fail.
|
| Also, what is the impact of these records being deleted?
| If you have a claim that reasonably involves them, it is
| basically cashable due to the error. If nobody can show
| damages, it's hard to argue this mistake had a wide
| impact.
| hinata08 wrote:
| Why ?
|
| There aren't any bank to take on their market ?
|
| Individuals and companies won't stop having accounts or
| buying home or investmenting in equipment because 1 bank
| 'gracefully' shuts down. Another one will take on.
|
| But risking a crash like Lehman Brothers, Wirecard (a
| journalist nearly got charged with market manipulation in
| Germany for covering what really happened in this firm),
| FTX,... is the real self sabotaging for a country.
|
| "Too big to jail" is not a service for the common good.
| It's just protecting friends.
|
| We need real investigations into how this bank is run, and
| how others are run as well. If this was genuinely just an
| IT incident, that's fine. But it raises questions
| obviously.
| prirun wrote:
| That's easily corrected: split them up. Chase and JP Morgan
| should have never been allowed to merge in the first place.
| 0xCMP wrote:
| why would anyone choose to do that? did you not notice
| the smaller banks failing lately and everyone assuming
| chase would buy them?
|
| part of their strength is their size.
| grugagag wrote:
| Proportionl fines that dent seriously into their profits
| ensures this does not happen again. But usually the fines end
| up being slaps on wrists which ensures continuity of these
| schemes
| wongarsu wrote:
| So the story is basically:
|
| 1. data that has to be retained for legal reasons can't be
| deleted by normal deletion processes
|
| 2. data that should be deleted didn't delete properly
|
| 3. to fix (2) they manually ran delete requests for times up to
| about the current date (back in 2018), relying on (1) to protect
| data
|
| 4. turns out somebody forgot to configure (1) for emails send to
| domains belonging to Chase (at that point the merger was 18 years
| ago)
|
| 5. It took 1.5 years for anyone to notice.
|
| To me it seems like number 5 is the biggest problem here.
| Mistakes happen, but had they noticed in time they likely would
| have had those messages in backups (if they don't, that's a much
| bigger problem). But they probably don't retain the backups for
| long, for the same reasons they delete old emails in the first
| place (legal discovery)
| nashashmi wrote:
| How many other lawsuits does this also affect?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| There were "at least 12 civil securities-related regulatory
| investigations, eight of which were conducted by the
| Commission staff" [1]. No doubt, more will be filed.
|
| [1] _Fourth paragraph_
| jbverschoor wrote:
| How... "inconvenient"
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _How... "inconvenient"_
|
| For JPMorgan, sure. That missing evidence gets
| interpreted adversely against JPMorgan, which means those
| cases are basically won. The question is how many more
| will arise in the coming months, perhaps years, that find
| reasonable claim to damages arising out of evidence the
| defendant has conceded it can't bring to its defense.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| I'm not convinced companies actually keep these records so much
| as they retain access to inbox and outbox data And call that
| good enough. I think in many environments if you delete an
| email from your outbox it would become largely irrecoverable.
|
| I'm curious if any IT folks can comment on what they have seen?
| Do you actually have log records of all messages? Or do you
| have something like a snapshot of all accounts at a given time?
| technion wrote:
| Office 365 offers message retention - our standard
| configuration will see it set with a seven year period. So
| you can delete from the outfox, and it goes to deleted items.
| If you delete from there it disappears from view, but any
| admin exporting your mailbox will include it for seven years.
| aksss wrote:
| In a "normal" operation (when things go smoothly and are well
| designed) yes, the objects are retained, even if deleted in
| primary mailboxes, explicitly for the accommodation of
| discovery requests and litigation holds. The rules can get
| more or less complex - negotiations on deals with TCV over a
| certain threshold have keywords and parties whose relevant
| emails are retained beyond normal policy, certain job classes
| have data retention extended beyond normal policy, keywords
| can trigger longer retention, information classification
| (either manual or automated) can extend retention periods.
| Software solutions have for many years streamlined the work
| necessary to pull this off compared to what it would have
| taken in an Exchange server farm 20 years ago.
|
| Anyway, all these business rules are (should be) documented
| in formal policies on data retention, litigation hold,
| privacy, etc. If a company were going through a working
| annual audit process for Sox or increasingly even routine
| annual financial audits (non-sox), policies would be examined
| for evidence that they are working with spot checks - e.g.
| auditor selects examples of qualifying events and asks for
| evidence that the given policy is in fact enabled/enforced
| technically. This may test retention as well as intention
| deletion (e.g. we should deliberately have _no_ data beyond
| five years unless an exceptional circumstance warrants it).
| barbariangrunge wrote:
| It seems like laws about how data gets handled are pretty much
| not real laws, due to there being almost no enforcement. So,
| most companies handle their data in a fairly careless way
|
| It might be illogical for companies to invest more into their
| IT infrastructure if there isn't a good reason to do so. I
| mean, even massive customer data leaks go basically unpunished,
| so how do you justify the mitigation expenses at the board
| meeting when shareholders are already mad about the lack of
| growth last quarter?
| johndhi wrote:
| This would make for an interesting law review article
| kccqzy wrote:
| > due to there being almost no enforcement
|
| It turns out investigation and enforcement is
| disproportionately doled out to large corporations. Companies
| like Alphabet and Meta have multiple teams to make sure they
| are handling data correctly and yet there could still be
| things that fall through the cracks.
|
| This regulatory attention on large companies is advantageous
| to startups though; until a startup gets big nobody really
| cares about its data handling compliance.
| tikk wrote:
| anyone gonna use AI to "do something about" top-level management
| of the SEC being an accessory to various crimes, or about
| corruption, money laundering and all that jazz? haven't read
| about a single startup, now that I think about it ...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-26 23:02 UTC)