111–120 of 127 posts
If you read the original article cited by the NYT (it's in German), it is using 'bug' not in the sense that all software has bugs, but in the sense of 'basic functionality was not working'. And that should be alarming, for critical software. https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=de&tl=en&u=htt...
As someone who works at a financial institution, it's news generally because money laundering activity tends to be highly profitable for banks, since they get to collect fees on those transactions. There are almost no incentives for us to flag transactions on our own (unless we're being super humanitarian) without legislation/regulation, because as long as they get their money there's no downside except for victims o…
I like how you frame avoiding profiting from crime not only as being humanitarian but actually as being super humanitarian.
To be honest, I find your comment quite frightening. I think bankers viewing being honest as a humanitarian act is in and of itself a much larger problem than faulty software.
As someone who works at a financial institution, it's news generally because money laundering activity tends to be highly profitable for banks, since they get to collect fees on those transactions. There are almost no incentives for us to flag transactions on our own (unless we're being super humanitarian) without legislation/regulation, because as long as they get their money there's no downside except for victims o…
> There are almost no incentives for us to flag transactions on our own (unless we're being super humanitarian) I like how you frame avoiding profiting from crime not only as being humanitarian but actually as being super humanitarian. To be honest, I find your comment quite frightening. I think bankers viewing being honest as a humanitarian act is in and of itself a much larger problem than faulty software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finance lobbying power must be weaker than popularly assumed if they failed to inspire a proportionate finder's fee that would make flagging worthwhile. Of course, if I tune my cynicism level a bit darker that line of thought breaks down again, because then I start factoring in the possibility of "premium service tiers" with fees so high that a) no client in their right mind would ever consider them unless they have…
Is the idea of a finder's fee so negative? If banks regulators and the banks came up with a plan where sniffing out money laundering was rewarded and banks made extra money helping the justice system take on financial crime...isn't that the best possible outcome? Of course the danger of such a system is banks would be overzealous in their reporting in the hopes of getting a lucky payout. That's another pitfall that w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are almost no incentives for us to flag transactions on our own (unless we're being super humanitarian) I like how you frame avoiding profiting from crime not only as being humanitarian but actually as being super humanitarian. To be honest, I find your comment quite frightening. I think bankers viewing being honest as a humanitarian act is in and of itself a much larger problem than faulty software.
Why do we still allow people to use cash? How much humanitarian good could we do by banning it once and for all? Gold is also a potent laundering tool, it can be re melted at a low temperature. It’s shocking that it’s still allowed.
The comment I was replying to was implying that in the absence of laws banks would have no incentive other than super humanitarianism for preventing obvious money laundering. That's beyond potential misuse. That's profiting of a crime out of pure greed. I know cynicism is currently fashionable but I would still expect most people to find that questionable.
And now they found a bug :)
As someone who works at a financial institution, it's news generally because money laundering activity tends to be highly profitable for banks, since they get to collect fees on those transactions. There are almost no incentives for us to flag transactions on our own (unless we're being super humanitarian) without legislation/regulation, because as long as they get their money there's no downside except for victims o…
> There are almost no incentives for us to flag transactions on our own (unless we're being super humanitarian) I like how you frame avoiding profiting from crime not only as being humanitarian but actually as being super humanitarian. To be honest, I find your comment quite frightening. I think bankers viewing being honest as a humanitarian act is in and of itself a much larger problem than faulty software.
Flagging suspicious transactions and verifying that they're legit is costly. Spending money to reduce profit for the common good is humanitarian. It has little to do with being honest. If the bank does nothing, the bank doesn't lie, it just doesn't go out of their way to verify that other people aren't dishonest. And the fact that people view letting bad things happen by inaction as less bad (or even not bad) shouldn't be a surprise. It's just human nature. And when someone pointed this out, you decided they were Bad and Frightening. Because they said people will follow incentives in a well-known moral hazard scenario. Get a grip.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Really? I didn't see anything about Russia in that article. It seemed mostly about sweetheart loans for Trump in exchange for holding money or buying bonds from Deutsche.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/business/deutsche-bank-tr...