51–60 of 127 posts
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/business/deutsche-bank-tr...
This is news?! All software has bugs. NYTimes is taking advantage of the general public’s ignorance of this fact to imply something sinister. Without additional information - such as it specifically targeted certain transactions - that is misleading. Remember this when you read articles about subjects you are not knowledgeable about. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
The quality of journalism seems to have been hit hardest by this philosophy. For over a year all of us around the world have been hearing about something called a Mueller Investigation from the news media in the USA, and now despite the fact that it has cleared the President and his campaign of the allegations made, not a single media outlet has walked back the insinuations made with this style of reporting which, through lawyerspeak essentially declared him guilty without saying it outright, but close enough for it to convince the general public.
It's really unfortunate because the media has a very important responsibility. Based on the behavior of journalists that I see on social media, it seems like overgrown children are running things. One such example is a lady named Sarah Jeong who has written some really disgusting tweets on social media, and was given a relatively important position at NYT.
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...
How can it possibly be both "basic functionality was not working" (high severity) and "no suspicious transactions had slipped through" (low severity)?
Bug or feature? Also, wonder how they're verifying "The bank maintained that no suspicious transactions had slipped through as a result."
1. fix bug, run through the data again or 2. get a bunch of low level analysts or interns to review all past transactions
In that kind of shop a bug is a big deal.
Subjectively it feels like NYT publishes a lot more negative articles about Deutsche Bank than about any other bank, or at least those articles get upvoted much more frequently here. Does anyone know what's up with that? I would've assumed that most banks are equally terrible.
This is news?! All software has bugs. NYTimes is taking advantage of the general public’s ignorance of this fact to imply something sinister. Without additional information - such as it specifically targeted certain transactions - that is misleading. Remember this when you read articles about subjects you are not knowledgeable about. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
It's a bad headline and low-content article, but that's not really the point. The bug presumably made some filter for suspicious transactions ineffective, and this was detected by some sort of manual process audit. The headline should have been "Deutsche Bank fails to properly audit its money laundering detection for 10 years".
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…
As an ex-consultant in the financial services sector I strongly disagree with your assessment: "there's no downside except for victims of the crimes that the money originally originated from." Why don't you detail what happens to people who get flagged by this software. Ie either send or receive suspected laundered money and what the odds are of such a flag actually resulting in a conviction. If you get "flagged", AL…
Paul Jorion, a french writer and ex-"the Bank of the European Union" employee, said that he was pushed out of the company when he revealed a bug in risk-calculation software I'm pretty sure this bug was known for some time as well