Wall Street Regulator Proposes New Hacking, Data and Market Resiliency Rules (usnews.com) 16
The top U.S. markets regulator on Wednesday proposed a suite of new policies designed to harden the financial system against hacking, data theft and systems failure. From a report: With some dissents from Republican members, the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) five members voted at a public meeting to propose rules on protecting consumer financial data, preventing hacking at stock exchanges and broker-dealers and buttressing the resiliency of market infrastructure, part of a continuing concern with modernizing regulations to match advancing technological threats. SEC Chairman Gary Gensler also opened the meeting with a nod to unfolding market turmoil, making veiled reference to the failure of U.S. lender Silicon Valley Bank and fears for the viability of Credit Suisse by restating his agency's pledge to support market resiliency. The three rule proposals together govern how broker-dealers address hacking incidents and protect consumer data, and how stock exchanges, transaction clearing houses and others deemed critical to national economic security gird themselves against system failure and cyber-intrusion.
The call is coming from inside the house! (Score:2)
Seems kind of funny to spend effort protecting an industry against hacking that has caused a lot more harm though their own actions.
Making the banking system would be better off if hackers had free reign.
Re: (Score:3)
Making the banking system would be better off if hackers had free reign.
You're either the most brilliant troll on Slashdot, or an utter numpty.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! How About This??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Y'know, I have just the thing for this problem.
*roots in the basement and pulls out a very old folder*
Ah! Here we are?
*blows the dust off*
This is kinda old, but much like a lot of things that were made back then, it was made based on extensive painful experience, and it was designed to be fully functional within our society. And it just so happens that it would be perfectly compatible with our modern world and everything about it!
*opens the folder*
Here you go! All it needs is a few signatures and it's ready to drop right back into service. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
100points!
And you noticed the the dissents were from the Grand Oligarchic Party (tax cuts for the "job creators"....)
Good ideas, bad timing (Score:2)
Great More Government Oversight and Regulations! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Back in grandpa's day they used to have a gold standard. So every dollar represented gold or silver that the bank (or banks bank) physically had to have on hand.
But, but, who cares about gold and silver it has no instr.... shut the fuck up... the point is that when money was tied to something tangible that you couldn't create out of thin air it meant no printing money, no fractional reserve banking or bullshit lending. Everyone had deposits, if the bank pissed you off you pulled your money and submarined
Re: (Score:2)
A gold bug? He sure is. The guy a few posts up *did* have the answer: Glass-Steagal.
Re:Great More Government Oversight and Regulations (Score:4, Insightful)
You sound like someone who thinks they are a lot more educated than they actually are. The gold-backed system was abandoned because it was leading to a catastrophic worldwide economic collapse. The reasons why are many and complicated, and too much to summarize in a single post. But the simple fact here is that your knowledge of the situation has been harmfully over-simplified, and that is why your conclusion is completely wrong.
It IS true that fiat money is an imperfect solution. It has problems. Real problems. Nobody (educated) is denying this. But it is still supremely better than the backed-money system we used to have. There is no perfect solution nor can there ever be. We need to learn how to make imperfect solutions work well enough to keep the world going round, and that is exactly what we are doing. Bad decisions on the part of powerful leaders will cause problems in this system, but going back to even worse systems will not fix those problems.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone several posts above put it. REPASS GLASS-STEAGAL.
Fighting hacking through regulation (Score:1)
Barking up the wrong tree (Score:3)
Tougher rules mean the same as tougher laws: Jack shit if they're not enforced. Actually, they don't even mean jack shit if enforced. So your company just failed to avoid a hack and now has to pay a million? Ok. Doesn't matter. Why? Because the data loss would have cost us about as much and the chance of it happening was not 100%, so risk management said no. We still came out ahead by doing fuck all about security.
That's how it was here until about, say, 15 years ago. And then suddenly, security became a thing. Even a priority in many companies. And you have surprisingly few security incidents in companies here. What was the magical ingredient, you ask? Our lawmakers made C-Levels personally liable for security blunders. Yes. The CEO has to cough up the dough for the fine instead of buying a new whirlpool for his mansion. If they can't show that they have taken reasonable steps to prevent it, if they just did the old "oh well, let's hope and pray" dance, THEY pay the fine.
And, lo and behold, security suddenly became an issue.