Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

Coinbase Is Suing the SEC and FDIC Over Public Records (decrypt.co) 34

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
Publicly traded crypto exchange Coinbase, in connection with History Associates Incorporated, has filed two civil lawsuits against the Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for their failure to comply with FOIA requests. From a report: The Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, grants the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information that's controlled by the U.S. government. Generally speaking, agencies have 20 days to respond -- not necessarily satisfy -- these requests. And even when government agencies do furnish documents, they can redact anything that falls under certain exemptions: Information related to national security, internal personnel, trade secrets, law enforcement, or financial institution records.

Late last year, Coinbase hired History Associates Incorporated, a private historical research firm, to submit a FOIA request on its behalf. The San Francisco crypto exchange was seeking copies of "Pause Letters" sent to financial institutions asking them to indefinitely cease all "crypto-related activities," according to the complaint. The letters were described in a report from the FDIC's Office of Inspector General (OIG), but never shared publicly. The OIG said the letters presented a "risk that the FDIC would inadvertently limit financial institution innovation and growth in the crypto space." The FDIC refused to provide History Associates or Coinbase with the letters.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Coinbase Is Suing the SEC and FDIC Over Public Records More

Coinbase Is Suing the SEC and FDIC Over Public Records

Comments Filter:

  • Your shill front org got a response. They were told no.

    • No, they weren't told no, that's the problem. Various crypto orgs applied for ETF status with the SEC. The SEC didn't want to approve the ETFs, but they knew they'd get smashed in court. So they just dragged their feet. They still ended up having to follow the law and approve the ETFs, but not without stonewalling as long as possible first.

      If the SEC actually says "no", it would be good news for the crypto bros, because then it's time to explore the legality of their decision. They know this, which is why t

      • The above reply was a bit hasty of me. I don't know if the SEC provided sufficient response to the FOIA request or not. But it has been a common playbook of theirs in the past, most famously with the various bitcoin ETF applications.

        • " The OIG said the letters presented a "risk that the FDIC would inadvertently limit financial institution innovation and growth in the crypto space." The FDIC refused to provide History Associates or Coinbase with the letters."

          sounds like they provided an answer and the people at the front org, as the original poster said, simply didn't like the answer.

    • Why are you so ready to relinquish your right to information about the motivation of secret rules imposed on you in a non-transparent manner?

      • I'm not doing any such thing. I am ok poking at crypto bros who got an answer but didn't like it.

        This is hardly the biggest or most important foia request that's ever been turned down. There are a zillion serious things they've ignored or turned down going back many years. This is not the one to throw yourself on a sword for. They're crypto bros. They're barely human.

        • OK so you think it's funny? And that's really it? I get that there are more important things, but you don't appreciate someone scratching a puss-oozing scab on the skin of the government?

          • I certainly do appreciate anyone taking on the government if they have a good cause.

            Nothing about crypto bros is good.

            This is like the Mafia filing a foia and suing for not getting internal documents. I know in an ideal world I should care but frankly, I just don't. These are crypto bros. They're like the modern Mafia without the physical violence. Fuck em.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Yeah, I hate crypto's unethical greed (at least Beanie Babies and tobacco products gave people something to enjoy), but if the government isn't being as transparent as required by law then they should win.

      Having said that, I hope their lawyers agreed to be paid in Tether.

    • I made an FOI request of the Toronto Police Service once. What pissed me off isn't that the request wasn't fulfilled - it was a long shot they even still had the records - it was that the clerk knew those records wouldn't still exist, but wouldn't just tell me. I had to pay the filing fee.

      I hope that miserable bitch has gout.

      • FOI requests are free in my country, except for the media costs. This has been zero since it became possible to download data for a while after a request is approved.

        You should ask your legislators to implement similar rules.

  • Generally speaking, agencies have 20 days to respond -- not necessarily satisfy -- these requests.

    The FDIC refused to provide History Associates or Coinbase with the letters.

    So they responded to the FOI request. I fail to see a problem, or actual legitimate reason for them to get sued (unless they mean they got no response whatsoever - the article doesn't state this however).

    • The only legitimate reason to refuse a FOI request is listed in the law that regulate them - specifically, TFS says, Information related to national security, internal personnel, trade secrets, law enforcement, or financial institution records.

      The reply, also according to the FDIC's Office of Inspector General (OIG) is "risk that the FDIC would inadvertently limit financial institution innovation and growth in the crypto space."

      It doesn't look to me that such a risk falls into the proper list of reasons to

  • Do the SEC and FDIC have a FOIA lady that will coach federal employees on how to hide their communications to keep them out of of FOIA requests, like at the National Institute of Health?

    "Morens, an adviser to former NIH official and White House Coronavirus Task Force member Anthony Fauci, wrote in February 2021 that "i learned from our foia lady here how to make emails disappear after i am foia'd but before the search starts. Plus i deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to gmail.""
    http [reason.com]
    • I am in the DoD. We are forbidden from this type of thing... At least that is what the training we are required to take each and every year seems to say... I mean, for all the types of records we create there is guidance and a software app we are supposed to use to archive these things.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )
        I expect every organization has such problems as you move away from actual worker and technical levels of management and get closer to political levels of management. Politics can corrupt the military as easily as science. Checks and balances, trust but verify, oversight - all good ideas in any organization.
        • my limited experience is that for the most part the highest levels of corruption exist at the highest levels of an organization.

          Up until O-6 (Captain in the Coast Guard and Navy, Colonel everywhere else) promotions are done by (in theory) merit and performance, after O-6 (i.e. O-7 and above) promotions are done mostly by Congress's recommendations, so O-7 and above are a very political ranks... Sure to get an O-6 promotion you have to schmooze and such with other officers, but Congress is much, much less

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by drnb ( 2434720 )
            In college I had an interesting upper division poly sci class on the Pentagon. It included the point you are making. It summarized things as some of the best leaders of soldiers in the Army are Colonels who failed to make General and are forced into retirement.
            • my opinion as a former enlisted soldier is that the best leaders in the Army are our NCO's, with, for the most part, our officers taking the credit and treating the men worse than they would treat a worm they see on the sidewalk. That's not because my relatives were officers (they were all doctors, except one who was a fighter pilot in WWII, then was tasked with arranging for clothing, food and medical care for free'd prisoners from Dachau) it was based on the treatment from my own officers when I was a sol

              • West Pointers were the WORST human beings on the planet.

                Other officers weren't nearly as bad.

                That was 85-89, so I don't know about now.

                • that's when I was a 10th mountain light infantry soldier. West Pointers were the idiots that always wanted you to charge the guns back then.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by drnb ( 2434720 )
                The book sort of goes into such behavior, characterizing it as more often associated with the officers who are more bureaucratic management in nature. In contrast the true leader types were more often associated with recognizing the different roles of NCOs and officers in a unit, partnering with the NCOs and not undermining them, respecting their opinions, and having genuine concern for the men. Most importantly they earned the respect of the men though their actions. The theme of the relevant chapter was t
                • yeah, in my short time in I found that it was more often than not a rewarded activity if you thought of your men more as a resource, like toilet paper, and less like intelligent agents that could do great things given sufficient leadership, followed by sufficient freedom to just get the job done.
  • Crazy concept. We live in a democracy, the government belongs to us, it is exactly as corrupt as we allow it to be. If Coinbase wants to submit to FOIA requests about how they are lobbying our politicians, then they can complain about my government, your government, the government of the people not providing battle plans to the people currently bribing our politicians. Alternatively we can return to the regularly scheduled government hate, brought to you by a geriatric billionaire who benefits from undermi

  • SEC (Score:2)

    by JBMcB ( 73720 )

    Fun fact, the SEC is going after companies whom force their employees to sign non-disclosure agreements.

    However, the SEC itself forces companies and individuals whom settle lawsuits with them to sign a gag order preventing them from discussing their case.

    https://www.jonesday.com/en/in... [jonesday.com]

    • Settlements commonly involve an agreement for both sides to keep the details confidential. Part of the reason to settle is to protect the defendants from the bad publicity of having the details of their wrongdoings made public, as they would be at trial.

      "We paid a fine, but maintain that we did nothing wrong."
      -company PR statement

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by JBMcB ( 73720 )

        Settlements commonly involve an agreement for both sides to keep the details confidential.

        With private settlements you are correct, and it oftentimes plays into the defendant's favor. This is the government forcing a gag order onto the defendant as a prerequisite for a settlement. The defendant has no choice. It's not mutually agreed to.

        Besides which, it's a government action. It *should* be made public. It should all be made public. How is the public to know the SEC is doing it's job if we have no idea what they are doing?

        • This is the government forcing a gag order onto the defendant as a prerequisite for a settlement. The defendant has no choice. It's not mutually agreed to.

          If it were not part of the standard boilerplate in the proposed settlement agreement, the defendants would ask to add it -which is why it became part of the standard boilerplate of the agreements. Nothing is forced on you in an agreement. You can negotiate any points. You can choose not to agree. You can take your chances in court. That is why it is called a consent agreement.

          Besides which, it's a government action. It *should* be made public. It should all be made public. How is the public to know the SEC is doing it's job if we have no idea what they are doing?

          As I said before... a significant reason the companies agree to settle is to avoid the bad PR that would come with airing the di

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by JBMcB ( 73720 )

            If it were not part of the standard boilerplate in the proposed settlement agreement, the defendants would ask to add it -which is why it became part of the standard boilerplate of the agreements. Nothing is forced on you in an agreement.

            You didn't read the link I posted. There is no negotiation. You *must* agree to the gag order to settle with the SEC. Business groups have asked for this requirement to be removed and the SEC has refused.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close