Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
The cyber threat the legal implications of using Twitter to disseminate important corporate financial information were joined by former SEC enforcement lawyer.
Well I guess -- now head of Financial Services Group at status and Goldberg.
On when -- company -- decided to use Twitter for real disclosure.
And the company gets -- Is that the company's fault or is it -- fault.
My reaction -- it's the company's fault and not -- fault.
My 81 of my concerns is there's already enough rules and regulations in place post Dodd-Frank 2010.
-- -- sweeping reforms.
The problem is with the all of these new reforms one never knows reverberations of -- especially the technology companies.
And they make requirements on some of these technology companies we don't know how to affect others it may not be able to afford it -- raise the bar or her whole country.
Separately there are enough rules on the books in other words if there were hackers -- use that hacked to manipulate the market.
The rules in place to go -- prosecute them and if public companies are relying upon social media.
And the security's not good enough for them than they can go the traditional routes and avoid using social media.
He should be left between the company of social media if FaceBook Twitter -- going to enter into agreement whereby they identify the companies and they promised certain types of securities and their breach.
That provides a company's opportunity for redress through litigation -- we don't need more rules and regulations so not much.
Upside to Twitter decide to guarantee security.
But should the company if it decides -- Twitter is way too hackable.
Decide we're not gonna disseminate information on Twitter does that put you back in the ninety's when you gotta get -- up today -- people are it may or may not arguably creates opportunities for those social media sources that can reduce the risk or improve their security mom and then it becomes a free market choice.
Now today's CFTC.
Meeting is being held with high frequency traders it might have been affected by this.
Bogus Twitter bungee jump from last week and I'm just wondering though.
Why should government worry about protecting high frequency traders maybe they take their own risk that they want to trade on some ridiculous key word.
Well why should government worry about this.
Well I think we have to look at -- from the broader implications and it's this -- the buzzword of systematic risk.
And so while you have -- and these higher frequency traders to use algorithms to trade the markets.
Implications theoretically can be -- out and have a ripple effect as well so.
I support the fact that the governments looking into this and trying to understand the catalysts and the repercussions.
Of these actions but in and of itself.
I don't think it justifies me -- at a regulation so.
K we got three multi headed hydra heads here now going after this Twitter disclosures that he got the SEC.
Which first chastised Netflix thing came out later that actually telling a billion above readers on FaceBook about it that I could be okay that you've got the F.
The CFTC that -- FTC.
Had come out and said hey any disclosure required in a regular -- such as an ad for prescription drug.
You've got to make full disclosure within the confines of little Twitter we've got some kind of rival agendas or some contradictory rules don't -- That's always been the problem of government there are inconsistencies with the each of the alphabet -- agencies.
And one of the things I would hope to do based on my experience at the SEC and working with government subsequent might departure from the SEC.
As that they create more unity and how they work with one another and -- one of the many inconsistencies that are current marketplace.
All right let us correct I'm I'm not have a lot of confidence -- -- the -- thank you very much for being with us appreciate it.
Filter by section