That was my first thought as well. Look out for more "[unpopular group] uses [encrypted service] to break the rules" articles coming soon.

Well, it is an easy way to "sell" these things...

Anyway, I've got two: paedophiles and terrorist.

Apparently, traders have now joined that elite. I'm just surprised bankers didn't make it there first... given the public sentiment. (I'm not sure I have any position (heh) on the matter myself.)

Texting while driving does actually kill, but there is a less definable/unpopular "them" to target.

That, and encrypted texting while driving is just as dangerous as unencrypted texting while driving.

In that case, however, it does not matter if the messages are encrypted or not.

And techies! /s

Indeed, we really are all awful people. /s

Actually that's a pretty big deal. Financial institutions have far more stringent rules than an average company regarding communications.

Analysts must be shielded by "Chinese walls" from traders. Just imagine what a trader can do if he gets a 20 minute head start (or just a few pertinent bullet points) of an influential report, which is about to be published. Look up 'front running' for details.

Communications within financial companies and between banks and outside entities are pretty heavily regulated. And for very good reason.

You are right that financial crimes are a big deal. However the solution to criminality is not to create a surveillance state.

Well, banks sure have a solution for such problems. They call it self-regulation.

[Hey you! Yes you at the back! Stop laughing...]

A surveillance state is exactly what the financial companies have created within their walls. Typically, every keystroke is logged.

I mean it's one solution. What is the solution?

Let's start with actually prosecuting those that break current laws without regarding color of skin or size of bank account.

To disincentivize huge salaries for people who create zero value, and just move money from point A to point B.

Moving something that is currently at A but should be at B absolutely creates value.

Well, depends on your definition of value. In Marxian economics, with the exception of natural resource, value is created by labour, and commodities have both a use value and exchange value.

This just isn't true. Don't let Marx cloud your understanding of Smith.

Value is created when someone is willing to pay for something to get done, and that something gets done at a cost less than or equal to their willingness to pay. If somebody A is willing to pay for money to be moved, then as long as somebody B is there to move that money, then somebody B is likely generating value by doing so.

My mistake, you're right. Going to correct my comment.

But the value of commodities aren't fixed, but vary in both time and location. Much as taking a lump of gold and turning into a ring adds value to the gold, so does bringing the gold from the goldmine to the jeweler.

Hey, this is a big deal. Bankers used to be above-board, even role models for ethics and legality. SnapChat has allowed them to be come corrupt. /s