The problem with that is that it could be insider information (or, at least, it isn't obviously not insider information, the way info about the serial numbers from iPhones that anyone could buy is public information).

The gist I've read in the past is that basically as long as it's not obtained illegally (e.g. breaking in and stealing) and there's no benefit to the person providing the information, it's not insider trading.

Matt Levine writes on the topic pretty regularly. Here's an example with a number of interesting situations.

www.businesslive.co.za/amp/rdm/business/2018-02-01-matt-levine-the-fine-line-between-insider-trading-and-knowing-more-than-others/

"pork bellies..."

This is famously the Eddie Murphy rule - it was a crime to steal the briefcase, but not to trade on the knowledge gained from the contents of said briefcase.

iirc 'Trading Places' is on netflix, and Planet Money[0] did an entertaining episode about this.

[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/07/09/200401407/epis...

That would be a good way to donate to charity. Just feed info about your corporate overlord to a philanthropic trader.

I've never thought about that before, but it would certainly make for an interesting news story!

"Meals on Wheels is accused of receiving insider information about big market movements from dozens of investment bankers. The Meals on Wheels endowment has seen 10x growth in the past 18 months. It looks like the group they provide for will be fed forever, even if we went through another Great Depression-level financial catastrophe. Should they be allowed to keep these funds? It certainly looks bad for the government to fine them hundreds of millions of dollars with the recent cuts in government-provided social programs."

I wonder if the contract with the firm is setup so that the information they gather is public, if anyone can find the application in the back of the drawer in the basement if you show up in person and request the form from the admin who is only there 2 hours a week.

For something to be insider trading, one of the people involved has to have breached their fiduciary responsibilities. Low-level employees typically don't have any fiduciary responsibilities to their company, so the firm that collects information from them is under no obligation to make it public.

I'm not a lawyer, but this definition can't possibly be correct, can it? If you're a janitor and you come across a piece of paper or a conversation between bigwigs discussing a merger and sell it to a trader, the trader and the janitor can surely both be sent up the river for insider trading, right?