Declan McCullagh wrote: > This is an interesting case, but it's not as if Citigroup is trying > to stifle academic research for the sake of stifling academic research -- > the Cambridge folks were retained as (presumably paid) defense experts > in the case. This is not to defend the prospect of a gag order, of course -- > all that I'm saying is that they ran no risk of gagging until after they > volunteered to be experts, as I understand it.
What I find odd about this case, is that previously published work done independently of the court case can be gagged from further dissemination if one recites it in court as an expert witness. Is this some fluke of UK law? I can't imagine such a thing happening here in the US. Once the cat is out of the bag, it's out. > The other interesting thing to note is why Citigroup permitted one > card to make $80K of withdrawals from one account (which was allegedly > closed at the time anyway) in a weekend. The answer seems to be almost > certainly a malicious insider in their South African franchise. This is pretty common. There are times when bank computers are unable to access customer accounts, and rather than incur customer badwill, banks will let ATM transactions go through. The risk is small, since most people will be honest, and they really don't know when these small windows of unlimited withdrawal occur. I remember some guy in Oregon a few years back, who ran around and emptied ATMs of $350k during such an event. Of course he was dumb and got caught, and the bank got their money back. So large withdrawals in and of themselves, on overlimit or cancelled cards, are not a priori proof of insider shenanigans, although in this case, that's probably what happened. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
