Where's the outrage ?
Why aren't US lawmakers probing ? Why isn't the public demanding to know what's been going on, and how could this have been allowed to happen ? And why aren't officials over at US regulator the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) apologizing, and making public assurances that something similar just couldn't reoccur ?
Yes, I'm talking about that incredible case of an SEC supervisor who was able to spend hours attempting to access pornographic websites when he should've been working. The supervisor spent so much time surfing the net, that he ended up with a backlog of work that he was forced to take home to do. And then he tried to blame the stress caused by working in the evening for his compulsive need to access porn in the office! You work it out. Doesn't this outrageous episode just give a whole new meaning to the idea of a government securities 'watchdog'!?
And what chance has the SEC got of using technology to catch insider traders and their like, when its internal IT system took 17 days to catch one of its own staff attempting to access websites like the imaginatively named wwwladyboyx.com ?
It's just incredible to me that the unidentified SEC supervisor, who had seemingly made no serious attempt to hide what he was doing (aside from guiltily closing his browser if someone happened to walk passed his office), could make 1,880 attempts to access these websites before the agency's internet police cottoned on to him. No wonder the likes of Harry Markopolos found it difficult to bring Bernie to justice!
If you work in a bank, or a financial institution, you understand full well that you'd be feeling the wrath of your IT (big) brothers within hours of trying to do anything remotely similar, and yet the agency that polices the industry doesn't appear to have been able to quickly uncover rule-breaking when it was literally taking place under its very nose.
Then there was the emotive issue of child pornography to deal with. Understandably concerned that one of its own might have used government property to view illegal images, the SEC inspector used all the sophisticated tools at his disposal to try and uncover whether this eventuality had occurred - yes, the inspector rather delicately had to ask the supervisor whether he had viewed this kind of material (seemingly not knowing the answer himself beforehand). Sound familiar ? Yep, just like SEC personnel allegedly asked Bernie Madoff if he was guilty of wrongdoing years before he confessed, and took his word for it that he wasn't! You couldn't make this stuff up!
And can you imagine the uproar that would've occurred if this incident had taken place at a bailed-out bank, rather than a market regulator ? So, why isn't all hell breaking loose now ?
We would like to point out that the SEC supervisor denied ever accessing any child pornography.