Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmourati | Hacker News Reader

Documents left on a taxi seat can be characterized as mislaid. That is, the paper was intentionally put on the seat and forgotten.

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=117...

Confidentiality is a an agreement between parties not to disclose information to a third party.

You are now talking about the unintended disclosure of confidential information.

Since you are not a party to the confidentiality agreement, it is impossible to enforce against you.

As far as insider trader, I don't suspect a random person who stumbled upon such data lawfully could be found guilty of any crime for using it.

Moving from an absolutely legal treatment of the problem to an ethical/moral one. What you want to happen if you were the owner of those documents?

Something to consider.

View on HN

> As far as insider trader, I don't suspect a random person who stumbled upon such data lawfully could be found guilty of any crime for using it.

That sounds like terrible advice to me. See this for example: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/100803.asp

> Oftentimes, people accused of the crime claim that they just overheard someone talking. Take for example a neighbor who overhears a conversation between a CEO and her husband regarding confidential corporate information. If the neighbor then goes ahead and makes a trade based on what was overheard, he or she would be violating the law even though the information was just "innocently" overheard: the neighbor becomes an insider with a fiduciary duty and obligation to confidentiality the moment he or she comes to possess the nonpublic material information. Since, however, the CEO and her husband did not try to profit from their insider knowledge, they are not necessarily liable of insider trading. In their carelessness, they may, however, be in breach of their confidentiality.

Please explain how anything in your link classifies this as insider trading. My interpretation is that finding information in a taxi means I am not a corporate insider, therefore I could not be guilty of insider trading.

Note, I agree with the currently most upvoted comment that you should see a lawyer. If you wouldn't make enough money by trading on this information to make seeing a lawyer worth it, then it isn't worth taking the risk of making the trade.

that's a poorly written article that, for one, lacks citations. i think the point they're making with the excerpted text is that your "claim" that you merely overheard a conversation is going to be tested and could very likely fail if you have a pre-existing relationship with the tipper.

I don't think you read that article closely enough, nor my comment for that matter.

Consider this, how would the fact that you took a random ride in the same cab as the "tipper" ever be established? In other words, what would be the basis of the insider information allegation? How would they ever know?

If it were worth the trouble: cell phone location records, taxi credit card transaction records, or taxi dispatcher records.

Let's say OP discovered a sure-fire way to make money with his located documents and the info they contain. He puts together all the money he can, puts it all into play, and wins huge. What starts the SEC or anyone for that matter into looking at him as an insider? When they do start looking, what ties him to the the taxi at all?

They wouldn't know, but it wouldn't be legal.

the neighbor becomes an insider with a fiduciary duty

Wow, that's the stupidest thing I've read all day. Is all of investopedia this broken?

No, they are correct. If you trade based on non-public information, you are guilty of insider-trading.

How do you reconcile this sweeping statement with SEC v. Switzer?

Like holding a monopoly, "insider trading" is not automatically a crime. Some specific conditions have to be met.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com