83,240
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|systems|{{image|bad apple|jpg|}}}}{{dpn|/bæd ˈæpl/|n|}}One of those mischievous human imps occupying unobserved crevices in the great steampunk machine who, by their human frailty, ruin the best-laid plans of the machines. | {{a|systems|{{image|bad apple|jpg|}}}}{{dpn|/bæd ˈæpl/|n|}}One of those mischievous human imps occupying unobserved crevices in the great steampunk machine who, by their human frailty, ruin the best-laid plans of the machines. | ||
On the conventional wisdom, [[bad apple]]s are the sole remaining fly in the ointment separating us from the sunlit uplands of [[financial services utopia]] that our patient labours have earned. Once the last bad apple has been rooted out all will be well in perpetuity. | On the conventional wisdom, [[bad apple]]s are the sole remaining fly in the ointment separating us from the sunlit uplands of [[financial services utopia]] that our patient labours by now have surely earned. Once the last bad apple has been rooted out all will be well in perpetuity. | ||
It’s not clear what we’ll all then ''do'', but this is but a quibble. | It’s not clear what we’ll all then ''do'', but this is but a quibble. | ||
The JC ponders human nature | The JC ponders human nature a lot, as you know. He wonders whether we should be quite so credulous. Is not the barrel of bad apples bottomless? Aren’t ''bad apples just gonna be bad''? | ||
Would we not be better worrying less about ''curing'' humans of their nature, and more about ''neutralising'' its unwanted effects? | |||
For there will ''always'' be bad apples, and they will always seek out, find and exploit [[Zero-day vulnerability|zero-day flaws]] in the system. We should expect this, because it is in their — ''our'' —nature. what ''which is [[Air crashes v financial crashes|This is what bad apples do]]''. | |||
Bad apples will find [[Zero-day vulnerability|zero-day vulnerabilities]] exactly where the system least expects them, and is therefore paying least attention: ostensibly harmless, sleepy backwaters. [[LIBOR]] submissions. [[Enron|The accounting department]]. The [[Kweku Abodoli|Delta-one index swaps desk]]. In a [[Archegos|family office]]. | Bad apples will find [[Zero-day vulnerability|zero-day vulnerabilities]] exactly where the system least expects them, and is therefore paying least attention: ostensibly harmless, sleepy backwaters. [[LIBOR]] submissions. [[Enron|The accounting department]]. The [[Kweku Abodoli|Delta-one index swaps desk]]. In a [[Archegos|family office]]. | ||
The question is not where are all the bad apples as much as where are all the zero-day vulnerabilities they will surely exploit? | |||
And the more byzantine, multi-dimensional, formalised, technology-overlaid and ''complex'' our system becomes, the more vulnerabilities it will have, and the harder it will be to find them, should they start playing up. | |||
Leaving it to “the system” to detect and destroy bad apples — by policy attestation, outsourced compliance personnel in Manila reading from [[playbook]], “[[Chatbot|A.I.-powered]]” software applications — is the Bond villain’s way of despatching an enemy: you tie it up and leave it unattended while a nasty-looking, but plainly fallible, clockwork machine counts down from a thousand. | |||
In the meantime these elaborate risk control systems tend to snare peaceable, but ignorant, citizens as they go about their quotidian day, while the bad apples, wise to the ways of the world, have already worked out the flaws and work-arounds. | |||
===How to spot a bad apple=== | ===How to spot a bad apple=== | ||
The regrettable thing about bad apples is | The regrettable thing about bad apples is this: they have a habit of looking like boring functionaries, or even the good guys, right up to the moment that they don’t. | ||
Before you know it’s a bad apple, a ''good'' bad apple doesn’t ''look'' like a bad apple. ''Bad'' bad apples ''look like'' bad apples, so they quickly get rooted out by good apples. Even a bad good apple can spot a bad bad apple. | |||
But ''good'' bad apples: well, [[Q.E.D.]], no-one ''believes'' they are bad apples. That’s what’s so ''good'' about them. | |||
Hence, our controversial proposal: A bad apple that doesn’t ''look'' like a bad apple ''isn’t a bad apple''. | |||
So it seems to us it won’t really do to say we must be better at spotting bad apples — thereby spreading by association the stigma of bad appledom on those mediocre apples who failed to spot them. ''Why'' did they not notice perfidy going on around them? Are they on commonly stupid, or or have their bad apple detectors somehow been disarmed? | |||
Might they have been disarmed by ''process''? To test this hypothesis consider what happens to those within our formalistic system who ''do'' call out bad apples. People like Bethany MacLean, Harry Markopolos, Erin Arvedlund, Dan McCrum, and that junior credit officer at Credit Suisse who said, of Archegos, “I need to understand purpose of having daily termination rights ... if client is not amenable to us using those rights.” | |||
These people are regarded, before the fact, as bad apples. Not ''bad'' bad apples,<ref>Though Dan McCrum was subject to a criminal investigation, so he might feel differently about that.</ref> but ''impertinent'': irritants; turbulent priests the place would be better off without. Meanwhile the real bad apples carried on with their heroic poses — [[Bernie Madoff|NASDAQ chairmen]], [[Barings Bank|Bank chairmen]], [[Enron Corporation|visionary innovators]], [[Kweku Abodoli|star traders]]. They only started to look like bad apples ''after'' it. | |||
===Before and after fact: a play in two acts=== | ===Before and after fact: a play in two acts=== | ||
Quiz time: taking the information supplied about who everyone thought was the hero, or bad apple, ''before'' a celebrated financial markets catastrophe, fill in who you think it might have turned out to be ''after'' the event. | Quiz time: taking the information supplied about who everyone thought was the hero, or bad apple, ''before'' a celebrated financial markets catastrophe, fill in who you think it might have turned out to be ''after'' the event. | ||
Line 54: | Line 58: | ||
The [[JC]]’s view: the “bad apple” concept is not a good one if the virtue of one’s applehood is ''only'' ''apparent in hindsight''. | The [[JC]]’s view: the “bad apple” concept is not a good one if the virtue of one’s applehood is ''only'' ''apparent in hindsight''. | ||
{{sa}} | |||
=== What to do === | |||
All of this hindsight-coloured hand-wringing is good sport, but what to do about it?{{sa}} | |||
*[[Human error]] | *[[Human error]] | ||
*{{fieldguide}} | *{{fieldguide}} | ||
*[[Rumours of our demise are greatly exaggerated]] | *[[Rumours of our demise are greatly exaggerated]] |