←back to thread

Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

(twitter.com)
417 points mkmk | 3 comments | 21 Sep 23 15:58 UTC | HN request time: 1.163s | source
Show context
AlbertCory ◴[21 Sep 23 18:07 UTC] No.37601537[source]▶
In the Google Legal building, the department that dealt with acquisitions was behind a locked door. Most badges did not open it.
replies(5): >>37601594 #>>37601650 #>>37601723 #>>37603083 #>>37605733 #
maximinus_thrax ◴[21 Sep 23 23:14 UTC] No.37605733[source]▶
> a locked door.

That's not a very efficient way to stop information leaks. It's not like ones and zeroes are delivered through open doors..

It will work against Big Bad Wolves, especially if your house is made of bricks.

replies(1): >>37605849 #
AlbertCory ◴[21 Sep 23 23:27 UTC] No.37605849[source]▶
No, but people can walk by your desk and see what you're working on. Or look in the conference room and see what's on the whiteboard.

Not doing that would be Security Malpractice.

replies(1): >>37611464 #
1. BrandoElFollito ◴[22 Sep 23 13:02 UTC] No.37611464[source]▶
In an M&A you do not use the names of actual companies, but code names - exactly for that reason. There is just a very limited amount of documents that actually mention the target company (on both sides, and tt the lawyers')
replies(2): >>37613350 #>>37621084 #
2. AlbertCory ◴[22 Sep 23 15:30 UTC] No.37613350[source]▶
and yet it still leaks out. That's why we have gov't watchdogs watching the trading.
3. pierrefermat1 ◴[23 Sep 23 06:38 UTC] No.37621084[source]▶
If there's anything on the whiteboard it's extremely easy to snap a pic and infer from context on what company it actually is.

But yes all these steps should be necessary to minimize risks.