A coalition of banking industry associations, including SIFA, the American Bankers Association (ABA), and Bank Policy Institute (BPI), have written to the SEC urging them to scrap the rule requiring public disclosure of significant cybersecurity incidents within four days of detection. This regulation was put in place to ensure that shareholders stay informed and potential victims have the chance to protect themselves.
The lobbyists have concocted six flimsy reasons for their request that, upon inspection, all seem rather hollow.
Key Points
- The appeal argues that quick disclosure compromises national cybersecurity efforts; however, it actually aids investor awareness without harming infrastructure.
- Claims that reporting interferes with investigations are misguided; victims and attackers know of the breach already, leaving the public in the dark.
- It is suggested that the rule causes market confusion, but the guidance for reporting is clear and straightforward.
- Concerns about disclosures being weaponised by attackers are unfounded; accountability is essential, not avoidance of regulatory compliance.
- Speculations regarding premature disclosures affecting insurance are unsubstantiated; the ongoing situation is assessed based on confirmed details.
- The argument that public disclosure hinders internal communication is weak; transparency spurs discussion where it is needed most.
Why should I read this?
If you’re invested in the world of finance—or even if you just care about keeping your data secure—this article shines a light on a critical transparency issue in cybersecurity. It’s a must-read for those who value accountability and want to understand how the banking sector might be trying to skirt responsibility at the potential cost of public safety and trust. Don’t let the suits get away with this one!