Greensill lobbying scandal: More than 100 government phones wiped after users entered wrong PINs
More than 100 government-issued mobile phones had all their data wiped last year after their users entered the wrong PIN.
The Treasury’s IT desk managed to reset 117 of its approximately 2,100 mobile phones in 2020 – including the device belonging to the department’s boss – a response to a Freedom of Information request from the PA news agency revealed.
Texts sent from the phones involved are likely to have been lost.
Messages lost include those sent between the Treasury’s permanent secretary Tom Scholar and former prime minister David Cameron
They include correspondence between the Treasury’s permanent secretary Tom Scholar and former prime minister David Cameron over the Greensill lobbying scandal.
MPs have called for these messages to be released.
Mr Cameron had contacted Treasury officials to ask them to allow the company Greensill Capital, which has since collapsed, to be included in one of the government’s coronavirus loan schemes.
MPs have said publishing the texts is in the “public interest”.
But Mr Scholar has maintained that he is unable to disclose the content of his messages to Mr Cameron, due to his phone having been wiped and questions continue to be raised.
“At the beginning of June last year, (the phone) had to be reset because, under government security as applies to mobile phones, if the password is incorrectly entered more than a few times, the phone is locked, and the only way to unlock it is to reset it,” Mr Scholar told a hearing of the Treasury select committee.
Reports have suggested that Matt Hancock used a private email for government business
He added: “Resetting it means that the data on it is lost. I knew that when it happened last June, and I am certainly not the only person to whom that has happened.”
Users of government phones are required to change their passwords frequently, however the Treasury has not confirmed how often these changes are required.
The government has recently come under increased scrutiny over its transparency procedures, with the Good Law Project last week announcing that it would take legal action over ministers’ use of private email addresses and WhatsApp accounts to do government work.
In the wake of former health secretary Matt Hancock’s resignation following his breaking of COVID rules with an aide, it had been reported that he and health minister Lord Bethell had used private email accounts to conduct government business.
The Sunday Times reported that Lord Bethell used personal emails to sponsor a parliamentary pass for Mr Hancock’s lover Gina Coladangelo between April and October last year.
Labour has called for an investigation into the matter.
The legal duel between the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Kraken, a leading cryptocurrency exchange, looks like another misguided attempt by the SEC to exert control over an industry that fundamentally challenges an outdated regulatory playbook. The agency’s lawsuit, filed in November, accuses Kraken of operating as an unregistered securities exchange.
The lawsuit isn’t just a repeat of the SEC’s past failures. It’s also a glaring example of regulatory overreach that fails to grasp the essence of cryptocurrency. It mirrors the agency’s actions against Coinbase, which mark a pattern of aggressive regulation that is both ineffectual and counterproductive. In its case against Coinbase, the SEC allegations similarly involved operating as an unregistered securities exchange. The approach fundamentally misunderstands the nature of cryptocurrency exchanges.
The lawsuit isn’t just a repeat of the SEC’s past failures. It’s also a glaring example of regulatory overreach that fails to grasp the essence of cryptocurrency. It mirrors the agency’s actions against Coinbase, which mark a pattern of aggressive regulation that is both ineffectual and counterproductive. In its case against Coinbase, the SEC allegations similarly involved operating as an unregistered securities exchange. The approach fundamentally misunderstands the nature of cryptocurrency exchanges.
Unlike traditional securities exchanges, platforms like Kraken offer a diverse range of digital assets that do not fit neatly into the securities framework. This misclassification by the SEC reveals a lack of understanding of the unique characteristics of cryptocurrencies, which function as decentralized assets, often with utility or currency-like features rather than conventional securities.
Related: Expect some crypto companies to fail in the wake of Bitcoin’s halving
One of the most striking issues is the absence of technological neutrality — the principle that regulatory frameworks should apply equally to all forms of technology, without favoring or penalizing any particular one. By forcing cryptocurrencies into the traditional securities mold, the SEC is not only misapplying laws but also showing a clear bias against digital assets. This lack of neutrality not only hinders innovation but also unfairly targets platforms that are striving to work within the regulatory landscape.
The aggressive stance of the SEC risks driving innovation and business away from the U.S. to more crypto-friendly jurisdictions. This phenomenon, known as regulatory arbitrage, could result in the U.S. losing its position as a leader in technological innovation. The crypto industry is global, and excessive regulation in one country simply pushes businesses to relocate, taking their economic benefits and innovations with them.
Related: 3 theses that will drive Ethereum and Bitcoin in the next bull market
The Kraken lawsuit is set to become another example of the SEC’s failure to successfully regulate the crypto industry, akin to the outcome of its actions against Coinbase. This repetitive cycle of aggressive and misinformed regulation is not only futile but also harmful to the credibility of the SEC. It sends a message that the regulatory body is more interested in flexing its regulatory muscle than in understanding and adapting to new technological paradigms.
The case isn’t just an isolated legal battle. It is indicative of a broader issue within the U.S. regulatory framework’s approach to cryptocurrencies. The SEC must move beyond its current, outdated tactics and engage with the crypto industry in a more informed and constructive manner. Regulation is necessary, but it must be reasonable, well-informed, and designed to foster innovation, not stifle it.
It looks the SEC is set for another resounding defeat, which will serve as one more reminder of the need for a new approach by regulators.
Daniele Servadei is the 20-year-old founder and CEO of Sellix, an Italian e-commerce platform that has processed more than $75 million in transactions for more than 2.3 million customers worldwide. He’s attending the University of Parma for a degree in computer science.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
Following his conviction on federal fraud charges on Nov. 2, former FTX CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried will not pursue any post-trial motions.
In a Dec. 1 letter to Judge Lewis Kaplan in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, lawyers representing Bankman-Fried said they had “decided not to file any post-trial motions” but reserved their rights to pursue claims on appeal. The filing was the latest following SBF’s conviction on Nov. 2 as he awaits sentencing on March 28.
It’s unclear whether prosecutors plan to move forward with Bankman-Fried’s second trial in March. The former FTX CEO’s indictment was split in order for him to face 7 counts in October and 5 charges in March, but following a guilty verdict in November, SBF could already be looking at decades behind bars.
Related: What’s next for the ‘crypto king’ Sam Bankman-Fried?
After the jury verdict was handed down, Bankman-Fried returned to the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center, where he is expected to remain until sentencing. On Nov. 30, crypto blogger Tiffany Fong interviewed a former mob enforcer, Gene Borrello, who reported on some of SBF’s experiences in jail. Borrello claimed another inmate attempted to extort the former FTX CEO.
Bankman-Fried was one of the first high-profile crypto executives to face criminal charges in the United States. Authorities arrested former Celsius CEO Alex Mashinsky in July, and at the time of publication, he remains free on bail until his September 2024 criminal trial. Changpeng Zhao, who stepped down as CEO and pleaded guilty to one felony charge as part of a settlement between U.S. officials and Binance, will be sentenced in February.
Magazine: Can you trust crypto exchanges after the collapse of FTX?
-
Sports1 year ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports8 months agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Environment6 months agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment9 months agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Technology2 years ago
Game consoles were once banned in China. Now Chinese developers want a slice of the $49 billion pie
-
Politics2 years ago
Have the last few wobbly weeks seen a turning point for Johnson as PM?
-
Business1 year agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway