Top financial services executives are generally supportive of the U.S. government's role in secretly monitoring banking and other financial transactions, without court order, through the international Swift network as part of counterterrorism efforts.
But a strain of discontent could be heard in the written responses provided by some participants to an online survey conducted Friday through Monday for American Banker by InsightExpress.
For bankers, the devil is in the details. One respondent wrote, "The issue here is not so much WHAT the government did, but HOW."
A majority of the 44 respondents said that the government's surveillance was appropriate and agreed that the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication and its member institutions should support the program.
However, when asked what generally is the "best role" for banks and financial industry executives to play in programs of this kind, respondents were not overly eager to work with the government.
Nearly 40% said banks and financial industry executives should actively resist these types of surveillance programs or participate only when compelled. About 7% said they should "volunteer eagerly," and 50% said they should "cooperate fully."
In response to an open-ended request for other thoughts, one respondent wrote, "We are bankers, not police." Other responses included:
- "Governments need to be able to fight terrorism and money laundering, and monitoring Swift messages could be a valuable tool. However, there needs to be specific rules for when they get access and how they protect information they find."
- "They want to make us guilty unless 100% compliant. But [a] good banker would not knowingly allow crime within his system."
- "I think whatever the government can do to obtain information that will increase its knowledge of terrorist activities and participants ... is the right and proper thing to do. I do not understand why so many people have a problem with this review. What do they have to hide?"
- "We are not the police, but we have access to a very valuable asset, and we should be able to assist when possible. Give us a break on [our] regulatory burden when possible, please."
- "Banks should not be compelled to provide customer information. Banks should not have to pay for the collection and distribution of customer information."
- "Privacy is a key customer consideration, and compromising privacy for purported 'national security' purposes needs to be a major top-management decision, not to be consented to lightly."
- "The issue here is not so much WHAT the government did, but HOW. If the global financial community and governments were to agree explicitly that all wire transfers should be open to examination, then this would not be an issue. However, that is not the case, and until it is, Swift and the government behaved inappropriately."
- "The problem is that there is not enough information available for anyone to really understand what is going on here. Too much posturing, not enough facts."
