|
June 21, 2011, 12:17:36 AM |
|
If it was just a standard financial auditor so they could properly operate in the United states, then why wouldn't they just say so? It would obviously need to be a full government accredited company/individual.
The fact they have "secrecy" clauses with this auditor (exact quote from the interview was something along the lines of we have an agreement about their anonymity?), and give them full access to all users info such as emails and hashed passowrds etc can only mean one thing in my eyes. The auditor has to be the IRS or homeland security.
It would make sense that they would want to be able to track "terrorist" funding efforts etc. I would wager they threatened this unfettered access as a condition of letting them continue operating in the United States.
There is no way it is just a third party "accountant" or auditor, otherwise they would love to publicize such a thing as it gives them alot of credibility as a financial institution. (Also they wouldnt give them personal info, only transaction info)
Can anyone give me any examples of why you would ever want an auditor at all if you can't tell people about it to improve trust / credibility in your company?
|