the compliance compliance test

Suppose you go into a shop and don't steal something.  Do you consider this an act of compliance?  Probably not.  It would be wrong to steal something, and there's some rules in place about that, and something to enforce that.  You didn't break the rule.  But this wasn't as a result of an effort around a notion of compliance.  The sign "shoplifters will be prosecuted" is nice and direct.  It states the transgression and the consequence.  What if it said "non-compliers will be prosecuted".  You might wonder: non-compliers with what?  If it means non-compliers with the laws against stealing, one might wonder why it doesn't just say so.  How about "compliers and non-compliers alike will be subject to ongoing compliance monitoring and compliance enforcement by our compliance team", to mean the same thing? 

The compliance compliance test might be something like: if the focus is on the act of compliance itself, rather than the actual rule(s) being enforced, then something is out of whack, and there is probably authoritarian overreach.

Skiers in Austria this season had to endure a calm, soothing, male voice, telling everyone at the lifts, in english and german, to obey all instructions given to them.  Not what the rules are, but to obey.

Even the anti money-naughty-things (laundering, terrorist financing, etc etc etc) framework bodies have cautioned against firms putting compliance, per se, as the goal.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

the persistent idiocy of "privileged ports" on Unix

google is giving more and more 500 errors

7 minute workout: a straightforward audio recording (and two broken google web sites)