Reading Comprehension
Verbal Ability

 Back to Questions

Common Information

Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the group's reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFT's compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFT's decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.

Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Department's requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFT's involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the government's use of data breached some parts of international law.

Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the government's subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the government's subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.

While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFT's decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?


Common Information Question: 4/7

According to the passage, each of the following describes SWIFT EXCEPT:


Had data stored in Virginia


Valued confidentiality and non-disclosure


Routes trillions of dollars a day


Composed of a consortium of banks


After over a month of deliberation, complied with the government's subpoena

 Hide Ans

Option(E) is correct

A. The third paragraph states that "SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia"

B. The second paragraph states that "SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust" 

C. The first paragraph states: "SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced..."

D. The first paragraph describes the "SWIFT banking consortium" 

E. The text provides no information about SWIFT's deliberation process or the amount of time that elapsed before it cooperated. The text does not even mention the date that SWIFT decided to cooperate.

(0) Comment(s)