The CAS directory doesn’t list PhD’s, but he’s listed there with a title of “Dr” and credentials: ACAS.
I didn’t get the first two emails and thought the third seemed reasonable enough. Then I went to Bob Daino’s website…
If I recall the first two emails were pretty short. The issue was that he spammed the entire CAS directory and the content on his website.
1 Like
Given the discussion here, I took another look through the Code of Conduct with an eye towards whether the election email spam would constitute a breach of the Code (thereby creating a Precept 13 obligation to report…or at least “inform” the ABCD).
I’m curious – while the spam is unwanted, the CAS website TOS potentially violated, and the associated website distasteful…what provisions of the Code were violated?
Precept 1, maybe (“An Actuary shall act…in a manner to…uphold the reputation of the actuarial profession”). But is it really detrimental to the profession to have a disagreeable website?
Precept 10 (courtesy and cooperation) is tempting, but the Code only invokes Actuarial Services (“an Actuary shall perform Actuarial Services with courtesy and professional respect…”)
I need to ponder this more (tracking the time of such pondering, of course, as potential Professionalism CE.)
2 Likes
Yeah, while I think they have brought shame on themselves, I don’t think anything they’ve done really reflects badly on the actuarial profession. Surely every profession has a few racist dinosaurs knocking around in it? And however they got the email list, I don’t think “violating the TOS of a website” is the kind of crime that embarrasses a profession, either.
If someone on the ABCD wants to look into it, I’m sure they got those emails, too. But I don’t feel that you or I have a clear duty to report it to anyone.
2 Likes
I think it actually does look a little bad for the profession (maybe not materially so?)…but I’m not certain that this is something I’d want ABCD action on. If we start penalizing people for expressing opinions that simply “look bad”…there’s a slippery slope concern.
Discussion of this would make for an interesting professionalism session at a suitable seminar.
1 Like
That’s where I’ve landed. I’m hanging my hat on the word “material” in Precept 13.
I just wanted to point out to those who do view this as a material violation of the Code, Precept 13 has some obligations, like considering discussing the matter with the alleged violators and/or notifying the ABCD.
There’s no obligation to inform their employer(s), but that’s not strictly prohibited, either.
How does one extract the directory email list? Asking for a friend.
VBA is a wonderful tool to abuse. (Kidding!)
1 Like
How many people outside the profession are even aware of this? That may be one measure of materiality for the profession’s reputation.
True.
I just tried some random generic searches that a non-actuary might use to find out about the profession, and the screed didn’t pop up (but Google may be smart enough to shield such from me).
It got some play on Reddit, but I’m not certain that really counts.
Two of them work for consulting firms I’ve never heard of. My guess is that they are either the sole proprietors of their “employer”, or work for very small firms, and everyone else at their firms knows of their opinions.
Except Ira Robbin, who probably has tenure and so is probably protected to say objectionable things in public.
If it’s only in r/actuary, that’s not too different from this thread imo.
I’ve heard of one the consulting firms. I think I’ve seen them sign some SAOs for some companies reserve statements.
Okay, given the actuarial directory is owned by the SOA, it makes sense we have scantier details for non-SOA members.
I wish I remember the name of the prof I took probabilistic modeling from in undergrad. I think he was an ACAS, just thinking about the examples he gave us to simulate.
It is not difficult to scrape these directories, as they’re not very big. That’s how Riley made the actuarial map back in the day, which the SOA then took over (when you own the database, it’s even easier to create data products out of it). I don’t know about the CAS directory, but the SOA one has a cap of 300 search results per query, and even if they lowered that cap, it wouldn’t be difficult to get everything. We’re a profession only in the tens of thousands of people.
That said, I would be very happy if we could get it explicitly agreed upon that nobody is to spam the actuarial directories. Yes, that’s in the TOS, but if there are no repercussions for breaking the TOS, then you don’t have a real restriction.
TIL…
I’d be careful about a “don’t spam the members” requirement.
Yes, there should be an obligation to not spam, but when it comes to things like CAS bylaw changes, there ought to be a mechanism for folks moved to comment on them to communicate views different from those coming through official CAS channels to the membership.
Maybe there is one such already. I actually would assume there is; if so, perhaps it needs to be a little easier to find.
2 Likes
Doubtful that Robbin has tenure - his LinkedIn profile says “Assistant Professor” and he’s been there less than 2 years.
2 Likes
Just got another spam message from Ira.
In addition to complaining about being ignored by the CAS, he writes:
Second, we are planning a section of the website for CAS members only. The website has anonymous guests because so many have told us they fear losing their jobs. But some anonymous guests post every kind of thing you can imagine. We don’t even know if they are actuaries.
To have access to the CAS member area we are creating, you will need to send us two email addresses - the email address you have on the CAS Public Domain Directory to confirm you can join, and a second email address if you want a different email for the new CAS member-only area. Also, tell us the name we should use, or no name if you want to post anonymously. You will be anonymous to the readers if you wish, but the three of us will know who is posting - to keep the site from abuse. We’ll get immediate push back from the opposition for saying that, but you will have to judge whether you can trust us to keep you anonymous. We pledge anonymity to you. It is your choice to trust us.