If regulation is futile because those being regulated know more than the regulators, what does that say about IT standards? Okay, I have no business doing this, but I have to. Call it a compulsion.This week’s Economist has yet another repetition of the old saw about regulation being futile, because “financiers know more than regulators.”I’ve heard this said so often I keep thinking there’s something behind it beyond assertion. So to test it I substituted some different professions: Building codes are futile because engineers know more than regulators.HIPAA is futile because doctors know more than regulators.These are even legitimate: Unlike financiers, who have hardly proven themselves to be geniuses recently, engineers really are very smart people. So are doctors. Isn’t this fun? Let’s bring you into the picture:IT standards are futile, at least as applied to professional departments, because they know more than you.It got me wondering about the difference. Seems to me engineers don’t try to outsmart building codes because they understand the reason for having them: They prevent deaths. Doctors don’t try to outsmart HIPAA because really, what would be the point? It’s a useful law that does its best to facilitate the rapid exchange of medical data while preserving patient privacy.Most employees, most of the time, work within IT’s standards so long as IT’s standards aren’t overly restrictive and are well-explained.So why would financiers try to outwit financial regulations? The underlying assumption must be that they have no interest in preserving the underlying health of the system within which they operate, so long as they can pocket enough cash before things fall apart.Maybe not, but it sure looks that way, doesn’t it?To be fair to the Economist, it does advocate some regulation. More than in the past to be sure, but not very much, and the tone is grudging. Not to mention insulting to the regulators.– Bob Technology Industry