« | Home | »

On the Euphemism Treadmill

Tags:

The consulting firm Ernst & Young, in collaboration with the FBI, has developed software that scans office emails – as well as text messages and IM conversations on company devices – for phrases that may indicate underlings are up to no good. It has released a list of the most popular terms used by conspirators in corporate fraud, including ‘do not volunteer information’ and ‘nobody will find out’.

The publication of the blacklist is likely to be nothing but helpful to future fraudsters (as well as Ernst & Young), since they now know what not to say. They might already have suspected that warning a colleague in an email ‘don’t leave a trail’ could be counterproductive. But now would-be scammers also know to avoid such terms as ‘friendly payments’, ‘write off’ and ‘failed investment’.

The effect, in other words, will be to speed up the ‘euphemism treadmill’. Euphemisms usually come with a sell-by date, after which everyone sees through their rhetorical misdirection and they need to be replaced. No one is fooled any longer by the Boer War coinage ‘concentration camp’. And J.K. Galbraith pointed out half a century ago that, in the vocabulary of financial shock, the term ‘depression’ was introduced as a euphemism for ‘crisis’, until ‘depression’ came to be considered too depressing and made way for ‘recession’.

In some cases, employees engaged in nefarious activities simply need to learn to use euphemisms in the first place, rather than such incriminatingly direct language as ‘not ethical’. They could learn a thing or two from their bosses, who have over the years developed an impressive range of circumlocutions for the practice of job destruction: ‘downsizing’, ‘rationalization’, job ‘losses’, ‘letting go’ and so on.

The most unnerving detail in the report is that the expressions ‘Call my mobile’ and ‘come by my office’ will raise red alerts in the system, since they signify a desire to communicate ‘out of band’, leaving no electronic trail. In the new corporate panopticon of perfect ‘compliance’, even wanting to speak face-to-face with a colleague will brand you a potential troublemaker. Better to sit tight at your keyboard, keep your head down, and leaf slowly through a thesaurus.

Comments on “On the Euphemism Treadmill”

  1. streetsj says:

    The electronic nose can be updated “in real time” so that as soon as a neo-euphemism is understandable it can be added to the suspect vocabulary list.
    I see the opportunity for some serious cockups as traders, attempting to disguise their intentions from compliance, only confuse each other about what they really meant.

  2. klhoughton says:

    If that’s the list, fraudsters are even stupider than they are often portrayed.

    Then again, what does it say about enforcement mechanisms that so few are being prosecuted even as they use such terms in emails and IMs they know are subject to retention and review?

    We certainly knew that we (to borrow a phrase from the previous Great Depression) lack 30 bankers; now it is clear we lack 15 prosecutors as well.

  3. Ande Rychter says:

    This is a solution to a fake problem. The search for real corporate fraud should concentrate on the head office, not on the cube of the underling. Ernst & Young will of course work on any problem, no matter how silly, the corporate folly is willing to pay for.

  4. loxhore says:

    Don’t forget ‘restructuring’!

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement