Research consultant John Kinnucan chose not to comply with FBI agents who reportedly requested that he secretly tape record his conversations with colleagues and clients.  NYTimes Dealbook provided Mr. Kinnucan with his own Web space to explain "why I chose not to wear a wire."   Mr. Kinnucan is a principal at Broadband Research in Portland, OR.  Read his account below, or click onto the posting, which includes posted comments:  [NYT Dealbook, 11/29]

Many people seem truly astonished by my decision not to comply with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s request to wear a wiretap to record conversations with a client.  I have even been asked, “Why not just agree to wear the wire to show that no wrongdoing had occurred?”

Unfortunately, that requires assuming that I was asked nicely to cooperate. That was not the nature of the proposal I was offered. (And had I agreed, I have no doubt I would have been asked to record conversations with others as well.)

A surprise visit by the F.B.I. to your home — especially when your wife and two young children are due to arrive from school at any moment — is a shocking, terrifying experience. It makes me wonder whether they deliberately chose this time of maximum vulnerability.

The notion that I could have quietly resolved this “little misunderstanding” by going along with their program is not quite realistic. And in many people’s eyes, by agreeing to this request I would have been implicitly admitting to wrongdoing.

I had to decide between committing a wrong — agreeing to try to entrap someone whom, based on our mutual dealings, I believe to be innocent — or standing up to fight for what I believe is right. I chose the latter.

The type of research I provide to clients is pervasive in the financial community, the same kind of analysis provided not only by all investment banks, large and small, but by an ever-expanding group of research boutiques, virtually all larger than mine. It is an insanely competitive business, and grows more so every day.

Research providers are constantly struggling with the question of what constitutes appropriate information for our clients. Most of the picture here is gray, with a thin margin of black and white on either side.

In deciding the propriety of our inputs, we look for cues in the marketplace. If major banks, whose compliance departments are presumably staffed with former Securities and Exchange Commission lawyers, regularly publish industry data like iPhone build and Dell motherboard production changes, the rest of us can reasonably conclude that this must have regulators’ blessing. Otherwise, why would it have been allowed to proceed unchecked for years?

The evident intent of the Justice Department to retroactively criminalize what has been common practice for years — done by investment banks, research providers and mutual and hedge funds alike — seems like a profound miscarriage of justice.

The S.E.C.’s proper role is to provide guidance and rules to the investment community on what is considered appropriate behavior. If the agency is doing its job, it will take note of untoward activities and issue a cease-and-desist order. But here, the rule-making appears to be decided by the Justice Department.

My personal belief is that much of this activity is politically motivated, and will ultimately only delay the return of the confidence of Main Street and Wall Street in our country. Our economy won’t fully heal and return to solid growth so long as the political class maintains its vendetta against business interests in our country.

This, along with my firm belief that my clients and I have done nothing wrong, is why I have chosen to take a stand. It’s about fighting for what I believe should be fair dealings between individual citizens and their government.