5 ms·
AFAIK you are allowed to use any channel as long as you preserve records of the conversation. However, meeting the standards for preservation is quite difficult
by polygamous_bat 3y ago
AFAIK you are allowed to use any channel as long as you preserve records of the conversation. However, meeting the standards for preservation is quite difficult, which is why employees of financial institutions are generally told not to communicate outside person-to-person, or channels vetted by their company (and lawyers thereof).
- pipo234 3y agoThanks! That makes a lot of sense.
- SilasX 3y agoSo ... you aren't obligated to preserve records of the conversation if the channel is "in person", then.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- TimTheTinker 3y agoRight - or if it's over the phone.
- xhkkffbf 3y agoWhat if I dictate into my phone and What's App sends it as text? Purely to save bandwidth of course.
- pasc1878 3y agoThat is one of the things that the banks are being fined for.
- freetanga 3y agoI um unsure about current status in the States, but in Europe all conversations with a client over the phone where you might discuss commercial terms need to be recorded. Banks just cover their backs, and for customer facing positions all phone calls, no matter if through landlines (or IP telephony) or cell are recorded, either by the PBX software or by the carrier. Employees are reminded not to use these lines for personal reasons (imagine an employee using the phone line to discuss their health with their doctor, and the employer just recorded extremely sensitive information from an employee), but the alternative means a strong fine from the regulators (usually the local AML authority).
- freetanga 3y agoMostly not. But many interactions such as a Risk and Audit Committee are required to have minutes and signed by all participants. This is usually for all sessions which shape and oversee key policies such as Risk, AML, Audit, etc…
- Sunspark 3y agoSuch a waste of time trying intently to regulate and control communication. People will just get a second private device that is not managed by the organization, and if there is a mutually beneficial advantage to doing so, the other party will do the same as well. This has been going on forever, I remember when they kicked up a huge fuss when they found out that people were doing direct pin-to-pin messages on the blackberry (was not logged for boss to read at the time).
- fidotron 3y agoIsn't this an argument that doing anything that is illegal but beneficial to the conspirators should be left alone? If it were totally allowed and widespread how would there be any pretence of fairness in the markets? Of course you could say that at least then people would be appreciating the reality of the situation . . .
- edmundsauto 3y agoIt’s actually a bit of a trap - if you are caught using secondary devices, it speaks to intent. Similarly, when you deposit money at a bank and they ask you to certify these are not proceeds of a crime: they aren’t expecting to catch people at that step. But if they catch you later, boom you defrauded a bank by lying and have additional charges.
- ghostpepper 3y agoHow is this different from having laws on the books that ensure all citizens are breaking the law at any given time? Doesn't feel like how laws are meant to be used
- edmundsauto 3y agoBecause it applies to certain regulated industries and people who work in those industries. It’s not wide ranging.
- Sunspark 3y agoIt's not illegal to own a personal device, it's also not illegal to be friends with your coworkers if you trust them. There is no "intent" here. What you are describing is an organized criminal conspiracy which is illegal no matter what device or system you're using. What I am talking about here is whether the employer should get to listen in to all your calls and read all your emails and text messages. Why do you think they like BYOD so much? Because they can get a window into your personal life, what apps you have installed, etc.
- veave 3y agoIt's a bit weird that even though they can communicate person-to-person, where records won't be kept, they are supposed to keep records of electronic communication.
- joosters 3y agoNot really. How on earth could that ever be implemented?
- loeg 3y agoIn person conversations could be required to be recorded with a portable voice recording device (like a tape deck or phone). Same for phone calls. The regulatory authorities exempt those communications for now, but it isn't clear that there is any kind of consistent standard / reasoning.
- polygamous_bat 3y agoWell, it's incredibly hard to scale fraud only through person-to-person communications. It's not impossible, but think about the scale that online communication would allow.
- misja111 3y agoThis has nothing to do with scaling. How do you picture that, some employee would broadcast sensitive information to a WhatsApp group, in order to reach as many others as possible at once? The offense here is that no effort was done to keep records of the communication. It would have been ok to use WhatsApp if they somehow would have archived all communications. Records of communications have to be kept so that auditors can verify that no inside trading secrets were communicated to others, for instance.
- bonestamp2 3y agoNow I understand why some of the banks wanted people back in the office as soon as possible. Trying to support their commercial real estate bags is likely another.
- dundarious 3y agoAlso, compliance teams want live or near-live access, and do run dynamic filters on that live content. I can’t imagine a non-criminal* compliance team accepting a solution that is T+1 or that depends on manual action from the employee. * I’m barely using hyperbole