4 ms·

Using WhatApp is not a "crime". There were no laws broken. This is just some regulators giving out fines because they can't spy on employee's private messages.

Using WhatApp is not a "crime". There were no laws broken. This is just some regulators giving out fines because they can't spy on employee's private messages. If bureaucrats were on my ass about something so stupid, I would be very pleased once the matter was resolved.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gmd63 3y ago
It's a rule that upon being broken allows the SEC to fine you, which is why they are paying a bunch of money. Are you saying that we should not be able to require banks of a certain size to keep records, so that the highway patrol officers of finance can economically pull you over when you're speeding? Or should we allow everyone to use fuzzbusters effectively making the law pointless?
- dahfizz 3y ago
  > Are you saying that we should not be able to require banks of a certain size to keep records No. I'm saying this is just some boring, annoying regulation, and your grandstanding about wanting people to feel bad about breaking laws is misguided.
  - Invictus0 3y ago
    No it isn't, the regulation is extremely important and helps keep the financial system following the law. The stakes are extremely high and monitoring records is the bare minimum we should be doing to protect ourselves from criminal financial actors. Every rule is written in blood. We recently saw guys fixing the LIBOR for a tray of leftover sushi. Thankfully we have records of that.
    - ahtihn 3y ago
      > Every rule is written in blood. Not really. This rule was written when the only form of written communication was paper mail and office memos. It wasn't written with instant messaging in mind.
      - pasc1878 3y ago
        True but the rules for bank traders do cover this. The rules cover all traders. In the 90s we had an IT contracter complaining the bank told him not to use a messaging app as the bank could not read it. The issue is the bank is at risk if communications were not recorded. At the time phones were already all recorded.
  - gmd63 3y ago
    You also claim there were no laws broken. That is a false assertion. We don't know if there were laws broken. The stakes of financial crime rise as the amount of money at play increases. Requiring big players to help us ensure that they are playing by the rules is a requisite for preventing larger SVB-like situations from festering.
mulmen 3y ago
I have never been in a situation where my private messages could have been read by my employer. This is because I have always used the provided channels for work-related communication. There is no expectation of privacy in those channels so I do not conduct personal business there.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gmd63 3y ago

It's a rule that upon being broken allows the SEC to fine you, which is why they are paying a bunch of money. Are you saying that we should not be able to require banks of a certain size to keep records, so that the highway patrol officers of finance can economically pull you over when you're speeding? Or should we allow everyone to use fuzzbusters effectively making the law pointless?

dahfizz 3y ago
> Are you saying that we should not be able to require banks of a certain size to keep records No. I'm saying this is just some boring, annoying regulation, and your grandstanding about wanting people to feel bad about breaking laws is misguided.
- Invictus0 3y ago
  No it isn't, the regulation is extremely important and helps keep the financial system following the law. The stakes are extremely high and monitoring records is the bare minimum we should be doing to protect ourselves from criminal financial actors. Every rule is written in blood. We recently saw guys fixing the LIBOR for a tray of leftover sushi. Thankfully we have records of that.
  - ahtihn 3y ago
    > Every rule is written in blood. Not really. This rule was written when the only form of written communication was paper mail and office memos. It wasn't written with instant messaging in mind.
    - pasc1878 3y ago
      True but the rules for bank traders do cover this. The rules cover all traders. In the 90s we had an IT contracter complaining the bank told him not to use a messaging app as the bank could not read it. The issue is the bank is at risk if communications were not recorded. At the time phones were already all recorded.
- gmd63 3y ago
  You also claim there were no laws broken. That is a false assertion. We don't know if there were laws broken. The stakes of financial crime rise as the amount of money at play increases. Requiring big players to help us ensure that they are playing by the rules is a requisite for preventing larger SVB-like situations from festering.

mulmen 3y ago

I have never been in a situation where my private messages could have been read by my employer. This is because I have always used the provided channels for work-related communication. There is no expectation of privacy in those channels so I do not conduct personal business there.