101–110 of 247 posts
This headline is clickbait. The issue is banks not preserving records, something that the rules are ABUNDANTLY clear on.
... and the records couldn't be preserved if the employees are using Signal and WhatsApp?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The weird step for me is the expansion of regulatory authority from published memos, to all written communication like texts and chats. I get it and don't really object to the end result, but it seems like the law should be updated to match what society desires to be regulated, rather than just relying on a generous interpretation by regulators.
I wonder if handwritten notes, post-its, or marks on whiteboards are also subject to regulatory authority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'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.
Well, 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
It'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.
"We are pleased to resolve this matter" Nobody should ever be "pleased" with knowingly breaking the law. When will we ever get serious about law enforcement for this type of crime?
If bureaucrats were on my ass about something so stupid, I would be very pleased once the matter was resolved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why risk lying about something like this? It makes no business sense, and I can't imagine the Facebook employees being so loyal as not to spill the beans here.
I am still waiting for someone to explain me why you can forward medias (image or videos) in whatsapp to new recipients without uploading it again completely if those images and videos are encrypted with the public keys of your recipients. Since the forward is instantaneous and not involve a reupload, it looks to me the files are cached on the servers. If the recipient can see thee files and they are encrypted, it me…
You encrypt and upload the media to the storage server.
You share the download URL and key with person #1
Now how long would it take to forward that same message with the url and key to person #2...n?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am still waiting for someone to explain me why you can forward medias (image or videos) in whatsapp to new recipients without uploading it again completely if those images and videos are encrypted with the public keys of your recipients. Since the forward is instantaneous and not involve a reupload, it looks to me the files are cached on the servers. If the recipient can see thee files and they are encrypted, it me…
Consider the following: You encrypt and upload the media to the storage server. You share the download URL and key with person #1 Now how long would it take to forward that same message with the url and key to person #2...n?
"We are pleased to resolve this matter" Nobody should ever be "pleased" with knowingly breaking the law. When will we ever get serious about law enforcement for this type of crime?
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.
"We are pleased to resolve this matter" Nobody should ever be "pleased" with knowingly breaking the law. When will we ever get serious about law enforcement for this type of crime?
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.
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?
Big headline grabbing number. But what % of their quarterly profit is that?
Slap on the wrist, I suspect.