Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Banks hit with millions in fines for using Signal and WhatsApp

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 247 posts

Re: Banks hit with millions in fines for using Signal and WhatsApp

#131

Post by clintonb »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #117
dreamcompiler wrote: post #113

At this point I cannot understand why anybody would use Wells Fargo as their bank. WF has proven repeatedly that they are pretty much the opposite of what everybody thinks a good bank should be. Repeated law violations; repeated screwing-over of their customers. Why are they still in business?

As a WF customer... its lock-in. The amount of work I would need to do to switch banks thanks to bill pay, auto-drafts, etc, is not worth the headache.

Can you switch bills to pull, rather than you push funds? My credit cards, for example pull from my bank. My last “push” payment—bank sends a check—was years ago for a small landlord that didn’t accept digital payments.

I tend to have operating funds in my credit union checking account. This is where most bills are paid from. Savings moves to which never institution has the best rates.

Re: Banks hit with millions in fines for using Signal and WhatsApp

#133

Post by gmd63 »

dahfizz wrote: post #111
gmd63 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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.

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.

Re: Banks hit with millions in fines for using Signal and WhatsApp

#134

Post by kolbe »

HPsquared wrote: post #123
kolbe wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a link to the actual press release: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-149 It makes no mention of evading regulation. This fine is for a failure to retain written communications. Which is impossible to do for some of these communications channels.

Intent is harder to prove.

What do you think we should assume about your communications on encrypted channels? This entire thing is yet another federal effort to criminalize encrypted communications, and it even works on the HN crowd. All they have to say is "big banks bad" and people here go from freedom fighters to government pawns.

Re: Banks hit with millions in fines for using Signal and WhatsApp

#135

Post by mulmen »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #23
richbell wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per the article, the issue is that employees were using encrypted messaging apps for work purposes. This is strictly forbidden by regulations, or at least failing to preserve your communications is.

I see... This sounds reasonable for some environments. But I doubt the banks are going to differentiate these, they will probably just ban private messengers altogether.

Why would you use work communication or devices for personal messaging? It is still entirely possible to use WhatsApp as a banker, you just can't use it while acting as a banker.

Re: Banks hit with millions in fines for using Signal and WhatsApp

#136

Post by mulmen »

1MachineElf wrote: post #53
qwerty456127 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see... This sounds reasonable for some environments. But I doubt the banks are going to differentiate these, they will probably just ban private messengers altogether.

As someone who currently performs information risk management for a financial institution, I'll say that private messaging doesn't need to be banned per-se. It's just that all company business is the responsibility of the leadership, so ultimately, business communications needed to be reserved for business communication platforms over which leadership can enforce policy. Privacy is a component of this. These banks ne…

You should really re-post this as a top-level comment because it essentially addresses everything in the comment section.

Re: Banks hit with millions in fines for using Signal and WhatsApp

#137

Post by latchkey »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #117
dreamcompiler wrote: post #113

At this point I cannot understand why anybody would use Wells Fargo as their bank. WF has proven repeatedly that they are pretty much the opposite of what everybody thinks a good bank should be. Repeated law violations; repeated screwing-over of their customers. Why are they still in business?

As a WF customer... its lock-in. The amount of work I would need to do to switch banks thanks to bill pay, auto-drafts, etc, is not worth the headache.

I'm curious, what is the number of 'auto' things for you each month? Seems like there is a cool business idea in helping people work through this.

Of course, trust would be a huge issue, but assuming that could be resolved, I feel like switching banks should be something people do all the time.

You're leaving money on the table during a time where interest rates just keep going up and banks are becoming more and more competitive with each other on rates. You should be earning at least 5.15% on a market savings account today. I doubt WF would pay anywhere near that.

Re: Banks hit with millions in fines for using Signal and WhatsApp

#138

Post by ablated_maquis »

mihaic wrote: post #21
bombolo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> WhatsApp end-to-end encryption or even better so they claim… not that fb has ever given us a reason to trust them.

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.

Zoom risked lying out this.

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/31/zoom-meeting-encryption/

Re: Banks hit with millions in fines for using Signal and WhatsApp

#140

Post by another-dave »

latchkey wrote: post #137
jermaustin1 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a WF customer... its lock-in. The amount of work I would need to do to switch banks thanks to bill pay, auto-drafts, etc, is not worth the headache.

I'm curious, what is the number of 'auto' things for you each month? Seems like there is a cool business idea in helping people work through this. Of course, trust would be a huge issue, but assuming that could be resolved, I feel like switching banks should be something people do all the time. You're leaving money on the table during a time where interest rates just keep going up and banks are becoming more and more…

> Seems like there is a cool business idea in helping people work through this.

It's seems crazy to me that that's so difficult in the US.

In the UK, you can open an account with a new bank and just tell them to switch over all your direct debits and give them the account number/sort code.

They'll contact your old bank, get everything moved across and get your old account closed on your behalf. The old bank is also obliged to reroute any payments from your old account for 6 months afterwards too IIRC

Post reply on HN