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

141–150 of 247 posts

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

#141

Post by latchkey »

another-dave wrote: post #140
latchkey wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

As far as I know, there is no service that banks offer to handle switching your direct debits. I mean, there probably is one, but I'm sure you have to have an account of a certain size for that level of customer service. I've just never seen this offered myself.

There is a good chance a credit union might offer that, but they aren't available to everyone as they often have membership requirements.

What others have suggested is the better route, minimize direct debits by using credit cards (which gets you 'free' CC points).

The other thing is to just use multiple banks... I have my 'debit' bank and then I move my savings around to whichever bank I can find with the highest savings rates (either cd's or money market accounts). I link just those two accounts together and can transfer funds as needed. I find that to be pretty easy now, but it took some getting used to.

I think a lot of people are afraid of opening a bunch of accounts in various places and having to track it all. The open account friction is pretty high... you generally have to do a two small deposit dance, which can take days. I have a theory that part of the fear could also stem from the fact that we penalize people's credit scores for opening too many credit card accounts... but the reality is that we don't do that with bank accounts.

We also have a culture of being afraid of touching our money. You're supposed to just put it in an account and forget about it. I think the mental barriers override the actual barriers.

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

#142

Post by ReptileMan »

mulmen wrote: post #132
ReptileMan wrote: post #115

How can they prove that business was discussed if records are not preserved

RE: Loan application Mr. Smith, please review the updated terms on WhatsApp.

We are talking about inter company communication. No one on wall street should be that stupid to mention something like this in email

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

#143

Post by JumpCrisscross »

H4lcyon wrote: post #119
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?

IMO it is in your best interest to not use banks at all for personal finances, WF is just the most glaring exemplar of why not to. A better alternative are credit unions which are non-profit organizations set up to benefit their members. Strange to think about, but depositors are a liability to banks. Unless you're taking a loan from the bank you are not really a "customer" in their eyes.

> Strange to think about, but depositors are a liability to banks

Deposits at credit unions are also a liability to the credit union. The nonprofit and local angles, however, are germane.

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

#144

Post by Vicinity9635 »

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.

[dead]

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

#146

Post by edmundsauto »

Sunspark wrote: post #114
edmundsauto wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’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.

It'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 th…

I think they like byod because they don’t have to buy a device or service it, but can still get at employees at all hours.

It is not illegal to have friends, but if you are in a job that has certain regulations it is illegal to communicate in a non approved way with business partners. This isn’t a wide scope - it’s people who have jobs that are covered by these regulations.

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

#147

Post by edmundsauto »

ghostpepper wrote: post #42
edmundsauto wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’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.

How 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

Because it applies to certain regulated industries and people who work in those industries. It’s not wide ranging.

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

#149

Post by lbwtaylor »

jgalt212 wrote: post #139

Dumb question: If these apps offer end-to-end encryption, how is anyone getting caught?

Lots of ways:

- A banker answers honestly when interviewed by the regulator because they decide it's better for the Bank to take the fine than lie to regulator and risk personal criminal charges (unlikely, but why take that risk?).

- Regulator asks for evidence of some documentation (like trade confirmation), compliance asks banker, banker doesn't have it and admits it was over this app.

- Whistleblower or other source makes regulator believe there are prohibited communication and regulator demands phones be turned over.

- Other similar banks are caught in violation, and regulator does sweep of similar banks and demands phones be turned over.

The regulator has the ability to shut down the bank. The bank can easily tell the banker to turn over an unlocked phone or face legal action. The banker then turns over the phone.

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

#150

Post by nradov »

kolbe wrote: post #134
HPsquared wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This has nothing to do with encryption. Banks are free to encrypt their communications. But they need to keep communication logs and make the plain text available to regulators in certain circumstances.
Post reply on HN