161–170 of 247 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct. Neither Signal nor WhatsApp is integrated into any corporate messaging system, so the communication flowing through those apps, is neither archived nor discoverable.
How does that differ from a simple SMS message - afaik SMS isn't integrated in any corporate messaging system either...
What forum is this?
The whole record keeping requirement for written correspondence generally seems completely unreasonable. Presumably telephone calls, zoom calls and in person meetings aren't recorded? Why should that be different if it's written?
Why do you presume that? Where I work every call is recorded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least in the UK, group messaging over sms was always broken, and sending pictures still costs me extra money. The phone carriers brought it on themselves.
It's not the phone carriers' problem FYI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct. Neither Signal nor WhatsApp is integrated into any corporate messaging system, so the communication flowing through those apps, is neither archived nor discoverable.
How does that differ from a simple SMS message - afaik SMS isn't integrated in any corporate messaging system either...
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.
any change to any banking system is then done via a banking order (payment order, deposit order, etc) and is documented and signed.
so there is plenty of trail evidence for each transaction with each customer
> “We are pleased to resolve this matter,” said Wells Fargo spokeswoman Laurie Kight.
Unfortunate, penalty appears not big enough.
As another key responsibility, these individuals are forbidden from insider trading... which if they are not keeping records is basically not possible to police.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the law as written regards keeping records of inter-office memoranda, but the regulators have cheerfully expanded the scope of this to include essentially all communication by bank employees (except maybe phone calls).
No, it includes calls now. Traditional calls over copper telephone lines are not recorded, but digital calls over MS Teams or whatever are recorded and kept for review. You still need a secondary device if you want to have a private conversation.
The whole record keeping requirement for written correspondence generally seems completely unreasonable. Presumably telephone calls, zoom calls and in person meetings aren't recorded? Why should that be different if it's written?
> Presumably telephone calls, zoom calls and in person meetings aren't recorded? Of course they are. No offense: Where have you been?
Working in education the last 10 years. I mean all of that seems really unreasonable if that's the case.
Where I work they took my work phone away because I wasn't using it enough. Now if I need to make a call, it's just with my cell phone. No way that's being recorded.
> in person meetings
Presume you don't sit down at the table and set up mics before you start talking?