At least for the financial institutions on this list, I can say they have no other choice. Regulation forces them to log everything to avoid insider trading, etc. Any communication outside of their internal systems can't be logged and is therefore a compliance risk.
Been a sackable offence for over a decade in finance, I can not fathom why other sectors have been so slow to enforce some basic standards.
Recording every call, message (and in my office - thing you said at your desk) is mostly used for conflict resolution - when counterparties disagree you go to the tapes and see what was said. From there my word is my bond, it is done.
As much as I prefer the European way of some items. I think the American way of treating the work computer as a company asset and just locking it down to an insane degree makes way more sense. Especially for areas like finance.
Which is actually a good reason for entities subject to GDPR to forbid use of personal messaging apps on work devices... (And to forbid users to use work / official apps for personal messaging.)
What does that even mean? I doubt you can forbid the usage of personal messaging apps except in very exceptional cases (like a court room).
On the other hand: Using personal messaging apps for work related information is a no-go anyway because of confidentiality agreements basically everyone signs.
- Ban ANY use of your personal chats / device at work (eg. your wife texts you to bring milk on the way home)
- Ban WORK communication (eg. My colleague don't understand recent commit I've made)
So the web really isn't explaining how things enforced or what is being done.
I do know of some industries where you put your personal phone when entering specific locations or having stickers on cameras) but here I didn't fully understood the scope.
Using personal messaging apps for work, for example, sending work related messages through WhatsApp or Telegram instead of using the proper corporate/official app.
You can forbid your employees to use non official apps to send work related messages for privacy, compliance, security and other reasons.
I don't understand why they put this up like it's working in their favor. Their website doesn't explain anything extraordinary that makes them different from the average chat app, except that it is europe based.
I'm not reading anything in this article that seems to pretend like it's working in their favour?
It's just an article from a company about their industry, companies do that all the time for brand recognition, building trust (showing expertise in their domain), and educating potential customers about why they might need this sort of product (lead generation).
In reality, they don't, not really. The only important differentiator is whether your friends use it and whether you have to self-host a server to use it (which has a large impact upon point 1).
Meanwhile in Spain I use WhatsApp to contact the municipality, the GP uses it to send my blood results and package delivery drivers ask me to share my location. I hate it.
At least for the financial institutions on this list, I can say they have no other choice. Regulation forces them to log everything to avoid insider trading, etc. Any communication outside of their internal systems can't be logged and is therefore a compliance risk.
Been a sackable offence for over a decade in finance, I can not fathom why other sectors have been so slow to enforce some basic standards.
Recording every call, message (and in my office - thing you said at your desk) is mostly used for conflict resolution - when counterparties disagree you go to the tapes and see what was said. From there my word is my bond, it is done.
GDPR guarantees a right to privacy even on work devices. I think you need to filter out personal messages if compliance requires logging.
As much as I prefer the European way of some items. I think the American way of treating the work computer as a company asset and just locking it down to an insane degree makes way more sense. Especially for areas like finance.
Which is actually a good reason for entities subject to GDPR to forbid use of personal messaging apps on work devices... (And to forbid users to use work / official apps for personal messaging.)
Of course, the consequence is you end up communicating for work on something like Teams instead of an usable chat app.
Like zoom where you chat disappears when the meeting is closed?
Or how about slack, that live in an alternate reality where outlook calndar doesn't exist?
I refuse to install that malware on my phone. Upshot is that I don't get bothered by coworkers after hours.
"ban personal messaging apps at work"
What does that even mean? I doubt you can forbid the usage of personal messaging apps except in very exceptional cases (like a court room).
On the other hand: Using personal messaging apps for work related information is a no-go anyway because of confidentiality agreements basically everyone signs.
I also didn't fully understand if the context is:
- Ban ANY use of your personal chats / device at work (eg. your wife texts you to bring milk on the way home)
- Ban WORK communication (eg. My colleague don't understand recent commit I've made)
So the web really isn't explaining how things enforced or what is being done. I do know of some industries where you put your personal phone when entering specific locations or having stickers on cameras) but here I didn't fully understood the scope.
Yahoo messenger/BBM used to be popular when I was in banking and that's where banking was done. Then confirmed via email.
Now the idea is all banking related stuff is done on approved devices and clients so you can deal with retention(more like deletion) and loss.
And no personal chat clients too. If you're low enough on the pole, you don't even get to keep your personal devices with you.
Using personal messaging apps for work, for example, sending work related messages through WhatsApp or Telegram instead of using the proper corporate/official app.
You can forbid your employees to use non official apps to send work related messages for privacy, compliance, security and other reasons.
Finance - no personal devices in the office and no personal (or unauthorised) messaging apps on your work devices.
I don't understand why they put this up like it's working in their favor. Their website doesn't explain anything extraordinary that makes them different from the average chat app, except that it is europe based.
I'm not reading anything in this article that seems to pretend like it's working in their favour?
It's just an article from a company about their industry, companies do that all the time for brand recognition, building trust (showing expertise in their domain), and educating potential customers about why they might need this sort of product (lead generation).
What would possibly differentiate a chat app?
E2EE? F/OSS? P2P?
In reality, they don't, not really. The only important differentiator is whether your friends use it and whether you have to self-host a server to use it (which has a large impact upon point 1).
Meanwhile in Spain I use WhatsApp to contact the municipality, the GP uses it to send my blood results and package delivery drivers ask me to share my location. I hate it.
Why not delete it? I assume that if you don't have it, they offer some other form of communication with you?
Yes, they do but they require walking to their office and deal with paper or call them during ever shrinking office hours. Take your poison.
Pick your poison.
“Take” sounds too threatening.
"Inject" is clearly the right word here.
Very funny.
TLDR: yes, governments in favor of Chat Control legislation want to make absolutely sure it doesn't apply to them.
Chat Control 1 or 2?