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.
It provides a right to privacy if the company allows personal messaging services on the device, but I don't think it provides a right to having personal messaging apps on the device(s).
Personally I think it's much cleaner to keep work stuff on your work device(s) and personal stuff on personal devices. The only place that gets sticky is where companies don't provide the device but want you to have work information on it (e.g. mobile phones)
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.
I've been in a lawsuit with Oracle (as engineer, not direct). And their discovery hit EVERYTHING.
If I used work devices for personal messages, my personal messages would absolutely been in scope.
Or if I used personal devices for work, my personal devices are now in scope. Hell NO!
My work laptop is on my personal network. Its also on its own vlan and can only talk to the imternet, and not fellow devices. And I can attest to that as much if I'm ever called in for a discovery hearing.
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.)
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.
If anything it is highlighting the pointlessness of any new messaging platform. Companies can and should lock down to the platform that comes with their subscription for everything else - and for all personal matters that is locked down with network effects by sms, whatsapp & wechat.
You could maybe make the case for a federated - email like - messaging service for inter company / party communications. Matrix basically ...
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).
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'm surprised any company allows work to be done over employees personal apps/devices/numbers. If a colleague/boss contacted me about work via my personal number they'd be quickly told to never do it again.
It's not at all uncommon. I didn't have a usable work phone number for years given that, even when I technically had a desk, I was never there. I always used my personal phone and, for that matter, laptop for that matter.
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.
It provides a right to privacy if the company allows personal messaging services on the device, but I don't think it provides a right to having personal messaging apps on the device(s).
Personally I think it's much cleaner to keep work stuff on your work device(s) and personal stuff on personal devices. The only place that gets sticky is where companies don't provide the device but want you to have work information on it (e.g. mobile phones)
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.
Exactly this.
I've been in a lawsuit with Oracle (as engineer, not direct). And their discovery hit EVERYTHING.
If I used work devices for personal messages, my personal messages would absolutely been in scope.
Or if I used personal devices for work, my personal devices are now in scope. Hell NO!
My work laptop is on my personal network. Its also on its own vlan and can only talk to the imternet, and not fellow devices. And I can attest to that as much if I'm ever called in for a discovery hearing.
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.)
I would imagine this is the exact problem they are trying to stop:
Civil servant accused of leaking Govt information to foreign intelligence service in Ireland
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2026/0530/1576047-yevgen-mcke...
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.
If anything it is highlighting the pointlessness of any new messaging platform. Companies can and should lock down to the platform that comes with their subscription for everything else - and for all personal matters that is locked down with network effects by sms, whatsapp & wechat.
You could maybe make the case for a federated - email like - messaging service for inter company / party communications. Matrix basically ...
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?
It works reliably and without surprises. Messages are not lost. No weird errors.
Features: easy to switch devices, including PC. File transfers. Video sharing. Audio-to-text conversion out of the box.
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).
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 lives in an alternate reality where outlook calendar can be ignored?
Teams will spam your outlook calendar :)
Slack is actually the best I've used for actual work comms so far. But then I mean communication, not calendar spam.
I refuse to install that malware on my phone. Upshot is that I don't get bothered by coworkers after hours.
Birdy chat is that front company which Meta allowed as third party client for WhatsApp?
What? 75% people use personal chats for work? I've never seen this in my over 20 years working in the UK, Poland and few other countries.
Personal messaging apps were always banned everywhere I worked.
"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'm surprised any company allows work to be done over employees personal apps/devices/numbers. If a colleague/boss contacted me about work via my personal number they'd be quickly told to never do it again.
It's not at all uncommon. I didn't have a usable work phone number for years given that, even when I technically had a desk, I was never there. I always used my personal phone and, for that matter, laptop for that matter.
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?