Slashdot Mirror
On Wall Street, a High-Ranking Few Still Avoid Email (reuters.com)
The world may be increasingly becoming digital, but a small group of the Wall Street elite refuses to say anything substantive in an email, text, or chat, and some will not communicate digitally at all. From a Reuters report: This group, which includes top bankers like JPMorgan Chase & Co Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon and powerful investors like Carl Icahn and Berkshire Hathaway Inc's Warren Buffett, were eschewing electronic communications long before the probe of U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's emails and the recent hacks of her campaign manager's account made headlines. Some on Wall Street are nostalgic for a time when in-person conversations or phone calls were the norm, but others believe the words they type and send can come back to haunt them. Prosecutors have built insider trading, mortgage fraud and rate-rigging cases on embarrassing emails over the past several years, and they are often the most memorable part. Recent email woes among Washington power players have provided yet another reason for bankers to try to protect private correspondence from prying eyes. Dimon uses email but is known to keep his replies short and factual, favoring "yes," "no" and "thank you."
Judging by recent stories, sounds like they're pretty wise.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The feds are watching.
I know I, as a lowly mid-level person, am very careful and exact about electronic communication. Whatever side of the Clinton email thing you're on, how would you feel about having the last 10 years of your private communication dumped out in an investigation? Would you be comfortable with your emails showing up in a publicly searchable court record even if it was unrelated to you? People have forgotten the basic premise that was drilled into my head when email first arrived -- don't write down anything you wouldn't be comfortable posting in public for the world to see.
Executives are one of the last groups of people in a company to have the privilege of not communicating via email, text, etc. Everywhere I've worked, the execs' secretaries were the only ones sending out emails (logged in as the exec.) This is a big problem in the finance industry, because only the mid-level and below is captured in electronic communication. It makes it extremely hard to build a body of evidence in any legal case directly affecting the executives of a company. It's one of the reasons why lawsuits target the company only, and end with a settlement where the company does not admit any fault.
You know you are in the underclass when you find it useful to have proof of what you have done.
You know you are in the upper class when you find it useful to not have any proof of what you have done.
The obvious conclusion of those statements is that money is a direct replacement for proof.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
>Where I work, sometimes you want it on-the-record. I want proof I said something, or did something, far more often than I'd ever want to be able to deny such actions later on.
I also try to make sure any important communications get logged in email. If I have a phone call, I will email the client and summarize what we talked about. Not only does this minimize miscommunications (which can be very costly), but it has led to me winning a lawsuit when the client claimed I had never communicated with them and wanted to cancel an upcoming event I was going to speak at, despite having a contract and all that. So I printed out my copious email communications with them planning the event, put it and the contract in front of the "judge", and he took a look over the evidence and awarded me the full amount on my contract plus legal fees.
Without the emails it would have been very hard to prove just through phone records that the event had been planned and booked six months in advance of the event date.
Where I work, sometimes you want it on-the-record. I want proof I said something, or did something, far more often than I'd ever want to be able to deny such actions later on.
That's because you're a peon. Perhaps well-paid and well-respected, but a peon nonetheless, compared with those who effectively run the world. The farther up people are on the ladder of power, the harder it tends to be to tell the difference between them, and the criminals recognized as such by the justice system. Most of them cover their tracks, live substantially covert lives, and have adopted 'plausible deniability' as a second-nature practice. It might simply be prudence, or it might be the vestige of a guilty conscience in an otherwise sociopathic makeup. Whatever it is, it seems to go with the territory.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Well if you think Wall Street moguls are a bunch of crooks, let's see who they want to win:
http://www.businessinsider.com...
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
No. Sounds like people are responding the way they always do to oppressive surveillance: censor their words and funnel their beliefs into less traceable action instead.
I'm honest, so it doesn't matter.
Apparently you are naive too. Just because you have nothing to hide does not mean you have nothing to fear. It is VERY easy for a lawyer or law enforcement to make even innocent sounding statements into something incriminating. Your honesty may not be any protection and in fact might serve as "evidence" to hang you with.
This is only a problem if you're a dishonest scumbag.
You REALLY need to watch this video about why you should never talk to the police.