> then picked up and used without question or explanation by courts and commentators
This indicates (and was also said) that the term has no lawful basis; it is industry cargo cultism that had been copied around without basis for years.
home router systems don't have such a feature.
edit: matt levine used to work at goldman and he posted a piece that has a description of how goldman's multiple chinese wall systems works:
> Nor will [the research analysts] get any hearty back-slaps and high-fives from the bankers, because any banker who walked onto a research floor would be vaporized by powerful lasers long before he could raise his hand for a high-five.
> Remember, bankers can't just call up analysts. Their phones would explode.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-19/goldman-p...
The wall sounds as effective as LIBOR's blind auctions.
'He maintained that the "continued use of the term would be insensitive to the ethnic identity of the many persons of Chinese descent"'
The article mentions, but does not specifically name, regulations implemented after the 1929 stock crash; it also specifically names Title V of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The SEC is responsible for the enforcing the provisions of the latter.