That would explain it. But then again, why not use Signal or something similar for sensitive topics.

Several employees of the world's largest banks actually tried this. Result? Almost $2 billion in fines.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wall-street-to-pay-1-8-billion-...

That’s interesting, thanks.

Article is paywalled, but how can it be proved they’re using something like Signal? There must be at least some discussion available to be disclosured on request by law? How do they define if the subject is relevant enough to require a formal exchange between executives?

The world of big public companies is fascinating.

I have to imagine any requirements on email retention would apply to signal too, and that your phone with its local plaintext database can be subpoenaed.

The threat model for signal is not to get you out of your legal obligation to comply with court orders.

I don't understand? As long as someone has the relevant decrypted message chain it can be subpoenaed.

Based on what?

This is exclusively about audits

The aforementioned Sarbanes-Oxley act, plus the principle of "negative inference" in civil suits which dictates that a court can infer that someone refusing to testify (or destroying evidence) has something to hide. There's no 'plead the 5th' in civil suits.

> Public companies are required by law to retain email for 7 years I believe

Public companies have to keep audit-related communications, but not something like this [1]. It comes more from civil litigation, where the standard of proof is the preponderance of evidence. If I sue you and produce partial records, and you say you deleted everything, that can be used against you.

[1] https://www.intradyn.com/email-retention-laws/