No I don't think so, it is probably in the terms & conditions of the use of the postal service that they have the right to investigate i.e. open any parcel they want. I don't know for sure but I would presume that would be the case or else the postal service would be used to transport all manner of illegal goods.

Beat this. The bank that I work for sends everyone's private bank statements without an envelope through the internal post.

Then in the morning the internal post lady just places them in a tray on the coridor.

"Hmmm... John's doing alright for cash." etc.

The difference is, to open a package the Postal Service have to have reasonable cause while customs can do what they like.

That makes sense to me!

If this is true, it is absurd and you and your colleagues have every right to demand a change.

Care to name and shame the bank?

I would, but I don't like your bold "if" and the insinuation that I am lying.

So shove off.

I guess that depends on what kind of Teddy we're talking about, doesn't it?

It really is too absurd to be true - and the fact that no-one in their right mind would put up with this for more than once forces me to put a fat IF there. Funny you don't like it...

Tetchy ? So John is earning more than you ?

dave

I wonder where in the greater scheme of things you actually do fit, Hugh. I fully understand the chap who has to eat everything in his bowl in certain countries but remember to leave a little bit in others - but surely the Swiss have not signed up for an all-you-can-abuse service at their favourite bank?

.. and it would be in contravention of the (less than adequate) Swiss data protection legislation and, much more importantly, the (more than adequate) Swiss Banking Secrecy Law. Seriously, someone could go to prison.

I've received 3 packages in the time that I've been living here and all of them had been opened. Books from lonely planet -not quite as good as sex god!-, undies from the uk, which they charged my tax on and the latest xmas pressie from my mother which they also charged me heaps of tax on -still trying to sort that one out. So it seems to be the norm here.

Actually, not quite. The banks only have to ensure sensitive client data is not accessed by anyone not being an employee.

That's why having an account at the bank you work at is never a good idea.

...and why many of them insist that you do.
dave

Actually, by anyone who doesn't need access to that data as part of their job and then according to controlled and audited procedures. For client data, it is not restricted to sensitive data but to any data that could lead to identification of a living person (if you're dead you lose your right to privacy).

Also, most banks would insist that employees have accounts only with them to avoid conflict of interest - I certainly know 1 of the big 2 does this. Therefore, and this is the good bit, employees are also clients and get the extra protection the banking secrecy laws afford over the data protection legislation.

yup, the bank I worked for had this too. Furthermore, access to other employee's accounts was restricted, 'normal' employees didn't get to see them.