The Signal app controversy highlights a little-known fact: top government officials lack a reliable and efficient means of communicating securely unless they are physically together.
The Signal app controversy highlights a little-known fact: top government officials lack a reliable and efficient means of communicating securely unless they are physically together.
It may seem surprising that no “amazing” government systems are routinely used for secure communications. One stated reason for Hillary’s separate email system was the inefficiency of governmental systems—even if other motives existed.
What rarely gets discussed is the poor performance of these so-called “secure” alternatives. Does any current system even support a secure group chat? That remains highly questionable.
Arranging a meeting for a dozen high-level leaders on short notice is rarely feasible. Recent trends, as seen with DOGE, suggest that government communication infrastructures are outdated relics.
The most plausible scenario is that officials across the board rely on commercial applications for nearly all communications aside from the most sensitive matters, simply because there is no better alternative.
what brings you to this conclusion? There are means for digital communication that are approved for restricted content. Officials using unapproved means for restricted information tells me they don't understand what they are doing...
I'm not saying there aren't approved methods, just that the gap between available tech and its practical secure use in critical moments creates more room for error than we'd like.