Personally I think it’s good that the Yemen strike was discussed over signal. Way more efficient communications mechanism than eg email. Obviously you should be careful about who is in your group chat, but I don’t think, as some are suggesting, the use of signal was itself irresponsible.
Disappearing messages mean frank and candid discussions over text are again possible, since they can’t be preserved as government records for purposes of foia or the presidential records act.
You may think of this as bad, since it “undermines transparency.” But candidly, America has far too much “transparency.” I don’t think I have a right to know everything that our political leaders say to one another in writing. I think they should be allowed to *privately* exchange written ideas with one another and discuss them candidly, using digital communications mechanisms.
Signal is secure and private. We should be fine with policymakers deliberating high-stakes, sensitive things using it.
Post
Conversation
![David Watson 🥑](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
I would support changing the relevant laws, but I don’t think just breaking them is the best solution — that’s the kind of sloppy mindset that leads to including the wrong guy and other serious errors.
Yeah, changing the relevant laws would be ideal. I just think that probably won’t happen.
New technology that challenges existing laws comes around all the time, and often we just tolerate the regulatory arbitrage. I’d be surprised if senior Biden people didn’t also use signal.
Is your assumption here that none of their phones are compromised? Signal is great as an app, but doesn't help you if your whole device is compromised.
Alternately maybe you're assuming that classified spaces/networks are similarly easy to compromise?
I am assuming their phones aren’t compromised and while it’s quite possible they are, I’d bet against it.
I make no claims regarding the security robustness of classified communications systems, but I’d note that they are a centralized and obviously valuable target for
Everyone is getting ahead with AI. You should be too.
Summarize documents, craft emails, and generate custom content instantly with this powerful tool.
It's like having ChatGPT tailored for your job.
Try it for free.
Your contention is that the United States federal government, today, can build and deploy a 1:1 replacement for signal?
If so, I think you are quite dramatically wrong about this.
The chat leaked, so it isn't secure. In other words, accidentally fat fingering adding a random to your group chat needs to be considered part of the threat model. It shouldn't be possible
“It shouldn’t be possible” is one of the sentences that has caused America to destroy state capacity again and again
The transparency objection is funny. It's not like we were going to get a prompt, honest readout of Houthi strike deliberations if it happened in a meeting.
It's only as secure as the endpoints, and the endpoints here are private phones. It also lacks the ability to do things like only permitting access to particular chat groups for users verified to be parts of certain organizations / with certain clearances. On the flip side, the
Makes sense, but I think policy / norms haven't caught up with tech.
Always thought it was a bit strange that phone calls are considered off-the-record, while pretty much all digital media generate what are supposed to be FOIA-able logs (ironically, per what's been revealed in
“Disappearing messages”? I am pretty confident many, if not all, of the chat members duly made screenshots of the conversation as an insurance policy.
There are apps that take selective screenshots automatically so the user does not need to take them manually.
