As Elites Switch to Texting, Watchdogs Fear Loss of Accountability, says a headline in todays New York Times. The story describes a rising concern among rule enforcers and compliance officers: <\/p>\n
Secure messaging apps like WhatsApp, Signal and Confide are making inroads among lawmakers, corporate executives and other prominent communicators. Spooked by surveillance and wary of being exposed by hackers, they are switching from phone calls and emails to apps that allow them to send encrypted and self-destructing texts. These apps have obvious benefits, but their use is causing problems in heavily regulated industries, where careful record-keeping is standard procedure. <\/p>\n
Among those industries is the government, where laws often require that officials work-related communications be retained, archived, and available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. The move to secure messaging apps frustrates these goals. <\/p>\n
The switch to more secure messaging is happening, and for good reason, because old-school messages are increasingly vulnerable to compromisethe DNC and the Clinton campaign are among the many organizations that have paid a price for underestimating these risks. <\/p>\n
The tradeoffs here are real. But this is not just a case of choosing between insecure-and-compliant or secure-and-noncompliant. The new secure apps have three properties that differ from old-school email: they encrypt messages end-to-end from the sender to the receiver; they sometimes delete messages quickly after they are transmitted and read; and they are set up and controlled by the end user rather than the employer. <\/p>\n
If the concern is lack of archiving, then the last propertyuser control of the account, rather than employer controlis the main problem. And of course that has been a persistent problem even with email. Public officials using their personal email accounts for public business is typically not allowed (and when it happens by accident, messages are supposed to be forwarded to official accounts so they will be archived), but unreported use of personal accounts has been all too common. <\/p>\n
Much of the reporting on this issue (but not the Times article) makes the mistake of conflating the personal-account problem with the fact that these apps use encryption. There is nothing about end-to-end encryption of data in transit that is inconsistent with archiving. The app could record messages and then upload them to an archivewith this upload also protected by end-to-end encryption as a best practice. <\/p>\n
The second property of these appsdeleting messages shortly after usehas more complicated security implications. Again, the message becoming unavailable to the user shortly after use need not conflict with archiving. The message could be uploaded securely to an archive before deleting it from the endpoint device. <\/p>\n
You might ask why the user should lose access to a message when that message is still stored in an archive. But this makes some sense as a security precaution. Most compromises of communications happen through the users access, for example because an attacker can get the users login credentials by phishing. Taking away the users access, while retaining access in a more carefully guarded archive, is a reasonable security precaution for sensitive messages. <\/p>\n
But of course the archive still poses a security risk. Although an archive ought to be more carefully protected than a user account would be, the archive is also a big, high-value target for attackers. The decision to create an archive should not be taken lightly, but it may be justified if the need for accountability is strong enough and the communications are not overly sensitive. <\/p>\n
The upshot of all of this is that the most modern, secure approaches to secure communication are not entirely incompatible with the kind of accountability needed for government and some other users. Accountable versions of these types of services could be created. These would be less secure than the current versions, but more secure than old-school communications. The barriers to creating these are institutional, not technical. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n