9 ms·
U.S. Senate staff can now use Signal
- mvid 9y agoI feel like everyone except the government should be using Signal. Elected government communications should always be open to public audit. Or am I being naive?
- yincrash 9y agoWhen discussing material that is classified, I'd prefer if state actors could not hack our government's communications
- philipov 9y agoElected government officials ought to be monitored like lab rats, with their location and conversations constantly livestreamed over cspanopticon.gov to all interested citizens.
- helthanatos 9y agoI agree, but I also disagree. There are many secrets they should not have, but there are many state secrets that should be secret. Just because a politician is a politician does not mean they should have no privacy but they should also expect to not be able to have secrets. It's all a fine line and it is really annoying.
- Benjammer 9y agoIt's really not that fine at all. It's their job. Everything related to their job should be tracked and publicly accounted for. When they are "off the clock" so to speak, they can have as much privacy as they want.
- ruleabidinguser 9y agoYou overestimate the publics ability to be a good accountant
- badosu 9y agoThis does not sound very reasonable, what about meetings regarding diplomatic and military strategies? Should that be public?
- Benjammer 9y agoI'm open to considering certain cases of specific redaction when it means protecting things like this. Also we might be able to have a delayed disclosure process that would declassify the records after a certain period of time or something.
- closeparen 9y agoYou might enjoy reading The Circle.
- pa7ch 9y agoWhile I tend to agree, regardless, auditing should probably accomplished by requiring managed devices that can slurp the signal data on disk. This might already be the case and is much better then making senate use non-e2e secure communication software.
- matthjensen 9y agoWe need to incentivize people running for public office. Taking away privacy is not the way to do that. And I'm a complete advocate for openness in government where it matters, like in policy analysis--that's the field I work in (https://www.OSPC.org https://www.OSPC.org)
- kobeya 9y agoSo escrow communications for future audits.
- SBCRec 9y agoIsn't a certain 3 character agency already doing that for us
- nostromo 9y agoThey're doing it, but certainly not for us.
- funnyfacts365 9y agoYou never know who's going to put their paws on that information...
- bassman9000 9y agoAssuming 3-char agencies can't already decrypt it...
- woodruffw 9y agoGovernment communications should eventually be made public, but they probably shouldn't always be initially or immediately public. Whistleblowing and legal affairs come to mind -- whistleblowers need to feel secure in order to report misdeeds, and even elected officials have attorney privileges. Those certainly aren't the only cases, but they're two examples where open probably isn't the right default for communications.
- maxerickson 9y agoShort of mandating life recorders, there is reason to strike a balance between publishing what they say and letting them work without obsessing over the future publication of what they say.
- fao_ 9y agoThem obsessing about the future publication of their comments makes them think more about what they say, and more about how the impact will affect the future and their future career. It gives them a mooring post to understand how acting in the interest of the people relates to them. IMO it is only really a good thing.
- jonwachob91 9y agoNo it doesn't. It gives them the motivation to find ways of communicating off the record.
- fao_ 9y agoThat's like saying locks give burglars motivation to find ways of getting in, other than doors. Sure it does, but that doesn't mean that we should suddenly get rid of locks. Indeed, many of us take the opposite tack, and install security alarms and cameras to intentionally lock down the rest of the house. Governors, Politicians, etc. are public servants. They are not there for their own good, they are there to follow the law, and the serve the interests of their constituents, and only that. Therefore it stands to reason that any communications they have with other officials, about official business, should be recorded as it is a matter of public record. It stops "he said she said" disputes. It helps us know about underhanded deals, unfair advantages, and many of the other things that people do when given such powers with no oversight.
- nickpsecurity 9y agoThey're always doing secretive stuff that's more likely to be used against them by wolves in and outside our government. The value we get by whatever they say in public pales in comparison to those people getting their private stuff. I don't usually need to know their secret communications to infer what they're doing with the lobbying and law-making being public on top of the positions they push. I'd rather the greatest tyrants here and there not have dirt on them, though. I'd reluctantly protect them if forced to make a choice on the issue.
- flukus 9y agoSo if I email my representative should the communication be open or not?
- rmc 9y agoWhat if a whistleblower wants to communicate with their elected representative who will then raise and highlight an issue? Sometimes it's vital that people be able to communicate in private with their reps.
- aluhut 9y agoAnd that is why Signal needs to free itself from the phone number...
- apeace 9y agoI came here to say the same thing! I'm a Signal user and hugely appreciate their push to bring encryption to the masses. But when it comes to the government, I believe the ideal situation is that there is a literal live-stream of everything they are doing, at all times. Government officials are public servants. Sure, if you're discussing an ongoing military operation, keep it behind closed doors temporarily. But the vast majority of what they're doing should be made accessible to the public in real-time. The only reason not to do so is to hide lobbyism, partisanship, and corruption from the public eye.
- AdmiralAsshat 9y agoPro: The government recognizes the value of a well-built encryption app and is using it. Con: The government does this while still insisting that encryption should have a backdoor in it, thus creating the impression that Government officials deserve bulletproof encryption, but private citizens don't. It would be interesting to see what happens to Signal if encryption legislation is ever enacted, and/or if it would continue to be used.
- trendia 9y agoCongress regularly makes rules that apply to every other government employee except themselves. * Have to use a government email for official business? Everyone else does but Congress * Have to keep a record of all communications? Everyone else does but Congress At least they passed a law that banned insider trading by Congress... but then they repealed the most important parts just a year later! [0] So, I'm sure we'll see Congress enact a law that requires that all software have a backdoor, unless that software is used by a member of Congress, in which case the penalty for having a backdoor is life imprisonment. [0] http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496734/how-congress-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496...
- koolba 9y agoThe record keeping requirements are there on the executive branch because otherwise there may not be any paper trail at all. Contrast that to the legislative branch who's function is to explicitly create a written piece of legislation.
- SamReidHughes 9y agoCongress is a different branch of government. This is basic separation of powers.
- nebabyte 9y agoYeah, the legislators should be as immune from legislation as the judiciary is from the judicial system and the executive is from executive action. Oh wait...
- pasbesoin 9y agoOT: My recent "creepy" moment, with Signal. Last year, I helped someone out, including dealing with their manipulative friend. Whose name and number ended up in my Android contacts db. The other week, Signal pops a message: X has joined Signal. Be the first to send [them] a message. Um...
- smichel17 9y agoYou can disable these notifications in your settings.
- traviscj 9y agoThe issue is not the notifications but the access that enabled them (which was apparently granted accidentally?)
- palunon 9y agoSince you can send normal sms (to any contact on your phone) directly from Signal interface, I guess it should be obvious it has access to your contacts...
- pasbesoin 9y agoI no longer remember. Is that an explicit, prompted choice during installation? If so, I probably wasn't overly worried. But now, seeing this... "unpleasant" person's name pop up, was a bit of a jolt. Despite some prodding, none of my other contacts have switched over -- from Messenger or Whatsapp or whatever -- to Signal. So, I'm not... "used to" all its behavior, yet. Yeah, I'm out here in the everyday boonies... ;-)
- nyolfen 9y agoyou're complaining because someone in your contacts ended up as a suggested friend in an app, after you granted the app access to your contacts?
- pasbesoin 9y ago
- ccrush 9y agoHere's an instance where I approve of backdoor in encryption. You want a backdoor in encryption, government? Put it in your own fucking software. It's "by the people, for the people"; not "against the peasants, not the elites."
- snowwrestler 9y agoBackdoors are always a bad idea, because there is no way to guarantee that they'll only be used as intended.
- whatnotests 9y agoThey should be banned from any and all encryption. Who do they think they are? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say.
- lsjdfkljdfwkwdf 9y agoWhat gives sergeant-at-arms statutory power to control what app staffers can use?
- tiff_seattle 9y agoSounds like a good idea to me. It will demonstrate to lawmakers the advantages and necessity of encryption.
- Sevii 9y agoGuessing this means that there IS a backdoor in Signal for the CIA/NSA.
- idlewords 9y agoThat's a serious accusation to make. Back it up or take it back.
- fao_ 9y agoIt's not an accusation, it's a comment on a forum. It is a popular opinion, and there is a vast precedent for it
- tptacek 9y agoWhat's that, you say? A bunch of randos on the Internet believe something? I hadn't considered that. I wonder if they might also have useful alternative perspectives on the deformation of steel under shear load and heat stress, or on the suitability of different casual Italian restaurants for child sex abuse.
- aluhut 9y agoOr, their phones are compromised either way. Or they are in panic and there is no backdoor. Or aliens took it over and need some privacy....
- defined 9y agoKnowing a little about the people who make Signal, and their principles (particularly Moxie Marlinspike), it would surprise me nigh unto death were they to compromise its security in any way.
- e12e 9y agoOf course there's a backdoor for targeted surveillance - no phones stand up to that, especially if you can devote a few man-hours for hands-on manipulation of the device. (easiest would probably still just be a traditional small mic+tap on the touch and screen interface. Or room/car surveillance...). Signal might be adequately secure to thwart no-cost/zero-per-user investment, drag-net surveillance, and at the same time not secure enough to avoid targeted surveillance.
- known 9y agoTL;DR Govt has a back door in Signal
- raggi 9y agoDoes this mean we can teach auditors to look beyond nist now too?
- vbezhenar 9y agoWhat software they were allowed to use before?
- swiley 9y agoI'm sure they where allowed to use gpg.
- xiphias 9y agoZdnet is writing about security and publishing a PGP public key on an unencrypted site
- dredmorbius 9y agoPKI public key trust is not based on channel encryption. There's nothing wrong with putting public keys on an unencrypted site, though those retrieving the key may want to consider that their access of it may be visible.
- irascible 9y agoCool. So now my tax dollars are paying for those jack offs to send encrypted and unaccountable comms betw. themselves.. further eroding whatever miniscule layer of accountability and gov. record keeping that was already in place.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- m-p-3 9y agoI value both privacy and accountability. How do you make both happen in the case of public workers, and if it can't be done, what's the proper balance?
- dredmorbius 9y agoKey quorums and escrow are an option. If a quorum of some m < n keys can be used to reconstruct a key, and those n keys are distributed amongst a set of generally trusted and coercion-resistant entities, then the option exists for a quorum to be formed under specific protocols which would make the relevant decrypting key available. In the case of PKI, there's the added twist that the sending party is encrypting to the recipient's public key. If no self-encrypted copy is retained, this means that an escrow policy on the sender need not make available any copies of messages sent -- say, a national legislator. The method would allow for accessing the messages received, however. (And if the received messages referenced the sent ones, you'd have that content as well.) Escrow could also be used for other purposes, such as allowing for key recovery, by the authorised keyholder, on appeal to the escrow authorities. Given the risks and challenges of key loss in a PKI crypto context, these are options which might be worth considering.
- i_r7al 9y agoFor some reasons that gave me suspension that their encryption is not good anymore since the politicians encourage their staff to use it.