4 ms·

But what should I use if I am a politician and fundamentally believe that the government should be able to read my communications?

pilif 7y ago
Does such a person exist? And if so, then just do all your communication using existing means like email and blogs.
- abraae 7y ago
  As long as the people you are emailing with agree with that position as well.
- tyfon 7y ago
  Personally I believe that if you become an elected representative of the public you should become a public person where all your in-person meetings and all your phone calls and messages are public for the period you are elected. If you meet someone without disclosing it, it should be a criminal offence. I know this will never happen in real life but I think this is the only way to solve the problem of corrupt officials and revolving doors / lobbyist problems. Edit: the book "Haze" by L.E. Modesitt Jr. has a good take on this.
  - teekert 7y ago
    Also: The Circle by Dave Eggers.
    - tyfon 7y ago
      Thank you, I haven't read that one. It's going to be read within the next few weeks :)
qznc 7y ago
Depends on your jurisdiction. In the US, probably Facebook Messenger.
Angostura 7y ago
Then post your communications to your official web page.
nico_h 7y ago
Just use email. Or whatsapp. Or iMessage with backups turned on.
dTal 7y ago
Wordpress. Nothing stops you from explicitly publishing your communications. And whether you do it explicitly, or implicitly by using an insecure communication method, it's always a choice which you can revoke at any time.
- aguyfromnb 7y ago
  >it's always a choice which you can revoke at any time. It looks like the replies to this comment misunderstand the point. It's not about one person choosing to make their communication public, but that there should be a record of government communication period. Have we not seen enough examples of our elected officials corruption in media that isn't encrypted? Now we want them to be able to communicate in all manner with no accountability?
  - dTal 7y ago
    > Now we want them to be able to communicate in all manner with no accountability? I think you misunderstood my point, which was that they can always do that. You can't stop them from using Signal, if they want to do something nefarious. Hell, they can just meet in a dark alley if they want. Sure, you can make it against the rules, but we are already presupposing rule-breaking (or else we would not need oversight). So, if there's going to be some kind of disclosure system, let's make it structured and explicit. Just requesting that they use unencrypted communications, and then having some sort of unaccountable gray-hat institution (i.e. intelligence services) snoop on those communications, is a bad system.
bouke 7y ago
Yes! Can somebody please think of children?!
Zenst 7y ago
Well, given how one political remit uses Twitter, I'd counter that not everything should be written down in the first place, let alone read.
netcan 7y ago
Then make them public or submit them to whoever "the government" is, in that context.
thu2111 7y ago
SMS and phone calls. The infrastructure is all there already. Interestingly, the EU's position on this looks really confused. SMS messages should (in theory) only transit their own local telcos. The USA doesn't get a look-in unless it hacks the telcos themselves. What the EU is doing here is routing all Commission traffic through US based server farms and roots of trust. The phones are controlled from the USA, the comms services are too. So their own local firms can no longer see the traffic but US firms can (Signal claim this isn't the case but people are wising up to the fact that this can't be true until more infrastructure is in place). What actual threat are they trying to block here?
- squiggleblaz 7y ago
  > What actual threat are they trying to block here? A large powerful country ruled by a megalomaniac who has proved he isn't afraid to ruin his country's reputation by abusing his power.
  - thu2111 7y ago
    Assuming you mean the USA, best way to solve that is for the data to never cross into US controlled facilities or equipment at all. Using apps made in California on operating systems also made in California to send messages to servers controlled from California and then trusting that the encryption works the way they say it works makes much less sense than just sending messages through EU carriers. Consider, the Signal threat model assumes that you can't trust telcos. That's usually based on the assumption that you're some ordinary grassroots citizen who might be spied on by the government. But the EU Commission is the government. It seems a bit odd for them to implicitly assert the national European telecoms companies are untrustworthy.
WinonaRyder 7y ago
Dumb question: is your comment meant to be sarcastic? I initially read it as such but now I'm not sure, given all the other replies.
- teekert 7y ago
  It was sarcastic, but I just wondered what such politicians think when they get this advice... Like: Hell no! What if I'm a criminal some day!
Dahoon 7y ago
WhatsApp.

pilif 7y ago

Does such a person exist? And if so, then just do all your communication using existing means like email and blogs.

abraae 7y ago
As long as the people you are emailing with agree with that position as well.
tyfon 7y ago
Personally I believe that if you become an elected representative of the public you should become a public person where all your in-person meetings and all your phone calls and messages are public for the period you are elected. If you meet someone without disclosing it, it should be a criminal offence. I know this will never happen in real life but I think this is the only way to solve the problem of corrupt officials and revolving doors / lobbyist problems. Edit: the book "Haze" by L.E. Modesitt Jr. has a good take on this.
- teekert 7y ago
  Also: The Circle by Dave Eggers.
  - tyfon 7y ago
    Thank you, I haven't read that one. It's going to be read within the next few weeks :)

qznc 7y ago

Depends on your jurisdiction. In the US, probably Facebook Messenger.

Angostura 7y ago

Then post your communications to your official web page.

nico_h 7y ago

Just use email. Or whatsapp. Or iMessage with backups turned on.

dTal 7y ago

Wordpress. Nothing stops you from explicitly publishing your communications. And whether you do it explicitly, or implicitly by using an insecure communication method, it's always a choice which you can revoke at any time.

aguyfromnb 7y ago
>it's always a choice which you can revoke at any time. It looks like the replies to this comment misunderstand the point. It's not about one person choosing to make their communication public, but that there should be a record of government communication period. Have we not seen enough examples of our elected officials corruption in media that isn't encrypted? Now we want them to be able to communicate in all manner with no accountability?
- dTal 7y ago
  > Now we want them to be able to communicate in all manner with no accountability? I think you misunderstood my point, which was that they can always do that. You can't stop them from using Signal, if they want to do something nefarious. Hell, they can just meet in a dark alley if they want. Sure, you can make it against the rules, but we are already presupposing rule-breaking (or else we would not need oversight). So, if there's going to be some kind of disclosure system, let's make it structured and explicit. Just requesting that they use unencrypted communications, and then having some sort of unaccountable gray-hat institution (i.e. intelligence services) snoop on those communications, is a bad system.

bouke 7y ago

Yes! Can somebody please think of children?!

Zenst 7y ago

Well, given how one political remit uses Twitter, I'd counter that not everything should be written down in the first place, let alone read.

netcan 7y ago

Then make them public or submit them to whoever "the government" is, in that context.

thu2111 7y ago

SMS and phone calls. The infrastructure is all there already. Interestingly, the EU's position on this looks really confused. SMS messages should (in theory) only transit their own local telcos. The USA doesn't get a look-in unless it hacks the telcos themselves. What the EU is doing here is routing all Commission traffic through US based server farms and roots of trust. The phones are controlled from the USA, the comms services are too. So their own local firms can no longer see the traffic but US firms can (Signal claim this isn't the case but people are wising up to the fact that this can't be true until more infrastructure is in place). What actual threat are they trying to block here?

squiggleblaz 7y ago
> What actual threat are they trying to block here? A large powerful country ruled by a megalomaniac who has proved he isn't afraid to ruin his country's reputation by abusing his power.
- thu2111 7y ago
  Assuming you mean the USA, best way to solve that is for the data to never cross into US controlled facilities or equipment at all. Using apps made in California on operating systems also made in California to send messages to servers controlled from California and then trusting that the encryption works the way they say it works makes much less sense than just sending messages through EU carriers. Consider, the Signal threat model assumes that you can't trust telcos. That's usually based on the assumption that you're some ordinary grassroots citizen who might be spied on by the government. But the EU Commission is the government. It seems a bit odd for them to implicitly assert the national European telecoms companies are untrustworthy.

WinonaRyder 7y ago

Dumb question: is your comment meant to be sarcastic? I initially read it as such but now I'm not sure, given all the other replies.

teekert 7y ago
It was sarcastic, but I just wondered what such politicians think when they get this advice... Like: Hell no! What if I'm a criminal some day!

Dahoon 7y ago

WhatsApp.