Due to concerns about targeted digital espionage, the EU Commission has instructed its highest-ranking officials to immediately dissolve a central Signal group.
Banning it at-home, is 1 thing, but banning it while abroad & in hostile-regimes, would be idiocy: at the home-end, record the whole interaction, & make that part of official-record.
But make it impossible for the hostile-regime to get anything from either the in-their-country device, or the encrypted stream which they can’t crack.
the fact that corruption wants nonaccountability is 1 valid concern.
but the fact that hostile-regimes exist, & we’re in economic-meshing with them, means that we need to be able to have officials in those countries.
Which makes the requirement for communications which the hostile-regime can’t crack real.
Oversimplificaiton is incompetent “management”.
Don’t solve the wrong problem, & pretend that you aren’t responsible for the authority you mis-wielded.
That they were having a non-accountable-within-the-EU group on Signal, that IS AN ACTUAL PROBLEM, but there are use-cases for Signal to be needed, if done properly.
They did not ban encrypted communications in general. They just banned the use of Signal for official purposes, because it is not fit for the job.
The article talks about how there were a multitude of cyberattacks and phishing attempts on EU officials’ smartphones and Signal accounts. With Signal, you have full control over the whole Account if you control the device.
The EU has their own encrypted communication tools with security and accounts managed centrally by the IT department.
Banning it at-home, is 1 thing, but banning it while abroad & in hostile-regimes, would be idiocy: at the home-end, record the whole interaction, & make that part of official-record.
But make it impossible for the hostile-regime to get anything from either the in-their-country device, or the encrypted stream which they can’t crack.
the fact that corruption wants nonaccountability is 1 valid concern.
but the fact that hostile-regimes exist, & we’re in economic-meshing with them, means that we need to be able to have officials in those countries.
Which makes the requirement for communications which the hostile-regime can’t crack real.
Oversimplificaiton is incompetent “management”.
Don’t solve the wrong problem, & pretend that you aren’t responsible for the authority you mis-wielded.
That they were having a non-accountable-within-the-EU group on Signal, that IS AN ACTUAL PROBLEM, but there are use-cases for Signal to be needed, if done properly.
_ /\ _
They did not ban encrypted communications in general. They just banned the use of Signal for official purposes, because it is not fit for the job.
The article talks about how there were a multitude of cyberattacks and phishing attempts on EU officials’ smartphones and Signal accounts. With Signal, you have full control over the whole Account if you control the device.
The EU has their own encrypted communication tools with security and accounts managed centrally by the IT department.