[flagged]
> it's just flatly wrong
The unwarranted confidence is stunning in a post that is so fundamentally incorrect. I don't like Teams, but your take is deeply unaligned with reality.
WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices
91–100 of 161 posts
Re: WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices
#92I can't imagine any justification for any government device that should be secure to have anything on it but the bare minimum software and the device in whatever hardened mode it has.
If they visit the White House, government facility ... should go in a locker.
I worked for a company that sent people onsite to government contractors. One contractor we rarely visited was at a facility where you arrived at the front gate in your rental car with your ID, keys, and equipment you needed. You were told if you brought anything else expect to lose it.
They took your ID and keys at the gate, searched the car, you were blindfoled and they escorted you to the location of the equipment. If you had to go to the bathroom your were escorted (all the way...). You left with the clothes on your back.
We went through a lot of laptops, but ... that place was secure.
Re: WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices
#93When I was at unnamed major financial institution, we were ordered to stop using WhatsApp, but it had nothing to do with security and everything to do with avoiding even the possibility of the appearance of backroom dealing or production avoidance in the event of subpoena. Maybe the truth has more to do with that, or maybe not, what do I know, who are all you people anyway, and why am I posting here?
> nothing to do with security and everything to do with avoiding even the possibility of the appearance of backroom dealing or production avoidance in the event of subpoena
But that is a concern of information security.
Compliance is often part of this calculus, and many on this forum get wrapped around the axle thinking it's always about cryptography or something. Encryption is only a small part of the broader practice of information security.
Re: WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices
#94Re: WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices
#95Re: WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
WhatsApp is already the de facto communication channel in a lot of countries. In Brazil even subpoenas can be sent via WhatsApp.
Heh. I have a friend here in the US. His father passed away in his home country. No will. The whole family needed to show up in court for probate, but he could not travel at that time. The court: "No problem, just join the session on video using WhatsApp"
Really?
Remote court sessions are usually on Google Meet or Zoom
Re: WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices
#97[flagged]
Perhaps you're unaware that there is a special, DoD-certified version of Teams called "Gov Teams", which can be used to share data at multiple impact levels securely. This version of Teams, and the entire Office365 suite, has undergone extensive security certification for use with high IL data.
[flagged]
Re: WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices
#98Re: WhatsApp banned on House staffers' devices
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
That wasn't signal's fault. They accidentally invited a journalist to the chat.
While it is correct that this was a PEBKAC error rather than Signal's error, I would like to suggest that, in general, all mobile phone apps are poor choices for anything as sensitive as planning a missile strike.
I wouldn't disagree with you, here.