#secrets #ClassifiedInformation #Signal #ChatApps #PersonalData #PublicInformation
We all have secrets.
Some have more secrets than others.
Though many people would like to be “open books” about themselves, there are some things about people best left unknown.
If you have a job in which you must keep company secrets, you can be placed in a quandary. Some company secrets, like proprietary formulas, should be kept.
But, sometimes, if your company misbehaves or does illegal or unethical things, you may want to blow the whistle. Then, you have your quandary: Tell and lose your job, or not tell and keep it.
The decision depends on the person and, to a lesser extent, circumstances.
Government, in general, should not keep secrets.
However, there are some government activities that require secrecy, to protect citizens, service members etc.
This past week, some government secrets, designed only to be discussed in a secure facility that cannot be penetrated, were discussed on an open chat app called Signal, through a text chain.
By accident, a journalist, who should not be seeing some of the information, was brought into the chain.
The app is designed to delete the information after a certain time. Still, it could have been preserved by anyone in the chain via a screenshot.
Although it’s likely the chat organizer allowed in the reporter by accident, each person in the chain should have been aware of EVERYONE who was receiving the information.
It also begs the question: Do the officials in the text chain care more about keeping their discussions from the American public, since the information could be gone quickly from the public and historical record, than they do about foreign adversaries finding out about it?
Having such discussions in secure facilities keeps it from foreign adversaries and unauthorized hackers, but preserves the information for historical purposes later.
Also, the journalist who accidently was brought into the conversation showed much more discretion with the information than the officials who were supposed to have discretion.
The journalist was obliged by his ethics to expose the mistake, without exposing the sensitive information contained therein. But, when other officials in the chat said publicly that no “classified” information was discussed, the reporter published the entire text to have others decide what should have been “classified.” Fortunately, the incident described had been completed.
Recently released files from the investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 shed little new light, but exposed a lot of personal information of those who participated, which needn’t, and never should have been released.
In the name of government efficiency, many unauthorized people are getting access to personal data of individuals, which they have no business having. Who knows what they will ultimately do with it.
The worrisome pattern here is the effort to cover up things that should be exposed, while playing fast and loose with information that should be securely guarded.
This should concern everyone. Some with power are putting our lives at risk. This outrageous behavior should not be tolerated, and those with the ability to stop it should do so immediately.
If they don’t, they do not deserve to be in power.
Peter