Government officials who once railed against encryption are now its biggest fans. From encrypted chat groups on Signal to disappearing messages, the very technology designed to protect activists from government surveillance has become the government’s favorite tool to escape public oversight. This bizarre role reversal isn’t just ironic—it’s creating a transparency crisis at the heart of democratic accountability.
When Federal Law Doesn’t Matter (If Your Messages Self-Destruct)
The situation puts government entities in an awkward position. How can they leverage modern security tools while still complying with public information laws? Apps like Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram use end-to-end encryption to scramble messages so only the intended recipient can read them—and crucially, they typically aren’t stored on government servers.
What makes this particularly troubling is that these encrypted platforms effectively create communication black holes where public business can happen beyond citizen reach. In Lancaster County, dozens of public officials claimed they don’t conduct government business over message-deleting apps like Signal. For now, citizens must take them at their word—which highlights the problem.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has even recommended that “highly targeted individuals,” including government personnel, “use only end-to-end encrypted communications.” Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that Signal comes “pre-installed” on government devices—a major shift following massive Chinese-linked hacks of U.S. telecommunications networks.
The Supreme Court of Equally Upset People
The Signal app government transparency debate has created strange bedfellows across the political spectrum. Those who cheered encryption when it protected protesters now condemn its use by officials. Others who once denounced encryption as a tool for criminals now defend it as essential for national security.
This isn’t just a partisan issue—it’s a structural one. When the Defense Department’s Inspector General condemned a top Pentagon official in 2021 for using Signal, they stated bluntly: “Signal is not approved by the DoD as an authorized electronic messaging and voice-calling application,” adding that “the use of Signal to discuss official DoD information does not comply with Freedom of Information Act requirements and DoD’s records retention policies.”
However, security experts acknowledge the legitimate need for secure communications while emphasizing that officials shouldn’t use these tools to circumvent public information laws. The challenge is that these competing needs—security and transparency—seem increasingly incompatible.
States Enter the Chat With Permission Use Rules
As this technological tug-of-war intensifies, states are beginning to act. Michigan lawmakers have banned encrypted messaging apps on state employees’ work-issued devices if they hinder public record requests—directly targeting the transparency loophole.
This approach acknowledges a critical distinction: the problem isn’t encryption itself, but its use to erase the digital paper trail citizens rely on to hold their government accountable. Without proper documentation, the social contract between governments and the governed weakens.
The growing role of technology in governance only amplifies this tension. When digital systems designed to secure communication become shields against accountability, democracy’s foundational mechanisms start breaking down.
Holding People Accountable When Data Disappears
The irony thickens when considering how ordinary citizens’ digital communications remain increasingly vulnerable to subpoenas and investigations. Your text messages can be used against you in court, while officials conducting public business can make theirs vanish. This asymmetry threatens to erode public trust in institutions.
Some agencies have explored middle-ground solutions, like implementing mandatory archiving systems that capture encrypted communications. But technical challenges abound—most encryption is specifically designed to prevent third-party access, even by well-intentioned archivists.
Security considerations are legitimate. Government personnel do face sophisticated hacking attempts, and encrypted messaging provides necessary protection. But when that security becomes a mechanism for evading oversight, it transforms from shield to weapon.
As one transparency advocate noted, without clear policies, officials could theoretically discuss controversial decisions via Signal, then formalize them through official channels—leaving the public with sanitized outcomes but no insight into the messy deliberations that produced them.
The solution likely involves both technological and policy innovation—developing systems that balance legitimate security needs with essential transparency requirements. Until then, the Signal paradox remains: the same technology that protects whistleblowers from government overreach now protects government officials from whistleblowers and public scrutiny.