How Safe Is Signal Messaging App Used by Trump Aides to Share War Plans?

The Signal messaging app logo is seen on a smartphone, in front of the same displayed same logo, in this illustration taken, January 13, 2021. (Reuters)
The Signal messaging app logo is seen on a smartphone, in front of the same displayed same logo, in this illustration taken, January 13, 2021. (Reuters)
TT
20

How Safe Is Signal Messaging App Used by Trump Aides to Share War Plans?

The Signal messaging app logo is seen on a smartphone, in front of the same displayed same logo, in this illustration taken, January 13, 2021. (Reuters)
The Signal messaging app logo is seen on a smartphone, in front of the same displayed same logo, in this illustration taken, January 13, 2021. (Reuters)

Top Trump administration officials used messaging app Signal to share war plans and mistakenly included a journalist in the encrypted chat, spurring calls by Democratic lawmakers for a congressional investigation into the security breach.

Under US law, it can be a crime to mishandle, misuse or abuse classified information, though it is unclear whether those provisions might have been violated in this case.

Below are some of the main facts about Signal:

HOW SAFE IS IT?

Signal is an open-source and fully encrypted messaging service that runs on centralized servers maintained by Signal Messenger.

The only user data it stores on its servers are phone numbers, the date a user joined the service, and the last login information.

Users' contacts, chats and other communications are instead stored on the user's phone, with the possibility of setting the option to automatically delete conversations after a certain amount of time.

The company uses no ads or affiliate marketers, and doesn't track users' data, as stated on its website.

Signal also gives users the possibility to hide their phone number from others and use an additional safety number to verify the safety of their messages, it adds.

Signal does not use US government encryption or that of any other governments, and is not hosted on government servers.

The messaging app has a "stellar reputation and is widely used and trusted in the security community", said Rocky Cole, whose cybersecurity firm iVerify helps protect smartphone users from hackers.

"The risk of discussing highly sensitive national security information on Signal isn't so much that Signal itself is insecure," Cole added.

Actors who pose threats to nation states, he said, "have a demonstrated ability to remotely compromise the entire mobile phone itself. If the phone itself isn't secure, all the Signal messages on that device can be read."

HOW DOES SIGNAL WORK?

Signal is a secure messaging service that uses end-to-end encryption, meaning the service provider cannot access and read private conversations and calls from users on its app, therefore guaranteeing its users' privacy.

Signal's software is available across platforms, both on smartphones and computers, and enables messaging, voice and video calls. A telephone number is necessary to register and create an account.

Unlike other messaging apps, Signal does not track or store user data, and its code is publicly available, so security experts can verify how it works and ensure it remains safe.

Signal President Meredith Whittaker on Tuesday defended the app's security: "Signal is the gold standard in private comms."

She added in a post on X: "WhatsApp licenses Signal’s cryptography to protect message contents for consumer WhatsApp."

WHO FOUNDED SIGNAL?

Signal was founded in 2012 by entrepreneur Moxie Marlinspike and Whittaker, according to the company's website.

In February 2018, Marlinspike alongside WhatsApp co-founder Brian Acton started the non-profit Signal Foundation, which currently oversees the app.

Acton provided an initial funding of $50 million. Acton left WhatsApp in 2017 due to differences around the use of customer data and targeted advertising.

Signal is not tied to any major tech companies and will never be acquired by one, it says on its website.

WHO USES SIGNAL?

Widely used by privacy advocates and political activists, Signal has gone from an exotic messaging app used by dissidents to a whisper network for journalists and media, to a messaging tool for government agencies and organizations.

Signal saw "unprecedented" growth in 2021 after a disputed change in rival WhatsApp's privacy terms, as privacy advocates jumped off WhatsApp on fears users would have to share their data with both Facebook and Instagram.

Reuters lists Signal as one of the tools tipsters can use to share confidential news tips with its journalists, while noting that "no system is 100 percent secure".

Signal's community forum, an unofficial group which states that its administration is composed of Signal employees, also lists the European Commission as a user of the tool. In 2017, the US Senate Sergeant at Arms approved the use of Signal for Senate staff.

"Although Signal is widely regarded as offering very secure communications for consumers due to its end-to-end encryption and because it collects very little user data, it is hard to believe it is suitable for exchanging messages related to national security," said Ben Wood, chief analyst at CCS Insight - alluding to the breach involving top Trump aides discussing plans for military strikes on Yemeni Houthi militants.

Google's message services Google Messages and Google Allo, as well as Meta's Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp, use the Signal Protocol, according to Signal's website.



Justice at Stake as Generative AI Enters the Courtroom

Generative artificial intelligence has been used in the US legal system by judges performing research, lawyers filing appeals and parties involved in cases who wanted help expressing themselves in court. Jefferson Siegel / POOL/AFP
Generative artificial intelligence has been used in the US legal system by judges performing research, lawyers filing appeals and parties involved in cases who wanted help expressing themselves in court. Jefferson Siegel / POOL/AFP
TT
20

Justice at Stake as Generative AI Enters the Courtroom

Generative artificial intelligence has been used in the US legal system by judges performing research, lawyers filing appeals and parties involved in cases who wanted help expressing themselves in court. Jefferson Siegel / POOL/AFP
Generative artificial intelligence has been used in the US legal system by judges performing research, lawyers filing appeals and parties involved in cases who wanted help expressing themselves in court. Jefferson Siegel / POOL/AFP

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is making its way into courts despite early stumbles, raising questions about how it will influence the legal system and justice itself.

Judges use the technology for research, lawyers utilize it for appeals and parties involved in cases have relied on GenAI to help express themselves in court.

"It's probably used more than people expect," said Daniel Linna, a professor at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, about GenAI in the US legal system.

"Judges don't necessarily raise their hand and talk about this to a whole room of judges, but I have people who come to me afterward and say they are experimenting with it”.

In one prominent instance, GenAI enabled murder victim Chris Pelkey to address an Arizona courtroom -- in the form of a video avatar -- at the sentencing of the man convicted of shooting him dead in 2021 during a clash between motorists.

"I believe in forgiveness," said a digital proxy of Pelkey created by his sister, Stacey Wales.

The judge voiced appreciation for the avatar, saying it seemed authentic.

"I knew it would be powerful," Wales told , "that that it would humanize Chris in the eyes of the judge."

The AI testimony, a first of its kind, ended the sentencing hearing at which Wales and other members of the slain man's family spoke about the impact of the loss.

Since the hearing, examples of GenAI being used in US legal cases have multiplied.

"It is a helpful tool and it is time-saving, as long as the accuracy is confirmed," said attorney Stephen Schwartz, who practices in the northeastern state of Maine.

"Overall, it's a positive development in jurisprudence."

Schwartz described using ChatGPT as well as GenAI legal assistants, such as LexisNexis Protege and CoCounsel from Thomson Reuters, for researching case law and other tasks.

"You can't completely rely on it," Schwartz cautioned, recommending that cases proffered by GenAI be read to ensure accuracy.

"We are all aware of a horror story where AI comes up with mixed-up case things."

The technology has been the culprit behind false legal citations, far-fetched case precedents, and flat-out fabrications.

In early May, a federal judge in Los Angeles imposed $31,100 in fines and damages on two law firms for an error-riddled petition drafted with the help of GenAI, blasting it as a "collective debacle."

The tech is also being relied on by some who skip lawyers and represent themselves in court, often causing legal errors.

And as GenAI makes it easier and cheaper to draft legal complaints, courts already overburdened by caseloads could see them climb higher, said Shay Cleary of the National Center for State Courts.

"Courts need to be prepared to handle that," Cleary said.

Transformation

Law professor Linna sees the potential for GenAI to be part of the solution though, giving more people the ability to seek justice in courts made more efficient.

"We have a huge number of people who don't have access to legal services," Linna said.

"These tools can be transformative; of course we need to be thoughtful about how we integrate them."

Federal judges in the US capitol have written decisions noting their use of ChatGPT in laying out their opinions.

"Judges need to be technologically up-to-date and trained in AI," Linna said.

GenAI assistants already have the potential to influence the outcome of cases the same way a human law clerk might, reasoned the professor.

Facts or case law pointed out by GenAI might sway a judge's decision, and could be different than what a legal clerk would have come up with.

But if GenAI lives up to its potential and excels at finding the best information for judges to consider, that could make for well-grounded rulings less likely to be overturned on appeal, according to Linna.