Robert: I think what you are calling for is an assessment of security versus transparency.
For instance, who has access to my e-mails? In the Swedish transparency framework (offentlighetsprincipen) all correspondence sent to a Swedish riksdagsledamot (parliamentarian) are by nature public documents. Would we accept it if our riksdagsledamöter encrypted their communications using asymmetric encryption to which only the riksdagsledamot held the private key? It would run completely contrary to the offentlighetsprincip so even if the individual riksdagsledamot would be more secure in their communications, it would harm transparency of the decision making institution.
The correspondence of people in powerful positions, such as myself, may indeed sometimes have to be somewhat more compromised. It is unreasonable for you to be addressing me in my capacity as an important powerful politician and expect that whatever influence you exert on me must go unnoticed to the surrounding world.
Nevertheless some of the questions you raise could of course be subject to relevant political scrutiny. Are we for instance making ourselves vulnerable to corruption with the IT Staff? Especially keystroke reporting could be one such concern - but a much larger concern with platforms such as the ones currently under developed for all mobile platforms (CommitteeEverywhere or something) is that they have no idea that the platform which they use as a base, be it Android or iOS, does not allow other applications on the same platform on the end-user device to do that kind of reporting!!!!
At the end of the day, it's a trade-off between accessibility and security, and I think a valuable lesson for everyone to bring with them is functional separation as a general principle for all communications industries to ensure the predictable and safe behaviour of tools on a diverse communications market.
Robert: I think what you are calling for is an assessment of security versus transparency.
For instance, who has access to my e-mails? In the Swedish transparency framework (offentlighetsprincipen) all correspondence sent to a Swedish riksdagsledamot (parliamentarian) are by nature public documents. Would we accept it if our riksdagsledamöter encrypted their communications using asymmetric encryption to which only the riksdagsledamot held the private key? It would run completely contrary to the offentlighetsprincip so even if the individual riksdagsledamot would be more secure in their communications, it would harm transparency of the decision making institution.
The correspondence of people in powerful positions, such as myself, may indeed sometimes have to be somewhat more compromised. It is unreasonable for you to be addressing me in my capacity as an important powerful politician and expect that whatever influence you exert on me must go unnoticed to the surrounding world.
Nevertheless some of the questions you raise could of course be subject to relevant political scrutiny. Are we for instance making ourselves vulnerable to corruption with the IT Staff? Especially keystroke reporting could be one such concern - but a much larger concern with platforms such as the ones currently under developed for all mobile platforms (CommitteeEverywhere or something) is that they have no idea that the platform which they use as a base, be it Android or iOS, does not allow other applications on the same platform on the end-user device to do that kind of reporting!!!!
At the end of the day, it's a trade-off between accessibility and security, and I think a valuable lesson for everyone to bring with them is functional separation as a general principle for all communications industries to ensure the predictable and safe behaviour of tools on a diverse communications market.