WhatsApp BANNED by House Security Goons — But Why? – Source: securityboulevard.com

Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) offers hazy  reasoning.

The U.S. House of Representatives has banned the use of Meta’s WhatsApp chat app on its managed devices. Jamie Crotts (pictured) is the CAO’s CIO, tasked with denying staffers any use of WhatsApp on House devices.

Why? Apparently, Meta suffers from “a lack of transparency.” In today’s SB  Blogwatch, we wonder who’ll be next to ban the app.

Your humble blog­watcher curated these bloggy bits for your enter­tain­ment. Not to mention:  Power Play.

New Phone — Who Dis?

What’s the craic? Andrew Solender breathlessly claims this scoop: WhatsApp banned on House staffers’ devices

“Remove it”
The U.S. House’s chief administrative officer informed congressional staffers Monday that messaging app WhatsApp is banned on their government devices. … “The Office of Cybersecurity has deemed WhatsApp a high-risk to users due to the lack of transparency in how it protects user data, absence of stored data encryption, and potential security risks involved with its use,” the CAO said in an email.
…
“House staff are NOT allowed to download or keep the WhatsApp application on any House device, including any mobile, desktop, or web browser versions of its products. … If you have a WhatsApp application on your House-managed device, you will be contacted to remove it.” … The CAO said that Microsoft Teams, Wickr, Signal, iMessage and FaceTime are all acceptable alternatives.

I’m sure Meta reacted well. Courtney Rozen and Kritika Lamba report: WhatsApp banned on US House of Representatives devices

“Security issues”
A memo sent to all House staff on Monday, … from the chief administrative officer, recommended using other messaging apps. … Meta disagreed with the move “in the strongest possible terms,” a company spokesperson said, noting that the platform provides a higher level of security than the other approved apps.
…
The House has banned other apps from staff devices in the past, including … TikTok in 2022 due to security issues.

But why? Yoni Heisler is left scratching his head: House of Representatives bans WhatsApp

“Isn’t bulletproof”
Predictably, Meta, which owns WhatsApp, isn’t too pleased. … All the more so because it’s curiously vague. … The CAO didn’t address any specific security issues, but said the ban was due to a lack of transparency from WhatsApp.
…
While WhatsApp certainly has some robust security measures in place, it’s important to note that the platform isn’t bulletproof. On the contrary, there have been a handful of reports in recent years of the platform being successfully targeted by state-sponsored malware.

Transparency? Or disclosure? theodric ponders truthiness:

When 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?

The smell of it is WhatsApp ain’t as secure as Meta would have you believe. JakobFDR gets relativistic:

Imagine thinking WhatsApp is less secure than Teams. Either the softbrains on congressional staff making decisions on tech know nothing about these products, or there is some other leverage they are trying to get with Meta.

C’mon. It’s not going to fix anything. This Anonymous Coward simply shrugs:

So they just use their personal phone. All staff have at least two phones: One for congressional matters, and one for personal use (and sometimes a few more for contacting reporters for providing “anonymous” leaks and their extramarital partners).

Aren’t we missing the real point? mrsilver thinks so:

Isn’t the bigger story here that government owned and issued phones had such lax MDM that staff could download, install and use unapproved software?

Or is there a wider issue at play? Epic, spittle-flecked rant incoming from u/PeruvianHeadshrinker:

You have to understand that Meta knows waaaaaaaay more about you than you realize. All these laws in Europe that are meant to preserve privacy? Meta has been caught time and again circumventing those. They hack … phones to get data they’re not supposed to have.
…
They have been fined heavily, they have been chided publicly (even by Apple) but they rake in ungodly amounts of cash because all that information gives them a competitive advantage and they can literally just buy their way out of trouble. No one would buy Apple phones if you couldn’t have Instagram on it.
…
Wake up … and realize that they are absolutely raping your privacy. If you have anything Meta related installed they are tracking you and mining you better than most companies that have your permission to do so. Again Zuck founded Facebook with the intent to invade privacy. Everything flows from him.

Meanwhile, Infrastructure Tzarzan points to the pachyderm in the parlor:

Given how many politicians claim that [E2E] encryption is for criminals and child sex abusers, it is surprising to know that so many politicians use this technology!

And Finally:

They Live

Previously in And Finally

You have been reading SB Blogwatch by Richi Jennings. Richi curates the best bloggy bits, finest forums, and weird­est web­sites—so you don’t have to. Hate mail may be directed to  @RiCHi, @richij, @[email protected], @richi.bsky.social or [email protected]. Ask your doctor before reading. Your mileage may vary. Past per­formance is no guar­antee of future results. Do not stare into laser with re­maining eye. E&OE. 30.

Image sauce: CAO