Government by WhatsApp
The Good Law Project is in the high court again this morning to challenge government use of private communication channels such as WhatsApp. It is widely acknowledged that WhatsApp is used in government, to the extent that Boris Johnson is said to receive ‘red box’ information this way. In contrast, the government’s own Security of Government Business Policy states that Ministers should “not use [their] personal devices, email and communications applications for Government business…”.
One technical question that arises from this is whether WhatsApp is implicitly a ‘personal communications application’, even if it is used on a work device. Our view is that it comes down to WhatsApp’s terms of service, which state: “You will not use (or assist others in using) our Services in ways that…involve any non-personal use of our Services unless otherwise authorized by us.” So if WhatsApp is being used in accordance with its terms then the usage must implicitly be personal.
Another more fundamental question is whether using WhatsApp for government business is good practice.
On the one hand, WhatsApp is an incredibly versatile and efficient communication tool, and good communication is crucial for effective government. WhatsApp is free (in financial terms), accessible and simple to use. So it could arguably represent good practice in some respects.
However, the question is whether these benefits outweigh the drawbacks. The Good Law Project provide a summary of the downsides of using WhatsApp for government communication here. They highlight three key issues of accountability, transparency and security.
The final question we would ask is whether there are viable alternatives, that provide the same benefits as WhatsApp, but overcome these key issues. Of course our answer would be ‘yes’, and we would cite ChatPro as an example. It provides fast, effective mobile communication, while supporting accountability, transparency and security in a professional context.
Accountability: messages cannot be deleted by individual users and are stored in a central archive, not on individual devices.
Transparency: the duration of the message archive can be specified up to 20 years, and longer if necessary.
Security: messages are 256 AES encrypted at rest and in transit, using servers located in the UK and EU.
The question, therefore, is why the government persists in using WhatsApp, and whether the Good Law Project will be successful in their legal attempt to force a change in practice.
