Why Aren't Politicians More Cautious With Communications?

Teenagers are probably more technically savvy than most upper levels of government.

(SALEM, Ore.) - Each election carries its own unique group of issues that have emerged just for that campaign season. In 1992, it was the North American Free Trade Agreement, a bone of contention between Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush that was also chewed on extensively by independent candidate H. Ross Perot.

As the 2016 presidential election approaches, one of the central issues is the use of an unsecured email system by another Clinton, the former president's wife, Hillary.

The way she apparently communicated with staff during her time as secretary of state, and its subsequent potential for hacking by our enemies, has her political opponents saying that she is too reckless or naïve to serve as Commander in Chief.

While most concerns about virtualization security involve hacking prevention or management of corporate intellectual property, the email issue with Clinton has opened a new realm of national security concerns in the bigger picture of internet security.

The public is concerned with how easily the contents of her emails may have fallen into the hands of enemies, and whether there may have already been damage done.

Of course, it isn't just the investigation of her actions that is involved here. There have been many instances of sloppy security actions by people at the highest levels of government, and there will always be scrutiny when those mistakes come to light.

Whether it's Richard Nixon's tapes, Ronald Reagan's secret meetings, or the aforementioned Clinton emails, loose lips always scare the public.

Whatever the particulars of the oversight, the question remains: Why are people at such high levels of government making mistakes that teenagers know not to make?

The stakes are incredibly high; there are military secrets, sensitive economic facts, and campaign strategies that can easily be accessed by the wrong people. When politicians make these missteps, there are several things that may have come into play.

Generational Issues

Without sounding ageist, the fact is that those teenagers are probably more savvy than most of the people in the upper levels of government.

People who were educated in the 1960's and 1970's had absolutely no experience with high technology during high school or college, but today's youths are swiping and scrolling on tablets before they can even read.

The most effective way to learn technology, languages, music, and many other skills is to be involved with them at a young age, and when politicians are trying to get up to speed after reaching age 40 or 50, it's a very steep learning curve.

They simply may not perceive the seriousness of the risk at hand, and their lack of understanding can come back to haunt them.

Haste Making Waste

Global issues materialize and change rapidly, and sometimes the fastest way to communicate is seen as the best one, even at the expense of security.

Users may be fully aware of the risk of using unsecured systems, but if there is no other fast avenue available, they may feel that the limited duration of the contact presents a low risk of interception, meaning that the benefits outweigh the risks and that it's worth the gamble.

The problem here is a failure to understand the long-term endurance of communications. Hitting "send" and knowing that the message will be deleted by the recipient isn't enough. The email can be accessed later at many different points along its path, making deletion an impossibility.

Recipient Issues

Sometimes government officials can operate from systems that utilize the correct systems and protocols--until they reach the intended recipient.

It doesn't matter how ironclad your email is if you send a message to someone whose system is less protected. In this age of accessibility of elected officials, in which they want to return tweets, answer emails, and respond to Facebook posts, it's too easy for the government to lower the bridge and allow hackers to cross the moat.

In this case, they are best served to use a semi-secure system, separate from the one used for sensitive information, to communicate with constituents. This gives them that air of availability without compromising other messages about more sensitive situations.

We expect our elected officials to closely guard the secure information that they are privy to. In a world of fast-moving politics, technology, and international events, it bears more attention than ever.

There are too many prying eyes trying to learn about too many important secrets for us to let our guard down, so balancing that vigilance with avoidance of paranoia is key.