Michael Waltz, one of the national security advisors of Donald Trump administration, was the target of criticism for the official correspondence on his personal Gmail account. According to the e-mails of the Washington Post, Waltz discussed various sensitive military issues through his personal address instead of the state e-mail. These correspondence contained details about advanced weapons systems and active military positions. This gathered reaction on the grounds that it may mean a violation of federal security standards.
In the published documents, it is understood that Waltz talked about technical details with the authorities in other state institutions through the Gmail account. Moreover, all other officials in these e-mails were using official government addresses. Some government officials say that Waltz’s agenda and other business documents were sent to Gmail account. Although these documents do not directly enter the secret class, it can be abused in terms of security.
Donald Trump management is on the agenda with digital scandals
Waltz’s communication habits came up again after another digital scandal last week. Waltz accidentally invited a journalist to a Signal group where he talked about the planned military operation against Yemen. The Atlantic editor -in -chief Jeffrey Goldberg was added to the group. This correspondence, which was directly related to the military operation that took place that day, brought great security questions.
In the light of all these developments, a public question stands out: Should the high level of security officials carry out state affairs with their personal accounts? Speaking on the issue, the National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes argued that Waltz has never shared confidential information through open accounts. Hughes suggested that Waltz had no evidence of any concrete infringement of the use of personal e-mail. Nevertheless, experts are united in the opinion that security should be provided not only with the content of the information but also by transportation methods.
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said that the incident was low likely to be a criminal investigation. During Bondi’s statements, Hillary Clinton refers to the personal server issue. Clinton’s e-mail scandal was one of the most controversial issues of the 2016 election process. The comparison between this example and the situation of Waltz added a political dimension to the issue.
The security vulnerabilities of Waltz are not limited to this; There was a remarkable revelation through the personal Venmo account. According to a news prepared by Wired, Waltz’s name of Hundreds of Military officials and journalists was identified in the Venmo history of the Venmo. This led to re -questioning the balance between transparency and privacy on digital platforms. In particular, it is stated that the names of the public tasks should pay more attention to social media and application use.
On the other hand, Spiegel International, leaked online databases in the Waltz’a e-mail address of many passwords, he wrote. These passwords, personal accounts of the security of the safety can be revealed. In particular, the possibility that high -profile state officials become targeted with such deficits cannot be ignored. In addition, these security weaknesses can lead to much larger consequences in the future.
Although it is claimed that there is no direct secret information sharing, the official correspondence on personal accounts weakens the systemic security chain. It is emphasized that data security policies within state institutions should be revised. Every technical action is expected to comply with certain safety standards regardless of content. Speaking of details about military operations on personal platforms is a great risk.
The general opinion in the public opinion is that critical people, such as security consultants, keep their personal accounts only for individual use. In order not to repeat such violations, it is stated that digital security trainings and controls for employees should be increased. The example of Waltz is seen as a clear example of how individual carelessness can make institutional structures difficult. Update in -house communication policies is no longer a must -be.