Private Messaging, Public Consequences, and What the Signal Scandal Reveals About Enterprise Risk
It began, as many crises do, with convenience.
Several U.S. government officials—including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz—were coordinating military strikes in Yemen. Not over secure federal systems, not through classified channels, but in a Signal group chat. A group chat that, due to an administrative blunder, also included a journalist.
The messages weren’t just encrypted—they were set to disappear. No audit trail. No archive. No accountability.
What felt secure enough—encrypted, ephemeral, peer-to-peer—was, in fact, an unsanctioned workaround. And one that collapsed under scrutiny.
This wasn’t a one-off misstep. It was the predictable byproduct of a broader system that confuses individual discretion with institutional discipline.
And it's not just a government problem. It’s a boardroom problem. A public company problem. A your company problem.
From the Situation Room to the Trading Floor
The Signal scandal is dramatic, but it’s not unique.
Since 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has fined more than 60 financial firms—including the likes of JPMorgan, Citi, and Bank of America—a total of $2.7 billion for using off-channel messaging apps like Signal, WhatsApp, and iMessage to conduct official business.
These weren’t shadowy backroom schemes. They were day-to-day decisions: a deal discussed over Signal, a market shift flagged over WhatsApp, a client pinged from a personal phone.
In each case, the firm had no way to capture the record, confirm the communication, or enforce its compliance obligations. Regulators didn’t just see a technology failure—they saw an accountability failure.
And they made the price clear.
Encryption Isn’t the Same as Security
Let’s deal with the common misconception: “But Signal is secure.”
Sure. Secure from outside interception. But not secure for your business.
Apps like Signal and WhatsApp were designed for personal privacy, not enterprise governance. They encrypt conversations, yes—but they also allow users to disappear messages, bypass IT policies, and operate outside any formal oversight structure.
In the recent Signal case, the problem wasn’t that the messages were hacked. It’s that no one inside the system had any visibility. The same problem haunts corporate boardrooms. Leadership assumes security exists because encryption exists. But encryption alone can’t create accountability, preserve institutional memory, or withstand legal scrutiny.
Disappearing messages aren’t a feature. They’re a flag. In intelligence work, we treat ephemerality as a red signal—an indicator of deliberate evasion.
Security without structure is just a false sense of control.
The Hidden Cost of Informality
What’s most striking about these incidents is how unremarkable the behavior felt to those involved. To them, it was just an efficient way to communicate. Quick. Direct. Familiar.
But in organizations where high-stakes decisions are made every day, casual communication has strategic consequences. When the official record lives in a Signal thread or a WhatsApp group—or worse, nowhere at all—the organization becomes unmoored from its own decision-making process.
You can’t defend what you can’t document.
You can’t learn from what you never recorded.
You can’t lead what you can’t see.
A Competitive Intelligence Risk That’s Easy to Overlook
There’s a less obvious, but equally serious, consequence of informal messaging practices: the exposure of your internal strategic insights—not through hacking, but through habits.
It’s easy to assume that using encrypted apps like Signal, WhatsApp, or iMessage is a security measure in itself. And yes, these tools offer end-to-end encryption, which protects messages in transit.
But encryption alone isn’t enough.
These platforms weren’t designed for enterprise use. They don’t offer administrative oversight, centralized logging, jurisdictional data controls, or record-retention policies. There’s no way to track who’s accessing what information, on what device, or where that data ends up.
In contrast, enterprise-grade systems like Microsoft Teams or Slack—when configured properly—offer:
- Audit trails and user access logs
- Role-based permissions
- Policy-based retention and deletion rules
- Centralized data governance aligned to compliance needs
This matters because competitive intelligence isn’t just about collecting insights from the outside world—it’s about protecting your own.
If early-stage analyses, go-to-market shifts, or pricing deliberations are happening over apps with no organizational control, then your internal strategies are effectively off the radar. You don’t know where they live. You don’t know who’s seen them. And you may not be able to retrieve or secure them if needed.
That’s not a hypothetical risk. It’s a blind spot—one that undermines the very foundation of your decision-making infrastructure.
The lesson isn’t to stop communicating. It’s to communicate with systems that are built for oversight, built for resilience, and built to ensure that your own intelligence stays as protected as your competitors'.
If you’re responsible for protecting strategic initiatives and market positioning, the discipline of competitive intelligence must extend beyond what you gather—it must include what you guard. That’s a policy conversation, a systems decision, and an executive responsibility.
The majority of corporate intelligence compromise comes not from hostile actors but from insiders mishandling sensitive information—through habits that go untrained, tools that go unmanaged, and decisions that go unchallenged.
Convenience vs. Consequences
The tools we’ve adopted to move faster also expose us to reputational, regulatory, and operational risk.
And it's not just about fines. It’s about trust.
- Can your clients trust that their sensitive information is handled professionally?
- Can your board trust that decisions are being made through legitimate channels?
- Can your employees trust that there’s a standard—and that it matters?
What Leaders Must Do
The solution isn’t more paranoia. It’s more structure. More clarity. More intention.
That starts with abandoning the idea that messaging tools are neutral utilities. They are strategic infrastructure. They shape how decisions are made, how knowledge is retained, and how crises unfold.
Organizations must define what communication belongs where—and enforce it. That doesn’t mean banning texting. It means distinguishing between informal chatter and formal exchanges. It means deploying enterprise-grade tools where necessary, and backing them with policy, training, and monitoring.
It means treating communication governance with the same seriousness as financial controls or data security.
Because that’s what it is.
If executives are the worst offenders—using private messaging apps for speed or secrecy—then no policy or tool will fix what leadership behavior keeps breaking.
Systems Reveal Standards
The Signal scandal is a cautionary tale not just about technology, but about culture. In moments of ambiguity, people will default to what’s easy. If the systems allow it, they will normalize it. And if the leadership doesn’t address it, it will persist until something breaks.
The most strategic organizations today don’t rely on good judgment alone—they build in good defaults. They turn an invisible thread of daily messages into a strong spine of institutional intelligence.
In strategic organizations, even casual communication has a chain of custody.
Because when decisions matter, how they're made—and how they’re recorded—also matters.
Sign up below for our weekly newsletter!
