Secure messaging apps: pros and cons of each platform (2024)

It has always been difficult for journalists to communicate with a sensitive source. Sources who contact the media may put themselves in dangerous situations, violate contracts, violate laws, break promises and betray trust.

Meeting in a parking garage at 4am in trench coats - while still effective under certain circ*mstances - works less well in an age of CCTV and mobile phone tracking. When it comes to secure communication, phone calls are no more, but regular email isridiculously terribleand texting is just worse.

Enter: secure messaging apps.

These apps work on the same principles as PGP email encryption and are the new frontline in securing communications between journalists, sources and contacts. All of these apps offer end-to-end encryption. If the company running the servers is ever subpoenaed, all they can hand over to prosecutors is essentially junk.

But the problem with some of these services is that you have to trust that your data is safe, as proprietary companies usually don't open their software.

I discuss some of the pros and cons of different secure messaging apps and offer a few suggestions on which ones journalists should use. Remember, there is no right answer for everyone. Depending on who you're hiding from, some apps are more useful or useful than others.

1.) iReport

BenefitCons
  • Built into all iPhones and Macs.
  • Completely seamless. If the speech bubble is blue, it will be shipped safely.
  • If an iMessage doesn't send, the iPhone will send it via SMS as a backup, potentially sending it unencrypted. However,this can be disabled.
  • Most of your friends, colleagues, and sources are already using it.
  • Links your personal phone number to your device.

2.)Signal

BenefitCons
  • Designed from the ground up to be nothing more than a secure messaging platform.
  • Buggy, especially on iOS.
  • It is not surprising that it is being hacked into an existing platform.
  • The UI and some of the user experience design can have some, shall we say, interesting flaws. However, none of these issues affect safety.
  • Completely open source.
  • Not widespread or known.
  • Extremely familiar, intuitive interface.
  • Requires your phone number to find contact.
  • Enables audio chat with confirmation.
  • Anyone who wants to track your internet usage can see that you're using Signal. However, they cannot read your messages.

    3.)WhatsApp

    BenefitCons
    • Built end-to-end by the same team as Signal.
    • Not entirely open source.
    • More than 1 billion users.
    • Owned by Facebook.
    • The default security settings are very good, as each message is automatically encrypted.
    • How much trust do you have in Facebook?
    • Users receive notifications if something is wrong.
    • Everyone you want to talk to is already using it.

    4.)Tox(a Skype "replacement")

    BenefitCons
    • Completely decentralized.
    • Usernames consist of 77 random numbers and letters. Mine is 1EFD9FE2EC7D30065AB
      E5E5C9C93908057608622D94020C952C
      1A7A61D1D0F622E59F5DF41C0.
    • There is absolutely no company in the world that can be attacked.
    • It's slow.
    • User lists are distributed and shared via the network itself.
    • It can take some time to find a user on the network as there is no central repository.
    • No personally identifiable information (phone number, email address, etc.) is required to create an account.
    • The actual chat and voice services are still very buggy.
    • Completely open source, so developers can use the Tox protocol andbuild on itwhat they like.
    • Other apps, which have adapted Tox'sprotocolare difficult to use and ugly to look at.
      • Generally very few users.

      5.)Allo(Google's newest messaging platform. Yes, another)

      BenefitCons
      • Made by Google, so you know the user experience will be pleasant.
      • It's brand new.
      • The team behind Signal implemented Allo's end-to-end encryption.
      • Closed source.
      • Extremely accessible on many devices.
      • So far, none of your messages are encrypted by default in Allo's security settings.

      Take away food

      If you're reporting on the big boys (USA, Russia, Israel, China), even these services may not be able to help you. It's unlikely to break the encryption protecting your messages, but the possibilities of malware on your device (or a very sophisticated man-in-the-middle attack)is much higher. In this case, there are also many other internet security issues to consider.

      But if you're only concerned about securing your standard day-to-day communications, I'd recommend Signal. If you're one step below international espionage, iMessage, WhatsApp or Signal are all broadly suitable.

      The biggest key to successfully using these tools is normalizing their use. If your team uses Signal, use it for everything. As the saying goes, those who go on the offensive need only get lucky once; defenders always have to be lucky.

      Christopher Raad, a computer programmer and photojournalist, is an expert in mobile technology. He also has experience with media sustainability projects. Read more about his work as an ICFJ Knight Fellowher.

      Main image CC licensed from Flickr viaQuinn Dombrowski.

      Secure messaging apps: pros and cons of each platform (2024)
      Top Articles
      Latest Posts
      Article information

      Author: Reed Wilderman

      Last Updated:

      Views: 5740

      Rating: 4.1 / 5 (72 voted)

      Reviews: 87% of readers found this page helpful

      Author information

      Name: Reed Wilderman

      Birthday: 1992-06-14

      Address: 998 Estell Village, Lake Oscarberg, SD 48713-6877

      Phone: +21813267449721

      Job: Technology Engineer

      Hobby: Swimming, Do it yourself, Beekeeping, Lapidary, Cosplaying, Hiking, Graffiti

      Introduction: My name is Reed Wilderman, I am a faithful, bright, lucky, adventurous, lively, rich, vast person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.