A simple mistake gave a journalist front-row access to U.S. military secrets. But the real scandal? This kind of breach happens all the time—just not usually by our government.
Earlier this week, The Atlantic reported a surprising breach of protocol: a top-level U.S. government official inadvertently added The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief to a private Signal group chat.
Through this chat, the journalist learned—before the strike occurred and before the U.S. public—about an imminent military operation in Yemen.
This wasn’t a hack. And it wasn’t an illegal wiretap. The journalist was affirmatively (and voluntarily) added to the private channel where extremely sensitive—arguably the most sensitive—information was being shared.
This raises two important questions: How does this happen? And how can it be prevented?
How Did This Happen?
The mistake might seem simple: someone added the wrong person to a group chat. But it goes deeper than that. Sensitive communications like these should never occur over a platform where someone can be accidentally added to the thread.
Think of your own digital life:
- Have you ever sent an email to the wrong person (e.g., John Doe instead of Jane Doe)?
- Clicked “Reply All” by mistake (to much of your colleagues’ disdain)?
- Texted someone about them instead of the intended friend?
That’s what happened here: human error.
And it’s not just the cause of embarrassing moments—it’s a leading cause of:
- Data breaches and other security incidents
- Privacy violations
Why Signal Was the Wrong Platform
Personal error is often the root cause of how private communications end up in the wrong hands. In fact, entire hacking strategies—like spear-phishing—rely on the likelihood of human error to access emails, credentials, and other sensitive data.
Because of this risk, most companies know—or should know—not to relay confidential information through tools like email or messaging apps without additional safeguards.
While Signal is widely respected for its end-to-end encryption, that protection only applies to the transmission of data. It does not prevent unintended recipients from accessing content once they’re added.
To put it in context, Signal functions similarly to group text messaging, but with encryption in transit. Similar messaging platforms include Meta’s WhatsApp and China’s WeChat.
And while encryption is certainly critical to prevent the message from being intercepted, it’s not enough when the risk comes from the recipient list—not an outside threat.
How This Could Have Been Prevented
If you’re handling high-stakes, sensitive information, basic digital hygiene is of paramount importance. Here’s how the government—and any organization—can prevent a similar breach:
- Avoid Using Signal for Sensitive Communications
Like email and text, Signal lacks recipient verification or layered access controls. Secure communication should instead take place over:
- Encrypted portals
- Systems requiring biometric or multi-factor authentication
- Platforms with access logs and audit trails
Biometrics are particularly strong (e.g., fingerprints and face scans), as they can’t be easily faked or forwarded. Had biometric verification been required, U.S. officials could have prevented accidental communication with the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic.
- Require Identity Confirmation in Group Threads
But this was not the only blunder. Another basic data security technique is ensuring every participant in a secure thread can be clearly and accurately identified.
In this case, some participants were listed by initials (e.g., “MAR”), which The Atlantic speculated referred to Marco Antonio Rubio. That’s unacceptable for any confidential channel.
All participants should be identified by: (1) full names; (2) verified credentials; (3) clearly defined roles and permissions. Thus, rather than “MAR”, if the participant was truly Marco Antionio Rubio, it should have said that along with his position (Secretary of State) and the level of his security-clearance.
If there were unclear initials or unknown usernames, they should have been vetted before any information is shared. Had these simple checks been followed, officials might have realized that “JG” was The Atlantic’s top editor.
- Train All Participants on Secure Communication Protocols
All personnel—including government officials—must be trained on how to securely communicate sensitive information. That includes steps like double-checking recipient lists, verifying identities of group members, and reporting and flagging inconsistencies.
It’s not enough for the chat organizer to know the rules. Everyone involved must be aware of their obligations.
In this instance, someone should have noticed that an unauthorized participant was added to the Signal thread and, arguably, right away. The fact that no one did suggests inadequate training and basic lapses in online security awareness.
- Training on Data Minimization
Even if Signal were an appropriate platform—it is not—the principle of data minimization should still apply. That means retaining only the data necessary for as long as needed and no longer.
The Atlantic notes that messages in the chat were set to delete after one to four weeks. But for truly sensitive information, that’s far too long. Messages should have been deleted immediately after being read by the intended recipient.
It’s worth noting that in this case, some of the messages may qualify as official records under federal law (as noted by The Atlantic), which require preservation. But that rule applies to U.S. officials, not private companies. Businesses engaged in similar communications should make data minimization a core practice.
The Bigger Picture for Data Privacy
In some ways, the government was lucky: the unintended recipient was a journalist who, out of respect for national security, chose not to publish the most sensitive content.
But that doesn’t lessen the severity of the breach. This incident underscores a key point for both governments and private companies: Encryption isn’t enough. Access control, verification, data minimization, and training are critical to real data security.
Contact Us
If your private data has been disclosed—whether by human error, unauthorized access, or a broader data breach—you may have legal rights. We’re here to help. If you believe your personal data was disclosed without your consent, reach out to us for a free evaluation.