The problem isn't a technological one arguably though, and that's why all purely technical solutions are probably doomed to failure.
A huge part of the reason senior government figures around the world often choose to use WhatsApp or Zoom is to avoid or reduce exposure to the statutory recording requirements using the "official" comms channel would entail. The UK in particular has had serious chilling effects on government due to the fear that email or official communications will later embarrass you following publication under Freedom Of Information laws. This isn't a hypothetical - FoI journalism is a real thing in the UK and a source of a huge number of stories that can embarrass the Government of the day.
As long as the official channels are subject to strong public disclosure laws that allow the media relatively easy access to many government communications, politicians will seek devices that allow them to communicate "privately" even if that means adopting less secure devices and services. The "threat" they see is FoI/embarrassment in press a lot of the time, not the State level Cyber attacker.
I'm not defending this practice, but I can understand why it happens. I've even seen NHS employees (state employed drs in the UK health service) avoid saying things in meetings for fear of the later FoI reveal if the meeting minutes are published.
A huge part of the reason senior government figures around the world often choose to use WhatsApp or Zoom is to avoid or reduce exposure to the statutory recording requirements using the "official" comms channel would entail. The UK in particular has had serious chilling effects on government due to the fear that email or official communications will later embarrass you following publication under Freedom Of Information laws. This isn't a hypothetical - FoI journalism is a real thing in the UK and a source of a huge number of stories that can embarrass the Government of the day.
As long as the official channels are subject to strong public disclosure laws that allow the media relatively easy access to many government communications, politicians will seek devices that allow them to communicate "privately" even if that means adopting less secure devices and services. The "threat" they see is FoI/embarrassment in press a lot of the time, not the State level Cyber attacker.
I'm not defending this practice, but I can understand why it happens. I've even seen NHS employees (state employed drs in the UK health service) avoid saying things in meetings for fear of the later FoI reveal if the meeting minutes are published.