Mobiles Are Inherently Insecure

This article is glib and fluffy, while insinuating that it's better to throw national security under the train than to challenge the tech narrative of "necessity".

> It is no longer news to point out that a mobile phone, if hacked, can be the ultimate tool for surveillance.

It wasn't in 2013. It's still not news that it's not news.

> We will almost certainly never know precisely what happened to Liz Truss’s phone.

Cobblers. Competent forensic analysis will tell us a mountain of information. It just might not be helpful or interesting for the public to know who the usual suspects are with their grubby fingers in, now allegedly helping Putin.

> Political insiders say the fear was that Russian actors had hacked into the politician’s phone,

No that wasn't "the fear". And nobody needs wispy "political insiders" to care about that. It's a bad show if any government servant's phone is hacked, by anybody.

> The reality is that a mobile phone is inherently insecure, but, like anybody else, a politician will want and indeed need to use one.

Implying that only politician's phone security matters? Or that everybody "needs" to use one? Both are false. The only nearly true part of the statement is that smart phones are inherently insecure. (with decent opsec a 2G bare-bones device can be more or less secured, - but still used as a tracking beacon and potentially a remote microphone)

> On the other hand, it is unlikely that Truss will have been incautious enough to share secret or top secret paperwork via her phone.

A pointless fluff statement. The very presence of a compromised phone in her proximity is catastrophic.

Politicians are one small group.

Lawyers, doctors, police, teachers, accountants, social workers, therapists, soldiers, even taxi drivers... everybody who carries "smartphone" ought to know that current technology puts them at risk of compromising their clients or own safety, and facing professional ruin.