Assignment task: Are there times and places where it is perfectly appropriate for a senior official to communicate with foreign leaders or other US officials through some means of electronic messaging other than email? If they do, what should they do to ensure the preservation of those messages (if anything)?
I would say that communication with foreign officials should always be done in a manner with security the first priority, and when communicating, it should be done with the ability to record communications. My thought behind this is to provide transparency to the public while also avoid controversies with gray space and finger pointing. When communicating with NATO countries, there are communication systems in place to provide secure communications, but when communicating with foreign leaders outside of NATO, extreme caution should be used to avoid hearsay. Personally, I don't believe communications should take place where a record can not be produced.
Are there steps that agencies can take to assist senior officials in fulfilling their recordkeeping duties?
Yes, I have no issue with senior leaders having access to secure networks from their homes, offices, or other means while traveling. It boils down to the actions and practices they follow when using such devices. Records for electronic devices can always be recorded and stored by government agencies. When dealing with data transfer, encryption would need to be highly prioritized and monitored regularly to avoid compromise. This can become labor intensive, but necessary when considering national security.
Would you agree with my answer in regards to both questions please explain.