Head of the Signal application: The irresponsible use of artificial intelligence is the real threat
Author, Megha Mohan
Role, identity and gender reporter
Published 2 minutes ago
Reading time: 5 minutes
Warning: This article contains strong language.
Meredith Whittaker has little patience for the “AI apocalypse” ideas dominating the headlines, and believes that warnings about AI rebelling against humanity are an “unscientifically based” fear.
"The danger is very real, but it's not the glamorous ghost stories that wild-eyed boys talk about," says the head of the Signal Foundation, which runs the encrypted messaging app of the same name.
Instead, she believes the most immediate danger is using this technology carelessly.
It refers to an alleged incident reported by CNN, about a robot used by the US intelligence services, which fabricated information about a Chinese ship transporting nuclear materials, which prompted the United States, according to reports, to prepare for a military response.
“We almost went to war with China,” Whittaker told BBC Global Women.
She adds: “A regime that produces faulty intelligence and almost drags us into war with China should not be considered highly intelligent by any standard.”
The number of users of the Signal application is estimated between 40 and 70 million users, which is a small number compared to the “WhatsApp” application, which includes billions of users.
Skip the most read and keep reading
Most read
Most read end
But Signal is known for its strict stance on protecting users' privacy – it hides the identity of the sender of messages even from its own servers, limiting the amount of data available to outside observers or hackers.
Protest against Project Maven
Skip the podcast and keep reading
Worth paying attention to
An in-depth explanation of the most prominent events and topics, to help you understand the most important variables around you and their impact on your life
Episodes
End podcast
Time magazine named Whitaker one of the most influential people in the field of artificial intelligence. She moves between rooms where the future of this technology is being discussed, from Silicon Valley boardrooms to Downing Street, Davos and the Vatican.
She studied literature at university, and joined Google in 2006 as a temporary junior without a degree in computer science.
In late 2017, her name became public when a colleague told her about Project Maven, a secret contract that Google concluded with the US Department of Defense to build artificial intelligence systems that target drones.
I realized what "shortening the kill chain" meant: shortening the time between a machine selecting a target and a person deciding to fire, thus reducing the waiting time. She opposed this, along with thousands of her colleagues.
“This will legitimize bad intelligence and bad data,” she recalls arguing publicly.
The following year, Whitaker helped organize a strike of about 20,000 employees to protest the company's handling of a number of issues, including what they saw as the hasty introduction of new technology.
Google abandoned the contract, and Palantir took over the project.
Whitaker draws a direct line linking Project Maven to the American missile attack on a school in Iran this year, which she says relied on the regime and old intelligence information that identified the school as a military target.
“This is exactly what we were warning about in 2017,” she adds.
In response, Palantir told Global Women that "there is no evidence that Palantir software caused this horrific tragedy."
"Palantir is not responsible for the underlying data or for identifying deficiencies in intelligence information," she added. "There's always a human being in the loop, so there's always someone making the final decision," the company's UK and European director, Lewis Mosley, told the BBC earlier this year.
The US military has not yet announced the results of its investigation into the Minab strike in Iran, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the military "will never target civilian targets."
"I have courage"
Governments, including the British government, argue for the need to have more access to conversations on messaging applications. They say the aim is to protect women and children.
During London Tech Week 2026, then Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that technology companies would be required to detect images of nudity and block them from children's devices, or else face binding legislation.
Whittaker believes that children will be able to circumvent any measures of this kind, and described the government's approach as "an unprecedented system of control over communications and information."
Britain's Department of Science, Innovation and Technology told the BBC that it was preparing legislation.
Would Signal leave any country, including Britain, if it was forced to weaken the encryption it uses?
She answers: “Yes! Oh my God, I have courage.” “This does not change depending on the mood,” she says. “It does not change based on the advisors’ (recommendations).”
She adds that if the alternative is to expose people “who depend on us, sometimes in a life-or-death context, to surveillance that can be used against them as a weapon,” then “Signal will leave the market.”
The application is completely or partially banned in Russia, China and Iran.
Rani Govender, head of child online safety at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, told the BBC that the society hears from children who have been lured and then transferred to platforms that use end-to-end encryption, where they are forced to produce material related to the sexual exploitation of children.
"Technology companies are responsible for the design choices they make, and they cannot ignore the risks those choices may create for children," she added.
But Signal also has support from some women's organizations, particularly those in the Global South who use the app themselves.
“In a time of government surveillance and cyberattacks, Signal is a survival tool,” says Hira Hussain, founder of Chain, a gender advocacy charity that works across South Asia.
She added: “Like any other platform, it can also be misused by those with bad intentions, and we must acknowledge this fact as well.”
What are we going to do about the kitchens?
A lawyer representing one of the officers said the men believed the Signal app was as private and secure as their homes.
“If they had that conversation in the kitchen and then one of their friends snitched on them,” Whittaker replies, “would the question be, ‘What are we going to do about kitchens?’”
“Either it works for everyone or no one,” she adds. This is the principle of fundamental rights. "It applies even to fools."
She points to the case of an American woman who was imprisoned after Meta delivered letters that showed she had helped her daughter obtain an abortion in a state where that was criminalized.
She says private communications protect people from many types of harm, from "an abusive husband, a misogynistic law enforcement officer with access to a database, or an authoritarian government that doesn't believe women should have access to an education."
She replied: “Do you like this field? Do you sit in front of the device and feel the energy flow? Do you enjoy working with and defining AI systems?
So I asked her if these environments were full of bullies.
Then one of her colleagues said, “I think it's 2 p.m.,” which was the time we had agreed to end the interview.
Meredith smiled and said, "Don't be a sycophant, I say."
She used a term used to describe a person who shows excessive submission or reverence to those in authority.
“It won't do you any good,” she added. Don't laugh at a joke if you don't find it funny."
