I have some reaallllly bad news for you on that front.
Wait until you hear about the guy storing Top Secret Nuclear documents in the public toilet of his resort....
Or the one that invites journalist to Signal group during combat mission.
Down voting like it never happened... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Classifi...
In general you'll get downvoted if you're talking about any politician or political party. You are allowed to shit on (or advocate for) the government doing stuff tho.
What would you recommend instead?
For security-critical or sensitive situations, auditability should be a requirement. That implies access to source code and capabilty to build it.
Decisions like these need to be done from first principles. SharePoint shouldn't even have been a contender here if looked at seriously. Do your own homework.
Think you answered just about everything except the question asked
> For security-critical or sensitive situations, auditability should be a requirement. That implies access to source code and capabilty to build it.
Vendors can be accountable without providing source code, for example through contracts specifying performance.
I don't know how large Sharepoint's source is, though it has many components and I assume there is quite a bit of code. Auditing the source code of something like Microsoft Office seems almost impossible.
> first principles.
What does that mean in this context?
Doesn't Microsoft have government programs that grant source code access for products like Windows and (probably) SharePoint?
But, look at everything we get for free! /s
Sounds like they need to seriously redesign their security policies.