3 ms·
The email was sent under the name of Erica Carr — the acting executive secretary at USAID — and bears a USAID logo. Typically the industrial security people at
by outer_web 2y ago
The email was sent under the name of Erica Carr — the acting executive secretary at USAID — and bears a USAID logo.
Typically the industrial security people at contractors aren't so naive as to be fooled by an illegal-sounding request from an unknown source. The road to the company's request to the court goes through additional scrutiny including lawyers.
Please continue giving the administration the benefit of the doubt, just not when it's beyond the shadow of one.
- snvzz 2y ago>>The email was sent under the name of Erica Carr — the acting executive secretary at USAID — and bears a USAID logo. >Typically the industrial security people at contractors aren't so naive as to be fooled by an illegal-sounding request from an unknown source. So you're implying it bears a cryptographic signature? Nowhere in the article does it state that. It talks about an USAID logo which, if anything, only raises doubt. >Please continue giving the administration the benefit of the doubt, just not when it's beyond the shadow of one. There is no benefit of the doubt given to anyone here. Only doubt. And, again to be clear, I only observe as a third party (not a US citizen nor resident). I endorse no political party.
- acdha 2y agoIt’s 2025, not 1995, and it’s not like the people in charge of classified information handling at the national level haven’t heard of SPF or the concept of checking email headers – or simply picking up the phone and asking for confirmation for a huge amount of work which they’re personally liable for confirming is approved. There’s no way they haven’t had training on federal records laws which included the consequences of not following those rules. If this was not an official instruction, the response to the press would be a simple “no, I did not authorize that”. That message isn’t ambiguous and it’s not the kind of thing you’d forget sending.
- snvzz 2y ago>it’s not like the people in charge of classified information handling at the national level haven’t heard of SPF or the concept of checking email headers I'd hope. But I wouldn't count on it.
- acdha 2y agoI would. That kind of thing is a federal requirement for many years (https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/directives/bod-18-01-enhance-email-and-web-security https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/directives/bod-18-01-enhanc... was codifying existing practice) and everyone gets training on phishing which includes things like getting confirmation if you’re unsure. This is a highly sensitive request, almost certainly in violation of their records policies, so asking for confirmation is about as controversial as a bank teller calling the bank’s president to confirm that it’s really him asking to empty out the vault.
- outer_web 2y agoSo you're implying it bears a cryptographic signature? What I'm saying is if I told you it did you would say "but how do we know Ms. Carr's workstation wasn't hacked by Ukraine?" Sorry man, it's already in front of a federal judge. Your "just asking questions" period has expired.