3 ms·
> Point being: SCIFs are the right tool for the job. Smartphone apps like Signal are not. The job in this case seems to be secure, ad-hoc communication between
by patwolf 2y ago
> Point being: SCIFs are the right tool for the job. Smartphone apps like Signal are not.
The job in this case seems to be secure, ad-hoc communication between multiple parties while on the road (the VP at least was doing an event in Michigan). Clearly a public smartphone app isn't the right tool for the job. Is a SCIF the right tool though? I always thought of SCIFs as purpose-built rooms. It seems impractical that every time a message needs to be communicated, the parties have to be whisked away to a SCIF.
- profmonocle 2y agoThere are portable SCIFs, basically specially designed trailers, to allow senior staff to communicate securely on the road. It's very likely Vance had one of these nearby.
- Sanzig 2y agoNot to mention plenty of DoD facilities from coast-to-coast with SCIFs - even without a portable SCIF, he likely wasn't far from one. Failing that, these people almost certainly have laptops connected to DoD networks at a lower COMSEC level than a true SCIF (indeed, "high-side laptops" were mentioned in the Signal thread). They could have communicated with those. I don't know about DoD policy if those would be acceptable or not for discussions about planned strikes, but it'd be a hell of a lot more secure than unsecured public smartphones.
- throw0101c 2y ago> There are portable SCIFs, basically specially designed trailers […] There are 'tents' as well; Obama in one: * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12810675 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12810675 * http://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/us/politics/obamas-portable-zone-of-secrecy-some-assembly-required.html http://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/us/poli...
- johnisgood 2y ago> Smartphone ... It should have ended there. Smartphones are not secure and you must not trust them.