6 ms·
Using Signal in this case is wrong and foolish full stop, and the extremely likely reason they did so is so they could escape standard government record keeping
by GVIrish 2y ago
Using Signal in this case is wrong and foolish full stop, and the extremely likely reason they did so is so they could escape standard government record keeping compliance (NARA).
To start with, classified information is ONLY supposed to viewed in a SCIF. Secondly, it should never be loaded onto private devices. The private phones of national security leadership would be prime targets for every hostile intelligence agency in the world. It matters little if the information was encrypted in transit if the host device is compromised.
One would have to be a fool to not trust all of the classified tools and safeguards the US government uses only to then use a commercial app on commercial phones to communicate classified data in public while stateside and abroad. Just the fact that someone could accidentally add an unauthorized person to the chat is but one reason it was crazy for them to do this.
- kelipso 2y agoThe most likely reason is convenience, not escaping record keeping.
- matwood 2y agoIt can certainly be both. Just like they have already tried to shield DOGE from FOIA transparency requests.
- KerrAvon 2y agoAvoiding government record keeping is literally part of the Project 2025 plan.
- Alupis 2y ago[flagged]
- acdha 2y agoProject 2025 was a real proposal written by many people who were in his first administration, working with his campaign, and now his second administration. A significant fraction of the proposals are being implemented: https://www.project2025.observer/ https://www.project2025.observer/
- Alupis 2y ago[flagged]
- acdha 2y agoWho said anything about fear? It’s just that when someone tells their backers what they plan to do, you can probably learn something useful by assuming they intended to use those plans.
- MyOutfitIsVague 2y agoWhy comment if you aren't interested in having an actual discussion or addressing anything that's being said?
- lmm 2y ago[flagged]
- linkregister 2y agoIt's no less a playbook or policy goal than a political party platform. Several of the authors of Project 2025 occupy staff or cabinet positions in the administration. The policy goals of the ACLU, Clinton Foundation, etc are inputs to the Democratic Party's operations. Why would it be controversial to note that the Heritage Foundations's published policy is similarly an input to the Republican Party's operations?
- lmm 2y agoBecause it doesn't convey anything to anyone who doesn't already agree with you, especially when you just drop the name and treat that as if you've proven something. It's not a way of progressing a discussion, it's a way of stopping one. I'd also note that mentioning George Soros being involved in anything gets condemnation here, so the same thing applies to both sides to at least some extent.
- rescripting 2y agoYou conveniently failed to acknowledge this link https://www.project2025.observer https://www.project2025.observer where people _have_ read the policy proposals, and wrote them up in a nice little list, and are tracking their implementation. We're 79 days in, and 42% of the policy objectives outlined in the document are complete, with another 15% in progress. Over 50% of the objectives have been actioned within the first 100 days. I've seen general contractors execute on a blueprint slower than this administration.
- anigbrowl 2y agoThen why would you enable the disappearing messages functionality?
- Libcat99 2y agoThe report includes notes on certain messages having durations set before they would disappear. This indicates intent.
- Aeolun 2y agoSure, but I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that count. I’m fairly sure that’s because they felt it would be safer if the confidential info they sent wouldn’t stay around.
- lesuorac 2y agoAvoiding FOIA requests is the reason every secretary of state since Collin Powell uses private email to conduct business.
- ctrlp 2y agoSure, those are the reasons for, but would be interesting for you to address the salient point of not trusting those government systems. I'm sure you can make the counterargument.
- matthewdgreen 2y agoIf the CIA and NSA (let alone Russian and Chinese intelligence) are illegally spying on you, your civilian phone is toast. You shouldn't be ordering DoorDash on the thing.
- mmooss 2y agoImagine the resources the Chinese and Russian governments devote to accessing these phones. The value to them could be trillions of dollars and/or existential differences in national security outcomes. The owners have to assume they are hacked, and that China and Russia know where they are going to dinner (which itself is a problem - they know who is meeting with who and when).
- GVIrish 2y agoThat doesn't really make sense. If they had strong reason to believe that the secure comms systems they were supposed to be using were compromised, using personal phones to communicate outside of SCIFs is very, very far from what any competent person who understands and is briefed on the threat environment would do. Note that none of the people involved are making that argument because it would make them look even more incompetent.
- ctrlp 2y agoNot arguing it was the best choice. But, I'm curious, if you were in the position where you had strong reasons to believe the official secure channels available to you were compromised by your political opponents who were leaking information received via those channels to undermine your policy initiatives, and needed to act and coordinate nonetheless, what would you do?
- heyflyguy 2y agoThere are a ton of assumptions in here that have yet to be proven true.
- zdragnar 2y agoCISA explicitly promoted the use of signal by all top government officials.
- acdha 2y agoWhere? They recommended it for members of the public as part of their general recommendation for end-to-end encryption but that’s a very different scenario than government employees who have official systems.
- bglazer 2y agoThis is true, but lacks specificity. Do you think CISA would recommend sharing details of imminent military operations via signal?
- quadragenarian 2y ago[citation needed] Assuming this is true, how did they determine what a "top" government official is? So if you're the SecDef you should use it but not the deputy SecDef? How would this guidance not pertain to all government officials?
- bobtheborg 2y ago"classified information is ONLY supposed to viewed in a SCIF" No. No, no, no. Most classified information is NOT designated SCI. When classified info was mostly paper, it was placed in GSA approved safes in regular 'ole office buildings. You'd get to work, open your safe, and do your work. Most SIPRNet computers are not in SCIFs. Heck, you can even mail classified documents via USPS. Confidential and secret documents can be sent registered mail.
- GVIrish 2y agoSCIFs are for viewing TS materials, whether or not they are SCI. Even then, SCIFs are often employed for processing things that are only marked Secret or systems only handling Secret. But yes, if we want to be specific, Secret has a lower bar and can be worked on outside of SCIFs but still not in public or at home.
- bobtheborg 2y agoAgain, no. Not all TS material is SCI. You only need a SCIF for SCI. "SCIFs are often employed for processing things that are only marked Secret or systems only handling Secret" No. SCIFs are expensive. They are not built when they are not needed. They are only needed for SCI materials.
- GVIrish 1y agoThat hasn't been my experience over 20 years. I've worked in multiple SCIFS that didn't handle SCI at all.