30 ms·
Sure, 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 t
by ctrlp 2y ago
Sure, 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?
- KerrAvon 2y ago[flagged]
- ctrlp 2y agoHard to take someone using your tone seriously, friend. If you're just here to rant and rave, you're wasting your time.
- giantrobot 2y ago> 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? Here's a pretty good order of operations when your policy breaks the law or is so odious as to feel the need to hide it from other duly elected representatives in government: 1. Stop breaking the fucking law.
- ctrlp 2y ago"The law" is for you and me. It can resolve contract disputes and punish some crimes. This is politics. It's a different order, and a category error to conflate the two. The sooner one disabuses oneself of having no distinction between the political and the legal, the sooner the world starts to make sense. Law at this level is lawfare (law as political weapon), not the normal proceedings of justice. Justice at this level is the rule of the stronger. Accept it and move on to more interesting political analysis. Or be trapped in an inescapable despair about the violations of the "rule of law."
- Hojojo 2y agoWhy would you put rule of law in quotations like that? The rule of law matters. Even if it doesn't matter to you or Trump.
- 2y ago
- lmm 2y agoSo what would the smart move have been in that case?
- threeseed 2y agoThe administration has not made this argument though. You have. So why should we default to the position of not trusting those systems when every previous administration has used it without issus.
- ctrlp 2y agoMany people are making the argument that this administration is unlike all previous administrations. I infer you disagree with that.
- KerrAvon 2y ago[flagged]
- ctrlp 2y agoI'm sorry, are you some kind of troll? You should work on your delivery a bit. Get a grip.
- cluckindan 2y agoLikely a sock puppet account taken over to spread inversion propaganda, where Trump denouncers get called MAGA just to screw with people’s perceptions and beliefs. Gaslighting, essentially. Russian operated puppets have been spreading similar stuff everywhere they can. When MAGA ppl do something stupid, they’re instantly there flat out calling them lefties and communists, etc. to shift blame, confuse readers and devolve meaningful discussions into name-calling and pointless debate.
- ctrlp 2y agoI fear there's a ton of that going on rather indiscriminately just to sow outrage, waste everyone's time, and demoralize people. I don't believe it's a left/right phenomenon. Anything that trivializes or antagonizes the discourse benefits American global competitors.
- anigbrowl 2y agoI mean, the conversation included references to materials sent on 'the high side' (classified-material email systems). If they consider those systems secure, what's the point of using Signal instead?
- ctrlp 2y agoI don't think it was a particularly good tactic, but if there was some motivation, it may have been more about political sabotage than foreign adversaries. I think that is the more interesting conversation, personally. What do you do if your political (domestic) antagonists control your comms? This question applies to all sides politically. Signal itself is promoted for "activist" use cases to protect comms from domestic antagonists. I'm presenting a similar dilemma. If one part of the government, (e.g., the military) controls secure comms, then another (e.g., the political) may have no choice but to opt-out. This problem is maybe better seen in the context of another country. It may be "too close" for us to see it clearly in the U.S. Other countries face this problem all the time, and Signal is used for the same reasons. I find it an interesting security problem.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- nitwit005 2y agoThey are the government. You're suggesting trusting a third party over trusting themselves.
- ctrlp 2y agoThe government is not a unitary entity. The Constitution provides for three branches of government explicitly to offset each other's power. And the civil service is essentially a 4th branch of government. Just replacing the titular heads of government does not guarantee any ability to control the body. Witness the outpouring of protest at "the government's" attempts to control "the government" via DOGE. They are not the same.
- nitwit005 2y agoI'm aware of the branches of government. It's not relevant. Neither is protests, as no one is in the streets protesting about government secure communication policies.
- unethical_ban 2y agoI'd love to hear how a modern national elected government can function without executive agencies, and how those agencies resist strongman corruption and ensure stability without guaranteeing the independence of some roles.