4 ms·

There is a world of difference between everyday government conversations. And discussing a country being bombed including exact times, what weapons are being u

There is a world of difference between everyday government conversations. And discussing a country being bombed including exact times, what weapons are being used, locations of US personnel etc. And where one of the members of that group was in Moscow visiting Putin and likely would’ve been using a Russian WiFi network or cellular connection. No reason, whatsoever, for Signal to be used in this situation.

hackinthebochs 2y ago
>No reason, whatsoever, for Signal to be used in this situation. It sounds like the exact appropriate time to use Signal. It turns out that some high ranking official's jobs involve traveling to unfriendly or hostile countries. They still sometimes need to weigh in on classified communications. It was true back when Hilary was signing off on drone targets through text, and its true today.
- threeseed 2y ago
  There are secure methods of communication that don’t involve public networks. And don’t forget that the Pentagon was warning that “Russian professional hacking groups are employing the 'linked devices' features to spy on encrypted conversations” https://www.npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-5339801/pentagon-email-signal-vulnerability https://www.npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-5339801/pentagon-email-...
- chris_wot 2y ago
  That's quite ridiculous. What about the security of the phone they are using? When Hillary was signing off on drones via text, that was incredibly stupid and it remains true today.
  - hackinthebochs 2y ago
    Nothing is binary, everything is a tradeoff. Her texts didn't mention specifics so presumably anyone eavesdropping wouldn't have been able to identify the exact context. It's reasonable for high level officials to weigh the cost vs benefit. When you're one or two steps away from the president, you have a lot of leeway.
    - chris_wot 2y ago
      Yeah, you don't discuss war planning over an insecure phone. The OP talked about "in this situation", so no, you don't do that. And at least one member of that Signal chat was in Russia. When you are one or two steps away from the President, you should be even more careful.
8note 2y ago
how different is it really though? the US government is lookjng to reduce its global influence; making everything public is great

hackinthebochs 2y ago

>No reason, whatsoever, for Signal to be used in this situation. It sounds like the exact appropriate time to use Signal. It turns out that some high ranking official's jobs involve traveling to unfriendly or hostile countries. They still sometimes need to weigh in on classified communications. It was true back when Hilary was signing off on drone targets through text, and its true today.

threeseed 2y ago
There are secure methods of communication that don’t involve public networks. And don’t forget that the Pentagon was warning that “Russian professional hacking groups are employing the 'linked devices' features to spy on encrypted conversations” https://www.npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-5339801/pentagon-email-signal-vulnerability https://www.npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-5339801/pentagon-email-...
chris_wot 2y ago
That's quite ridiculous. What about the security of the phone they are using? When Hillary was signing off on drones via text, that was incredibly stupid and it remains true today.
- hackinthebochs 2y ago
  Nothing is binary, everything is a tradeoff. Her texts didn't mention specifics so presumably anyone eavesdropping wouldn't have been able to identify the exact context. It's reasonable for high level officials to weigh the cost vs benefit. When you're one or two steps away from the president, you have a lot of leeway.
  - chris_wot 2y ago
    Yeah, you don't discuss war planning over an insecure phone. The OP talked about "in this situation", so no, you don't do that. And at least one member of that Signal chat was in Russia. When you are one or two steps away from the President, you should be even more careful.

8note 2y ago

how different is it really though? the US government is lookjng to reduce its global influence; making everything public is great