13 ms·

How the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg Got Added to the White House Signal Chat

• bediger4000 2y ago
  "But Trump decided against firing him in large part because he did not want the Atlantic and the news media more broadly to have the satisfaction of forcing the ouster of a top cabinet official weeks into his second term." That's about Michael Waltz. The decision is based not on whether Waltz revealed classified info, but about appearances. Seems dangerous to make decisions this way.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • hybrid_study 2y ago
    you think?
  • jfengel 2y ago
    I wonder what their source is for that. An alternative interpretation is simply "I don't care": So top secret info leaked; don't do it again. You're doin' a heck of a job. If it does happen again... honestly, would the rationale be different? Sure, they'd have a conniption if it had happened under Biden. But that would be purely about harassing Biden rather than a serious consideration of national security.
    • bediger4000 2y ago
      The difference is that the media would pick up the conniption fit, and ask questions endlessly. Here, we see a shrug and a decision to not follow up. The acceptance of sorry opsec practices is baked into the coverage
      • jfengel 2y ago
        It's sometimes called "sanewashing". There has been so much overwhelming incompetence that it has become the dog-bites-man story. Even otherwise competent news media can't figure out how to say "this is just plain criminal".
        • bediger4000 2y ago
          With all due respect, that's an aggressive assumption. "The media, after 4 years of Trump, can't figure out what to write", seems less likely than "media's editors and owners like Trump and want him to make sense and succeed".
• treetalker 2y ago
  > Waltz also appears to have also engendered some sympathy from inside Trump’s orbit over the group chat because the White House had authorized the use of Signal, largely because there is no alternative platform to text in real time across different agencies, two people familiar with the matter said. - No alternative platform: Presumably on purpose. If it were a good security practice to text this type of information in real time across existential-level national-security agencies by using multiple private vendors (e.g., Apple, Signal, AT&T, Verizon, …), I'll go out on a limb to guess that the government would have implemented that idea before 2025.
  • wombatpm 2y ago
    No alternative that is not subject to FOIA requests. Signal deletes messages in violation of the Presidential Records Act. That is why it is chosen.
    • stavros 2y ago
      At least we know that Signal isn't backdoored, as far as the POTUS knows.
  • OneDeuxTriSeiGo 2y ago
    That's the fun part. They did. DISA and the NSA have had the DMCC-TS (and DMCC-S) phones available across basically every agency or department for years now. They come already provisioned with Cellcrypt for messaging and phone calls as well as email access. These are the standard communication device for senior members of the US government who are working regularly with classified information. https://www.disa.mil/-/media/Files/DISA/Fact-Sheets/DMCC-TS-FactSheet_051220.ashx https://www.disa.mil/-/media/Files/DISA/Fact-Sheets/DMCC-TS-... The issue with these devices is that the systems they use follow all recordkeeping laws and any communications are subject to FOIA.
  • Jtsummers 2y ago
    > No alternative platform: Presumably on purpose. It's not on purpose, it's a lack of IT coordination and has been a long-standing issue in the government. As an example, until about 2010-2012, nearly every US military base hosted its own email server and employees (military, civilian, contractor) received an email address like first.last@base.af.mil (replace af with another branch as appropriate). Now it'll be first.last@us.af.mil. They consolidated each branch's email and other comm systems over a number of years with good and bad results. Cross-branch communication could still be improved, but it's much better than it used to be. Cross department and agency communication is still broken. And the only purpose is so they can retain control of their fiefdoms.
• apical_dendrite 2y ago
  This is a great explanation for why they should be keeping these conversations on systems that are designed for handling classified information and have controls to prevent adding a random person to the conversation.
  • bediger4000 2y ago
    The systems you describe exist. An interesting story would investigate why the systems weren't used in the Goldberg situation.
    • 9283409232 2y ago
      I think the easy answer is that current systems are subject to FOIA and they are doing their best to avoid FOIA because whatever they are doing is very illegal.
      • mcculley 2y ago
        It would not have to be illegal, much less very illegal for them to want to keep their discussions away from public scrutiny. It is unacceptable even for mundane official discussions. I have often observed government officials carrying two phones and using both of them in the same meeting.
        • 9283409232 2y ago
          > I have often observed government officials carrying two phones and using both of them in the same meeting. I have two phones. One for work and my personal phone. What's your point?
          • mcculley 2y ago
            When working, one should primarily be on only one of those devices. I have observed government officials using both concurrently to escape some conversations being subpoenaed.
• fortran77 2y ago
  They said Waltz had been "cleared of wrongdoing" and yet > Donald Trump’s national security adviser Mike Waltz included a journalist in the Signal group chat about plans for US strikes in Yemen after he mistakenly saved his number months before under the contact of someone else he intended to add, according to three people briefed on the matter. That clears him? That should implicate him!
  • 9283409232 2y ago
    There is no accountability for this administration. It's funny watching all the anti-DEI folks talk about meritocracy because the only qualification you need to be in the Trump administration is undying loyalty. Ethics don't matter and neither does ability. Just be loyal.
  • Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
    What about the 'wrongdoing' associated with using a messaging system that keeps no records. The president doesn't have the authority to over-ride this lawful requirement.
  • cubefox 2y ago
    [flagged]
• nsagent 2y ago
  > According to the White House, the number was erroneously saved during a “contact suggestion update” by Waltz’s iPhone, which one person described as the function where an iPhone algorithm adds a previously unknown number to an existing contact that it detects may be related. It's interesting that this was the cause. I'm sure we all have our own stories of how UI/UX niggles (regardless of platform or app) have led to unintended behavior. While I understand automatic suggestions can be helpful at times, when the UX doesn't clearly identify the cues that lead to the suggestion, with a way for a human to confirm it, this type of error is a likely result.
  • blitzar 2y ago
    > iPhone algorithm adds a previously unknown number to an existing contact They must have different iPhones to me, because mine doesn't do that. If I were cynical I would say they made this up.
    • zozbot234 2y ago
      Could be one of those newfangled "AI" features.
      • elijaht 2y ago
        It’s not new, been seeing this for years
    • cosmic_cheese 2y ago
      It’s a real feature in first party apps (messages, mail, etc), but it’s not fully automatic. When it thinks that a number/address/etc is related to an existing contact, it’ll prompt the user to confirm or deny, and upon confirmation the info is added. Ultimately it’s up to the user.
    • randallsquared 2y ago
      I don't know when they added it to iOS, but my iPhone does this. I get a text from some new number and the message includes (e.g.) "Hey this is Tom." and a notice right in Messages says it "found" a contact that this may be and asks if I want to add the number to that contact. I could imagine having this happen correctly a few times in a row might make one trust that it knows what it's doing.
• ttul 2y ago
  “… after he mistakenly saved his number months before under the contact of someone else he intended to add.” This is precisely why the government has its own very inconvenient devices and network, which cannot possibly fall victim to the same completely understandable human error. Had the team been using secure devices on the secure network, no journalist would ever have been accidentally added to the chat. That these people are in charge of national security is beyond ridiculous. It speaks volumes about the unprecedented political setup we find ourselves in that such frankly inexperienced and naive people are in charge after Senate confirmations that were intended to protect us all from such a mistake.
  • bsimpson 2y ago
    The article also says that they were using Signal as a standin because there's not yet a secure system that crosses agencies. It also tries to blame past administrations for this (which includes Trump last time).
    • XorNot 2y ago
      The US has been perfectly capable of executing complicated military operations for decades prior without needing to use Signal to coordinate messaging amongst heads of staff.
      • fuzzfactor 2y ago
        Actually more capable up until now, this is naturally an historic low, completely reflecting the integrity of the Commander-in-Chief, or lack thereof, by comparison.
      • Henchman21 2y ago
        Ah but those are trained military personnel, not reality tv stars and infotainment hosts
        • CapricornNoble 2y ago
          These people *WERE* military personnel and there is no way they haven't been repeatedly exposed to proper procedures for information handling. They absolutely should know better and deserve to face consequences for this sort of incompetence. Mike Walz is a Special Forces officer and only retired as a Colonel from the National Guard to take his position as National Security Advisor. Tulsi Gabbard is still a Lieutenant Colonel in the National Guard. Pete Hegseth was a Major in the National Guard, ending his service in 2021. JD Vance is probably the most junior of the veterans, leaving the Marine Corps as a Corporal in 2007.
• dralley 2y ago
  The information that Hegseth shared shouldn't have been shared regardless of whether the app was secure, and regardless of whether Jeff was there. Nobody in that chat needed to know those details, he was just showing off like the insecure dilletante he is.
  • hello_moto 2y ago
    Like an eager intern showing off their capabilities in front of the Engineering Leads. A news reporter turned SecDef will make one be like that… eager
    • fuzzfactor 2y ago
      If you're the new Secretary of Defense and you've never held a rank anywhere near a military General, you need to spend about 12 hours a day 7 days a week, with real active Generals for a lot longer than this before making any bold moves. Anything less is certainly dereliction of duty.
      • leereeves 2y ago
        This thread is misunderstanding the job of Secretary of Defense. They aren't interns learning from the generals how to lead an army or plan logistics. They're project managers who ensure the generals are aligned with the President's goals.
        • ttyprintk 2y ago
          I would say that they oversee the Pentagon and ensure that the military stays in civilian control. In the past, theories from war games percolate through the Joint Chiefs, who meet with SECDEF before presenting options to the President. I was surprised Hegseth even desired a side channel that had the potential downside that he could accidentally text the coordinates of a carrier. Stuff like that gets Generals relieved immediately.
          • 2y ago
• DisjointedHunt 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • dagw 2y ago
    You can build the most secure app and install it on the most secure hardware, but if people simply instead use their private phone to chat with other people on their private phone using a random app from the App Store, then it just doesn't matter. You can then write as many rules as you like about how you're not allowed to that, but if you don't follow up and enforce those rules then people will keep doing it. Bottom line, no one cares about security enough to compromise convenience, and unless you start to literally throw people in jail they never will.
  • xpe 2y ago
    I suggest getting to ground on how OPSEC works (or doesn’t) for the White House, NSC, and others. To what degree are various intel agencies proactively versus retroactively involved? This is probably very complicated. Common sense guesses or understandings are unlikely to reflect reality. My guess is that proactive OPSEC for private phones is patchy at best. For anyone who studies this in detail, I suggest passing the information to credible investigative journalists exclusively. This may be a dumpster fire. (If not exclusively, then on embargo.)
  • apical_dendrite 2y ago
    The initial message from Hughes to Waltz happened during the campaign, so neither was a government official and they were both using their personal phones. The problem is that they continued to use their personal phones after they became government officials. There's a limit to what security officials can do when top-level people are deliberately circumventing the controls.
    • DisjointedHunt 2y ago
      This is not true. The phones are government issued and the DNI has testified to Congress that Signal was pre installed on their official phones.
• hcknwscommenter 2y ago
  Sub headline in the link says investigation "cleared" Waltz. When of course, what actually happened is that the investigation showed how extremely reckless negligent and careless Waltz was. I wish the guardian was more explicit about how nonsense this government propaganda is about this incident.
  • toast0 2y ago
    How about that nobody else questioned who the new guy was?
    • outer_web 2y ago
      He was one of many initials present at the beginning of the chat, no?
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • s3p 2y ago
        No. To the others he would have appeared as a random number.
        • plorg 2y ago
          He would appear as whatever he set his profile name to.
        • outer_web 2y ago
          He actual specifically says this in his article.
      • sudahtigabulan 2y ago
        No, it said just "19 members". Nobody would notice him unless they went to the group settings, or he spoke up. https://archive.is/YmtqQ/bb4da26bd1dd20371c772ed26070f06635824141.avif https://archive.is/YmtqQ/bb4da26bd1dd20371c772ed26070f066358... Signal just released a change that lists all the members in the chat itself. You can guess why ;-) https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/commit/da3fc408f https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/commit/da3fc408f
• DisjointedHunt 2y ago
  How does the Guardian have such intimate details of a forensic investigation at the White House level and in the same breath claim that unauthorized access to non public information is a threat to national security ? It makes no sense for the media on one side of the political spectrum to claim the right to unfettered access to secrets.
  • MattGaiser 2y ago
    Because it’s not “non-public” information but classified information that’s the problem. Why would this investigation be classified? If you read the original piece in the Atlantic, Goldberg didn’t publish much of the information initially thinking it would be irresponsible to do so.
    • DisjointedHunt 2y ago
      So the Guardian getting access to internal White House deliberations and a FORENSIC INVESTIGATION, is not cause for concern but everything that people you don’t like , is, apparently. This is precisely why the political divide is impossible to bridge. Everything I said indicates seriousness about classified information or even simply unauthorized access to information in such a cavalier manner that it’s published in the Guardian. Somehow, calling it out is more problematic than achieving a political end.
      • MattGaiser 2y ago
        No, you are not differentiating between information that is classified and information that is merely non-public. This is a difference in law, there is a difference in duty of care (although even then, the Trump administration is responsible in both cases), and an enormous in impact (mission failure vs Trump embarrassment).
        • DisjointedHunt 2y ago
          The DNI has officially declared that no classified information was in the signal thread. The whole thread is public now. The information about a sensitive investigation, clearly not meant for anyone outside the White House seems to be available freely to the Guardian. How come? Where is the line if any?
• MrMcCall 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • selfhoster 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • MrMcCall 2y ago
      [flagged]
• MrMcCall 2y ago
  "Look, forget the myths the media's created about the White House--the truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand." --from All the President's Men That was over 50 years ago, and now no one over a 90 IQ thinks these guys are bright.
  • Agraillo 2y ago
    Good point. On the Daily podcast (NYT) Goldberg was asked what was in the chat after the strikes. He said a plenty of different emojis. Goldberg's reaction was also interesting, he thought at the moment that every workplace is the same. Personally I'd expect some serious mood and attitude when there are so much at stake including people lives, but humans are humans
• rayiner 2y ago
  > According to the White House, the number was erroneously saved during a “contact suggestion update” by Waltz’s iPhone, which one person described as the function where an iPhone algorithm adds a previously unknown number to an existing contact that it detects may be related. Politics aside, these auto-suggestions are a landmine in business contexts and should be disabled by IT where possible. Sometimes I'll be sending emails including both my client and internal team and the lawyers for the other side. The phone will decade that these email addresses are related in some way. So next time I want to send an internal strategy email to my client and the team, the app will helpfully suggest copying opposing counsel. Not great.
  • doright 2y ago
    I wonder if this will be high level enough an incident to make companies end those opt-out contact autosuggestions in messenger apps for good. Then again if they had been ended by now, we might never have heard of this SNAFU.
    • joenot443 2y ago
      I think in the very best case we _might_ see Apple/G adding an option into the OS to disable contact autosuggestion, but I wouldn't hold my breath. When a feature is mildly useful 95% of the time and an awkward footgun 5%, I think it still remains a good addition, but one that can be turned off if necessary. Double checking the recipients in a chat discussing national security is a super low bar and the parties involved are rightfully embarrassed by this one. I'm not letting them blame it on the product managers
• jmull 2y ago
  I don’t see how this “clears” Waltz. For one thing, as far as I know, the iphone doesn’t attach phone numbers to contacts automatically, it just asks. The article claims the iphone did it, but I think Waltz must have. Also, this why you don’t use a random group chat app for national security conversations. Your general app is designed for engagement which includes building out the social network. Of course it’s going to err on the side of inclusion, when here you want to err on the side of exclusion. For national security, contact info would be vetted, verified, and strictly up-to-date. There would be multiple guards that would prevent a thoughtless tap months earlier from leading to the wrong person being given national security information. It sure is frightening that these bozos are in charge of things that have high stakes.
  • sparky_z 2y ago
    It was Hegseth, not Waltz, that suddenly started dropping classified operations details (without promoting) into a group chat that was just set up for the purpose of planning for a future meeting. He's the one who really fucked up here.
    • infecto 2y ago
      I don’t like Waltz but I think this is the better take that has no really taken hold well in the media. Why was Hegseth posting information that should be in a need to know basis and to folks that have no benefit know before hand. This is the primary issue and I believe a disqualification for being SECDEF. Others would get immediately fired and a healthy chance of being prosecuted. The other issue is having this chat outside of formal means. I am not as well educated but having civilians that serve at the pleasure of the president I would assume must follow some rules around formal and recorded communications.
      • ethbr1 2y ago
        Hegseth's primary qualification for being the Secretary of Defense is being a yes-man who owes the administration for his job. It's not surprising that given a choice between {serving the needs of the military} and {serving the needs of the administration}, he defaulted to the latter.
• more_corn 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • maest 2y ago
    What is an apologist but someone who provides excuses and justifications for someone's behaviour?
  • outer_web 2y ago
    ... for this purpose?
  • const_cast 2y ago
    Yes, and if you make a "human error" that is really, really bad then you should be fired. I mean, Jesus Christ when I was 16 and working at a Dairy Queen I saw people get fired for their drawer coming up a dollar short. Why are we holding fast food cashiers to a higher standard than our top government officials? Does that legitimately sound okay to anyone?
  • aigen000 2y ago
    Signal is an approved tool, and was downloaded on his govt device. Discussing classified information using Signal is not approved. I'm no lawyer but it probably violates the Federal Records act, as messages were set to expire on a 30 day schedule.
• simonbarker87 2y ago
  Is this comparable to Hilary Clinton’s email issue out of interest? (not American so only have a passing familiarity with much of this)
  • outer_web 2y ago
    It is comparable but not similar. Clinton had a private server for handling diplomatic emails. The vast majority of traffic was unclassified, the classified material was later deemed to be improperly marked (except three documents iirc). This case is a single incident (that we are aware of) where a clearance holder manually bypassed security and tracking by transcribing attack plans to a commercial chat platform.
    • autoexec 2y ago
      Hillary also had her phones destroyed (by hammer) so that those messages couldn't be saved for the record, much like Signal was set to destroy messages so they couldn't be saved.
      • outer_web 2y ago
        Wouldn't they be on the server?
        • autoexec 2y ago
          The server had POP3 support and one of the email accounts being used had been set to delete messages after 60 days. In the investigation FBI director James Comey said there was "no doubt that the work-related emails were removed electronically from the email system". There were more than a dozen cell phones and several ipads that were used to check the email accounts but most of them couldn't be obtained to check for downloaded email or forensic evidence of classified email, because hammers were used to destroy the evidence.
          • outer_web 2y ago
• outer_web 2y ago
  If only there were information systems that supported the discussion of classified information without the risk of including a random contact.
• 4d4m 2y ago
  Anyone remember being told Signal was an unsecured app and not to use it? Rules for thee but not for me. Pepperidge farm remembers.
• eightman 2y ago
  Or Waltz has been leaking to Goldberg and every other journalist in his contacts and did it by accident.
  • thinkingemote 2y ago
    I have been reading spy thrillers recently and my pet toy theory was that this was an attempt to unmask a mole. Leak information and see who publishes it. Politicians regularly intentionally leak information they want leaked, and politicians also encounter leaks that they don't want leaked. Perhaps Goldberg did the only thing he could - he identified the trap.
• MaxPock 2y ago
  [dead]
• amai 2y ago
  "because the White House had authorized the use of Signal, largely because there is no alternative platform to text in real time across different agencies, two people familiar with the matter said. Previous administrations, including the Biden White House, did not develop an alternative platform to Signal, one of the people said." Is that true? There is no alternative platform to text in real time across different agencies? And nobody had a problem with that?
  • CapricornNoble 2y ago
    Most of the Generals and Colonels I've worked with use government-issued smartphones with access to their government Outlook account, and send encrypted group emails back and forth that way.
• hermitcrab 2y ago
  Surely the real question is why they were using Signal, rather than a secure government network?
  • HenryBemis 2y ago
    Because now _this_ party is in power and controls the systems and information, but in 4/8/12 years _that_ party will be in power and a good-willing-mistake-making-bureaucrat may leak these 'by accident/mistake/etc' if they are properly recorded on a gov-controlled system. But the auto-delete-after-1-week messages from Signal would never be recovered (unless someone is logging all that data and in the future will be able to crack it).
    • fragmede 2y ago
      There is No Such Agency doing that, and definitely not in Utah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center
  • nightfly 2y ago
    Can't follow FOIA requests if there is no record of the conversation existing
    • hypeatei 2y ago
      I doubt FOIA is even a concern considering this is classified information. I think they're more worried about investigations by a future DOJ or by a future Congress since they can look at this information (if it's not deleted, that is)
      • mpalmer 2y ago
        FOIA requests can be made against formerly-classified information. But it's beside the point; any(?) non-classified information/communiques in government are subject to FOIA. Plenty of non-classified info in that chat and the ones we still aren't privy to.
• qq66 2y ago
  The higher level story here is that the US government is simply unable to build software. You’ll notice that over the last 10 years there have been classified records scandals from politicians of both parties: it’s because the US government doesn’t have any communications tools even 1% as usable as anything from the iOS App Store.
  • croes 2y ago
    They have such software, but you can’t simply delete messages
  • lazide 2y ago
    The entire concept of using a mobile device to deal with state secrets is insane.
    • cheschire 2y ago
      “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” - Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park
  • jimmydoe 2y ago
    Usability is overrated, or human are spoiled. End of day, you just need to communicate, most software, how ever outdated, should be sufficient. It’s a user problem, blaming software is a distraction.
    • bearjaws 2y ago
      I describe this as the "The TikTok Paradox" When you design a feature for a business app, it has to be immculate, brain dead easy to use, and be explained 9 times in 3 different training seminars before anyone will figure it out. Meanwhile, if the new hit filter on TikTok was buried under a hidden search, with a feature toggle, consent form and rotating secret password, end users would figure it out in 5 minutes. As you say, people are spoiled.
  • jgilias 2y ago
• neuroelectron 2y ago
  This is part of the reason I don't keep contacts on my iPhone anymore.
• whoisthemachine 2y ago
  It's interesting and funny from a tech perspective that auto-suggestions on iPhone got him. It's also proof that 1) security processes are important for a reason and 2) don't discuss information you don't want getting out on a consumer device (or really on any internet connected device) and 3) these guys' plan of using signal to avoid record keeping was foolish and stupid, more than just because of their silly fear that Democrats would release their records (that would require Democrats growing a spine).
  • troyvit 2y ago
    > these guys' plan of using signal to avoid record keeping was foolish and stupid, more than just because of their silly fear that Democrats would release their records (that would require Democrats growing a spine). s/was/is. As in -- they're going to keep using Signal. And yeah it is all for naught because as you say, there is no sign the dems as a group will grow a spine.
    • kjellsbells 2y ago
      Even if the democrats received a sudden vertebrae infusion, they hold no levers of power. One might ask where the spines are of the Republicans who are in a position to apply pressure from the inside. Trumpism may die due to pressure from the outside, but it seems far more likely that it will be taken down from the inside, eg internecine billionaire arguments, or a congressional palace coup.
      • troyvit 2y ago
        > One might ask where the spines are of the Republicans who are in a position to apply pressure from the inside. Oooh I actually think that's the question that history will ask. We've seen groups choose party over country before, but I can't think of a time in my life where it was to this extent.
    • whoisthemachine 2y ago
      > s/was/is. As in -- they're going to keep using Signal. If that does turn out to be the case then I am certain this won't be the last time they inadvertently share information.
• dughnut 2y ago
  [flagged]