4 ms·

This is a great explanation for why they should be keeping these conversations on systems that are designed for handling classified information and have control

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.
- nsagent 2y ago
  I'm completely unfamiliar with what systems exist, but here's what the article states: > 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. Are you saying these sources are dissembling? Wouldn't surprise me at this point, but just making sure I understand what you're saying.
  - the_snooze 2y ago
    The systems exist are in the form of "you go into a secure room with specially-networked computers and do your sensitive comms there." These are secure not only because of the use of strong encryption (which Signal does) but also because of the restricted access (which Signal doesn't). You can't accidentally add a journalist on these secure systems for the simple reason that the US government doesn't give accounts or physical access to randos (which Signal effectively does).
  - simplicio 2y ago
    I mean, if the devices exist, I'm skeptical its that hard to just give them to whomever you want to use them and give them all DoD accounts or whatever. The people involved being in different agencies seems like a dodge.
  - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 2y ago
    Yes 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-...
    - edgineer 2y ago
      This sell sheet describes a phone capable of and approved for TS voice calls and data hotspot, but does not advertise text messaging.
      - 2y ago
- est 2y ago
  As described near the end of the article > 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.
  - apical_dendrite 2y ago
    All of these guys have SCIFs at their homes and offices, and if they're traveling they have access to a SCIF. They can absolutely get secure messages across agencies in real time - Waltz even says this in the group chat when he tells them to check their "high side inboxes". They just can't get them as texts to their personal phones - for very good reason. It's a more inconvenient system by design. What these guys are arguing is that there's a case for using Signal for something like what Waltz was initially doing - telling people to check a more secure system and asking them to name a point person. But of course the risk is that a) even that information is extremely useful to an adversary; b) once the more convenient system exists, you're relying on people to carefully adhere to the rules about what should go on it, and guys like Hegseth are morons who don't feel like they need to follow the rules.

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.
nsagent 2y ago
I'm completely unfamiliar with what systems exist, but here's what the article states: > 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. Are you saying these sources are dissembling? Wouldn't surprise me at this point, but just making sure I understand what you're saying.
- the_snooze 2y ago
  The systems exist are in the form of "you go into a secure room with specially-networked computers and do your sensitive comms there." These are secure not only because of the use of strong encryption (which Signal does) but also because of the restricted access (which Signal doesn't). You can't accidentally add a journalist on these secure systems for the simple reason that the US government doesn't give accounts or physical access to randos (which Signal effectively does).
- simplicio 2y ago
  I mean, if the devices exist, I'm skeptical its that hard to just give them to whomever you want to use them and give them all DoD accounts or whatever. The people involved being in different agencies seems like a dodge.
- OneDeuxTriSeiGo 2y ago
  Yes 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-...
  - edgineer 2y ago
    This sell sheet describes a phone capable of and approved for TS voice calls and data hotspot, but does not advertise text messaging.
    - 2y ago
est 2y ago
As described near the end of the article > 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.
- apical_dendrite 2y ago
  All of these guys have SCIFs at their homes and offices, and if they're traveling they have access to a SCIF. They can absolutely get secure messages across agencies in real time - Waltz even says this in the group chat when he tells them to check their "high side inboxes". They just can't get them as texts to their personal phones - for very good reason. It's a more inconvenient system by design. What these guys are arguing is that there's a case for using Signal for something like what Waltz was initially doing - telling people to check a more secure system and asking them to name a point person. But of course the risk is that a) even that information is extremely useful to an adversary; b) once the more convenient system exists, you're relying on people to carefully adhere to the rules about what should go on it, and guys like Hegseth are morons who don't feel like they need to follow the rules.