3 ms·

There is something bigger at play when so many people make mistakes all at once. Considering the seriousness of the topic, wasn't there any sort of protocol or

by goku12 2y ago

There is something bigger at play when so many people make mistakes all at once. Considering the seriousness of the topic, wasn't there any sort of protocol or monitoring system that would alert them that the information is too privileged for that medium? I have seen ordinary institutions behave more sensibly. I don't have any experience in national security matters. But even as a tech professional, I would expect at least one dedicated official to be watching the channel for compliance. How does such an experienced institution make such fundamental mistakes?

defrost 2y ago
> But even as a tech professional, I would expect at least one dedicated official to be watching the channel for compliance. The group already had the supposed who's who of dedicated security professionals .. as appointed by Trump admin, of course. Vice President JD Vance, senior White House staff, three Cabinet secretaries, and the directors of two Intelligence Community agencies. Oh, and Marco Rubio .. the actual "acting archivist of the United States" responsible for ensuring that such conversation chains are preserved for posterity and not auto discarded on Signal. ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_group_chat_leak#Members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_group... Speaking from an allied five eyes perspective .. it was an amateur hour clown show of epic proportions. Followed up by Trump trashing America’s intelligence capability on the say so of a far-right conspiracy theorist and 9/11 truther.
- rsfern 2y ago
  I don’t disagree, but I think GP means someone who is not a political appointee, like the non-partisan national security officers whose role is basically exactly what GP discussed. I don’t know if it’s usual for NSC officers to be included in these kinds of chats that are ostensibly just for coordinating secure meetings between principals though - maybe it should be
  - defrost 2y ago
    Sure, the equivilant of a professional court reporter with a standards enforcing role ... but that was never ever going to be a thing on a non SCIF casual signal group setup to gossip and swap fire emoji's outside of the official chain of defence command ...

by goku12 2y ago

defrost 2y ago

> But even as a tech professional, I would expect at least one dedicated official to be watching the channel for compliance. The group already had the supposed who's who of dedicated security professionals .. as appointed by Trump admin, of course. Vice President JD Vance, senior White House staff, three Cabinet secretaries, and the directors of two Intelligence Community agencies. Oh, and Marco Rubio .. the actual "acting archivist of the United States" responsible for ensuring that such conversation chains are preserved for posterity and not auto discarded on Signal. ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_group_chat_leak#Members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_group... Speaking from an allied five eyes perspective .. it was an amateur hour clown show of epic proportions. Followed up by Trump trashing America’s intelligence capability on the say so of a far-right conspiracy theorist and 9/11 truther.

rsfern 2y ago
I don’t disagree, but I think GP means someone who is not a political appointee, like the non-partisan national security officers whose role is basically exactly what GP discussed. I don’t know if it’s usual for NSC officers to be included in these kinds of chats that are ostensibly just for coordinating secure meetings between principals though - maybe it should be
- defrost 2y ago
  Sure, the equivilant of a professional court reporter with a standards enforcing role ... but that was never ever going to be a thing on a non SCIF casual signal group setup to gossip and swap fire emoji's outside of the official chain of defence command ...