5 ms·

Not downplaying or defending - but I don’t understand the failure mode here - presumably hegseth had to ask someone in pentagon IT to set this up? Submit a form

Not downplaying or defending - but I don’t understand the failure mode here - presumably hegseth had to ask someone in pentagon IT to set this up? Submit a form etc. sure he asked for something illegal* but someone actually following a set of rules had to enable this, no? (* or against protocols, etc)

lukev 1y ago
The failure mode is that the Secretary of Defense unilaterally bypassed security protocols to use technology that had not been evaluated for that use case in a national security context by the appropriate experts. It doesn't matter if he happened to use something that has a solid security model. The problem isn't Signal, it's that he ignored all the rules. And it does have an impact, as we see in other news, because one failure mode of Signal is that it's super easy to add the wrong people to a group. Which has actually happened. Twice (at least.)
- diego898 1y ago
  I 100% agree - I’m only saying hegseth didn’t run an unsecured line into his office himself no? Why didn’t some automated system say “installation of unsecured lines in this building is not possible” or similar To be course : I didn’t think something so obviously wrong would have been allowed and enabled by several people who made this possible - removing absolutely no accountability from the person who asked for this to happen
  - lukev 1y ago
    If this happened the way it's being reported, yeah, several people should lose their jobs. I suspect this is a case of being more afraid of saying "no" to the boss than of facing consequences for violating policy. Policies are unfortunately not self-enforcing. Trump's been firing Inspectors General and dismantling mechanisms of internal accountability across the government, so perhaps that's a correct calculus in this case.
- betaby 1y ago
  > to use technology that had not been evaluated for that use case I'm curious what technology has been evaluated for secure communications. Are there better option? Is MS Teams approved?
  - lukev 1y ago
    There are whole agencies dedicated to this. In this case, DISA (https://www.disa.mil/About/Our-Work https://www.disa.mil/About/Our-Work)
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    CISA actually recommended Signal. https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/guidance-mobile-communications-best-practices.pdf https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/guidance-mo...
    - lukev 1y ago
      That's a recommendation on how to conduct personal/unclassified communications. Approval for classified or military use is a completely different ballgame.
      - firesteelrain 1y ago
        Of course it’s not approved for classified use. There is a leap here until it’s been proven it’s been used for classified communications. There is no proof yet. Open to changing my mind if an authority on the topic says it is classified.
    - rasz 1y ago
      for discussing airstrike details pre op?
      - firesteelrain 1y ago
        We don’t know what was actually discussed because all we have is dubious investigative reporting from unknown sources.
DonHopkins 1y ago
[flagged]
- diego898 1y ago
  Just to clarify - I am not presuming to shift blame - I am asking about a failure mode here- absolutely hold hegseth accountable (he should have never been in this position and is completely unqualified in my opinion). I am also not suggesting we hold an IT person accountable- I am only saying there should be rules/systems in place so that if someone else asks for something obviously wrong like this again, there’s a clear stop gap to say “that’s not possible” Maybe there already is one(several) - if so, then of course the chain of accountability continues to ensnare…
- dec0dedab0de 1y ago
  Why are you so upset about men wearing makeup? I mean clearly he is not a member of any of the armed services anyway. Your whole comment is essentially a rant about how this guy should adhere to gender norms. You have a point about spending the money for a studio, but that has nothing to do with the article.
  - DonHopkins 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - dec0dedab0de 1y ago
      Yeah I don't really know much about it, I'm just a man who likes wearing makeup, and it sounded like you were talking shit.
      - DonHopkins 1y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
CamperBob2 1y ago
Not downplaying or defending - but I don’t understand the failure mode here Like so many others, this particular 'failure mode' doesn't exist if you're a Republican. What if Hillary Clinton did it? Now that would be a democracy-threatening 'failure mode.'

lukev 1y ago

The failure mode is that the Secretary of Defense unilaterally bypassed security protocols to use technology that had not been evaluated for that use case in a national security context by the appropriate experts. It doesn't matter if he happened to use something that has a solid security model. The problem isn't Signal, it's that he ignored all the rules. And it does have an impact, as we see in other news, because one failure mode of Signal is that it's super easy to add the wrong people to a group. Which has actually happened. Twice (at least.)

diego898 1y ago
I 100% agree - I’m only saying hegseth didn’t run an unsecured line into his office himself no? Why didn’t some automated system say “installation of unsecured lines in this building is not possible” or similar To be course : I didn’t think something so obviously wrong would have been allowed and enabled by several people who made this possible - removing absolutely no accountability from the person who asked for this to happen
- lukev 1y ago
  If this happened the way it's being reported, yeah, several people should lose their jobs. I suspect this is a case of being more afraid of saying "no" to the boss than of facing consequences for violating policy. Policies are unfortunately not self-enforcing. Trump's been firing Inspectors General and dismantling mechanisms of internal accountability across the government, so perhaps that's a correct calculus in this case.
betaby 1y ago
> to use technology that had not been evaluated for that use case I'm curious what technology has been evaluated for secure communications. Are there better option? Is MS Teams approved?
- lukev 1y ago
  There are whole agencies dedicated to this. In this case, DISA (https://www.disa.mil/About/Our-Work https://www.disa.mil/About/Our-Work)
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  CISA actually recommended Signal. https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/guidance-mobile-communications-best-practices.pdf https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/guidance-mo...
  - lukev 1y ago
    That's a recommendation on how to conduct personal/unclassified communications. Approval for classified or military use is a completely different ballgame.
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      Of course it’s not approved for classified use. There is a leap here until it’s been proven it’s been used for classified communications. There is no proof yet. Open to changing my mind if an authority on the topic says it is classified.
  - rasz 1y ago
    for discussing airstrike details pre op?
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      We don’t know what was actually discussed because all we have is dubious investigative reporting from unknown sources.

DonHopkins 1y ago

[flagged]

diego898 1y ago
Just to clarify - I am not presuming to shift blame - I am asking about a failure mode here- absolutely hold hegseth accountable (he should have never been in this position and is completely unqualified in my opinion). I am also not suggesting we hold an IT person accountable- I am only saying there should be rules/systems in place so that if someone else asks for something obviously wrong like this again, there’s a clear stop gap to say “that’s not possible” Maybe there already is one(several) - if so, then of course the chain of accountability continues to ensnare…
dec0dedab0de 1y ago
Why are you so upset about men wearing makeup? I mean clearly he is not a member of any of the armed services anyway. Your whole comment is essentially a rant about how this guy should adhere to gender norms. You have a point about spending the money for a studio, but that has nothing to do with the article.
- DonHopkins 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - dec0dedab0de 1y ago
    Yeah I don't really know much about it, I'm just a man who likes wearing makeup, and it sounded like you were talking shit.
    - DonHopkins 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]

CamperBob2 1y ago

Not downplaying or defending - but I don’t understand the failure mode here Like so many others, this particular 'failure mode' doesn't exist if you're a Republican. What if Hillary Clinton did it? Now that would be a democracy-threatening 'failure mode.'