20 ms·
How the US defense secretary circumvents official DoD communications equipment
- nneonneo 1y agoSite’s being hugged hard - mirror: https://archive.is/kMZ2A https://archive.is/kMZ2A
- JohnTHaller 1y agoOf course, there will be no consequences for his complete lack of... everything
- mlinhares 1y agoOh there will be, just not for him. We’ll never know how many state secrets have been leaked through these shenanigans.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> there will be, just not for him Everyone in this administration has to know they’re spending the decade after Trump in front of the Congress and various investigators.
- gmac 1y agoLet’s hope so. But of course this is also a heavy incentive for all of them to make sure their regime never leaves power.
- xp84 1y agoNah, because the Dems can’t win elections, and Republicans will never hold any Trump ally accountable.
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoThis is probably what the DOGE kids are being pitched. There is a reason the most wantonly criminal conduct is coming from those too stupid or naïve to understand we haven't transitioned to a one-party state.
- xp84 1y agoWe haven’t? What power do the Dems hold, and what power do they have a serious chance of getting back in ‘26 or ‘28? The DNC would have to make some serious changes, because the 2024 election was a perfect opinion poll on whether they have enough voters onboard the platform they’ve adopted to win a national election or a swing-state election. Running against a joke of a man, they lost. And the entire Democratic Party still hasn’t admitted to themselves why that happened. I do hope a good third party moves into the massive power vacuum left by the DNC when it chased itself out of the mainstream into irrelevancy.
- CapricornNoble 1y agoCan't Trump just pull a Biden, and toss a blanket decade-long pardon to his entire staff? Would anyone bother to investigate them after that?
- collingreen 1y agoHe can do that - presidents have a long history of abusing pardons. Trump has shown he is happy to pardon people without much thought either for media attention (j6?) or for money (levandowski?). On the other hand trump isn't very loyal to his people so far - remember the wasteland of trump advisors and officials in the first term getting convicted of various frauds without getting pardoned (or the lawyer on tape saying he needs a pardon for trying to overturn the election and him not getting it). Not that it matters but I don't think Biden gave a blanket pardon to his entire staff I think he pardoned people who he thinks are dangerously and unfairly targeted by some extreme media like fauci and Bidens son hunter. At the end of the day pretty much all of the limits of presidential power come from restraint, especially (but not exclusively) in todays world of a tame judiciary. If the president cares about or wants to be seen as caring about the rule of law it is a bad look to wantonly disregard it too often. Yes, there are a lot of folks who want to believe everything their chosen guy does is absolutely right but realistically each bad thing chips away at their ability to ignore the evidence. I know several people who have lost faith in trump as the evidence continues to absolutely pile up that he doesn't match the values they were told to appreciate (rule of law, respect for the constitution, human rights, fairness, Christian values, intelligence). If he gives a blanket pardon to everyone that worked for him a few more people will say "wait, maybe the other side was right and this IS a huge abuse" so it's possible, especially if we continue to have elections, that we won't see this kind of thing.
- lobotomizer 1y agoI'm sure they're absolutely terrified. I mean look at what happened to James Clapper, straight to the gulag of a cushy CNN gig.
- mmooss 1y agoThere will be none if you do nothing.
- iambateman 1y agoI wish more people, especially media writers, would start with the presumption that "circumventing the state-approved security machine" is a _feature_ of this administration. Not to pick on this in particular – nearly all the reporting on this starts and ends with "Signal is insecure" as if that was all it took to be wrong. And in other eras, that was enough. The man likes Signal. For better or worse, he is the Secretary of Defense...The man we've entrusted to help coordinate our national defense. There's so many questions I genuinely don't have an answer for... Has Congress made it illegal to use an off-brand messaging app for secure communications? _Why_ is it insecure? What is the probability that China is reading these messages in real-time? 100%? 25%? 0.2%? We need to start from the presumption that the people-in-power don't care that it's always been done this way...in fact, they have a ton of pressure to be different. But, in some cases, these people may be willing to listen to reasonable arguments which clearly establish _why_ using Signal is unreasonably worse than using US Government Issue messaging.
- mitthrowaway2 1y agoI think one of the issues is that at least some of the Signal war-plans chat group participants had their messages set to auto-delete. If that's the reason that they're using Signal, it is indeed a problem, even if Signal is secure.
- sudahtigabulan 1y agonitpick: disappearing messages are either enabled for everyone in the group or for no one.
- patrickhogan1 1y agoBingo. If a hacker did this it would be understood as a sign that the comms aren’t secure and praised. He was clearly briefed on Salt Typhoon. The thing I am more bothered by is why would he take a picture of his desk, thereby narrowing the attack profile.
- bcrosby95 1y agoIt doesn't only matter if its secure or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records_Act
- mcfedr 1y agoWhy are your police not investigating this? The guy is actively breaking the law
- SubiculumCode 1y agoBecause Trump does not investigate himself, and the once independent Attorney General is now just another political arm of Trump, but with prosecutorial power and discrtion. We are in dark times.
- slt2021 1y agoalways have been, its just current admin is less subtle about it
- SubiculumCode 1y agoSo you say, but I've seen plenty of independence...see Trump's first term for some examples.
- Loughla 1y agoAnd you have hit the nail on the head for how Trump is operating this term. How can he do these things? Turns out they all could've, they just chose not to. Maybe we should strengthen the checks and balances, and Congress shouldn't abdicate ANY of its authority to the president. Maybe the system should work how it's supposed to instead of how is easiest.
- kube-system 1y ago> How can he do these things? > Turns out they all could've, they just chose not to. That's not really the case, there are plenty of actions which he has tried to implement but have been blocked by courts.
- jdminhbg 1y ago> the once independent Attorney General This has never been the case; JFK appointed his little brother AG. The problem is that the Congress should be investigating and prosecuting the president but will not.
- gotoeleven 1y agoMy understanding is that the use of signal started during biden's term. Is this not true?
- whattheheckheck 1y agoNope
- intermerda 1y agoNot true at all. The use of Signal started during Obama's first or second term. While the app's first release was during his second term, it existed under various names and forms way back. Wikipedia has a great article on its history. I personally started using signal some time around 2018 and I'm sure there were millions of users by the time Biden began his term.
- mmooss 1y agoI thought the GP means that goverment officials such as the Secretary of Defense started using Signal during Biden's administration (though with no basis for that offered, yet).
- gotoeleven 1y agoThis is what Im talking about. https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/03/27/biden-authorized-signal/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/03/27/biden-authorized-sign...
- mmooss 1y agoRight. They also use cell phones and send emails. The difference is, from the Snopes article: "... it explicitly did not allow use of Signal to communicate "non-public" Department of Defense information, which would have included the conversations Trump administration officials had in their group chat."
- rcbdev 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jmyeet 1y agoWhere is the "but her emails" crowd now? There are three main issues here: 1. The Defense Department bans the use of Signal for everybody else. Why is that? Why is the Secretary exempt? 2. As we've seen it's pretty easy to add unauthorized people to what should be secure communication channels where classified information is shared; and 3. There are laws around the preservation of governmental records. Expiring Signal messages seems like it's intentionally meant to circumvent these legal requirements ie it's illegal. We're only 100 days in. We've got 1200 more days of this.
- Supermancho 1y ago> Where is the "but her emails" crowd now? Same place everyone else is now. Nobody cares about the flagrant violations by the executive. This is the foxes walking around freely now.
- nonethewiser 1y agoNobody? Including yourself?
- jmull 1y agoThat’s a common idiom which isn’t literal. (Obviously?)
- iszomer 1y agoBecause this is my United States of Whatever!
- nonethewiser 1y agoThe implication is that either he doesnt care, or he does. So I guess he does. I just didn't get the vibe that he wanted Hillary to be held accountable for her emails.
- eastbound 1y ago[flagged]
- mmooss 1y agoLet's pretend you work for a non-US state intelligence agency. How would you find Hesgeth's personal computer in his office on the public Internet? A genuine thought experiment.
- o11c 1y agoWrite an article that he's likely to be interested in reading, spread the link, then mine the browser data just like every other website.
- wmf 1y agoYep. The CIA uses these same techniques to track foreigners of interest (e.g. Putin's entourage) so we should assume other countries are attempting to use similar techniques on American officials.
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoLiterally just @ him on X. These are the moments of strategic ineptitude you hoard zero days for decades to score.
- Teever 1y agoI don't want to derail the conversation too much with this but this is the kind of thing that blows my mind with seeing obscenely wealthy/powerful people like Musk and Trump on social media. At some level of wealth you reach a point where no one can get to you physically. You're completely physically safe and isolated and can't be hurt. That means that the only way someone can get to you is through communicating with you and making you hurt yourself. That means that social media is your only weakness. This is how adversaries can affect your plans and goals and disrupt your mind. Yet so many of these people seem so oblivious to this and are as terminally online as your average 4channer or facebook mom. Does this speak to some sort of weakness in these kinds of people or the addictiveness of social media?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
- standardUser 1y agoIf you're going to put a guy in charge who is completely unqualified and has a history of alcohol abuse you should at least make sure he's competent. It's actually very grating to see someone operating at this highest level of authority and treating it like its beneath them. It feels like we're watching history get written by the most entitled and inept among us.
- pjc50 1y agoThe entire administration is selected for loyalty. In this environment competence is a threat.
- eviks 1y agoCompetence is part of qualification, so what you're asking for is not possible even in theory
- sillyfluke 1y agoWhat kind of tickles me is that any new poltical thriller tv series or movie that posits that matters of state in the US are conducted by serious and knowledgable people is now virtually unwatchable for me. It's virtually impossible to suspend the disbelief required to enjoy something that is so far removed from the reality of today's politicians. (The recent cringe inducing Deniro series comes to mind)
- mycatisblack 1y agoYou should watch Civil War (2024) some time. The disbelief is shrinking on that one.
- mnky9800n 1y agoI found that movie to be disgusting as it takes real footage of war horrors such as 20 days in Mariupol, suicide bombers, etc. and sanitizes that for American audiences. Using this visual style of movies like 20 days in Mariupol indicates the filmmakers watched those movies and thought that could make them buck. Then it gives you some bullshit feel good call of duty action at the end to go kill the president which is tonally different both in visual style and in the context of the narrative. And it replaces the horrors of war such as bombing maternity hospitals and watching pregnant women be dragged from the wreckage with stereotypical racist Americans. And it justifies all this because it tells the tale of some war time reporters and asks the question what if they are just adrenaline junkies which is why they do their jobs? Thereby undercutting the real value and heroism of those who report on these conflicts who are captured, tortured, and murdered (e.g., Viktoriia Roshchyna). It does nothing to connect the audience with anything that is actually happening in the world and even serves to insulate Americans from the horrors of Ukraine and elsewhere while attacking journalists. I thought that movie was disgusting.
- wmf 1y agoIf some tech geniuses wanted to improve government efficiency, one thing they could do is create secure yet easy to use collaboration software. Maybe give the app a catchy one-letter name.
- cheschire 1y agoQ
- beloch 1y agoThe other members of the five eyes had better be careful about what they share with the U.S. while this is going on. Public key encryption, like Signal uses, offers good security for most purposes. e.g. It's fantastic for credit card transactions. The problem with using it for transmitting state secrets is that you can't rely on it for long-term secrecy. Even if you avoid MITM or other attacks, a message sent via Signal today could be archived in ciphertext and attacked ten years from now with the hardware/algorithms of ten years in the future. Maybe Signal's encryption will remain strong in ten years. Maybe it will be trivial to crack. If the secrets contained in that message are still sensitive ten years from now, you have a problem. Anything sent with Signal needs to be treated as published with an unknown delay. If you're sharing intelligence with the U.S., you probably shouldn't find that acceptable.
- DaiPlusPlus 1y ago> The other members of the five eyes had better be careful about what they share with the U.S. while this is going on. Right, but this is nothing new: Hegseth is only a recent example of Trump's camp mishandling sensitive docs; I'll bet there's been an inner secret Four Eyes group since the the Mar-a-Lago bathroom official-document-archive story dropped years ago. What surprises me is that I expected Tulsi Gabbard to be the centre of mishandling allegations, not SecDef.
- 20after4 1y agoMaybe Tulsi is just staying out of the spotlight while Hegseth was hired to be in the spotlight.
- Discordian93 1y agoTulsi is a competent mole, she knows better than to be this obvious.
- mapt 1y agoIt would be gauche to attack Tulsi Gabbard, because you would have to start with her connections to Russia's Assadist interests and to RT & the Russian web brigades, and we have established (we voted on it) that any connection to Russia is Old News and Not A Big Deal and Hillary's Dirty Tricks. But Hegseth? Hegseth leaked something to The Atlantic. A far greater threat than Russia.
- purpleidea 1y agoI can only imagine two possible explanations: 1) He is avoiding some sort of corrupt signals intelligence folks from knowing what he's working on. 2) He is avoiding the government catching him in some corruption by avoiding the official records act. Anything else?
- elsjaako 1y agoThe same reason teenagers might use Instagram DMs to communicate about school projects - It's just the platform he's familiar with. Or the same reason I have Whatsapp - communication in my social groups happens there, and if I don't have it I get left out. Your explanations assume there is some deeper meaning, looking at the tradeoffs for each communication platform, and then coming to some rational conclusion. I don't think there's much evidence for that. The people around trump just happen to be used to using signal to communicate, and if Pete doesn't get on board he gets left out.
- vkou 1y ago3) He's an idiot who hasn't given it a shred of thought, and was hired for loyalty, not brains.
- hydrogen7800 1y agoI try to apply Hanlon's Razor to this administration, but it's hard not to occasionally entertain other explanations with the sheer volume of incompetence.
- mschuster91 1y ago> It is remarkable to what great lengths Hegseth went to use the Signal app, because as defense secretary he has his own communications center which is specialized in keeping him in contact with anyone he wants. This center is commonly called SecDef Cables and is part of Secretary of Defense Communications (SDC) unit. ... but unlike Signal, SDC respects laws requiring accurate record-keeping. And that's why this bunch of lawbreakers want to use Signal. They want to evade any and all accountability once this administration is over.
- codeulike 1y agoNot a fan of the Trump administration but I imagine the official pentagon communications systems must be extremely clunky and annoying, and about 20 years behind civilian tech. During the UK Covid-19 enquiry into gov decision making at that time it came to light that most of the UK cabinet were co-ordinating via Whatsapp groups. Again, I'm not a fan of Boris and Dom Cummings but this makes some sort of sense to me. I recognise the need for government teams to have quick convenient chat available to them. Things move too fast these days to wait for the next cabinet meeting or to arrange things via a series of phone calls. Similarly we can look back to Obama having to fight to keep his Blackberry in 2009 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna28780205 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna28780205
- twixfel 1y ago> but I imagine Do you know at all or are you just relying completely on your imagination to justify the Trump admin's actions?
- codeulike 1y agoI dont like Trump but I'm interested in the idea of what technology we want our politicians to use if we actually want them to be functional teams. This seems like a topic that might be good to talk about on HN.
- graemep 1y agoThe British government was officially using Zoom for cabinet meetings during lockdown which was a whole lot worse.
- codeulike 1y agoThe whole world had to shift online with about 2 weeks notice, so I'll forgive them that. At the time I was kind of impressed to be honest that red tape didn't bring the govt machinery to a halt and that they were actually able to improvise a bit. But yes Zoom is not generally the platform I'd want them to use.
- JensRantil 1y agoOf course the guy needs to have an end-to-end encrypted direct line to the president. It's the president that runs the show and all decisions must go through him.
- lwansbrough 1y agoI think a pretty good show would be something written like West Wing, where everyone takes themselves very seriously, but with rampant, blatant incompetence. Like, not funny at all. Nothing tongue in cheek, no winks to the audience. A drama of morons. Get me inside the minds of these freaks.
- ryukoposting 1y agoVeep. You're describing Veep. I guess that's more "assholes" than "morons" but there's plenty of both.
- jajko 1y agoThe office. In White house.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- toomanyrichies 1y agoThat's basically "Veep". You might also enjoy "In The Loop", "The Thick Of It", or most of Armando Iannucci's oeuvre.
- HDThoreaun 1y agoVeep is a documentary.
- m_fayer 1y ago“Burn After Reading”: only adjacent to the halls of power, but a great portrayal of a majority of morons trying to impose themselves into a mostly-offscreen world of aghast professionals. It’s a harbinger.
- Aeolun 1y agoMaybe just let the man use Signal? If someone gave me a whole set of locked down _windows_ computers and a bunch of achaic phone lines and told me to use them in 2025, I’d also try to circumvent such inconvenience.
- Loughla 1y agoAre you in charge of federal secrets?
- mikeyouse 1y agoThose pesky archiving requirements put in place after the wanton criminality of the Nixon administration are likely unnecessary as well, right? Surely nothing’s being said or planned in the auto-deleting threads that would be criminal, right?
- bdangubic 1y agoI think they should just use X and post publicly, I don't see what the fuss is all about :)
- good-luck86523 1y ago[flagged]
- netbioserror 1y agoI'm simply going to point out the blaringly obvious that has somehow missed the armchair commentariat for this whole narrative debacle: 1) DoD and other departments have either tacitly or explicitly approved the use of Signal for internal matters for several years now, with proper opsec. 2) You cannot govern exclusively from a SCIF, hence 1.
- khaki54 1y agoExactly. Signal and Wickr are widely used, and default installed in some orgs.
- lantry 1y agoDoes "proper opsec" include adding random journalists to your chat, and sharing classified intel with your friends?
- netbioserror 1y agoDid you read the transcripts?
- lantry 1y agoIf you're talking about the chat messages published by the Atlantic, yes, I did.
- netbioserror 1y agoOkay. What's happening at the very beginning, in the first screenshots/messages?
- lantry 1y agoMike waltz adds Jeff Goldberg without verifying anything, then sends a message explaining the purpose of the group and asking for everyone to provide a point of contact from their staff. Everyone then shares the name of their staff member. What's your point? is something in there supposed to be "opsec"? Did you read the transcript? here's a gift link if you want to refresh your memory: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/signal-group-chat-attack-plans-hegseth-goldberg/682176/?gift=d36NuO0xvnx2Uo6shgR6fXjlmzxs7THRRvLpTGwrefk https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/signal-...
- Waterluvian 1y agoSomewhat related: does there exist a technology where I can encrypt something in a manner that it can only be decrypted after a specific future date? If theoretically possible, what would it take for something like that to exist? ie. "We'd need an authority to broadcast some ongoing pseudorandom number generator that can be trusted" or whatnot.
- TrapLord_Rhodo 1y agoa smart contract on solana.
- fidotron 1y agoYou might be on to something there. I was thinking of encrypting a secret in the structure of a Rust program so it can only be decrypted by compiling and running it.
- andrepd 1y ago? Where's the time component there
- Waterluvian 1y agoCompiling a rust program!
- fmbb 1y agoCan’t you just fork the chain?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- joncrocks 1y agoSurely you would have to store something off-chain in order for it to be inaccessible until a given point in time. Unless you can predict the future, I'm not sure how you would generate a key that would be unknowable now but generally available in the future.
- flexorium 1y agoI’m somewhat surprised to see that they use a KVM to switch between back and forth between a JWICS and SIPRNET. I would imagine it’s a special KVM as it’s essentially bridging the airgap between the two. I’m guessing that’s the product in question: https://www.vertiv.com/490454/globalassets/products/monitoring-control-and-management/secure-kvm/secure-kvm-application-brief.pdf https://www.vertiv.com/490454/globalassets/products/monitori...
- khaki54 1y agoThey use special secure KVM from the major vendors and they are tempest resistant meaning they are shielded from bleeding signals between devices. They also have devices that can use multiple levels on the same screen and keyboard! See Everfox TTC
- unit149 1y ago[dead]
- flerchin 1y agoBut what about her emails. /s
- pessimizer 1y agoThat throught-terminating cliché propaganda line generated by a bunch of campaign strategists at a whiteboard is what got us into this situation. The extreme bipartisan view is that government business done by public officials should be hidden from the public record at their whim, even with the explicit goal of avoiding FOIA. Democrats believe that this is not only justified but virtuous, because Hillary Clinton lost an election.
- Havoc 1y agoI get that he’s senior but surely someone else signed off this farce?
- CoastalCoder 1y agoHe's SecDef. AFAIK he calls all the shots within DoD's operations, as long as Trump allows it. I guess the Treasury Department could stop transferring funds into DoD accounts, but that seems unlikely. Perhaps he could be prosecuted for violating various laws, but that would require action by the DoJ, which also seems unlikely. Congress could also hold Trump responsible for Hegseth's actions, but that also strikes me as unlikely. The past 9 years have been a really good education in why the Separation of Powers is important, and what's at risk when it doesn't function properly.
- TaurenHunter 1y agoThe sheer hypocrisy https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/02/hillary-clinton-emails-laptop-thumb-drive-archive-missing https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/02/hillary-clin... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/05/fbi-no-charges-hillary-clinton-email-investigation https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/05/fbi-no-charg... Also: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-dir... "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
- Chyzwar 1y agoClassic whataboutism.
- HPsquared 1y agoThere's a fine line between whataboutism and precedent.
- inverted_flag 1y agoI look forward to the FBI's thorough investigation of Hegseth then.
- Sabinus 1y agoAnd Hegseth answering questions before a House committee for 11 hours, like Clinton did.
- TaurenHunter 1y ago[flagged]
- daveguy 1y ago
- coryfklein 1y agoThe contrast betweeen a) beaurocrats' real comms setups (3 telephones, four monitors all sitting on the desk – versus mounted on arms/wall) full of clutter and sitting on an anachronism of a wood desk and b) what you'd see in any "spy" movie with dark-mode graphics displaying fancy l33t charts displayed on quad-monitor setups mounted on arms, probably in a low-light setting and the beaurocrat doesn't look at the "small" monitors himself, his cronies do that, the only monitor he looks at is the single 136" on the wall used for teleconferencing with villains is hilarious
- actionfromafar 1y agoand c) looking at spy comms on their civilian phone while in Russia, probably taking a dump.
- zelon88 1y agoHe should probably be investigated. He's giving off major "Russian Asset" vibes.
- Ajedi32 1y agoValid concerns about op-sec and personal responsibility aside, I think this is another example of why "security at the expense of usability comes at the expense of security". Official DoD communications equipment sucks, so people use the less secure, more usable encrypted communications platform when they feel they can get away with it. Maybe the DoD should work on developing some internal Android and Signal forks that focus on adding additional critical security controls without impacting usability. There's an obvious desire path here.
- beardedwizard 1y agoThey are using unofficial comms to stay off the record and unaccountable, it has nothing to do with ease of use.
- Ajedi32 1y agoThat's possible I suppose, but do you have any evidence of that or is it just your personal biases causing you to assume the worst motivation you can imagine must be the correct one? I know personally that given the choice I'd probably rather use Signal than whatever messaging system the DoD contractors managed to come up with. And private conversations between senior military officials over encrypted DoD communication channels probably aren't FOIAable anyway.
- beardedwizard 1y agoPerhaps, but the simplest answer is often the correct one. People are exactly who they appear to be.
- justsid 1y agoBut the simple answer is that the devices suck and people don't want to use them. This is going to be more and more true as time goes on because new people coming in will be used to the creature comforts they have from their personal equipment. I'm not defending anyone here, the people in power need to be held to a higher standard than some rando citizen on the street.
- bunnie 1y agoI feel bad for the Signal devs. If they weren't personally targets for state level actors before, they are now. Say what you want about the usability of DoD home grown solutions, but it was a military system backed up by military budgets and guns - civilians are less likely to be collateral damage in an attack against these systems. Now, all the civilians using Signal are potential splash damage casualties in a military conflict. I also suspect Signal does not have the budget, staffing, or desire to serve as a front line soldier in a cyber war; but this exposes them to military-grade risks, whether they like it or not.
- entuno 1y agoGiven it's usage in the past, Signal and it's developers have definitely been a target before now. Not to mention by law enforcement and forensic companies like Cellebrite, which lead to them hitting back in a rather amusing blog post a while back: https://signal.org/blog/cellebrite-vulnerabilities/ https://signal.org/blog/cellebrite-vulnerabilities/
- pessimizer 1y agoThey're just going to keep hammering this dude until he bombs Iran, then MSNBC will say that he's finally grown into the role of a statesman and learned to make the hard choices.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoSince NSA Waltz just got fired for this, shouldn't Hesgeth as well?