5 ms·

I wish more people, especially media writers, would start with the presumption that "circumventing the state-approved security machine" is a _feature_ of this a

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  nitpick: disappearing messages are either enabled for everyone in the group or for no one.
patrickhogan1 1y ago
Bingo. 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 ago
It 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
- patrickhogan1 1y ago
  He is not the president or vice president. This law would be more relevant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Records_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Records_Act Here, his signal comms are likely top secret and we would have no way of knowing if his office followed the legally allowed step of forwarding after the fact for many years.
  - godelski 1y ago
    There's similar record keeping for lots of officials. Government loves keeping records
  - collingreen 1y ago
    And now we won't know, ever. Which is exactly the point of avoiding the system.
curiousgal 1y ago
> help coordinate our national defense I mean, thinking the DoD is actually defending the U.S. is where you went wrong. The stakes are so incredibly low that none of this actually matters.
grimpy 1y ago
> 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%? Is your point that, in the space of your own lack of knowledge, that reasonable rational may exist? Could you share what gives you trust in this administration to be so generous?
- zmgsabst 1y ago
  I see this as partisan: - one side ignored Clinton using a private server as sec of state - this one ignores using Signal I haven’t seen arguments about what the standard is supposed to be or why this in particular is egregious. That would be more convincing than hyperventilating. Edit: If you read the article, there are both classified/secured and unsecured lines available at the station. So what specifically is the problem the administration uses Signal together with unsecured comms? I don’t follow the allegation its mere presence is problematic, when discussing general communications with other parts of the administration. Especially when accessed via separate/dedicated machine (distinct from secured systems). If you want to talk about the specifics of, eg, the Yemen war plans then do that — but this article does not.
  - freddie_mercury 1y ago
    How was an FBI and DOJ and investigation by the Obama administration "one side ignoring it"?
    - collingreen 1y ago
      This. So much this. The fantasy land behind these "Clinton's emails" takes is bizarre enough to seem intentional.
    - zmgsabst 1y ago
      How did Democrats respond to that information? > Federal agencies did, however, retrospectively determine that 100 emails contained information that should have been deemed classified at the time they were sent, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controve... That sounds a lot worse than what Hegseth is accused of, but didn’t derail her nomination nor draw widespread condemnation from Democrats. That’s what I mean by “ignoring it”: the conclusion was bad but largely ignored by the party.
intermerda 1y ago
I don't understand it either. It's not as if you can accidentally message war plans to unauthorized parties on Signal.
- ineedasername 1y ago
  “We are currently clean on OPSEC.” -Pete Hegseth
SubiculumCode 1y ago
The issue is that it has all been done with great incompetence, and with apparent glorification of ignorance as a sign of bravado. I, for one, want serious people in charge of my defense, not sycophants more concerned with their stage makeup, hair, fitted suit, and with 'owning the libs' than defending our nation.
2419410794 1y ago
> Has Congress made it illegal to use an off-brand messaging app for secure communications? Yes. The law requires that classified information be handled under certain standards. > _Why_ is it insecure? Classified data is being transmitted on an unsecured device. If Hegseth's personal phone has Uber, Tinder, ... whatever apps installed, that software is running on a device that's contains national secrets. Systems which handle classified data are meant to be airgapped from the normal internet/normal software. The issue is not that signal is insecure, but rather that sensitive government information demands additional precaution (e.g. airgapping). There's a separate issue that there are legal requirements for maintaining records of government communication. Using a personal device (especially with disappearing messages) is illegal since it doesn't maintain this documentation. Additionally, classified information is tracked to see who read it and when. In the event of a security leak, this can help isolate where the leak happened. If the information gets posted on Signal, then there's nothing more that can be tracked. > For better or worse, he is the Secretary of Defense...The man we've entrusted to help coordinate our national defense. That's not the way rule of law works. The Secretary of Defense doesn't get to _decide_ we're doing things differently now. His actions, as well as the actions of his staff, are bound by the laws that congress has passed. > 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. The onus should not be on the general public to convince the Secretary of Defense to adhere to bog standard requirements for handling sensitive information. If he has an idea, "I think using Signal on my personal phone to discuss imminent military actions is better than using a secure line," he could push that idea forward. Have the Pentagon's security staff evaluate the idea. Instead, he simply did it.
glaucon 1y ago
> What is the probability that China is reading these messages in real-time Real-time might be nice but there's value in reading material at this level with almost any delay. In 1949 a US counter-intelligence program(me), the Venona project[1] decrypted Soviet cables from 1945 which made it almost certain the First Secretary to the British Embassy in Washington DC [2] was a Soviet asset. That wouldn't have happened if the Soviets hadn't misused their channels of communication. [1] https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945-present/venona.htm https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Event... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Philby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Philby
jandrewrogers 1y ago
The issue is much deeper and more concerning. They’ve been using Signal like this across multiple administrations because the “official” tools are broken to the point of being almost useless. Signal has been one of the major workarounds. It isn’t enough to say “don’t use Signal”, at some point they need to address the reality that there are no functional alternatives.
- troyvit 1y ago
  The article dissects what's on Hesgeth's desk behind him. First, there's a personal computer there connected to the open web. The article says, "He wanted this computer to use the messaging app Signal, which is the preferred method of communication among Trump's government officials." Right next to that computer is a "Cisco IP Phone 8851 with a 14-key expansion module." That phone "connects the President, the National Security Council, Cabinet members, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, intelligence agency watch centers, and others." IOW everybody ostensibly on that Signal chat except the editor of The Atlantic. So now I'm questioning what "functional" means in this context. Does it mean "A thing I can type into while I'm at my desk and can continue to use while I'm taking a dump as long as I poop in public wifi", or does it mean "a thing that brings all top staff together to truly "have op-sec"? Reading further it looks like he also had access to "SecDef Cables", which provides " interoperable, certified and accredited, multi-security level voice, video, and data services." So there are functional alternatives, especially considering the functions I personally thought our government was looking for. Maybe they prioritized a safe space for Waltz to use his favorite emojis instead?
h4ck_th3_pl4n3t 1y ago
Regarding Signal: Check out what happened to the Signal FOSS fork. Then check out what Molly is doing, and why. Personally I'd favor Briar over Signal any day.
vkou 1y ago
Anyone in the military who did this, and didn't have the president personally protecting him would be cooling his heels in an 8x8 cell in Fort Leavenworth for a very long time.

mitthrowaway2 1y ago

I 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 ago
nitpick: disappearing messages are either enabled for everyone in the group or for no one.

patrickhogan1 1y ago

Bingo. 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 ago

It 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

patrickhogan1 1y ago
He is not the president or vice president. This law would be more relevant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Records_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Records_Act Here, his signal comms are likely top secret and we would have no way of knowing if his office followed the legally allowed step of forwarding after the fact for many years.
- godelski 1y ago
  There's similar record keeping for lots of officials. Government loves keeping records
- collingreen 1y ago
  And now we won't know, ever. Which is exactly the point of avoiding the system.

curiousgal 1y ago

> help coordinate our national defense I mean, thinking the DoD is actually defending the U.S. is where you went wrong. The stakes are so incredibly low that none of this actually matters.

grimpy 1y ago

> 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%? Is your point that, in the space of your own lack of knowledge, that reasonable rational may exist? Could you share what gives you trust in this administration to be so generous?

zmgsabst 1y ago
I see this as partisan: - one side ignored Clinton using a private server as sec of state - this one ignores using Signal I haven’t seen arguments about what the standard is supposed to be or why this in particular is egregious. That would be more convincing than hyperventilating. Edit: If you read the article, there are both classified/secured and unsecured lines available at the station. So what specifically is the problem the administration uses Signal together with unsecured comms? I don’t follow the allegation its mere presence is problematic, when discussing general communications with other parts of the administration. Especially when accessed via separate/dedicated machine (distinct from secured systems). If you want to talk about the specifics of, eg, the Yemen war plans then do that — but this article does not.
- freddie_mercury 1y ago
  How was an FBI and DOJ and investigation by the Obama administration "one side ignoring it"?
  - collingreen 1y ago
    This. So much this. The fantasy land behind these "Clinton's emails" takes is bizarre enough to seem intentional.
  - zmgsabst 1y ago
    How did Democrats respond to that information? > Federal agencies did, however, retrospectively determine that 100 emails contained information that should have been deemed classified at the time they were sent, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controve... That sounds a lot worse than what Hegseth is accused of, but didn’t derail her nomination nor draw widespread condemnation from Democrats. That’s what I mean by “ignoring it”: the conclusion was bad but largely ignored by the party.

intermerda 1y ago

I don't understand it either. It's not as if you can accidentally message war plans to unauthorized parties on Signal.

ineedasername 1y ago
“We are currently clean on OPSEC.” -Pete Hegseth

SubiculumCode 1y ago

The issue is that it has all been done with great incompetence, and with apparent glorification of ignorance as a sign of bravado. I, for one, want serious people in charge of my defense, not sycophants more concerned with their stage makeup, hair, fitted suit, and with 'owning the libs' than defending our nation.

2419410794 1y ago

> Has Congress made it illegal to use an off-brand messaging app for secure communications? Yes. The law requires that classified information be handled under certain standards. > _Why_ is it insecure? Classified data is being transmitted on an unsecured device. If Hegseth's personal phone has Uber, Tinder, ... whatever apps installed, that software is running on a device that's contains national secrets. Systems which handle classified data are meant to be airgapped from the normal internet/normal software. The issue is not that signal is insecure, but rather that sensitive government information demands additional precaution (e.g. airgapping). There's a separate issue that there are legal requirements for maintaining records of government communication. Using a personal device (especially with disappearing messages) is illegal since it doesn't maintain this documentation. Additionally, classified information is tracked to see who read it and when. In the event of a security leak, this can help isolate where the leak happened. If the information gets posted on Signal, then there's nothing more that can be tracked. > For better or worse, he is the Secretary of Defense...The man we've entrusted to help coordinate our national defense. That's not the way rule of law works. The Secretary of Defense doesn't get to _decide_ we're doing things differently now. His actions, as well as the actions of his staff, are bound by the laws that congress has passed. > 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. The onus should not be on the general public to convince the Secretary of Defense to adhere to bog standard requirements for handling sensitive information. If he has an idea, "I think using Signal on my personal phone to discuss imminent military actions is better than using a secure line," he could push that idea forward. Have the Pentagon's security staff evaluate the idea. Instead, he simply did it.

glaucon 1y ago

> What is the probability that China is reading these messages in real-time Real-time might be nice but there's value in reading material at this level with almost any delay. In 1949 a US counter-intelligence program(me), the Venona project[1] decrypted Soviet cables from 1945 which made it almost certain the First Secretary to the British Embassy in Washington DC [2] was a Soviet asset. That wouldn't have happened if the Soviets hadn't misused their channels of communication. [1] https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945-present/venona.htm https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Event... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Philby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Philby

jandrewrogers 1y ago

The issue is much deeper and more concerning. They’ve been using Signal like this across multiple administrations because the “official” tools are broken to the point of being almost useless. Signal has been one of the major workarounds. It isn’t enough to say “don’t use Signal”, at some point they need to address the reality that there are no functional alternatives.

troyvit 1y ago
The article dissects what's on Hesgeth's desk behind him. First, there's a personal computer there connected to the open web. The article says, "He wanted this computer to use the messaging app Signal, which is the preferred method of communication among Trump's government officials." Right next to that computer is a "Cisco IP Phone 8851 with a 14-key expansion module." That phone "connects the President, the National Security Council, Cabinet members, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, intelligence agency watch centers, and others." IOW everybody ostensibly on that Signal chat except the editor of The Atlantic. So now I'm questioning what "functional" means in this context. Does it mean "A thing I can type into while I'm at my desk and can continue to use while I'm taking a dump as long as I poop in public wifi", or does it mean "a thing that brings all top staff together to truly "have op-sec"? Reading further it looks like he also had access to "SecDef Cables", which provides " interoperable, certified and accredited, multi-security level voice, video, and data services." So there are functional alternatives, especially considering the functions I personally thought our government was looking for. Maybe they prioritized a safe space for Waltz to use his favorite emojis instead?

h4ck_th3_pl4n3t 1y ago

Regarding Signal: Check out what happened to the Signal FOSS fork. Then check out what Molly is doing, and why. Personally I'd favor Briar over Signal any day.

vkou 1y ago

Anyone in the military who did this, and didn't have the president personally protecting him would be cooling his heels in an 8x8 cell in Fort Leavenworth for a very long time.