I find it curious that they mistakenly add a journalist to the group and it happens to be one from The Atlantic. It's probably just a coincidence but I can't help but wonder if this was a setup somehow.
The Atlantic article asks security lawyers about SCIFs and whether in general talking about Top Secret info in Signal would be a crime because author wants to make a scandal out of a minor mistake.
"Normally, cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF". None of the information alluded to would need to be in a SCIF.
Author purposely didn't show them the actual chat because it's at most Secret and they'd say it maybe warranted a reprimand.
You know how Hollywood is shit? That also applies to their depictions of the military. Spend some time listening to the stories of any given serviceman and you will quickly understand just how slipshod the entire thing is.
The necessary safeguards and additional steps to make something secure are also usually slower and more annoying, which is just how it will always be.
So what keeps fucking happening is that military personnel are more interested in being able to text and use the internet easier, and so they break security doing shit like this.
Of course they do. But do the secure options work between military and all the other people involve? Are they as easy to use or as good (user features) as as convenient? No, but they are secure.
Who knows, maybe everyone was using hardened phones already. Either way, major fuckup. Anyone who freaked out over Hillary's email server should be really upset by this too.
The problem with Hillary wasn't really the email server; at most this could get a peon doing the same fired for not CC'ing them to the national archives. For Secretary of State that's a nothingburger.
The problem was her deleting half of them after learning they would be subpoenaed (anticipatory obstruction), then later deleting them again after being served the subpoena. She went out of her way to purposely use her phone in top secret areas - intentional, not even negligence. And negligently failed to secure her private SCIF of top secret info. These are all things that normal people go to jail for.
This reporter being added to the Signal chat seems to be a simple accident (not negligence) and they only discussed at most Secret info, which isn't required to stay in a secure area.
This reporter being added to the Signal chat seems to be a simple accident (not negligence) and they only discussed at most Secret info, which isn't required to stay in a secure area.
Hard to say. If it was discussing operational details and information that was gained via TS means (SI, etc) then technically it all could have been under TS.
Agree 100% about Hillary.
How the fuck does someone invite a journalist into the group chat and no one notices? Crazy
The reporter's only implication any of it was Top Secret is that some of it "could conceivably have been used" (past tense) by adversaries. First of all there's worlds of unclassified data a Trump-hater could conceive could be used against us. Second of all, what a weak statement from somebody who claims they consulted security experts for the story.
And a CIA officer's name is not classified unless they are a secret agent, which this guy is certainly not. In fact I bet it's a well-known person the author purposely withheld for the narrative.
CIA is anal as fuck about releasing the names of just about anyone who works there. The head of what used to be called the Directorate of Operations (DO) and is now the NCS (National Clandestine Service) -- the spying division -- used always be undercover, for instance. A very large percentage of CIA employees have a random cover name they use for interagency emails, etc.
"What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing."
I don't think this is particularly serious, but it is, nonetheless stupid as fuck and a huge mistake.
If CIA cared that much they'd tell their people not drive to work with their phones in the car. Google/Apple, telecom, and insurance companies know who nearly every employee is.
Trump-hating author says he's shocked. Uses nebulous terms like "conceivably" and "information about". Attack already happened so there's no problem giving at least a few specifics on what was said and yet there's no details at all, only characterizations of it. No 'first we're going to bomb this outpost, then this one'?
Because that kind of detail was not in there. Obviously.
If CIA cared that much they'd tell their people not drive to work with their phones in the car. Google/Apple, telecom, and insurance companies know who nearly every employee is.
They did when I worked there (briefly, 15 years ago).
They, at the time, told people to take the batteries out of their phones before they got close to HQ. They said even back then that they had evidence of foreign services utilizing cellphone towers with malicious tracking devices. I guess cell phone towers are basically public so any company, or shell company, is allowed access. Anyway, you were supposed to take the battery out because that just made your cellphone "disappear" as if it lost signal, ran out of battery, etc. If you turned off your phone it sends a "shutting down" signal which they thought was more suspicious.
I have no idea how they manage things now that cellphones rarely have removable batteries. No phones were allowed to come into the building, you had to leave them in your car. People who needed to be on call had pagers--in the 2010s~!
Another good one was being able to figure out who was CIA or military based on their strava runs in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Supposedly verified by the White House. I have a number of questions.
First is, I find it surprising that there's no "in-house" app for this kind of secure communication. Signal is perfectly fine as far as privacy, I suppose, but privacy != security, clearly.
Second, does it not notify people in a thread that a number has been added? Surely someone would have noticed that a new person joined the conversation, since this was supposed to be a very small number of people? There's no way for the OP/admin/thread creator to limit the ability to add new participants in the first place?
As someone who uses Signal all the time, there absolutely is admin access for every chat room. To be entirely fair, the most active one I'm in currently we all have admin access.
What's insane about this is Jeff Goldberg catches the scoop of a lifetime and instead of running it into the endzone he took a knee. Why?
Because Hegseth, Waltz, and Goldberg are all on the same side (israel).
Making this story about Trump officials being dumb (which is fair) entirely misses the point, that the Trump admin is preparing to launch WW3 on behalf of jews.
Props at least to JD Vance for being against it, what little difference it may make.
It's going to turn out he got added to a meme group, and has been a paid consultant with the right clearances for a while. Propaganda man was caught by his own words or something.
The fact that Waltz apparently has Goldberg on speed dial is baffling. It's the dog that isn't barking. It's like Al gore is chatting with Hillary Clinton and she adds Rush fucking Limbaugh to it.
He's been rewarded by being made the EIC of The Atlantic.
"Oops, wrong Berg got texted"
There's so many, it's hard to keep them straight.
I find it curious that they mistakenly add a journalist to the group and it happens to be one from The Atlantic. It's probably just a coincidence but I can't help but wonder if this was a setup somehow.
I don't think he's making it up, but...
The Atlantic article asks security lawyers about SCIFs and whether in general talking about Top Secret info in Signal would be a crime because author wants to make a scandal out of a minor mistake.
"Normally, cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF". None of the information alluded to would need to be in a SCIF.
Author purposely didn't show them the actual chat because it's at most Secret and they'd say it maybe warranted a reprimand.
Our military is pretty retarded. Our ability to destroy foes is amazing but they're still retarded
You know how Hollywood is shit? That also applies to their depictions of the military. Spend some time listening to the stories of any given serviceman and you will quickly understand just how slipshod the entire thing is.
The necessary safeguards and additional steps to make something secure are also usually slower and more annoying, which is just how it will always be.
So what keeps fucking happening is that military personnel are more interested in being able to text and use the internet easier, and so they break security doing shit like this.
Of course they do. But do the secure options work between military and all the other people involve? Are they as easy to use or as good (user features) as as convenient? No, but they are secure.
Who knows, maybe everyone was using hardened phones already. Either way, major fuckup. Anyone who freaked out over Hillary's email server should be really upset by this too.
The problem with Hillary wasn't really the email server; at most this could get a peon doing the same fired for not CC'ing them to the national archives. For Secretary of State that's a nothingburger.
The problem was her deleting half of them after learning they would be subpoenaed (anticipatory obstruction), then later deleting them again after being served the subpoena. She went out of her way to purposely use her phone in top secret areas - intentional, not even negligence. And negligently failed to secure her private SCIF of top secret info. These are all things that normal people go to jail for.
This reporter being added to the Signal chat seems to be a simple accident (not negligence) and they only discussed at most Secret info, which isn't required to stay in a secure area.
Hard to say. If it was discussing operational details and information that was gained via TS means (SI, etc) then technically it all could have been under TS.
Agree 100% about Hillary.
How the fuck does someone invite a journalist into the group chat and no one notices? Crazy
The reporter's only implication any of it was Top Secret is that some of it "could conceivably have been used" (past tense) by adversaries. First of all there's worlds of unclassified data a Trump-hater could conceive could be used against us. Second of all, what a weak statement from somebody who claims they consulted security experts for the story.
And a CIA officer's name is not classified unless they are a secret agent, which this guy is certainly not. In fact I bet it's a well-known person the author purposely withheld for the narrative.
CIA is anal as fuck about releasing the names of just about anyone who works there. The head of what used to be called the Directorate of Operations (DO) and is now the NCS (National Clandestine Service) -- the spying division -- used always be undercover, for instance. A very large percentage of CIA employees have a random cover name they use for interagency emails, etc.
I was basing my statement on these quotes:
https://archive.is/4X5JZ
"What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing."
I don't think this is particularly serious, but it is, nonetheless stupid as fuck and a huge mistake.
If CIA cared that much they'd tell their people not drive to work with their phones in the car. Google/Apple, telecom, and insurance companies know who nearly every employee is.
Trump-hating author says he's shocked. Uses nebulous terms like "conceivably" and "information about". Attack already happened so there's no problem giving at least a few specifics on what was said and yet there's no details at all, only characterizations of it. No 'first we're going to bomb this outpost, then this one'?
Because that kind of detail was not in there. Obviously.
They did when I worked there (briefly, 15 years ago).
They, at the time, told people to take the batteries out of their phones before they got close to HQ. They said even back then that they had evidence of foreign services utilizing cellphone towers with malicious tracking devices. I guess cell phone towers are basically public so any company, or shell company, is allowed access. Anyway, you were supposed to take the battery out because that just made your cellphone "disappear" as if it lost signal, ran out of battery, etc. If you turned off your phone it sends a "shutting down" signal which they thought was more suspicious.
I have no idea how they manage things now that cellphones rarely have removable batteries. No phones were allowed to come into the building, you had to leave them in your car. People who needed to be on call had pagers--in the 2010s~!
Another good one was being able to figure out who was CIA or military based on their strava runs in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
If Hillary Clinton didn't go to prison then this is a nothing burger
Signal was literally created by the military.
Oh no! The first time government has ever fucked up ever!
https://archive.is/QtB4r
Supposedly verified by the White House. I have a number of questions.
First is, I find it surprising that there's no "in-house" app for this kind of secure communication. Signal is perfectly fine as far as privacy, I suppose, but privacy != security, clearly.
Second, does it not notify people in a thread that a number has been added? Surely someone would have noticed that a new person joined the conversation, since this was supposed to be a very small number of people? There's no way for the OP/admin/thread creator to limit the ability to add new participants in the first place?
As someone who uses Signal all the time, there absolutely is admin access for every chat room. To be entirely fair, the most active one I'm in currently we all have admin access.
As much as I loathe Hanania, this is pretty funny.
What's insane about this is Jeff Goldberg catches the scoop of a lifetime and instead of running it into the endzone he took a knee. Why?
Because Hegseth, Waltz, and Goldberg are all on the same side (israel).
Making this story about Trump officials being dumb (which is fair) entirely misses the point, that the Trump admin is preparing to launch WW3 on behalf of jews.
Props at least to JD Vance for being against it, what little difference it may make.
It's going to turn out he got added to a meme group, and has been a paid consultant with the right clearances for a while. Propaganda man was caught by his own words or something.
The fact that Waltz apparently has Goldberg on speed dial is baffling. It's the dog that isn't barking. It's like Al gore is chatting with Hillary Clinton and she adds Rush fucking Limbaugh to it.
That's why I think he's some kind of plant