What the hell?
- Thread starter Mark Milton
- Start date
In a very real sense, Goldberg was put in the trolly problem there. He had the ability to prevent human deaths, yet chose a path of inaction intentionally for a variety of moral (and maybe non-moral) reasons.
We've investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.
In an interview I conducted with myself I revealed that Biden did this
Assuming he did (I don't take anything you link at face value), apparently that senile old man was able to keep his administration from including outsiders in their sensitive discussions for 4 years.
Trump's administration couldn't make it 2 months.
I think twenty was describing how the GOP would be responding if the shoe was on the other foot.
FWIW, Director Ratcliffe says that what you're saying here is not true. It was installed for him at the CIA, by agency personnel.
I think we're owed an explanation of the origin of this policy -- and why officials aren't using a fully isolated network to have these comms.
I haven’t read any war plans either but I know a plan amongst human beings includes info like time, place, who’s going to be there, what everyone is bringing, what we’re going to do when we get to the designated place at the designated time.
In a broad sense, lunch plans and war plans share these similarities. Hope that helps.
I think he’s suggesting that should happen here, too. I’m not sure he’s wrong.
To be fair, he said on his computer, not his phone from the clip I saw.
I don’t know if that makes a difference.
I wouldn't think so. Do we even know what devices they were each using to access the service?
To me, the important piece of info is that agency personnel installed it -- which suggest that the service is allowed and within policy. So I think it raises questions as to who made this decision and what their rationale was.
Are we sure it wasn't @UncleMark who sent her that?Hegseth text to who he thought was Tulsi:
No classified information. No war plans. So what are you complaining about?
From the picture, yes, yes we are.
because your sources are impeccable? lol
They could tell you there is no oxygen in the air and you would believe them.
Congress or DOGE(yes I know haha they screw up but this would seem to be in their stated goals) should probably look into the explosion of apps and communication methods and devices and maybe standardize what is and is not workable. Think about how terribly inefficient it would be for someone to switch between apps, messaging, devices, etc. for each communication depending on the particular content, recipient, etc.
Sounds like a nightmare. Hell, I can’t stand having normal texting and What’s App on my phone.
Was in jest... Since everyone now yells impeachment for everything. Like judges that give rulings certain people don't like
I'm sure that front ends can be developed to interact with multiple back-ends/platforms.
And I'm also sure that safeguards can be put in place to prevent unauthorized distribution of classified/sensitive information. Hell, our email system stopped allowing us from sending things like SSNs and CC #s years ago. It sniffs those things out like a bloodhound.
Granted, it's probably more difficult for an AI Sentry to know when something is or isn't classified. But it ought to be able to take a pretty good guess.
If that safeguard was in place, it would've (a) known that sensitive information was being discussed, and (b) that somebody without the proper clearance was an audience to it....even if the people on the group chat were unaware. Hell, I probably would've been unaware who "JG" was too.
Thanks for stepping up and educating these fools. Most of them still use AOL and dial up. They don't know all the cool kids use signal. They think it's a board game.
You REALLY believe that sending someone the timing, targets, and weapons used for an attack 2 hours before an attack is not classified? Seriously? Tell us you really believe that.
You do realize that DOGE is purposefully avoiding official channels to avoid records disclosures?
I think the real issue is people using personal devices assuming signal is approved. Leading officials should assume their personal devices are hacked and monitored.
Nothingburger. It's the guy who didn't know what the hell was going on fault.
Pentagon regulations state that messaging apps "are NOT authorized to access, transmit, process non-public DoD information"
Why is it a problem if Yemen strike plans shared on Signal?
US officials' use of an unsecured chat app presented potential problems even before a journalist was added to the group, analysts say.
www.bbc.com
Pentagon regulations state that messaging apps "are NOT authorized to access, transmit, process non-public DoD information"
Why is it a problem if Yemen strike plans shared on Signal?
US officials' use of an unsecured chat app presented potential problems even before a journalist was added to the group, analysts say.
Yep, installed for "normal" traffic is one thing. I sure hope the CIA wasn't using it to talk to covert operators. I am sure it is great for routine stuff.
Pentagon regulations state that messaging apps "are NOT authorized to access, transmit, process non-public DoD information"
Why is it a problem if Yemen strike plans shared on Signal?
US officials' use of an unsecured chat app presented potential problems even before a journalist was added to the group, analysts say.
OK, I was just responding to your assertion that Signal wasn't allowed on government devices. That doesn't appear to be correct.
In fact, CISA has been advocating the use of Signal.
That doesn't mean that it's approved for transmission of classified info, of course. But perhaps this info hadn't been classified yet -- which is what would allow Gabbard to say that it isn't classified.
I've seen some speculation that it simply hadn't been at that point in time. I don't know.
If so, it's splitting hairs to say that it wasn't classified info. I'd sure as hell hope that timing, targets, etc. would be classified.
"I am not a crook." - R. Nixon
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." - B Clinton
"I will not pardon him [Hunter]." J. Biden
Agreed. Whatever the reason, it was clearly a screw up and one that happens all the time.
Each side plays the gotcha game over the most stupid shit.
Theoretically, as somebody else said early in the thread, the end-to-end encryption offered by Signal is, in and of itself, very secure. I'm not going to say for certain that it's unbreakable -- because that doesn't exist. But my best guess is that the encryption itself is pretty stout.
To me, that's not the issue with using an app like Signal. The big vulnerability is what happened here -- you're dealing with a platform that extends to anybody and everybody. And what good is encryption if some unauthorized person gains access, intentionally or not, to the unencrypted comms?
I'm actually very surprised to learn that CISA was advocating its use -- and specifically to "highly targeted individuals". With all the damn money government spends on God knows what....the very office put in place to ensure comms security is advocating this?
What is described by Goldberg should be classified prior to an operation like the strikes on the Houthis, and it was disclosed two hours prior. It's Controlled Critical Information" (CCI), which is information, whether classified or unclassified, that, if disclosed, could reveal vulnerabilities or harm national security, requiring specific safeguards and dissemination controls. OPSEC is protecting and not disclosing CCI. Hegseth knew what OPSEC was and during the text claimed they were practicing it "OPSEC is clean" because he knows that information requires protecting. Problem is they didn't protect it.
More likely that when Trump was questioned about this by the reporter, he instantly declassified it in his head by thinking it. That's how it works, according to him. So now Pete and his underlings are covered and can say so in front of the investigation panel.OK, I was just responding to your assertion that Signal wasn't allowed on government devices. That doesn't appear to be correct.
In fact, CISA has been advocating the use of Signal.
That doesn't mean that it's approved for transmission of classified info, of course. But perhaps this info hadn't been classified yet -- which is what would allow Gabbard to say that it isn't classified.
Perfect example of overreaction. @Mark Milton this is why no one can just say it was a simple mistake.
Maybe you should follow the thread to see how that came up, instead of cherry picking.
Pointing out other examples of use of classified material is not a defense. It's stating facts. Do you have a problem with stating facts or with the same standard applied to all?
Absolutely not shocked, after seeing what happened under previous administrations.
OK. I'm simply passing along what somebody who I gather is familiar with these procedures speculated -- so as to allow Gabbard to testify under oath that the info wasn't classified.
Whether or not it should've been at that time would be neither here nor there -- to that specific question. But only in a narrow technical sense.
Either that or she just committed perjury.
But some people build campaigns on it.
Again, name the time details of an operation were leaked just days in advance on a messaging app?
