61–70 of 97 posts
Do we know how the calls are being intercepted?
There are other articles talking about how many stingray devices there are in Washington DC owned by foreign governments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. So does the president have a free ticket to declassify anything , even if it puts the nation at risk (e.g. during a time of war)? For example, if trump posted the location of a surprise invasion force on twitter, can the rest of the government just "lol, trump on twitter again" and move on?
The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces so pretty much anything the military does is under the presidents authority or by authority delegated down the chain of command from him/her. The president could personally lead troops into battle if he wanted to. I think the only president to have served as an actual general during their time as president was George Washington during the whiskey rebellion.
It is relatively trivial to identify the friends of a famous person, such as any sitting President of the United States. Since the government doesn't go around paying for secure lines for all friends of all Presidents, it seems likely that all calls from all Presidents to all of their friends throughout modern history were subject to eavesdropping. This isn't a "Trump is an idiot" issue, as the article strives so dil…
IIRC Obama invited his high school friends a lot to hang in the White House, that's one way to avoid insecure phone networks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are other articles talking about how many stingray devices there are in Washington DC owned by foreign governments.
One would think that the President's team would travel with a known-good pico-cell device and let his phone only connect to that. Or force wi-fi calling and only let the phone connect to the wi-fi network they bring along everywhere.
I don't think anyone can follow him with a known-good device and let him connect to that. The article describes his short-temper and complete unwillingness to sacrifice even a few minutes to take care of security issues.
> Or force wi-fi calling and only let the phone connect to the wi-fi network they bring along everywhere.
You cannot force this President* to do anything that he thinks inconveniences him. You can't "force WiFi calling" without being fired or at least being afraid of it.
The solution here is not a technology fix for the phone of this President. The fix is a new Congress that cares about national security and a new President that cares about national security.
Also,
> One would think that the President's team would...
No, one really wouldn't. The President's team is not concerned with actually fixing this problem. They have made it clear that national security concerns come second to the whims and desires of the President*.
Similarly to how agreed-upon overflights increase security (as your opponent knows you're not preparing an attack and/or are keeping to treaty obligations) one could consider this a good thing. Of course China is not currently a military threat to the US, at least at the level deserving attention of a US president (e.g. random encounters in the Spratleys are jostling, not escalation). I certainly don't think this is…
I would disagree. China routinely threatens U.S. naval vessels which transit disputed regions of the South China Sea, and maintains a large battery of missiles pointed at Taiwan, an American diplomatic ally. They have also developed hypersonic anti-carrier missiles, and are rapidly expanding their blue-water navy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are so many issues with your comment that I don't know where to begin, but I won't bother addressing all of them because it will just devolve into typical Hn-ness. I will address the more egregious misstatements you have made. Russia actively attacks US election infrastructure Running a few ads, with a small budget, or having some fake Twitter accounts post things that millions of others are already saying, in…
> There are so many issues with your comment that I don't know where to begin, but I won't bother addressing all of them because it will just devolve into typical Hn-ness. But I will address the more egregious misstatements you have made. There's no need to insult me to start with. Please abide by the HN guidelines and do not just start insulting people. Let's just talk about all this and get right to the content: >…
The amount of money Russia spent on Facebook ads.
> Well, Heather Heyer was murdered in this fashion.
That was tragic. Evil, even. But you said "People are dying in the streets from the actions taken by violent right-wing people", and when pressed for evidence, you cite the only instance that has happened in two years. But you claimed more than that. You claimed "people" (plural) "are" (present tense). You have dramatically overstated a real, horrible, but still one-off instance into a general trend.
> Well Beto for one! Ted Cruz trying to drum up support to jail Beto O'Rourke last night was wild. Scary and sad :(
Ted Cruz is trying to drum up support for getting re-elected, nothing more. (You've seen this before. Note that Hillary remains completely un-locked-up.) It's sad, all right, that Cruz would use this tactic. But Beto isn't going to jail, win or lose, unless he actually does something, no matter what Cruz says in a campaign situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, typical Hn-ness. Have a great afternoon!
Yes, your constant downplaying and total denial of the most important technology and political events of the century is very "HN like". Have a great afternoon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are so many issues with your comment that I don't know where to begin, but I won't bother addressing all of them because it will just devolve into typical Hn-ness. But I will address the more egregious misstatements you have made. There's no need to insult me to start with. Please abide by the HN guidelines and do not just start insulting people. Let's just talk about all this and get right to the content: >…
Again, typical Hn-ness. Have a great afternoon!
If you are wondering if other countries are intercepting calls by hacking the carriers, the article seems to mainly point the finger at malware. It said the protocol is to replace the phones with no backups every month or so. "Mr. Trump is supposed to swap out his two official phones every 30 days for new ones but rarely does, bristling at the inconvenience. White House staff members are supposed to set up the new ph…
> the article seems to mainly point the finger at malware Actually the article says: > "But the calls made from the phones are intercepted as they travel through the cell towers, cables and switches that make up national and international cellphone networks. Calls made from any cellphone — iPhone, Android, an old-school Samsung flip phone — are vulnerable."
Mods, can we get Russia added back to the headline? It has been removed and is causing confusion in the comments.