Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#251

Post by dragonwriter »

milesrout wrote: post #248
overfeed wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fourt cases related to Watergate established that receiving classified information is not illegal, and affirmed 1A rights. I'd argue it's a exactly the same as a journalist overhearing this motley crew discussing the war plan in the halls of the White House without being aware there's a journalist nearby. I wouldn't bank on the current supreme court to uphold precedence, or the current administration persecuting…

The US Supreme Court hews close to precedent. The only two significant overturned decisions in the last decade are Roe v Wade, which regardless of your views on abortion was a poorly reasoned decision, which was really judicial legislation, that had to be essentially amended several times (whether abortion should be permitted is a separate question from whether Roe was good law, which it obviously wasn't) and Chevron…

> The only two significant overturned decisions in the last decade are Roe [...] and Chevron

That's really not true; just a couple of the other major decisions overturned in the last decade:

Apodaca v. Oregon, holding that while the 14th Amendment did incorporate the right to jury trial against the States, it did not incorporate the unanimity requirement that the Supreme Court has found against the federal government in the 6th Amendment against the states. (reversed in Ramos v. Louisiana, 2020.)

Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, holding that a certiied public-sector union could collect an “agency fee” attributable to representational activities but not other union functions to represented non-member employees. Reversed by Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council 31 (2018).

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#252

Post by pell »

gitaarik wrote: post #231
4ndrewl wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To what end? How is this newsworthy any more? It has the President's blessing - that's all you need now. If literally storming your government building, threating your representatives and injuring police officers isn't punishable any more what is?

[flagged]

No, Hunter Biden is not at all the „same“ as the false elector scheme and violently storming the capitol.

To anyone, I recommend you give this a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#253

Post by 9dev »

ty6853 wrote: post #163
itbeho wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did the right thing. He's obviously of a certain political bent, but recognized this kind of leak could lead to the loss of American service member lives. He didn't share everything from the chat. I respect him for what he did. And I agree with your assessment. Morons...

Hard to say. Sharing it may have lead to saving of servicemen lives since it may cause an abort. Not like it is a self defense mission, attacks on Houthi is totally optional meddling that likely breeds more 'terrorists'.

Trying to assess the consequences of publishing highly classified information on military operations is a ridiculously reckless idea. None of us have enough data about the full picture to even try to guess correctly here. The only sane thing to do is to maintain confidentiality and leave it to the involved agencies to draw consequences as they see fit.

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#254

Post by 9dev »

nunez wrote: post #165
nickthegreek wrote: post #10

Is it wild that a 3rd party app like Signal is used for this type of communication? I feel like that's crazy.

Yes. When you get a clearance, it is inculcated upon you that you absolutely do not leak cleared information. If you THINK something cleared, it's best to treat it like it is. It's possible that there is some 10D chess happening here, but I wouldn't expect details like this to be approved for apps like Signal.

Can we stop with the nth-D chess nonsense? This administration proves day by day that no advanced tactics are going on, it’s literally just clueless idiots improvising because they’re way out of their league but are too self-absorbed to step back.

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#255

Post by thecopy »

milesrout wrote: post #248
overfeed wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fourt cases related to Watergate established that receiving classified information is not illegal, and affirmed 1A rights. I'd argue it's a exactly the same as a journalist overhearing this motley crew discussing the war plan in the halls of the White House without being aware there's a journalist nearby. I wouldn't bank on the current supreme court to uphold precedence, or the current administration persecuting…

The US Supreme Court hews close to precedent. The only two significant overturned decisions in the last decade are Roe v Wade, which regardless of your views on abortion was a poorly reasoned decision, which was really judicial legislation, that had to be essentially amended several times (whether abortion should be permitted is a separate question from whether Roe was good law, which it obviously wasn't) and Chevron…

>To go back to Chevron, you have to look beyond the US and understand that for anyone else anywhere else in the world, the idea of the courts deferring in their interpretation of the law to executive agencies is just ridiculous

My interpretation is difficult and complex domain specific regulation were handled by agency experts, and not lawyers. It is now up to congress to detail very specifically this potentially difficult regulation and to quickly adjust when research changes.

Is my interpretation incorrect? Since to me this current approach sounds terrible, inflexibly and set-up to fail.

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#256

Post by 9dev »

iteratethis wrote: post #122

This is bad news for entire genres of books, TV shows and movies that are based on the supreme competence, sophistication and wealth of the Pentagon, NSA and CIA. Turns out US military strategy is the same as me and my mates setting up a bar date. It's a disturbing leak in itself but i take issue with the journalist obsessing over the tool of choice whilst ignoring the actual strategizing. The casual way in which a m…

The most excellent steak can be ruined by an amateur chef easily.

I agree with your point on the spin, although I wonder if the Signal angle is the only thing even republicans can agree with to be kinda bad, given that even the most egregious reports on the current administration don’t really cause as much as a raised brow there. So to make it a story that doesn’t just resonate in the liberal echo chamber, include something despicable to both camps.

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#257

Post by [deleted] »

hnburnsy wrote: post #108
asdff wrote: post #80

304 votes, 75 comments 3 hours after posting and this is already being thrown all the way back to 134 rank on the front page with some 2-3 day old posts. This is very clearly hacker news: a case of opsec slipup in easily the worst fashion coming straight from the SecDef (or one representing the SecDef). A shame it is probably getting flamed and downvoted over partisan reasons, although I know there are many conservat…

>A shame it is probably getting flamed and downvoted over partisan reasons Is this the forum for this type of news? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ... On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Off-Topic: Most stories about…

[deleted]

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#258

Post by blitzar »

LWIRVoltage wrote: post #91
bayarearefugee wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we are generous and assume Signal's protocols and entire communication infrastructure are 100% safe and cannot be compromised, any one single person in the group chat using Signal on a compromised device invalidates all of that. The fact that Signal was used is less concerning to me personally than the fact that they had this group chat outside of the overall safety umbrella of fully end-to-end vetted systems…

This is true absolutely One would hope indeed- I do wonder on that ...... There's another observation though- Salt Typhoon compromised wiretap infrastructure - before Signal, there's no doub't some stuff like this occured over text messages- Because of everyone's efforts to go to Signal- even if it's for the message disappearing- with this, with military branches pushing it hard- with Sweden's Miltary pushing it, etc…

I has long been fashionable with the kids to use screenshots for "proofs" - I don't believe there is any screenshot protections in signal.

The iCloud accounts of anyone ambitious in that chat will be filled with in and out of context screenshots to show to daddy when they are in trouble next time.

Re: U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat

#260

Post by gitaarik »

preisschild wrote: post #250
gitaarik wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"same about foe example Hunter Biden" Hunter never worked in the Biden Admin though, so it is completely irrelevant.

Are people that stormed the Capitol in the Trump administration?
Post reply on HN