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

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by davidw »

mandeepj wrote: post #583
joshuamerrill wrote: post #457

I began my career in a classified environment working on government satellite programs. In my first week on the job, I was told, explicitly, that if I shared Classified or Controlled Unclassified information over unapproved channels, I would be reprimanded—likely fired, or less likely, prosecuted. It was also made clear that safeguarding the nation's secrets from the carelessness of others was my responsibility, too.…

The problem is that most of those 18 people are just random folks picked on the premise of just one qualification: THey'd be Yes Man/Woman!! They aren't career professionals. I believe that explains the mess they've created and their incompetent approach to their duties. It's still not too late to impeach that entire shack of clowns.

These are the same folks who scrubbed the Navajo Code Talkers from the DoD web site for being "DEI" or some such.

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

#662

Post by lmm »

ohgr wrote: post #511
stevenjgarner wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you able to share any of those security controls? How do you stop presumably well-intended Signal app users from conferencing? Are you talking about cellular signal blocking, or are you talking about avoiding public networks entirely in favor of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs)?

Many layers of physical controls and regular audits mostly.

What does a physical control mean in this context? Like, disabling that part of the phone's touchscreen?

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

#663

Post by 3np »

jimbokun wrote: post #656
ModernMech wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's still not too late to impeach that entire shack of clowns. The problem is that the people in control of the power to impeach are also picked for being yes men/women. It's yes-men all the way down by design.

It’s Trump’s one true talent. He got the Supreme Court and the judiciary leaning his way in his first term. Congress is controlled by either his Republican primary candidates, or Republicans who are too afraid to cross him. Now he’s purging from the federal branch anyone who is not completely ideologically loyal to him. That is the true purpose of Doge.

Vance' offices response is very telling of his priorities and supports this view.

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

#664

Post by refurb »

dragonwriter wrote: post #654
refurb wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's a pretty big false dichotomy to present "people directly opposed to their policy platforms " as the sole alternative to people "picked on the premise of just one qualification: they'd be Yes Man/Woman".

Yes, I was using a false dichotomy to highlight the absurdity of the statement.

Every President surrounds themselves with people who are aligned with their policy platforms. For some reason, Trump is the one President where suddenly it's an issue.

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

#665

Post by cjohnson318 »

joshuamerrill wrote: post #457

I began my career in a classified environment working on government satellite programs. In my first week on the job, I was told, explicitly, that if I shared Classified or Controlled Unclassified information over unapproved channels, I would be reprimanded—likely fired, or less likely, prosecuted. It was also made clear that safeguarding the nation's secrets from the carelessness of others was my responsibility, too.…

Why shouldn't punishment or prosecution be suggested. I've worked with classified information, and I would have been held accountable for my actions, why shouldn't they? I'm tired of this Too Important To Have Consequences business. It defeats the whole purpose of having qualifications, and security, and rules of any kind.

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

#666

Post by refurb »

dragonwriter wrote: post #659
refurb wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What legal ramifications? Are you saying it's a crime for someone else to accidentally add you to their chat?

Yeah, there is a crime defined for intentionally gathering national defense information, and that crime is called "espionage"; while the courts have found constitutional limits beyond what is in the text of the law that restrict when it can be applied, the application of those limits isn't super consistent in practice and the formal boundary could be changed by the courts at any time when the government is pushing it…

and a journalist knowingly taking advantage of someone else's mistake to continue gathering such information would not be out of line of the situations in which the government has pursued charges for that in the last decade.

Yes, that would be a crime, but that's not what the original comment said.

> mentioned the longer he stayed on more exposed he became to legal ramifications

I'm asking "if someone was added in error, why do legal ramification increase"?

Clearly being added in error then publishing a bunch of stories in a series would be a crime.

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

#667

Post by lmm »

GVIrish wrote: post #442
ctrlp wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, those are the reasons for, but would be interesting for you to address the salient point of not trusting those government systems. I'm sure you can make the counterargument.

That doesn't really make sense. If they had strong reason to believe that the secure comms systems they were supposed to be using were compromised, using personal phones to communicate outside of SCIFs is very, very far from what any competent person who understands and is briefed on the threat environment would do. Note that none of the people involved are making that argument because it would make them look even mo…

So what would the smart move have been in that case?

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

#668

Post by ThePowerOfFuet »

lmm wrote: post #662
ohgr wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many layers of physical controls and regular audits mostly.

What does a physical control mean in this context? Like, disabling that part of the phone's touchscreen?

Think personal devices not being permitted beyond the entrance of the building, stored in a Faraday box.

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

#669

Post by rat87 »

refurb wrote: post #653
mandeepj wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that most of those 18 people are just random folks picked on the premise of just one qualification: THey'd be Yes Man/Woman!! They aren't career professionals. I believe that explains the mess they've created and their incompetent approach to their duties. It's still not too late to impeach that entire shack of clowns.

[flagged]

most people generally agreed with them but they also tried to pick people of talent and courage who might disagree on a number of issues. Trump doesn't care about any of that

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

#670

Post by chairmansteve »

refurb wrote: post #653
mandeepj wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that most of those 18 people are just random folks picked on the premise of just one qualification: THey'd be Yes Man/Woman!! They aren't career professionals. I believe that explains the mess they've created and their incompetent approach to their duties. It's still not too late to impeach that entire shack of clowns.

[flagged]

They pick competent, experienced people who are aligned with their policies. Not Fox News presenters and YouTube influencers.
Post reply on HN