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

711–720 of 1001 posts

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

#711

Post by CoastalCoder »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #553
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.…

> But the idea that this breach can occur with no accountability, consequences, or operational changes is unacceptable. There will be no accountability, consequences, or operational changes because the American people (a plurality of them anyway) voted for this. I like how people are even bothering to bring up the risk of prosecution, as if Trump wouldn't just pardon the people involved anyway. Look, I am as disguste…

I'm concerned that what brings change won't be a smarter electorate, but instead losing a war or having another civil war.

I'm somewhat politically conservative, and I still cannot make any sense of the plurality that voted Trump into office again. I really wonder if I'm in some kind of echo chamber that prevents me from understanding their perspective.

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

#712

Post by zeven7 »

refurb wrote: post #664
dragonwriter wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There’s a difference between (a) hiring smart people you respect and generally agree with to give you their own opinions and help shape your decisions and (b) hiring people who will go along with anything you say and holding their careers and families’ safety over the fire.

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

#713

Post by fuzzfactor »

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.

>U.S. national-security leaders

Those aren't leaders, quite the opposite, nothing but typical Trump-like non-leaders disgracing leadership positions.

>those 18 people are just random folks

OTOH if you picked 18 random patriotic Americans, odds are none would be that far below average at defending what normal Americans have always held dear.

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

#714

Post by adrr »

cjohnson318 wrote: post #665
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.

Do you think they’ll get prosecuted? I am willing to bet money that congress won’t even have hearings on it.

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

#715

Post by monksy »

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.…

> information over unapproved channels, I would be reprimanded—likely fired, or less likely, prosecuted.

Potential penalty of death as well.

Also lets not forget those messages had a 4w expiary date.

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

#716

Post by lmeyerov »

joshuamerrill wrote: post #478
whattheheckheck wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you specifically calling out you are not suggesting punishment nor prosecution?

Because I don't know whether either of those are appropriate. There aren't many comparable breaches to this one. The closest in modern times may be Hillary Clinton's email server being used for government business. In that case, the FBI investigated and declined to bring charges, under the expectation that a jury would be unlikely to render a guilty verdict. Okay, fine. But the FBI investigated and laid out the facts…

There is no reason to believe we are lucky. Instead, this is more of a canary in the coal mine that the DOD OIG and Congress are less able to excuse for a long-running hazard.

How much of the administration, for how long, and for what, is using hackable systems and without mandated audit trails for protected communications? Whether external hackers are already successfully snooping, or internal cover-ups are happening of ongoing corruption, both are deeply problematic, and can be happening in parallel to stupid leaks like this. Likewise, we can't even investigate and cleanup properly because these people are illegally deleting the forensic data for their illegal and insecure actions.

It's not even a surprise. Ex: It's already pretty well documented to embarrassing extents like the president flushing official documents down toilets and clogging them. Ex: The admins use of signal was a thing in the first term as well. The only new thing afaict is the public and checks-and-balances people have the evidence in front of them of illegal use when accepting the lies and criminality.

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

#717

Post by Folcon »

I'm an external individual to the US, but I must admit that some of the sentiments being expressed here in this thread and elsewhere about the lack of accountability deeply concern me, it reminds me of many things I saw growing up and still see today in south asia.

Independent of anything else, I do see the overton window shifting in the US, the most subtle of which are norms and expectations around acts of corruption.

Every nation has it's minor acts of corruption, small favours between friends, which I've always thought of as being functionally impossible to remove as they also allow for a flexible environment which allows things to get done.

However the norms seem to be shifting more towards the idea that those in power can act as they will, and in fact the expected thing is they will act to enrich themselves. I hope this does not happen, because this is death to entrepreneurship, this is one of those things that will poison the economy, when people no longer trust that what they make can be theirs, that others can look on in envy at the work they have built on their blood and sweat and can take it as their due because they have power.

That will create a chilling effect for anyone who wishes to create and will make them wonder as myself and many others have considered, whether it's better to create their life's work elsewhere.

I sincerely hope this doesn't happen here, once this mindset becomes a norm, it's incredibly hard thing to stamp out.

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

#718

Post by jjallen »

outside1234 wrote: post #674
cjohnson318 wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But have you considered that they are Billionaires and therefore can do whatever they want?

I don’t think everyone involved in this fiasco are billionaires.

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

#719

Post by Aeolun »

cjohnson318 wrote: post #665
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.

> I'm tired of this Too Important To Have Consequences business

Sure, but short of something similar to the UH CEO, do you think anything will actually happen to them?

If they’re doing this then the president presumably knows and does too. Even if they get prosecuted and convicted (after years of legal nonsense) they’d just get pardoned.

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

#720

Post by throwaway2037 »

codewench wrote: post #519
joshuamerrill wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I don't know whether either of those are appropriate. There aren't many comparable breaches to this one. The closest in modern times may be Hillary Clinton's email server being used for government business. In that case, the FBI investigated and declined to bring charges, under the expectation that a jury would be unlikely to render a guilty verdict. Okay, fine. But the FBI investigated and laid out the facts…

18 USC 793(f) seems to apply here: "Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing ... through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust ... and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imp…

    > through gross negligence
If you talk to someone with a law degree (judge, lawyer, whatever), they will tell you that "gross negligence" is very high barrier to cross in US law. Most people misunderstand that. It is very unlikely that any of the people in that chat group would be found grossly negligent, especially for their first mistake. Please do not read that last sentence as an apology or excuse for their behaviour; they should be reprimanded for it.
Post reply on HN