2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: eyeeatingfish on March 24, 2025, 11:03:28 PM
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/
Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg was added to a government chat thread by Mike Waltz. In that thread Pete Hegseth allegedly shared detailed war plans about Houthi strikes. Hegseth has since denied sending any messages about war plans. The White House National Security Council reported that the messages appeared to be authentic.
The obvious issue is that such sensitive material was released to someone it shouldn't be but the bigger issue is why such information was being shared across a 3rd party texting app. The irony is that Hegseth slammed Hillary Clinton for her unaccountable home server and he is now sharing sensitive materials via a private app. Transparency for thee but not for me it seems.
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/
Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg was added to a government chat thread by Mike Waltz. In that thread Pete Hegseth allegedly shared detailed war plans about Houthi strikes. Hegseth has since denied sending any messages about war plans. The White House National Security Council reported that the messages appeared to be authentic.
The obvious issue is that such sensitive material was released to someone it shouldn't be but the bigger issue is why such information was being shared across a 3rd party texting app. The irony is that Hegseth slammed Hillary Clinton for her unaccountable home server and he is now sharing sensitive materials via a private app. Transparency for thee but not for me it seems.
Allegedly. Appeared to be authentic. It's not a fact without evidence. The WH National Security Council is not a person. It's a group of cabinet members. Not exactly someone/something you can call a source.
As for the "whatabout Hillary" statement, she was never held accountable for a list of blatant violations as enumerated by comey publicly. Hypocritically (not "ironically"), you seem to expect Hegseth to be treated differently.
-
They probably leaked it on purpose knowing that the media would breathlessly run the story like it was another "gotcha-gate" but most non-brainwashed Americans would actually appreciate the expressed sentiments.
Congratulations EEF. You're working for Trump now.
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExYzR4cXRsZTJ6bXV1eDJydjE1bG0zdzV1amQ5Zm12eDRrcnl6NDVlOSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/KHKJGDrMLywqsf4wCv/giphy.gif)
-
They probably leaked it on purpose knowing that the media would breathlessly run the story like it was another "gotcha-gate" but most non-brainwashed Americans would actually appreciate the expressed sentiments.
Congratulations EEF. You're working for Trump now.
Yep. Like i said -- not evidence.
Besides, when this happens, it's called a "spill." It's an unintentional dissemination of sensitive data. Not only do the originator and recipient/s of classified (assuming that's what "sensitive" refers to) need their devices cleaned, but the entire pathway of servers (in this case the app and cell servers) need to be identified and scrubbed.
If it was actually classified, then making it known publicly that it was spilled is an even bigger problem than what Hegseth ALLEGEDLY did.
-
How credible is this journalist?
From what was released seemed to be about shit talking about Europe. Odd to have a serious chat group about war plans and attacking in 2 hours and go off on shit talking about EU.
And if anything was of importance, shame on the journalist for choosing to make a headline over being cool and quiet about it. "Hey guys, I was included by mistake in this chat group, my name is...". Basically the journalist is choosing career/5 seconds of fame/TDS over our nation.
-
How credible is this journalist?
From what was released seemed to be about shit talking about Europe. Odd to have a serious chat group about war plans and attacking in 2 hours and go off on shit talking about EU.
And if anything was of importance, shame on the journalist for choosing to make a headline over being cool and quiet about it. "Hey guys, I was included by mistake in this chat group, my name is...". Basically the journalist is choosing career/5 seconds of fame/TDS over our nation.
The information that was disclosed, if you can trust the media reporting it, was what's termed "perishable information." That means that after a short period of time, the information is no longer of any importance. in my job, we planned, executed, tracked and reworked future plans for aerial warfare. Perishable data could include the departure or landing times of aircraft, descriptions of assigned targets that have already been hit, as well as aircraft position data as jet aircraft can be hundreds of miles from any given position in a matter of minutes if someone is provided that.
Hours before the U.S. launched a wave of strikes targeting the Houthis in Yemen
on March 15, Hegseth sent a message with operational information about the
strikes including their targets and what weapons would be used, Goldberg wrote.
Some responded with a prayer emoji.
Goldberg realized the chat was legitimate when the strikes hit Yemen at the time
Hegseth indicated they would in the chat.
"I didn’t think it could be real," The Atlantic article's headline said. "Then the
bombs started falling."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/24/trump-officials-add-journalist-classified-chat/82638362007/
So, plans to bomb were chatted about, the bombing happened, and the one person in the chat that wasn't supposed to be didn't even know if the information was real of not.
"I didn’t think it could be real," The Atlantic article's headline said. "Then the bombs started falling." Only after the fact was the information made public. Operational security was not impacted at all.
Big nothing burger, but I'm sure this can be a teaching moment for those in high office.
in the meantime, Joe Biden still can't recall what was contained in all the classified documents he had illegally stored at his homes and offices.
-
The information that was disclosed, if you can trust the media reporting it, was what's termed "perishable information." That means that after a short period of time, the information is no longer of any importance. in my job, we planned, executed, tracked and reworked future plans for aerial warfare. Perishable data could include the departure or landing times of aircraft, descriptions of assigned targets that have already been hit, as well as aircraft position data as jet aircraft can be hundreds of miles from any given position in a matter of minutes if someone is provided that.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/24/trump-officials-add-journalist-classified-chat/82638362007/
So, plans to bomb were chatted about, the bombing happened, and the one person in the chat that wasn't supposed to be didn't even know if the information was real of not.
"I didn’t think it could be real," The Atlantic article's headline said. "Then the bombs started falling." Only after the fact was the information made public. Operational security was not impacted at all.
Big nothing burger, but I'm sure this can be a teaching moment for those in high office.
in the meantime, Joe Biden still can't recall what was contained in all the classified documents he had illegally stored at his homes and offices.
Thanks for that clarification.
But the concept of this isn't good. I would say they need some kind of special phone that can only accept and send text and calls to like phones. So even if a number was entered by accident or intentional, unless the receive has the same type of phone, they won't get the message. Butt dials do happen and you dont' want to butt dial someone during a sensitive discussion.
I don't see why Pete is the head focus for the fake news. He wasn't the one who started the group chat.
Even as a mistake, that person should be disciplined for allowing an unauthorized person to be in the chat.
Story time
My friend was an officer with a communication MOS. She said the comms usually be jacked up in Iraq due to user error. So often, communication was made via sat phones. Unsecured, but it worked better. This was for minor stuff to bigger things like air strikes. It was common practice, so no one got in trouble. Her gripe was that on the radio, there's 1 knob that soldiers are told not to turn, leave it as is. Often, it gets turned. This is the IT help desk call "is the unit plugged in".
Then when she was in training, cells were often used as well due to the same problem above.
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/
Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg was added to a government chat thread by Mike Waltz. In that thread Pete Hegseth allegedly shared detailed war plans about Houthi strikes. Hegseth has since denied sending any messages about war plans. The White House National Security Council reported that the messages appeared to be authentic.
The obvious issue is that such sensitive material was released to someone it shouldn't be but the bigger issue is why such information was being shared across a 3rd party texting app. The irony is that Hegseth slammed Hillary Clinton for her unaccountable home server and he is now sharing sensitive materials via a private app. Transparency for thee but not for me it seems.
Having a home server is much different from texting the wrong guy. Esp since Pete never started the chat, it was Mike. IDK if Pete has everyones number saved to his contacts. So if there were 30 people in the chat, no one has the time to check all the unsaved numbers, it's the responsibility of Mike, the guy who began the chat.
-
Elon talking shit cause he mad he wasn't invited.
Tesla uses their own special encrypted programs so the uninvited cant accidently get the message. Seems like it's like the phone above I mentioned, but an app.
More fun:
the journalist should have said he wants to be on a carrier to get front row seats in exchange for his silence.
But now, I'm sure a FISA will be used to monitor all comms for a while on this guy just to make sure he doesnt' leak more info. Nice way to get yourself monitored just to have 5 seconds of fame.
-
Thanks for that clarification.
But the concept of this isn't good. I would say they need some kind of special phone that can only accept and send text and calls to like phones. So even if a number was entered by accident or intentional, unless the receive has the same type of phone, they won't get the message. Butt dials do happen and you dont' want to butt dial someone during a sensitive discussion.
I don't see why Pete is the head focus for the fake news. He wasn't the one who started the group chat.
Even as a mistake, that person should be disciplined for allowing an unauthorized person to be in the chat.
Story time
My friend was an officer with a communication MOS. She said the comms usually be jacked up in Iraq due to user error. So often, communication was made via sat phones. Unsecured, but it worked better. This was for minor stuff to bigger things like air strikes. It was common practice, so no one got in trouble. Her gripe was that on the radio, there's 1 knob that soldiers are told not to turn, leave it as is. Often, it gets turned. This is the IT help desk call "is the unit plugged in".
Then when she was in training, cells were often used as well due to the same problem above.
Since we're honoring the age-old Hawaiian tradition of talk story ...
i created a chat server on the "high side' network using standard workstation and PC machines. I used public domain, off-the-shelf software and integrated a half dozen applications and add-ons to field a secure, well-managed chat server farm. I also installed a distributed gateway that allowed users to connect to the same IP address, but the actual chat connection would be directed to the server with the least number of connections to increase performance. 1,000 client connections on a single server tends to make the chat server unusable. We had 4 servers.
It became the Pacific theater's most reliable and robust form of communications other than secure phones, but something anyone with a device connected to the network could access. it was so popular, the Pacific Navy used it for exercises, Persian gulf deployments, and even to transmit launch orders for cruise missiles at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The system was bullet proof from a hacker standpoint. Chat rooms with standardized names were stood up using BOTa. Each room had one administrator plus 2 admin BOTs which allowed anyone with the passwords to use them as administrators (like me). Anyone granted access to a room had to be approved by a POC from that unit designated to grant access. That information was sent to the room admin who then added the user to the room's list of authorized participants. The user then received a password that was required upon entering the chat room. Those passwords were sent to only secured, trusted email accounts.
During several exercises, the system was targeted heavily by the Red Team "Black hat" players whose job it was to find vulnerabilities and to try and infiltrate the exercise from outside. They were given access to the network, having proven they could easily gain access through a number of means.
The main objective for the hackers was to try and gain access to our chat rooms, obviously because they could eaves drop on everything as well as have the chance to interject misinformation. There was usually a proposed replacement for my chat system set up in tandem to determine if it was operationally secure. Since I was using IRC Chat, something the Navy deemed insecure (because they didn't spend time evaluating how it can be made secure), they were chomping at the bit to get rid of it in favor of a "more secure" and expensive chat product.
In every exercise, the new product was used on day one while mine was only configured for operations but not yet being used. By day 2, the new system had been so thoroughly compromised by the Red Team, using that chat was halted and continued on my system. Nobody was ever able to attack or access the chat servers I built. Fleet commanders were sending us praise saying our system enabled them for the first time to conduct operations and a hot wash post-deployment meeting via chat while still afloat.
Long story short -- protecting communications regardless of the client app is not new. Someone with the experience and tasking should be able to make it that way whether it's on an approved secured network or not. not everyone has immediate access to high side networks, so I understand how operations can't be at a standstill until everyone needed is able to be in front of a properly encrypted connection. In those cases, there should be at a minimum someone involved to manage the technical and administrative tasks required to make the online meetings secure and available to everyone who should be participating -- and no one else.
-
The app used has been authorized for years now.
Did Mike mess up and invite the wrong person...of course.
I wonder how many other "breaches" there were in the past 2 admins who used the same app and it's once again the fake news making a big story about this occasion.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmEH2PLNVhc
-
The app used has been authorized for years now.
Did Mike mess up and invite the wrong person...of course.
I wonder how many other "breaches" there were in the past 2 admins who used the same app and it's once again the fake news making a big story about this occasion.
People make mistakes, and government is people (as is Soylent Green).
The reason this made the news is we have a media intent on impeding Trump's administration. I guarantee had this been the Biden cabinet, the journalist would have left the chat as soon as he realized he was seeing things he should not. Have to ask why the journalist isn't being grilled for being in that chat in the first place.
If someone walks into your home uninvited after you accidentally left the front door unlocked, it's still a crime.
-
Allegedly. Appeared to be authentic. It's not a fact without evidence. The WH National Security Council is not a person. It's a group of cabinet members. Not exactly someone/something you can call a source.
As for the "whatabout Hillary" statement, she was never held accountable for a list of blatant violations as enumerated by comey publicly. Hypocritically (not "ironically"), you seem to expect Hegseth to be treated differently.
I expect Hegseth to be upheld to the high standards he touted when criticizing Hillary Clinton. He said she should have been fired and held criminally accountable. Hillary getting away with it is not an excuse for Hegseth to get away with it especially since he got on his high horse about it. So either he resigns or he shows he lacks integrity and stays put.
Yes, allegedly because that is what objectivity is.
What does it matter that the WH national Security Council is not a person? If they put out an official press release that is just as authoritative as if a particular individual said it. Trump is basically admitting it happened by the way, he said
“It’s just something that can happen. You can even prepare for it, and it can happen.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/25/trump-signal-group-chat-waltz-hegseth-updates/82649700007/
What is most telling here is that you are rushing to defend Hegseth rather than take the allegations with the seriousness it warrants. You go as far as to blame the journalist for all of this suggesting he should be investigated. :wacko:
-
They probably leaked it on purpose knowing that the media would breathlessly run the story like it was another "gotcha-gate" but most non-brainwashed Americans would actually appreciate the expressed sentiments.
Congratulations EEF. You're working for Trump now.
That makes no sense, this isn't a nothing burger story to rile up the libz
-
How credible is this journalist?
From what was released seemed to be about shit talking about Europe. Odd to have a serious chat group about war plans and attacking in 2 hours and go off on shit talking about EU.
And if anything was of importance, shame on the journalist for choosing to make a headline over being cool and quiet about it. "Hey guys, I was included by mistake in this chat group, my name is...". Basically the journalist is choosing career/5 seconds of fame/TDS over our nation.
The journalist chose not to disseminate any details of the conversation so as not to put anyone in danger. 5 seconds of fame? Do you not understand what journalists do as a profession? You expect a journalist to be handed a story about incompetence and possible corruption and just sit on it? So much for accountability for government, guess that is only a standard when democrats are in power huh?
-
Having a home server is much different from texting the wrong guy. Esp since Pete never started the chat, it was Mike. IDK if Pete has everyones number saved to his contacts. So if there were 30 people in the chat, no one has the time to check all the unsaved numbers, it's the responsibility of Mike, the guy who began the chat.
You missed the point, the biggest issue here is that the app Signal was used to share this information. Just like a private server, using a private messaging service means official conversations do not get documented properly, it makes it an off the books conversation not subject to keeping records.
If Signal were an approved app for having classified text messages then this wouldn't be nearly as big a story, it would be a dumb accident story.
-
please show where the journalist said they chose not to disseminate so as not to put anyone in danger...
The journalist chose not to disseminate any details of the conversation so as not to put anyone in danger. 5 seconds of fame? Do you not understand what journalists do as a profession? You expect a journalist to be handed a story about incompetence and possible corruption and just sit on it? So much for accountability for government, guess that is only a standard when democrats are in power huh?
-
you need to keep up
signal is approved for use...
You missed the point, the biggest issue here is that the app Signal was used to share this information. Just like a private server, using a private messaging service means official conversations do not get documented properly, it makes it an off the books conversation not subject to keeping records.
If Signal were an approved app for having classified text messages then this wouldn't be nearly as big a story, it would be a dumb accident story.
-
link for the last 2 posts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLIArXr5bPA&ab_channel=TrishRegan
-
please show where the journalist said they chose not to disseminate so as not to put anyone in danger...
Go read the original article by the journalist. He didn't release the specific sensitive information which could have compromised the mission.
-
you need to keep up
signal is approved for use...
Not according to the Pentagon
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-5339801/pentagon-email-signal-vulnerability
-
The journalist chose not to disseminate any details of the conversation so as not to put anyone in danger. 5 seconds of fame? Do you not understand what journalists do as a profession? You expect a journalist to be handed a story about incompetence and possible corruption and just sit on it? So much for accountability for government, guess that is only a standard when democrats are in power huh?
Hahahha nice try. Swooooossshhhh
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
You missed the point, the biggest issue here is that the app Signal was used to share this information. Just like a private server, using a private messaging service means official conversations do not get documented properly, it makes it an off the books conversation not subject to keeping records.
If Signal were an approved app for having classified text messages then this wouldn't be nearly as big a story, it would be a dumb accident story.
"I missed the point"? Or ur example once again is poor? Hahahah, lets keep playing.
Btw, signal is approved. So ur blindly following what the media is saying is wrong again.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
watch the more current interview of him in person on tv where he said he didn't release it because he thought it was fake...
Go read the original article by the journalist. He didn't release the specific sensitive information which could have compromised the mission.
-
once again, watch the video i posted where waltz was saying what he was instructed
i posted it so you wouldn't make dumb statements...
Not according to the Pentagon
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-5339801/pentagon-email-signal-vulnerability
-
maybe it's all BS?
https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/the-case-for-deception-in-operational-success/
====
Deception in Military History
There is an inarguably long and rich history of deception in warfare.
From the early records of military history, deception played an integral part in multiple successful operations,.....
==========
-
maybe it's all BS?
https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/the-case-for-deception-in-operational-success/
====
Deception in Military History
There is an inarguably long and rich history of deception in warfare.
From the early records of military history, deception played an integral part in multiple successful operations,.....
==========
So, it would take a very stable genius to "leak" disinformation to a journalist in order to give it credibility and ensure our enemies believe it's real?
Sounds like a plan.
-
The fake news has lied more and more since 2016. How many "bombshells", "sources", etc...
Now like usual, theyre focused on the wrong person (hegeseth).
Ill take tulsi's word over the fake news. No details in the chat.
But fools will believe the fake news still.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
The fake news has lied more and more since 2016. How many "bombshells", "sources", etc...
Now like usual, theyre focused on the wrong person (hegeseth).
Ill take tulsi's word over the fake news. No details in the chat.
But fools will believe the fake news still.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
My problems with the story are:
1. the journalist knew he was in a chat room he was mistakenly
allowed to access, but he didn't leave before reading things he
should not have;
2. This incident was made public by the journalist and his editors.
The media company should have contacted the WH and
reported the incident in order to help protect sensitive info,
not turn it into a story with themselves as part of it.
If they had found a classified document someone left at a Starbuck's,
they would have been in trouble if they hadn't returned it.
Knowingly publishing classified info is a good way to be in legal
trouble as well has have any press access to the WH revoked.
3. Nobody at the WH should be commenting on the authenticity of
any leaked data, be it classified or just sensitive. There are rules
in place to stop such info from being propagated.
4. There should be an experienced tech managing any comms the
cabinet members use. Part of that includes capturing and preserving
the discussions for the official record. most chat apps allow users to
download a transcript of conversations.
5. With all the money spent each year, the government can afford a
secure server to run their own apps rather than a 3rd party product.
If necessary, contract with an app's owner to install it on closed servers
to prevent unauthorized users from accessing it.
6. Along with secured servers, they need to employ a self-managed VPN
so nobody outside that organization can possibly connect to the server.
VPN use is standard in many businesses to give employees access to
private information outsiders should not have and to more easily access
apps as if they are connected to the company's local network.
7. This story should have never seen the light of day. It only serves our
enemies who are always looking for ways to access things they should
not.
-
Hegseth and Waltz screwed up and should've known better from the Hillary scandal. They deserve the flak they are getting for having the chat and adding the journalist to it.
Should they get prosecuted or fired for it? No. Hillary set the standard and Hegseth and Waltz are doing an otherwise good job.
Begs the question should there be a more convenient classified messaging system to make this more efficient, without needing a SCIF? I'm surprised there isn't one up already.
-
Hegseth and Waltz screwed up and should've known better from the Hillary scandal. They deserve the flak they are getting for having the chat and adding the journalist to it.
Should they get prosecuted or fired for it? No. Hillary set the standard and Hegseth and Waltz are doing an otherwise good job.
Begs the question should there be a more convenient classified messaging system to make this more efficient, without needing a SCIF? I'm surprised there isn't one up already.
A SCIF hasn't been required for up to Secret information. Many top officers in the military have an encrypted phone (STE) in their homes. It requires a landline connection, but it's convenient and managed by security personnel who update the encryption keys often.
For mobile phones, there are STE-like cell phones, but they require a secure network to connect properly. It's similar to a VPN that isolates the traffic from the carrier's network.
The big thing is trying to satisfy everyone's needs. Some want to use a PC or Macbook to do their work. Others do everything on a smartphone, tablet or other mobile device. All this means the apps need to be written and maintained for every brand and model of every type of device. That's a big deal seeing how often manufacturers introduce new updated models.
Then factor in that the bulk of their work is probably done via unclassified machines, devices and software apps. When they then connect to the more secure network or app, there has to be a way to share data from the unclassified side. This problem has perplexed integrators and systems engineers for decades. how do you keep classified from accidentally being written to a device that also processes and stores unclassified info? How do you share unclassified info to the sensitive network or app without risking a virus being uploaded, copied, emailed or otherwise shared?
Sometimes we spend more time trying to administer, manage, and do clean-ups on digital devices than we spend dong actual work. One person's carelessness can require hundreds of devices to be reinstalled with the OS and all data after a malicious piece of code gets passed around. i remember how much work the Code Red virus created for us. not only are the systems down, but any data that was backed up before the infection is lost. Max pain.
I remember the stories of Hillary telling her staff to send her classified info across unclassified Blackberry devices and networks because she was traveling in another country, and the classified Blackberry was unable to connect. That represents a real problem. People will cut corners to get things done when the proper methods are not working.
-
Whiskeyleaks and these dang DUI hires. Clowns.
-
Whiskeyleaks and these dang DUI hires. Clowns.
Close enough for government work. :geekdanc:
-
Update
Report that was released on 3/14/25 says signal is not to be used for classified comms. But there is and never has been any enforcement for those using it incorrectly.
So we circle back to was any info "classified" in the grp chat?
The reporters story is now changing cause his 1st story of targets mentioned was false.
Now hes saying that a spooks name whos in the target area was mentioned by the head of the agency. Like the head of the spook agency knows agents names. Thats like the CEO of Safeway knowing a random cashiers name who works in hawaii.
I still think that hes lying cause his intent is to harm this admin and get an atta boy. He got caught lying, so hes making up more stuff.
Tinfoil time
A staffer whos wife was an atty to prosecute J6 people was the one who set up the group chat. Which i thought may happen cause how often does a department head have time to do things like this. They have staffers do stuff like this.
18 people in the chat
Some with just a first name or just initials. No full name.
So everyone in the chat trust that the chat leader did their due diligence and everyone in the group is supposed to be in it.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Update
Report that was released on 3/14/25 says signal is not to be used for classified comms. But there is and never has been any enforcement for those using it incorrectly.
So we circle back to was any info "classified" in the grp chat?
The reporters story is now changing cause his 1st story of targets mentioned was false.
Now hes saying that a spooks name whos in the target area was mentioned by the head of the agency. Like the head of the spook agency knows agents names. Thats like the CEO of Safeway knowing a random cashiers name who works in hawaii.
I still think that hes lying cause his intent is to harm this admin and get an atta boy. He got caught lying, so hes making up more stuff.
Tinfoil time
A staffer whos wife was an atty to prosecute J6 people was the one who set up the group chat. Which i thought may happen cause how often does a department head have time to do things like this. They have staffers do stuff like this.
18 people in the chat
Some with just a first name or just initials. No full name.
So everyone in the chat trust that the chat leader did their due diligence and everyone in the group is supposed to be in it.
One of the most important reasons for having specific procedures for these things, such as using your last name/first initial and office symbol, let's everyone know who is reading and posting. if a participant doesn't have the correct username format, it's a flag that someone may be there who shouldn't be.
The chat names we had were all pre-defined since they had to be added to an access list to connect to the rooms. if you don't know the correct names or know the proper format, it's really difficult to guess.
Simple things can solve lots of potential problems.
-
One of the most important reasons for having specific procedures for these things, such as using your last name/first initial and office symbol, let's everyone know who is reading and posting. if a participant doesn't have the correct username format, it's a flag that someone may be there who shouldn't be.
The chat names we had were all pre-defined since they had to be added to an access list to connect to the rooms. if you don't know the correct names or know the proper format, it's really difficult to guess.
Simple things can solve lots of potential problems.
There should be first and last names used. There were 2 Brians, Scott B, S M, Jacob, and a TG.
-
Hegseth just stated what I said above about no details.
So seems like a nothing burger.
-
Hmmmm..... :wtf:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_eyYUgxik4&t=871s
-
Hahahha nice try. Swooooossshhhh
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
You forgot a rebuttal. Should I assume you don't have one?
-
watch the more current interview of him in person on tv where he said he didn't release it because he thought it was fake...
Yes, he said that too.
-
once again, watch the video i posted where waltz was saying what he was instructed
i posted it so you wouldn't make dumb statements...
So Mike Waltz missed the memo? Or perhaps he was given bad information by the employee who set him up with the phone?
Glad you are taking Waltz at his word, because people who get caught doing something wrong never lie to try and minimize it. ::)
-
So Mike Waltz missed the memo? Or perhaps he was given bad information by the employee who set him up with the phone?
Glad you are taking Waltz at his word, because people who get caught doing something wrong never lie to try and minimize it. ::)
So, you want to argue against facts in the public domain based on no evidence?
You're simply stating he could be lying without any evidence to support that statement.
That's not being objective. You could say maybe someone lied referring to anything said in the media or online. That's not an argument. It's just being contrary and argumentative -- taking the opposing side of what's being said just to stir the pot.
-
So, you want to argue against facts in the public domain based on no evidence?
You're simply stating he could be lying without any evidence to support that statement.
That's not being objective. You could say maybe someone lied referring to anything said in the media or online. That's not an argument. It's just being contrary and argumentative -- taking the opposing side of what's being said just to stir the pot.
What facts? I posted evidence, go read the article about how they said Signal wasn't allowed anymore.
The point about him lying was only to push back on the idea that his claim Signal was allowed should be taken as proof on the basis he said so. Thats like letting a criminal go because he said he was allowed to take something from the store without paying. You don't take him at his word, you investigate.
Look at my reply, I clearly explored multiple explanations which could support his claim, not just angles assuming his guilt.
-
What facts? I posted evidence, go read the article about how they said Signal wasn't allowed anymore.
The point about him lying was only to push back on the idea that his claim Signal was allowed should be taken as proof on the basis he said so. Thats like letting a criminal go because he said he was allowed to take something from the store without paying. You don't take him at his word, you investigate.
Look at my reply, I clearly explored multiple explanations which could support his claim, not just angles assuming his guilt.
Yes, you did.
Seems like you're just posting to be included, not to actually add anything of substance -- objectively speaking.
Anyone can sit at a keyboard and post a bunch of "what ifs." What if the Russians made him do it? What if the journalist intentionally tried to get into a few dozen chat groups with the hope of randomly seeing something he could use against Trump, his cabinet, or to boost his own career? What if someone formerly in Biden's or Obama's admin was helping the journalist invade the chat?
See? None of the what-ifs really add anything other than sowing seeds of a narrative that probably isn't true because there's no evidence.
-
You forgot a rebuttal. Should I assume you don't have one?
U keep telling urself that. Hahahhaha ur shovel must be getting dull.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
What facts? I posted evidence, go read the article about how they said Signal wasn't allowed anymore.
The point about him lying was only to push back on the idea that his claim Signal was allowed should be taken as proof on the basis he said so. Thats like letting a criminal go because he said he was allowed to take something from the store without paying. You don't take him at his word, you investigate.
Look at my reply, I clearly explored multiple explanations which could support his claim, not just angles assuming his guilt.
And read my "update" above.
Rules vs actual practice comes to mind.
Btw it came already installed on tulsi's dod issued phone. Why would a banned program be on there?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Mike Waltz claimed he didn’t have the journalist’s phone number on his contact list. Assuming he is telling the truth, how did it get on by mistake and did someone tamper with his phone / Signal address book?
Secondly, FBI said to stop using SMS texts and recommended the use of Signal or WhatsApp following the compromise of our telecom infrastructure last year.
-
The NPR CEO is also the chairman of the board of Signal.
Coincidence perhaps but my spider sense is tingling.
This woman is a loyal and devoted far left true believer Check out her comments on the "truth"
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mq6cOPVjJ1g?feature=share
-
Mike Waltz claimed he didn’t have the journalist’s phone number on his contact list. Assuming he is telling the truth, how did it get on by mistake and did someone tamper with his phone / Signal address book?
Secondly, FBI said to stop using SMS texts and recommended the use of Signal or WhatsApp following the compromise of our telecom infrastructure last year.
Homeland said signal is secure too.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Maher testifies before congress. She has amnesia rather frequently..
We should defund NPR.
https://youtu.be/n3jozYhku-w
-
Maher testifies before congress. She has amnesia rather frequently..
We should defund NPR.
Amnesia is par for the DC course.
Her biggest problem is claiming that the posts she made about Trump being a racist, fascist, etc. just 4 or 5 years ago are opinions she would not post today.
She didn't say she doesn't feel that way, and that the posts were just her way of venting. The deductive reasoning take-away is that she still thinks he's a fascist/racist, but she's smarter now and won't broadcast it where it can be used against her.
100% of the staff at NPR are Democrat voters. Only 33% of the audience identifies as other than Democrat.
Not a smidgen of bias.
-
Yes, you did.
Seems like you're just posting to be included, not to actually add anything of substance -- objectively speaking.
Wrong.
Anyone can sit at a keyboard and post a bunch of "what ifs." What if the Russians made him do it? What if the journalist intentionally tried to get into a few dozen chat groups with the hope of randomly seeing something he could use against Trump, his cabinet, or to boost his own career? What if someone formerly in Biden's or Obama's admin was helping the journalist invade the chat?
See? None of the what-ifs really add anything other than sowing seeds of a narrative that probably isn't true because there's no evidence.
You look at this story with a conclusion first and then seek an explanation to support that conclusion. Waltz admitted it was a mistake, even Trump made a statement admitting it shouldn't have happened but you only explore avenues minimizing the chat and attacking the journalist
On top of that the arguments in defense of what happened contradict each other. On the one hand we are told that the chat didn't contain war plans or anything classified but on the other hand the journalist should be investigated. If the conversation were on an approved app and contained nothing secret then why attack the journalist for publishing a story instead of quietly reporting it to the Pentagon?
-
And read my "update" above.
Rules vs actual practice comes to mind.
Btw it came already installed on tulsi's dod issued phone. Why would a banned program be on there?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
This is why I covered two possibilities earlier, that the memo didn't circulate sufficiently or that it was a rule disregarded on a large scale.
Signal is an application that allows for messages to automatically erase themselves after a certain period of time. This means that a government employee wishing to avoid rules requiring documentation of communications to be avoided. Did they choose Signal for this specific reason? Who knows but the same thing can be said of Hillary Clinton's home email server. How much benefit of the doubt should we give here when it comes to handing out discipline?
-
You look at this story with a conclusion first and then seek an explanation to support that conclusion.
Wrong.
You can't read my, nor anyone else's, mind. But it never seems to stop you from stating what someone else is thinking.
-
Wrong.
You can't read my, nor anyone else's, mind. But it never seems to stop you from stating what someone else is thinking.
I could have said "You SEEM look at this story with a conclusion first and then seek an explanation to support that conclusion." but then you would complain about me using qualifiers.
-
I could have said "You SEEM look at this story with a conclusion first and then seek an explanation to support that conclusion." but then you would complain about me using qualifiers.
How many comments have you tried to defend by parsing them? This is another example where you just post without thinking.
And you are still trying to pretend to read my mind. How do you know if I would complain about your qualifiers? Have you graduated from mind reader to psychic who's able to see into the future?
:geekdanc: :rofl:
You like to argue so much, now you're arguing about things you think I'm going to say!
Funny how your accusations and opinions of me are definitive een though after being called out for your mind reading abilities you change it to something less definitive.
You really need to start thinking before posting. Your emotions SEEM to be driving you. :geekdanc:
-
This is why I covered two possibilities earlier, that the memo didn't circulate sufficiently or that it was a rule disregarded on a large scale.
Signal is an application that allows for messages to automatically erase themselves after a certain period of time. This means that a government employee wishing to avoid rules requiring documentation of communications to be avoided. Did they choose Signal for this specific reason? Who knows but the same thing can be said of Hillary Clinton's home email server. How much benefit of the doubt should we give here when it comes to handing out discipline?
Signal has been used by many in the DOD. Refer to my post about about it. So that's why they used it. "Common practice". again, read my post above, I addressed this.
Also, refer to the post about the diff between setting up a server and using signal.
Re-read my prior post cause you obviously didn't.
-
Mike Waltz claimed he didn’t have the journalist’s phone number on his contact list. Assuming he is telling the truth, how did it get on by mistake and did someone tamper with his phone / Signal address book?
Secondly, FBI said to stop using SMS texts and recommended the use of Signal or WhatsApp following the compromise of our telecom infrastructure last year.
Waltz also said he didn't know the journalist but there are photos of them together. There is a difference between know and met of course but he could be lying to try and minimize his role.
-
How many comments have you tried to defend by parsing them? This is another example where you just post without thinking.
And you are still trying to pretend to read my mind. How do you know if I would complain about your qualifiers? Have you graduated from mind reader to psychic who's able to see into the future?
:geekdanc: :rofl:
You like to argue so much, now you're arguing about things you think I'm going to say!
Funny how your accusations and opinions of me are definitive een though after being called out for your mind reading abilities you change it to something less definitive.
You really need to start thinking before posting. Your emotions SEEM to be driving you. :geekdanc:
Interesting that you have transitioned from debating the issue to complaining about my debate style. Are you deflecting from a weak argument?
-
Signal has been used by many in the DOD. Refer to my post about about it. So that's why they used it. "Common practice". again, read my post above, I addressed this.
Also, refer to the post about the diff between setting up a server and using signal.
Re-read my prior post cause you obviously didn't.
Again, read the article I linked where notices had been put out not to use it any more. :thumbsup:
The difference between setting up a private server and using signal are distinctions without a difference. You are talking about unapproved, 3rd party systems, capable of avoiding documentation requirements.
-
Again, read the article I linked where notices had been put out not to use it any more. :thumbsup:
The difference between setting up a private server and using signal are distinctions without a difference. You are talking about unapproved, 3rd party systems, capable of avoiding documentation requirements.
You didn't re-read my post. I addressed this already. See what happens when you don't re-read. If you need help understanding LMK
-
Waltz also said he didn't know the journalist but there are photos of them together. There is a difference between know and met of course but he could be lying to try and minimize his role.
Maybe he caught Sleepy Joe's dementia.
Maybe the journalist gained/lost a bunch of weight or he let his hair grow long -- making him difficult to recognize.
Maybe Waltz meets so many people in a week that one person he barely met fails to stand out.
-
Again, read the article I linked where notices had been put out not to use it any more. :thumbsup:
The difference between setting up a private server and using signal are distinctions without a difference. You are talking about unapproved, 3rd party systems, capable of avoiding documentation requirements.
100% Wrong.
-
You didn't re-read my post. I addressed this already. See what happens when you don't re-read. If you need help understanding LMK
Wrong again. Wonder if you will admit it.
-
Maybe he caught Sleepy Joe's dementia.
Maybe the journalist gained/lost a bunch of weight or he let his hair grow long -- making him difficult to recognize.
Maybe Waltz meets so many people in a week that one person he barely met fails to stand out.
Do you have a point somewhere in that nonsense?
-
100% Wrong.
Cognitive dissonance in action.
Go ahead any bring up a nice technical answer of how a home server differs from those used by Signal while ignoring they have the same security concern implications.
-
Cognitive dissonance in action.
Go ahead any bring up a nice technical answer of how a home server differs from those used by Signal while ignoring they have the same security concern implications.
I'd answer, but then i'd have to explain it to you.
And you'd still pretend to know what you're talking about while being wrong.
Waste of time.
-
I'd answer, but then i'd have to explain it to you.
And you'd still pretend to know what you're talking about while being wrong.
Waste of time.
Copout answer because the differences are technical but not relevant to the security and accountabiliy implications.
-
Copout answer because the differences are technical but not relevant to the security and accountabiliy implications.
I bet you have as much experience in computer and network security as you have military experience.
Only a self-aggrandizing layman would post such a comment.
-
I bet you have as much experience in computer and network security as you have military experience.
Only a self-aggrandizing lawman would post such a comment.
-
Wrong again. Wonder if you will admit it.
Hahahhaha and heres his tactics. Enter copying what i say and hes still wrong.
He still didnt read it cause he knows whats up.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Copout answer because the differences are technical but not relevant to the security and accountabiliy implications.
Swoooosssshhhhh
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
first word is ironic...
Copout answer because the differences are technical but not relevant to the security and accountabiliy implications.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXpgGVLta1g