US DoD Security breach (split from What is DEI, and why is it dividing America?)

[CharonY]

What I am wondering about, is it normal for US Presidents to be so hands off when it comes to bombing other countries? It seemed from the thread that there were some general directions, but apparently it was up to the folks in the chat to decided whether to go forward.

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

What I am wondering about, is it normal for US Presidents to be so hands off when it comes to bombing other countries? It seemed from the thread that there were some general directions, but apparently it was up to the folks in the chat to decided whether to go forward.

That’s something that’s been raised in some critiques of the whole fiasco. Trump didn’t know about the four soldiers missing in Lithuania, either. His disconnect is not surprising (he doesn’t care, unless it’s about him) but seems to be unusual.

[zapatos]

Quote

A DHS staffer faces serious punishment for accidentally adding a reporter to a group email

No, not that one...

 

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/dhs-staffer-faces-serious-punishment-200036222.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_11&.tsrc=daily_mail&segment_id&ncid=crm_-1295960-20250328-343-&bt_user_id=vVKJhBNmV%2FS0BMAGLQtRVcTFVC2Tkb8Xi4m83W3RFub8uEr%2FZvdtvXcqVtTylgH1&bt_ts=1743150413036

[TheVat]

Yeah, if you're a dedicated career public servant who accidentally sent unclassified info and then owned up to it, under the bus you go; if you're the Secy of Defense texting secret war plans, any criticism is a "witch hunt."  FYDT 

[CharonY]

This is working as designed. Folks on the top are have tweaked the system to avoid accountability and part of it is firing the folks below. Ablative armor, so to speak.

 

[toucana]

A rather unusual take on SignalGate comes courtesy of a YT channel called ‘I Ask AI’ -  where the channel host has run the news story and screen shots through Chat GPT, and then asks the AI to summarise: what happened, what it all reveals about Trump’s second term, and what the consequences should be for all those involved ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdIh3lNlgAk

The answers are surprisingly on point (see sample below) especially in respect of the wholly transactional nature of Team Trump’s mindset. Although it seems that ChatGPT also thinks that  *it* should be the one running things rather the Trump administration - and who would  be inclined to disagree with it atm !

[Ken Fabian]

Not familiar with Signal but... wouldn't every participant know who every other participant is? Aren't they clearly listed? Wouldn't they check that list if only to be sure everyone who is supposed to be in the discussion is on-line before they start if only to not have to call another meeting? Or is that list only for the 'convener' and others can be kept unaware of the identity of some participants? Which sounds like it would be an absolute no-no for such a meeting to me.

It does sound like a level of carelessness as well as disregard for proper procedures for a high level classified meeting that is incompatible with their duty for dealing with classified information.

[MSC]

22 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s something that’s been raised in some critiques of the whole fiasco. Trump didn’t know about the four soldiers missing in Lithuania, either. His disconnect is not surprising (he doesn’t care, unless it’s about him) but seems to be unusual.

I mean the guy literally forgot the word "criminals" and fumbled to "people of crime" the other day. Dude probably can't even spell Lithuania.

24 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Not familiar with Signal but... wouldn't every participant know who every other participant is? Aren't they clearly listed? Wouldn't they check that list if only to be sure everyone who is supposed to be in the discussion is on-line before they start if only to not have to call another meeting? Or is that list only for the 'convener' and others can be kept unaware of the identity of some participants? Which sounds like it would be an absolute no-no for such a meeting to me.

It does sound like a level of carelessness as well as disregard for proper procedures for a high level classified meeting that is incompatible with their duty for dealing with classified information.

As far as I am aware everyone would have access, however if they just trusted the convener/inviter enough to not be careless they probably wouldn't think to check. I mean you wouldn't expect organized criminals to ask everyone to double check their phones to make sure nobody butt dialed 911.

[toucana]

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

Not familiar with Signal but... wouldn't every participant know who every other participant is? Aren't they clearly listed? Wouldn't they check that list if only to be sure everyone who is supposed to be in the discussion is on-line before they start if only to not have to call another meeting?

Signal group membership lists  work very much as they do in WhatsApp or Messenger groups. Anyone in the group can tap the group chat icon at the top of the screen, then scroll down the menu and select ‘View Members’. Only the group admin can add new members, and can do so either by name, initials, or telephone #  (see screenshot below).

Not all the members of this group were high-profile NSC principals. Some were junior aides from the CIA or DNI acting as POC (point of contact) or support staff. Anyone who was identified only by their initials would be taken for a low-order spook of this type whose identity was being veiled for security reasons.

The higher profile political figures present like JD Vance and Marco Rubio are all narcissists. They wouldn’t care about knowing who all the non-entities in the group were. They would only care that everyone else in the group knew how important and powerful *they* were.

[Ken Fabian]

1 hour ago, MSC said:

As far as I am aware everyone would have access, however if they just trusted the convener/inviter enough to not be careless they probably wouldn't think to check. I mean you wouldn't expect organized criminals to ask everyone to double check their phones to make sure nobody butt dialed 911.

Well, incompetent people being careless of their security obligations might trust the convener and not be clear exactly who they are sharing information with. Actually I would expect organized criminals to want to be sure of who they are talking with before saying anything incriminating.

 

2 minutes ago, toucana said:

Not all the members of this group were high-profile NSC principals. Some were junior aides from the CIA or DNI acting as POC (point of contact) or support staff. Anyone who was identified only by their initials would be taken for a low-order spook of this type whose identity was being veiled for security reasons.

The aides and spooks in the discussion didn't check who was on-line either? I kind of expected it would be an obligation (and a critically serious one) of every participant to know who is included before participating. The junior ones probably had a good grasp of the requirements - but chose not to, out of deference, Trump loyalty or to avoid notice?

I wonder if the proper communications protocols - NOT Signal - would have provisions for confirming everyone involved had the requisite clearances. As well as keep records.

[toucana]

26 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

The aides and spooks in the discussion didn't check who was on-line either? I kind of expected it would be an obligation (and a critically serious one) of every participant to know who is included before participating. 

This frankly wasn’t conducted in the manner of a serious OPSEC meeting. Parts of it are oddly reminiscent of reading the IRC (internet relay chat) news-feed discussions that took place from August 1990 onwards when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

The Iraqi invaders pulled the normal phone lines but forgot to take out the internet links, and a group of computer science students at Kuwait University managed to keep a covert IRC chat server running online for a fortnight which was the practically the only available source of information in the world on what was happening inside Kuwait.

For a brief period of time, US intelligence operatives rubbed shoulders with a shadowy network of computer geeks, and a tiny number of journalists who knew about IRC - all in the same chatroom. The SignalGate logs have the same sense of surreality.

 

[Ken Fabian]

@toucana 

Everyone who participated had to know the use of Signal was a breach of security protocols in and of itself. Every one would know they may be called before a relevant Committee and have to answer questions; the politicals might consider lying under oath (in the absence of records) to be BAU but the others?

Hard not to think the point of using Signal was to have a discussion that was unofficial, unrecorded (after someone presses 'delete all') and therefore deniable - and they could 'speak their minds' more freely. May even have been instructed by Trump himself to use Signal and push the boundaries of What The President Says is Always Legal? 

Seems to me like all the more reason to - like organised crime - be very clear who is in the loop. Big oops.

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Everyone who participated had to know the use of Signal was a breach of security protocols in and of itself. Every one would know they may be called before a relevant Committee and have to answer questions; the politicals might consider lying under oath (in the absence of records) to be BAU but the others?

Some of them already have. Gabbard's testimony changed from one day to the next, in addition to being evasive.

Quote

Hard not to think the point of using Signal was to have a discussion that was unofficial, unrecorded (after someone presses 'delete all') and therefore deniable - and they could 'speak their minds' more freely. May even have been instructed by Trump himself to use Signal and push the boundaries of What The President Says is Always Legal? 

Avoiding a paper trail is something that was reported to be in Project 2025, and skirting the rules about government records happened during Trump I

[npts2020]

In an administration so focused on eliminating waste, one would think (since Signal is obviously an acceptable means of secure communication) we could just use this free app and save the billions of $$$ spent on the Defense Message System and other methods of secure communication used by entities like DoD, CIA, Dept. of State, DHS and others. IMO the main reason for using Signal was to not have a record of what went on but I am pretty cynical about the motives of those in power.

[Ken Fabian]

Have Musk release the doge's to investigate the breaches? Even without such blatancy I don't expect much legal comeback on Trump. Given the inability to prosecute Trump himself in a timely manner (4 years) - and a Trump friendly Congress and a compliant Supreme Court I won't hold my breath waiting for the wheels of justice to turn on Trump's inner circle.

[toucana]

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

@toucana 

Everyone who participated had to know the use of Signal was a breach of security protocols in and of itself. Every one would know they may be called before a relevant Committee and have to answer questions..

 

Oh they knew all right - they just didn’t care because they are all invested in a toxic culture of iconoclasm and norm-breaking, the Elon Musk inspired ethos  of  -  “If it’s working let’s break it first, worry about fixing it later, and screw the rules”. They have the bravado and the arrogance to believe they won’t be caught, or that if they are, they won’t be held to account by anyone.

That is part of what I meant by the IRC analogy - The NSC meets the wild west of EFNET (for those who can remember) - “Hey does anyone know how to drive this thing ? Screw it - who cares”.

[CharonY]

58 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

In an administration so focused on eliminating waste, one would think (since Signal is obviously an acceptable means of secure communication)

I don't think that it is clear that Signal is an obviously acceptable tool. According to a warning by the Pentagon:

Quote

"A vulnerability has been identified in the Signal Messenger Application," begins the department-wide email, dated March 18 and obtained by NPR.

The memo continues, "Russian professional hacking groups are employing the 'linked devices' features to spy on encrypted conversations." It notes that Google has identified Russian hacking groups that are "targeting Signal Messenger to spy on persons of interest."

Moreover, a memo in 2023, obtained by NPR, warned of using Signal for any nonpublic official information.

A Signal spokesman said the Pentagon memo is not about the messaging app's level of security, but rather that users of the service should be aware of what are known as "phishing attacks." That's when hackers try to gain access to sensitive information through impersonation or other deceptive tricks.

"Once we learned that Signal users were being targeted and how they were being targeted, we introduced additional safeguards and in-app warnings to help protect people from falling victim to phishing attacks. This work was completed months ago," said Signal spokesman Jun Harada.

The March 18, 2025, Pentagon memo adds, "Please note: third party messaging apps (e.g. Signal) are permitted by policy for unclassified accountability/recall exercises but are NOT approved to process or store nonpublic unclassified information."

It seems that it is considered acceptable only for a narrow range of uses.

[MSC]

Honestly they could just feel free to be reckless because they really don't believe they will be held accountable for anything they do when the DOJ is completely devoted to 47 right now. The DOJ has become a political weapon and everybody knows it. 

This may be a separate discussion; but the influence of knowing that if you're against 47, there is nobody coming to save you if targeted, cannot be overstated. Take a look at what is going on with schools, libraries and museums under this regime and the capitulation of some schools towards it; on the surface you have threats to pull funding, behind the scenes, what sort of other threats are being made? 

The Democrats are also being very hesitant and indecisive with how to respond to 47. 

At this point we aren't even out of jeopardy if he naturally passes, he's blowing up guardrails and setting up a mechanism by which any number of unscrupulous people can take advantage of and become a dictator. 

[TheVat]

12 hours ago, CharonY said:

I don't think that it is clear that Signal is an obviously acceptable tool. According to a warning by the Pentagon:

I read that comment, from @npts2020, as being sarcastic.  

3 hours ago, MSC said:

The Democrats are also being very hesitant and indecisive with how to respond to 47. 

Tis what happens when you are walloped with a blitzkrieg of executive orders and other actions.  Flooding the zone is a phrase we're hearing a lot.  Everyone scrambling to figure out which things to respond to first, which are legally actionable and would have the most traction in a court, and which could be countered with a bipartisan coalition, e.g. bring GOP reps from districts that are reeling from funding cuts together with Dems.

Edited Saturday at 04:13 PM by TheVat
pyto

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

I read that comment, from @npts2020, as being sarcastic.  

Fair enough. It is hard to tell these days.

[npts2020]

On 3/29/2025 at 3:21 PM, CharonY said:

Fair enough. It is hard to tell these days.

I was being somewhat sarcastic. The comment was made only because I have heard of more than one administration official claim (imo erroneously) that it is acceptable.

[iNow]

On 3/28/2025 at 11:07 PM, toucana said:

They have the bravado and the arrogance to believe they won’t be caught, or that if they are, they won’t be held to account by anyone.

You misspelled “…the historically accurate evidence based conclusion that they won’t be…”

 

1 hour ago, npts2020 said:

more than one administration official claim (imo erroneously) that it is acceptable.

It’s just another bad faith argument. Of course it’s acceptable to use Signal in government even at the highest levels, but only to take sandwich orders and schedule bowling nights, not to notify the inner echelons of power about where we’re about to put our troops in harms way. 

Doesn't matter. Trump only cares about security when it suits him. 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I was being somewhat sarcastic. The comment was made only because I have heard of more than one administration official claim (imo erroneously) that it is acceptable.

Yeah, I assume it falls under the same category as the claim that no confidential information was shared. That being said, as the administration changes rules on a whim with no relationship to evidence or reality, it probably does not matter.