Faux News is worse than I thought.
-
@jon-nyc said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
I find it notable that, of the dozen or so people on the chat, not one said ‘should we be doing this on Signal?’ That, plus Trump’s comments being only about Walz, suggests the use of signal for NatSec discussions and operations is endemic and will continue.
I'd imagine each defense and intel agency is sending very clear guidance to their employees about if they can use Signal and, if so, what it can be used for. I'd also imagine WhiskeyLeaks & Gang will be very gun shy in the future about using it, so maybe this is (barf) a good "lessons learned" event.
@89th said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@jon-nyc said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
I find it notable that, of the dozen or so people on the chat, not one said ‘should we be doing this on Signal?’ That, plus Trump’s comments being only about Walz, suggests the use of signal for NatSec discussions and operations is endemic and will continue.
I'd imagine each defense and intel agency is sending very clear guidance to their employees about if they can use Signal and, if so, what it can be used for. I'd also imagine WhiskeyLeaks & Gang will be very gun shy in the future about using it, so maybe this is (barf) a good "lessons learned" event.
Several million people with security clearances will have to undergo extra boring-and-pointless security training sessions triggered by the moronic mistakes of the Fools at the Top.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
There was no harm done, and it won't happen again. The level of carelessness involved is impossible to defend, and it's put Gabbard and others in a position where they have to spend some of their credibility weaseling around the questions. But this will blow over in any case, mostly because 1. it was an accident that won't happen again, and 2. no harm was done.
@Horace said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
But this will blow over in any case, mostly because 1. it was an accident that won't happen again, and 2. no harm was done.
-
Not an accident. The choice to use Signal to talk military plans was deliberate.
-
Hillary's email server also did no harm.
-
-
@89th said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@jon-nyc said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
I find it notable that, of the dozen or so people on the chat, not one said ‘should we be doing this on Signal?’ That, plus Trump’s comments being only about Walz, suggests the use of signal for NatSec discussions and operations is endemic and will continue.
I'd imagine each defense and intel agency is sending very clear guidance to their employees about if they can use Signal and, if so, what it can be used for. I'd also imagine WhiskeyLeaks & Gang will be very gun shy in the future about using it, so maybe this is (barf) a good "lessons learned" event.
Several million people with security clearances will have to undergo extra boring-and-pointless security training sessions triggered by the moronic mistakes of the Fools at the Top.
-
@Horace said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
But this will blow over in any case, mostly because 1. it was an accident that won't happen again, and 2. no harm was done.
-
Not an accident. The choice to use Signal to talk military plans was deliberate.
-
Hillary's email server also did no harm.
@Axtremus said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
@Horace said in Faux News is worse than I thought.:
But this will blow over in any case, mostly because 1. it was an accident that won't happen again, and 2. no harm was done.
- Not an accident. The choice to use Signal to talk military plans was deliberate.
Obviously for all practical purposes this is a non-issue except for the accidental part I was referring to.
From even a legally pedantic perspective, it may have been a non-issue, but for that accidental part.
-
