It is not SCIF secure. And to share the plans that they did, they were downloaded from a government secured server and uploaded to Signal and shared. That was TWO HUGE security violations. The journalist was signed into Signal with his initials only, as he normally does. There was to be someone who was authorized for the call with those initials. No verification was done. Violation number THREE. No explicit POTUS confirmation - FOUR. And on and on.
5 Likes
I do not know what goes into SCIF secure. I don’t think we need to know much on it to realize this is terrible security practice. I would hazard a guess there are likely even more security breaches than you noted. I guess my emphasis is that security is not their primary fear, it is getting found out, possibly by others in the government itself.
I am sort of with Josh Marshall on this, which I read after I wrote my post. The security hole is terrible, but may be not the worst part. This kind of thing invites the government not knowing what it has done or is doing in very short order.
Josh’s post here:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/signalgate-is-bad-but-opsec-isnt-even-the-worst-part-of-it
2 Likes
Could be. I do! Well, I did. A recent interview he did, with Ari Melber I think, I found a little off-putting.
The only record that will survive is (we hope) the recording of that Signal exchange made by Jeff Goldblum.
1 Like
Which is why it annoys me so much when news media call a state’s bar its bar association. That’s almost as insidious as calling fascists conservatives.
1 Like
I seem to remember from the article that someone in that chat said that there was a “green light” for this operation. Who gave that green light? The Felonious Fatman denies knowing anything about it. So who else in this clown car is permitted to ok an attack on foreign soil using our troops and armament?
This has so many aspects of total incompetence and sheer ignorant hubris that it gets scarier by the minute.
1 Like