Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I was another nation the intelligence I would be sharing with the U.S. would be getting less and less by the minute. And I would be required a full review of all communications with this administration.

Suspect Five Eyes was done long before this. They remember Trump 1.0.

Yes because they have brains. White frankly I’m surprised anyone maintains diplomatic relations with us at this point. It truly is going to be America alone.

Richard Nixon sitting up in his grave watching this saying these fools make me $h*t look like child’s play.

Anonymous wrote:The deep state clearly manipulated the signal feed to add a left wing reporter to embarrass the administration. Meanwhile Doge discovered who is leaking at the Pentagon and polygraphs are commencing this week. The deep state is wide and vindictive.

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s noteworthy that the usual MAGA apologists in this forum have not weighed in to defend this indefensible breach of national security.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I was another nation the intelligence I would be sharing with the U.S. would be getting less and less by the minute. And I would be required a full review of all communications with this administration.

Suspect Five Eyes was done long before this. They remember Trump 1.0.

Anonymous wrote:Trump has full confidence in Waltz. IOW, he's out by Friday.

When will Trump have full confidence in Hesgeth? When he returns? Or before that?

Anonymous wrote:If I was another nation the intelligence I would be sharing with the U.S. would be getting less and less by the minute. And I would be required a full review of all communications with this administration.

Anonymous wrote:The Trump war planners also formed its principals committee and communicated the name of active CIA agents over Signal. Stunningly careless and with incredible disregard for the law.

The message continued, “Pls provide the best staff POC from your team for us to coordinate with over the next couple days and over the weekend. Thx."

The term principals committee generally refers to a group of the senior-most national-security officials, including the secretaries of defense, state, and the treasury, as well as the director of the CIA. It should go without saying—but I’ll say it anyway—that I have never been invited to a White House principals-committee meeting, and that, in my many years of reporting on national-security matters, I had never heard of one being convened over a commercial messaging app.

One minute later, a person identified only as “MAR”—the secretary of state is Marco Antonio Rubio—wrote, “Mike Needham for State,” apparently designating the current counselor of the State Department as his representative. At that same moment, a Signal user identified as “JD Vance” wrote, “Andy baker for VP.” One minute after that, “TG” (presumably Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, or someone masquerading as her) wrote, “Joe Kent for DNI.” Nine minutes later, “Scott B”—apparently Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, or someone spoofing his identity, wrote, “Dan Katz for Treasury.” At 4:53 p.m., a user called “Pete Hegseth” wrote, “Dan Caldwell for DoD.” And at 6:34 p.m., “Brian” wrote “Brian McCormack for NSC.” One more person responded: “John Ratcliffe” wrote at 5:24 p.m. with the name of a CIA official to be included in the group. I am not publishing that name, because that person is an active intelligence officer.

The principals had apparently assembled. In all, 18 individuals were listed as members of this group, including various National Security Council officials; Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s Middle East and Ukraine negotiator; Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff; and someone identified only as “S M,” which I took to stand for Stephen Miller. I appeared on my own screen only as “JG.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps the most stunning example to date of the fact that Trump and his lackeys are unserious people masquerading as politicians. If this weren't the most powerful country in the world, we'd think it was a joke.

The whole world thinks we’re a joke now.

Not to mention that the “group chat” participants are now deeply compromised.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone smarter than me explain why Signal, which uses AES-256 encryption protocol, is less secure than government TS systems, which also use AES-256?

Just asking as a non-tech person.

Not a tech person but I am in a Signal group. A few things. When I join Signal, I see all of my phone contacts who also have Signal. So I can message them there.

Even if Signal is secure, your phone isn't. If I were stopped at the airport and customs made me open my phone, they'd see it all.

And within the app, we have people joining and leaving on a regular basis, not necessarily with their real names. So who knows who's in there and what they see? I don't know if that author had his full name listed, or whether he was going by his initials and the group originator thought he was someone else. But it's easy to make mistakes. Like Hegseth could have "thought" he was texting to that group, but mistakenly texted to another Signal group. So he could have shared sensitive information with anyone in his larger circle.

And, again, even though Signal is secure, I can take screen shots of it and share. Even at my government job, where we are nobodies, there is a microsoft application on our phones that prevents us from copying and pasting data from secure government apps, and stops me from screen shotting anything off secure government apps. Signal doesn't have that.

I want to add that all of these discussions are subject to record laws. Using Signal is clearly a way to get around that. How many laws were broken...

It's pretty clear through their casual and cavalier use of Signal that this is just one of MANY conversations that are taking place on the platform.

💯💯 Every deployed military personnel should be sickened to know that their leadership cares so little about their safety. They shouldn’t even be called leadership since it’s beyond clear they are lack and of the necessary qualities. #IncompetencePersonafied

The message continued, “Pls provide the best staff POC from your team for us to coordinate with over the next couple days and over the weekend. Thx."

The term principals committee generally refers to a group of the senior-most national-security officials, including the secretaries of defense, state, and the treasury, as well as the director of the CIA. It should go without saying—but I’ll say it anyway—that I have never been invited to a White House principals-committee meeting, and that, in my many years of reporting on national-security matters, I had never heard of one being convened over a commercial messaging app.

One minute later, a person identified only as “MAR”—the secretary of state is Marco Antonio Rubio—wrote, “Mike Needham for State,” apparently designating the current counselor of the State Department as his representative. At that same moment, a Signal user identified as “JD Vance” wrote, “Andy baker for VP.” One minute after that, “TG” (presumably Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, or someone masquerading as her) wrote, “Joe Kent for DNI.” Nine minutes later, “Scott B”—apparently Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, or someone spoofing his identity, wrote, “Dan Katz for Treasury.” At 4:53 p.m., a user called “Pete Hegseth” wrote, “Dan Caldwell for DoD.” And at 6:34 p.m., “Brian” wrote “Brian McCormack for NSC.” One more person responded: “John Ratcliffe” wrote at 5:24 p.m. with the name of a CIA official to be included in the group. I am not publishing that name, because that person is an active intelligence officer.

The principals had apparently assembled. In all, 18 individuals were listed as members of this group, including various National Security Council officials; Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s Middle East and Ukraine negotiator; Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff; and someone identified only as “S M,” which I took to stand for Stephen Miller. I appeared on my own screen only as “JG.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone smarter than me explain why Signal, which uses AES-256 encryption protocol, is less secure than government TS systems, which also use AES-256?

Just asking as a non-tech person.

Not a tech person but I am in a Signal group. A few things. When I join Signal, I see all of my phone contacts who also have Signal. So I can message them there.

Even if Signal is secure, your phone isn't. If I were stopped at the airport and customs made me open my phone, they'd see it all.

And within the app, we have people joining and leaving on a regular basis, not necessarily with their real names. So who knows who's in there and what they see? I don't know if that author had his full name listed, or whether he was going by his initials and the group originator thought he was someone else. But it's easy to make mistakes. Like Hegseth could have "thought" he was texting to that group, but mistakenly texted to another Signal group. So he could have shared sensitive information with anyone in his larger circle.

And, again, even though Signal is secure, I can take screen shots of it and share. Even at my government job, where we are nobodies, there is a microsoft application on our phones that prevents us from copying and pasting data from secure government apps, and stops me from screen shotting anything off secure government apps. Signal doesn't have that.

I want to add that all of these discussions are subject to record laws. Using Signal is clearly a way to get around that. How many laws were broken...

It's pretty clear through their casual and cavalier use of Signal that this is just one of MANY conversations that are taking place on the platform.

💯💯 Every deployed military personnel should be sickened to know that their leadership cares so little about their safety. They shouldn’t even be called leadership since it’s beyond clear they are lack and of the necessary qualities. #IncompetencePersonafied

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps the most stunning example to date of the fact that Trump and his lackeys are unserious people masquerading as politicians. If this weren't the most powerful country in the world, we'd think it was a joke.