this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
360 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22365 readers
3840 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Nice piece, but the author clearly doesn't understand encryption.

If you dont care about anonymity or availability, Signal is a fine place to discuss confidential topics like diplomacy or war. Encryption works, and open source tools are the most secure ones

Edit: they should probably run a private server, though. Just to make sure the userspace is limited somewhat and doesn't include literally anyone in the world.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Signal is not a suitable venue for hosting national security discussions. It's all laid out in the article that it goes beyond encryption.

Information about an active operation would presumably fit the law’s definition of “national defense” information. The Signal app is not approved by the government for sharing classified information. The government has its own systems for that purpose. If officials want to discuss military activity, they should go into a specially designed space known as a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF—most Cabinet-level national-security officials have one installed in their home—or communicate only on approved government equipment, the lawyers said. Normally, cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF, which suggests that as these officials were sharing information about an active military operation, they could have been moving around in public. Had they lost their phones, or had they been stolen, the potential risk to national security would have been severe.

The tldr is that the endpoint is insecure. These discussions should not be done on a mobile device, it should not be possible to participate in or view the contents of the discussion out in the open, and it should not even be possible to accidentally invite 3rd parties that were not cleared.

This article goes further in displaying that participants are not adhering to data retention standards, either, to no surprise.

It's a fascinating article, and really is a revealing example of how profoundly inept this regime truly is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Well obviously nobody should be using personal devices for this. Thats not an issue with Signal.

Its the same issue as Trump using his personal cell phone's torch to illuminate a top secret document at a dark-lit party in Florida while he was showing off his Intel to a foreign diplomat (lots of things wrong with this, but note that pointing the torch at the document necessarily means pointing the camera at the document )