922
Russia and China could exploit it? They were probably in the fucking chat too they just did not write an article about it
Rebember when thebRepublicans had one investigation after another aboutbher private email server, even though nothing ever happened, previous Republican SoSs had done the same thing, and EVERY Republican onvestigation found she did nothing wrong.
Now the Republicans have done something a million times more dangerous, did it on an unsecure pplatform, and even incompetently invited a fucking reporter to read it all.
This is the chance to treat Republicans EXACTLY the same way they treat Democrats. EVERY Democrat should bite into this like a hungry dawg, and NEVER let go. Bring it up constantly, Gorilla Glue this to Hegseth, Vance, Gabbard, and the rest of those MAGA Traitors. They need to hear about, and be asked about this every single day, all day, for as long as they hold office.
And Dems shoupd never give up their demands that these people be terminated and prosecuted for their breach of security.
did it on an unsecure pplatform
Everything I’ve ever read about Signal seems to indicate that it’s pretty damn secure.
That said, when you accidentally invite a reporter to the chat, E2E encryption loses a lot of its effectiveness.
They've got nearly four more years left to completely screw something up.
They keep messing with things eventually they'll cause catastrophe
Oh, so they're upset now? What about, you know, when Trump stole a shit-ton of top secret documents that he very probably attempted to sell and at the very least definitely stored improperly and used a lot of lying and juggling to keep hold of? After he attempted to overthrow the government on Jan 6th. If they had moved faster, we wouldn't even be having this whine-fest, because he wouldn't have gotten re-elected from prison.
If this is the thing that makes people realize Trump and his cronies are fucking idiots, despite all the other evidence we already have, I'll take it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I read the Axios piece and skimmed the Atlantic original. This is some next level incompetence from this administration. It's bad enough that I actually hope that it's intentional as some kind of dick wagging move.
Sure. Outraged over an inadvertent leak, but totally fine arming a country committing genocide, trying to strong-arm the victim of relentless aggression into giving up 1/5th of it's territory, letting disease spread freely in the nation, detaining people without charges, kidnapping people off the streets and deporting then to violent foreign prisoners without due process, weakening our defense industry, alienating every ally and partner we have on the planet, threatening to annex countries, starting trade wars, taking away women's healthcare, threatening the most vulnerable members of society, etc etc etc. All that other stuff is fine, but sure, let's raise holy hell over an inadvertent leak.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) criticized the use of non-secure systems, warning that adversaries like Russia and China could exploit it.
The singular problem with Americans doing a holocaust abroad is that another country might find out about it in advance.
I mean, just think for a minute. What if we wanted to bomb a Russian orphanage or a Chinese university? They could take advantage of our data insecurity to thwart us!
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) condemned the administration’s mishandling of classified information, saying it endangers national security.
We're carpet bombing people on the other side of the fucking planet. This is so far outside the scope of "national security".
Absolute Ghoul Nation.
You're diminishing the term Holocaust by using it for something only remotely comparable.
This specific incident, no. But the point is that if it happens for other issues more important domestically, it would be a national security risk.
You’re diminishing the term Holocaust
The US’s Role in the Hidden Genocide in Yemen
The Arab state of Yemen has been locked in a civil war since 2014—a conflict that escalated significantly in March 2015, when a Saudi-led coalition began air strikes against the Houthi rebels. This coalition has been backed by the US and the UK, despite producing a humanitarian crisis that has left 8.4 million people on the brink of famine.
...
Q. You write that “even if the US and UK do not intend for their support to be used in the commission of genocide, it is irrelevant to the question of whether they are complicit in the genocide.” What is the basis for assigning responsibility to a state in this case, if intent is irrelevant?
In the case of Bosnia v. Serbia, the International Court of Justice established that shared intent is only relevant when considering whether a state conspired with another to commit genocide. For complicity, a state only needs to be aware that the aid it is providing to another state facilitates the crime being committed. In other words, if the US and UK shared the Saudi-led coalition’s genocidal intent, the aid they are providing would make them conspirators in the commission of genocide. Without shared intent, they are still complicit in the crime based on their continued material support, which has aided in the commission of genocide.
With Trump's return, we've once again gone beyond simply facilitating Saudi mass killing of Yemeni residents and gone straight into the strategic slaughter of whole neighborhoods and villages.
But the point is that if it happens for other issues more important domestically, it would be a national security risk.
That the American media can only report on the exposure of the systematic mass murder of half the country's native residents as a risk to the United States illustrates the deep rot within the American psyche.
load more comments
(1 replies)
That's bad and all, but: They are using Signal?!
Presumably to get around FOIA requests?
With a journalist in the group there's no need for FOI requests. Think of the money saved!
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
SLAMMED
Uh oh, they're expressing outrage now. I'm sure someone will suffer.
Literally.
~~"Non-secure systems" uh. No. Systems that aren't in the US control is what you mean.~~
As @asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world pointed out, Signal is insecure as in the access to the message wasn't controlled. It's like stripping naked in front of an open window with the lights on in your house. Yeah, technically, you are inside your home where it's private. But if you aren't pulling the shades everyone gonna see it
I'd absolutely qualify it as non-secure in this context. Signal is E2E encrypted but there are no systems in place where it understands who's added to a chat and validates access based on ACLs or anything. Authorization policies are critical in securing systems.
Man you're technically correct.
The best kind of correct. Let me alter my comment and direct them to this, because I didn't even think that far.
Isn't that important given the nature of what was being discussed?
Yes. Access control is not in scope of Signal, I updated my comment to correct my statement.
I would however enjoy being a fly on the wall when someone has to explain what application or system scope is to Trump.
load more comments
(3 replies)
This is surprisingly a middle ground. I've been seeing people on the right just as pissed off about this. They have a point too in that there can be two truths here.
He could have leaked information and needs to be held accountable.
The claim that the information leaked as stated can be exaggerated.
Just be careful out there that they don't rope you into looking like idiots by being over dramatic.
If (isConservative(fuckwad) === true) then "totally okay" else "not okay at all, impeach, repeal, reject";
Oh Im sorry, I thought you all quit.
Good ad for Signal at least?
Trump is probably all confused because he thought it was end to end encrypted and now he can't understand how the guy got the messages.
He pulled the ol CC/BCC mistake.
load more comments
(1 replies)
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
922 points (100.0% liked)
politics
22634 readers
3425 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS