If you inadvertently obtain DOD Classified material, as a private citizen what is the proper protocol going forward??

[Le duke]

Doesn’t signal use aes-256 for encryption?

…and if someone can view the output after decryption?

I mean, at least one member of the team was added while traveling in Russia. Where the telecommunications network is just an extension of the state surveillance apparatus.

I’m not a cryptographer. But, I have a very healthy respect for foreign adversaries and their intelligence services.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caveira]

8 minutes ago, Le duke said:

…and if someone can view the output after decryption?

I mean, at least one member of the team was added while traveling in Russia. Where the telecommunications network is just an extension of the state surveillance apparatus.

I’m not a cryptographer. But, I have a very healthy respect for foreign adversaries and their intelligence services.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m under the impression that it would take all of the computers in the world a gagillion years to brute force break aes-256… when quantum computing becomes a thing that may change things.   I mean all of the gov cloud and/or other sensitive data in the cloud is all aes256….   Dod, nsa, banks, hedge funds, etc…. 
 

Now letting someone see shyte in the clear obviously happened but that’s not “signals” fault it’s the ding dong that let him in the room.  

[Le duke]

I’m under the impression that it would take all of the computers in the world a gagillion years to brute force break aes-256… when quantum computing becomes a thing that may change things.   I mean all of the gov cloud and/or other sensitive data in the cloud is all aes256….   Dod, nsa, banks, hedge funds, etc…. 
 
Now letting someone see shyte in the clear obviously happened but that’s not “signals” fault it’s the ding dong that let him in the room.  

Let’s try this another way:

You’re on your work network.

A colleague asks you to remote in to his machine. You’re the helpful sort, so you do.

He has an encrypted email open in Outlook.

Can you see the email?

…yes, and it took no time at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caveira]

Just now, Le duke said:

Let’s try this another way:

You’re on your work network.

A colleague asks you to remote in to his machine. You’re the helpful sort, so you do.

He has an encrypted email open in Outlook.

Can you see the email?

…yes, and it took no time at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That was the ding dong part of the comment.  Your I suppose arguing for nothing sensitive can be stored digital as the human element will always exist.   There are also other controls obviously to not allow removing on to machines deemed top secret etc.   cybersecurity has many layers for a reason. 

[WrestlingRasta]

4 hours ago, Paul158 said:

I'm curious how Goldbergs number would be on any Signal app on any of the individuals who were on the group chat. It seems kind of odd. I would think he would be the last person who would be put on it.

Goldberg is stating it was Mike Waltz (NSA) who sent him both the link for the app, and then later the invite for the chat. 

Edited March 27 by WrestlingRasta

[Le duke]

This is how it happens. He mistakes one person for another, and that person is a reporter. One of dozens he has in his contacts list.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caveira]

9 minutes ago, Le duke said:

This is how it happens. He mistakes one person for another, and that person is a reporter. One of dozens he has in his contacts list.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Feel like that’s been covered and that horse is dead already no?   See ding dong comment above?

[Le duke]

Feel like that’s been covered and that horse is dead already no?   See ding dong comment above?

I’m just reinforcing the point.


I’d also wager a good number of mortgage payments that Trump has the NYT’s Maggie Haberman in his contacts list, among many other reporters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, Le duke said:

I’m just reinforcing the point.


I’d also wager a good number of mortgage payments that Trump has the NYT’s Maggie Haberman in his contacts list, among many other reporters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Horse.   Dead.   I don’t see anyone arguing that point boss.  

[fishbane]

3 hours ago, Paul158 said:

I only bring up the FBI because Jross mentioned it. Report it to the FBI if you have it.

I don't know where he got it either.  This is the most applicable section of 18.793 is subsection (e)

"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it"

So ifin it was classified information that was sent to Goldberg the only part that is really applicable to contacting the FBI or anyone in the government is the last clause, "willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it."  Goldberg willfully retained the information, but he didn't fail to deliver it.  Since there is an and in the sentence both parts must be true for it to apply.  This is an old law that predates signal and even electronic mail.  When writing it they likely envisioned a physical dossier of classified information that was misdelivered and keeping it means the intended recipient would not get it.  I don't think it really applies here.  Also it would seem that the unauthorized recipient would only be required to deliver it to the person entitled to receive it not the FBI.

In the article Goldberg wrote I don't believe he disclosed any classified information so I don't think the earlier parts of (e) apply to that.  Writing an article about being accidentally sent classified information is not publishing classified information.  The only time he published classified information was when he later released the more complete transcript of the signal chat.  This was after the attack took place so potentially the information was no longer classified and after members of the Trump administration claimed multiple times that there was no classified information in the chat.  It would be difficult to prosecute him after they said that.  Even still, he ran this past the CIA and did not publish the name of a covert CIA operative that was named in the chat.

3 hours ago, Paul158 said:

I know this is going to throw a monkey wrench into this, but I don't believe there was any classified information in the chat room. Goldberg and a huge number of people are saying there was.

There may be a time component to this.  Classified before the attack.  Not classified after.  Also if there was no classified information why did the CIA ask him not to publish the name of a covert CIA operative named in the chat?   

3 hours ago, Paul158 said:

If Goldberg was in the room on false pretense, he alone would be in trouble according to the laws stated.

The laws you didn't actually read?  How exactly would you know?

[Scouts Honor]

this just in

govt workers not to have anyone else in their contacts!!

GOOD
fire them all

[red viking]

This is unreal. We had a huge national security blunder and the wingers want to blame the person that was negligently invited into the chat. You can't make this stuff up. 

[Scouts Honor]

who is blaming goldberg? 

im blaming waltz

 

[fishbane]

4 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

this just in

govt workers not to have anyone else in their contacts!!

GOOD
fire them all

Lol how about just not adding them to sensitive chats regarding military strikes?

Edited March 27 by fishbane

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, Le duke said:

Let’s try this another way:

You’re on your work network.

A colleague asks you to remote in to his machine. You’re the helpful sort, so you do.

He has an encrypted email open in Outlook.

Can you see the email?

…yes, and it took no time at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Come to think of it.   Sort of half formed thought here But some of this is on whomever runs “IT” for the government.    At every company I have worked at I cannot run unapproved apps on any device outside of vpn / security prompts / mfa / and a variety of other controls that I don’t care to list.  I can’t invite folks not cleared to see whatever this “info” is to chat groups or slack channels or teams or whatever.   I cannot move files from point a to b in many situations without said security clearance etc.   even if I did software scans these communications for sensetive info.   I can’t email files / info / whatever to personal Gmail accounts etc.   I can’t run my own email servers.    wtf is going on lol.  
 

You know who isn’t up on all the security controls that go into this stuff.   Well mostly everyone.  Especially old af politicians.  That’s why the IT teams lock everything down and make all of the stuff you need to do hard or damn near impossible.   Emailing classified docs to your private email.  Damn.  Real companies would catch that.  That is nonsense.   How can journalists be able to get invited to these communication channels.   

[Wrestleknownothing]

As to why Waltz would have Goldberg's contact, it seems likely that Waltz has been a source for Goldberg. 

[Bigbrog]

So, there was uproar that Walz/Hegseth shared classified information with A journalist...then it was determined that the information wasn't classified so there is uproar that they shouldn't be using an app that could be hacked, but wasn't, and then it's uproar over the sharing of the information being because of human error?? 

This was an unforced error by Walz/Hegseth, and they should be held accountable as appropriate; however, the partisan outrage is laughable...just admit your true outrage is that no matter what any of the R's do you are going to complain and find fault in it.

I will say again, I find it really weird and sad how a lot of you on here are cheering and hoping Trump and his administration fail...you do realize if that happens it is bad for not only the R supporters but for everyone...right?!?!?

Edited March 27 by Bigbrog

[Wrestleknownothing]

7 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

So, there was uproar that Walz/Hegseth shared classified information with A journalist...then it was determined that the information wasn't classified so there is uproar that they shouldn't be using an app that could be hacked, but wasn't, and then it's uproar over the sharing of the information being because of human error?? 

This was an unforced error by Walz/Hegseth, and they should be held accountable as appropriate; however, the partisan outrage is laughable...just admit your true outrage is that no matter what any of the R's do you are going to complain and find fault in it.

I will say again, I find it really weird and sad how a lot of you on here are cheering and hoping Trump and his administration fail...you do realize if that happens it is bad for not only the R supporters but for everyone...right?!?!?

challenge

[1032004]

9 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

As to why Waltz would have Goldberg's contact, it seems likely that Waltz has been a source for Goldberg. 

I mean, he could have just had his contact because Goldberg may have tried to get comment for a hit piece or something…

[Paul158]

22 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

So, there was uproar that Walz/Hegseth shared classified information with A journalist...then it was determined that the information wasn't classified so there is uproar that they shouldn't be using an app that could be hacked, but wasn't, and then it's uproar over the sharing of the information being because of human error?? 

This was an unforced error by Walz/Hegseth, and they should be held accountable as appropriate; however, the partisan outrage is laughable...just admit your true outrage is that no matter what any of the R's do you are going to complain and find fault in it.

I will say again, I find it really weird and sad how a lot of you on here are cheering and hoping Trump and his administration fail...you do realize if that happens it is bad for not only the R supporters but for everyone...right?!?!?

Well said. It looks like this is what we have to look forward to for the next 3 years and 10 months. The fear that the country under Trump and company will be prosperous is real. You can see it all over on the news. I don't believe I've seen so many public officials swearing every time they are in front of a camera. They seem to be unhinged. I see desperation on the part of the leaders in the democratic party. They must derail any possibilities of success, or it might be 12 years before they are back in the White House. Just look at all the Tesla cars and dealerships they are burning and vandalizing.

[Paul158]

28 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

challenge

Who will have the final say? the Supreme Court.

[Le duke]

13 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Who will have the final say? the Supreme Court.

Why would the SCOTUS rule on whether or not targeting information is classified?

That's not a constitutional issue.

[Caveira]

18 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Who will have the final say? the Supreme Court.

My bet.  A few more cycles/hours of news cycles and this will be shuffled to the next set of outrage.  

[Bigbrog]

46 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

challenge

I thought they came out and said it wasn't classified information??  Or is that not true because the people who would determine if it were classified or not is Trump and his administration and they can't be trusted???  So, who then determines if it is classified or not?

Again, I think this was a bad unforced error and people should be held accountable, and protocols should be revised/updated to ensure that this happening again is minimized...I'm just not into throwing a temper tantrum and claiming people a hell of lot smarter than me are "moron's" because someone made a human mistake.  Is a little grace not allotted to people anymore just because they have a letter after their name that you don't like?

[Paul158]

4 minutes ago, Le duke said:

Why would the SCOTUS rule on whether or not targeting information is classified?

That's not a constitutional issue.

I asked the question because I don't know, and nobody has officially determined whether it is classified or not.