jross

There have been many strikes where I didn’t “get it.” The leak’s too convenient, curates a specific narrative, and makes this a conversation. They did not want the blow back but they wanted the exposure. People are paying attention and the intent is clear as to why we would interfere. Besides the leak, everyone looks competent.

Yes, laws apply. Private Citizen: Don’t share (18 U.S.C. § 798), don’t keep (18 U.S.C. § 793). Report to FBI, return it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 Military/Government Employee: More strict than private citizen. Secure it, report to security officer, don’t share. Follow DOD rules (5200.01), return or destroy as directed. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/520001m_vol3.pdf

My thoughts continue to evolve on this. Originally I thought this must be a staffer that accidently or purposely included the reporter to cause leadership turnover. Hearing the director say he doesn't know how this occurred indicated he's a buffoon. But he's not a buffoon. So then I thought it must be that social engineering exploited a device vulnerability. Now that I've read the actual texts, I'm leaning to this being an intentional disclosure. The message goes to one of the last people you would expect (Goldberg). The messaging accomplishes this: US is decisive US provides global security in a way that Europe cannot US interests are important - let's make Europe pay for the benefit we provide

Will you share the full article?

Oh look; a baby troll.

This may be the problem! https://www.npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-5339801/pentagon-email-signal-vulnerability

Old ass children can't admit they make a mistake.

I’m hearing Democrats and the CIA Director insist Signal’s fine for government use, with Ratcliffe and Hegseth claiming the info wasn’t classified. At best, the chatters are playing word games to dodge the obvious: you don’t invite a reporter to share coordination about forthcoming strikes. At worst, it’s a reckless lack of accountability. "Legal" or not, admit the screw-up. Ratcliffe won't admit it was a major mistake. He was going to downplay it as an inadvertent release of unclassified information. Gabbard either would not admit or at least wasn't given enough time to admit she was on the chat. They've been coached to dodge and appear spineless as result. This is the ick that makes me sick. So now I want them all thrown out... but that gets us no where. Minimally need to fire the Waltz staffer. If this was intentional, does he get jail time? Trump already said Waltz is too valued to fire... so be it. Take these dips in the back room and slap them around. Then move on.

And this -

Prob not true

It is the place for me, who has no D1 wrestling in their state.

Signal’s comms encryption have never been busted. Attacks hit the devices or trick the users, not the code. Sooner or later, some tech leap or random bug may crack it open.

Clout chasing is clout chasing. It'd be hard not to as a media company.

You are talking about what's right. I'm talking about human nature.

Why waste money? Fire the meeting organizer staffer at minimum... issue the newly enforced policy... reprimand those involved... move on.

This "Signal" incident will not impact my independent vote in 2026 or 2028. Neither will bombing to protect the trading routes.

Signal itself is secure! The less serious problem is that the conversation is not record kept. The more serious problem is the human error of inviting the wrong person to the chat. It's a lot harder to get access to one of the end point devices where the unencrypted information is present. Part of the problem that provides leeway is that Signal was already installed on devices and utilized by the prior administration.

I am certain that several government workers will continue to use signal unless IT audits and enforcement occurs. Humans do what they will.

Firing the people on the chat is inappropriate. I'm regularly on an extended government call where once we get to security, I hop off the call. Staying on the call would be me behaving like GB. I should be fired if I chose to stay. And so should the meeting organizer for allowing it. The people sharing on the call are not accountable for who was invited and who remains on the call.

Can you think of a better way one might influence you to lock your doors without publicly declaring your doors are unlocked?

Hi thieves! That rich banker leaves his doors unlocked. Hi enemies! Come focus your attention on Signal.

Goldberg showed some restraint but he screwed up the approach. He could have used his leverage upfront: ‘I’m in your classified chat; fix this or I publish.’ Then, if he wrote anything, skip naming Signal and focus on the systemic failure. 'I got sensitive plans on an unapproved app; here’s why that’s a mess.' Should he have stayed silent? No, but this was clout-chasing, not duty. Six months ago? I’d still care. Security is security. Would he have run it then? Probably, but less punch.

Please READ! "Reprimand those on the chat." To me this means verbal warnings/written rebukes in their personnel files. IT attention to their devices on apps installed, amongst larger personal device app compliance. Not fired.

He overshared, amplifying security vulnerability awareness and contributing hurting his own country's brand. His reward for this sensational scoop is no more scoops.

Restricting staffers from speaking with the Atlantic, unless permission is granted, would be a workplace rule with consequences, not censorship. This is the same "suckers and losers" group. There are multiple ways to fully expose the risk with accountability in a less reckless manner.