Your daily reminder that Hegseth is an unqualified clown...

[BigPapaWhit]

There is an ocean of difference between “unsecured app on a mobile device” and “installation of an unsecured connection in the Pentagon”.

That just doesn’t happen, regardless of who is requesting it.

I would suspect that it actually would be physically and technically impossible for such a thing to be done at the Pentagon.

Impossible or not, should people not be concerned that it was requested. Hopefully, no one is requesting Google Drive access on the secure side. I can only imagine the persons face who received the work order (if for reals). They probably called their supervisor and asked, "Is this a test? Are we being punked?"

 

[ANEW]

Impossible or not, should people not be concerned that it was requested. Hopefully, no one is requesting Google Drive access on the secure side. I can only imagine the persons face who received the work order (if for reals). They probably called their supervisor and asked, "Is this a test? Are we being punked?"

The request could have been for the non-secure side. That seems more likely to me. No telling what the existing DoD policy was at the time for use of signal on non-secure work computers/phones. Both non-secure (regular old internet) and Secure networks are in use throughtout the DoD. Workstations for orgs/people needing access to both will have two computers at their desks.

There are secure mobile devices. But distribuiton of those is limited, but obvioulsly the SecDef/DNI/NSC Advisor should have them. But beyond that? Security is alwasy at odds with speedy, flat, communications.

My personal opinion based upon not much digging into this story is that a non-secure network was used to flatten comms and for convenience. Secure (secret+) mobile devices/networks are available but maybe not everyone has one. So you keep the convo on the non-secret side of the line.

I suspect that Signal was being used as a way to maybe provide some security to official but technically not "secret" communication and someone got sloppy.

Edit: changed "confidential" to "official" --- words have meaning

 

[UrHuckleberry]

The request could have been for the non-secure side. That seems more likely to me. No telling what the existing DoD policy was at the time for use of signal on non-secure work computers/phones. Both non-secure (regular old internet) and Secure networks are in use throughtout the DoD. Workstations for orgs/people needing access to both will have two computers at their desks.

There are secure mobile devices. But distribuiton of those is limited, but obvioulsly the SecDef/DNI/NSC Advisor should have them. But beyond that? Security is alwasy at odds with speedy, flat, communications.

My personal opinion based upon not much digging into this story is that a non-secure network was used to flatten comms and for convenience. Secure (secret+) mobile devices/networks are available but maybe not everyone has one. So you keep the convo on the non-secret side of the line.

I suspect that Signal was being used as a way to maybe provide some security to confidential but technically not "secret" communication and someone got sloppy.

What are your thoughts on the original controversial chat? Shouldn’t someone on that chat understood that communication wasn’t ok? Reporter being added exposed it but wasn’t itself the issue to me. Curious your thoughts with your background.

 

[ANEW]

What are your thoughts on the original controversial chat? Shouldn’t someone on that chat understood that communication wasn’t ok? Reporter being added exposed it but wasn’t itself the issue to me. Curious your thoughts with your background.

Yes as you point out there are several different things. The only way to totally ensure that reporters don't get included is to keep the convo on the secure side (SIPRNet = Secure internet Protool Router Network) or maybe there is some way for IT nerds to create chat groups that can't be added to it.

It was a screw up. 100% . Also I believe that they were playing loosely with comms for convenience and to speed up crosstalk. Technically i think the Admn is correct and laws were not broken. But i'm also confident that if I were to have texted that and it made the national news, something unfortunate probably would have happened to me.. but its not something that i'd be put in handcuffs over.

Specific times, locations and/or target specifics, specific weapon systems, routes, mission. You put -three of those together and then it's Secret. This is close. But grey area.

I love the crosstalk at the senior level . That is great. I also think that in practice, there is no way for the enemy to somehow get those texts do it in time and take action that would amount to anything.

Senior people trying to do the right thing for the right reasons. SecDef is also an original classification authority and reponsible for classification of info within the DoD. And in practice, you can't fire them all. So POTUS gets to make the call.

As an isolated incident, not something that i'm all that spun up about. Hegseth is inexperieced and not career DoD and is at a level way above anthing he ever interacted at. So he's got a tough row to hoe. He needs to grow into the role fast or he's not going to last, IMHO.

Right now he's doing the big things that Trump needs him to do... Stay on message, stay focused on shaking up the bureacracy and getting "woke" ideology out, focus on fiscal accountability and an audit. He's doing that so far. But if he becomes to big of a distractor, at some point he's going to be stepping down to pursue other opportunities.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Yes as you point out there are several different things. The only way to totally ensure that reporters don't get included is to keep the convo on the secure side (SIPRNet = Secure internet Protool Router Network) or maybe there is some way for IT nerds to create chat groups that can't be added to it.

It was a screw up. 100% . Also I believe that they were playing loosely with comms for convenience and to speed up crosstalk. Technically i think the Admn is correct and laws were not broken. But i'm also confident that if I were to have texted that and it made the national news, something unfortunate probably would have happened to me.. but its not something that i'd be put in handcuffs over.

Specific times, locations and/or target specifics, specific weapon systems, routes, mission. You put -three of those together and then it's Secret. This is close. But grey area.

I love the crosstalk at the senior level . That is great. I also think that in practice, there is no way for the enemy to somehow get those texts do it in time and take action that would amount to anything.

Senior people trying to do the right thing for the right reasons. SecDef is also an original classification authority and reponsible for classification of info within the DoD. And in practice, you can't fire them all. So POTUS gets to make the call.

As an isolated incident, not something that i'm all that spun up about. Hegseth is inexperieced and not career DoD and is at a level way above anthing he ever interacted at. So he's got a tough row to hoe. He needs to grow into the role fast or he's not going to last, IMHO.

Right now he's doing the big things that Trump needs him to do... Stay on message, stay focused on shaking up the bureacracy and getting "woke" ideology out, focus on fiscal accountability and an audit. He's doing that so far. But if he becomes to big of a distractor, at some point he's going to be stepping down to pursue other opportunities.

thank you for sharing your perspective

 

[PAWrocka]

Impossible or not, should people not be concerned that it was requested. Hopefully, no one is requesting Google Drive access on the secure side. I can only imagine the persons face who received the work order (if for reals). They probably called their supervisor and asked, "Is this a test? Are we being punked?"

Exactly … I just can’t take this story seriously. Even if elements of the story are “true”, it’s clear to me that the outlet is sensationalizing the story and banking on the general public’s lack of knowledge of secure/unsecure networks.

A unsecurced non encrypted connection being installed on a secure network … at the Pentagon … is NOT something that would happen.

 

[DrTigerGoob]

I fully expect conservatives to make just as big of a deal out of this as they did Hillary’s email server.

Not likely. When national security is at risk because of a stupid SECDEF, they won’t care.

He’s a good guy.

And stupid as f***.

Absolute disgrace.

 

[PAWrocka]

Not likely. When national security is at risk because of a stupid SECDEF, they won’t care.

He’s a good guy.

And stupid as f***.

Absolute disgrace.

As pointed out and alluded to by several posters who have a IT/Networking background, the story isn’t believable.

 

[dpic73]

 

[DrTigerGoob]

As pointed out and alluded to by several posters who have a IT/Networking background, the story isn’t believable.

Where are the IT technical discussions about what you say?

 

[DrTigerGoob]

View embedded media

I rest my case on stupidity.

 

[PAWrocka]

Where are the IT technical discussions about what you say?

Read ….

 

[DrTigerGoob]

Read ….

No...not doing that. If you have something to say, I always want to see the facts and where it came from. It's on you to convince me.