• Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    6 days ago

    Not sure though if he needed to know the exact details of the battle plans whilst in Russia.

    Through an unsecure platform, no less.

    There really is no excuse for any of this. And they are denying that a chat existed, or that any classified information was posted, or that there were even plans to attack anyone… imbeciles. Every single one.

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 days ago

        Unsecure, meaning not an authorized channel for this type of classified discussion to have even be taken place.

        Signal is still “secure” in the sense that it uses encryption, etc.

        But as with personal emails, which may also use encryption, is it NOT a secure way (i.e. not the proper method of communication) for sharing highly classified war plans.

        Republicans railed on Hillary for the whole server fiasco, but this is magnitudes more damaging to the competency of the administration, and for national security.

      • Skydancer@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        Italiano
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Unsecure ≠ Insecure

        Unsecure in this context generally means not in compliance with military and classified security practices and procedures for “securing” information.

        Signal is secure in the sense of being strong end-to-end cryptography.

        • Or said differently: signal will probably resist attempts to hack the chat, but it won’t resist the “beat him with a wrench til he unlocks his phone” strategy. That’s why secure comms for governments are usually done in a secure room in an embassy, on hardwired devices.