I understand your main point. It is important to have accountability. Something went wrong.
But I'm a little confused by the disdain for Signal and its use in the process of what was occurring (the planning).
Signal has military-grade encryption. It is one of the most secure communication tools available. It's routinely trusted by journalists, activists, businesses, and government officials. Its end-to-end encryption is so robust that it actually has been approved for classified communications in some government sectors.
The error here is a human error. The wrong person was added to the conversation. That's a big deal. Why and how did it happen?
But we shouldn't imply these people were doing something wrong by using the app.
Thanks for the comment, Jason. For the average person with a smartphone, I think Signal is among your most secure options. So it's a great choice for a lot of the groups you mentioned who are concerned about privacy.
But people at the highest level of government would have much better options for planning a military operation. And I think they know that. In fact, I think that's why the administration has tried to argue that the plans weren't classified. Since classified is a technical term, I'll leave it to others to debate whether that applies here. But clearly the administration thinks some things shouldn't be talked about on Signal.
A separate question is how you comply with the Federal Records Act when you're using an app like Signal that can automatically delete messages after a period of time. It's not the sexiest law, and obviously for national security matters, some information wouldn't be available to the public for a long time. But transparency (not to mention making sure laws are followed) still matters in a free country.
I'd say that the fact that the wrong person was added to the conversation shows exactly why a consumer app was a bad choice for what they were doing. That kind of blunder isn't possible when you're in a SCIF.
In the background, though, there is a broader conversation worth having about what secure government communication looks like in the 21st century. All of the officials involved travel regularly and surely use their personal phones in some situations. Of course that kind of debate will be mostly out of view of the public. But I think a push for accountability on this particular incident could contribute in a positive way to that bigger conversation.
Again, I appreciate your thoughts and I'm glad we agree accountability would be a good thing here.
I don't disagree, in general. But I would point out that Signal HAS been approved for use in various government agencies. Its encryption is virtually unbreakable. What we can't eliminate—can never eliminate—is human error.
Certainly the records retention issue is worth considering, though I'm not aware of any planning like this ever being declassified. For the record, I'm not a fan of neverending classification.
Indeed. As Mark Twain once wrote: “There are three forms of dishonesty - lies, damned lies, and statistics.” (He was probably correct 95% of the time…)
I would also add that what the journalist did was unethical and illegal. It was a mistake that he was added. Mistakes happen. That in no way excuses his behavior once he realized he was in the chat and knew he shouldn't be. He broke multiple laws. I'm sure he'll get a pass because everyone is so concerned, for some reason, that leadership is availing itself of modern technology.
I used to work in HR for a very large University. We routinely dealt with sensitive and personal data. However, not every department within HR had unlimited access to the data. Occasionally, someone from another department would inadvertently copy me on an email containing information I shouldn't have access to. It was expected that I would immediately contact the sender and notify them of their mistake so I could be taken off the thread or list.
I can't remember a single time someone stayed on such a thread and secretly recorded information then used that information to try to get someone else in trouble or fired. Who does that?
The person who would get in trouble would be the person who was knowingly doing something wrong—because everyone knows mistakes happen—not necessarily the person who made the original mistake.
I'd have to defer the question of whether what the journalist did was legal to someone with way more expertise than I have. But as for the ethical question, I think it's a tough one. Obviously not great for so much info to become public. But if it brings about better practices in the future, maybe it will have been worth it.
If I had been in his shoes, I'm not sure what I would have done. . .other than get in touch with a good lawyer!
Well, I mean, assuming you're a person of integrity, I think you would have done what most responsible people would have done and notified them of their mistake. It's not a difficult moral or ethical question. The journalist clearly lacks integrity. If he had done the right thing, none of this is an issue. He MADE the story with his unethical behavior. That's not journalism.
I don’t believe that (1) the officials who run the American government according to the US Constitution (2) the American people (3) American (so-called) “Christians” are meaningfully committed to reality, truth, virtue, righteousness and justice. All three groups pay lip service to justice, morally upright behavior, etc; but none of these groups really practice virtuous behavior. I think that all three groups are (by and large) morally bankrupt.
Waltz was who I had in mind when I wrote "One official tiptoed toward taking responsibility—and then immediately pivoted to blaming the journalist." I realize others might characterize it differently. Thanks for reading and commenting.
If you admit the mistake but also attack the journalist and say that you don't know how his number got "sucked into your phone contacts" is it still the truth?
Thankful for THE TRUTH that is Jesus! Great post
I understand your main point. It is important to have accountability. Something went wrong.
But I'm a little confused by the disdain for Signal and its use in the process of what was occurring (the planning).
Signal has military-grade encryption. It is one of the most secure communication tools available. It's routinely trusted by journalists, activists, businesses, and government officials. Its end-to-end encryption is so robust that it actually has been approved for classified communications in some government sectors.
The error here is a human error. The wrong person was added to the conversation. That's a big deal. Why and how did it happen?
But we shouldn't imply these people were doing something wrong by using the app.
Thanks for the comment, Jason. For the average person with a smartphone, I think Signal is among your most secure options. So it's a great choice for a lot of the groups you mentioned who are concerned about privacy.
But people at the highest level of government would have much better options for planning a military operation. And I think they know that. In fact, I think that's why the administration has tried to argue that the plans weren't classified. Since classified is a technical term, I'll leave it to others to debate whether that applies here. But clearly the administration thinks some things shouldn't be talked about on Signal.
A separate question is how you comply with the Federal Records Act when you're using an app like Signal that can automatically delete messages after a period of time. It's not the sexiest law, and obviously for national security matters, some information wouldn't be available to the public for a long time. But transparency (not to mention making sure laws are followed) still matters in a free country.
I'd say that the fact that the wrong person was added to the conversation shows exactly why a consumer app was a bad choice for what they were doing. That kind of blunder isn't possible when you're in a SCIF.
In the background, though, there is a broader conversation worth having about what secure government communication looks like in the 21st century. All of the officials involved travel regularly and surely use their personal phones in some situations. Of course that kind of debate will be mostly out of view of the public. But I think a push for accountability on this particular incident could contribute in a positive way to that bigger conversation.
Again, I appreciate your thoughts and I'm glad we agree accountability would be a good thing here.
I don't disagree, in general. But I would point out that Signal HAS been approved for use in various government agencies. Its encryption is virtually unbreakable. What we can't eliminate—can never eliminate—is human error.
Certainly the records retention issue is worth considering, though I'm not aware of any planning like this ever being declassified. For the record, I'm not a fan of neverending classification.
Indeed. As Mark Twain once wrote: “There are three forms of dishonesty - lies, damned lies, and statistics.” (He was probably correct 95% of the time…)
I would also add that what the journalist did was unethical and illegal. It was a mistake that he was added. Mistakes happen. That in no way excuses his behavior once he realized he was in the chat and knew he shouldn't be. He broke multiple laws. I'm sure he'll get a pass because everyone is so concerned, for some reason, that leadership is availing itself of modern technology.
I used to work in HR for a very large University. We routinely dealt with sensitive and personal data. However, not every department within HR had unlimited access to the data. Occasionally, someone from another department would inadvertently copy me on an email containing information I shouldn't have access to. It was expected that I would immediately contact the sender and notify them of their mistake so I could be taken off the thread or list.
I can't remember a single time someone stayed on such a thread and secretly recorded information then used that information to try to get someone else in trouble or fired. Who does that?
The person who would get in trouble would be the person who was knowingly doing something wrong—because everyone knows mistakes happen—not necessarily the person who made the original mistake.
I'd have to defer the question of whether what the journalist did was legal to someone with way more expertise than I have. But as for the ethical question, I think it's a tough one. Obviously not great for so much info to become public. But if it brings about better practices in the future, maybe it will have been worth it.
If I had been in his shoes, I'm not sure what I would have done. . .other than get in touch with a good lawyer!
Well, I mean, assuming you're a person of integrity, I think you would have done what most responsible people would have done and notified them of their mistake. It's not a difficult moral or ethical question. The journalist clearly lacks integrity. If he had done the right thing, none of this is an issue. He MADE the story with his unethical behavior. That's not journalism.
I don’t believe that (1) the officials who run the American government according to the US Constitution (2) the American people (3) American (so-called) “Christians” are meaningfully committed to reality, truth, virtue, righteousness and justice. All three groups pay lip service to justice, morally upright behavior, etc; but none of these groups really practice virtuous behavior. I think that all three groups are (by and large) morally bankrupt.
Waltz was who I had in mind when I wrote "One official tiptoed toward taking responsibility—and then immediately pivoted to blaming the journalist." I realize others might characterize it differently. Thanks for reading and commenting.
If you admit the mistake but also attack the journalist and say that you don't know how his number got "sucked into your phone contacts" is it still the truth?