Slashdot Mirror
Republicans Are Reportedly Using a Self-Destructing Message App To Avoid Leaks (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Trump administration members and other Republicans are using the encrypted, self-destructing messaging app Confide to keep conversations private in the wake of hacks and leaks, according to Jonathan Swan and David McCabe at Axios. Axios writes that "numerous senior GOP operatives and several members of the Trump administration" have downloaded Confide, which automatically wipes messages after they're read. One operative told Axios that the app "provides some cover" for people in the party. He ties it to last year's hack of the Democratic National Committee, which led to huge and damaging information dumps of DNC emails leading up to the 2016 election. But besides outright hacks, the source also said he liked the fact that Confide makes it difficult to screenshot messages, because only a few words are shown at a time. That suggests that it's useful not just for reducing paper trails, but for stopping insiders from preserving individual messages -- especially given the steady flow of leaks that have come out since Trump took office. As Axios notes, official White House business is subject to preservation rules, although we don't know much about who's allegedly using Confide and what they're doing with it, so it's not clear whether this might run afoul of those laws. It's also difficult to say how much this is a specifically Republican phenomenon, and how much is a general move toward encryption.
Aren't they required to conduct all government business on government systems? Didn't Hilary got a whole lot of crap (and lose an election) over this?
Welp, they're in charge so I guess they get to make the rules, but did they even bother to change the laws first?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I wonder if they still want that backdoor to that encryption sitting there for someone to stumble on...
"This phone will self-destruct in 5 seconds. Good luck, Kellyanne."
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
it's Republicans doing it so it's OK.
Whilst I believe you are being facetious, your post outlines the problems with partisan political supporters (of all sides), they consider something to be wrong only if it is done by those they don't support.
"If you're doing nothing wrong then you've got nothing to hide"... is that how the saying goes?
Twinstiq, game news
Whether it is right or wrong all criminal organisations adopt a policy of destroying records. That way there is no incriminating evidence left lying around. Trump certainly knows how to behave like a gangster.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
He flirts and hits on 10-15 year old girls regularly (often enough that there are multiple tapes of him doing it). He liked walked in on underage teenage girls naked changing and bragged about being the only man allowed to do it on the Howard Stern show. He had his staff try to encourage the underage teenage girls that were naked to flirt with him saying they were more likely to win the contests if they did. He talked about wanting to sleep with teenage girls on the Howard Stern show. In my opinion, that makes him a pedophile.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.rollingstone.com/po...
http://www.politifact.com/wisc...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://people.com/politics/don...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mo...
http://www.tmz.com/2016/10/12/...
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...
This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
You are on Slashdot. You should understand deleting one copy of data isn't actually deleting it when other copies exist. You are doing exactly what Trump, Fox News, and Brietbart did by using the term "deleted" when referring to one copy of the data to imply that data was lost. The first sentence was a misquote. I said "Nothing was really deleted" because other copies of the data existed; thus no crime. When handing over the business only data Hillary was very clear about what had been done and that she had a law office sort the data.
There is no cover-up or conspiracy here. Republicans managed to make one out of thin air. I do have to credit them with managing to convince so many Americans that a crime was committed when one wasn't.
This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
What was actionable: The 150+ Emails containing classified information that were on her unclassified private server. Each email constitutes a count of either failure to protect/negligent mishandling or intentional security compromise. Both charges are felonies, the first though has no requirement of Intent. Each count is worth 5 to 10 years in Prison and $10,000 or higher fine. How is that for actionable and quantifiable "what"?
Everybody entrusted with classified information is held to the same legal standards, many a lessor person has faced decades in Jail for such a crimes. She could get lucky and be charged with the negligent mishandling charges for all the emails she sent. (she is not liable for emails sent to her that might have contained such info, but then the FBI should be going after whoever sent those to her), but as Classified information, is stored on physically separate networks and machines, the act of transferring the data, especially the Top Secret info that was on some of the emails, is a deliberate act so she should face the slightly more severe deliberate security compromise charges.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
That's an interesting argument. It was resolved quite some time ago. The counter-argument is of course that because the President is empowered to fulfill his duties as he sees fit, one method he may use is to hire staff to assist him in his duties. The White House staff operates under the Constitutional authority of the President, as agents of the President. Their authority doesn't come from the Congress. Further, interfering with the White House staff *is* interfering with the President's conduct of his Constitutional duties. This is the reasoning the Supreme Court has mostly used - Congress may not generally interfere with the President's conduct of diplomacy*, and because the President conducts diplomacy by using his staff, interfering with staff *is* interfering with the President's powers.
Not only can Congress not specify a particular means of communication, they can not even *look* at internal White House memos if the President indicates that doing so would interfere with his Constitutional duties. This is called "executive privilege" and it was first invoked by George Washington. In 1796, Presiden Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents related to the negotiation of the Jay Treaty. Many, many Presidents since Washington have invoked executive privilege, and most of the time they've won.
A major turning point in executive privilege was Nixon. The Nixon administration refused to turn over documents related to Watergate, saying "executive privilege". The Supreme Court ruled that while a President may keep White House communications private, in a criminal investigation of that magnitude he had to give more explanation than just saying "executive privilege". Given the gravity of the situation and the legitimate interest in the papers, he would need to say "turning over the papers would interfere with my Constitutional powers because ...", SCOTUS said. While technically the court ruled against Nixon, they stressed that generally the White House *may* choose not to reveal their communications to Congress or the courts - in criminal cases of major public interest, they just need to state a *reason* they aren't turning over the communications.
For 25 years after Nixon no President lost an executive privilege claim. The Clinton administration claimed executive privilege a record fourteen times, and lost only once.
So yeah that is an interesting argument you've made. That argument has not been the successful argument throughput history.
* Aside from ratification of treaties by the Senate only.