Slashdot Mirror
Trump Ignores 'Inconvenient' Security Rules To Keep Tweeting On His iPhone, Says Report (politico.com)
According to Politico, "President Donald Trump uses a White House cellphone that isn't equipped with sophisticated security features designed to shield his communications." The decision is "a departure from the practice of his predecessors that potentially exposes him to hacking or surveillance." From the report: The president uses at least two iPhones, according to one of the officials. The phones -- one capable only of making calls, the other equipped only with the Twitter app and preloaded with a handful of news sites -- are issued by White House Information Technology and the White House Communications Agency, an office staffed by military personnel that oversees White House telecommunications. While aides have urged the president to swap out the Twitter phone on a monthly basis, Trump has resisted their entreaties, telling them it was "too inconvenient," the same administration official said. The president has gone as long as five months without having the phone checked by security experts. It is unclear how often Trump's call-capable phones, which are essentially used as burner phones, are swapped out.
The world isn't closing in, he's just a fat moron and oblivious of his surroundings!
The White House Information Technology and the White House Communications Agency should swap his twitter phone during the night and reload all his previous tweets so he doesn't see anything different.
By design, security is ALWAYS inconvenient -- hopefully more inconvenient to the bad guys than to the users.
--
Trump gets his daily briefing from Fox News which everyone knows is nothing but skewed opinion, truth and lies. Santa clause, the tooth fairy and the easter bunny all exist in that world. We are being lead by the world's biggest idiot.
Kinda ironic given how much stick he gave crooked Hillary for ignoring security on email.
That moron is going to tweet about it anyway.
Lets face it, this guy that we've elected is an example of how to do every fucking thing wrong. Even if his phone was secure, he's going to post the secrets on twitter himself anyway. His phone being insecure is pretty much the least of our problems.
We elected Zaphod Beeblebrox as our president . . . no . . . Zaphod at least had a plan.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
"President Donald Trump uses a White House cellphone that isn't equipped with sophisticated security features ... The president has gone as long as five months without having the phone checked by security experts.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
How are the resident Trump supporters going to explain this away as somehow not yet another piece of evidence supporting the fact that he's stupid, as anyone who doesn't understand and respect the grave importance of securing the President's cell phone must be, especially after having intelligence experts explain it over and over, but instead indicates he's actually a stable genius, and just playing dumb and/or being a jerk?
3...2...1...
I'ts not just Trump -- don't all people in power do this? I thought this was just SOP -- I'm busy, I've already hired someone else to worry with keeping me safe so I can think about other things. (Not that that excuses them, but offloading things is their rationale.)
Link - An iconic photograph of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton using her BlackBerry while wearing sunglasses on a military plane in 2011 prompted a recordkeeping official in her office to inquire about whether Clinton had been assigned a State.gov email address, the State Department disclosed this week."
And:Link - Clinton responded on March 8, 2009: Against the advice of the security hawks, I still do carry my berry but am prohibited from using it in my office, where I spend most of my time when I'm not on a plane or in a "no coverage" country.
If these are all (Alt-) Right Wing Fake News Sites (they're the first few Google links), I'm sure someone will soon point this out. Please do, and point to the rebuttals and corrections.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Hoe many here know a CxO who wanted to get rid of some security or ignored their company policy?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Plus this news is possibly a clickbait fake news for leftwits. After all, the democrat affiliated fake news industry that includes Politico lied last week that Trump called all immigrants animals.
Hoe many here know a CxO who wanted to get rid of some security or ignored their company policy?
Difference is that a CxO as an executive of a private company has that power to make such decisions. And this pretty much sums up Trump's stupidity. He still thinks POTUS is the boss of the country, rather than a servant of the people. Govt policy is our our policy which all must follow.
This shouldn't be a surprise.
The guy is a pathological narcisist, so of course he'll do as he pleases. The only type of respect he has is self-respect, and fuck the rest.
He already dismisses everything that was ever done previous to his administration as errors, worst mistakes, wrong, criminal, swamp or whatever.
And it hasn't been a problem for him every single time he was proven wrong. It's either treated as a joke, or the new norm.
Nobody knew x could be so complicated. President Trump isn't at fault because he just didn't know better. It's just fake news. It's media persecution. Things we hear every freaking day on the news.
If it's content he doesn't like, it's fake news. If he does something wrong he was just unaware or it's someone else's fault. Any press that says anything wrong about him is being unfair. Any politician that raises a voice against his command is either a democrat trying to attack him, or a republican traitor. The guy acts exactly like politicians in countries like Venezuela, Phillipines and other proto-dictatorships and populist nations and people are just watching it happen.
None of this has put him out of his position up to now, leaking smartphone information also won't. At most, some fuzz will be made about it, they'll create some comitee for investigation, and some people will cry foul, but he'll still be there.
I doubt there's anything there to be leaked or hacked anyways... I mean, anything that foreign countries and whatnot don't already know. People shouldn't expect any sort of internal security from the current administration. You just have to see how many incompetent people are occupying all sorts of positions right now. Why would anyone be under some illusion that US government data isn't already being hacked, stolen, spied upon and even directly willingly sent by people on this administration? I'd believe first that the US government is already, knowingly or not, a puppet of other countries. I'd believe first that every piece of communication is already being monitored, specially around Trump. Look at the people he has surrounded himself with. There's a whole ton of people there now or that has come and gonne that I'd have no problems believing they'd just leak stuff or spy for foreign governments with either profit or because they were being blackmailed.
Foreign countries probably already have plenty of info on him, it's just more convenient to let the guy wreck havok in US international relations as this weakens US economy and gives more opportunities for foreign countries to strenghten theirs.
And should Trump do too much against other countries with access to his dirt, the information just comes in handy for blackmailing and whatnot, something I wouldn't doubt already happened anyways.
His supporters already blindly follow him. I'm willing to be that for the vast majority of them, should news come tomorrow that his phones were hacked and all the info stolen, they'd see no fault in Trump's position. It'd only be something to fuel his and his followers nationalist spew, more reason for isolationism, more fuel for immigrant persecution, more reasons for baseless accusations against foreign companies, and overall more reasons for the FUD that this administration feeds on.
When people have bought the narrative that every single mistake of the current administration is the fault of someone else, and even some of the most obvious errors and problems there is either fake or intrigue by the opposition, the country already set itself on a downward spiral. It will go on as long as it's to the benefit of those in power.
I pitty the non-supporters who are currently on this trap without any sight of getting out, but it is what it is.
And I say this as a non US citizen. I live in a country that has gone through that downward spiral. It has destroyed the entire country's economy, it has put the country as a place no foreign investors wants to deal with, it has provoked a massive runaway of scientists, researchers, technology overall, among other stuff t
Apple can get some marketing mileage out of this.
"iPhone, so easy to use even Trump has one."
"The iPhone is so secure the president's doesn't need security checks"
"iPhone: Not for immigrants"
Next time I'm in California and someone goes all identity politics on me I'll just respond with, "Oh, you have a Trump phone"
Hahahhahaha... that's like telling a stripper in the middle of her pole dance, after she's removed her last shred of clothing, that she'd better take care, or someone might see her NAKED! Like telling the icecream man that he better not play his chiming music over the bullhorn, or else kids might realize he's there and come out and try to buy icecream from him! Like telling a peacock that he better not fan out his tail feathers, or some peahen might SEE the display and try to mate with him. It would be like telling a pizza joint that if it's careless, and accidentally puts an ad in the paper, it might end up with customers coming there trying to buy pizza...
... etc.
Yeah, it's kind of a laughably pointless concern, is what I'm driving at, with this all stuff, and more... it would be like a skywriter being told it's a bad idea to go up during daylight hours, because someone could end up READING OVER HIS SHOULDER!
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
Security for tweeting?
no, I think they could not give a rats arse about that (as long as he doesn't tweet anything he shouldn't). However security for cameras, GPS's and especially microphones (ie those found on his phone) in the whitehouse I think they should and DO give a shit about that.
Did anyone actually read the article? The writer complains that Trump does not swap out his Twitter phone as often as an "anonymous source" would prefer.
The phones are fedgov issued:
"The president uses at least two iPhones, according to one of the officials. The phones â" one capable only of making calls, the other equipped only with the Twitter app and preloaded with a handful of news sites â" are issued by White House Information Technology and the White House Communications Agency, an office staffed by military personnel that oversees White House telecommunications."
The reporter then quotes another anon:
"The White House declined to comment for this story, but a senior West Wing official said the call-capable phones âoeare seamlessly swapped out on a regular basis through routine support operations. Because of the security controls of the Twitter phone and the Twitter account, it does not necessitate regular change-out.â"
Followed by a bunch of pettifoggery from the President's political rivals.
I don't think the article quite reaches the level of Fake News. But it's certainly a tempest in a teapot.
Whole Ivan Brigade today. CAPTCHA: Payroll.
His predecessors were no better - and often worse - but they were given a free pass by the media. Obama used an ordinary Blackberry for years
Actually, no, Obama used a specially approved heavily restricted Blackberry. Not "an ordinary Blackberry". So, no, this is something Trump can criticized for just fine.
I'm not in the US, but from here it seems to me that Trump is pissing off all the right people. If the DC establishment and the media dislike him so much, he must be doing something right.
No, the simplest answer is most likely the correct one here; i.e. that he's just a dumb asshole.
Ezekiel 23:20
More like "let's generate bunches of ad impressions."
What's remarkable, is the continuing criticism of Trump for this kind of thing. His predecessors were no better - and often worse - but they were given a free pass by the media.
You're a little late to the party, mr. Whatabout, but I have to applaud this galant attempt to take a bullet for the Idiot in Chief. It's pointless, but yeah, it's galant.
Obama used an ordinary Blackberry for years.
Not while he was president.
Hillary's email server was a disaster.
Please describe in detail in what way this was a disaster? Please spare me the usual histronics, only the facts please. What bad thing or things happened because she did this? And of course you will provided evidence that these bad things actually happened.
I'm not in the US, but from here it seems to me that Trump is pissing off all the right people. If the DC establishment and the media dislike him so much, he must be doing something right.
Well, I suppose that if you're Russian, Iranian, Chinese, or something like that, yeah, he is pissing off all the right people, namely all the people with a functioning brain. Everyone who thinks the world is better of with a somewhat sane USA disagrees, though.
I honestly think no one should be surprised at all. Trump doesn't handle negative feedback very well at all. He is of the type that believes he is right and the world is wrong. This is typical Anti-Social Personality Disorder with Narcissistic Tendencies. Every time someone tries to tell him that what he's doing is wrong or illegal, he tries to undermine and discredit them. Trump has constructed his own reality in which he is a living legend. It's hard to convince someone whom does not have a complete grasp on reality otherwise. In his own mind, Trump even rationalizes his own failures as successes of a sort. Whether you think this is flamebait or not, it's actually psychology.
For a man concerned about draining the swamp of Washington, using two iPhones is awfully wasteful to the taxpayer. I don't really know anyone that needs two iPhones to conduct daily business.
Check again, I was responding to the claim that "Obama used an ordinary Blackberry for years", which wasn't something in the article.
Ezekiel 23:20
Great, Reddit McCarthy puppets have infiltrated Slashdot now.
What's good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander
The difference being that President Dingbat has the authority to change the rules. You don't. I hope you enjoy your stay in Guantanamo. I'm told that it's always sunny there.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
When one is sending out the sort of unfiltered stuff on Twitter that Trump does, what would be the point of securing a phone that he using expressly for that purpose? He is TRYING to broadcast whatever information he puts in the phone to everyone willing to listen. Aside from avoiding someone hijacking the twitter feed to send stuff and make it look like it is from him, there isn't any security threat worse than the already intended use of the phone.
The summary clearly states that this phone is only for twitter and reading the news.
Possibly lowered the threat from NK and increase stability in the region.
He rolled the dice with nuclear war on the line and (maybe) got lucky. He played chicken with a madman and isn't smart enough to flinch. This does not make him Nobel material.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Did you read the article? Trump uses a special iPhone too with restricted apps issued by the Federal government. Check your bias at the door.
And Obama apparently followed the security policies defined for his use of the BB. Trump does not. It's not just the device, it's also the policies and procedures around its use that matters.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You have a president who colluded with the Russian Intelligence to get himself elected, and since has used the office in blatantly illegal ways to enrich himself. He's showed distain for all ethical rules and social mores. He's taken it on himself to dismantle our institutions, and fill the government with unethical stupid people who are blindly loyal to him. As law enforcement investigates his crimes, he's been disrupting the investigation and undermining law enforcement in general, while preparing to fire any law enforcement personnel involved in the investigation. Oh, and he's been talking about installing himself as dictator for life.
And you're surprised that he's tweeting from an insecure phone? You're worried about that?
Let's keep our eye on the ball here. If you quibble over trivial things, it reenforces the idea that his opponents simply "don't like him" for personal reasons. It's not personal. He's a criminal. He needs to go to jail.
This entire thread is nothing but butthurt.
He's the head of the executive branch, which is the equivalent of a CEO. He absolutely has the power to ignore directives such as this. I'm not saying I think he's doing the right thing, but he can do it if he wants.
If he's the CEO, then the American public are the shareholders. His primary duty is still to look out for our interests over his.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
And how do you know he doesn't use his unsecured phone for private communications? Second, there is a security danger in knowing the President's exact location as opposed to his relative location.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
What's remarkable, is the continuing criticism of Trump for this kind of thing. His predecessors were no better - and often worse - but they were given a free pass by the media. Obama used an ordinary Blackberry for years. Hillary's email server was a disaster.
That's factually false. Obama used a Blackberry specifically made for him that passed security requirements drafted by the government. In fact he thought he would have to give it up once he became President but Blackberry sensing an PR opportunity worked with the government to make a custom one.
As for Hillary, Bush did the same thing AND it appears that members of the GOP did the same thing after. Really it's more about our leaders not understanding security and technology.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I would argue that 'inconvenient' is a subjective thing. If one is unfortunate to be as stupid as Donald Trump, then *everything* is inconvenient.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
Trump is, of course, wholly unqualified to be President. Having stated the obvious about him, let me clear up something that should be pretty obvious about Clinton. Here's who funds Hillary, her top contributors:
Paloma Partners (hedge fund) $21,613,800 Pritzker Group (investment firm) $16,626,207 Renaissance Technologies (hedge fund) $16,543,000 Saban Capital Group (investment firm) $12,283,411 Newsweb Corp (media conglomerate) $11,016,642 Soros Fund Management (investment firm) $10,556,793
https://www.opensecrets.org/pr...
> Nor the tax breaks for the ultra rich including Wall Street.
The literally works for the largest Wall Street firms, that's who pays her bills. Ultra-rich? With $29 billion, Pritzkers are one of the wealthiest families in the country. Soros is one of the richest people on Wall Street, with $8 billion. These are the people funding Clinton, the people she works for.
So what you are saying is that because Hillary is corrupt it's OK for your guy (who ran on a platform of cleaning up political corruption) to be a corrupt scumbag too? Interesting point of view.
Pritzker Group....
Great. So JB Pritzker, who is trying to win the governorship in IL, heavily funded the Clinton campaign. I just want one decent candidate for governor in Illinois. Just one. Current one is terrible, last one terrible, last several before that are in jail. Doesn't matter what party - just corrupt and troublemaking as can be.
Politics on either side is such a money game that it isn't even funny.
You picked the one thing that Congress controls to rebut this. Not a good choice. Congress would have sent this to anyone.
He's made sure the US get to sell more stuff to China. Possibly lowered the threat from NK and increase stability in the region. Syria & Iraq seem to be going pretty well regardless of whom doing it.
He's doing what he said he'd do with Iran. No idea how that ends.
I don't know how the wall is going and relations with Russia seem to have weakened but I guess that may more be the result of the deep state rather than something Trump really wished.
US sell to china? All your shit is made in china. What's lower than zero? A negative I guess but does that mean NK are going to to start giving you people and supplies etc? Iraq might be doing better but Syria still seems pretty fucked. None of which was what got him in. How's Hilldog getting on? How's the swamp draining going? How's the wall coming along, is mexico still paying?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
The same George Soros who signed and sent a petition (along with 400 other ultra rich) to congress begging them NOT to give them a tax cut? This is the example you site when you are trying to debunk that the claim she wouldn't have cut taxes for the ultra rich?
It's possible that the information your present is a little more nuanced than you believe it to be.
Got to keep those tweets got to be kept secure.
"Hillary probably would have been fine, or at least a non-event"
Exactly the problem.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Hillary would get votes and possibly win the next election...but these guys will never float her that cash again...so no second shot.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
He did not say anything even close to that.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
How soon you fucking retards forget about Obama's Blackberry that he never gave up.
Why are you Anonymous Coward Trump Lovers so oblivious to FACTS.
The degree to which you're willing to be bamboozled by liars is mindboggling.
Obama's phone was an NSA-provided highly-secure device:
https://media.indiatimes.in/me...
You couldn't take pictures, run apps or do a myriad of things that Trump can.
Wealthy guys who have no income or shady businesses where income can be hidden do not want a tax cut on income, go figure. This is like blubbering William Buffet and his poor secretary who pays more in taxes than he does because again, we don't tax wealth.
William Buffet should have his own ring in Hell for that one.
So what you are saying is that because Hillary is corrupt it's OK for your guy (who ran on a platform of cleaning up political corruption) to be a corrupt scumbag too? Interesting point of view.
Not at all. Hang them both as traitors. The notion of letting "our person" get away with things is silly. There is *so* much corruption that we could have public bi-partisan hangings, or firing squads if you prefer, for years. Indeed we should. By keeping it bi-partisan there's an element of fairness to it and both parties have *many* examples of corruption. Still starting with both Clintons, Trump, and one more R (perhaps Orin Hatch for pushing copyright absurdity).
And so Trump was elected? Whom is the asshat?
Russia, if you're listening, please hack Trump's phone (if you haven't already) and publish audio from every Trump / Hannity nighttime pillow chat.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
Trump is, of course, wholly unqualified to be President.
Technically... He meets *all* the qualifications to be President:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
And, sadly, the People voted for him. As P. T. Barnum is rumored to have said, There's a sucker born every minute.
Perhaps the Founding Fathers should have been more specific.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Besides the sharing of classified information. How about her employees commenting that she was to stupid to learn how to use a current phone, which is why she was using such an old device.
obama had a special. unique blackberry with it own set of rules and requirement. President trump is not and has separate rules which according to this article he is following.
The person saying he is not, is some person who is complaining that trump is not following the same rules that obama had to follow.
Wait, what?
Stupid.. ok, that's hard to tell.
But obviously not insane? No, that isn't obvious. I think nearly everyone who has listened to the current president talk, would agree that he's either insane or he's a reasonably good actor who is trying extremely, almost over-the-top-Shatneresquely, hard to appear insane.
It's just a question as to whether or not it's an act. But the clear impression is that he's just .. not totally there. He's incoherent. He can't hold an idea. Most children make more sense. And that's the facts, jack. Do I have to link to him talking? Because the evidence of insanity (though it might be fake, due to his Great! Calculon-like! Acting! Skills!) is just totally overwhelming and absolutely conclusive. I can't believe anyone would argue with that.
This isn't even about politics. Left or right, and even if you can understand what you think he means enough to be able to agree with it, usually whenever he opens his mouth it's pretty damn cringey, as in, our current president has even worse alzheimers than Reagan ever did at any time in office.
It's about either his inability to express thoughts, or else it's about the lack of thoughts that he actually expresses accurately. But it's so clear and objective. And even if it's just an act, that's enough where I have to call bullshit on you saying he's obviously not insane. No, he's not obviously not insane. He at least seems insane or at least suffering from fairly severe dementia, and anyone listening to him speak is definitely going to get that impression.
Go watch the Fox & Friends interview. Just go watch and then try to say he's obviously no insane. If you don't post a reply saying "Oh crap, I didn't realize he's that far gone," then I'll conclude you still haven't watched.
Oh, absolutely. The one thing that was totally clear about that election, is that America didn't take it seriously. The right didn't put up a serious candidate, the left didn't put up a serious candidate, and the center didn't either. Everyone just assumed that the primaries would work out, and they were an across-the-board disaster. I am still surprised/disappointed that more people didn't vote third party, because the major parties totally gave it away. But Americans didn't really make demands of candidates until after the primaries. America likes giving all its political power to the parties, but the parties are too corrupt and/or incompetent to even pay lip service to producing candidates that will serve America's interests. But we still turned all our political power over to those people. That was a major fuckup and I hope everyone on both the right and left learns from this mistake and vows to never again let the parties and their processes choose who ends up on the ballots. It was totally our fault.
We are talking about legal duties. You can vote him out if you think heâ(TM)s doing a bad job.
Do you have ESP?
Where you have been? Bush email controversy It wasn't just Bush but it was his administration including Karl Rove and Colin Powell. In all 22 million emails are "missing". As for the current administration they also have been using private emails. That doesn't include GOP members like Scott Walker, Marco Rubio etc. Seriously you can google and find many GOP members caught using their own private unsecured email.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Current WH staff setting up their own private accounts after the election to use for White House business was not a notable issue. It went away in a few days.
https://www.politico.com/story...
The Bush WH staff using a private server for WH communications during the sell-job for the Iraq War in 2002-2003, and then wiping the server, deleting 22 million emails rather than hand any over to the government records office, was not an issue. It went away in a few days at the time, and again in a few days during the 2016 election when Newsweek magazine attempted to revive the story:
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/0...
No, I am not waving my arms around crying conspiracy. The press really did harp on the HRC email story, some 30X as much coverage as "issues" got; but the thing is, people kept clicking on the stories; and not changing channels; and the press responds to that.
I really don't understand it and don't have a theory for why Americans are so fascinated with the slightest wrongs done by Democrats (I mean, FIVE investigations of Clinton firings in the WH travel office??) and so uninterested in the most jaw-dropping things done by the right, but they just are. I think Al Franken had it right, that the only press bias is a "sell eyeballs to advertisers" bias and the unfairness of it all must be laid at the feet of The People themselves. Truly, Americans have the government they deserve.
Here's my two "greatest hits" on that score:
1) Nixon's collusion with a foreign power (S. Vietnam) to ruin the 1968 Peace Talks to deny Democrats a win during the election campaign was called treason by some who became aware of his calls to them via CIA wiretaps:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... ...20,000 Americans died in the ensuing four years. (NB: Might have happened either way; but Nixon's *intent* was to extend the war.)
2) Eight news organizations paid to have the Florida ballots carefully and repeatedly recounted and found that Gore won no matter how you counted hanging chads and dimples and all that:
https://www.consortiumnews.com... ...the Washington Post put that story on page a10 and it was gone in a few days. I was actually unaware of it, and I'm a news junkie.
So that's what will happen to this story too. I don't know why it works this way with American news, but it does.
Both those links come from Jon Schwarz' eye-opening history in The Intercept last December: ...where Schwarz dryly notes that: ...and I'm sure that's part of it. But the news media can't control stories all THAT well. People really do just look away after a few days, from Republican malfeasance, all the way up to torture. Heck, Democrats look away from it, including Obama looking the other way on torture.
https://theintercept.com/2017/...
"For their part, the elite print and broadcast media accepted the right’s critique that they were – as huge profit-driven corporations naturally tend to be – horribly liberal. "
So this is nothing, and will be gone in a few days. QED. I'm willing to lay money on it if anybody is skeptical.
damn near all of them. This actually is a very old problem. Remember Spaceballs? Both King Vespa AND the president used the super secret access code of 1-2-3-4-5
obama had a special. unique blackberry with it own set of rules and requirement. President trump is not and has separate rules which according to this article he is following.
Apparently you read a different article. I quote:
The point is that he is not following the security rules that his security advisors have defined for how to keep his phone reasonably safe.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
the CEO takes direction from the Board of Directors. He serves at their discretion. The CEO is the person who handles the day-to-day operations but the Board votes to determine long term policy and direction. Its really the Board who should be most concerned by the shareholders, much like congress should be most concerned by the citizens. However with a whopping 11% approval rating, congress really does not give a shit and we keep electing the same assholes the entire time because they convince us its really the other guys fault. Fire anyone in their third term or later, put the rest on notice. Its never going to happen though. Too many people, as evidence by this thread, believe the problems lie 100% with the other party.
No, the simplest answer is most likely the correct one here; i.e. that he's just a dumb asshole.
You don't get control of the United States government by accident. You don't stumble into it ass over teakettle. He's an asshole with no interest or skill in governing, but enormous skill in promoting himself. He went through like six bankruptcies and still managed to acquire tens of millions of dollars, maybe even hundreds of millions. We have to stop falling for the trump's an idiot narrative. He's cunning as fuck and convincing opponents otherwise is how he disarms us.
Those are the donors she listed in her FEC filing.
You're saying her Federal Election Commission filings reporting those as her donors are Fraudulent Representation, a felony?
It costs a lot to run an election in the US. See: https://www.opensecrets.org/ov... The cost for the 2016 presidential election was $2,386,733,696, and the total cost, including congressional races, was $6,444,253,265. Do you any suggestion for how to or regulate election contributions, or for a different way to finance them?
If that were the case, "we were right" is all you would hear all day, every day, from the all the Bush Administration alums and the Republican party. You haven't.
Hint: chemical weapons degrade over time. If that mustard gas warhead that may have wiped out a small village in 1983 was about as dangerous in 2003 as getting a shot of Febreze in the face....it's not a weapon of mass destruction.
No person shall be eligible for elected office who is an assclown, nor any person who previously occupied the White House employed primarily to attack victims of sexual harassment.
That's my proposal for a 28th amendment. It covers Trump and Hillary.
I do have an idea which might be worthy of a limited trial. My idea certainly isn't perfect, but it might be better than the current cesspool. Might be worth testing it somehow.
The problem, of course, is that whoever pays for a candidates campaign tends to have a lot of influence on what that politician does in office.
Currently, We have several laws around campaign finance transparency, trying to allow everyone to know who is donating to candidates. For example, the list I posted above is from Hillary's FEC filings, showing she's funded mostly by Wall Street. Since we know she's bought and paid for by Wall Street, we can know what to expect. There are lot of loopholes and shenanigans around that - PACs, super PACs, etc. Hillary's 2016 strategy of funneling donations which would otherwise be illegal through state parties looks a lot like fraud, but apparently it was technically legal. So the current system isn't great.
Let's remind ourselves of what the problem is:
Whoever pays for a candidates campaign tends to have a lot of influence on what that politician does in office.
How about we try the Constanza approach and do the opposite of what we've been doing, instead of requiring things be disclosed. Instead all donations would be sent to the FEC. Once a month or once a quarter, the FEC would distribute the funds to campaigns, without revealing who the contributors were. The politicians wouldn't KNOW who was funding them, which would make it a lot harder for a politician to be bought and paid for. They'd only know they got $x million in contributions, with no information about who funded their campaigns, and therefore wouldn't owe anyone any favors. Rather than being unlawful to *not* disclose donors' names, it would be unlawful to disclose them, so that as far as the politicians can figure out, they work for "the people", not for certain big donors.
Again, that system wouldn't be perfect. It might be an improvement, though.
Does anyone remember last year, when Trump accidentally boasted about a secret CIA/Mossad operation that the grownups had told him about to the Russian ambassador in the Oval Office? I'm pretty sure ever since that event, they have dumbed down the daily intelligence briefings to the point that where doesn't matter anymore who listens in on it. And Trump now bases his "policy" decisions on Sean Hannity anyway.
At least an interesting thought, even if it would be hard to monitor the nondisclosure.
Read what you wrote and from other more reliable sources. They are quoting an anonymous AIDE, aides have a defined meaning in the whitehouse and would not be setting the rules; they are also not security advisors, again a role with specific meaning.
There is an IT communication office that set and follows the rules and they would not be called aides or advisors. They have not set rules for that one month turn in. That one month came because it was used under Obama because he had different equipment; again with different rules.
So what you have here is an article that is deliberately using terms from quotes that don't apply but written in a matter so that uninformed people will have something to complain about.
The Bush incident was huge news however you do have stupid hillary who after all the news from that still continued to do similar things.
So... you just choose to dismiss the article and ignore it. Okay. You're not worth talking to.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
A majority of voters in the last Presidential election decided that it was perfectly acceptable for the the Secretary of State, HRC, to send, receive and store classified emails and attachments (of all classification categories) on an insecure personal server from consumer devices (which were later wiped and crushed, apparently to secure their insecure devices as they were decommissioned)... so why is this a problem with President Trump sing an insecure flip phone to post his thoughts to twitter?
Ken
So? Hillary couldn't have done more for for Wall Street than Trump actually and truly did even she had spend all her time trying - if only because the Republican dominated congress would have blocked her. https://heavy.com/news/2017/01... - https://www.euractiv.com/secti...
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
I started reading your links. The first one was a breathless article about a couple of people "connected to Wall Street" in the Trump administration. The first guy they mentioned, the author connected him to Wall Street bases on the fact that in the 1980s he was a VP of a movie studio, Castle Rock entertainment. Seriously? THAT is what you're going to call "Wall Street", someone having a job in the movie industry 30 years ago makes them "Wall Street". The desperation is thick. I quit reading after that ridiculousness.
He's the head of the executive branch, which is the equivalent of a CEO. He absolutely has the power to ignore directives such as this. I'm not saying I think he's doing the right thing, but he can do it if he wants.
No he can't, see Nixon and/or Clinton f you need examples. There are rules which even the president has to follow.
President trump's are approved for a single purpose and he is following all the required rules.
The story is about Trump specifically *not* following all the rules.
I get not reading the article or the summary -- but skipping the title?
Required reading for internet skeptics
You mean the 22 million emails that were recovered on archival tape?
In the links you provided I didn't see much to suggest that these GOP members were using personal accounts for the sake of circumventing FOIA requests. We can agree that public disclosure for the sake of oversight is important. As noted by the Times article:
Officials are supposed to use government emails for their official duties so their conversations are available to the public and those conducting oversight. But it is not illegal for White House officials to use private email accounts as long as they forward work-related messages to their work accounts so they can be preserved.
Vote Beezlebub! He's much better than Satan! And don't give me any crap about both of them being evil incarnate. You have a choice and you damn well better choose the lesser of two evils!
"Vote for evil! It's the *adult* thing to do."
Seriously, what kind of fool says something like that? Must be a Demonrat or Repuglican partisan. Sorry bro, we don't want any of what you're selling.
You mean the 22 million emails that were recovered on archival tape?
So you're not denying that for a time that emails were "missing"? Why haven't you railed against the Bush administration for being so careless? Did you call for Bush to resign when they were found out to be missing? What about everyone else with the fiasco? Did you call on Congress to investigate them? See how that double standard works?
In the links you provided I didn't see much to suggest that these GOP members were using personal accounts for the sake of circumventing FOIA requests. We can agree that public disclosure for the sake of oversight is important. As noted by the Times article:
In your accusations I don't see any support for the idea that the use of a private email server was specifically to avoid FOIA requests. That's speculation on your part. The investigation could not find that as the reason either with the more plausible explanation was that it was simply easier for Clinton to set up a private server rather than deal with the IT bureaucracy. I see all the time in the private sector with one of my department heads going to Best Buy and buying some cheap desktops and expensing them rather than waiting for IT to order/build the desktops. The difference that there were no national security implications in my company only normal IT security.
Officials are supposed to use government emails for their official duties so their conversations are available to the public and those conducting oversight. But it is not illegal for White House officials to use private email accounts as long as they forward work-related messages to their work accounts so they can be preserved.
Yes and in the case of Clinton the way they recovered most of them were that she forwarded them from her normal account. But did you bring this up in defense of Hillary?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Is nobody worried that the President is basically using the same security methodology as a bank robber?
Burner phones. Zero trust. What have we come to.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Both cases involve email, therefore total equivalence? I mean, whats the difference between archival data being mislabeled, (assuming that was the case), and purposely destroying records after a preservation order has been issued? It's not even a decent whataboutism.
In your accusations I don't see any support for the idea that the use of a private email server was specifically to avoid FOIA requests. That's speculation on your part.
I guess I shouldn't be so cynical when career politicians become incredibly wealthy and start having these kind of shenanigans when it comes to their communications while in office. Even when their spouses are getting paid 500k for speeches. Nah, it was all just for convenience.
Both cases involve email, therefore total equivalence? I mean, whats the difference between archival data being mislabeled, (assuming that was the case), and purposely destroying records after a preservation order has been issued? It's not even a decent whataboutism.
No what you want is "total equivalence" and not some equivalence. The Bush email controversy:
Clinton email controversy
In some ways what the Bush administration did was worse; it was more wide-spread and
I guess I shouldn't be so cynical when career politicians become incredibly wealthy and start having these kind of shenanigans when it comes to their communications while in office. Even when their spouses are getting paid 500k for speeches. Nah, it was all just for convenience.
Again your assertions on top of your accusations. I don't trust any politician but I don't think you know what is in their mind any more than I do. From the investigation, the main reason cited was the Hillary wanted to use her Blackberry for emails instead of a desktop and that besides Obama's custom Blackberry no else had an adequately secured Blackberry who worked for the government.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Can they, though? It seems to me that a lot of voters hate 'both' parties and the political system in general and thus do not want to identify with them.
I wasn't referring to party affiliation, but rather how people tend to vote in a first-past-the-post system where the 'lesser evil' is the preferable choice.
The majority of voters voted for Hillary Clinton, which invalidates your claim.
There is the distinct possibility of Trump being a two term president, and the post I was originally replying to referred to the next election. The Dems seem incapable of reform, nay they seem to be doubling down, and there was the slashdot post to illustrate the attitude that in my personal opinion makes them insufferable even to middle of the road independents.
Again your assertions on top of your accusations.
Against your determination to hand wave using convenience as an excuse, while ignoring purposeful actions that point to a cover up. "lost for a time" vrs. lost for all time due to deliberate destruction in the face of congressional hearings. Lucky for us Platte River happened to back up those emails containing SAP level secret information to a cloud provider, huh?
So let's wait for the State Department to be forced to release more emails before the decade is up and possibly reveal something in black and white and not completely redacted that could even come close to your expectations of proof.
Against your determination to hand wave using convenience as an excuse, while ignoring purposeful actions that point to a cover up.
You have yet to provide any evidence of your accusations. When confronted with that, you point to a cover up.
"lost for a time" vrs. lost for all time due to deliberate destruction in the face of congressional hearings.
You are aware that it took a computer forensics team working under Obama to recover the Bush emails, right and that the Bush administration didn't provide the emails? And again are you equating 22 million emails among 88 individuals with one person? Because it would seem to me that 88 people would seem more like a conspiracy to me.
So let's wait for the State Department to be forced to release more emails before the decade is up and possibly reveal something in black and white and not completely redacted that could even come close to your expectations of proof.
You are aware that the State Department under Trump doesn't support your claim. Trump makes all sorts of outrageous claims himself but the current State Department does not. Seems like you are chasing windmills.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You have yet to provide any evidence of your accusations. When confronted with that, you point to a cover up.
Well that's amusing coming from someone who wants to claim convenience as the sole motivating factor for exclusively using a private server for state business. When not even the example of the destruction of the records despite a preservation order can possibly stand as evidence in your eyes, then it seems that you're only interested in moving the goal posts.
Because it would seem to me that 88 people would seem more like a conspiracy to me.
Well maybe. I wouldn't put it past the Cheney administration to want to avoid things being entered into the public record. But what was the opinion of Meredith Fuchs, an attorney for the National Security Archive?*
Asked if the losses of the e-mails were deliberate, neglectful or accidental, Fuchs said, "The Bush Administration had sloppy practices and they had no sense that it mattered.They way they handled it to me suggested they didn’t take their record preservation obligations seriously. To me, the way they dealt with us during the litigation signaled that."
Seems like negligence on the their part, but I don't see where highly classified information was stored on insecure devices.
Trump also doesn't have anything to do with the State dept. being sued to release these records in a timely manner, or with the original FOIA lawsuit that revealed the private email server to begin with.
tilting at windmills means attacking imaginary enemies. Unfortunately there is no lack of people who want to mislead or bury the truth to satisfy their own political preferences.
Well that's amusing coming from someone who wants to claim convenience as the sole motivating factor for exclusively using a private server for state business. When not even the example of the destruction of the records despite a preservation order can possibly stand as evidence in your eyes, then it seems that you're only interested in moving the goal posts.
No I claim that you are seemingly outraged that Clinton does something and ignores it when the GOP does it too. I claim that you are biased in this regard. If you were outraged that one does it, you should be outraged that the other one does as well. I claim you are trying to make distinctions to bolster your bias that don't exist.
Well maybe. I wouldn't put it past the Cheney administration to want to avoid things being entered into the public record. But what was the opinion of Meredith Fuchs, an attorney for the National Security Archive?*
That is irrelevant. What is important is your opinion. Were you outraged that you cannot access some of the Bush emails both when announced and today?
Seems like negligence on the their part, but I don't see where highly classified information was stored on insecure devices.
In 22 million emails from 88 individuals are you asserting that no classified information was stored on insecure devices? I don't know that they were but it seemed that was the least of the problems. Also with one of the people were the Chief of Staff and the VP so there is a high degree of likelihood that some emails may have been classified.
Trump also doesn't have anything to do with the State dept. being sued to release these records in a timely manner, or with the original FOIA lawsuit that revealed the private email server to begin with.
My point which you missed is that Trump makes a lot of claims. The State Dept does not share his claims. But to address your point, you are aware that Trump can order the State Dept to release the records, right?
tilting at windmills means attacking imaginary enemies. Unfortunately there is no lack of people who want to mislead or bury the truth to satisfy their own political preferences.
My point again is that you seem to ignore the transgressions of the GOP while focusing entirely on that of Hillary.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
My point again is that you seem to ignore the transgressions of the GOP while focusing entirely on that of Hillary.
Nope. I only started commenting on /. in the last few years. I hate the GOP. I hate everything they stand for with trying to enact crony capitalism and lying us into more war to serve the military industrial complex, and enabling mass surveillance by the not-so-PATRIOTic act. Can I criticize their counterpart the DNC and Hillary "we came we saw he died muhaha" Clinton now? Please? Pretty please?
Actually, no, I don't need your permission and your insinuations don't invalidate my claims. Trying to shift the focus on the person making the argument as a way to dispute facts is the typical diversionary tactic of a partisan shill. Stop acting like one.
Actually, no, I don't need your permission and your insinuations don't invalidate my claims. Trying to shift the focus on the person making the argument as a way to dispute facts is the typical diversionary tactic of a partisan shill. Stop acting like one.
No one claimed that you do. What I'm saying is that you seem so focused on Hillary doing something and again ignored or excused it when the GOP did it.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
This is a pure bullshit article.
What security you need for a phone that does nothing except tweet?
The same security you need for the phone that Obama used not to tweet on the toilet at 5 AM after checking infowars on it (did you forget the news pages?) Why should Trump be spared from the security Obama had to endure just because he doesn't feel like it?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Once a month or once a quarter, the FEC would distribute the funds to campaigns, without revealing who the contributors were.
What's to stop the contributors from telling the candidate?
If we make that illegal (under some "election influencing" law), I will expect a lot of "hacks" of company/private servers, which we are apparently powerless to stop already, which will leak and make public the details of contributions.
People will always break laws, and that can't be stopped.
Right now we make it illegal to not tell, and people break and avoid that law. We can only try to reduce the problems.
If contributions went through the FEC or similar as I mentioned, and were released in large bundles there would be no way for a candidate to *confirm* any contribution, and they would only have the names of the relatively few people who violate federal law by telling them. 99% would probably follow the law, so that reduces "buying politicians" by 99%.
Also, current law punishes what isn't said, what nobody knows about. The other way around would be punishing telling. It's easier to find out what was said than to find out what wasn't said.
> I will expect a lot of "hacks" of company/private servers, which we are apparently powerless to stop already, which will leak and make public the details of contributions.
That situation would happen every so often.
Under current law, it happens every time, it's required by law.
If it's bad for politicians to be influenced by who is donating, I'd prefer that happen 1% of the time than 100% of the time.
Thanks for the additional information
> I'm just saying that it's easier to keep things that are public, public indefinitely than it is to keep things private, private indefinitely.
I'm not sure why you said "indefinitely", a couple years is what's needed, but that's true anyway.
Of course, if someone wants to hide it, it's trivially easy to do so. Suppose I give you $10. Over the course of the next week, you do a lot of things with money, buying groceries, paying your bills, etc. A week later you give Bob $10. Is there any connection between the fact that you gave Bob $10 and me giving you $10? There's no way for anyone to know. So it's pretty easy to hide who the actual donor is - just send it through a third party such as your lawyer. There are some laws that make that slightly inconvenient, so it takes a few minutes to arrange the transactions, but it's fundamentally impossible to prevent.
What's funny to me is that what the current system is supposed to do, it doesn't do. All of Hillary's big donors are Wall Street firms. In theory, that means the public knows she's bought and paid for by Wall Street. In fact, very few people actually know that. She reports it (sometimes), but nobody pays any attention to it.
I say sometimes she reports contributions because of things like in the most recent election she sent a ton of contributions through state parties. On the paperwork, the Democratic Party Of New York contributed $X million to Clinton. It's just a coincidence that George Soros donated $X million to the Democratic Party Of New York, 24 hours before they sent the same amount of money to Clinton.