Slashdot Mirror
China, Russia Are Listening To Trump's Phone Calls, Says NYT Report (thehill.com)
Rick Zeman writes: According to The New York Times, the Chinese are regularly listening to Donald Trump's cellphone calls (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source). While he has two NSA-hardened iPhones, and a secure landline, he insists on using a consumer-grade iPhone -- even while knowing he's being eavesdropped upon -- because it has his contact list on it. "White House officials say they can only hope he refrains from discussing classified information when he is on them," reports the New York Times. But, officials were also confident that "he was not spilling secrets because he rarely digs into the details of the intelligence he is shown and is not well versed in the operational specifics of military or covert activities"; in other words, security through ignorance. The article mentions the rationale is to be able to listen to his calls to find out what and whom influences him, and that the Russians also listen in, albeit with less frequency because of his unique relationship with Vladimir Putin.
Dumbest. Traitor. EVER.
Me Chinese, me have drone
Me listen to trump cell phone
BUT HER EMAILS!!!
Obama!
Benghazi!
Something!
Anybody else getting tired of the horse-stuff?
Back channels.
Trump calls Putin after finishing his KFC dinner to bitch about how everyone is mean to him?
the best phone calls, the best
What a naive dumbass you are. Unsurprisingly.
When he said "Blow her up", he meant his inflatable sex doll.
Why use long words when a short one will do?
traitorous
Heaven help us!
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Rather than attack the messenger, please point to the evidence contradicting the story's evidence. Not everybody automatically responds positively to, "it's fake news!"
Are you forgetting who it is we're discussing here? This is the guy that blathers all over Twitter constantly, in defiance of all logic and reason, contradicting official Policy, even contradicting himself, attacking friend and foe alike, and so on, and so on, and so on. How is it so far outside the realm of possibility that he's blathering about State Secrets and other classified subjects on an unsecured phone?
They're all sitting around playing a drinking game and laughing every time he says something stupid. OK, Vlad, you have to drink, he just said he is going to make Mexico pay for the wall! Laughter ensues.
What makes you say that? Do you have specific evidence or is this one of those, "They don't say what I want to hear so they're not credible" things?
If the president prefer his old phone because of his contact list... why can't he import it? I means that would be a good start?
We tried to tell them way back when, even pointing out the implications, but Don the Con isn't very bright.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
So it is no big deal.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Just waiting for the GOP talking points that prove it, but I already know it. #MAGA
Plus this "relationship" with Putin nonsense.
There is STILL zero evidence that Trump has any "relationship" with Putin at all, except as one statesman to another.
Let's remember that Obama and his crew met with Putin rather regularly.
This is his Twitter phone.
The tweets are public.
They already ran this story months ago.
why don't they copy his contact list to the hardened iphones? duh!
When you discover a recording device or a phone tap, you don't necessarily want to simply disconnect or destroy it...
After all, someone has to *listen* to the results of that bug/tap. So instead of signaling that you've found and disabled their listening device, just flood it with misinformation. Tie up their resources, confuse their intelligence agencies, and so on....
Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
I wish I could believe that the president has been doing this as some sort of Corbomite Maneuver.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
Not to mention President Trump has been a lot tougher on Russia than his predecessor, including military support for the Ukraine, military opposition in Syria, sanctions on individuals and the country, and more. But somehow I guess that's Putin being a 5D chess master to make Trump punish Putin just to put on a show?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
ANYTIME you use a cell phone you are subject to monitoring. The only difference here is that Trump is of high interest and is thus a big target.
Then there is the whole "We don't know if he's discussing classified stuff because he's not very clued in, but we warned him about this" quote... Really? Is this was passes for journalism these days? These are obviously opinions and not facts. Follow that up with "he's not reading his briefings" and I'm supposed to be aghast at his incompetence? Um, doesn't he have a cabinet and staff to keep tabs on the nitty gritty details and call the important stuff to his attention? A good manager hires folks he can trust and his direct reports, well, report do they not? Are they not doing this?
The person quoted doesn't know for sure what POTUS has been reading or what he is discussing on his personal cell phone. The article obviously states the POTUS has other secure options available for "sensitive" discussions, I'm going to guess he actually uses them.
So where I'm sure the Chinese eagerly await their next Trump cell phone intercept, I seriously doubt they get much specific intelligence from them. But if we are honest, nobody but the Chinese know for sure. Certainly the reporter doesn't know anything for sure as his source(s) are not able to say anything except that POTUS has an unprotected I-Phone that he uses and cannot vouch for even one conversation he's had on it.
Journalism and journalistic standards have long ago ceased to be... Replaced by Tabloid stories and rumors... How far we have fallen.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Thatâ(TM)s not fair!
So iPhone lets you "listen in" on the conversations? Someone tell Tim Cook, he doesn't know.
Really, guys, NYT is a fucking joke. This is very obvious, 100% uncorroborated, made up bullshit.
I would tend to disagree with your sentiment about NYT, but you've got me on this one.
Didn't have to look too hard. Arranged a deal with the security service whereby he used it for personal and non sensitive stuff only, on the provisor it got a security package installed. Same concerns over Russian and Chinese eavesdropping. Partisan much?
Because that was a custom, security enhanced device. The very article you quote points out "they acquiesced as long as the president — and those corresponding with him — agreed to strict rules. And he had to agree to use a specially made device, which must be approved by national security officials"
Trump is using unsecured, off the shelf iphones.
Actually, numerous Stingray like devices have been detected around the White House.
TFA is based on the assumption that any consumer grade cell phone can be monitored at will by the Chinese and Russians.
So the NSA and FBI can't crack your calls, but the Chinese can. Sure. Whatever.
Also, even if everyone in the White House is too dumb to use auto-sync, how hard would it be to have an intern type Donald's contact list into a secure phone?
"The President does something that is bad but it's okay because all smart people know he is dumb."
This site is half n half. Half liberals and half libertarian Trump-tards.
Could this be related to the news story of a large number of Stingrays or fake cell towers in the DC area?
"Trump - Whitehouse Apprentice" is now the top-rated reality comedy show in Russia.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Every single little inane thought that runs through Trump's head ends up on his Twitter feed as fast as his little fingers can type it.
So iPhone lets you "listen in" on the conversations? Someone tell Tim Cook, he doesn't know.
Of course it's possible to listen in on a conversation on a standard phone. They're not encrypted, after all. Do you really think it would be difficult for an actor with the resources of China or Russia to gain access to a telecom server?
Bullshit. From the TFA:
American spy agencies, the officials said, had learned that China and Russia were eavesdropping on the presidentâ(TM)s cellphone calls from human sources inside foreign governments and intercepting communications between foreign officials.
More importantly do you want him connecting to sites like Twitter with an NSA secured phone? And how much classified information has leaked to the press since he became president?
love is just extroverted narcissism
TBH I don't think so.I think they are just disproportionatly loud on this site. But give any article a bit if time and then scroll down bast all the mindless vitriol and much of the rest of the discussion is a fair bit more balanced reasonable again.
What EVIDENCE does the story (heh) present?
We heard somebody say...
It's BS on its face or have we forgotten that its up to the asserter to prove the assertion - not for somebody to prove a negative.
The point is not just that DT kept his iphone. Its that there is concrete intel that his convos. on it *are* being spied and acted on by adversaries.
From the TFA: American spy agencies, the officials said, had learned that China and Russia were eavesdropping on the presidentâ(TM)s cellphone calls from human sources inside foreign governments and intercepting communications between foreign officials.
There IS NO EVIDENCE in the story.
None.
It is entirely based on an anonymous source that provided nothing but a statement. A statement that, if actually given by an cleared employee, is a felony - revealing that the US knows how China and Russia are monitoring The President's phone, and what they are trying to learn from it.
This is not news. This is not even "fake news". This is rumormongering.
Who made a claim that the FBI or NSA can't "crack your calls," and what exactly do you mean by that term? Do you think that it's not possible to eavesdrop on a cellular call to any arbitrary phone in the world anymore? If it's not possible, then why do there exist "hardened" devices?
Also, even if everyone in the White House is too dumb to use auto-sync, how hard would it be to have an intern type Donald's contact list into a secure phone?
Shouldn't be hard at all, so why isn't he using a hardened device?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
They have to regularly rotate out those listening to Trump phone calls. "I can't take it! I just can't take it!"
Trump is a living breathing Forrest Gump.
Who's on top?
You people are something else! I guess the election results will determine which set of wackos is the winner
#MAGAbomber
Can you think of a better way to spread disinformation about what the US is planning, then by letting everyone listen to the president?
But I do worry about how the Chinese will react when they hear Trump telling someone that the Chinese love him so much that he's been declared president of China for life.
They figured it out because of an insanely high suicide rate among signals intelligence personnel.
Did you actually read the article you posted? It kind of undermines your own argument. Some salient points, emphasis mine ** :
But critics would argue that’s not enough, pointing to his delays implementing congressional sanctions and frequent praise of Putin’s leadership, as well as the reluctance to act on Moscow’s cyber aggression. They’ve also cited U.S. intelligence conclusions that the Kremlin meddled in the U.S. election in favor of Trump.
In August 2017, Trump signed into law the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA, despite calling it “seriously flawed.” **He then bypassed a congressionally mandated deadline in January to act on the bill** and impose new sanctions on Russia for the election allegations.
Also in March, following the poisoning of former KGB agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the U.K., the Trump administration expelled 60 Russian diplomats from the U.S., **although reports indicated he was not happy with the move.**
In early July, Trump seemed to challenge the long-held U.S. policy of refusing to recognize Moscow’s Crimea annexation, saying only in response to questions on the issue: “We’ll see.” He also reportedly argued to officials at June’s G-7 summit that Crimea should belong to Russia because “everyone there speaks Russian.”
Washington's UN ambassador Nikki Haley promptly promised further sanctions against Russia for its refusal to condemn the chemical attack — only to be left hanging when Trump walked back his threat and no new sanctions were imposed.
He talks a big game sometimes but hasn't really done much, and in a few cases like the CAATSA act, signed it and then refused to implement it. Not so tough.
It better be difficult. And even if weren't, there's _no way_ NYT would know about the existence of any such access. Use your critical thinking skills, if you have any.
Clinton's emails...pushing terrorists definitely puts you in a certain...need of security.
you're joking right? even wannabe comsecs know all consumer grade baseband processors have the ability to enable the microphone and listen at will. the fake news here is that he even needs to be using the phone, it just needs to be in the same room as him. Russia and China own every part of us infrastructure now. It comes with being the new rulers of the world.
You don't remember that? I do. Anyway, maybe this is the reason the press didn't get all German over it, from the article you linked to:
"The president has a BlackBerry through a compromise that allows him to stay in touch with senior staff and a small group of personal friends," said Robert Gibbs, his spokesman, "in a way that use will be limited and that the security is enhanced to ensure his ability to communicate."
First, only a select circle of people will have his address, creating a true hierarchy for who makes the cut and who does not.
Second, anyone placed on the A-list to receive his e-mail address must first receive a briefing from the White House counsel’s office.
Third, messages from the president will be designed so they cannot be forwarded.
There's also this:
Mr. Obama received his BlackBerry on Tuesday, but officials declined to specify what kind.
Imagine that, he was using a device that they gave him, not a consumer-grade device.
While lawyers and the Secret Service balked at Mr. Obama's initial requests to allow him to keep his BlackBerry, they acquiesced as long as the president - and those corresponding with him - agreed to strict rules. And he had to agree to use a specially made device, which must be approved by national security officials.
Let me know if you're still confused about the difference between that and Trump. You could also just actually read the articles that you link to. Or, if you just needed to get your what-about-ism out, hopefully you feel better now.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
So selling weapons to the Ukraine, firing on Syrian/Russian troops, cutting off funds, that's all "nothing" - mainly because it doesn't go far enough? And just what the heck did President Obama do in 2014 when it was told Russia was going to interfere? The fact is that President Trump is taking action; some may decide it's not enough, but it's a massive increase from the previous Administration who sat around and let Russia do what they wanted, with tacit approval.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Hopefully they aren't reading his tweets. Thoses things are painfully humiliating for him.
Some example attacks: https://www.zdnet.com/article/...
https://alter-attack.net/
https://thehackernews.com/2018...
President Trump uses two phones, just like President Obama did. Just like I said - this is no different, but for some reason we have to attack because Trump. And we can't bring up these facts because they don't play to the agenda of attacking the President (yes, this IS, in fact, fake news in that it is nothing different than the previous Administration).
This is an unsubstantiated hit piece NYT article from Maggie Haberman, who teed up story after story for Hillary Clinton. How objective is she, given she worked hand-in-hand with the Clinton campaign?
This is a pure political hit-piece trying to drum up anything they can to affect the November elections. You want to talk about collusion and meddling? Look no further than "articles" like this...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Probably because there's a lot of (shady) people on his contact list he doesn't want made public?
It's not that it is fake news. It's that they have published too many faulty stories that have been retracted. It's one thing to make a mistake and make a retraction. Quite another to appear malicious to truth in pursuit of narrative repeatedly and hide behind a hollow apology.
When I see a news source make the same mistakes, I take note and take everything they say with a grain of salt afterword. I don't remember ever instance but an overall sense of distrust.
How and what news is reported is just as important as reporting it.
Same thing with CNN, MSNBC, FOX, Brietbart, and NPR. They are the same to me just on different political sides and how they apply their bias and push "fake news" and narratives.
Leaks because of #resist?
Correlation != causation.
I don't remember all the sturm und drang from the NY Times when President Obama kept his Blackberry.
I'm not sure what your point is. I conjecture you're arguing this: "critique of Obama for using his blackberry came from Fox but not NYT; therefore Fox and not NYT should be the ones critiquing Trump for using his iPhone"? (in which case, are you berating Fox or NYT or both?)
Or are you saying that the NYT and Fox comments about Obama's blackberry touched only on hypothetical attack vectors conjectured by security experts, but this article is about reports of actual and present and successful attacks on Trump, and you're wondering why the difference?
"who spoke on the condition of anonymity so they could discuss classified intelligence and sensitive security arrangements."
Full of irony.
First irony, supposed intelligence officials complain about Trump supposedly spilling protected intelligence information while spilling protected intelligence information themselves.
Second irony, an anonymous coward saying you can't trust anonymous sources. At least in the second case if I'm lying I'm kinda just proving my point in that anonymous sources can't be trusted.
How this got modded insightful I can't even guess. Of *course* it will let you in. So will *any* consumer grade phone. It's called "phone tapping". Whether it's on the phone itself, a hijack on the carrier's network, or using a picocell to perform a MITM attack, it's actually very easy for anyone who cares enough to do so.
Law enforcement do it all the time, for pete's sake.
I think the larger issue is that it was the unanimous opinion of the 16 agencies in the intelligence community that Russia was actively attacking US democratic processes, and Trump, in public, while standing right next to Putin, after a private meeting that no one else was allowed to attend, said "President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be." So Trump chose to not believe his own intelligence agencies, all 16 of them, and instead side with the Russian dictator.
You might want to bring up the prepared statement that he later read when he said that he actually meant the exact opposite of what he said, but if you believe that prepared statement that he read on camera instead of the live answer he gave to the reporter who asked the question, then I think you're giving a pathological liar the benefit of the doubt. That's probably not the wisest thing to do.
Someone is actually keeping track of how many times Trump lies or makes misleading statements while he's been in office, and the total is over 5,000 so far. He has a documented history going back decades of not telling the truth. So, hopefully your counter-argument doesn't require people to believe him when he said, reading from a prepared statement, that he actually meant the exact opposite of what he previously said. Because, either way, whether it was the original answer or the follow-up statement, he said something that wasn't true. So hopefully you're not asking us to just take his word for it.
Also, in case you're getting the urge to bring up something that Obama did, this has nothing to do with Obama. Obama's actions do not excuse Trump's actions.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
FYI, this discussion made me curious to see if there are anything like 'rankings' for news sources, and I came upon this very interesting site:
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/
They do very detailed content-based analysis and are responsible for what is apparently a now very well cited graph. (https://www.adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Media-Bias-Chart_4.0_8_28_2018-min.jpg)
It's interesting cause they go into depth regarding their methodology and it seems pretty solid.
Incidentally, NYT is categorized as "slightly left leaning" and "factual".
...big deal every thing ends up on tweeter anyway.
You are a 100% fucking moron. The iphone doesn't allow you to listen in to conversations, the telephone network does. Domestic law enforcement does it all the time and foreign agents have their methods as well, just like the ones we use to try to listen in on their conversations. Judges routinely issue warrants to tap phone calls. Mobile phones can also be tapped by using Stingray devices like those used by law enforcement. How you can possibly think that listening in on phone conversations is made up bullshit is completely beyond me.
You should keep in mind that the iPhone is a single piece in the communications chain. Those "hardened iPhones" would have end-to-end security.
But for the point you're actually trying to push:
NYT is a fucking joke.
This is very obvious, 100% uncorroborated, made up bullshit.
Couldn't have set that up better if I tried.
How about a taste of just one other, slightly more informed opinion:
A Politico article states Donald Trump has frequently criticized The New York Times on his Twitter account. Trump labels the NYT as “fake news”, “naive”, “dumb”, and “the failing New York Times.” However, CNBC reports the company has shown strong growth by adding 157,000 new digital subscriptions in the last quarter of 2017.
[...]
Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on word and story selection that favors the left, but highly factual and considered one of the most reliable sources for information due to proper sourcing and well respected journalists/editors.
Cut and paste of the usual academic articles again:
A Measure of Media Bias [Groseclose, Milyo, 2004]
Media Bias and Reputation [Gentzkow, Shapiro, 2005]
Presidents and Front-page News - How America's Newspapers Cover the Bush Administration [Peake, 2007]
The Presidency and Local Media - Local Newspaper Coverage of President George W. Bush [Eshbaugh-Soha, Peake, 2008]
Who's the Fairest of them All - An Empirical Test for Partisan Bias on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News [Groeling, 2008]
What Drives Media Slant - Evidence from US Daily Newspapers [Gentzkow, Shapiro, 2010]
When Corrections Fail [Nyhan, Neifler, 2010]
Exploring media bias with semantic analysis tools - validation of the Contrast Analysis of Semantic Similarity [Holtzman, Schott, et al., 2010]
Opening the Political Mind [Nyhan, Reifler, 2011]
Shifting Ideologies - Re-examining Media Bias [Gasper, 2011]
THE NEWS MEDIA AS NETWORKED POLITICAL ACTORS - Italian politics [Vaccari, 2011]
Critique of Groseclose-Milyo [Nyhan, 2012]
tl;dr: Newspapers are biased to their local audience. TV is biased left, except for Fox news which is just as biased, but to the right. BBC and Al Jazeera are the least biased (on non-MENA topics).
TFA is based on the assumption that any consumer grade cell phone can be monitored at will by the Chinese and Russians.
So the NSA and FBI can't crack your calls, but the Chinese can. Sure. Whatever.
Also, even if everyone in the White House is too dumb to use auto-sync, how hard would it be to have an intern type Donald's contact list into a secure phone?
If we can pick up transmissions from probes in the outer reaches of the solar system we can presumably build satellites that hover over any place on earth we want them to and listen in on cellphone networks. If you can then crack any encryption that cellphone network might use, all you then need to do is to use network metadata find calls to and from from phones you are interested in. Throw in a a voice recognition system and you can actually search for specific individuals using burner phones you don't know about and then target those phones for signal intercepts. If the US security services are worried about Trump's phones being insecure it is because considerably greater more stable geniuses than Donald J. Trump will ever be have reached the conclusion that there is every reason to worry about his calls being intercepted.
China’s effort is a 21st-century version of what officials there have been doing for many decades, which is trying to influence American leaders by cultivating an informal network of prominent businesspeople and academics who can be sold on ideas and policy prescriptions and then carry them to the White House. The difference now is that China, through its eavesdropping on Mr. Trump’s calls, has a far clearer idea of who carries the most influence with the president, and what arguments tend to work.
The Chinese and the Russians “would look for any little thing — how easily was he talked out of something, what was the argument that was used,” said John Sipher, a 28-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency who served in Moscow in the 1990s and later ran the agency’s Russia program.
Trump friends like Mr. Schwarzman, who figured prominently in the first meeting between President Xi Jinping of China and Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago, the president’s Florida resort, already hold pro-China and pro-trade views, and thus are ideal targets in the eyes of the Chinese, the officials said. Targeting the friends of Mr. Schwarzman and Mr. Wynn can reinforce the views of the two, the officials said. The friends are also most likely to be more accessible.
The Chinese are listening in on his social contacts. Just what are the odds they have military security level phones ? If they didn't get him on one end they would have gotten him on the other.
My question was the Times ignorant or deliberate in not bothering to talk about that aspect of the security equation ?
This comment is so mind-bogglingly stupid that I feel like it must be a joke. What rock have you been living under your whole life? Phones get tapped every day and that wasn't even a secret before Edward Snowden. The police do it, the US government does it, foreign governments do it, criminals do it. If you are using the public telephone network without special equipment to encrypt your communications then it's trivial to listen to your conversations. That's why they setup secure lines that the President is supposed to use in the first place.
Please point to the evidence substantiating NYT's claims.
Is there a bias chart for organizations that make media bias charts?
It got modded insightful because the world is full of fucking morons. Who didn't know that you could tap phone conversations? Really??
If we can pick up transmissions from probes in the outer reaches of the solar system we can presumably build satellites that hover over any place on earth we want them to...
It's quicker and easier just to say "I've never studied physics." (However, by conserving energy - cha-ching - you've demonstrated a knowledge of thermodynamics...)
would you say anything worth hearing over the phone in question ?
Or, if you know or suspect someone is listening do something fun instead and follow Reagan's lead . . . . . .
" We begin bombing in five minutes "
* * * * *
I know this is Slashdot and folks spend all day long hating on Trump ( hell, it's usually the FIRST
several posts regardless of topic ), but he possesses a trait that no one was really prepared for. . . .
His behavior is so chaotic / unpredictable no one really knows how to respond to him. Is he joking ?
Is he serious ? He says one thing today, only to contradict it tomorrow. ( Maybe . . . lol )
Is it all a game to keep everyone off balance ?
He may go to bed every night laughing to himself about how confused he keeps everyone around him.
Christ you are a retard. From your article:
“in a way that use will be limited and that the security is enhanced to ensure his ability to communicate.”
+
And he had to agree to use a specially made device, which must be approved by national security officials.
Many of "her emails" were classified, unlike whatever Trump is talking about on the phone (as per the summary). Does Trump look like the kind of guy that goes into specifics over the phone?
In fact what would be far more Trump-like is him knowing the Chinese were listening, and leading them on in some ways... you have to wonder what he's said about tariffs with others knowing the Chinese were listening in.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you can then crack any encryption that cellphone network might use ...
You might want to read up on modern cryptography before you spout any more nonsense.
Unless the Chinese have a Universe full of Planck-scale supercomputers, and a billion years to run them, they aren't going to crack the crypto.
FAKE NEWS
Well stated.
Now, as to the Chinese listening in, the most valuable piece of intelligence they would get from listening to Trump chat on the phone is that he really is as idiotic as he seems.
Yes, they are tapped BY THE NSA. I seriously doubt a foreign agent can just walk in and tap the phone of US President, _which NSA fucking monitors_ 24x7 if they're any good at what they do.
The hardware to do this obviously is going to include more than an iPhone, but any phone is a receiver of radio signals, and the hardware is there to filter for the desired signal. On can image that the phone can be hacked to filter for singnal based on transmission IMSI instead of destination.
I will agree there is no news here. Every responsible government is monitoring the communications of every other government, in particular the head of government. Because Trump follows none of the safety protocols, and because interception has become so routine, we must assume that every government has a recording of every conversation he has. To do anything less would be irresponsible to the point of negligence.
Yes, the specifics may be inaccurate, and we can argue semantics, but the basic security issue is undeniable, and the fix is simple. The reality is that Trump is putting the nation at risk by refusing to follow protocol.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Doesn't matter unless you gather the private keys of every data service he uses. Modern networks even encrypt dial-up voice, which I doubt he uses this phone for.
TFA is based on the assumption that any consumer grade cell phone can be monitored at will by the Chinese and Russians.
Did you RTFA? It's based on intelligence developed by US agencies:
Basically, the reporters talked to some sources in the NSA and CIA and they were told "The Chinese are totally listening in on Trump's cell phone calls, we hear them talking about it all the time when we're eavsdropping on them" and then they talked to some White House officials who said "We tried to take his phones but Trump doesn't like to be told what to do". The article didn't speculate about the method used to intercept the calls so what are you basing your above statement on?
Enigma
The linked article in the OP says 3 phones, not two, and his phones are unsecured, whereas obama’s Had all kinds of controls applied (e.g. removing the camera and microphone, etc.).
Quit spouting drivel.
No, it's assholes all the way down, asshole.
Stop with all that Natsie talk. This is goddamned Merica and here we fucking speak English so get the fuck outta here with your ching chong bullshit, Gerry Gew.
Yeah, the Evolutionary Missing Link has it, you knuckledragging cavemen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ....is not the world's most secure protocol.
The article itself is probably bullshit. Trump isn't smart enough to download malicious aps on his iPhone. And aids will check it from time to time.
But the Chinese might well be monitoring the phones of the people that he is calling.
If China AND Russia are listening to ALL calls that Trump makes on a private cell phone, that means that we are freely giving all domestic and international call streams to China AND Russia, we KNOW about it and we DON'T DO ANYTHING about it.
This doesn't pass the sniff test.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
TFA is based on the assumption that any consumer grade cell phone can be monitored at will by the Chinese and Russians.
This strawman argument is completely made up. This assumption never appears in the article. Instead the article says, "American spy agencies, the officials said, had learned that China and Russia were eavesdropping on the president’s cellphone calls from human sources inside foreign governments and intercepting communications between foreign officials." Of course, each reader is free to discount the competence of American intelligence agencies, like our President does.
The Chinese strategy is not to learn nuggets of classified information. Instead, "the officials said they have also determined that China is seeking to use what it is learning from the calls — how Mr. Trump thinks, what arguments tend to sway him and to whom he is inclined to listen — to keep a trade war with the United States from escalating further. In what amounts to a marriage of lobbying and espionage, the Chinese have pieced together a list of the people with whom Mr. Trump regularly speaks in hopes of using them to influence the president, the officials said."
Perhaps the most interesting idea from the article is "Russia is not believed to be running as sophisticated an influence effort as China because of Mr. Trump’s apparent affinity for President Vladimir V. Putin, a former official said." That is, Mr. Xi can only dream of being like Putin. So, instead Xi needs spy tactics to learn which Americans to taint, but Putin can talk to his American friend directly.
Don't forget pulling out of the intermediate range nuclear ballistic treaty. That one pissed Russia off.
He also torpedoed the Iran deal. Iran and Russia have been cooperating together, so that may have pissed off Russia.
That's not the point, the point is that when Obama did it, there was no criticism, or critics were shouted down as racist. Now suddenly the same actions that were no big deal are a huge problem. It's good to point this out as often as possible.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re "evidence contradicting the story's evidence"
The budget of the NSA every year? When not spying domestically and globally they should be keeping US gov communications very secure.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
So he can impress his totalitarian buddies with the cool stuff he gets to know about.
> I think the larger issue is that it was the unanimous opinion of the 16 agencies in the intelligence community that Russia was actively attacking US democratic processes, and Trump, in public, while standing right next to Putin, after a private meeting that no one else was allowed to attend, said "President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be." So Trump chose to not believe his own intelligence agencies, all 16 of them, and instead side with the Russian dictator.
You mean 17 organizations. But that was the ODNI director, a political appointee, speaking for everyone and the report sorta handwaived about it being consistent with Russia's goals, without presenting any factual basis for said assessment or even making any sort of argument. Finally, I wonder what special expertise ODNI member organizations like the Coast Guard bring to that assessment. Maybe that's why you dropped one of the member organizations?
Sorry, I actually read the ODNI report and it didn't say anything remotely interesting, nor did it elaborate any sort of factual basis for those opinions. It's telling that the only thing most people remember about it is the number of organizations involved--assuming they even remember that part correctly, of course...
Right because Fox news and Briebart are so reputable
http://saveie6.com/
You might be enlightened by this chart. "CNN, MSNBC, FOX, Brietbart [sic], and NPR" are not "the same."
All news sources make mistakes. The better ones publish corrections. The worse ones may not care about the truth, because it's part of their mission to misinform.
Fake news is created by fake reporters. It is not the same as news with errors. It is a deliberate fabrication, intended to provoke fear, anger, or confusion, the kind of emotions a populist authoritarian tries to exploit in order to take office. Sound like anyone familiar?
The FBI and the NSA. They have repeatedly said they can't monitor phones, and need backdoors.
I believe you’re conflating two different things. The FBI has said they need back doors to get at the encrypted contents on the phones. But I’ve never heard any claim that cell phone calls are particularly secure, unless the person is using an encrypted technology (e.g. FaceTime).
Now as to why the President insists on using his personal phone instead of the two different hardened phones he’s been provided - God only knows.
#DeleteChrome
If you think Breitbart and MSNBC are on the same level you're a dumbass.
TFA is based on the assumption that any consumer grade cell phone can be monitored at will by the Chinese and Russians.
This strawman argument is completely made up. This assumption never appears in the article. Instead the article says, "American spy agencies, the officials said, had learned that China and Russia were eavesdropping on the president’s cellphone calls from human sources inside foreign governments and intercepting communications between foreign officials." Of course, each reader is free to discount the competence of American intelligence agencies, like our President does.
I discount their honesty, not their competence. Intelligence agencies are not above lying to get results.
It may not even be an intelligence agency. A smart person who wished Trump would behave better might call the NYT and say: "I work at the CIA. We have intel that the Chinese are bugging Trump." Those two little lies may be the only way to make Trump start using a secure line.
You mean like Mannafort and several others who pleaded guilty??! Jesus folks only watch Fox News I swear
http://saveie6.com/
NYT hates trump and is propagating the BS that none of us actually voted for him and those that did are deplorables.
fuck off NYT
+1 sarcasm, funny.
Everyone hates Trump besides Republicans.
Incorrect. There are oodles of Republicans that hate Trump.
That's why much of the nation voted for him, because they know he was disliked by both "sides", where there existed only false choice before. Trump was the sand in the gears of the machine that would not stop no matter which lever you pulled.
It shows outside your Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Hannity bubble that the New York Times is reputable
I read a lot more NYT than I ever look at any of the other things you mentioned, because I am an independent I actually pay attention to multiple opinions instead of proclaiming the farts trapped in my bubble of choice have a much sweeter scent than the OTHER bubble.
the country is run by a dangerous psychological Ill man with an IQ of 100 and incompetent but you refuse to see
Talk about refusing to see! Two Supreme Court justices in place, tax cuts passed, an economy doing quite well and soon overcoming Democrats in a non-presidential year that was supposed to be theirs.
The only incompetent person here is the one that cannot look at what is happening with objectivity instead of (literal) blind rage and hate.
Abandon hate friend, and you too may yet be free...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Does it really matter anymore what Trump says? Most of the words that come out of his mouth are "pants on fire" lies, and the rest are just puffery.
Mobile networks secure? Bwahahaha. Nice joke!
Yeah gotta love those anonymous sources familiar with the matter. This reporting isn't even up to Wikipedia standards, and it seems this is becoming the increasing trend in corporate journalism.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
... The FBI has said they need back doors to get at the encrypted contents on the phones. But I’ve never heard any claim that cell phone calls are particularly secure
Good point.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Perhaps the most interesting idea from the article is "Russia is not believed to be running as sophisticated an influence effort as China because of Mr. Trump’s apparent affinity for President Vladimir V. Putin, a former official said." That is, Mr. Xi can only dream of being like Putin. So, instead Xi needs spy tactics to learn which Americans to taint, but Putin can talk to his American friend directly.
I disagree with the article. I think the Russian influence is based in social media, and (IMHO) is a sophisticated influence effort that has been going on for years. The Chinese effort is a "top-down" approach: influence the few rich & powerful people that influence Trump. The Russians are using a bottom-up approach: influence the less astute but more numerous voters. Make up in shear numbers what you lack in precision. Kinda makes sense from the folks that gave us the RDS-220 Tsar Bomba.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
There's no evidence that 16 agencies of the "intelligence community" held a unanimous opinion that Russia was attacking "the democratic process". That was fake news propaganda. Educate yourself: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
Sure! I'm glad you asked.
If you had bothered to read the article, you would have noticed that the allegation is that the communications are intercepted en route, not at the device itself. But since you were so eager to defend someone who is actually a chump, I guess we should expect some bias and dishonesty from you.
If it's being intercepted en route, then I doubt the NSA-hardened cell phones are going to do any better... After all, I doubt they're actually encrypting the calls--that doesn't seem likely to be technically feasible if these phones use the standard cell network.
However, there is no sane reason for not having gotten his contact list moved over onto one of them. Transferring contact lists between cell phones is a trivial thing to do. Even if you're scared of doing it by transferring the data for some absurd reason, or it can't be done because it's part of how vendor lock-in is managed, there is always the option of doing it by hand...which is still trivial, just tedious. (So, it's a job for the interns.)
Therefore: Why did the people responsible for ensuring that the POTUS has a secure cell phone decide to not move it over? Is there some (presumably utterly stupid) reason it's not standard operating procedure, given it's a reasonable and anticipatable desire?
Does anyone else feel sorry for the poor Chinese and Russian spies who have to listen to Trumpâ(TM)s phone calls all day?
Super Ken Doll. I hear that's what he calls it.
...pretty much [ insert-here ] through ignorance.
Donald Trump has absolutely nothing at all to do with intelligence!
They are probably doing it either via fake cell towers or by cracking his phone, or both. Or maybe they are in the cell service provider's network.
We know that the NSA and GCHQ were doing that stuff on a massive scale both domestically and abroad, so it wouldn't be surprising to find that the Russian and the Chinese were at last attempting to match them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
To be fair TFA does say that he has such a superficial understanding of the intel he is given that he probably couldn't give too much away even if he tried.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I don't remember all the sturm und drang from the NY Times when President Obama kept his Blackberry.
“The president has a BlackBerry through a compromise that allows him to stay in touch with senior staff and a small group of personal friends,” said Robert Gibbs, his spokesman, “in a way that use will be limited and that the security is enhanced to ensure his ability to communicate.”
President Obama wasn't sending coke-fueled rage-tweets at 3 AM nor was he a cock holster for Vladamir Putin.
Mobile considered easy to crack/spoof. So not out of bounds for sovereigns or determined individuals.
The Russians and Chinese are likely causing more harm to their own intel agencies from listening to Trump bloviate for hours on end every day. I expect these foreign spooks have a very high suicide rate.
It could also be the case that the Deep State is now feeding juicy info to Trump and using him deliberately as a counter-intelligence asset to spread disinformation among our adversaries. Don't underestimate the deviousness of the Deep State. They're real bastards and proud of it.
I don't think the intel agencies actually entrust Trump with much sensitive op-sec info. For obvious reasons. And Trump isn't all that interested to begin with as long as John Kelly feeds him a little Deep State gossip so Trump can feel self-important when chatting it up to his fellow-tycoons.
As for dumbasses here trying to pretend that this is comparable to Hillary! and her criminally-insecure server, none of that applies to Trump. Hillary's server was storing classified info from other intel agencies and she had no authority to dispose of it or store it or transmit it insecurely. She was only a secretary of state, not a president. That info belonged to other intel agencies and to Obama, not to Hillary!. OTOH, Trump is a president and all intel is classifiable or declassifiable to him on any whim at any moment. All the intel is collected, processed, analyzed and presented for his ultimate use or that of his subordinates in the executive agencies. Without a president, there is no legitimate collection or presentation of any U.S. intel. For that matter, the United States does not really exist without its president. This is why they obsess so much over succession and continuity-of-government plots. So Trump cannot be prosecuted for revealing classified info. Recall his recent threat to unilaterally declassify some documents that the Deep State wants to keep secret (from the American public primarily, not anyone else). He could have done so at any time and for any reason because the president is the ultimate classification authority and always has been. He relented after making the threat but he certainly could have done so and no one could stop him. If Trump decided to reveal all the nuclear launch codes on national TV, they still couldn't stop him. No one, including Congress and the Court, has any authority to stop a president using their classification authority.
you might want to read a little further on modern crypto. Its all cracked. A russian mathmatician solved the prime factorisation problem two decades ago.
Someone is actually keeping track of how many times Trump lies or makes misleading statements while he's been in office, and the total is over 5,000 so far. He has a documented history going back decades of not telling the truth.
And yet some people still claim he's not qualified.
They should also take part on the conversation:
- President: ... so tomorrow we will have lunch...
- Russians: Mr. President, you already have an appointment for tomorrow lunch.
- Chinese: And don't forget to ask for Sichuan cuisine.
- President: We will have to reschedule, when do I have free time for that?
Hi, European in Europe here, Trump is a surprisingly good president. You guys dodged a bullet by not having the socialists have the presidency for for more yrs. Btw NYT is pure propaganda paper, not objective news in any way, a sad end of a former newspaper.
He keeps using his own phone because his contact list is on there.
Is that really the issue? Really?
There is NOBODY who said - No problem, sir, i can transfer this list for you in a few seconds.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
They can listen in on anyone. Think about those ramifications.
TRUMPUTIN is gonna getcha!
More OBVIOUSLY fake news from the failing New York Times. "Because his contact list is on the unsecured phone" - *really*?
I understand that Progressive Democrat partisans are known for being small-minded, small-hearted herd animals. But seriously, does anyone who has ever been remotely close to fedgov believe the US military and intelligence services are so utterly incompetent? Yes, yes - NSA spies on the entire world's communications - but they can't figure out how to copy an address book between two iPhones? Suuuure.
Remember back in the day, when NYT was more credible than the National Enquirer? Ahh the good old days!
No, because they get privileges the other mortals in their lands do not.
30 years ago it would have meant access to rare foods like meat and oranges, nowadays it's probably building or other commercial permits or 'winning' state contracts or having the local irs look the other way on their businesses.
Perhaps how to grab a woman by the pussy?
Maybe it's the same reason Obama insisted on using his Blackberry?
Perhaps the NSA should focus on user convenience and accessibility, because people will subvert security to achieve them. Security basics, NSA, fucking learn your job.
The daft thing is that I think most people realise that - and especially most of his supporters.
They worry less about what he says and focus on what they think he'll do. That's where things get more interesting.
People that virtue signal are all about what's said and hide what they actually do, so they're frightened by someone that works to different rules. I think this is a substantial factor in the hatred towards him.
What's good for the gander is good for the goose. The hypocrisy about using personal technology for government business has reached new levels.
Honestly though, President Trump likely uses the iPhone for his tweets which are intended to be public anyway. If some government want to commit an act of war to get their tweets the hard way, I can only shake my head.
Greed is the root of all evil.
If he knows the phone is being bugged then whats the point or getting excited about it?
Also, are you trying to tell me the NSA doesn't n is how to transfer contacts?
Something doest add up here
You know, one with some semblance of credibility?
This doesn't pass the sniff test.
You take your commie critical thinking and GTFO out of this political circle jerk!
Evidence of Russia and China listening in is that he uses consumer iphone? OMG, what a paranoia.
It better be difficult. And even if weren't, there's _no way_ NYT would know about the existence of any such access. Use your critical thinking skills, if you have any.
"U.S. spy agencies have determined..."
This was a whole thing here in Germany. Including Merkel's first man flying over to the US, to "demand" answers, and coming back, saying that yes, it did happen, but our "friends" "only want our best", and "promised" to "never do it again".
Then, when people got angry, he stood in front of a microphone, and "declared it to be over". He said it like that, literally.
And everyone in Germany is still making jokes about it, to this day!
You can generally trust that whenever an other country did something, the USA did it earlier, "better", and on much larger scale. Not surprising, given their 10-100 times bigget budget, and equally bigger headcount. ... it's not like that is exclusive to the USA.
Even if they got you convinced that they must be morons, and not just simply acting against you and excusing it as incompetence cause you blackeyers just eat that up,
I have also solved the prime factorisation problem.
Turns out the answer is: 1, and the prime.
You can just not vote for *both* of them.
If neither is an acceptable choice, you choose none of them.
Pich a small party.
The only reason they don't gain traction is *because* people are thinking like you. How would they get big, if somebody won't start voting for those who did not have a chance *until then*. Voting for them *is* how they get a chance to get big!
Given, how the *actual actions* of your two parties are exactly the same... (Not what they said. Not what they said they did. Not what the media said they did. ... *What they did!*) ... you are not living in a democracy otherwise.
Link, or your whole existence is fake!
I'm far more likely to believe a news source that can admit their mistakes than one that asserts they're right more than anyone. The link shared by the AC is nice, but let's link to the source instead, as they do explain the reasoning behind what goes where. NPR is probably the most reliable news source I can follow in these days, and they flat out tell you (or at least my local member station tells its listeners) to consume news from multiple outlets to get varying reads on the stories.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
" officials were also confident that "he was not spilling secrets because he rarely digs into the details of the intelligence he is shown and is not well versed in the operational specifics of military or covert activities"; in other words, security through ignorance. "
Officials of the NYT?
I thought it was bad enough that he was texting the whole US, now he's making Russia and China listen to him too?!?
Just because he is a big toddler, doesn't mean they can handle him like a big toddler. He said "No", they said "but Mr. President, we *must*", he said "NO! *stomps foot", and that was it.
I fully expect him to threaten to abduct, shoot or bury somebody alive, who does it anyway behind his back.
What makes you say that? Do you have specific evidence or is this one of those, "They don't say what I want to hear so they're not credible" things?
No, it's one of those "they only presented anonymous sources rather than actual evidence to back up their story again" things.
And, since there was no actual evidence to convince you the story was true, you believed it because they said what you wanted to hear.
Project much?
Rather than attack the messenger, please point to the evidence contradicting the story's evidence. Not everybody automatically responds positively to, "it's fake news!"
Um, sorry, no, it's actually the NYT's job to establish a claim of this sort, since they are the ones making it. Not the job of the entire freakin internet to refute it.
current and former American officials said
who spoke on the condition of anonymity so they could discuss classified intelligence and sensitive security arrangements.
So it's completely unverifiable. We just have to trust the NYT. And their unbiased approach to ... Trump. And to Republicans in general.
Uh huh.
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/...
Another source for information on his cell phones and usage:
https://www.quora.com/What-typ...
It does for me. Trump is told by FBI/NSA/CIA/whoever that foreign adversaries are taking advantage of something he does. He takes this as a personal attack, tells them to go pound sand or be fired, and they leave. Their job is to protect the national secrets of the country at the whims of the President. The President can disclose any secret and there is nothing to stop him. From the perspective of the three letter agency, they've given him warning he is disclosing the secrets of the nation. Therefore every phone call he makes is a willful voluntary disclosure. Their ass is covered. Trump gets to do whatever he wants, long term consequences be damned, and nobody does anything else.
>I'm far more likely to believe a news source that can admit their mistakes than one that asserts they're right more than anyone.
>> It's one thing to make a mistake and make a retraction. Quite another to appear malicious to truth in pursuit of narrative repeatedly and hide behind a hollow apology.
>>How and what news is reported is just as important as reporting it.
> NPR is probably the most reliable news source I can follow in these days
My problem with NPR is every story injects emotional manipulation and questions of "how does that make you feel" in a breathy - believe me voice. I find them closer to a political party PR campaign (you can guess the party) with emotional manipulation pretending to be unbiased than a proper source of news. Some of their programs are fine enough but those a few and far between. Instead, I hear news round ups from the likes of Ana "I'm fucking better than you" Kasparian. I wonder what her opinion will be on any week of politics. *eye roll*
No Thanks. I have better uses of my time.
Whoa, its almost like your story had statements from non-anonymous sources, the story on Trump had zero named sources... strange
Sure those rankings are not biased.
I already commented, but mod Cederic up on that post. NYT has an article from 2009 talking about how Obama refused to give up his Blackberry and fought tooth and nail to keep it. GW Bush on the other hand was said to have sent essentially a farewell email to many friends upon taking office.
Trump is literally just copying Obama on this one.
Random internet commentor is "pretty sure" that the current POTUS isn't discussing classified material on a weakly secured phone.
Same commentor is "pretty sure" that Clinton did discuss classified matters in e-mails.
Meanwhile, I'm "pretty sure" that confidential/classified information will come to the President, and the President will discuss them on whatever device he is currently using.
The only thing I'm "completely sure" of is that your standards for Big Giant Orange Head are different (read: Lower) for BGOH than they are for Clinton. There are several unflattering words for such an individual: hypocrite, partisan, sexist, dribbling moron, you get the picture.
I'm unclear what else Trump could be saying that isn't documented on Twitter? You mean he could be even more uncensored on a voice call? What a thought!
Being ordered to listen to trumps phone conversations
https://www.breitbart.com/poli...
What a biased load of crap... Slashdot is easily duped.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
I'll field the why and I'm not God. He's a stubborn asshole.
More like the intelligence agencies can't get TRUMP to do anything about it.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
How does the NYT know Russia and China are listening? Did they ask those two countries to find out? And what type of phone is it? Though one would never want to discuss secret information on any non-encrypted, an I-phone might be a good choice for discussing family info, which the NSA has no business knowing.
Security through ignorance? Special relationship with Putin? Seriously? Whenever I come across opinion inter-weaved within a somewhat informative albeit arguably inaccurate report from questionable sources it makes me want to throw up in my mouth.
You means the ones proving that she helped him win the primaries so she could have an easy general election?
Because that what was in those leaked emails.
They have repeatedly said they can't monitor phones, and need backdoors.
No, they said they can't access the encrypted contents of the physical device without a backdoor. They didn't say shit about phone calls.
Installing encryption on an off-the-shelf phone is not difficult. There is no way that the POTUS lacks the resources to do that. Once an encryption app is installed, then yes, eavesdropping is highly implausible.
OK, great, so again: then why is he not using one of the 2 phones provided to him? Why is he still using his personal phone? They gave him 2 phones that he could use, so why not use them? You're just explaining why he should be using another phone.
Mostly because contractors make a lot of money off them, and they make the Secret Service guys feel they are doing something important.
OK, and where are you getting that information from? Let me guess, you have no clue and you're just making shit up because it sounds right.
This is just my opinion, but I think it is because he is an undisciplined egotistical moron.
He sure is, and you won't see me defending that kind of behavior in a discussion like this. To each their own though, I guess.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Obama used a hardened device provided to him, and was able to contact a small group of people who were briefed by the White House counsel. That's not the same situation. If that's what was going on here, if Trump was using one of the 2 hardened devices that were provided to him, then you wouldn't have to try to defend him by bringing up Obama.
Perhaps the NSA should focus on user convenience and accessibility
They literally gave him 2 devices. What do you want them to do, suck his dick while they copy his contacts for him?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Go back and read the article again and notice how Obama did use the hardened device provided to him. Notice also how the people he was allowed to contact on that device also all received briefings from the White House counsel. Trump doesn't want the White House lawyers talking to his porn stars.
And, seriously, when has Trump ever tried to copy Obama? If you want Trump to be in favor of something, just tell him Obama hated it.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
When Obama did WHAT? When Obama stood next to Putin in public and said he doesn't believe the unanimous assessment of the US intelligence community that Russia is actively attacking US democratic institutions? Seriously, what the hell are you trying to compare this with? And, more importantly, why do you think that whatever you're trying to compare this with excuses the fact that Trump sided with Russia against the United States? Are you trying to suggest that Obama sided with Russia against the United States? And, if you're trying to suggest that, are you also trying to suggest that since Obama sided with Russia against the United States, that it is now perfectly fine for any sitting US president to side with one of our adversaries over our own country?
Seriously, what the fuck is the point with the "but what about Obama" bullshit? Obama has fuck-all to do with any of this. Not a single damn thing that Obama, or any president before him, did matters with regard to the fact that Trump is doing shit that no other president in living memory has done. So stop trying to derail the discussion with that crap.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
You mean 17 organizations.
Not including ODNI, which just oversees the other 16.
But that was the ODNI director, a political appointee, speaking for everyone
I know. The DNI himself, who as you point out was chosen and appointed by Trump, told Trump what the consensus was and Trump decided to believe Putin instead. It's pretty fucked.
the report sorta handwaived about it being consistent with Russia's goals, without presenting any factual basis for said assessment or even making any sort of argument
Let's not assume that Trump read any sort of report. That would be inconsistent with what we know about him. What we do know is that his opinion on any given subject not involving himself is probably going to match whoever the last person was that he talked to, and in that press conference that person was Putin.
Maybe that's why you dropped one of the member organizations?
I didn't drop anything.
The United States Intelligence Community (IC) is a federation of 16 separate United States government agencies that work separately and together to conduct intelligence activities to support the foreign policy and national security of the United States. Member organizations of the IC include intelligence agencies, military intelligence, and civilian intelligence and analysis offices within federal executive departments. The IC is overseen by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) making up the seventeen-member Intelligence Community, which itself is headed by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who reports to the President of the United States.
But I'm glad you're choosing to focus on what matters here - how many different agencies make up the US intelligence community. Yeah, way to find the point.
It's telling that the only thing most people remember about it is the number of organizations
That's not the only thing I remember about it. I also remember Coats himself expressing his disapproval with what Trump did, and I remember the reports from the reporters following Trump how people were trying to counsel him to accept the conclusions from Coats, and I remember how Trump was angry about the press coverage after his photo-op with Putin. I also remember the prepared statement he carefully read on camera suggesting that he actually meant the exact opposite of what he said.
But you've got a real knack for finding the meat of a story, which obviously is how many agencies contributed to the report written by Coats which was then ignored and dismissed by Trump against the counsel of virtually everyone around him. Yeah, the story there is the number of agencies.
Sorry, I actually read the ODNI report and it didn't say anything remotely interesting
OK. Well, just because I'm curious, I've got a question for you: has Russia been actively attacking and trying to undermine US and European democratic processes, yes or no?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Comrade Rooster is saying that FOX=GOOD and NYT=BAD.
Comrade Rooster (#Pepe ) is all about due process, except when Democrats, or Russians are being accused.
The fact that he constantly regurgitates RWNJ points is a clue. He says Trump sold weapons to Ukraine (a lie) as "evidence" that he is tough on Russia. The truth is that Congress passed the bill that sells them weapons, by a veto proof majority, and Trump slow walked it for a couple months before being pressured into signing it.
The other talking points are similarly rebutted. I'm not laid to reject his points, much less over and over and over, so I will leave it at that.
Watch for shifting goal posts.
> Do you have specific evidence
Ah yes. The left is always so quick to move the burden of proof to the accused. Go sieg heil somewhere else, Adolf.
ORANGE MAN BAD
Obama used a hardened device provided to him
At some point, maybe, but don't fucking pretend he didn't use a blackberry: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/0...
They literally gave him 2 devices. What do you want them to do, suck his dick while they copy his contacts for him?
Personally I don't give a fuck what they do. I'm just pointing out the thing they're not doing: Giving him the ease of use, flexibility and other benefits he perceives from using a different device.
That means they're failing.
And, seriously, when has Trump ever tried to copy Obama? If you want Trump to be in favor of something
I think you'll find it's the CIA or the NSA that wants Trump to be in favour of something. Perhaps you should share your wisdom with them.
I am finding it highly fucking amusing that I'm being modded 'troll' for highlighting a failure in the US security services. Guess I'm in deep shit when I try to cross the border later this year..
https://everything2.com/title/White+House+toilet+paper+crisis
"Next we got into the class marked trunk (...) Immediately we heard the connection tone and put it up on the speaker so we would know when a call came in.
Several hours later, a call did come in, and it did appear to have CIA related talk, and a code name of Olympus was used to summon the President. I had been downstairs that time, hanging out with friends when I learned what was going on. I rush upstairs just in time to hear the tail end of the conversation as I entered the room.
We had the code word that would summon Nixon to the phone.
Almost immediately, another person was starting the process of dialing the number. I stopped them just in time and recommended that they stack at least 4 tandems before looping the call to the White house. Sure enough, the man at the other end said "9337", my other friend said "Olympus please!" The man at the other end said "One moment sir!"... About a minute later, a man that sounded remarkably like Nixon said "What's going on?" My friend said "We have a crisis here in Los Angeles!" Nixon said "What's the nature of the crisis?" My friend said in a serious tone of voice "We're out of toilet paper sir!" Nixon said "WHO IS THIS?" "
Regarding the ODNI report, I'll just leave this here as it covers most of the bases. More amazing are the points you did not argue over: you do not point to the report or any arguments or evidence from it. It's hard to do that for a document with a bunch of unsupported conclusory statements, though.
> But you've got a real knack for finding the meat of a story, which obviously is how many agencies contributed to the report written by Coats which was then ignored and dismissed by Trump against the counsel of virtually everyone around him. Yeah, the story there is the number of agencies.
That was *your* argument. You are the one who trumpeted the number of agencies as proving something, I said it was BS and challenged you to point to items of substance from the ODNI report. You failed to do so and then created this smokescreen as if I was the one claiming this statistic was meaningful. If you admit that it's BS and don't want it attacked, then maybe it shouldn't be the only damned factoid about the report that you cite. Maybe you should actually discuss the *factual basis* of said report as I've repeatedly challenged you to do so.
You do not because you cannot. Heck, you didn't even bother to link to the ODNI report because apparently it's not even important, despite you being the one to put it into evidence. Then again, that would get us back to discussing the factual basis underlying the report and you'd run into trouble right at the start of the document when we see this -
I used to joke that my classified evidence can beat up your classified evidence, but I don't really have to any more. Half of this stuff on the origins of the Russia nonsense came about via this bogus FISA warrant against Carter Page.
Also, one of the leaked emails from waaaay back when floated the idea of attacking Trump on Russia, so we knew it was planned as far back as the campaign. You can claim that Wikileaks is Russian if you want, but you would have to prove them *wrong* on this email to counter the argument. I alsso hope you don't want to play the game that some have of pretending the emails were manipulated, because they're not and I've long ago posted on Slashdot a copy of the DKIM keys that provide cryptographic non-repudiation.
> OK. Well, just because I'm curious, I've got a question for you: has Russia been actively attacking and trying to undermine US and European democratic processes, yes or no?
All countries are interfering with all other countries, more or less, I'm more interested in the specifics of actual wrongdoing. For example, Obama had Steele & Halper, both foreign spies, running a lot of interference.
I don't generally consider uncovering corruption or making political arguments to be 'wrongdoing' though, at least in the moral sense, nor do I consider anonymous or pseudonymous speech on the internet to be that either, as if each country had some right to regulate whether or not the rest of the world could even talk about them online. There are definitely process crimes that it can run afoul of--which is why the Podesta group was
Bill you are legit going senile.
And the best chance for intercepting the calls is the built in spying system the result of CALEA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act
Most of the telecom equipment today is built to comply and in some cases has been used to spy on foreign goverments inside their own countries.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/the-athens-affair
You are modded troll because you sound clueless and keep trotting out Obama strawmen to back up your points.
Members of the CIA and FBI witnessed it. Is that not enough for you?
So essentially what you're saying is "my spies could totally beat your spies"? Sounds completely rational.
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
You are so delusional and out of touch. Please come back down to reality.
At some point, maybe, but don't fucking pretend he didn't use a blackberry
Did you read that article at all? Like, any of it? Any part at all? Do you think it's evidence for your argument, and not mine? Because that's not the case.
Just so I don't have to repeat myself, let me just link you to the comment I posted yesterday, when someone else who apparently did not read that article linked to the same article and tried to act like it somehow supported their case that Obama was using a consumer-grade unhardened communication device. Here's your response:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Giving him the ease of use, flexibility and other benefits he perceives from using a different device.
But they're giving him the device he wants to use, hardened. I mean, they're literally doing specifically what you're trying to suggest they're not doing. It feels like I'm arguing with an illiterate brick wall. They're giving him hardened iPhones and the only reason they're not completely worried is because he doesn't actually read the intelligence reports that he gets every day.
Unless you're trying to suggest that the ease of use, flexibility, and other benefits are the features that needed to be removed in order to harden the device. If you're saying that, then you're literally suggesting that the NSA is failing at its job by not giving the president a vulnerable device.
Whatever the case, we have a president who is known for not reading his daily intelligence briefings, uses a consumer-grade cell phone, and has been given 2 hardened devices by the NSA, and you're trying to actually argue that it is the NSA who is not doing their job. Uhhh, #MAGA?
I think you'll find it's the CIA or the NSA that wants Trump to be in favour of something. Perhaps you should share your wisdom with them.
Oh don't you worry, literally anyone who should know how to influence Trump knows exactly how to influence him. Putin knows, Saudi Arabia knows, China knows, and other US government officials know. Everyone knows. It's not a secret. Stroke his ego, talk about how great he would be if he did a certain thing and how everyone would love him, talk about how much you love him, etc. Really, it's not a secret. Supposedly the Russians, decades ago, rejected trying to recruit him as an unknowing agent because he was too easy to influence, he wasn't reliable.
I am finding it highly fucking amusing that I'm being modded 'troll' for highlighting a failure in the US security services.
It's because you're not. The NSA isn't at fault here, Trump is. That's how you're being a troll. You're trying to take a failure of Trump, and blame someone else for it. Which, incidentally, is very Trumpian of you.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
obviously because Trump doesn't want anyone to see his contact list.
>that means that we are freely giving all domestic and international call streams to China AND Russia
No it doesn't.
two plus two equals... eleventy billion!! AAAARRGGH!! FaKE NEWS!!1!11!!!
I agree, it is strange that the White House has been leaking like a sieve.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
POTUS should use the secure lines provided to them at great expense.
White house IT SHOULD be able to handle migrating a contacts list...on second thought you really never know
They couldn't just walk in and tap the phone of the President if he used the secure lines they want him to use, but if he's going to insist on using his personal cellphone on the public telephone network then they sure as hell can tap him and/or the people he's calling on it.
NONE of the guilty pleas have ANYTHING to do with Trump-Russia collusion.
Manafort pleaded guilty to tax-related issues a decade before he met Trump but which Meuller found when raking him over the coals looking for Trump dirt.
Same for the others. For example, the meuller team got Flynn to plead guilty to lying to the FBI by bankrupting him and threatening to go after his son - the FBI did not even think Flynn lied to them according to their own paperwork.
We're TWO YEARS into the DOJ, the FBI, the special counsel, the Democrat party and even a third of the Republican party (the "never Trumper" and "establishment" parts) desperatelyu trying to prove that Trump colluded with Putin and they have found NOTHING. At this poi9nt, it's quite possible that Trump is the cleanest politician we've ever had.
What does that make Hillary and Obama?
Obama GUARANTEED Trump would not win and his DOJ and FBI went to work to make sure he did not.
Hillary lost to Trump even after she spent millions of dollars buying Russian propaganda through a British spy with cash laundered through a law firm, and spent nearly two BILLION dollars on her campaign.
If Trump is a moron, it does not speak well for the intelligence of the average Democrat he has confounded nor the supposedly hyper-qualified and genius-level leaders Democrats erect as their figureheads.
If you're gonna down-rate a post to make it go below the threshold for many readers, you at least owe an explanation of what you thinks is wrong, otherwise you're just like some twerp sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "La la la" really loudly to avoid hearing something you do not like.
Obama open mic slip: 'After my election I have more flexibility'
The intelligence community is trying to start a new Cold War with Russia. They have gone rogue and are not under the control of the democratically elected government. Reference: "This is like a spy novel." There is a ton of evidence that FBI and DoJ officials went rogue and started using opposition research from the Clinton campaign (which involved speaking with Russians no less) and other evidence in order to meddle in the election. Remember when Rosenstein threatened the Congressional oversight committee because they're doing their job of oversight? Stunning.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Is that left in terms of US politics, or globally?
Correction, the deep state are eavesdropping on his "hardened" iphones.
Doesn't matter unless you gather the private keys of every data service he uses. Modern networks even encrypt dial-up voice, which I doubt he uses this phone for.
You realize this is a standard, everyday iphone like me or you would buy from the store right?
There has been No hardening of this device whatsoever.
The thought that an everyday iphone, on a common cell carrier, with devices such as Stingray Cell Towers, is secure enough to prevent China and/or Russia from eavesdropping goes against I've learned regarding IT security for the past 20 years.
And the White House doesn't have radio detection systems? Anyone can set up a fake cell tower, I would think that trying to approach the White House with a few kW of radio equipment would be noticed, a simple detection van would suffice to find the perpetrators.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
He uses the secure landline for classified matters.
You must realize that Trump is constantly surrounded by secret service, and the like, to make sure he uses the correct communication channels.
I just want to make sure I've got this right. You're suggesting some sort of equivalence between Donald Trump standing next to Putin and, against the advise of everyone around him and his own appointed DNI, told the world that he doesn't see any reason why it would be the Russians who are attacking us, versus Obama telling Medvedev (I think?) that after the election he'll have more flexibility in what is explicitly described as an "open mic slip" rather than summit televised worldwide. You're suggesting an equivalence between those two things, correct?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Peace and good relations with Russia are in the interest of the American people. So he's a dictator? Don't make me laugh, America's best friends have always been dictators. In many cases we help them to overthrow democracies. Remember our good buddy the Shah? The south Vietnamese? Ferdinand Marcos? The list goes on and on. What do you want, a war? Operation Barbarossa Part 2: We Remember To Bring Winter Coats This Time?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Hold on, you're changing the subject. I was talking about Trump siding with Putin against the US intelligence agencies, and you responded with "That's not the point, the point is that when Obama did it, there was no criticism". I asked when Obama did WHAT, and you replied with that "open mic slip" video, and then I asked if you're trying to suggest that the video you posted and Trump standing next to Putin saying that Trump believes Putin and not his own government are the same thing. You responded with some rant about dictators.
Don't change the subject. Are you trying to suggest that Obama's video and Trump's press conference are equivalent? Is that what you were referring to when you said "but but Obama did it?"
Stick to the actual point before you go off about Ferdinand Marcos and the Shah, please. Try to complete a thought.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Incidentally, NYT is categorized as "slightly left leaning" and "factual".
Is there a catagory for "propaganda arm of the U.S. government and moneyed interests"?
After their reporting of WMDs in Iraq leading up to the war, the NYT is not to be trusted. Of course this applies to most news agencies and they should not be trusted either but some got it right.
If only there was a trusted US producer of a secure hardware and software for phones which can be operated with a privately secured server but that would compromise law enforcement and national security.