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.
BUT HER EMAILS!!!
Obama!
Benghazi!
Something!
Anybody else getting tired of the horse-stuff?
Trump calls Putin after finishing his KFC dinner to bitch about how everyone is mean to him?
Heaven help us!
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
I figured the comments would say that...as they have.
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
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.
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!
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?
Does MAGA = My Attorney Got Arrested?
More FAKE news. Everybody knows he is not a moron, but a FUCKING moron.
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.
I would rather he use the hardened phone strictly for classified or official communications and his regular phone for casual stuff.
love is just extroverted narcissism
The best claims are claims without any supporting evidence at all, bonus points for implying that 2 independent events are somehow linked. Well done sir, you're carrying on a fantastic tradition.
Yes, I claim that this author, at some point in the past, and without providing any supporting evidence, was "trolled" (no, I'm not going to specifically define what I mean by that). Therefore, anything he produces, including this story, has no factual basis.
#MAGA
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
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
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
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.
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...
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?
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".
Dumbest. Traitor. EVER.
Truly imagine the quality of person that Trump had to beat to make it into office. That's how low the bar was, and nothing indicates to me that it somehow has changed.
Stunningly, there are people on the left who say with a straight face that the same person/people should run again against Trump.
It seems to me the real traitors here reside in the DNC.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
...big deal every thing ends up on tweeter anyway.
Why wouldn't you rather he use a hardened phone at all times, so that it's not even a question/concern?
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.
Forrest Gump was neither immoral nor amoral.
LOL, someone clever would talk about how he'd be inviting the Dalai Llama over for a state visit where they're going to talk about Tianamenn Square, and how the Russians are planning to hack The Great Firewall.
And then there's Trump.
You want him connecting to Twitter with his NSA hardened phone? In 20 years of being a computer professional I haven't used my computer or work associated accounts for personal things, not even once. It's real easy to be confident I have never inadvertently leaked anything I shouldn't.
love is just extroverted narcissism
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.
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
FAKE NEWS
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.
Right. It' a good thing Russia and China are showing such restraint by not listening in on Trump's unsecured telephone calls.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
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.
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"
> 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.
You mean like Mannafort and several others who pleaded guilty??! Jesus folks only watch Fox News I swear
http://saveie6.com/
You mean they gerrymandered the states themselves.... those bastards!
... 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.
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.
Trump can be effective. The tax cuts are essentially for the rich and for businesses; his real base. The cuts for the middle class (his fake base) last long enough to get him re-elected. Part of the SCOTUS victories are due to Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee parking Merrick Garland's nomination up their ass. It would have happened no matter who got elected. As far as Blue or Red wave in Nov, who knows. Either way, I'll be voting illegally early and often, and there's nothing tweetie-pie can do about it. Thank god for mail-in ballots. I'm calling it a diarrhea wave.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
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?
...pretty much [ insert-here ] through ignorance.
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
Wait, you think Republicans are going to win in the elections this year?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
He is POTUS. There are no personal things.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
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.
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.
I would rather he use the hardened phone strictly for classified or official communications and his regular phone for casual stuff.
You know, IF you read the original story and the "sources" statements.... What you would like, is likely already going on. Classified conversations go on NSA provided equipment, private personal conversations on his private I-Phone.
YET, the journalist is clearly trying to lead you to believe the opposite, even though they do not have a source that says "The Chinese are getting classified information by monitoring POTUS's I-Phone calls." The sources are saying that they don't know the content of these conversations and the implication made by the journalist is Trump is stupid so he's obviously leaking classified information by his insistence on using that I-phone for unofficial personal calls.
This is irresponsible journalism, making a story out of flimsy evidence by implying stuff you cannot prove and making up stuff for which you have no evidence. This is the kind of thing Trump is talking about when he mentions "fake news". It is shameful, unethical and all to common.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
He is POTUS. There are no personal things.
How so? He's not allowed to call a friend and wish them happy birthday or express he condolences for a death in the family? He cannot call his friends and joke around or discuss the weather's effect on their arthritis?
Look, the problem here with this story is we DON'T KNOW what he's talking about on that unclassified line. The sources being quoted don't know, the reporter doesn't know and nobody being quoted can point to specific classified information that was leaked. This is a manufactured controversy, assembled by the journalist, i.e. it's FAKE NEWS.
I've worked in classified environments in the past. We had two phones on our desks, one classified, one not. Where I didn't use the unclassified phone very much, I did talk to my wife and kids occasionally. Was I leaking classified information doing this? I sure hope not, and I certainly didn't have overtly classified discussions over the black phone... Ever... It's not that hard to imagine POTUS doing the same kind of thing. Yet... We are regaled by this garbage journalist's implications, without a shred of actual evidence..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
Triggered eh?
It's Trump so the worst possible implications are obviously true to you, regardless of the evidence.
This story is a prime example of FAKE NEWS and I ask you to carefully think though why I say that. Confirmation bias is hard to overcome, but if you actually look at the verifiable facts being cited here, it's plain to see that the part of this that makes it a story is not actually in evidence but implied. This journalist crafted this story to imply things are happening but we don't actually have any evidence for it.
Now if you want to take your abrupt left turn in your analysis, realize you are being a partisan hack.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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
nope, i don't care to back it up in the slightest. quite happy with y'all depending on the prime factorisation problem.
but if you want a place to search for it in english, why dont you start here : https://slate.com/technology/2...
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?
"Truly imagine the quality of person that Trump had to beat to make it into office."
It wasn't Hillary he had to beat but the good judgement of those who voted for him. He barely did it and only with help from Putin, Brennan and the electoral college because of course he still got millions fewer votes than Hillary.
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.
Why wouldn't you rather he use a hardened phone at all times, so that it's not even a question/concern?
You do understand that a "hardened phone" does not allow secure conversations with other phones which are not also hardened? If the person you wish to call doesn't have a hardened phone too, you cannot call them and have a secured conversation.
The rule is that you use the hardened line whenever possible, regardless of the topics being discussed. However, if the other party doesn't have a secure phone, you use the unsecure line and you don't discuss any restricted information. This is SOP for this sort of thing.
What amazes me is this is EXACTLY what the sources being quoted are describing, yet the "journalist" implies this is somehow a problem, that POTUS is too stupid and ignorant to understand the security issues in play. You can believe what you want, but what the article is implying is simply not in evidence given the quotes provided. The "journalist" is making assumptions and logical leaps for which there is no hard evidence, only supposition. We simply do not have any evidence that POTUS is unwittingly leaking classified information, all we have is a supposition that he might be.
My complaint here is about the journalists' ethical breach of standards and tabloid level work passing itself off as hard news. Trump is right in his complaints about this kind of reporting, it's fake news, manufactured controversies and treating it like hard news is unjustified. It's tabloid rumor and hype, unworthy of publication at any reputable news source. Such stories should be objectively reviewed and treated with all the respect they are due, which is none. The authors of such stories should also be eschewed and if they persist in writing such drivel, should be forced to find a different line of work by those who pay them. But we all know that profits and click bait are what drives the "news" industry, which really has turned into another form of entertainment, with all the fiction, staging, acting and special effects of Hollywood.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/...
Another source for information on his cell phones and usage:
https://www.quora.com/What-typ...
>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.
She had the entire US media on her side. And the DNC rigged in her favor via superdelegates and more shady means (no one wins 5 out of 5 coin tosses). If a handful of Russians trolling on social media between pints of vodka are enough to swing the election away from her, the point that she was a terrible candidate still stands.
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.
Wait, you thought Clinton was going to win the last election?
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!
correction, trump is âoea fuckin moronâ. By those who work closely with him
Being ordered to listen to trumps phone conversations
None of that is relevant. He barely won and wouldn't have without the interventions by Putin and Brennan.
More like the intelligence agencies can't get TRUMP to do anything about it.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
In 20 years of being a computer professional
You do realize that Trump is about as far from being a computer professional as he can get?
That means you *have* to secure everything because Trump *cannot* be trusted to do the right thing. In fact, based on his temperament you can be reasonably sure that he will intentionally do the wrong thing, just to spite you.
*facepalm*. Of course I know that.
My point is that if Trump used a secured phone at all times, then you could at least be reasonably sure that if there was a data breach, it wasn't caused by Trump's end.
Trump cannot be trusted to know what he ejects from his mouth is sensitive or not. This is established fact. The 2nd best option (the best being kicking Trump out), is to secure everything on his side so that at least that part is covered.
If the other side isn't secured, then you're no worse off than you were before. If Trump's side isn't secured, then you all but guarantee that *all* his communication is unsecured.
As far as the "Fake News" things go, Trump's view of what "Fake News" is has not even the slightest bearing on reality. To Trump, "Fake News" is any news that doesn't lick his ass in a tight swirly pattern. So using that as a basis for your own opinion is worse than wrong. Furthermore, Trump is a pathological liar. He will, and demonstrably has, lied about all sorts of things. What comes out of his mouth absolutely cannot be trusted.
NYT on the other hand, but many different measures, is deomonstrably FAR more trustworthy than Trump is. They may not be 100% correct all the time (no one is), but NYT is much more deserving the benefit of the doubt than Trump ever will be.
It's not that hard to imagine POTUS doing the same kind of thing. Yet... We are regaled by this garbage journalist's implications, without a shred of actual evidence..
It's called extrapolation.
Based on his past behaviour, it is VERY hard to imagine Trump doing the responsible, sensible thing. Just because there is no explicit smoking gun IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, is not a reason to dismiss the fact that he is not capable of spilling secrets. He's already done it on twitter. He's shoved both feet into his mouth so often that it's not even a question anymore.
That means even without specifics, the story is completely and entirely plausable.
Trump cannot be trusted to know what he ejects from his mouth is sensitive or not.
FULL STOP
And here we hit the crux of my argument... That, is an opinion, not a fact. The truth here is neither of us know if Trump is having sensitive conversations on his private cell or not. There are no witnesses attesting to this, no evidence it's happened, nothing but your assumption. Reporters who willingly report such opinions and assumptions as if they are credible are not being ethical.
Your argument that the NYT is more reliable is again another opinion, without basis in fact. In this specific case, they are making assertions which are not directly supported by any real evidence.
The reality here is all we can truly assert is that there is the OPPERTUNITY for the Chinese monitoring to skim sensitive information, not that it's actually happening. Also this is NOT a new thing. The last occupant of the Oval Office had similar stories written about HIS use of an unsecured cell phone too. Do you assume the big O was leaking stuff too? No? Why the difference here?
I'm contending that YOUR issue is with your bias in this case. You are willing to believe the worst about Trump because that's your perspective of him. And because you want to believe he's bad, you are willing to accept an unfounded assertion in a "news" story even in the absence of facts to support the assertion.
Be honest, you don't know, this reporter doesn't know and the sources quoted don't know either. Your belief in this case is not supported by facts. You don't have to admit it to me, but you should at least admit it to yourself.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
he flat out stated that the author had a history of error.
Feel free to read what he wrote again, he did not say "the author has a history of error." The only thing that was "flat out stated" is that the author was "recently trolled hard by 4chan," which is kind of meaningless without context.
And stating things without supporting evidence has become SOP at the Times.
And therefore everyone else should do it too?
The people it claims he is talking to on the other end almost certainly don't have secured phones themselves.
So what? What does that mean? Does that mean their claim of his calls being intercepted are false? What's your point there?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
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
It's not that hard to imagine POTUS doing the same kind of thing. Yet... We are regaled by this garbage journalist's implications, without a shred of actual evidence..
It's called extrapolation.
Based on his past behaviour, it is VERY hard to imagine Trump doing the responsible, sensible thing. Just because there is no explicit smoking gun IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, is not a reason to dismiss the fact that he is not capable of spilling secrets. He's already done it on twitter. He's shoved both feet into his mouth so often that it's not even a question anymore.
That means even without specifics, the story is completely and entirely plausable.
A story being plausible, is the hallmark of tabloid news. NYT is now publishing stories based on if they are plausible? I mean, to heck with the truth or backing up one's assertions with facts, oh no, just make the story sound plausible and we are good and have fulfilled our commitments to journalistic ethics.... Is the NYT a tabloid now? I hope not.
So YES, such assertions require a bit more than just opportunity, this kind of thing requires some evidence it's happening, or it's no more than ginned up supposition based on assumptions. Journalism ethics requires that a reporter step back from their bias and report all the relevant facts and let the reader draw the conclusions. In this case, the NYT only has facts that establish that there is the opportunity, there is zero evidence that it's happening.
It's like a claiming a guy observed in an expensive sports car is obviously out speeding and driving recklessly though school zones running over kids. Not that you observed that behavior nor are there any injured kids or any dents in the car. All you have is evidence he drives the car so it's plausible that he's doing this, if not yet, he will soon. (This amounts to slander and tabloid level news.)
See what I'm saying here?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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
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..
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
She had the entire US media on her side. And the DNC rigged in her favor via superdelegates and more shady means (no one wins 5 out of 5 coin tosses).
None of that is true in the slightest.
"Look, the problem here with this story is we DON'T KNOW what he's talking about on that unclassified line. The sources being quoted don't know, the reporter doesn't know and nobody being quoted can point to specific classified information that was leaked."
Correct, since none of them are tapping his phone.
" This is a manufactured controversy, assembled by the journalist, i.e. it's FAKE NEWS."
The fucking hell? No, this is ACTUAL NEWS, are you honestly too stupid to tell the difference?
"The reality here is all we can truly assert is that there is the OPPERTUNITY for the Chinese monitoring to skim sensitive information, not that it's actually happening."
Other than the intelligence agencies reporting that the Chines have been monitoring his communications.
But seriously, how in good faith can you make the argument that reporting that Trump is using an insecure communications device isn't news? It's absolutely baffling.
"it's plain to see that the part of this that makes it a story is not actually in evidence but implied. This journalist crafted this story to imply things are happening but we don't actually have any evidence for it."
The fact that Trump is using an unsecured communications device is in and of itself newsworthy; it's extremely irresponsible of him to do so.
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.
Great idea! Just make sure you put the contact for little Bobby Tables in before you copy it across.
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
... are you honestly too stupid to tell the difference?
Are you? Confirmation Bias is a strong force if you are not careful. The thing that makes this a story is the Chinese getting classified information by monitoring Trump's phone calls, but that part is made up, presumed and strongly implied by the writers of the story.
We both agree, we DON'T know that this is actually happening that the facts to support that assumption are not in evidence in the story. That makes this the a tabloid story at the same level as "Elvis is alive, living in some small town in the deep south" because we have pictures of a guy who looks like Elvis, eating a banana and peanut butter sandwiches and while gyrating his hips in back woods Mississippi. Which, in case you cannot figure it out, is FAKE news. Now if you what a real story, get the guy's DNA and prove it, otherwise it's off to the back page of the National Enquirer for this story. Unless of course you already believe Elvis is alive, in which case your confirmation bias may just convince you this fat guy in Mississippi is him.
REAL "News" is not opinion, it is not made up, it is not built on presumptions or assumptions, it is based on all the applicable facts and doesn't stray beyond what can be proven by the evidence given. Unless you don't care about what's real or what's fake. So the story about the guy in Mississippi may be valid, but only if it claims to have found a guy that looks and acts like Elvis but clearly says we are not sure yet as the DNA test results are not back yet. If the headline is "Elvis Found Alive!" they are lying while "Possible Elvis sighting in Mississippi" is marginal and "Proof being sought for Guy being Elvis" is actually news, stupid but news.
So go re-read that story from the NYT and tell me what they can prove with the evidence they cite. It's well short of what makes this story interesting and is totally misrepresenting what they and their sources actually claim to actually know. This is tabloid journalism from the NYT. But I'm not surprised anymore by this total lack of journalistic ethics, even from previously trustworthy sources. Why this is happening will have to await another story....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"The reality here is all we can truly assert is that there is the OPPERTUNITY for the Chinese monitoring to skim sensitive information, not that it's actually happening."
Other than the intelligence agencies reporting that the Chines have been monitoring his communications.
But seriously, how in good faith can you make the argument that reporting that Trump is using an insecure communications device isn't news? It's absolutely baffling.
How in good faith can you make that claim about me?
I'm asserting that we don't know that Trump isn't careful enough to avoid discussing sensitive information on unsecure phone calls. That's the only part of this that makes it a news story and the part that's made up..
Case in point... Do you recall discussing Obama's unencrypted insecure cell phone? He had one, we even debated it here on Slashdot. Where were you on that?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"it's plain to see that the part of this that makes it a story is not actually in evidence but implied. This journalist crafted this story to imply things are happening but we don't actually have any evidence for it."
The fact that Trump is using an unsecured communications device is in and of itself newsworthy; it's extremely irresponsible of him to do so.
So, where did you stand on Obama's similar use of an unprotected cell phone? Was it irresponsible for Obama too?
This is also opinion by the way, irresponsible? How so? Discussing the weather with a friend or BS'ing about your latest golf handicap is somehow useful to the Chinese? We have no idea what conversations Trump has on this private device or how often he has them if at all. (and that's exactly what the sources clearly say) For all we know he only uses it to get phone numbers out of his contact list and never turns on the radios... We simply don't know and you presumption that it's irresponsible is opinion without facts to back up your concerns.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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
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
No, I didn't.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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!
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.