A Pentagon-wide email recently went out warning about Signal's vulnerability

[911Sparky]

if you are mistakenly sent a $5000 check ... is it yours to keep or was it a mistake and you should return it ? you didn't "steal" the check, but its not yours and you shouldn't keep it, right ?

Of course I would return it, that is what people do if they have an ounce of integrity.

 

[TangoNoCash]

Putin was included in the chat.

Interestingly enough one of the recipients of the conversation was indeed in Russia. So plausible. Nice call out!

 

[hecatmoggie]

money is different than information.
stupid analogy

"classified" information

no way was Goldberg authorized


AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, a civilian can hold classified information, but only under specific circumstances and with proper authorization, security clearances, and adherence to strict regulations.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Eligibility and Access:
  To access classified information, individuals, including civilians, must be deemed eligible by the government, which typically involves a thorough background investigation and a determination of trustworthiness.
  
  
• Need-to-Know:
  Access is granted based on a "need-to-know" principle, meaning individuals can only access information that is directly relevant to their official duties or responsibilities.
  
  
• Security Clearances:
  Individuals granted access to classified information must hold a security clearance appropriate for the level of information they are authorized to handle.
  
  
• Nondisclosure Agreements:
  Individuals must sign nondisclosure agreements, committing to protecting the classified information and not disclosing it to unauthorized individuals.
  
  
• Contractors and Consultants:
  Civilians who work for the government as contractors or consultants can also be granted access to classified information, but they are subject to the same security requirements as government employees.
  
  
• Unauthorized Removal/Retention:
  Unauthorized removal or retention of classified documents or materials is a serious offense, punishable by fines and imprisonment.

 

[ncguy]

"classified" information

no way was Goldberg authorized


AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, a civilian can hold classified information, but only under specific circumstances and with proper authorization, security clearances, and adherence to strict regulations.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Eligibility and Access:
  To access classified information, individuals, including civilians, must be deemed eligible by the government, which typically involves a thorough background investigation and a determination of trustworthiness.
  
  
• Need-to-Know:
  Access is granted based on a "need-to-know" principle, meaning individuals can only access information that is directly relevant to their official duties or responsibilities.
  
  
• Security Clearances:
  Individuals granted access to classified information must hold a security clearance appropriate for the level of information they are authorized to handle.
  
  
• Nondisclosure Agreements:
  Individuals must sign nondisclosure agreements, committing to protecting the classified information and not disclosing it to unauthorized individuals.
  
  
• Contractors and Consultants:
  Civilians who work for the government as contractors or consultants can also be granted access to classified information, but they are subject to the same security requirements as government employees.
  
  
• Unauthorized Removal/Retention:
  Unauthorized removal or retention of classified documents or materials is a serious offense, punishable by fines and imprisonment.

so again, your money anology was stupid.
and quoting an AI summary to try and apply to this specific case? lol
get me a credible legal opinion that said he broke the law or i'll continue to laugh at your posts.

 

[hecatmoggie]

so again, your money anology was stupid.
and quoting an AI summary to try and apply to this specific case? lol
get me a credible legal opinion that said he broke the law or i'll continue to laugh at your posts.

I won't play the "well that's not credible keep giving me more" game

Goldberg by mistake got access to Signal group, kept all the information he could as he continually stayed on it ..... and then shared all that

You might think that's ok, I do not think it is

Makes for a good anti-Trump hate story doesn't it ?

 

[ncguy]

I won't play the "well that's not credible keep giving me more" game

Goldberg by mistake got access to Signal group, kept all the information he could as he continually stayed on it ..... and then shared all that

You might think that's ok, I do not think it is

Makes for a good anti-Trump hate story doesn't it ?

of course you wont supply a credible legal opinion to back up an ai generated summary of generalities. lol.

he didn't share "all of it", he kept things like the agent name confidential. duh.

it makes for a good anti-trump story, because it shows the incompetence of people he put in office. duh.

 

[hecatmoggie]

of course you wont supply a credible legal opinion to back up an ai generated summary of generalities. lol.

he didn't share "all of it", he kept things like the agent name confidential. duh.

it makes for a good anti-trump story, because it shows the incompetence of people he put in office. duh.

so now a common average day, non-authorized person is keeping "classified" information

yes, that sounds perfectly legal doesn't it ?

would you be ok with a former Vice President keeping classified documents in boxes in a garage ? a former President keeping them in his house?

 

[Callen]

I won't play the "well that's not credible keep giving me more" game

Goldberg by mistake got access to Signal group, kept all the information he could as he continually stayed on it ..... and then shared all that

You might think that's ok, I do not think it is

Makes for a good anti-Trump hate story doesn't it ?

He's a reporter, he was invited and of course he stayed on. He also kept all the texts private until the Administration said over and over there was no classified info. He did his job too bad Hegseth and Waltz didn't.

 

[hecatmoggie]

He's a reporter, he was invited and of course he stayed on. He also kept all the texts private until the Administration said over and over there was no classified info. He did his job too bad Hegseth and Waltz didn't.

so him keeping classified information without having authorization to have it is ok ?

 

[ncguy]

so now a common average day, non-authorized person is keeping "classified" information

yes, that sounds perfectly legal doesn't it ?

would you be ok with a former Vice President keeping classified documents in boxes in a garage ? a former President keeping them in his house?

well, again, if you can supply a credible legal opinion that shows he broke the law, go for it.
but you wont, since you've had a chance to and choose to rely on a vague AI generated summary. lol

 

[Callen]

so him keeping classified information without having authorization to have it is ok ?

....but Hegseth said publicly it wasn't classified

 

[devildavid]

honest question - did you know previous administration used Signal app? do you remember any security breaches? Any spy balloons? Chinese smart cars? leaked classified intelligence documents?

anything you can remember ?

Your whataboutism fails.

 

[ncguy]

....but Hegseth said publicly it wasn't classified

yep, so legally i don see the problem with him keeping and disclosing the data.

fortunately he is an intelligent, patriotic american so he's not disclosing things like cia agent names.

 

[hecatmoggie]

well, again, if you can supply a credible legal opinion that shows he broke the law, go for it.
but you wont, since you've had a chance to and choose to rely on a vague AI generated summary. lol

so by saying that you confirm your believe that anybody having classified information is ok to have it

gotcha - that would include Trump / Mar-a-Lago stored information, right ?

 

[hecatmoggie]

....but Hegseth said publicly it wasn't classified

I don't think it was - time will tell

 

[NJBob]

I don't think it was - time will tell

Having it both ways? I suggest you stick with whataboutism.

 

[hecatmoggie]

gotta admit, this is damning ....

 

[NWRatCon]

The exact time the F18 would take off
The exact time the first bombs would drop
The exact ordinance would be used
31 minutes prior to attack

.....is not classified in your mind! Unbelievable!!!!

Any excuse (lie) will do.

 

[NWRatCon]

So what!!!!!

Gotta slip in the "whataboutism" as often as possible. That's the "deflect" part of the program. He's already done "deny, denigrate, and dissemble".

 

[roughdraft274]

he intentionally kept screen shots and stayed on a call he knew he shouldn't be on

that doesn't matter ?

He's a journalist. It is the governments job to ensure that they don't leak classified info. If a journalist receives the info without breaking a law, it is not the journalists fault, it is the fault of the idiot that handed it to him.

Classified Documents

The Supreme Court in 1971 ruled that the government cannot restrain in advance the press from publishing classified documents under the First Amendment.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu

 

[NWRatCon]

so again, your money anology was stupid.
and quoting an AI summary to try and apply to this specific case? lol
get me a credible legal opinion that said he broke the law or i'll continue to laugh at your posts.

As a lawyer, I can provide you with a legal basis that the participants on the call violated FEDERAL LAW. Will that suffice?

Records Management by Federal Agencies (44 U.S.C. Chapter 31)​

Records Management by Federal Agencies (44 U.S.C. Chapter 31)

(44 U.S.C. Chapter 31) § 3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties § 3102. Establishment of program of management § 3103. Transfer of records to records centers § 3104. Certifications and determinations on transferred records § 3105. Safeguards § 3106. Unlawful removal...

www.archives.gov

§ 3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records

(a) FEDERAL AGENCY NOTIFICATION.—The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records the head of the Federal agency knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from that agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to the legal custody of that Federal agency.

(b) ARCHIVIST NOTIFICATION.—In any case in which the head of the Federal agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action described in subsection (a), or is participating in, or believed to be participating in any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information​

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
______

The use of SIGNAL to transmit this information (which is assuredly National Defense Information) was a violation, as is allowing it to be seen by an unauthorized party, as is its destruction.

There's your criminal activity, sir.

 

[hecatmoggie]

He's a journalist. It is the governments job to ensure that they don't leak classified info. If a journalist receives the info without breaking a law, it is not the journalists fault, it is the fault of the idiot that handed it to him.

Classified Documents

The Supreme Court in 1971 ruled that the government cannot restrain in advance the press from publishing classified documents under the First Amendment.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu

interesting to see how people view classified information now as opposed to when Trump was found to have it at Mar-a-lago isn't it ?

 

[roughdraft274]

interesting to see how people view classified information now as opposed to when Trump was found to have it at Mar-a-lago isn't it ?

Are you serious or are you trolling?

Trump was responsible for classified material. He took those documents and transferred them to an unsecure location. He ignored a subpoena and multiple requests to return those documents.

Goldberg was inadvertantly messaged classified info. He didn't steal the info, he didn't hack the info. It fell in to his hands. There are no documents for him to return, he was messaged the info.

You are making yourself look even more ridiculous with these constant asides. You have tried time and time again to blame this on the journalist that had this fall in his lap while at the same time arguing that the people that gave him the info did nothing wrong.

Do you even have a coherent argument? Can you write a 5 sentence paragraph actually explaining what you think happened here?

 

[hecatmoggie]

Are you serious or are you trolling?
Trump was responsible for classified material. He took those documents and transferred them to an unsecure location.

Did Goldberg take screen shots of material/documents? he transferred them right? were they "secure" in his possession?

Goldberg was inadvertantly messaged classified info.

so you're saying he had no idea what group he was on? what they were discussing? the names of the people ? c'mon ... he knew, and he was sure to stay on it as long as he could, screen shotting everything so he coul d have a story

He didn't steal the info, he didn't hack the info. It fell in to his hands. There are no documents for him to return, he was messaged the info.

he didn't steal - but he could have dropped off as soon as he realized he was on a call he shouldn't have been on

You are making yourself look even more ridiculous with these constant asides. You have tried time and time again to blame this on the journalist that had this fall in his lap while at the same time arguing that the people that gave him the info did nothing wrong. Do you even have a coherent argument? Can you write a 5 sentence paragraph actually explaining what you think happened here?

I don't know 100% what happened

Somehow, Goldberg's number was inserted into a secured Signal group he was never meant to be on. It appears Alex Wong added him - why? What is his connection to Goldberg ?

Goldberg stayed on it, collecting every bit of it for his upcoming story he knew he'd publish. Somehow nobody noticed " Jeffery Goldberg" has joined group ... which makes me wonder if his real name was used, what did he sign in under? was the phone number used for him his real line or a secondary line he'd recently gotten?

who is Alex Wong?


Lots of questions

 

[NWRatCon]

Are you serious or are you trolling?

Trump was responsible for classified material. He took those documents and transferred them to an unsecure location. He ignored a subpoena and multiple requests to return those documents.

Goldberg was inadvertantly messaged classified info. He didn't steal the info, he didn't hack the info. It fell in to his hands. There are no documents for him to return, he was messaged the info.

You are making yourself look even more ridiculous with these constant asides. You have tried time and time again to blame this on the journalist that had this fall in his lap while at the same time arguing that the people that gave him the info did nothing wrong.

Do you even have a coherent argument? Can you write a 5 sentence paragraph actually explaining what you think happened here?

He's trying to follow the script, but ... well, he's having difficulty. I can't say why.