China, Russia Are Listening To Trump's Phone Calls, Says NYT Report (thehill.com) 423
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.
Govt Official using private, unsecure hardware? (Score:5, Funny)
BUT HER EMAILS!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We tried, but the FBI preemptively gave immunity to everyone involved and then let one of the people implicated in the crime that they already interviewed sit with Hillary during her interview.
Re:Yes "her CRIMINAL emails" (Score:5, Interesting)
Does Trump look like the kind of guy that goes into specifics ovethe phone?
So far as he knows them, sure. Practically the first thing he did was expose a bunch of Israeli intelligence assets to the Russian ambassador in an Oval Office meeting.
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.
So you're theory is that Trump is a genius 11-dimensional chess player.
I'm not one of those people who think Trump is stupid. Penn Jilett, who actually knows the man, has an interesting take on Trump: Trump isn't stupid. He's stupid for a president. Take even George W. Bush, whose intelligence is often mocked, and put him in a room with a couple of dozen other random guys, and he's probably the smartest guy in the room.
Jilette, by the way, says he likes Donald Trump personally, because he likes people who don't have a filter. This fits my impression of the man, and what other expansive egotists I've known are like. They're domineering and crafty, yes, but they're also impulsive and needy. They tend to improvise, because making an impression on the person they're talking to right now takes precedence over the long term.
Re: (Score:3)
Ask any European or Asian or Canadian what they think about him? Their answers will mirror the Democrats.
No, I've met some European leftists that like Trump, or are at least happy for his Presidency. They feel that he'll damage American credibility and mess up American power over Europe and the world irreparably, putting the US on a more even ground with everybody else, or at least Europe.
Re: (Score:3)
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 tweet
Re: Wrong again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
your argument is, knowing that he knows that they know that he knows, he is wisely adjusting his defence accordingly?
truly you have a dizzying intellect. Complete buffoonery has really been a cunning plan all along. WHY WERE WE SO BLIND!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Like when (Score:5, Funny)
Trump calls Putin after finishing his KFC dinner to bitch about how everyone is mean to him?
This is our president people! (Score:2)
Heaven help us!
Re: (Score:2)
Relax. Whatever passes in Trump's brain comes out of his mouth or his fingers. The Russians and Chinese won't learning anything they won't get from his campaign speeches or twitter feed.
At this point, do you really think the American intelligence services are going to tell him squat? They know better.
Re: (Score:2)
250 years ? McCarthy and the Hollywood 10 wasn't that long ago. WW2 and the fascist movement in Europe wasn't that long ago either.
Re:This is our president people! (Score:4, Informative)
Really? You're going for the "but Obama ...!" defense? If you had read the article, you would know that they addressed that very subject and stated that Obama did not make calls on his cell phone when he was President:
So basically Obama had a email-reading device, not a cell phone.
Why they don't just import it's contact list? (Score:3)
Duh (Score:2)
We tried to tell them way back when, even pointing out the implications, but Don the Con isn't very bright.
It is not a server in the basement (Score:2)
Tactics (Score:3)
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....
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the person tapping your phone expects that you might discover it and start doing that at any moment, so it's not that effective.
Trump doesn't seem to take security or dedicating himself to the office that seriously though. Still works out of Trump Tower a lot, plays a lot of golf and has high level meetings at Mar a Largo. I can't see him being too restrained with his personal phone.
Corbomite (Score:2)
I wish I could believe that the president has been doing this as some sort of Corbomite Maneuver.
Why bother? (Score:2)
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.
Twatter (Score:3)
Hopefully they aren't reading his tweets. Thoses things are painfully humiliating for him.
Re: (Score:2)
No, his tweets are all pure genius, he's fucking with SJWs and journo's and rubbing it in their faces that he can constantly lie with absolute impunity. If anyone calls him on it then all he has to do is lie again and he doesn't give a shit if anyone calls him on anything anyway because you know - that's just fake news right. ~
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently he doesn't need his tweets to lie. He does that in his campaign speeches and any other interaction with the Press. He runs off at the mouth and then the alleged Administration stiffs have to run around like disturbed ants attempting to justify whatever inane statement he made. His policy decisions are no different. Instead of using thought out analysis, he simply declares something will be the policy and then the alleged Administration attempts to implement it. Naturally, it screws up because the
Re: (Score:2)
Well, look on the bright side, he's an idiot that can easily be seen through. OTOH, our politicians know exactly what insidious crap they are pulling and they are far more cunning about it, they tend to do their best to operate under the radar (UK). The EU is no better.
big deal... (Score:2)
If you knew anyone was listening in (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we used to call those sorts of users "trolls". It is and always will be a form of getting attention. The best defence is to not pay attention. Don't feed the trolls.
SS7 (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ....is not the world's most secure protocol.
So our intelligence apparatus lets everyone listen (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Poor China, Russia (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone else feel sorry for the poor Chinese and Russian spies who have to listen to Trumpâ(TM)s phone calls all day?
contact list? (Score:2)
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.
If they can listen to Trump... (Score:2)
They can listen in on anyone. Think about those ramifications.
Lock Him Up (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I figured the comments would say that...as they have.
Re:The New York Times is not a credible news sourc (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The budget of the NSA every year? When not spying domestically and globally they should be keeping US gov communications very secure.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The New York Times is not a credible news sourc (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:The New York Times is not a credible news sourc (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:The New York Times is not a credible news sourc (Score:5, Informative)
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/ [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".
Re: The New York Times is not a credible news sour (Score:2)
Right because Fox news and Briebart are so reputable
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: So what's the issue? (Score:2)
You mean like Mannafort and several others who pleaded guilty??! Jesus folks only watch Fox News I swear
Re:So what's the issue? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what's the issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Admit it, most of you never read the ODNI report (Score:3, Insightful)
> 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
Re:So what's the issue? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:So what's the issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't remember all the sturm und drang from the NY Times when President Obama kept his Blackberry [nytimes.com].
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So if "Russian collusion" comes up it's an automatic shot of vodka?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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?
Re:How do they know, cell tower drones flying arou (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:How do they know, cell tower drones flying arou (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
... 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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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/com [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 kno
Re: (Score:3)
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'
It is the other person's phone (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention 'his contact list' is about the weakest excuse ever offered. Because I'm guessing the security teams supporting the US President have at least one person capable of copying a fucking contact list.
Re:How do they know, cell tower drones flying arou (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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 [army-technology.com].
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Hillary's fault! (Score:4, Funny)
Does MAGA = My Attorney Got Arrested?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More FAKE news. Everybody knows he is not a moron, but a FUCKING moron.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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. [inthesetimes.com]
Russia Comedy Channel (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Russia Comedy Channel (Score:5, Insightful)
"Trump - Whitehouse Apprentice" is now the top-rated reality comedy show in Russia.
Hillary was careless about email at a time when the threat environment was a fraction of what it is today. It was stupid to use a personal server, and if her opponent was a better person, say on the order of McCain or Romney, then I'd have even called it a fair reason not to vote for her.
Hillary was not president at the time. Donald Trump is, and he is after bitching about Hillary's emails for ages. Using a consumer device like this is just the email issue again, save ten times worse, made so by the times and the fact that Donald Trump has no excuse whatsoever, after all the talk about email security.
Let's put it this way, if the situation was reversed, they would be screaming from the mountains about how incompetent she is, and how she is definitely not keeping classified information secure, and, they would be right to do so. since if nothing else the collection of Donald Trump's phone calls would almost certainly be considered classified when taken as a collection, and that is to say nothing for the likely case that he simply isn't careful with what is classified.
Why is it okay if Donald Trump does it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where is anyone saying it is okay? I hear people screaming and crying Trump is an idiot. Okay, we know that. He wasn't elected so much as Hillary was voted against. It's that simple. Plus Obama didn't exactly bridge any gaps. He was very much a divisive figure.
So in short, no one thinks it is a good idea to let Trump use his personal consumer device just like no one thought Hillary should have a private email server for government work.
It would be nice to write them both off as idiots but they are actually
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if it's also the top rated show on SCTV...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
(Awesome blast from the past.)
Re: (Score:2)
Our government can't even do that at this point.
You care to provide evidence for that claim? Since you're so unbiased and evidence-based, I mean.
Re:Russia Comedy Channel (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
So, intercepts? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:So, intercepts? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You're using Hanlon's Razor wrong; you might cut yourself. Signal doesn't make much effort to make itself well-known--and, in many ways, I doubt the NSA would have opted to go with it and I'd be a rather leery of anything that requires that the person on the other end have a proprietary app. (Admittedly, the NSA would probably be in a better position to do a code review, but...) It is good to know that there's some solution to the overall problem, though.
However, I was applying Hanlon's Razor to whomever
Re: (Score:3)
" I'd be a rather leery of anything that requires that the person on the other end have a proprietary app. (Admittedly, the NSA would probably be in a better position to do a code review, but...)"
So you'd take the certainty of being intercepted over the possibility of something being "bad" in a closed-source product? Do you also draw to inside straights while playing poker?
Actually, to me it's a question of if I prefer a known lack of security or a potentially false sense of security--if you really want to minimax laziness and sneakiness, you can hardly do worse than slip your 'bug' into an app that promises to keep communications secure... There is a reason some places make a point of starting poker games with a new deck that got unsealed right where everybody could see it.
Also, sometimes your safest bet in security is to assume somebody's listening. There are ways around
Re:Russia Comedy Channel (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be suffering from cognitive dissonance. The obvious sign here is that you are unable to converge two seemingly contradictory ideas. Thus, you rationalize the contradiction by inventing an alternate reality, one where the NYT has somehow gotten it wrong. Without that alternative reading, your brain would simply melt.
The fact is, though, that the NYT, while not completely immune to mistakes, has gotten it right far more often than they'e gotten it wrong. That's not up for debate, no matter how much you want it to be, no matter how much your sanity depends on it. It's much more likely that your favored political figure is, in fact, a moron who is incapable of securing his own communications.
History will almost certainly reflect this, and in 10 or 20 years you can think back to what a complete idiot you were about it.
Re: Russia Comedy Channel (Score:5, Insightful)
Mueller is impartial and is in no way seeking to influence the elections. He is not a Democrat he is a Republican. But first and foremost, he is an honest law man who has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, and he takes that very, very seriously. He will not use what he knows to influence the election in any way, as that would make his investigation political.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Right. It' a good thing Russia and China are showing such restraint by not listening in on Trump's unsecured telephone calls.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why wouldn't you rather he use a hardened phone at all times, so that it's not even a question/concern?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 co
Re:So iPhone lets you "listen in" on the conversat (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Forrest Gump was neither immoral nor amoral.
Re: (Score:2)
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.