-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Previous statements were generalizations from people who clearly have no inside information.
I did cut down the quote so that I wasn't just covering the page with examples, but several quotes from the article that upheld those statements, so that's pretty dismissive for no reason. Then again, looking further down, it seems like you don't really think these experts are worth listening to anyway, so I don't know why you bother responding to any of them in the first place. It's not that they have no inside information, it's that they're too biased to provide information that we can have any trust in.
"phone's secure enclave", the implication that a phone is more secure than a PC is naive. Maybe an iphone because of their rather wise policy of using full drive encryption without making users jump through too many hoops.Otherwise nonsense, an off the shelf android phone from samsung has no automatic encryption around app storage or much else nor are phones generally immune from spyware anymore than PCs. In both cases spyware is either baked in (somebody tampered with the OS installation), or it was let in by the user.
Not really responsive to any of the points he made. The argument here is not that a phone, as a device, is less hackable than a PC. The argument is that the more devices information is shared to, the more opportunities there are for one of those devices to be hacked. Increasing the number of devices by, say, sharing that data with a PC is the problem, not the fact that it's a PC vs. a phone. Yes, there will always be multiple devices involved, but no, that does not mean that more devices is better for cybersecurity.
Also, I already acknowledged that the app encrypts those messages, so I don't know why you're responding by pointing that out. Encryption, by itself, isn't enough to assuage security concerns, and I don't know why your pointing it out is responsive to anything I quoted.
Suffice to say Signal, in the hands of experts, would have been secure; and the greatest efforts of the Pentagon would have failed to keep this information out of the news after having invited a blabbing journalist to participate.
Fair. Optimally using this app would probably have prevented anyone from even knowing it was being used. Was it in the hands of experts in this case? Was it foolproof in this instance? Doesn't seem so. Also doesn't seem particularly likely that an internally developed program that is not open source would offer the opportunity to invite a journalist to join. Maybe that's just my assumption.
BS, look at what happened with the obamacare website.
Don't know why you're going off on this tangent. Yes, I can acknowledge that the experts aren't always right and there are some major fuck-ups. Not sure why this applies or how this invalidates their insights on cybersecurity.
... and yea if it was intentional that implies that they would be willing to do it again, but under that conditional who cares?
Feels like this should matter for pretty obvious reasons. Your response here is, essentially, if they're doing this optimally, then there's no harm. First off, we shouldn't assume that they will always do this optimally, i.e. selectively managing information so that the only information that is ever released can do no harm whatsoever through it's release. The more this happens, the more opportunities they have to release vital and dangerous information. Second, it matters anyway because perception is everything. If the US public and our allies perceive the military complex of the US as leaking information to the press like a sieve, that's a problem. If they have to keep being dragged before Congress to answer for it, that's a problem. People need to trust in their security.
1-5 people are consulted by propagandists in the AP cabal and then they repeat the same claim a hundred times.
I mean... do you want me to just give you a list of sources that all provide similar information? Doesn't seem like you care because they're part of "the AP cabal" and so their information is prima facia useless. They're a source you don't trust, ergo their expertise doesn't matter. We have to reference experts at some point since none of us are, but if all of them are just biased hacks, then there's no point in discussing any of this and we might as well just throw up our hands.
