>> Signal was an approved and whitelisted app for ... discuss top-secret matters on.
No. Just no. Anyone who has handled TS information would know how nutz that sounds. Irrespective of software, TS stuff is only ever displayed in special rooms with big doors and a man with a gun outside. The concept of having TS on an everyday-use cellphone is just maddening.
You're leaving out crucial information. Obama didn't keep his BlackBerry for classified information, he was given the then-standard government secure mobile communications device, a Secure Mobile Environment Personal Encryption Device (SME-PED).
More specifically, the device Obama was given was a Sectéra Edge [0][1] by General Dynamics, a device specifically designed to be able to operate on Top Secret voice and Secret data networks. It had hardware-level separation between the unclassified and classified sides, even having separate flash memory for both. [2]
The NSA contributed to the design and certified it and another device (L3's Guardian) on the SCIP, HAIPE, Suite A/B, Type 1, and non-Type 1 security protocols.
It was absolutely not a regular BlackBerry, it didn't run any RIM software, no data ever went through RIM's servers, and secure calls were encrypted and didn't use SS7. It was a clunky purpose-designed device for the entire US government to be able to access Secret information and conduct Top Secret voice calls on the go.
Even then, there were limitations to when and where it could be used and when a SCIF was required.
The current equivalent of the SME-PED programme is the DoD's Mobility Classified Capability[3], which are specially customised smartphones again made by General Dynamics.
There is no excuse whatsoever for the current administration's use of Signal, let alone TeleMessage Signal, for Secret and Top Secret discussions on regular consumer and personal devices. It's deeply irresponsible and worse than any previous administration has done.
Your reference [0] appears to contradict what you've said here. It speaks at length about several NSA approved options as alternatives, but says Obama used a BlackBerry.
The photo attached to the article captioned "President-elect Barack Obama checks his BlackBerry while riding on his campaign bus in Pennsylvania last March." appears to show a blackberry.
I take it from the article that this was as controversial as I remember it being at the time. Thanks for posting it.
He was allowed to keep his BlackBerry for personal communication only, not classified communication, and had to use a Sectéra Edge for classified communication. [0]
The Blackberry for personal use wasn't a stock BlackBerry, but hardened by the NSA and fitted with the SecurVoice software package to encrypt voice calls, emails, and messages. The few people he had on his approved communication list were given the same devices.[1]
That BlackBerry was, again, not used for classified communication. So it's not the same thing as the current scandal.
> He was allowed to keep his BlackBerry for personal communication only, not classified communication
Presence of the senior staff on his (very limited) contact list would seem to contradict that statement. Communication with them would be, by definition, not personal.
I agree with you that our government officials should be using the secure infrastructure our patriotic service members and civil servants work so hard to build and maintain.
Obama wasn't allowed to keep his Blackberry; he requested a secure commercial-quality cellphone to communicate with his aides, and NSA (which was, to be sure, not really happy about the request) selected the Blackberry as their platform. The end solution was a highly pared-down device that could only communicate via a hosted encryption server (a commercial product, SecurVoice) to a small number of paired devices, which were distributed to Obama's inner circle. The Presidential devices had additional security limitations (e.g., they could only connect to WHCA-controlled base stations). End of the day, what they had was an encrypted closed network of devices, some of which communicated over public wireless infra, running a very limited, NSA-reviewed, approved, and altered, software suite.
What's clear is that NSA put a fair amount of effort into securing and maintaining that system, so much that its use was limited to the White House; Hillary Clinton wanted a similar setup (her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, had been allowed to use unaltered "off the shelf" Blackberries under an NSA waiver, but NSA had declined to renew those waivers due to security concerns), but NSA slow-walked and effectively derailed the discussions with State's security team, perhaps because they wanted to limit the amount of technical detail discussed outside the White House, or because they were concerned that State would be unable to provide SecState with the kind of technical support necessary to secure the devices during global travel. (We all know what happened next, of course.)
If you’d prefer, we can call it unclassified communication rather than personal communication. The point is that it was not used for Secret, Top Secret, or other classified communications. For that, he had the SME-PED device.
So, again, it’s not a parallel to the current situation. Nobody is saying the SecDef and other staff shouldn’t have unclassified devices as well as their classified devices, the issue is that they’ve been using the unclassified devices to conduct Secret or Top Secret discussions.
But how could he have created accidentally a conversation for discussing targets during military attack with a journalist if secret communication was not done on his clear-text device ?
I think you're misunderstanding me, I'm referring to Obama's use of an NSA-hardened BlackBerry for unclassified communication with a select group of people, while using a purpose-built and NSA-cleared secure phone for classified communication. All of which was done correctly in terms of information security processes.
Secretary of Defence Hegseth sent Secret or Top Secret information over a channel (Signal/TM Signal and a regular mobile phone) that was never cleared for classified communications. The person I was replying to was trying to equate Obama's actions to those of Hegseth (and Waltz and others), I was providing context showing that to be a false equivalence.
That's not a counter-argument. You're introducing a hypothetical with no substantiating evidence, trying to create a parallel to a situation where we have unambiguous evidence of non-classified devices and software being used to discuss classified material. The onus is on you to prove the claim, not on others to prove a negative.
It has been eight years since Obama's presidency, had there been any use of this hardened BlackBerry for classified communications it would have emerged by now. Similarly, all messages on that device were subject to the Presidential Records Act, and are archived by NARA. You can FOIA them if you want to.
There were also no claims made during his administration that he ignored security protocols. Even his insistence on retaining a BlackBerry for unclassified communications was done through a compromise and an NSA-hardened device, not by ignoring the rules.
Similarly, how do we know that Reagan didn't hold cleartext phone calls with his aides on the Top Secret plans to contain the USSR? We don't, but in the absence of any supportive evidence over the years it's safe to assume he did not.
Person you're replying to is using an "absence of evidence" fallacy as their argument, also known as an "appeal to ignorance" [0]. They're inferring that the absence of evidence that Obama didn't use his BlackBerry "for Secret, Top Secret, or other classified communications" is potentially evidence that he did in fact do so.
(I would have replied to him directly, but the comments have since been [appropriately] flagged)
In reality, no argument could ever be made if you had to prove the negative of every argument. Some other common applications of this fallacy off the top of my head:
"Well we don't have proof that children weren't trafficked in Comet Pizza, so it's proof that it did actually happen."
"We don't have proof that no kids used litterboxes at school, so it's proof that they did use litterboxes."
My statements were complete. You were not completing them, but trying to spin them in a way that implies wrongdoing when no evidence exists of it. I can only presume you're doing so for partisan reasons, to try to defend the actions of the current administration.
Whatever the reason, I have made my case. Feel free to make yours with a similar level of evidence.
How is your voting record public? Who anyone voted for is not a matter of public record, and even if you claimed to disclose it, nobody would be able to fact check that..
Do you have evidence that Obama discussed or viewed topsecret intel on that blackberry or are you just trying to muddy the waters with a false equivalence?
You think he used it only to discuss what flavor of ice cream was being served that day in the whitehouse dining hall? With only the senior staff? If so, I have a bridge for sale which may interest you.
No. Just no. Anyone who has handled TS information would know how nutz that sounds. Irrespective of software, TS stuff is only ever displayed in special rooms with big doors and a man with a gun outside. The concept of having TS on an everyday-use cellphone is just maddening.