Hacker News Reader

Comment by kelipso | Hacker News Reader

The argument is that there are many organizations in the current government, a lot of them independent agencies, that are politically aligned against the Trump administration. Many people in these organizations have backdoor or spying access to government communications, and so members of the Trump admin can't trust government systems for communication.

View on HN

I'd be interested in knowing which independent agencies have backdoored the military's operational communication channels. Wasn't aware that was a well known thing.

Is this really such a strange thing to be concerned about? Snowden, NSA, etc...people remember. It’s well known that Trump’s campaign team was spied on by the FBI. Government is just a bunch of people, some of whom have strong political leanings, so intra-government leaks, spying, sabotage can happen and in all likelihood do happen.

But this is an unfounded conspiracy theory you’ve made up.

There is no evidence, reporting etc that says the government has deliberately compromised the government’s own secure systems. And for what purpose is beyond me.

It’s straightforward logic though.

1. Trump’s team was spied on by the FBI. 2. Government employees have access to government systems.

Conclusion? There is a possibility that Trump’s team again be spied upon through the government systems and consequently have sabotage done upon them. Therefore, avoid government systems as much as possible.

Calling this unfounded conspiracy theory is just running away from this very straightforward and simple argument.

Also, is there proof that these government systems are completely secure? Without that proof, why should they be using those systems? (He who controls the null hypothesis and all..)

I respectfully reject the first premise, specifically "spied on". The FBI wasn't spying. They were investigating communications between many Republicans, including the Trump Campaign, and known Russian intelligence operatives. I would expect the FBI to do this.

Whatever the justifications were and whatever you call it, it was functionally the same thing as spying.

You're trying to reason with the unreasonable. There are some very short memories on here. Or people being willfully obtuse.

So why did this conversation needed to be kept from malign rogue anti-Trumpers in the NSA (who would be risking very real jail time) but did not require the basic level of OPSEC that would keep the editor of the Atlantic out?

Yes. Thank you for making it succinctly.

So they choose worse - to use untrusted channels?

This is a phenomenal level of stupidity - to use illegal channels of communication because of the bad vibes they are feeling from other people?

Did it help? How many adversary spy agencies has duplicate signal accounts for these officials and see all of the communication live?

I think some foreign leaders probably are reading summaries of these messages in complete disbelief and amusement.

Once again you are making this assertion.

No one in the Trump administration has come out and said the secure systems can’t be trusted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com