“Reporters do not have a judiciary responsibility to not disclose national security matters. There is no national security or state secrets exception to the First Amendment, meaning the government cannot prevent or sanction the media for disclosing information that is harmful to national security1. While there are some protections for journalists regarding confidentiality of sources, these do not extend to national security matters4. Thus, reporters are generally free to report on national security issues without fear of legal repercussions.”
臥槽，現在又小道報紙了。難道說的不是事實？況且，Just because "all 50 states found Signal accounts for state, local and federal officials in nearly every state, adding up to more than 1,100 government workers or elected officials.", it doesn't mean that officials should use Signal to conduct highly classified meetings.
In addition, even by your AP reporting, "it can sometimes skirt public records laws because of its auto-delete function." As such, it may have potentially broken the law, correct?
所以呢，你的結論是應該怪這位記者報道了？甚至像某些馬嘎們說記者犯了泄密罪或判國罪？
而且，“President Joe Biden's administration initially authorized the use of Signal by government officials in December 2024.” 拜登總統說過Signal可以被用來舉行這種higly classified meetings嗎？
Associated Press review in all 50 states found Signal accounts for state, local and federal officials in nearly every state, adding up to more than 1,100 government workers or elected officials. AP's report noted that the app is increasingly popular among government officials, but that it can sometimes skirt public records laws because of its auto-delete function.
點點點點點 發表評論於 2025-03-28 10:30:41
一幫傻逼五毛
東南方 發表評論於 2025-03-28 10:28:11
President Joe Biden's administration initially authorized the use of Signal by government officials in December 2024.
The CISA guidance specifically cited that government officials should download "end-to-end encrypted communications" platforms to their cellphones and computers, specifically citing Signal as an app to download to comply with the best practices.
"But Signal offered a way to make that record disappear unless someone on the chat made screenshots of it. Goldberg took screenshots of the chat between 8:05 a.m. on Friday, March 14 and 5.18pm Saturday, some 33 hours later.
Goldberg implies classified information was discussed, which he has not disclosed to the public. “The Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing,” he writes.
Why would Waltz want to use a platform like Signal that allows this high-level chat to disappear? One possible answer is to ask who was not present on the chat: President Donald Trump. If the NSA had run the call, Trump would have access to the chat transcript.
(Also missing from the Signal meeting was the head of the NSA, who would likely have objected to the NSA not facilitating it. With the exception of the individual chat participants, who could have also made screenshots, the government does not have possession of the transcript.)" - Consortium News
Signal's "Disappearing Messages" feature allows you to set a timer for messages to automatically delete after a set period, either after sending or after the recipient has read them.
東南方 發表評論於 2025-03-28 07:45:36又是那個要召回一飛機黑幫罪犯的芝麻法官？他不知道"信號"的"閱後即焚"功能嗎？用戶咋保留？
芝麻法官不但無良還無知。
-------------
Everything has record on internet, you need know reading
