TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

CIA Director Reveals Signal Comes Installed on Agency Computers

117 点作者 jbegley大约 2 个月前

10 条评论

jandrewrogers大约 2 个月前
A lot of tech people here are obviously unfamiliar with the history of this. They used to use Gmail for nominally unclassified communication. Several years ago they unceremoniously dropped Gmail for all purposes, without much explanation. It was mostly replaced with Signal.<p>I originally started using Signal almost entirely as a side effect of this transition. It was blessed as a preferred choice of the US intelligence community for unclassified comms many years ago. And a lot of classified comms if we are honest. If you worked in the US government, you needed Signal.<p>This isn’t a value judgement, just an acknowledgement of reality. Given this, it would be weird if they didn’t have Signal installed.
评论 #43478286 未加载
评论 #43478309 未加载
评论 #43478392 未加载
评论 #43526706 未加载
epistasis大约 2 个月前
Signal can be used to arrange meetings, but secret materials like war plans need to be in SCIFs<p>Everybody that saw that usage of Signal and didn&#x27;t shut it down should face the normal consequences, in addition to the consequences that a leader undergoes for such terrible decision making.
评论 #43478643 未加载
评论 #43480554 未加载
评论 #43526404 未加载
colmmacc大约 2 个月前
I&#x27;m not saying this in humor, I&#x27;m genuinely curious ... how do they handle Signal&#x27;s absence of FIPS validation and FedRamp certification? Signal isn&#x27;t even capable of being FIPS validated, the core cryptography is off NIST piste.
评论 #43478435 未加载
评论 #43478423 未加载
评论 #43478635 未加载
jaysonelliot大约 2 个月前
Does this mean the CIA is not subject to the Federal Records Act, or does it mean they&#x27;re simply flaunting the law?
评论 #43478406 未加载
评论 #43478281 未加载
评论 #43478574 未加载
评论 #43478345 未加载
czk大约 2 个月前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;9LqJN" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;9LqJN</a><p>John Ratcliffe mentions it here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;mz1sLlpee80?t=87" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;mz1sLlpee80?t=87</a>
bediger4000大约 2 个月前
This is just an attempt at damage control over the Goldberg-in-the-chat thing, isn&#x27;t it?
评论 #43478307 未加载
评论 #43478305 未加载
lenerdenator大约 2 个月前
Nice feather in the cap.<p>But do they send the <i>really</i> sensitive stuff over it?<p>Or, rather, <i>do the competent people</i> send really sensitive stuff over it?
评论 #43478262 未加载
rich_sasha大约 2 个月前
Serious question: how would it be different if JD etc al used a &quot;proper&quot; secure comms app? Perhaps it would be harder to add a random journalist, but they could still accidentally add the wrong government official (maybe).
评论 #43481266 未加载
monocasa大约 2 个月前
Reminder that the CIA funded Signal in the first place through the National Endowment for Democracy.
raggi大约 2 个月前
dedramp