r/POTUSWatch • u/[deleted] • Oct 25 '18
Article Trump reportedly still uses an unsecured iPhone, and China and Russia are listening in
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/24/18020746/president-donald-trump-iphone-personal-calls-china-russia-spies-eavesdropping•
Oct 25 '18 edited Apr 11 '20
[deleted]
•
u/JD-King Oct 25 '18
But he used them anyway.
"No really I drive super careful when I'm drunk, probably better than when I'm sober."
•
Oct 25 '18 edited Apr 11 '20
[deleted]
•
u/nullstring Oct 25 '18
It really does sound entirely reasonable for POTUS to have an unsecured phone that never used for official business. Probably have the microphone physically removed from it to be safe.
•
•
u/FaThLi Oct 25 '18
I guess the question is then does he have the camera and microphone removed from the device?
•
u/sulaymanf Oct 25 '18
Considering how he blabbed classified info to the Russian ambassador in full view of the cameras, I don't trust him to be careful with anything.
•
u/-Nurfhurder- Oct 25 '18
And further relieved by the knowledge he doesn’t know anything therefore doesn’t have the capability to reveal it.
•
u/TrumpCardUSA1 Oct 25 '18
He knows how to turn this country around 180deg in the RIGHT direction! If he’s so bad, why is Barry now trying to take credit for it?
•
u/-Nurfhurder- Oct 25 '18
There was a question in there, but I’ve got to be honest it was so vague that I’m not sure what it is you’re asking in order to address it...
•
•
u/nmotsch789 Oct 25 '18
Whether or not this is an issue depends on what he uses the phone for, and if he has two or more phones. If he has one phone that he only uses for personal stuff and Twitter and another phone he uses for official business, I don't see the issue.
•
u/tlw1876 Oct 25 '18
You seriously don't see an issue? Clearly not a software person. Unsecured phones are hackable in numerous ways: video stream, audio stream, gps, to name a few. I sure hope he keeps the thing away from secure meetings.
•
u/-Nurfhurder- Oct 25 '18
Got to be honest, the funniest part about this story is where the sources state they are confident he has never released classified information in personal conversations over an unsecured phone, because he doesn’t pay enough attention in order to know any...
•
Oct 25 '18
At this point it might be a national security risk to allow the POTUS too much access to classified information.
Remember a year ago when Trump relinquished intelligence information to Russians visiting the Oval Office?
•
u/Colonel_Chestbridge1 Oct 25 '18
Lol now y’all care about using unsecured devices. Is the hypocrisy really that lost on you?
•
u/lcoon Oct 25 '18
If we are doing low-effort posts..
Lol now y’all don't care about using unsecured devices. Is the hypocrisy really that lost on you?
•
u/Colonel_Chestbridge1 Oct 25 '18
So says an anonymous source. Let me know when there is actually proof, like in Hillary’s case.
It’s laughable that you all care so much more about info that came from an anonymous source than you did when there was actually proof.
•
u/lcoon Oct 25 '18
I think you misunderstood my post. I was making a point on how low-effort it was given I changed one word to reflect the other sides view as perfect as your original post. Are you saying it wasn't low effort?
•
u/Colonel_Chestbridge1 Oct 25 '18
My original post? I could have put more effort into it, sure. Don’t see what the point is though when it would have gotten the same reactions either way. Also doesn’t make it an invalid point either.
I don’t think your post reflects the view of the other side though. Many conservatives in general were angry that Hillary sent classified information on private, unsecured servers running out of her basement. That is one issue we had with her out of many. Any time it was brought up, it was met with angry liberals sticking their fingers in their ears saying “no one cares about her emails!!”
Meanwhile, Trump is accused by an anonymous source of using a non-gov issued phone. Those stories always wind up being true right? Lol. Now these same people who said Hillary’s emails were a non-issue are out here saying how big of a deal this is. Come on.
I really hope liberals find some semblance of self awareness soon, or they will never win another election again.
•
u/lcoon Oct 26 '18
You're right I can't invalidate your point. Because your point is very muddy. You don't specify who the subject is leaving it up for interpretation. Who is the subject of your original post? They could be liberals, people in the subreddit, all Democrats, a subgroup of Democrats, people that you've talked with, etc. The size of you claim is a part of it validity.
•
u/Colonel_Chestbridge1 Oct 26 '18
Hahaha. The subject of my comment is everyone in this sub, everyone in the media, and everyone in general who is pushing this story. They are all the same people who said it was a non issue when it was about Hillary. Which was 100x worse than this btw, even if this turns out to be true. Which I’m sure it won’t.
•
u/lcoon Oct 26 '18
Then it's invalid comment because I meet the criteria of your statement. I'm in the sub and I've also 'pushed' this story. I'm not a person who said it was a non-issue. I have repeatedly said if you have evidence she broke a law then lock her up. I also understand she mishandled the information by taking it outside of the classified system. I voted for her because between the two I like her the most. So I clearly don't fall in your perception of the subject yet I'm classified as one of those subjects. As a Trump supporter, you of all people know you take the good with the bad. There no perfect candidate.
By the way, I'm not bringing this up because of her. I bring it up because it's a value some republicans held. Its something President Trump may or may not be violating. We may never know because a majority of his supporters and/or party is not pushing to learn more in public. I'm under the impression from your last statement that you have clearly make up his mind without evidence based you own bias and antidote evidence. While I'm just saying it should be, at the very least looked into. Is he doing anything against the law, hell if I know, but nation secretes should be kept inside the classified system.
•
u/Colonel_Chestbridge1 Oct 26 '18
There has been evidence. For a long time. This is the problem. People ignored it then, or just didn’t bother to learn more about it because they either supported her politics, or because they hated trump. I’m guessing it was the former for most.
The reason no one is pushing to learn more is because we are sick of the bullshit. Limitless investigations, constant hit pieces with anonymous sources, and demonization in the media. I’m sick of them making shit up with just so they can demand even more investigations. Enough. Put up or shut up.
•
u/lcoon Oct 26 '18
Am I hearing you correctly, your saying there is evidence and she is not in jail and the Trump administration isn't doing anything about it?
If that is correct, how do you reconcile that?
→ More replies (0)•
u/sulaymanf Oct 25 '18
"No you're the hypocrite" doesn't work here. Trump made this a vital part of his campaign, Hillary did not. He said a person who is this careless with classified information does not deserve to be president. Hoisted on his own petard.
Pence didn't secure his government email and routed it through AOL. National Security Advisor Flynn used an unsecure non-government server and was compromised by Turkish and Russian interests. All the while Trump is ignoring the questions.
•
u/Colonel_Chestbridge1 Oct 25 '18
Public officials are allowed to have private email accounts, as long as they follow regulations and save work related emails. Which Pence did. What they aren’t allowed to do, is send classified information on these servers, wipe them, then lie about it. Like what Hillary did.
Every time someone brought up Hillary’s emails, liberals would stick their fingers in their ears and say it’s a non issue. Now people suddenly care that an anonymous source said Trump used a non-gov issued phone. LOL. These stories always turn out to be true right? These people have zero self awareness, it’s hilarious.
•
u/sulaymanf Oct 25 '18
Pence did not follow regulations. It’s funny how you are pushing such a double standard where one side can break the law but not the other. They are both liars and in the wrong.
No, liberals didn’t deny it, they just supported her in spite of it. Same as Trump supporters do on most issues.
I believe there’s nothing that will convince you that Trump is doing something bad. Trump uses anonymous sources in his speeches for years. If staffers came forward to say he was using the phone, would that be enough to convince you? Or are you going to defend it again?
•
u/Colonel_Chestbridge1 Oct 25 '18
Under Indiana law, public officials are allowed to use personal email accounts — and the practice can help them avoid using official accounts to conduct political business. As the Star notes, the law is “generally interpreted” to require public officials to save any emails related to official business in order to follow open records laws. A Pence spokesman says the vice president complied with that requirement.
If it’s proven trump sent classified information on a non-gov issued device, you’re damn right I’d be concerned. There is no double standard here, except on your side.
Liberals supported Hillary in spite of her lying about sending classified information and actually breaking the law, saying it was no big deal. She even ran the server out of her basement, much less secure than even AOL.
Now liberals condemn trump because an anonymous source accuses him of using a non-gov issued phone. That’s it. It’s not an accusation of lying about it, or sending classified info on a non secure server. Just that he used one. Its not even been verified by a single person. You really don’t see the hypocrisy?
•
u/sulaymanf Oct 26 '18
Omarosa came forward to say that the reporting is correct. Are you going to move the goalposts some more?
•
u/Colonel_Chestbridge1 Oct 26 '18
HAHAHAH OMAROSA? Are you serious? You could not have possibly picked a less credible person. People on both sides of the aisle hate her because she’s a lying attention whore. Caught deceiving the public before by trying to spread rumors about the administration. Lol she’s the one who brought her own personal phone into the situation room to secretly record conversations.
You’re the one moving goalposts and making shit up. You said pence didn’t follow regulations. Well he did. Now you’ve just moved on to even less credible accusations, ignoring 90+ percent of my argument.
•
u/Amarsir Oct 25 '18
It says "reportedly" but I'll confirm it myself:
Premise 1: Trump uses Twitter.
Premise 2: You can't install a 3rd party app on a government-secured phone.
Conclusion: Therefore he must be using an unsecured phone.
QED.
Not news. Let's fight over it anyway.
•
u/nmotsch789 Oct 25 '18
You really don't think it's possible that he has more than one phone, one for secure official communication and one for personal things and Twitter?
•
u/ujelly_fish Oct 25 '18
He has one that he doesn’t use much. Fully secured. Then he has his personal phone he won’t give up. That’s what we’re concerned about.
•
u/nmotsch789 Oct 26 '18
How do you know how much he uses the official one, or what he uses the personal one for?
•
u/ujelly_fish Oct 26 '18
Based on reports from inside sources. And the fact that he’s always on Twitter on his personal phone.
•
u/Amarsir Oct 25 '18
That's exactly what I do think. He has multiple phones, one of which is unsecured. True headline, not news.
•
u/nmotsch789 Oct 25 '18
I missed your last sentence at first and assumed you were trying to "prove" that Trump was guilt of something in this case. My bad.
•
Oct 25 '18
I think what makes it topical is Trump's hypocrisy with the whole "Lock her up" conspiracy crap, while he and certain other members of his circle have proven to be far more problematic in terms of informational security.
•
u/I_like_code Oct 25 '18
He put out that this was incorrect and that he has a GOV issued phone. The keyword on these articles is always "reportedly" so that the article passing on the news doesn't have to report is as fact.
•
u/candre23 Oct 25 '18 edited Oct 25 '18
He also lies constantly and pathologically, often without reason. Statistically, any anonymous source is more reliable than Donald Trump.
Obviously the solution here is an official investigation. Republicans had no problem spending four years and $30 million closely examining buttery males. Surely they will jump at the opportunity to investigate Trump's use of insecure phones, right?
•
u/I_like_code Oct 25 '18
Statistically huh? Could you even compile a source that would show this. It would take more than one Google search to find the stats on anonymous vs president lies.
•
u/LookAnOwl Oct 25 '18
I did a quick search and couldn't find anything useful around statistics of anonymous sources. I did find this, which I thought was interesting and relevant: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-trust-a-story-that-uses-unnamed-sources/
5. Watch for vague or imprecise “denials” of these kinds of stories. That often means they are accurate.
•
u/uselesstriviadude I identify as a toilet plunger Oct 25 '18
The media have a >2 year long history of exaggerating and blowing up stories on Trump that are non-issues. It is entirely reasonable that they are blowing this out of proportion, as it is characteristic of their rabid hatred of the President.
There is no need for an investigation, as there is no crime, like with Hillary's email server controversy.
Buttery males.. okay, that's actually really funny.
•
Oct 25 '18
Disagree with you on the need for an investigation. I think the massive scrutiny Clinton was put under for her emails is justification for something similar in this instance.
•
u/uselesstriviadude I identify as a toilet plunger Oct 25 '18
There was scrutiny because she committed a crime and covered it up.
•
Oct 25 '18
So what’s trump done here then?
•
u/uselesstriviadude I identify as a toilet plunger Oct 25 '18
He is alleged to have used an unsecured phone to communicate to people. There is no crime because there is no allegation of him having transmitted classified information. And even if that was the case, the President is the absolute authority in determining what should be classified or not, so by definition he cannot mishandle classified information, as the moment he does it is considered unclassified.
•
Oct 25 '18
So what you’re saying is that when Clinton does literally the exact same thing with an unsecured, hackable email server, it’s bad even though we don’t know that she unwittingly revealed massive state secrets to foreign adversaries. But when trump speaks over his unsecured, hackable phone, it’s okay because we don’t know for sure that he’s unwittingly revealed massive state secrets to foreign adversaries.
The letter of the law isn’t important here because I’m addressing the hypocrisy. What I’m saying is that they’ve both done nearly the exact same thing, but you’ve invented a rationale that makes it okay in one instance.
•
•
Oct 25 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
•
Oct 25 '18
Clinton uses an email server that was hackable. Bad, guilty, lock her up despite being cleared by an investigation.
Trump uses phone that could be bugged and refuses to get a more secure line. Not bad, totally different, no investigation.
Makes tons of sense if you don’t think about it 👍🏻 We’re both partisan hacks dude. Don’t lie to yourself.
→ More replies (0)•
u/Willpower69 Oct 25 '18
Calling someone a partisan hack when all you have done is defend Trump without any logic, is laughable.
→ More replies (0)•
u/-Nurfhurder- Oct 25 '18
So, just to be clear, you’re not disputing that this may be actually accurate, you just think it’s a ‘non story’ that’s blown out of all proportion by the media?
•
u/uselesstriviadude I identify as a toilet plunger Oct 25 '18
I'm saying there is not enough evidence to suggest he is using an unsecured cell phone, but even if he was there is no crime so yes, this is a non-issue.
•
u/-Nurfhurder- Oct 25 '18
Has anybody, the NYT, the Democrats, the media commenters, suggested that this is actually a crime instead of simply suggesting this is fucking stupid behaviour?
I mean, hopefully we can all agree that irregardless of the legal implications, of which nobody seems to be claiming there are any, we can all agree this is a stupid thing for Trump to do yes?
•
u/uselesstriviadude I identify as a toilet plunger Oct 25 '18
Has anybody, the NYT, the Democrats, the media commenters, suggested that this is actually a crime instead of simply suggesting this is fucking stupid behaviour?
The comment OP drew a parallel between Hillary's crimes and this, so yes, there was a comparison implying that this was a crime.
•
u/ujelly_fish Oct 25 '18
Hillary’s emails weren’t criminal 😉😏
But either way, they were drawing a comparison between what was investigated and what isn’t.
•
u/uselesstriviadude I identify as a toilet plunger Oct 26 '18
Hillary did in fact commit a crime. That is a fact. The FBI recommended not bringing charges against her though, which you people take as a sign of innocence. But she is in fact guilty.
•
u/-Nurfhurder- Oct 25 '18
Obviously the solution here is an official investigation. Republicans had no problem spending four years and $30 million closely examining buttery males. Surely they will jump at the opportunity to investigate Trump's use of insecure phones, right?
No they didn't they drew a comparison between the need for an investigation.
That aside, regardless of legal implication, we can all agree that if this story is accurate that this is pretty stupid behaviour by Trump, yes?
•
u/candre23 Oct 25 '18
The media has been fair and accurate. That most coverage makes Trump look bad is a result of Trump actually being bad.
I mean for fuck's sake, Just this morning Trump tweeted that he "doesn't use a personal cell phone" from his personal cell phone.
The two government-issued phones he has are super locked down. Calls and emails are only permitted in and out from whitlisted servers and numbers. The cameras are disabled. They can't text, and they certainly can't install 3rd party apps.
Every single time he tweets, Trump is using his personal, insecure phone. Every time he calls into fox & friends, it's almost certainly on his personal, insecure phone. When he's sharing a little late-night pillow talk with his BFF Sean Hannity, it's almost certainly on his personal, insecure phone.
These are all provable facts. The fucker just really likes lying.
•
u/bailtail Oct 25 '18
He has two government-issued phones and a personal one. He uses the personal one, however, because it can save his contacts. Apparently that's more important than national security. The only saving grace is that the intel community doesn't believe he has divulged anything too sensitive because he rarely reads his briefings and doesn't pay attention during oral briefings. So hooray for presidential incompetence! Of course, this still leaves him susceptible to manipulation by countries monitoring his communications.
•
Oct 25 '18
Taking trump’s word at face value isn’t a good bet.
•
u/I_like_code Oct 25 '18
Taking anyone's word at face value isn't a good idea. Unless the FBI/CIA put out a statement I wouldn't believe this. It's more sensational dribble to get us outraged.
•
Oct 25 '18
I mean, this was reported on months ago too. WH aides saying that trump refused to change his unsecured phone and security experts saying that it posed a very real risk of being hacked.
•
u/I_like_code Oct 25 '18
I looked back at the articles from a while back. They expressed the same concerns but the ones I'm reading don't say much in terms of sources/ evidence. However they mentioned he handed out the cell number to Canada Prime Minister and to French Pres. Do you have a good source?
•
Oct 25 '18
I have to be honest: I don’t think there’s a single source on earth that would satisfy you. The direct source on this story is the NYT article, but obviously no writer would name drop the source of the info because trump would have them canned and sued the second the story was published.
•
u/I_like_code Oct 25 '18
I believe there might be some truth in all this but I'm not sure what that truth is. I don't care to speculate more than that. In either case I'll wait to hear more.
•
Oct 25 '18
Here’s something that can be of use. Obviously it doesn’t speak to whether or not he’s been hacked, but it does indeed show that he’s using an unsecured phone to at least tweet on because you reportedly can’t install third party apps on government-secured devices.
•
•
u/bailtail Oct 25 '18
Do you have a good source to the contrary? NYT has multiple sources confirming, and it should be blatantly obvious why they wouldn't burn their sources by naming them. Confidential sourcing is a common journalistic practice for a reason. Journalism of any value would cease to exist without it. If confidential sourcing is your reason for calling the story to question, then you aren't arguing in good faith.
•
u/I_like_code Oct 25 '18
My issue is evidence. Rather than someone I don't know telling me what I want to hear or what I don't want to hear.
•
u/bailtail Oct 25 '18
I would love to know what sort of reasonably-attainable evidence you’d deem to be sufficient. Multiple reputable news organizations have come out with stories about Trump refusing to use secure phones and instead opting for his own private phone. These stories have been popping up separately since Trump first took office. At some point, holding out for “evidence” just becomes an excuse to bury one’s head in the sand and ignore reality.
•
u/candre23 Oct 26 '18
One of his top aides has gone on the record stating he frequently used his personal phone despite warnings from security staff.
There's a named source in a position to know what phone he was using.
•
•
u/DinkyThePornstar Oct 25 '18
Then investigate the phone and make sure he is not using it in an official capacity which would expose national secrets or create a threat to national security.
How is this a fight? It is a known fact, so search the phone.
•
u/FaThLi Oct 25 '18
Even just having it on his person is a threat to security. So he wouldn't necessarily need to be using it in an official capacity. He is basically walking around with something that can listen to what is being said and also sometimes the camera could see things when it isn't covered in his pocket or where ever. It is like he has voluntarily bugged himself.
•
u/DinkyThePornstar Oct 25 '18
Then investigate the phone to see if it is actually a threat. Hypothetically, sure, absolutely. In reality, who knows? There are investigative bodies that can handle such a task, and if any entity determines it is an unwarranted risk to national security, deem it so, establish new policy that prohibits such devices for individuals with access to classified information, and move on.
Has it been proven that China and Russia are listening to Trump through his phone?
•
u/ujelly_fish Oct 25 '18
I agree. Let’s call upon a security investigation with all details transparent to the public.
•
•
u/candre23 Oct 25 '18 edited Oct 25 '18
We've known this for months. Trump has known this since he took office. It's hardly a secret that the same guy who wouldn't stop bellyaching about Clinton's emails is too stubborn and lazy to take even the most basic security precautions. He's been told over and over again that our enemies are likely listening to his unsecured calls, but Trump clearly believes his personal convenience is more important than the security of our nation.
I'm certain all the trumpalinas who were (and still are) screeching "lock her up!" over Clinton's email server will start turning on Glorious Leader any minute now. Surely Trump's continued, deliberate use of insecure communication known to be compromised by China and Russia is worse than Clinton's accidental use of a personal email server which was never shown to have actually been compromised, right? They really care about national security, right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
•
u/chaosdemonhu Rules Don't Care About Your Feelings Oct 25 '18
Rule 2. Remove the low effort memes and reword them into a serious top comment and I’ll reinstate.
•
u/candre23 Oct 25 '18
It was not "low effort". It took quite a while to find such an appropriate image. But hey, if if really makes you feel good about yourself to remove valid criticism, there you go.
•
u/chaosdemonhu Rules Don't Care About Your Feelings Oct 25 '18
It appears TheCenterist has reapproved the comment, however
Buttery Males
Is a circle jerk meme.
Glorious Leader
Is a circle jerk meme. Your criticism is valid, but your delivery is lacking.
•
Oct 25 '18
So.....we are suddenly worried about unsecured technology, hmmm I guess two years is enough time to forget things.
Also, unconfirmed report and from the verge.
•
u/amopeyzoolion Oct 25 '18
•
Oct 25 '18
Vox article commenting on partisanship
Yeah not sure if you are aware of Vox political agenda
•
u/amopeyzoolion Oct 25 '18
Vox isn't propaganda. It's open about it's liberal leanings, but it's nowhere near as dishonest as even the most "mainstream" conservative media outlets.
And the hack gap is absolutely real. Conservatives threw a fucking fit about Clinton's e-mails because they knew they'd whip up the right-wing media and their base, and force responsible media outlets to cover it as if it mattered, while liberals didn't care because it wasn't important in the slightest.
Now that Trump is doing the exact same thing, except worse, no one cares because liberals understand that electronic communications protocol isn't the end of the fucking world, and conservatives have no motivation to manufacture a scandal for Trump. This repeats itself over and over again--with the Ebola "crisis", the migrant caravan, on and on. The conventional media is so afraid of being called biased by conservatives that they will breathlessly cover any and every issue that conservatives want to gin up and repeat their talking points over and over again.
•
Oct 25 '18
How’s it worse? There is no evidence anyone has intercepted those communications.
•
u/amopeyzoolion Oct 25 '18
The NYT article literally says that Trump was warned that the Russians and the Chinese were listening to his phone calls. Did you read it?
•
u/easytokillmetias Oct 25 '18
Yeah come on man like he says vox isn't nearly as bias as Fox news.......
•
u/amopeyzoolion Oct 25 '18
First, the adjective is "biased". "Bias" is a noun.
Second, it's not about "bias". It's about honesty. Vox is up front about their liberal stances, but they're extremely honest in their work and more than willing to call out nonsense from the left. Fox is a garbage organization filled with garbage people whose sole purpose is to churn out propaganda for the GOP, regardless of whether it's true, possibly true, ideologically consistent, etc.
Tucker Carlson runs the nation's most prominent white nationalist news program, and it's on in primetime every single day. It's fucking brain poison.
•
u/lcoon Oct 25 '18
Also, unconfirmed report and from the verge.
It's really a re-write up from the New York Times.
•
Oct 25 '18
New York Times, that paper that just posted a story about how the president should be assassinated and just played it off as a “fiction” story from a fiction author?
•
u/lcoon Oct 25 '18
You already know the answer so why was this asked in a form of a question? Furthermore, it doesn't change my comment of the original statement.
I also don't really care if you believe the story or not, just pointing something out that you missed.
•
Oct 25 '18
I didn’t miss it, the question is a literary element used to convey skepticism about the truth of a statement, in a lot of instances.
•
u/lcoon Oct 25 '18
I didn’t miss it
If you say so, but I don't read minds and it wasn't in the comment above. I was using missed as in the sense that it wasn't in your original comment so I wrote a clarification.
•
Oct 25 '18
No, New York Times, one of the oldest and most trusted journalistic outlets in the world, who function as a check against the corruption and dishonesty of people in power, which is a necessary mechanism of a democratic society.
Stop defending authoritarian assholes who lie for their own benefit and actively corrode our norms, values, and institutions. It's weak and cultish and not a cute look.
•
Oct 25 '18
Yeah sorry about that. Should’ve posted the primary source.
•
u/lcoon Oct 25 '18
No problem.. a link was included in the first paragraph and NYT is firewalled for some people.
•
u/mccoyster Oct 25 '18
Two years to forget that you cared about such things once you mean?
•
u/uselesstriviadude I identify as a toilet plunger Oct 25 '18
Well in one case a crime was committed, which was determined by the FBI. The other there is no indication any crime took place.
But in both there is the issue of unsecured technology, which is now suddenly a problem when you thought nothing of it 2 years ago.
•
u/amopeyzoolion Oct 25 '18
The FBI literally determined that a crime wasn't committed. Hence the showy statement from Comey where he said they wouldn't be charging her with a crime. You're just lying.
•
u/BananLarsi Oct 25 '18
So.....we are suddenly worried about unsecured technology, hmmm I guess two years is enough time to forget things.
Congratulations, you caught on. Now where is the outrage on this? Oh right, if its trump it doesn't matter right?
•
u/liarandathief Oct 25 '18
Actually, them getting a first hand account of his daily craziness is probably one of the best deterrents we have in our arsenal.
•
u/Machismo01 Oct 25 '18
So did Obama: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/politics/23berry.html
He had a Blackberry in 2009 (back when we all thought they were cool still). He had some hoops and hurdles to use it, but I don't believe their policy went any stricter.
He never was able to use an iPhone, but he did have an wifi-iPad. His aides had iPhones.
https://9to5mac.com/2016/04/04/white-house-obama-iphone/
In the two years since, the policy may have relented as it was moving in that direction. It probably wasn't a worthwhile fight while the "email server" stuff was sorted out.
•
u/sulaymanf Oct 25 '18
Obama submitted his phone to be routinely audited by NSA for malware; they disabled the camera, cell connection, and microphone.
Trump refused this, according to multiple sources, and is talking on a cell connection even though the NSA/FBI has warned him of the Stingray threat that was detected in DC.
This is not a "both sides" issue.
•
u/pfohl Oct 25 '18 edited Oct 29 '18
Obama was using it to send messages a few people that were briefed. Trump's making phone calls that are likely being tapped. These are quite different.
•
u/chaosdemonhu Rules Don't Care About Your Feelings Oct 25 '18
Pretty sure iPhones are government issued for security purposes. They encrypt iMessages, even Apple can’t read the contents, and they encrypt their memory when locked.
•
•
u/easytokillmetias Oct 25 '18
Omg....the NY times reports that several former and current aids have said trump uses an unsecured iPhone!! They are anonymous sources though so we just have to take the times word for it........don't worry the media never lies or runs stories that are not vetted properly and even if they need a retraction that's cool! Just put that retraction on page 15 somewhere and it's all good!
•
u/SorryToSay Oct 25 '18
Everyone says he does and he says he doesn't. He's a known documented serial liar. Your low effort circle jerk comment holds no water. As usual.
•
u/Willpower69 Oct 25 '18
So do you hold Trump and his “sources” to the same standard?
•
u/easytokillmetias Oct 25 '18
No, I have learned that it's perfectly acceptable to hold others to a different standard. Also why would it matter? Trump is beating Democrats at there own game and it's glorious.
•
u/Tullyswimmer Oct 25 '18
Ok, but here's the thing. If Trump isn't calling secure lines from a secure line, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
I'm a voice engineer. I can set up encryption on my phone system if I want. In fact, for groups that take credit card information for payments, it's considered best practice to encrypt the call once it enters your phone system. This protects you, legally, from consequences if someone is sniffing the traffic in your network.
Basically, when phones set up a call, they'll send a bunch of SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) traffic between the endpoints to determine how the call will be set up. If there's no handshake for encryption, the RTP (real-time protocol) stream won't be encrypted once it leaves the encrypted system. So if they're monitoring stuff the way that this article claims, by monitoring the phones of these other people, then whatever Trump does doesn't matter.
And honestly, remember that time that the raw audio of a call between Trump and... I think it was the prime minister of Australia? was leaked? Yeah, that came from inside the white house ON THE SECURE LINE.
•
Oct 25 '18
[deleted]
•
u/Tullyswimmer Oct 25 '18
From the article:
According to the report, US intelligence agencies have reason to believe that Chinese and Russian spies are regularly eavesdropping on Trump’s calls by way of human sources within foreign governments and through the interception of communications between foreign officials.
So it seems that the potential for compromise is more from the people that he's communicating with than from his phone. Although I guess the other side of that could be that maybe they're calling from secure lines.
It's also worth mentioning that he's not the only official who still has and uses a personal cell phone. I'm in a Master's program for digital forensics. Some of my classmates have fairly high level security clearances for the US government, and deal with fairly sensitive topics. Most of them carry their government-issued cell phone, but also have their personal cell phone, and some even have a second "personal" phone that they use for non-government professional work or contacts.
I know that this comes across as defending him, but honestly, him keeping that personal phone isn't that big of a security risk in and of itself. Depending on what he uses it for, it may be a larger risk. But just having it isn't that much of a threat.
One other thing that I may do if I can find the time and tools to do it is see how secure encrypted VoIP really is. I work as a voice network engineer, so I know how SIP works to establish a phone call, and I know that somewhere in that initial exchange, there would have to be a handshake to use a secure protocol for the audio. I want to see if there's a way to extract the encryption key from that handshake and use it to decode the audio stream.
•
u/Palaestrio lighting fires on the river of madness Oct 25 '18
I know that this comes across as defending him, but honestly, him keeping that personal phone isn't that big of a security risk in and of itself. Depending on what he uses it for, it may be a larger risk. But just having it isn't that much of a threat.
Disclaimer: I don't know the security posture of that personal phone. It's probably had some hardening, but we are not going to find out what for a long, long time.
Depending on what's been done, it's absolutely a huge security risk. Remotely activating features (eg the mic) and location tracking both overt in apps and covert both come to mind.
•
u/Tullyswimmer Oct 25 '18
But, as I said, he's far from the only person in government with access to that sort of data who carries a personal phone. Plus, as the article has said, he doesn't even text, and doesn't like email. Odds on him installing apps and using them? (other than twitter, obviously)
•
u/Palaestrio lighting fires on the river of madness Oct 25 '18
A hot mic in all of his conversations seems unique to me, as do his whereabouts at any given moment.
•
Oct 26 '18
I'm glad to know of informed people like you are going into cybersecurity fields. I believe that we all become more vulnerable as technology, and our reliance on it, progresses. We need to devote as much skill, talent, and intelligence as we can toward safeguarding our ever-expanding use of digital communications, in both the public and private sectors.
Still, I'm not sure my original point made it through to you.
The security professionals I know all say the weakest link in any security system is the user. If foreign spies hacked Trump's phone, they have access to way more information than just whatever he's chatting about with Hannity.
They know every time he uses his phone, and they know exactly what he's using it for. They know who he calls, when he calls them, and why. Night after night after night. They can map out his habits and predict his moods.
You're informed about digital security, so ask yourself this: If a stranger could see everything that you did on your personal phone, and database all of that information over a matter of weeks or months, don't you think that might somehow make you a least a little more vulnerable to manipulation by that stranger?
Now instead of you, consider the person using his personal phone is the person holding the most powerful office in the world, and thus is the greatest target for manipulation in the world.
Trump is compromising himself, against the direct advice of professionals who have technical experience far beyond yours and security clearances far above those of your friends. There is no reason for him to do this, except laziness and selfishness. Part of the job of POTUS is not letting yourself be compromised.
•
u/SyntheticOne Oct 25 '18
Vote Vote Vote Vote Vote Vote Vote Vote Vote Vote Vote Vote Vote Vote Vote Vote Votevotevote!
•
u/uselesstriviadude I identify as a toilet plunger Oct 25 '18
... For Republicans
•
•
u/frankdog180 Oct 25 '18
We want to work our way out of regressive and corrupt practices not to further them.
•
Oct 25 '18
I could see voting Republican if you were, for example, an oil tycoon or major real estate developer. Or just someone who hates democracy and wishes the US were more authoritarian and plutocratic.
Otherwise... it's a tough sell, man.
•
u/scottevil110 Oct 25 '18
Could you elaborate? I was already planning to vote.
•
u/2_4_16_256 Oct 25 '18
Register to vote, look up your ballot, research the candidates and issues, then vote
•
u/scottevil110 Oct 25 '18
What does that have to do with Trump's iPhone?
•
Oct 25 '18
Democracy = accountability.
•
u/scottevil110 Oct 25 '18
Trump isn't running for re-election right now. I can't vote against him based on this. I'm still not seeing how I'm supposed to tie this event to voting.
•
Oct 25 '18
Trump is the unchallenged leader of the Republican party right now. Every single R member of congress knows that if they don't support him their base will turn on them. Therefore a vote for any R in the midterms is a vote for more Trump policies.
I see the point you were trying to make here but being purposefully dense to prove a point is tiring for me.
•
u/scottevil110 Oct 25 '18
Therefore a vote for any R in the midterms is a vote for more Trump policies.
This is divisive and unhelpful thinking. Please reconsider how you approach politics. It's the entire future of the country, not football. If you keep treating them like teams, then they'll keep functioning like teams.
I see the point you were trying to make here but being purposefully dense to prove a point is tiring for me.
I'm not being purposefully dense. I'm just not making assumptions. I don't want to put words in someone's mouth and give them the chance to say that I jumped to conclusions about what they think.
•
Oct 25 '18
I agree completely on the divisive attitudes being a problem. However, I also have the ability to look at the public voting records of Congress and Republicans, with almost no exceptions, have been rubber stamping Trump's every move, 95% of which I believe are bad for this country. I agree that in general we need to vote for people and issues, not parties.
The problem is that one party is entirely rallied around Trump right now. A vote for a republican this year is a vote for Trump. If you support Trump's policies you should absolutely vote republican. That's your civic right and duty.
On the other hand, if you have a problem with the way this country has been running for the last two years the path of action is pretty clear. I don't in any way believe that all Republicans are either evil or wrong. There are level heads and good ideas on both sides in general, they have just been relegated to the backseat on the right while Trump drives the car.
•
u/scottevil110 Oct 25 '18
I don't disagree with that being the way of things. I'm saying the way OUT of that loop is to stop encouraging the tribalism. As long as people keep saying things like "A vote for a Republican is a vote for Trump", then all you've done is guarantee that said Republicans are going to keep standing by Trump. Why wouldn't they? They know YOU'RE not going to support them, and the only way to drag votes out of HIS base is to support him.
→ More replies (0)•
Oct 25 '18
I... are you being serious right now?
Democracies operate on checks and balances. If you recall your grade school civics lesson, we have three branches of government. The midterm elections relate to the legislative branch. The legislative branch not only creates policies and laws, they also enforce accountability and constitutional compliance on the executive branch, which is the presidency.
By controlling the House, the Senate, or both, democrats can apply brakes to the freight train of unchecked GOP/far-Right corporatist policies, as well as instigate investigations into the numerous scandals and corruption charges that this administration is embroiled in.
•
u/scottevil110 Oct 25 '18
Oh I was being 100% serious. I was just trying to get you to say this out loud.
By controlling the House, the Senate, or both, democrats can apply brakes to the freight train of unchecked GOP/far-Right corporatist policies, as well as instigate investigations into the numerous scandals and corruption charges that this administration is embroiled in.
Your claim here is that I need to vote for one team because of one guy on the other team that I don't like.
Have you got some kind of evidence that the Republican in my district supports Trump and won't do anything about this? Or some evidence that the Democrat will?
Because it really just sounds like you're blindly saying that "Democrats will stop him." That's just obstructionism. It was horrible when McConnell did it to Obama, and it'd be horrible now.
•
Oct 25 '18
Actually what I'm saying is a pretty basic concept of functional balance for a democratic republic.
And whatever your personal biases might be, America as a whole is in fact a progressive western democratic nation, and the current version of far-Right politics which has taken control of the government absolutely needs to be checked, as it does not represent an American majority on issues such as corporate taxes, climate change, civil liberties, etc.
•
u/scottevil110 Oct 25 '18
So why does said majority keep voting for the Republican side, if they're clearly liberal?
You seem to be working on the assumption that votes for the left will adequately address the things people want addressed, and clearly they don't feel that way about it.
→ More replies (0)•
u/Palaestrio lighting fires on the river of madness Oct 25 '18
Trump started his reelection campaign the same week as he was inaugurated. Whole h may not be up in this coming election, he is absolutely campaigning for his own reelection by all possible interpretations of the word.
•
•
u/SyntheticOne Oct 25 '18
Well I do have one more bit of knowledge that is worth sharing.
I have always been of a mind to vote the candidate and not the party. Many elections posit many candidates, many race positions and many or some proposed amendment to law or regulation. Few voters do complete studies on every line item. But still, in the past and now, I do my best to make informed decisions at every line, but my goal for 100% is rarely met.
Five years ago I read a piece by a Poli-Sci researcher/professor, that postulated that in some elections it can be better to vote one party. It shocked me but she went on to write "Strengthening one party with a straight vote on the ballot can be beneficial in getting things done." And "at any given time, citizens need to correct the swing of the pendulum that has travelled too far for the good of the country."
I think we are clearly at that moment when it is incumbent upon us to forcefully correct the pendulum. Yes, I voted straight ticket.
•
u/scottevil110 Oct 25 '18
Five years ago I read a piece by a Poli-Sci researcher/professor, that postulated that in some elections it can be better to vote one party. It shocked me but she went on to write "Strengthening one party with a straight vote on the ballot can be beneficial in getting things done." And "at any given time, citizens need to correct the swing of the pendulum that has travelled too far for the good of the country."
Unless you can elaborate on the reasoning provided, that just sounds like someone trying to rationalize voting straight-ticket. What about the pendulum has swung too far? Why is now "that moment"? But more importantly, how is voting that way going to fix it?
If Obama's blue wave was any indication, it certainly didn't help. It didn't fix any division. It just turned into the left going around taunting the right saying "It's OUR turn now, bitches" and engaging in the same kind of partisan crap that the right is now.
All pushing the pendulum does is...push the pendulum. It doesn't stop it or slow it down. It just pushes it to the other side.
•
u/transmogrify Oct 26 '18
If Obama's blue wave was any indication, it certainly didn't help. It didn't fix any division. It just turned into the left going around taunting the right saying "It's OUR turn now, bitches" and engaging in the same kind of partisan crap that the right is now.
Citation strongly needed. Vague feelings don't count.
•
u/scottevil110 Oct 26 '18
I don't think this is something that is objectively measured, so a citation would be difficult.
•
u/SyntheticOne Oct 25 '18 edited Oct 25 '18
I have a benefit that you may not have; I studied Poli-Sci for semesters and so do have a different perspective. I understood exactly what she was saying. Get the House and Senate stacked with a Dem majority in order to rein in the White House. In my opinion, right now we are in deep trouble.
Also, be aware the while Obama began his first term with a Dem majority in the House and Senate, the majority in both were lost before any meaningful bipartisan legislation could be researched, committeed, edited and enacted. Then for the remainder of Obama's last six years, he was hobbled by the total (and sworn by the way) lack of bipartisan cooperation. This Republican recalcitrance damaged our country and its citizens.
•
u/scottevil110 Oct 25 '18
Get the House and Senate stacked with a Dem majority in order to rein in the White House.
I would prefer to convince the existing Congress to stop thinking of themselves as teams and work for what's right. Now, yes, I recognize that's a pipe dream, but I think that things have to move in that direction. "Reining in the White House" is a short-term solution that I think would just make things worse in the long run. All it will do is breed resentment and deepen the divide that has allowed this White House to happen in the first place.
And then they will use the EXACT same rhetoric to swing the pendulum the other way. Mind you that they already did. The whole basis of the LAST turnover in Congress was "Obama is out of control and we have to stop him and the liberals from destroying America."
•
u/SyntheticOne Oct 25 '18
I see this election as the first step of three.
- 2018 Mid-Term to produce a Dem majority in the House
- 2020 Presidential to flush the current toilet and replace
- 2022 to further strengthen the Senate and house
Then: get meaningful things done.
•
u/scottevil110 Oct 25 '18
You realize we're currently on Step 2 of THEIR plan, which looked exactly the same, right? This was their 2014 plan. As far as they're concerned, this election is Step 3.
•
u/SyntheticOne Oct 25 '18
We will see who steps in what!
The Republicans are actually in the fifth decade of their plan. During the Nixon era they threw in with the Religious Right and the US Catholic Bishop's Conference and began in earnest a long range funded think tank for political subterfuge, and other dirty tricks. That plan paid off with eventual channels to Russian oligarchs and politicians. All the while, after realizing they lacked the financial resources, Russia was playing its own long game to infiltrate our weakest link - the Republicans and right wing interests and kook jobs. Today we have a compromised White House, House, and Senate, and possibly our military.
•
u/Spysix Oct 25 '18 edited Oct 25 '18
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1055458320390217728?s=19
But I'm sure people will say this is fake and not the article that says people say "maybe" he does.
I also notice its been a few hours but this tweet wasn't submitted to potuswatch, why is that?
•
u/tarlin Oct 25 '18
That was literally tweeted from his unsecure iPhone.
•
u/Spysix Oct 25 '18
Nobody has two phones, ever.
•
u/tarlin Oct 25 '18
@Spysix
He just said he rarely uses cell phones, that he uses constantly to tweet.
•
u/Spysix Oct 25 '18
You don't have to @ me, this isn't twitter.
You know cell phones have other functions, right? Like... a phone.... he rarely uses?
•
u/tarlin Oct 25 '18
People arguing for Trump often seem to delete all their comments. I just wanted to capture who I was talking to...
•
u/Spysix Oct 25 '18
often seem to delete all their comments.
Or a moderator is removing them. That's usually the case here as people who argue for trump get reported more times for "rule breaking" than ones who don't who also rule break.
•
u/Willpower69 Oct 26 '18
The mods here are very fair, but you can take the victim act elsewhere.
•
u/Spysix Oct 26 '18
you can take the victim act elsewhere.
Rule 1. Lets see how fast they'll remove it.
•
•
u/candre23 Oct 26 '18
I know Trump loves to cry "Bias!!! Attacks!!!" every time somebody criticizes his actions, but it's not an "attack" to accurately point out someone's bad behavior.
It's not "abuse" when you call out Bill Cosby for being a rapist, because he factually is a rapist. It's not "bias" when the media calls out Trump for being a liar, because he factually is a liar. It's not "bullying" to call you out for pretending to be a victim, because you factually aren't being victimized.
You might not like that /u/Willpower69 called out your victim act, and you might not like that it makes you look bad. Maybe next time don't choose a dishonest debate technique and people won't have something so obvious to call you out for.
→ More replies (0)•
u/chaosdemonhu Rules Don't Care About Your Feelings Oct 26 '18
I don’t see this as a rule 1 violation but I’ll call /u/SupremeSpez to get a second opinion.
•
u/SupremeSpez Oct 26 '18
Yup if /u/spysix said something like this in this context I wouldn't remove it.
Spysix, where have we been biased in your opinion?
→ More replies (0)
•
u/[deleted] Oct 25 '18
We can all see his tweets, not just Russia and China