“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.”
卧槽，现在又小道报纸了。难道说的不是事实？况且，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，你的结论是应该怪这位记者报道了？甚至像某些马嘎们说记者犯了泄密罪或判国罪？
而且，“President Joe Biden's administration initially authorized the use of Signal by government officials in December 2024.” 拜登总统说过Signal可以被用来举行这种higly classified meetings吗？
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.
点点点点点 发表评论于 2025-03-28 10:30:41
一帮傻逼五毛
东南方 发表评论于 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.
东南方 发表评论于 2025-03-28 07:45:36又是那个要召回一飞机黑帮罪犯的芝麻法官？他不知道"信号"的"阅后即焚"功能吗？用户咋保留？
芝麻法官不但无良还无知。
-------------
Everything has record on internet, you need know reading
