Because any tech has privacy risks?
We're no longer living in a world where the only major cybersecurity threats are CCP-backed tech and Russian hackers.
Australis13
joined 2 years ago
So much for cutting the waste!
Out of curiosity, how many of the downvoters on this article have actually read it? Most of it is not about Fetterman but the fact that the Democrat leadership seems to have their heads in the sand and is neither demonstrating leadership nor willing to learn from their loss last year.
At least she regrets her decision and seems to be capable of learning.
Signal security relies on user competence. The user has to be savvy enough to not fall for phishing attempts. All it would take is for one of the morons to have scanned such a QR code for that whole chat to have been compromised. I would bet big money that at least one of these fools had already done so.
Considering one of the participants of that Signal chat (Witkoff) was in Russia at the time, I think you would win that bet.
Apologies! Don't know what happened there... it's Malcolm Nance.
Malcolm Nance (veteran of US intelligence) discussed the Signal breach here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MERwAvesX9o
It's not just conceivable, it's almost guaranteed that non-US powers were listening in. These people are either incredibly stupid (and have the Dunning-Kruger over-confidence to match) or they are traitors to the US.
Okay, so who's going to stop him? Anyone?
It should be blatantly obvious to anyone paying attention that the "Department of Government Efficiency" isn't really about efficiency.
It may not even be that rational. It could be as simple as him being petty.
This is the approach I would suggest. I do not agree with forcing people to take vaccines, but if they want to be part of society then this is a reasonable requirement. It's simply an extension of the duty of care principle we already have for healthcare environments where vaccination and other measures are required for people to work in.
I'm not a lawyer either, but my take on it is that they will argue that whilst the 12th Amendment requires that the VP candidate be eligible for the office of President, that eligibility is not the same as the election constraint of the 22nd Amendment and that the 22nd Amendment doesn't actually address eligibility.