[mullingitover]

Two problems with this:

How were the staffers archiving the disappearing messages?

What evidence do you have that the Biden administration conducted official government business on Signal?[1]

If they were above board and legal with this they wouldn’t have forced their republican congressional oversight committee to drag them into hearings.

[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-cia-director-blames-biden-2...

[chrisco255]

Signal does not mandate that messages be disappeared, that's a customized setting. But there are multiple ways to archive including simple screenshots.

Here is CISA page updated last under Biden's admin:

https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/mobile-commun...

In the PDF on that page you'll see Signal recommended for communication.

[mullingitover]

From the article above:

> Former Biden officials, though, said that Signal was never permitted on their government phones.

> “We were not allowed to have any messaging apps on our work phones,” said one former top national security official on the condition of anonymity. “And under no circumstances were unclassified messaging apps allowed to be used for transmission of classified material. This is misdirection at its worst.”

The CISA advice wasn't telling public employees to use Signal for classified communications or communications subject to FOIA.

You're going to be completely unable to show me evidence that this was ever okay, because it wasn't.

[chrisco255]

Let me help you out from the CISA post:

"General Recommendations Apply these best practices to your devices and online accounts. 1. Use only end-to-end encrypted communications. Adopt a free messaging application for secure communications that guarantees end-to-end encryption, such as Signal or similar apps. CISA recommends an end-to-end encrypted messaging app that is compatible with both iPhone and Android operating systems, allowing for text message interoperability across platforms. Such apps may also offer clients for MacOS, Windows, and Linux, and sometimes the web. These apps typically support one-on-one text chats, group chats with up to 1,000 participants, and encrypted voice and video calls. Additionally, they may include features like disappearing messages and images, which can enhance privacy. When selecting an end-to-end"

Nothing in that chat was classified and to the extent that any of it would be, the President and his cabinet members ultimately have final say over what is and is not classified. They are the leadership.

The chat was a discussion mostly concerning opinions on the actions and high level logistics. Actual plans were distributed through CENTCOM.

It's completely ok because it's the President's cabinet. They run the government.

There is no authority higher than the president to determine the status of information.

[mullingitover]

> Let me help you out from the CISA post:

Yes, you are showing nothing in that quote authorizes or recommends using Signal for official communications subject to sunshine laws. Certainly not authorizing it for classified data.

> Nothing in that chat was classified and to the extent that any of it would be, the President and his cabinet members ultimately have final say over what is and is not classified. They are the leadership.

Hand-waving is not evidence, so my assertion you'd be unable to provide evidence stands. People far above my pay grade say obviously this was classified and while the president can de-classify, and he can pardon them for mishandling classified information, what they did was illegal and there's no un-ringing that particular bell.

[ModernMech]

You left out the parts of that refute your position though, how come?

  "Organizations may already have these best practices in place, such as secure communication platforms1 and multifactor authentication (MFA) policies. In cases where organizations do not, apply the following best practices to your mobile devices."

  "Any reference to specific commercial entities, products, processes, or services by service mark, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by CISA."

> There is no authority higher than the president to determine the status of information.

That they gave themselves the authority to endanger national security doesn't change the fact they endangered national security, and in fact makes what they did worse as it's intentional.