UNI88 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 05, 2025 7:58 pm
SeattleGriz wrote:
Whataboutism is used for difficult to defend positions. The Biden and Trump administrations both approved the use of Signal. That is not whataboutism. It's fact.
Typical Uni St Behar. Doesn't know Jack shit about the topic so pulls the usual bullshit of throwing crap on a wall. A SCIF, give me a break. Let's add this lunacy to all your others.
You don't even know what government communications would replace Signal. Go get your head checked.
Did the biden administration approve Signal for all communications or only in limited situations?
is it legal for the government to delete these communications?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As you are too lazy, here you go.
1) SIPRNet (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network)
2) JWICS (Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System)
Both SIPRNet and JWICS can technically be accessed via secure mobile devices, but this comes with significant caveats and strict requirements. The DoD has adapted these networks for mobility to support tactical users—like troops in the field or officials on the move—but the process is heavily regulated
SIPRNet, handling classified info up to the Secret level, doesn’t universally mandate a SCIF, though physical security is still strict.
JWICS, handling Top Secret and SCI, is far stricter, and a SCIF is usually required. Managed by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), it follows Joint Staff and Intelligence Community directives (e.g., ICD 503).
On the legality front: Signal isn’t an approved platform for classified info under U.S. government rules—secure systems like SIPRNet or JWICS are standard. The Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. § 793) makes it illegal to mishandle national defense info if it’s classified, with penalties up to 10 years in prison. Hegseth and Waltz say no classified data was shared, calling it unclassified “attack plans.” CIA Director John Ratcliffe and DNI Tulsi Gabbard backed this up in testimony, saying Signal’s fine for some work discussions.