166
Trump dismisses Signal security failure as ‘the only glitch in two months’
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
166 points (96.6% liked)
politics
22566 readers
3570 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nah, the idiot is the one who spreads misinformation by using misleading titles. In what world did a "Signal security failure" occur? The title is extremely misleading and one can only hope it was incompetence; not intent.
What Trump calls things should be irrelevant to a news site.
There is zero chance that Trump will ever accept blame for anything. Ever. As far as Trump is concerned, it is a "Signal Security Failure" because Signal let them use the app in the first place. He'll launch an investigation into Signal and probably sign an EO banning encryption on all government devices before he ever admits a failure on his part.
Sure, but I don't really care what that idiot thinks. When I read an article about there being a "Signal security failure," I expect there to be a Signal security failure.
The security failure was using signal, it's not that difficult to parse the difference lmfao.
So you're gonna pretend that's your first interpretation of the meaning of the sentence, huh?
Edit: Also, that's wrong interpretation of what happened either way, guess the title doesn't work even if you're intentionally obtuse.
It's coming from Trump? Like idk what to say lol, I was already aware of the situation so it was very obvious to me.
Here's an example, if I work at a bank and someone's information is leaked to the public due to an issue with the security of the company, that would be a security issue on the software side.
If instead it was simply leaked manually by a person, that would STILL BE a security leak.
And are you going to call both a "bank security issue"?
Yes you absolutely would
It’s clearly indicated as a quote.
The headline isn’t misleading. It isn’t leading at all, which is part of the problem actually.
I found the headline misleading because the phrase Signal security failure (with no quotes) could be incorrectly interpreted as Signal's security failure instead of what it actually is, the Trump administration's security failure. It's not Signal's fault that the Trump administration is incompetent, and the headline writer should have been more careful to make this clear.
Nope, it's not. The part saying "the only glitch in two months" is indicated as a quote, but overall the title sounds like there's a security issue in Signal and Trump chose to dismiss it because it's the only glitch in the last two months.
There are no quotes. So it is not something Trump said. It was interpreted by the author of the news story.
There are absolutely quotes. No wonder media literacy is shit.
Single quotes are AP style in America for quotes within quotes and in headlines.
Single quotes are fully acceptable as quotes in other places. Like Englishland.
Tell me you are dense, without telling me you are dense. You can’t make this shit up 🤣
I’m not going to further teach grammar.
Look around, there should be plenty of Nazis around, though I doubt many of them remember high school English either.
Sure sure. Oh. About the quotes. Do you mind sharing a screenshot of the quotes you are talking about?
What’s up, buddy? Why the sudden silence? Or did you finally realize that “Signal security failure” was never something someone said and it was actually just something the author came up with?
Y'all really need to learn to read the article before having a false opinion on it.
And where exactly do you see “Signal security failure” in the quoted text?
Alright, fair. I see your point now. Sorry to come out swinging like that. I think I misunderstood what you were trying to say originally.
The "security failure" was in government operatives using unsecured modes of communication. Signal itself did not have a security failure, the US government did.
The bit about it being a """glitch""" is a direct quote though (and a bold faced lie by the president).
All good. It’s just an unnecessary punch against Signal. Especially journalist rely heavily on it, so I don’t know what the intention was with this title.
Have my upvote. Because my view is the same. The title included a quote, which is even marked as a quote. However, “Signal security failure” is without quotes. So the author just chose to unnecessarily blame Signal, instead of the real issue.
That phrase can also be parsed as a security failure involving signal, not because of it. Like a treaty created at camp david (eg) could be referred to in a headline as "camp david treaty" even if the official title is "Sweden Finland pact to stop throwing rotten fish over the border accord".
That’s right. It is just unnecessary to mention Signal at all in this case, as it might cause confusion.
What the shitgibbon calls things should be reported on, then promptly countered, so his bullshit can't get embedded in the zeitgeist.
We also need more news sites. If you think you can do a better job reporting the news than the Guardian, than by all means, please do so, and do what you think is best. Because the only way we'll get past this is by holding Master Mould Shitgibbon and his merry band of miscreants' multiple fuckups to the light in as many ways as possible.
Sorry not sorry for not engaging in the shiny object you seem fixated on. I've got bigger fish to fry.
Ah, so reporting stuff he said as if it was true, even though this is not a Signal security issue, but his incompetence is fine in your book?
So what, if Trump says random bullshit, every news piece about it should sound like they actually agree with what he said?
Okay, enjoy your articles about Signal security issues.
I don't particularly care about your fish or your frying.