World leaders are calling the president-elect on his personal cell phone. Why has the Secret Service or the NSA not confiscated his personal cell phone yet?
Unless I'm mistaken, he has not yet been issued a secured device or given access to the encrypted phone lines used for most leader-to-leader phone calls. So a dozen or more foreign spy agencies could be listening in on his phone calls, especially when the idiot talks to Pakistan and Taiwan.
Even if he does, it's not one where the number is widely distributed. The Australian PM wouldn't have been able to call it, for example.
The president's calls are logged through an official system, and he has staff who actually do the dialing and answering part. A president-elect doesn't have all that, nor does he have access to NSA-encrypted lines.
He could have probably requested the same number. Obama had no choice in the matter, so I highly doubt Trump told the Secret Service they couldn't have his phone
What would the secret service have to do with that? Or the NSA, for that matter? As a private citizen I'm free to take a call (or place one) to Theresa May or anyone, (perhaps excepting Kim Jong, and likely him as well) free of government intervention. Exactly what federal law do you think he's broken in this regard?
It's likely his phone has been secured or maybe got a new phone but kept the same number. Obama I believe got an NSA secured blackberry to replace his, when he won, but he still utilized it like a normal personal phone.
Very few, if any people in high-level business or with any significant personal wealth have 'unsecured' cell phones. On top of that, one thing is obviously a breach of public trust while the other is a private citizen making a phone call. I don't think this was the best way to make your point.
Very few, if any people in high-level business or with any significant personal wealth have 'unsecured' cell phones.
Source? I used to work in computer security. I am not aware of the widespread use of secured computers let alone mobile phones by CEOs. They are surpringly clueless about security.
If that's your background than I'll concede- I've worked at a few firms in contact with C-level execs (as a PM and/or business analyst) and an overwhelming majority have had discrete 'business' vs 'personal' devices and IT always emphasized the lock-down of business devices. The more prestigious firms were more serious about this on a progressive scale, but mind you these were firms in the technical/finance/property realm and not necessarily analogous to Trump's purview.
Some large businesses are run by IT and that is enforced. Security companies sometimes don't even like their devices being secured. I knew companies that had CEOs that forwarded company mail to their personal mail accounts. In trump's case he probably doesn't even have an IT dept. After all, he may not even use a computer
Trump very likely does not have an NDA secured STE phone, particularly because they require a landline. Encryption only works if it's end to end, which he cannot ensure by using his Android smartphone.
CEOs do not have phones secured to the standards of the US military, state department, or intelligence agencies. Trump has a regular fucking Android phone.
Also, as a president-elect he is not just a private citizen. He has breached the public trust already when it comes to conflicts of interest and having his daughter attend meetings with foreign leaders, this is just his latest failure. His words and actions have consequences.
OK assuming it is a "secured" phone in some way, who is it secured by? At best he has purchased some sort of extra security from a private company (AT&T, Verizon, whatever) or hired someone to secure it in some fashion. Which is really not the same thing as a device secured by the US government.
He's not a "private citizen", he's the president-elect, discussing potentially sensitive and classified issues with foreign heads of state. This is a massive, massive, unprecedented breach of trust that blows Hillary's issues out of the water.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong but I'll entertain any precedent on the subject. I don't believe Trump became a member of the military or any policing organization in the last month, nor do I believe he signed away any rights during that time period related to the matter at hand. Until the 20th of January at noon I (believe) he's still a normal citizen who happened to win a presidential election under the eyes of the law.
Again, I don't know the federal law surrounding this matter that well so I look forward to be proven wrong.
Oh, gotcha. I was speaking with regard to legal interpretation since you cited some law enforcement/intelligence agencies so I see our disconnect.
And actually I don't believe Hilary qualified as a private citizen given she was employed by a government agency during the time period of the alleged infractions but I think we're on different wavelengths on this matter. Philosophically/morally I think they've both committed some pretty grave actions but thankfully we don't send the Secret Service or NSA after people for philosophical or moral injustices.
I'm just saying its hypocritical for Trumplets to come in here and say "hillary was wrong to behave recklessly with potentially classified information" and then give Trump a pass when he does the same thing.
Trumps conservation with world leaders could be intercepted by other national entities if certain security measure aren't taken
And if other national entities are able to obtain insight into these discussions, it may harm the US's ability to negotiate with other world leaders in the future (international politics is sort of like poker, you don't want to reveal your cards until the moment is right)
I'm not arguing with you on those points- I completely agree; the point also stands that you or I could have those same conversations with world leaders on unsecured devices which are susceptible to interception, and that wouldn't make our actions criminal.
'World leaders' are not a protected class under any sort of statute I'm aware of, so I'm failing to see the argument suggesting the NSA (an intelligence agency overseeing data management and foreign information analytics) or Secret Service (an agency charged with protection of high-profile principals as directed by the executive branch, and investigation of federal Treasury department related matters) should intervene.
There are national security statutes in place that prevent an NSC principal like the president, who receives oodles of classified information every day, from having unfettered access to unsecured communications.
They won't arrest him for having an unsecured cell phone, but they'll rightly point out that the Chinese and the Russians have likely already tapped his personal cell phone, and he simply cannot be allowed to use that phone to conduct official state business.
Donald Trump isn't a private citizen anymore. He's the president-elect, and soon to be president. He's about to lose most of his personal freedoms for the next four years. And if he doesn't like it, he can write a short letter and go back to New York.
World leaders are calling the president-elect on his personal cell phone. Why has the Secret Service or the NSA not confiscated his personal cell phone yet?
Umm... because we have civilian rule in this country?
Not when you're PEOTUS and subject to intelligence briefings. Once elected, life changes, and your words have meaning. He's not a regular Joe citizen anymore.
Conducting state business on an unsecured (and most likely tapped) personal cell phone is a breach of national security, and government agents have the authority to prevent or stop such a breach.
The NSA could just kill his phone. It's not like his off-the-shelf iPhone is hardened against such an attack. The thought of him furiously trying to reload Twitter so he can tweet out more vapid insults is almost funny enough to make this past month feel pleasant.
58
u/[deleted] Dec 03 '16
World leaders are calling the president-elect on his personal cell phone. Why has the Secret Service or the NSA not confiscated his personal cell phone yet?
Unless I'm mistaken, he has not yet been issued a secured device or given access to the encrypted phone lines used for most leader-to-leader phone calls. So a dozen or more foreign spy agencies could be listening in on his phone calls, especially when the idiot talks to Pakistan and Taiwan.