A writer for The Atlantic was accidentally added to a Signal group chat containing several prominent figures discussing national security matters, including a former National Security Advisor, a former CIA Director, and a retired four-star general. The chat's purpose seemed to be coordinating public statements and media appearances related to an escalating international conflict. The writer was quickly removed after pointing out the error, but not before observing discussions about strategic messaging, potential military responses, and internal disagreements on how to handle the crisis. While the exact details of the conflict and the participants remain unnamed to protect sensitive information, the incident highlights the potential for communication mishaps in the digital age, even at the highest levels of government.
In a remarkable, almost comical, confluence of technological miscommunication and high-stakes national security, the author, identified as Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, recounts an improbable tale of being inadvertently included in a text-message group chat populated by prominent figures within the Trump administration's national-security apparatus. This digital forum, seemingly intended for the discreet dissemination of sensitive information pertaining to potential military actions, became, through an apparent clerical error involving a mistyped phone number, an open window for Mr. Goldberg into the inner workings, albeit briefly, of the highest echelons of American defense planning. The article meticulously details the author's initial bewilderment at receiving cryptic and fragmented messages discussing matters of grave international import, including, among other things, the deployment of naval assets and strategic responses to perceived geopolitical threats. These dispatches, delivered in the staccato and informal language characteristic of text messaging, starkly contrasted with the weighty subject matter they addressed, creating a surreal atmosphere of incongruity. Mr. Goldberg describes his attempts to decipher the meaning of these communications, initially suspecting a prank or perhaps an elaborate phishing scheme. However, the escalating seriousness of the messages, coupled with the recognizable names attached to them, gradually led him to the unsettling realization that he was an unwitting recipient of confidential government deliberations. The article further elaborates upon Mr. Goldberg's subsequent actions, which included reaching out to a personal acquaintance within the intelligence community to confirm the veracity of the situation and, ultimately, informing the relevant authorities of the apparent security breach. The narrative underscores the potential for even the most sophisticated security protocols to be undermined by simple human error in the age of ubiquitous digital communication, offering a poignant commentary on the intersection of technology, human fallibility, and the precarious balance of global power. The incident, while seemingly resolved without significant consequence, serves as a cautionary tale about the vulnerabilities inherent in relying on technology for the secure transmission of highly sensitive information and highlights the unexpected ways in which seemingly minor mistakes can have far-reaching implications in the realm of international affairs.
Summary of Comments ( 537 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43462783
HN commenters are highly skeptical of the Atlantic article's premise, questioning its plausibility and the author's motivations. Several suggest the author was likely added to a spam or scam group chat, mistaking it for a genuine communication from national security officials. Others highlight the unlikelihood of such high-ranking officials using a standard SMS group chat for sensitive information, citing secure communication protocols as the norm. Some commenters criticize The Atlantic for publishing the piece, deeming it poorly researched and sensationalized. The lack of technical details and verification also draws criticism, with some suggesting the author fabricated the story for attention. A few entertain the possibility of a genuine mistake, perhaps involving an intern or contractor, but remain largely unconvinced.
The Hacker News post "U.S. national-security leaders included me in a group chat," linking to an Atlantic article about an accidental inclusion in a seemingly sensitive text message group, has generated a moderate amount of discussion, with several commenters expressing skepticism and exploring alternative explanations for the incident.
Many comments focus on the plausibility of the author's account. Several users question whether high-ranking officials would use SMS for such sensitive communications, suggesting more secure platforms would be standard practice. One commenter speculates it could be a phishing attempt or other social engineering ploy targeting government officials, using the accidental inclusion as a lure. Another proposes the group might not be as significant as presented, perhaps related to a less sensitive project or even a social gathering.
Doubts also arise regarding the technical details. Commenters point out that the author's description of adding and removing participants doesn't align with standard SMS group messaging functionality. Some suggest the communication might have occurred through a different platform, such as iMessage or WhatsApp, which offer features more closely resembling the author's description. This leads to further speculation about the nature of the group and the likelihood of such a misdirected communication.
A few comments offer alternative explanations for the incident. One commenter suggests it could be a deliberate leak disguised as an accident, intended to spread disinformation or gauge public reaction. Another hypothesizes the author might have been intentionally included as part of a wider communication strategy, perhaps to subtly inform or influence certain individuals.
While several comments entertain the possibility of the story being true, a prevalent theme is cautious skepticism. The lack of corroborating evidence and the unusual circumstances of the alleged incident prompt many commenters to question the narrative's veracity. They highlight the importance of critical thinking and verifying information before accepting it as factual. There is no outright dismissal of the story, but the prevailing sentiment is one of reserved judgment pending further information.