[Rama Set]

I know I just raged about not nitpicking but "covfefe"?  The man does some epically retarded things sometimes.

[Pete Svarrior]

At least now you guys can have your equivalent of Ed Balls Day.

[Lord Dave]

I looked it up and still have no clue what Ed Balls day is.

The guy tweeted his name and that's it?

[Rama Set]

This is a little more impressive.  Firstly, it is the President not a congressman, and second, he tweeted literal gibberish.  Ed Ball at least had the decency to embrace his gaff.  Trump deletes the tweet and then tries to make it seem like it was on purpose?  SAD!

[Rama Set]

I looked it up and still have no clue what Ed Balls day is.

The guy tweeted his name and that's it?

Basically, but the British are socially ruthless.  The slightest misstep and they see you as some sort of proto-human.

[Tom Bishop]

https://www.apnews.com/11a48fde81634789b1cc361696693b68

Oh this is cute.

He's a god damn idiot.  How long do you think it'll be before someone finds out his phone number and puts it online?

You are assuming that they would give him an unencrypted cell phone. Obama had a cell phone, and was allowed to take calls.

I wonder. Who is more likely the idiot; you, or the Secret Service of the United States?

Did you read the article?
It's a private cell phone on an open line.

Obama has a highly altered and enhanced blackberry with most of it's functions disabled for security purposes, few people had his phone number, and he didn't call heads of state with it.

And even if the phone itself is encrypted, it won't be on an encrypted line. 

And the SS does it's best but I'm pretty sure if the president says "Fuck you, I'm using my phone and twitter" they can't actually stop him.

So you are saying that the Secret Service can't figure out how to get a cell phone to make encrypted calls? Are we to believe that you and some AP reporter know more about the security of the president than they do?

[Lord Dave]

So you are saying that the Secret Service can't figure out how to get a cell phone to make encrypted calls? Are we to believe that you and some AP reporter know more about the security of the president than they do?

Encryption isn't one sided.  Both sides of the call need to share the same encryption setup.  And (probably) every point in between.  Though now with data calling that's not really an issue.

But if the president of France calls Trump on his private cell phone, it better be using the same encryption or it won't work.  And sure, they could set it up, but odds are, they haven't bothered to.

Also, let's not forget, the law states that a president's business including emails and phone calls are kept as public record.  So what happens when the Canadian PM calls Trump to discuss NAFTA and no one records it?

[Tom Bishop]

Encryption isn't one sided.  Both sides of the call need to share the same encryption setup.  And (probably) every point in between.  Though now with data calling that's not really an issue.

The security people who manage calls between heads of state already share the same encryption set up and know the protocols for a secure line of communication. Do you think this has never been done before?

But if the president of France calls Trump on his private cell phone, it better be using the same encryption or it won't work.  And sure, they could set it up, but odds are, they haven't bothered to.

The "odds are" that heads of state and their security personnel are not bothering with security when they talk to each other?

Also, let's not forget, the law states that a president's business including emails and phone calls are kept as public record.  So what happens when the Canadian PM calls Trump to discuss NAFTA and no one records it?

The content of phone calls do not fall under the Presidential Records Act. Are you making things up?

[Lord Dave]

The security people who manage calls between heads of state already share the same encryption set up and know the protocols for a secure line of communication. Do you think this has never been done before?

Yes, using secure lines, not bloody AT&T.

The "odds are" that heads of state and their security personnel are not bothering with security when they talk to each other?

Oh I'm sure they do.
When it's setup through official channels.  Not, you know... calling on a Friday night from their personal phones asking "You wanna hang bro?"

The content of phone calls do not fall under the Presidential Records Act. Are you making things up?

Never said content.  But I'm fairly certain who called who and when does.

[Pete Svarrior]

I looked it up and still have no clue what Ed Balls day is.

The guy tweeted his name and that's it?

Yep, that's it. He thought he's searching for his name but ended up tweeting it instead.

This is a little more impressive.  Firstly, it is the President not a congressman, and second, he tweeted literal gibberish.  Ed Ball at least had the decency to embrace his gaff.  Trump deletes the tweet and then tries to make it seem like it was on purpose?  SAD!

Ed Balls celebrates Ed Balls Day every year (not out of choice - he just caves to peer pressure). He's a true gentleman about the whole situation.

But wait, did Trump try to make it seem like it was on purpose? I thought that was just Spicer being an absolute moron. Of course, I understand that the White House Press Secretary's words should absolutely be taken as the White House's official stance on the matter, and there's a lot of criticism to be had there, but Trump himself seems to have taken a very different approach:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/869858333477523458

Encryption isn't one sided.  Both sides of the call need to share the same encryption setup.  And (probably) every point in between.  Though now with data calling that's not really an issue.

The in-between points generally shouldn't be privy on the encryption setup, except for very specific scenarios. The idea here is that one side encrypts a message, then it passes encrypted through the channel, and gets encrypted at the other end. As long as both ends adhere to good practice, the channel itself does not have to be secure at all.

As long as you don't mind AT&T knowing that you called me, and it's just the content of the conversation that you want to hide from prying ears, then we can have an encrypted phone conversation anytime with little setup required. Perhaps one of the greatest beauties of modern cryptography is that you and I have access to (most of) the same technology that those guys would be using.

[Rama Set]

Trump deleted his tweet and then made it seem like deciphering his gobbledygook was a delicious guessing game.

[Rushy]

Trump deleted his tweet and then made it seem like deciphering his gobbledygook was a delicious guessing game.

>implying Trump isn't a genius

[honk]

But Kek and Pepe are frogs, not toads.

[Rushy]

But Kek and Pepe are frogs, not toads.

Kek is a primordial god of chaos, not a frog.

[Pete Svarrior]

Trump deleted his tweet and then made it seem like deciphering his gobbledygook was a delicious guessing game.

Really, is that how it reads to you? To me, it sounds more like an old guy who doesn't quite get the Internet trying to join in on the fun. "Why hello there fellow kids, what are your best guesses for what covfefe means? Hyuk!"

[trekky0623]

When they asked Sean Spicer about "covfefe," rather than say it was a typo (which is pretty obvious), he said this:

"The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant."

What the FUCK does that even MEAN, SPICER????

[Lord Dave]

The in-between points generally shouldn't be privy on the encryption setup, except for very specific scenarios. The idea here is that one side encrypts a message, then it passes encrypted through the channel, and gets encrypted at the other end. As long as both ends adhere to good practice, the channel itself does not have to be secure at all.

As long as you don't mind AT&T knowing that you called me, and it's just the content of the conversation that you want to hide from prying ears, then we can have an encrypted phone conversation anytime with little setup required. Perhaps one of the greatest beauties of modern cryptography is that you and I have access to (most of) the same technology that those guys would be using.

Yeah, I know how that works but I wasn't sure how it worked via voice calls, if, for example, AT&T uses VOIP and not just a strict analog to digital conversion at the phone.  Like if you had two land lines from 1980 calling each other, you couldn't really encrypt them digitally so you'd have to encrypt the analog and decrypt it after it got to the destination.

Also if the phones have the capability to encrypt on transmit.  Like, plenty of apps will let you encrypt but only via IP so no internet, no encryption calls. 

So looking up on it, looks like GSM has built in encryption... which was intentionally made shitty, apparently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A5/1

Next question is: Is there a secret encryption cell providers have that doesn't suck or hasn't been cracked?

When they asked Sean Spicer about "covfefe," rather than say it was a typo (which is pretty obvious), he said this:

"The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant."

What the FUCK does that even MEAN, SPICER?

Yeah...
Look, people make typos.  Just delete it and retweet the correct word.  Or if it's some shortened word, just say so.  This is literally more of a problem then it ever should be, no matter what the media says.

[Pete Svarrior]

What the FUCK does that even MEAN, SPICER????

It means covfefe. What are you, some sort of moron who doesn't know that despite very negative covfefe?

When they asked Sean Spicer about "covfefe," rather than say it was a typo (which is pretty obvious), he said this:

"The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant."

Hey, that's true. Trump probably knows what he meant, and some people figured out that "covfefe" was probably "coverage". You can easily work out what he meant. Yadda yadda, press bad, Trump good.

Seriously, though, Spicer needs to go.

[Rama Set]

Trump deleted his tweet and then made it seem like deciphering his gobbledygook was a delicious guessing game.

Really, is that how it reads to you? To me, it sounds more like an old guy who doesn't quite get the Internet trying to join in on the fun. "Why hello there fellow kids, what are your best guesses for what covfefe means? Hyuk!"

Maybe. Either way, when combined with deleting the original tweet, it seems like him trying to cover his tracks... Very badly. Spicer isn't helping either. I'm sure Alex Jones will let us know soon what Covfefe actually is. My money is on a failed product line expansion by the names of toffefee.

[rooster]

Trump deleted his tweet and then made it seem like deciphering his gobbledygook was a delicious guessing game.

Really, is that how it reads to you? To me, it sounds more like an old guy who doesn't quite get the Internet trying to join in on the fun. "Why hello there fellow kids, what are your best guesses for what covfefe means? Hyuk!"

Yeah, that's exactly how it reads to me. It was one of the few times he seemed like a normal person to me, honestly. He usually seems incapable of poking fun at himself.