> Point being: SCIFs are the right tool for the job. Smartphone apps like Signal are not.
The job in this case seems to be secure, ad-hoc communication between multiple parties while on the road (the VP at least was doing an event in Michigan). Clearly a public smartphone app isn't the right tool for the job. Is a SCIF the right tool though? I always thought of SCIFs as purpose-built rooms. It seems impractical that every time a message needs to be communicated, the parties have to be whisked away to a SCIF.
There are portable SCIFs, basically specially designed trailers, to allow senior staff to communicate securely on the road. It's very likely Vance had one of these nearby.
Not to mention plenty of DoD facilities from coast-to-coast with SCIFs - even without a portable SCIF, he likely wasn't far from one.
Failing that, these people almost certainly have laptops connected to DoD networks at a lower COMSEC level than a true SCIF (indeed, "high-side laptops" were mentioned in the Signal thread). They could have communicated with those. I don't know about DoD policy if those would be acceptable or not for discussions about planned strikes, but it'd be a hell of a lot more secure than unsecured public smartphones.
The job in this case seems to be secure, ad-hoc communication between multiple parties while on the road (the VP at least was doing an event in Michigan). Clearly a public smartphone app isn't the right tool for the job. Is a SCIF the right tool though? I always thought of SCIFs as purpose-built rooms. It seems impractical that every time a message needs to be communicated, the parties have to be whisked away to a SCIF.