> According to multiple sources familiar with the matter, the FBI determined the equipment was capable of capturing and disrupting highly restricted Defense Department communications, including those used by US Strategic Command, which oversees the country's nuclear weapons.
If you write that they could capture these communications, it sounds like they could be read. But these comms must be encrypted, right? This story is a bit clickbaity - by that standard, some hobbyist with an antenna can "capture" DoD comms. And they could "disrupt" them as well with a cheap signal jammer near the receiver.
> And they could "disrupt" them as well with a cheap signal jammer near the receiver.
Amateurs aren't running around the country placing transmitters near all the government comms. Also there's many types of encryption (onion routing for example) that depend on being able to intercept communications at multiple locations. Also there's still metadata that can be learned even without being able to read the comms directly, for example who's broadcasting at any moment. Even amateurs were able to figure out when Russia was launching missiles at Ukraine even from their encrypted comms, if you have a more advanced surveillance system in-country you can learn a lot more.
It's like getting several spooks to say your network card could intercept or disrupt all your internet traffic. It's making the equipment's purpose sound scary.
If you write that they could capture these communications, it sounds like they could be read. But these comms must be encrypted, right? This story is a bit clickbaity - by that standard, some hobbyist with an antenna can "capture" DoD comms. And they could "disrupt" them as well with a cheap signal jammer near the receiver.