The email was sent under the name of Erica Carr — the acting executive secretary at USAID — and bears a USAID logo.
Typically the industrial security people at contractors aren't so naive as to be fooled by an illegal-sounding request from an unknown source. The road to the company's request to the court goes through additional scrutiny including lawyers.
Please continue giving the administration the benefit of the doubt, just not when it's beyond the shadow of one.
It’s 2025, not 1995, and it’s not like the people in charge of classified information handling at the national level haven’t heard of SPF or the concept of checking email headers – or simply picking up the phone and asking for confirmation for a huge amount of work which they’re personally liable for confirming is approved. There’s no way they haven’t had training on federal records laws which included the consequences of not following those rules.
If this was not an official instruction, the response to the press would be a simple “no, I did not authorize that”. That message isn’t ambiguous and it’s not the kind of thing you’d forget sending.
>it’s not like the people in charge of classified information handling at the national level haven’t heard of SPF or the concept of checking email headers
I would. That kind of thing is a federal requirement for many years (https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/directives/bod-18-01-enhanc... was codifying existing practice) and everyone gets training on phishing which includes things like getting confirmation if you’re unsure.
This is a highly sensitive request, almost certainly in violation of their records policies, so asking for confirmation is about as controversial as a bank teller calling the bank’s president to confirm that it’s really him asking to empty out the vault.
Regarding the source of the email, article does not say.
However, it does not fail to somehow blame it on the present administration.
As an outsider (not from nor living the US), I find this choice interesting.
Please continue giving the administration the benefit of the doubt, just not when it's beyond the shadow of one.
>>The email was sent under the name of Erica Carr — the acting executive secretary at USAID — and bears a USAID logo.
>Typically the industrial security people at contractors aren't so naive as to be fooled by an illegal-sounding request from an unknown source.
So you're implying it bears a cryptographic signature?
Nowhere in the article does it state that. It talks about an USAID logo which, if anything, only raises doubt.
>Please continue giving the administration the benefit of the doubt, just not when it's beyond the shadow of one.
There is no benefit of the doubt given to anyone here. Only doubt.
And, again to be clear, I only observe as a third party (not a US citizen nor resident). I endorse no political party.
It’s 2025, not 1995, and it’s not like the people in charge of classified information handling at the national level haven’t heard of SPF or the concept of checking email headers – or simply picking up the phone and asking for confirmation for a huge amount of work which they’re personally liable for confirming is approved. There’s no way they haven’t had training on federal records laws which included the consequences of not following those rules.
If this was not an official instruction, the response to the press would be a simple “no, I did not authorize that”. That message isn’t ambiguous and it’s not the kind of thing you’d forget sending.
>it’s not like the people in charge of classified information handling at the national level haven’t heard of SPF or the concept of checking email headers
I'd hope. But I wouldn't count on it.
I would. That kind of thing is a federal requirement for many years (https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/directives/bod-18-01-enhanc... was codifying existing practice) and everyone gets training on phishing which includes things like getting confirmation if you’re unsure.
This is a highly sensitive request, almost certainly in violation of their records policies, so asking for confirmation is about as controversial as a bank teller calling the bank’s president to confirm that it’s really him asking to empty out the vault.
Sorry man, it's already in front of a federal judge. Your "just asking questions" period has expired.
>Sorry man, it's already in front of a federal judge. Your "just asking questions" period has expired.
Great. Hoping they'll get to the bottom of it.
Based on your comment history and inability to accept that other people know what they're doing, I doubt that very much.
Who might have sent it otherwise?
Biden from a beach in Delaware :)
Anybody who's been there longer than Trump's government.
Point being: They don't know, yet the article assumes.
Musk's organization has already blown up email security best practices by sending dicta from random origins.