Slashdot Log In
Obama To Get Secure BlackBerry 8830
Posted by
timothy
on Fri Apr 24, 2009 06:54 AM
from the what-about-back-worn-radio-controller-devices dept.
from the what-about-back-worn-radio-controller-devices dept.
CWmike writes "President Barack Obama is set to receive a high-security BlackBerry 8830 soon, The Washington Times reported today. The device is said to be in the final stages of development at the National Security Agency, which will check that its encryption software meets federal standards. It might not be ready for months. It was reported that Obama will be able to send text and e-mail messages and make phone calls on the device, but only to those with the secure software loaded on their own devices. The list includes First Lady Michelle Obama and top aides. The security software is made by Genesis Key, whose CEO, Steven Garrett, is quoted as saying: 'We're going to put his BlackBerry back in his hand.' The Sectera Edge was pegged in January by analysts as the top device choice because of its reputation for secure data communications when used by other federal workers. And there are many reasons why Obama might have been told 'no' on his BlackBerry. But Obama may wish he had chosen a Sectera if BlackBerry has more outage problems like its latest last week, which meant no mobile e-mail for hours across the US."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
If they can do it for him (Score:5, Interesting)
I am in line waiting for similar software to drive any portable device for communication I want to use.
So in other words, how long before laws are drafted keeping the good stuff out of our hands under the guise of it only aids criminals? I can see it all now, a new email bill of rights that somehow strips me of the ones I need or have.
I like the idea of the President having access to good, safe, and reliable, technology like this. I just hope that trickle down occurs.
Re: (Score:2)
So in other words, how long before laws are drafted keeping the good stuff out of our hands under the guise of it only aids criminals?
They tried that [wikipedia.org] back in the 90s and it didn't go so well. There's nothing stopping you from using encryption on your cellular phone as it stands now. Back when I was in GSM land I was kind of hoping to get my hands on an OpenMoko and design an encryption system for SMS. It wouldn't be that hard to implement for secure text messaging. Voice may be harder but should still be doable by someone with the right skill set.
Re: (Score:2)
Back when I was in GSM land I was kind of hoping to get my hands on an OpenMoko and design an encryption system for SMS. It wouldn't be that hard to implement for secure text messaging. Voice may be harder but should still be doable by someone with the right skill set.
What's wrong with encrypted VOIP and email? Tried, tested, and the provider can't fuck it up for you.
Re: (Score:2)
If you encrypt SMS the message will simply be too long. Email on the other hand does not suffer from such limitations.
Re: (Score:2)
If you encrypt SMS the message will simply be too long. Email on the other hand does not suffer from such limitations.
To encrypt you need to compress. The encrypted message could easily be smaller than the plain text.
Re: (Score:2)
I am in line waiting for similar software to drive any portable device for communication I want to use.
What are you talking about?
We already have something like that [wikipedia.org]. It won't run on devices with hardwired OSes of course, but nothing else will, either. Did I miss your point?
Re: (Score:2)
You can already get this stuff. Speakeasy (Sold by Telecom - now Telstra) is a nice little encryption box for your normal POTS system. If you are using Symbian there are a few applications around already that will encrypt your voice. Or you could just use VOIP and your own SIP server or something.
Re: (Score:2)
It had better, as we are paying for it.
CrackBerry: Just say no ;) (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been successfully resisting efforts by my boss to give me a Blackberry for the last two years. I've seen what it does to co-workers and friends who have them and have no desire to spend half of my next vacation (or weekend or day off) responding to e-mails that could wait. If it's really important they'll call me. If it's not then I guess they can figure it out on their own. I know that some people find them useful but I don't count myself as being one of them.
As an aside, TFA says that the NSA is reviewing the security software. I wonder if they got access to the rest of the source-code and reviewed all of the other software? What does full time encryption do to the battery life and response time of the blackberry? I also wonder if the same restrictions that apply to other Federal workers regarding electronic devices will apply to his Blackberry? Will it be clipped to his waist when he's in the situation room [wikipedia.org] dealing with the next international crisis? Or will he have to keep it out of secured areas?
Re: (Score:2)
I have a cousin who is addicted to his CrackBerry. His wife gave him an ultimatum: "Either you take THAT or ME on our next vacation. Not both."
As an aside, TFA says that the NSA is reviewing the security software. I wonder if they got access to the rest of the source-code and reviewed all of the other software?
I wonder if the NSA has the opportunity to build in back doors, so that they can snoop on the President's communication?
56 bit encryption, indeed.
Re:CrackBerry: Just say no ;) (Score:5, Funny)
Well don't leave us in suspense. What did he decide?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I had a Blackberry Storm foisted upon me (something about making the numbers up to get the next data bundle). But from the outset I made it very clear that outside of working hours the notification options will be set to Phone Calls Only (i.e. no tones or vibrate on texts and e-mails) and Iâ(TM)ll check e-mails at my leisure.
Without being to hostile or overzealous I find myself constantly having to remind people that e-mail is an asynchronous communications medium.
And as for the Storm - nice screen goo
Re: (Score:2)
They are a nice device for personal use. I'd never get one for work, though, as it is then expected you are checking the thing all the time. No thanks. Like you said, the culture around those things is wrong, and if it's important, they should call you.
Re: (Score:2)
Employers give out Blackberrys so they can contact people when they are not at work. If you tell them (as I did) that it will always be off outside of work hours, they won't give you one.
The thing is, it doesn't bother me being contacted when I'm not at work if the situation warrants it. With e-mail though it's been my experience that the situation rarely warrants it. People use e-mail for all manner of stupid questions that either aren't that important or that they could answer themselves if they used the time it took to write the e-mail to research the problem on their own.
If it's important enough to warrant bothering me when I'm out of the office then it's important enough for a phone
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with the others here. (sorry, bud).
The boundary that you are on vacation, or 'not on-call', or even simply not required to respond to e-mails for, as you put it, if the situation warrants it, is just too simple to fix. I'm sure they send e-mails now, that you don't respond to (because your present mobile solution doesn't offer it), unless you spend your days off surfing your mail and responding.
full disclosure: I have a blackberry 8830, and I am one of two admins (and we are the only 2 with UNIX res
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People will go to ridiculous lengths to avoid taking personal responsibility anymore it seems.
Of course it can't be the stupid person's fault..it has to be that evil Blackberry possessing their soul.
And turn it off? Ohhh, no! can't do that..might miss an important viagra email...from a Nigerian Prince!
At an earlier job, one of these obnoxious devices was foisted on me. It never made sense to me, as nothing in my job was 'time critical', but 'everybody is going to this' was the reason. I tried warning them
More outage problems? (Score:2, Insightful)
6821 years? (Score:3, Funny)
From the title I thought it would take 6821 years to develop a secure BlackBerry.
Barackberry (Score:2)
Usefulness limited? (Score:2, Interesting)
but only to those with the secure software loaded on their own devices
How useful is the phone then really, if you can not even call the dry cleaners down the street? Or maybe Obama only communicates with 5 or so people?
Um, last year (Score:5, Insightful)
The BlackBerry network does have outages from time to time. But the linked article is from April 18, 2007!
Re: (Score:2)
Outage (Score:4, Funny)
Uh oh (Score:4, Interesting)
Uh oh.
Who cares about a Blackberry outage? (Score:2)
"...if BlackBerry has more outage problems like its latest last week, which meant no mobile e-mail for hours across the US."
Boy, anyone remember back in the day when Presidents used to get their information from Generals and top aides holding very flat pieces of compressed wood called paper?
Point here is if ANYONE could get away with a Blackberry outage for "hours across the US", it SHOULD be that man.
What's the big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why does it need to be secure? (Score:5, Funny)
Every communication will be something like this:
Advisor: Mr. President, there's a prob with X, WTF shuld we do?
President Obama: LOL! Throw money at it.
Advisor: Good call, Mr. President. Culd u b more specific?
President Obama: *sighs* Create a new "Czar of X" over the new "Bureau of X", silly.
Advisor: OMFG, BHO ROCKS!
Re: (Score:2)
Defense Contractors Already Have These... (Score:2)
That's good. We were worried up here. (Score:2)
It will be interesting to watch Metcalfe's Law in (Score:2)
That's the one that says that the utility of a network is proportional to the square of the number of things (devices, people, services) connected to it.
I suspect that President Obama (isn't it interesting how many people seem to be avoiding using that 2 word phrase in writing about him?) is about to discover that the useful thing about a BlackBerry isn't the *device*, it's the *people at the other end*.
Whom he won't have.
Obama to get bugged BlackBerry (Score:2)
Really, I would have thought it would be less secure [schneier.com] after the spooks got their hands on it. As such I have corrected the title.
How much is this going to cost? (Score:3, Insightful)
If it is relatively cheap, then ok, cool. The President wants a Blackberry and it won't be too expensive. No problem.
But that isn't what it sounds like. Take months? How many man hours at what price per hour will be required so he can read his fan mail now instead of 30 minutes later? If the price is going to be exorbitant and this is little more than a vanity item, then no. Just no.
The President is not affected by BB outages (Score:3, Insightful)
Unlike the rest of us, if the president can't make a call on his BB, there are a handful of high-security folks around that can make the call for him on some other device.
E-Mail is not really the issue (Score:3, Interesting)
TFA makes a big deal about the hackability and record-keeping issues surrounding e-mail. But that's really a non-issue, as RIM supports numerous corporate customers who have similar requirements. Its possible to configure a Blackberry to operate through a private enterprise e-mail system rather than the Canadian NOC. This answers many of the issues with record retention, encryption, and authentication (closely related to encryption).
The one valid issue is the ability to track the device's location. Even without cracking message or voice encryption, any device using a cellular network can be located rather easily. I'm not certain whether the Sectera Edge uses a government (military?) network different than the commercial ones. If not, it will be as easy to follow as any cheap phone.
Re: (Score:2)
From the sounds of this, he could use any device that supports public key crypto for messages.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Both actually, the single fat coloured mammy sitting at home and so forth is spending part of her welfare check to be one of your clients/customers, and that thanks to her money she's spending at your business that you can thrive and pay your 14 employees.
Now of course you probably stimulate more than she does, because if you're as successful as you make yourself sound, you have more money to spend, and therefore stimulate more. But the welfare check is stimulus money in that that's what allow people on wel
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But does it stimulate the economy more than it would have done if it had been left in the original taxpayer pocket?
It's the broken window fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure it's the broken window fallacy at all. The broken window fallacy requires that value be destroyed from the system in order to 'generate' value (which tends to lead to a total loss of value).
However, in the case of this taxation, what value is being destroyed?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
she might spend that same money more fully and more quickly, thus stimulating faster.
It's not the spending that stimulates, but making money by creating something of value. The money exchange is just an arbitrary measure of that value.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Racism is Rampant... (Score:4, Insightful)
but in the case of a welfare mom with 4 kids, the main difference is that by giving her more money she'll give better food, a better health but more importantly a better education to her 4 children, the difference being ultimately that these children will grow up to be more qualified and thus produce more value/wealth, but also move up in social classes.
What the heck are you basing this on? It's been my experience that welfare moms beget welfare children. And no, I'm not just parroting Rush Limbuagh. I've spent the last five years working for an agency in the human services field and my SO is a social worker with 13 years of experience. I've yet to see welfare moms produce anything other than welfare children. The welfare system in my experience creates a cycle of dependency that few people are able (or willing) to break out of.
Parent
Re:Racism is Rampant... in my nose (Score:5, Insightful)
Give this man a point.
Moreover - blame politicians for ENGINEERING a political class totally dependent on his hand. It's brilliant - voters who depend on government assistance have practically no choice but to vote for the guy. And yes - I'm looking at republicans AND democrats.
Can anyone explain how congress can get a measly 13% approval rating and still re-elect over 90% of it's members in the same month?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it really became popular with Ronald Reagan and his Cadillac-driving welfare queens [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
But the welfare check is stimulus money in that that's what allow people on welfare to keep on stimulating. It's the basics of economy really, it astounds me that the boss of such a flourish business such as you are would ignore that.
For there to be welfare money the government must either collect it in taxes, loan money or print money and all three weaken the economy. There might be other good reasons for doing it but taking the money from one that wants to buy a 100$ champagne bottle and redistribute it as welfare to buy 100$ of bread and milk isn't stimulating the economy. In fact, due to the overhead of the system it's probably less than 100$ coming out the other side with no tangible value produced. The reason for welfare is much m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Will all those that he texts with (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
He's at the top... everybody else is below him and reports to him. What are they going to do if he says no, fire him?
The whole point of three way checks and balances in US politics is that *no one* is at the top. The other two branches explicitly do not report to the president, and ideally, he reports to the people and the Constitution. How well this works in practice has been the subject of occasional debate.
So yes, please fire him if you find he's not living up to expectations in a few years. Call your congresscritter about firing him sooner if it becomes dire. I suggest coming up with a better issue than this one,