Slashdot Log In
Solving Obama's BlackBerry Dilemma
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jan 13, 2009 05:56 PM
from the first-personal-communicator dept.
from the first-personal-communicator dept.
CurtMonash writes "Much is being made of the deliberations as to whether President Obama will be able to keep using his beloved "BarackBerry." As the NYTimes details, there are two major sets of objections: infosecurity and legal/records retention. Deven Coldeway of CrunchGear does a good job of showing that the technological infosecurity problems can be solved. And as I've noted elsewhere, the 'Omigod, he left his Blackberry behind at dinner' issue is absurd. Presidents are surrounded by attendants, Secret Service and otherwise. Somebody just has to be given the job of keeping track of the president's personal communication device. As for the legal question of whether the president can afford to put things in writing that will likely be exposed by courts and archivists later — the answer to that surely depends on the subject matter or recipient. Email to his Chicago friends — why not? Anything he'd write to them would be necessarily non-secret anyway. Email to the Secretary of Defense? That might be a different matter."
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This discussion has been archived.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.
research in motion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:research in motion (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:research in motion (Score:4, Interesting)
Very true, though I don't think it really matters what company does it provided the security is set up properly. As TFS mentions, the public record thing is really the main issue. However,
Email to his Chicago friends â" why not? Anything he'd write to them would be necessarily non-secret anyway. Email to the Secretary of Defense? That might be a different matter.
Seems like it would be the other way around to me - I certainly wouldn't want _my_ personal communications becoming part of the public record for the rest of eternity. Of course there's certain issues of practicality of internal secrets going into the public record, but past /. discussions have suggested using some sort of proxy-type person where it would go through someone who would email the president with a "new message from X about Y - would you like to receive it knowing that the communication will become part of the public record" type of message.
Or maybe the laws regarding this kind of stuff are stupid. Seems that personal stuff should remain personal, and that anything @whitehouse.gov would go into the archives, but the president (and related staff) would be legally required to use the appropriate address and that the personal account(s) could be audited during the presidency to ensure that no funny business is taking place.
Dunno. But considering that Obama probably wouldn't have taken the top job were it not for all of the internet-based efforts, it would be Pretty Fucking Stupid to cut him off.
Parent
Re:research in motion (Score:4, Insightful)
IMO, the whole thing is bullshit.
I think everything the president does should be recorded in a place where judicial or legislative review can occur. Obviously only certain people should have access, such as federal judges, the SCOTUS and a senate committee or two. And yes, I mean even for national secret type stuff. It is the responsibility of the executive branch to fulfill obligations set forth by laws enacted by the legislative branch and in accordance with decisions by the judicial branch. If there is no transparency, there is tyranny.
Just think how interesting it would be to read emails between Bush/Cheney & the Justice Dept. regarding interrogation techniques, or the prelude to invading Iraq, or the events surrounding 9/11(still a gazillion unanswered questions). If a bipartisan senate committee had access to that information, I bet Bush would have been impeached quickly.
Parent
Re:research in motion (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with most of what you wrote. However, it isn't entirely in keeping with the constitution.
The US is not a parliamentary democracy - it is a 3-branch government. The president is actually on equal footing with all of congress within the constitutional bounds of his office. Other than the ability to impeach the president, the congress does not have any particular special investigatory power over the president.
Most western democracies use a parliamentary system of government. The prime minister is the chief executive, but is merely an appointed representative of the legislature. The prime minister serves at the pleasure of the legislature and is fully answerable to it. The relationship is similar to a CEO and the board of directors - the CEO is just a regular company employee that the board has hired to run day-to-day operations.
In the US the president is directly elected, and while there are checks and balances in general the office of the president is completely independent of the legislature. There is a duty to uphold the laws of the US, but no real accountability for not doing so (other than impeachment).
The problem with Bush wasn't that he thumbed his nose at Congress so much as the fact that he was elected (twice!) in the first place. Like it or not more Americans supported him than opposed him (at least up until 2004). You can debate the 2000 election of course, but the fact is that even if he should have lost it would have only been by a slim margain. When a nation supports a president that uses his power in the way it was used, then there is little that can be done to stop it. Like it or not, he had the backing of the populace. Even with the abuses, there really wasn't enough popular support for an impeachment to make it happen. (Just look at how long it took to get rid of Gray Davis in a state known for political activism.)
Honestly, I think I'd prefer a parlimentary proporational democracy to what we have today. However, that isn't the nation we currently live in, and I don't see 3/4ths of the states voting for such a major overhaul of the constitution. So, we're stuck...
Parent
Re:research in motion (Score:4, Insightful)
The one major issue with thi... RIM is a foreign company.
Parent
Re:research in motion (Score:5, Funny)
The one major issue with thi... RIM is a foreign company.
That can be solved. Once Obama pulls all the troops back from Iraq, they can invade Canada. :-)
Parent
Re:research in motion (Score:5, Funny)
Once Obama pulls all the troops back from Iraq, they can invade Canada. :-)
Pffft, easier said than done. If you think an Iraqi insurgent with an IED is a tough adversary just wait until you see a Canadian with a hockey stick..... besides, I don't think the Baldwin family can afford a war with Canada ;)
Parent
Re:research in motion (Score:5, Funny)
Pffft, easier said than done. If you think an Iraqi insurgent with an IED is a tough adversary just wait until you see a Canadian with a hockey stick...
That, and we maintain a threatening lead in Zamboni technology [imdb.com]!
Parent
Re:research in motion (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, those baseball players make terrifying adversaries--except that they have to stop to catch their breath after chasing you 90 feet. :p
I guess us Canucks have to watch ourselves though; I'm sure Sarah Palin is keeping an eye on us from her house.
Parent
Re:research in motion (Score:4, Funny)
I guess us Canucks have to watch ourselves though; I'm sure Sarah Palin is keeping an eye on us from her house.
Nah, she's too busy protecting both of our countries from Putin. There's 12 other US States that share a border with Canada. I suspect that their Governors are the ones busy keeping an eye on you Canucks so don't get any ideas ;)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:research in motion (Score:5, Informative)
a) Parliament has never been in Montreal.
b) The torching you're referring to is Fort York, now Toronto.
c) There was no Canada, and no parliament, till 1867.
d) The first parliament was (very briefly) in Charlottetown, PEI, and then moved to Kingston, Ontario, as a provisional capital. It stayed there until Queen Vickie got pissed with the lobbyists from Kingston & Toronto both wanting to be named the capital, and screwed them both over by naming Bytown (now Ottawa) as the capital instead.
Parent
Re:research in motion (Score:4, Informative)
Dead wrong. You must be Canadian. ;)
The term Canada was in use for about 300 years before the 1867 Confederation as the Dominion of Canada, which is just one in a long series of 'Canada' names for the area immediately above the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence.
While we're at it, Fort York did not become Toronto, York did. Also York is where the American troops committed arson. Fort York was exploded by the retreating British. Incidentally, the Americans also burned the Parliment buildings at York. T'was the Parliment of Upper Canada.
But you can go back to telling the Americans they don't know nuthin now.
Parent
Re:research in motion (Score:5, Informative)
No I'm not, and yes, I am.
Canada comes from the Iroquois word 'Kanata', which means villiage, or settlement. It was in common use anywhere the Iroquois were - which includes the area above the Great Lakes - but also below, and around.
Fort York was a British military garrison, and York, the town, grew up around it. As a matter of fact, Fort York is almost smack dab in the middle of Toronto - you can go and visit it if you'd like. There just wasn't much of a town there at the time - and I hardly think that the American troups went to "York" to trash the town, and ignore the Fort. The Fort WAS the target.
See above.
True ... but a detail, given the situation. When the Americans do 99% of the damage during the battle, it's a bit specious to tell me I'm wrong becuase the British did the remaining 1%. But I might also add that your statement reinforces my point - Fort York was the target. It was destroyed by the British to deny the Americans use of it.
Ummmm ... wrong. Upper Canada didn't *have* a parliament - it had a legislative assembly. Parliament is very similar to congress in that way ... original usage was a meeting or session - nowadays, it also refers to a place or a body. The "1st Parliament of Upper Canada", which ran from 1792-1796, refers to a meeting of the Legislative Assembly, not a specific place.
The Parliament buildings you refer to didn't really exist, either - when in Session, the legislative assembly used nondescript government buildings - I could be wrong, but I don't think they were even dedicated for the purpose (I'd have to look that up).
Your assumption, not mine. The only thing I've assumed is that not everybody is very familiar with the history of countries other than their own.
Parent
Re:research in motion (Score:5, Funny)
Really? I thought the name "Canada" came from the two folks who first discovered it.
"Great country, eh?," said the first one. "What should we name it, eh?"
"I know," said the second one. "We'll put some letters in a hat, eh, and then we'll take turns drawing the letters out, eh, and that's how we'll name the place!"
"Good idea, eh!" said the first one. He pulled off his toupe, scribbled some letters on some paper scraps, dumped them into the toupe, shook it up, and they began to draw.
"Oh, I got a 'c', eh!"
"I got an 'n', eh!"
Parent
Re:research in motion (Score:4, Funny)
Depends on your point of view. From where I sit, it is a domestic company and a foreign president.
Parent
Re:research in motion (Score:4, Funny)
I suspect there's some reason that I noticed "DOD Root Certificates" installed on mine. :) There must be some arrangement with the gov't for security, at least of some sort. I doubt that the President should be (or would be) sending much over it though. It's not necessarily the idea that it's a smart phone, and he could lose it (as I noticed someone else said), but that the data is transiting insecure networks.
And hey, one mistyped address, and some state secret may end up going across insecure networks, to an insecure individual. He is President after all, even an innocent note like "Honey, I'll be home at 8:30, then we can watch that movie" is a huge security concern. The White House is a big place, at least big enough where a targeted attack wouldn't necessarily do much of anything. Knowing he'll be sitting on the couch in whatever room the President would watch movies, at a specific time, is a dangerous thing.
The again, so far just about everyone loves Obama. :) I'm thinking sometime within the first year, he'd be safe to sit in the front yard of the White House on a lawn chair, smoking a cigar and talking sh1t with foreign diplomats.
Hmmm, what's this text I just received?
From: 2024561414@blackberry.net
To: jwsmythe
Subject: evac
Evac ASAP. Bird inbound. ETA 10min
Parent
Re:research in motion (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:research in motion (Score:5, Insightful)
If he were not (wisely) choosing his fights, he could simply order it. He is not subordinate to the advisers who don't want him using a Blackberry. In fact, he could replace them if he wanted -- he could even eliminate their positions. The President has a great deal of authority, very little of it subject to the opinion of anyone else.
Parent
Re:research in motion (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:research in motion (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
The Sectera Edge (Score:3, Informative)
I just did a pretty good submission [slashdot.org] about the very same issue. Now, alas, redundant. But I did pick up one useful new fact: General Dynamics makes something called a Sectera Edge which would probably be a good, secure, replacement for the Obamaberry.
Re:The Sectera Edge (Score:5, Informative)
... which c|net has a pretty good article [cnet.com] on concerning its ability to fulfill Obama's needs.
(Disclosure: I work for GD, but don't speak for them.)
Parent
the answer is obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution is simple -- the government already has PDAs that tie into their networks and are secure. He will use that for classified information, as required by law anyway. His blackberry will be used for non-classified information. Separation between the two is also required by law. Now, why are we fangirling over Obama like this? This wasn't news when Bush was in office and he used a cell phone and a PDA too. Now I wait for my -1, didn't fangirl score.
Re:the answer is obvious. (Score:4, Insightful)
This wasn't news when Bush was in office and he used a cell phone and a PDA too
Because a blackberry is so much harder to use than a PDA and cell phone ;) Or maybe it's an issue of race.
Sarcasm aside, it is a bit annoying that suddenly, the choice of dog and the use of a communication device is "big news." It's not big news, Presidents have had communication devices for years and dogs for much longer.
I can see it now. Headline news back in the day was undoubtedly "President Washington to Choose Arabian or Quarterhorse?" Of course, news was a lot slower, so the horse would have likely already died by the time anyone heard about the decision.
Parent
Re:the answer is obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sarcasm aside, it is a bit annoying that suddenly, the choice of dog and the use of a communication device is "big news."
It's only big news if you watch CNN, MSNBC or Fox. The network news broadcasts have barely mentioned it and the Newshour hasn't even touched on it at all. I'm sorry to say that I get most of my news from Jim Lehrer and I'm completely out of the loop on what dog the Obama family is considering getting. I should write PBS and tell them they need to do a better job of covering this important story.
Just remember the cable news people are the same ones that can devote hours of coverage (and helicopters!) to Britney Spears arraignment while our country is bogged down in two wars, one of which they apparently forgot existed until recently. I just can't take them seriously any longer.
Parent
Re:the answer is obvious. (Score:4, Informative)
Well, I don't watch any TV, let alone news. And most news is no better, as far as being opinionated, than talk radio (which, ironically, I do listen to).
That said, I think NPR (not sure if that is necessarily the same as PBS though) is decidedly biased as well. And I might add, NPR did cover the dog story on "All Things Considered." (Online here. [npr.org])
Parent
Re:the answer is obvious. (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, I think NPR (not sure if that is necessarily the same as PBS though) is decidedly biased as well.
I disagree. I think they've gone out of their way to show both sides of the argument even if one side has a pretty absurd argument that isn't even grounded in reality. I've seen them piss off both Liberals and Conservatives and tend to believe the old adage that you are probably doing something right if everybody is unhappy ;)
And I might add, NPR did cover the dog story on "All Things Considered." (Online here. [npr.org])
Hmm, I hadn't heard that. At least they only devoted 2 minutes and 46 seconds to it though. How much time has CNN devoted?
Parent
Re:the answer is obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a question of Classified vs Unclassified information. This is a question of covering the Commander in Chief's ass if things became public knowledge that were never meant to be.
Notice how there's no email trail linking President Bush to the torture of terror suspects or the tapping of our phone lines. If the president sends an email, it legally must be saved. If he has a private meeting with his advisors, all that needs to be recorded is who spoke to whom and when.
A better solution to this problems is: 'Hey, maybe the president shouldn't order or condone illegal or unethical behavior regardless of whether or not there is a record of his statements.'
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or, why not take away his personal blackberry, and g
Re:the answer is obvious. (Score:4, Informative)
Or, why not take away his personal blackberry, and give him a government-issued one? They're already so prevalent throughout the government, so why not give him one? Then you can do the BES thing and have remote wipe, and have all emails sent through it archived. And given the encryption already on it, I'm sure it's usable for classified stuff as well.
Classified? No. While blackberries are very secure and have been audited from end-to-end [blackberry.com] by many government agencies, they are currently certified for "Sensitive But Unclassified" information by the US government.
For example, blackerries aren't tempest [wikipedia.org] shielded.
Parent
Fangirls of the World Unite! (Score:5, Interesting)
This wasn't news when Bush was in office and he used a cell phone and a PDA too.
Actually, it was an issue for Bush, though it had nothing to do with phone calls or PDA functionality.
Obama is a notorious IM addict. He pretty much ran his campaign through his Blackberry. Now of course, you can use a Blackberry to make phone calls and track your appointments, but that's not why he's under pressure to give it up. The security wonks don't like the potential for text messages getting intercepted, and the lawyers don't like the legal exposure he'd get if the messages were subpoenaed or FOIAed.
I'm not sure if Bush ever had a Blackberry or a PDA, but he used to be a heavy email user. He went cold turkey when he assumed office. According to his "last email" that went out to all his correspondents, it was mainly about the legal exposure.
An NSA-approved smart phone is probably the solution to the security issue. (See one of the submissions in my sig.) I suspect Obama will just blow off the legal issue. He's supposed to be Mr. Open Government, after all.
Now I wait for my -1, didn't fangirl score.
And you'd deserve it! People who don't like fangirl stories (what happened to fanboys?) have no place on Slashdot!
But this is not a fanchild issue. Obama keeps talking about the dangers of living in the "Presidential Bubble" [washingtonpost.com]. One way he wants to avoid this is to have a lot of contacts that aren't mediated by his underlings. A Blackberry or other pocket IM device is an obvious tool for this purpose.
I suspect he's being a little naive. He's going to be in charge of the biggest bureaucracy on the planet — does he really think that he can be on a first-person basis with the whole kaboodle? But hey, he's surprised us before!
Parent
Re:Fangirls of the World Unite! (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, I thoroughly despise Bush Jr. (was his final press conference pathetic or what?) but on this one issue you're being a little unfair. The CYA attitude is as old as bureaucracy and as the legal profession. Which, come to think of it, are not really different entities.
A couple years ago I was called into a meeting at work. What was it about? Can't tell you, would violate my NDA. And if I did tell you, it would have to be from memory, because everybody in the meeting was to forbidden to take notes or to write email about what happened in the meeting.
I'll bend the rules a bit, and tell you that it was a really, really trivial legal issue. No bodies were being buried, no careers were at stake. Many companies would have just told their lawyers, "Your problem, do whatever is necessary." But that costs money, and we didn't have money to burn. So we picked the most cost effective strategy, and that involved created an absolutely minimal paper trail.
We were following advice that lawyers give their clients every day: minimize your exposure. That's the advice Bush's lawyers gave him 8 years ago, and that's the advice Obama's lawyers are giving him now. I like to think that Obama will ignore them in the name of open government. But he's a pragmatic guy, so he knows that making that kind of idealistic choice comes at a cost.
Obama's something of an idealist; if he weren't, I wouldn't have voted for him. (I probably wouldn't have voted at all.) But he also knows that if he makes every decision on purely idealistic grounds he's going to have lots of Right Decisions and very little to show for it. Woodrow Wilson can tell you all about that.
No doubt Bush thinks he's the same way: making the idealistic decision when he can, making the pragmatic decision when he has to. The difference is that what Bush considers to be his ideals are morally bankrupt, and his critical judgment fatally impaired.
Parent
Re:Fangirls of the World Unite! (Score:5, Insightful)
When you're a real girl, and not just a girl in training, you'll have reason to complain!
Parent
Re:the answer is obvious. (Score:4, Informative)
Exchange does it. IMAP servers can do it (though not all do).
Yes, the newest versions of Exchange with Direct Push do it as well. Although IMAP IDLE can theoretically do it, I have yet to see it in the wild. The deficiency in IMAP is that (unlike RIM's NOC or Exchange Direct Push + SCMDM) the encrypted permanent connection is used for device management as well (OTA provisioning, remote wipe if the device is stolen, etc.)
That doesn't sound like much of a feature to me [...] I could just set my phone up to have my work account *and* my gmail account, which makes even more sense.
The point of PIN-to-PIN is not just proofing against just one e-mail account being unavailable (although in most large enterprise/government environments you would be shot by the IT security group for sending potentially sensitive information via your gmail account). It's about the fact that those communications go from any BlackBerry to the RIM NOC and straight to the other BlackBerry. The whole Internet could disappear and as long as the RIM NOC (which links directly to the packet networks of the major cell carriers) is there you can still send messages between BlackBerries. Not an everyday feature but very useful in emergency situations...
Parent
Obamatard portmanteaus (Score:5, Informative)
Can we stop all this portmanteau crap? Please? It's like the imaginary label "President-Elect"...
PS:
And as I've noted elsewhere, the 'Omigod, he left his Blackberry behind at dinner' issue is absurd
No, it's not. The people who surround the president have (practically since the inception of nuclear weapons) had problems keeping the codes or the authorization mechanisms physically secure, despite the fact that the fucking thing is in fact attached to the person carrying it:
On occasion the President has left his aide carrying the football behind. This happened to Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush[2] and, most recently, Bill Clinton on April 24, 1999.[3] In none of these cases was the integrity of the football breached. clicky [wikipedia.org].
It's one thing for a "football" which is specifically designed to not rely just on restricted access, but if someone got ahold of Obama's blackberry, getting into it isn't nearly as challenging.
Also, the article submitter doesn't have the remotest understanding of how things work at a presidential level in regards to information security; its not as simple as "zOMG, do not email the sec of defense on blackberry!" Bush went so far as to keep his press secretary at arm's length so that he was truly ignorant on stuff that Bush didn't want the press to know about.
Much of information security at that level isn't about actual classified information, but dissemination of unclassified information to the media that is either beneficial or hurtful to other political entities and individuals, domestic or foreign.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Can we stop all this portmanteau crap? Please? It's like the imaginary label "President-Elect"... "
OK, you win. No more Obamanteaus.
Re:Obamatard portmanteaus (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, how is "President Elect" imaginary? It's a widely-used term, and everybody knows what it means. And BTW, it's been around for about three centuries, according to the OED.
But even if it had been invented last year, it wouldn't be "imaginary", not if people are actually using it.
Parent
Regarding security and archiving (Score:4, Interesting)
I must be missing something big, but isn't the point of a Blackberry the fact that everything goes through a $business-controlled server? One that can nuke the device from orbit whenever the admin says so? One that stores all the data securely?
I thought that's pretty much why RIM was able to get Blackberries into so many businesses - they could just buy a server that would integrate with their stuff and keep it all safe.
I'd actually be upset if he wasn't using a blackberry, but a less-secure cellphone
Or am I way off the mark for some reason, and why?
No Exceptions.. Thats the rule. (Score:4, Interesting)
Hey, Come on... We are people at SLASHDOT... That used to mean "technology folks" that were usually involved in security, technology, and BOFH's... The RULE IS: NO Personal Communications Device. NO exceptions. Sorry you don't like the rules, Now enforce it. I think that is in the BOFH Rule book someplace.
If he can't live with this rule, what about the rest? What are we to think if he constantly considers himself "above the law?" This is just a start of the trend that eventually leads to corruption. (IF it already isn't so.)
Besides, All you might need is a laser and bounce it off of the screen when he's using it and anyone could read it... (oops, wrong tech? Does that work for LCD's?)
State Govt. requires Blackberry... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aw come on, he's the first US President that could use one. :)
Parent
Re:Who Cares? (Score:4, Funny)
To be fair, he's the first President in eight years that has opposable thumbs.
Parent
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Funny)
Monica Lewinsky with the blackberry in vibrate mode in the oval office.
Dammit, I was so sure it was Colonel Mustard.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is ridiculous. (Score:4, Insightful)
I am sure the previous presidents of the united states used cellphones and laptops. This is no different by the combination of the two. What exactly are those security experts hired for anyway?
They are hired to know gems like this: All data transferred via BlackBerry devices is encrypted and travels through RIM â(TM)s central server in Canada [74.125.95.132].
Parent
Re:This is ridiculous. (Score:5, Funny)
Canada, eh? That's one of those unstable [www.ctv.ca], oil-rich [doe.gov] nations run by a fundamentalist [macleans.ca] dictator, that supports all kinds of terror [www.cbc.ca], right?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)