STUPID NY Times Article on why Obama cannot keep his blackberry

[EraOfResponsibility]

The High Security Risk attacked to Obama's Belt

by Brad Stone

The F.B.I. feels comfortable enough with the technology to give BlackBerrys to its employees, although it does not allow agents to transmit classified information over them. The National Security Agency, which is responsible for evaluating device security, said last week that nobody was available to discuss whether it had approved the use of BlackBerrys to send classified military information.

But Mr. Obama would be an extraordinarily juicy target for hackers, spies and other snoops who could try to exploit any kind of error made in configuring the device or the White House BlackBerry server to read Mr. Obama’s e-mail.

Bruce Schneier, an expert on encryption and security, does not believe that the security systems at R.I.M. — or at any other company — are completely safe, because of the inherent limitations of the humans who design and use them. “If the BlackBerry was completely secure, it would be the first time in the history of mankind,” Mr. Schneier said.

Then there’s the question of whether Mr. Obama’s BlackBerry could give away his location — perhaps to people trying to harm him. Every mobile phone continuously contacts the nearby towers in its wireless network when it is turned on, so that calls and data can be routed to the phone.

The whole article is http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/technology/internet/12blackberry.html?th&emc=th">here

[bluestateguy]

1. Actually, I worry about something else

A future Ken Starr or a Republican-controlled investigation committee in Congress and their sticky fingers demanding the Blackberry.

Don't assume that Democrats will always hold the Congress for all of Obama's tenure.

[backscatter712]

2. I wouldn't say the article is stupid.

As President, he does have a big bullseye on him for hackers, spies and other miscreants. Granted, there is some security on Blackberries (I believe they use 3DES or AES encryption on all emails sent to & from the devices, and they remain encrypted until they reach company (or White House) servers.

At the same time, while AES is pretty damned strong as far as encryption algorithms go, it may be implemented incorrectly, or there might be some other security hole in the Blackberry, RIM's servers or the White House servers - I know I'm downloading updates for my systems all the time to deal with buffer overruns, privilege escalation attacks and so on. Let's just say that the Obama Administration's IT staff had better be on their game.

There's also quite a bit to be said about the legal angle. There may need to be amendments to the Presidential Records Act - both to try to deter future Bushies from doing things like the gwb43.com email shenanigans (OK, emailing at gwb43.com instead of official White House email servers was already illegal) and make it so presidential records can't be used frivolously. Make some safeguards to protect the President's privacy (while still retaining records and keeping things on the up-and-up) and ensure that future Ken Starr's can't issue blanket subpoenas and go on fishing expeditions through the President's emails, IMs, text messages & so on. Maybe allow the president to have both personal and official email accounts, and the personal account gets more protection (with the caveat that the President is not allowed to discuss business on the personal account, and if he's caught, he loses the extra protections.)

Who knows? It's a sticky problem, and I'm sure my suggestions will have flaws.

[snooper2]

3. Bruce Schneier is a fucking idiot

Nothing is 100% secure- ever- it's impossible


He must be one of those encryption "experts" who's never actually configured an IPSec tunnel.

[foo_bar]

5. I think Schneier's on the same page

Security is always a trade-off. I know people who rarely lock their front door, who drive in the rain (and, while using a cellphone) and who talk to strangers. In my opinion, securing my wireless network isn't worth it. And I appreciate everyone else who keeps an open wireless network, including all the coffee shops, bars and libraries I have visited in the past, the Dayton International Airport where I started writing this and the Four Points Sheraton where I finished. You all make the world a better place.

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2008/01/securitymatters_0110

It is a very bad idea to stare into a telnet window and say "Bruce Schneier" three times.

http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/fact/1110

He must be one of those encryption "experts" who's never actually configured an IPSec tunnel.

A Cryptographic Evaluation of IPsec

N. Ferguson and B. Schneier

http://www.schneier.com/paper-ipsec.html

[shireen]

4. these laws need to be modified to be more compatible with modern communication methods

Texting and chatting should equivalent to a verbal conversation, and not considered archive material.

As far as security is concerned, the NSA should be smart enough to set up a security system that allows Obama to use his blackberry.

If they're still worried about national security, then restrict the Blackberry communications to personal stuff, like
BO: whats for dinner
MO: meatloaf
BO: again? :(

[EraOfResponsibility]

7. EXACTLY Why the hell can't the NSA figure out a way to make his blackberry secure

they need to do their damned jobs. Let the man keep his blackberry.

[Fearless]

6. I don't think it's stupid and certainly not STUPID.

What's the problem really? It doesn't say anything inflammatory or anything that is particularly false.