Obama: "I'm not allowed for security reasons to have an iPhone"(securityweek.com)
securityweek.com
Obama: "I'm not allowed for security reasons to have an iPhone"
http://www.securityweek.com/obama-not-allowed-iphone-security-reasons
11 comments
As far as I remember from back in '08, Obama uses a blackberry because he asked for it after winning the presidency. He used it heavily during his campaign, and wanted to hang on to it after getting the presidency. They had to go through some trouble to create an NSA certified version for Obama to use.
DoD and Boeing have been on BB with special security for ages.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Kind of a passive statement, isn't it? It makes him sound like he's not in charge of anything, let alone sitting in the most powerful office in the United States.
A far stronger, leaderlike statement would have been, "for security reasons, I have chosen not to have an iPhone."
A far stronger, leaderlike statement would have been, "for security reasons, I have chosen not to have an iPhone."
Well, the actual meaning is "I could have an iPhone but I'm not stupid enough to blow off the advice of a bunch of guys whose entire full-time job is keeping me safe and secure." Which seems both clear and wise to me, but we have this weird thing about expecting our leaders to be Lone Cowboy types who don't take no guff from nobody.
I just wish for some leaders to act like leaders.
He's also not allowed to walk across the street from the White House to have a beer at the local bar, or drive his own car around DC because of the restrictions the Secret Service places on him.
Maybe he didn't choose. He's the President, not the Dear Leader.
Yeah. People seem to forget that the Presidents job isn't to, rule over them.
What does Blackberry's supposed great security actually entail?
Details: http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/2013/04/how-obamas-blackbe...
SecurVoice software by Genesis Key, a short list of contacts that also have compatible communications devices (unclear if that's required or if that's only for classified communications, since a photo caption has Obama calling Romney), and possibly other hardware or firmware modifications that are not disclosed. IMEI kept secret, and the phone might only connect to a special secured base station.
SecurVoice software by Genesis Key, a short list of contacts that also have compatible communications devices (unclear if that's required or if that's only for classified communications, since a photo caption has Obama calling Romney), and possibly other hardware or firmware modifications that are not disclosed. IMEI kept secret, and the phone might only connect to a special secured base station.
They own a subsidiary, called Certicom that owns nearly all of the key patents surrounding Elliptic Curve Cryptography.
It's not just a "Blackberry". It's custom hardware with custom security.
Apps and shortsighted or ignorant programming practices by app devs are a big source of security holes for iOS.
I wonder what the difference between the DoD certifying iPhones for use in the military and this situation is?
Commander In Chief vs. faceless private.
1 of 1 vs. 1 of 766,984.
Nuclear weapons vs. M16.
1 of 1 vs. 1 of 766,984.
Nuclear weapons vs. M16.
We have a predicament. Either iPhone is insecure or the US government security is insecure, or both.
Pick one.
I predict the general consensus will be something moronic like "the government needs a different type of security", so they're both secure.
Pick one.
I predict the general consensus will be something moronic like "the government needs a different type of security", so they're both secure.
I'm not allowed for security reasons to have an iPhone
but we can fix this
with HOPE
CHANGE
but we can fix this
with HOPE
CHANGE
he's a figurehead and obscured from reality from the most part. Who cares what device he's on, he doesn't make any difference either way. They could put a log in his place and it would have the same effect on this country.
I think you may have your countries mixed up. The US President's role was a compromise between different parties, some of which were demanding a king. As such, he has far more power than, say, the President of Iran. An entire branch of government reports to this one person, so calling him a 'figurehead' is kind of a stretch. The man can literally have you kidnapped, taken to another country, and tortured.
Yet he is unable to get an iPhone.
If I were him I would have made a sign that says "You're fired" on his desk and every time someone gives the wrong answer, I would just start to point toward the sign and watch whether the people change their tune.
If I were him I would have made a sign that says "You're fired" on his desk and every time someone gives the wrong answer, I would just start to point toward the sign and watch whether the people change their tune.
> Yet he is unable to get an iPhone.
May just be that he takes his advisers seriously.
I suspect most of us have had jobs at one point or another where, as subject specialists, on paper our managers were making decisions - but realistically they went with what we told them was the best option on a very general analysis of averages and trade-offs that we gave them.
There are limits to how specific the power you can exercises is and still remain meaningful.
May just be that he takes his advisers seriously.
I suspect most of us have had jobs at one point or another where, as subject specialists, on paper our managers were making decisions - but realistically they went with what we told them was the best option on a very general analysis of averages and trade-offs that we gave them.
There are limits to how specific the power you can exercises is and still remain meaningful.
Well, now I can list at least one reason chris_mahan would make a terrible president.
What do you think the role of the President is, according to the Constitution?
I don't even need to go into the Constitution; figurehead or no, it sounds like you'd make one colossal jerk as President. Which would, among other things, mean you would be a terrible figurehead.
Ok, you're right. Here, I won't run for the Presidency of the United States in 2016. Happy?
Let's be clear, though: if the President can't stand up to Congress and the Supreme Court, the country will suffer. It's not called checks and balances for nothing.
Let's be clear, though: if the President can't stand up to Congress and the Supreme Court, the country will suffer. It's not called checks and balances for nothing.
He could get an iPhone is he really wanted to. Who would stop him? It's pretty clear that he is choosing to abide by the security recommendations of people who know more about these things than he does.
1) He is legally required to maintain official records, as per the Presidential Records Act. This was passed after the Nixon-Watergate scandal.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Reality-Check-The-Presidentia...
2) If President Obama "demanded" a iPhone because of his personal choice, it would be expensive and take a long time to secure the iOS for him. The considerable expense would be politically challenging to explain.
3) Secret Service agents are trained protect the President, and maintain his safety even if that means disobeying a direct order that would compromise his safety.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Reality-Check-The-Presidentia...
2) If President Obama "demanded" a iPhone because of his personal choice, it would be expensive and take a long time to secure the iOS for him. The considerable expense would be politically challenging to explain.
3) Secret Service agents are trained protect the President, and maintain his safety even if that means disobeying a direct order that would compromise his safety.
What about phone calls, personal conversations? If the First Lady decides to hint to her husband that she's, hum, in the mood for some married people activities, does that become part of the Presidential Record? What if the President thinks aloud, to himself, in the shower. What if, water running, soap in hand, he wonders aloud "I wonder what really killed Yasser." Does that become part of the Presidential Record?
What if he wants to watch a little, hum, adult entertainment, to relax after a long day at the office, does that become part of the Presidential Record?
What if he decides to, hum, read a little science fiction, and he says to his wife: Michelle, in this book they talk about the end of the world, and how the United States turns into an Empire and tries to win WWIII, and it's fairly convincing, and Michelle replies "put the book down and go to sleep". Does that become part of the Presidential Record?
So what if the President, midday, wants to see the score of his favorite basketball team as they are playing, but he's in a phone call with some union lobbyist/fundraiser/golfbuddy, can he not look at his cell phone like the rest of us and just click refresh? And does that too become part of the Presidential Record?
If the President of the United States has to live with so little privacy, and if he's frustrated (who wouldn't?), then does it not make sense, in perhaps a perverse way, that the privacy of the common American be of so little value?
If the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces does not have privacy, why should anybody else?
Think about that for a second.
Now, I think that if some foreign state is trying to assassinate the President of the United States, I don't think their plan will be foiled just because he's not carrying an iPhone.
What if he wants to watch a little, hum, adult entertainment, to relax after a long day at the office, does that become part of the Presidential Record?
What if he decides to, hum, read a little science fiction, and he says to his wife: Michelle, in this book they talk about the end of the world, and how the United States turns into an Empire and tries to win WWIII, and it's fairly convincing, and Michelle replies "put the book down and go to sleep". Does that become part of the Presidential Record?
So what if the President, midday, wants to see the score of his favorite basketball team as they are playing, but he's in a phone call with some union lobbyist/fundraiser/golfbuddy, can he not look at his cell phone like the rest of us and just click refresh? And does that too become part of the Presidential Record?
If the President of the United States has to live with so little privacy, and if he's frustrated (who wouldn't?), then does it not make sense, in perhaps a perverse way, that the privacy of the common American be of so little value?
If the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces does not have privacy, why should anybody else?
Think about that for a second.
Now, I think that if some foreign state is trying to assassinate the President of the United States, I don't think their plan will be foiled just because he's not carrying an iPhone.
Man, I've had bosses like you. I quit that job pretty quick.
Obviously he could have an iPhone if he put his foot down and threw a tantrum, as you suggest. "I can't have an iPhone" means "I'm not stupid enough to blow off the advice of a bunch of guys whose entire full-time job is keeping me safe and secure, just to get a fun toy."
Obviously he could have an iPhone if he put his foot down and threw a tantrum, as you suggest. "I can't have an iPhone" means "I'm not stupid enough to blow off the advice of a bunch of guys whose entire full-time job is keeping me safe and secure, just to get a fun toy."
If you read the article, you will see that the President of the United States feels like he's in a bubble and is disconnected from the average American.
I don't think that what voters elect their President to do.
This might also explain a lot of things about how things are run in Washington.
Too much security apparently means the President is disconnected with the pulse of America, and is drifting aside.
He's essentially saying the security apparatus is making him ineffective.
If I was in his shoes, and I was willing to send 18 years old men and women to combat in Afghanistan to face the Taliban, I would also take on a certain amount of personal risk to insure I was leading the country in the right direction.
Here I reproduce the relevant part of the article verbatim, for those who have not read the article:
[quote]The president often privately talks of how frustrated he is about the White House "bubble" which makes it very difficult to communicate with normal people or to get information from the outside world that is not filtered for him by aides or the press. Aides say his Blackberry is a way to escape that confinement.[/quote]
I don't think that what voters elect their President to do.
This might also explain a lot of things about how things are run in Washington.
Too much security apparently means the President is disconnected with the pulse of America, and is drifting aside.
He's essentially saying the security apparatus is making him ineffective.
If I was in his shoes, and I was willing to send 18 years old men and women to combat in Afghanistan to face the Taliban, I would also take on a certain amount of personal risk to insure I was leading the country in the right direction.
Here I reproduce the relevant part of the article verbatim, for those who have not read the article:
[quote]The president often privately talks of how frustrated he is about the White House "bubble" which makes it very difficult to communicate with normal people or to get information from the outside world that is not filtered for him by aides or the press. Aides say his Blackberry is a way to escape that confinement.[/quote]
> Yet he is unable to get an iPhone.
Maybe this has more to do with Apple really not caring about setting up an entire secured structure to match what BlackBerry offers just to have the President be their walking advertisement.
Maybe this has more to do with Apple really not caring about setting up an entire secured structure to match what BlackBerry offers just to have the President be their walking advertisement.
Although, things seem to be working out a lot better for Apple than for Blackberry.
Well, now I can list at least one reason chris_mahan would make an excellent dictator.
Because I am willing to fire people who refuse to do what I tell them to?
Maybe I should be CEO instead.
In any case, take a look at the last paragraph of Article 2, section 1 of the US Constitution ( http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans... )
[quote] Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." [/quote]
He swears to faithfully execute the... Wait, what does that mean? Is he the Chief Executive Officer? The Commander in Chief? Ohhh, I see, the CEO can fire for insubordination, but not the President?
(BO, if you read this, only three more years to go. You can do it.)
Ewell, thank you for the compliment, not too many people could pull it off.
Maybe I should be CEO instead.
In any case, take a look at the last paragraph of Article 2, section 1 of the US Constitution ( http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans... )
[quote] Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." [/quote]
He swears to faithfully execute the... Wait, what does that mean? Is he the Chief Executive Officer? The Commander in Chief? Ohhh, I see, the CEO can fire for insubordination, but not the President?
(BO, if you read this, only three more years to go. You can do it.)
Ewell, thank you for the compliment, not too many people could pull it off.
> The US President's role was a compromise between different parties, some of which were demanding a king. As such, he has far more power than, say, the President of Iran
But less, with regard to the overall power of their respective government, than his actual Iranian equivalent (that is, Iran's head of state), who is not the President.
But less, with regard to the overall power of their respective government, than his actual Iranian equivalent (that is, Iran's head of state), who is not the President.
Only somebody completely ignorant of executive roles would make a claim like that.
He's got a lot more effect on the country than a senator, who arguably has a lot of effect on this country.
Only someone completely in denial would not see that Mr. Obama, as President, has exhibited far more acceptance for the previous administration's policies than he had for said policies during his initial campaign for the Presidency.
Such continuation of the previous administration's policies leads many to believe that the Presidency is, in fact, a figurehead position.
The fact that Senator Obama campaigned so vocally against the domestic surveillance program[s] as well as the "Patriot Act" and then chose to extend these policies after being elected President is quite disturbing to those of use who view this situation with any semblance of objectivity.
My views are in no way "racist," nor do I "hate" President Obama.
I actually admire a man who came from a broken home, struggled with the issues he worked through during his lifetime, continued his education, and made millions before ascending to the pinnacle of power within the USA, as well as the world, yet said "power" is in question when we see the present situation.
What has really changed since President Obama took office? What has remained the same as before he was elected?
Such continuation of the previous administration's policies leads many to believe that the Presidency is, in fact, a figurehead position.
The fact that Senator Obama campaigned so vocally against the domestic surveillance program[s] as well as the "Patriot Act" and then chose to extend these policies after being elected President is quite disturbing to those of use who view this situation with any semblance of objectivity.
My views are in no way "racist," nor do I "hate" President Obama.
I actually admire a man who came from a broken home, struggled with the issues he worked through during his lifetime, continued his education, and made millions before ascending to the pinnacle of power within the USA, as well as the world, yet said "power" is in question when we see the present situation.
What has really changed since President Obama took office? What has remained the same as before he was elected?
Healthcare is a major change that this President achieved. That is far more than a figurehead could have accomplished.
When you emerge from the bubble of security (though those concerns are valid), you'll see many changes that Obama pushed forward.
Yes, he has many policies in place that he campaigned against but he also changed this country in many other areas (for better or worse). To call him a figurehead is ridiculous.
Edit: took out opinion
When you emerge from the bubble of security (though those concerns are valid), you'll see many changes that Obama pushed forward.
Yes, he has many policies in place that he campaigned against but he also changed this country in many other areas (for better or worse). To call him a figurehead is ridiculous.
Edit: took out opinion
We already had free health care for indigent people, even illegal aliens could walk into any community health care center and receive free health care. The only real effect I've noticed is a lot of people complaining about various aspects of the ACA.
This health care debate is nothing new, and has been in the works for at least 20 years. One could say that health care reform was inevitable, and would have been enacted in some form, or another, regardless of who the President happened to be at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_19...
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/24/2828261/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_19...
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/24/2828261/
"One could say that health care reform was inevitable, and would have been enacted in some form, or another, regardless of who the President happened to be at the time."
But that would clearly be erroneous.
For example, Hillary Clinton's effort in 1993 (your first link) was plowed under. And it came very close to happening with ACA as well. ACA passed only using the reconciliation mechanism in the Senate, and survived the Roberts court on a 5-4 vote. It's not inevitable at all.
But that would clearly be erroneous.
For example, Hillary Clinton's effort in 1993 (your first link) was plowed under. And it came very close to happening with ACA as well. ACA passed only using the reconciliation mechanism in the Senate, and survived the Roberts court on a 5-4 vote. It's not inevitable at all.
> This health care debate is nothing new, and has been in the works for at least 20 years. One could say that health care reform was inevitable
The debate over universal health insurance at least 60 years old (Eisenhower's reinsurance proposal was intended to acheive that by providing public insurance to insurers against overly-high expenses), and the history of efforts in the domain provides no basis to conclude that something would have been adopted in the 2009-2012 term no matter who was elected in 2008.
It might have been "inevitable" eventually (though even that there is little evidence supporting), but whether it would have been now, or 20 years from now, or another 60 years before major steps were taken toward universal coverage, well, that's another question.
The debate over universal health insurance at least 60 years old (Eisenhower's reinsurance proposal was intended to acheive that by providing public insurance to insurers against overly-high expenses), and the history of efforts in the domain provides no basis to conclude that something would have been adopted in the 2009-2012 term no matter who was elected in 2008.
It might have been "inevitable" eventually (though even that there is little evidence supporting), but whether it would have been now, or 20 years from now, or another 60 years before major steps were taken toward universal coverage, well, that's another question.
Is it completely impossible that when he was a senator he wasn't privy to all the information he has now about the possible threats that the patriot act helps to stave off? Now that he is president he might be able to make a more informed decision.
That being said I don't know if that's actually the case but I'm not yet at the point where I have 0 faith in government.
That being said I don't know if that's actually the case but I'm not yet at the point where I have 0 faith in government.
When we see the Director of NSA give inconsistent testimony before Congress about the efficacy of the domestic surveillance program[s] yet no one calls it perjury, then I have zero faith in our government.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/5352917/5352917
http://www.globalresearch.ca/5352917/5352917
> Mr. Obama, as President, has exhibited far more acceptance for the previous administration's policies than he had for said policies during his initial campaign for the Presidency.
Wasn't the previous administration from across the aisle? Don't you have to campaign against that status quo to get elected when you are the opposite party?
Wasn't the previous administration from across the aisle? Don't you have to campaign against that status quo to get elected when you are the opposite party?
[deleted]
That scenario is only one of many possible explanations for why that happened.
[deleted]
Even if we suppose he is only a figurehead, we already know that he sees a lot of highly classified information. That alone is reason enough to be concerned about taps on his lines of communication.
The reason the president uses a Blackberry is probably similar to the reason the latest Mars rover uses an ancient PowerPC. It's been battle tested long enough and subject to enough scrutiny that you don't have to worry about it as much.