Solving Obama's BlackBerry Dilemma

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."

Comments

Obamatard portmanteaus

[SuperBanana]

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.

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:research in motion

[Gorshkov]

Dead wrong. You must be Canadian. ;)

No I'm not, and yes, I am.

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.

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.

While we're at it, Fort York did not become Toronto, York did.

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.

Also York is where the American troops committed arson.

See above.

Fort York was exploded by the retreating British.

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.

Incidentally, the Americans also burned the Parliment buildings at York. T'was the Parliment of Upper Canada.

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).

But you can go back to telling the Americans they don't know nuthin now.

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.