Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UN Telecom Chief Urges Blackberry Data Sharing

Posted by timothy on from the best-interests-at-heart dept.

crimeandpunishment writes "The top man in telecommunications at the United Nations is weighing in on the Blackberry battle ... and he says share the data. The UN's telecom chief says governments have legitimate security concerns, and Research in Motion should give them access to its customer data. In an interview with the Associated Press, Hamadoun Toure said 'There is a need for cooperation between governments and the private sector on security issues.'"

11 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. I think I speak for all of us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think I speak for all of us, when I say: FUCK THE UN!!!

    1. Re:I think I speak for all of us... by InsaneProcessor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The UN was conceived for provide aid to needy areas by a unified front. Now they are hell bent on governing the entire planet. I, for one, do not recognize any authority of the UN as a governing body and the United States had better be on the same page or life and liberty as we know it will be ended. Unfortunately, a one world government in in the Bible as prophecy and will come to pass as part of the timeline to the end of the world as we know it.

      --

      Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
    2. Re:I think I speak for all of us... by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup, and how unsafe that really is.

      Any time you build a back door, you weaken security. End of story.

      The "legal intercept" (aka Wire Tap) functionality on phone switches was used, rather recently, in Athens, by an unknown party, to tap the lines of a number of non profit group leaders, and government officials. It was only discovered after it had been in operation for a while, and was discovered entirely by accident.

      http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/the-athens-affair/0

      That said, I really don't see where governments have such legitimate cases for wiretapping. I mean, sure, I can see their case for wanting to tap, or having cause to tap, certain individuals. However, I don't see how that need translates into a need to force the entire infrastructure to be designed such that they can do it.

      Whats the REAL damage of them not being able to do this when they have a case for it? Some criminals get away? Some are harder to catch and require more work? So what? I don't see how that need should usurp the entire populations security for the occasional need to tap someones phone.

      I know we can dream up all sorts of fanciful scenarios where they might need it.... but imagination land can justify many many things... and movie plots threats do not make for good public policy (as evidenced by the TSA)

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    3. Re:I think I speak for all of us... by jpmorgan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, the UN was conceived as a forum for international diplomacy, to foster international cooperation. Its first act was to pledge each member to continue the war (the second world one) until complete victory had been achieved.

      International aid is scope creep.

    4. Re:I think I speak for all of us... by b0bby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do understand that US demands the same kind of access? I

      In the case of Blackberries, they don't. From the AP article:
      "Governments in the U.S. and elsewhere have largely made their peace with encryption technology. E-mails can still be obtained through legal channels, for example by obtaining a warrant to search the corporate servers of companies that use BlackBerrys."
      Sure, they're sniffing where they can, which I don't3like, but they're not demanding that secure systems be broken wholesale so they can access them.

  2. TFA is firewalled... by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

    It says it's an entertainment site. But I found a better source anyway; TFA probably cut and pasted from the AP (or from another site that paid the AP for publication) anyway.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
  3. Who needs privacy? by rotide · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Governments need to feel secure. Secure from attacks by foreign nations. Secure from attacks by its own citizens. Governments need all information about anyone they consider a threat. Getting all your information might be considered a breach of your privacy, but it's a safety blanket for the government. Oh, and remember, if you're not with the government, you must be a terrorist.

    Enjoy!

  4. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, A12 by pete-classic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Secretary Toure,

    FYI:

    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.

    Thought you should know.

    Sincerely Yours,
    Peter Hutnick

  5. Re:Who do you trust more? by JustinOpinion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Someone is going to be deciding what to do with your data here, either the individual companies or the government.

    Not really a fair way of looking at it. Even if I trust the government more, this isn't an "either" situation. The company has to have access to the data in order for them to provide the service to the customer. So it's either "company has access" or it's "company and government have access". From a user's perspective, it's clearly safer to have fewer people/entities with access to their data. Hence it's preferable for the government NOT to have access.

    On the other hand you're alluding to who should set the rules about data access. I certainly agree that the government is the right entity to set rules like that (the company would prefer not to have any rules, so that they can harm customers at the drop of a hat if it somehow helps their bottom line). But governments setting, and even enforcing, privacy rules doesn't mean they need unfettered access to customer data. (There are smarter ways of doing oversight.)

    So, again, I'm all for companies being subject to legal regulations and oversight. But I'm also very much against companies sharing customer data with governments any more than is absolutely necessary. (Where "absolutely necessary" means some amount of transparency to enable oversight, and the occasional compliance with a valid warrant for specific data. It is most certainly not necessary for government agencies to have complete access to customer data or communications.)

  6. Very well ... by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... you first, Secretary-General Toure. Let's give every government representing a member-state of the United Nations access to Mr. Toure's Blackberry (or the equivalent, if he has a different mobile device) data. ALL of it, since that's what India is requesting from Research In Motion. It would be interesting to see what discussions he's had with industry lobbyists, wouldn't it? Surely SOME nation would leak that information, like Iran if the "talks between satellite provider Eutelstat and the Iranian government" referred to in the article don't go the way Tehran wants.

  7. Re:Who do you trust more? by Totenglocke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're forgetting that companies have (some) reason to want to keep users privacy and make them happy for fear of losing their business. Governments don't have to worry about losing your business because you're forced with threat of jail / violence if you do not do as they order.

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson