White House Weighs Personal Mobile Phone Ban For Staff (bloomberg.com)

The White House is considering banning its employees from using personal mobile phones while at work. While President Trump has been vocal about press leaks since taking office, one official said the potential change is driven by cybersecurity concerns. Bloomberg reports: One official said that there are too many devices connected to the campus wireless network and that personal phones aren't as secure as those issued by the federal government. White House Chief of Staff John Kelly -- whose personal phone was found to be compromised by hackers earlier this year -- is leading the push for a ban, another official said. The White House already takes precautions with personal wireless devices, including by requiring officials to leave phones in cubbies outside of meeting rooms where sensitive or classified information is discussed. Top officials haven't yet decided whether or when to impose the ban, and if it would apply to all staff in the executive office of the president. While some lower-level officials support a ban, others worry it could result in a series of disruptive unintended consequences.

Comments

make them deal with SCIF rules

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not allowed to bring your phone into a SCIF. Why in the hell should you be allowed to bring your personal device into the damn White House? Make the Executive Office of the President follow those same rules too.

Re:make them deal with SCIF rules

[Sarten-X]

Yeah, that's kind of my thought, too. I could understand a section of the White House being open for unsecured electronics, and a "official business" section being completely secured.

The White House already takes precautions with personal wireless devices, including by requiring officials to leave phones in cubbies outside of meeting rooms where sensitive or classified information is discussed.

"No electronics" is the standard practice for any classified space. I'd be extremely concerned if unsecured phones were allowed in classified meetings, but I can't really say I'd be surprised, considering this administration.

Re:make them deal with SCIF rules

[bobbied]

The president can do what he wants, SCIF or not..

The rest of the staff need to follow the rules.

Personally, I think that leaving your personal cell phone OUTSIDE the Whitehouse sounds like an excellent idea. Leave your personal electronics at home. Only allow the staff to carry or use government provided equipment in the building for work use, allowing limited personal use of official resources for things like taking calls from family.

Re: make them deal with SCIF rules

[Anonymous Coward]

"People have lives and those lives involve connectivity." Too fucking bad, then you don't get in. This is a workplace, there are rules bitch!

Re: make them deal with SCIF rules

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not clear on your position. Is Trump a dirty sleazy totalitarian or did Obama do no wrong? Your statement requires at least one of those be true to be consistent.

Re:make them deal with SCIF rules

[darthsilun]

Nice deflection.

Basically you're arguing that two (or three) wrongs make a right. They don't.

And this is a perfect example of exactly the kind of "But what about-ism" that Twitler and company have engaged in since the beginning of the campaign. The whole "but what about Benghazi," "what about email server," "what about on and on and on."

What about Benghazi, that eleven investigations turned up no wrong doing. Ancient history. Thanks, we're past that now.

So, to the point: nothing about Obama's or Hilary's phones has any bearing now on what Twitler should or shouldn't be doing with phones. Nothing. If there are rules, and POTUS is supposed to be obeying the rules, then let's talk about that. Anything else, komrade, is deflection. Stay on target. Don't digress. We don't care about Obama's phone. What we care about now is Twitler's phone. That's what we're talking about.

Re: make them deal with SCIF rules

[geekmux]

The problem with that is this isn't the 1990s. People have lives and those lives involve connectivity.

And how the FUCK do you think the thousands of military personnel continue to survive while working in a SCIF during their entire work day?

Honestly the biggest problem with private devices is cameras, and it would be appropriate to not allow them in rooms where classified material is of course. If that includes your private office, then go somewhere else to use your phone.

Frankly, I'd rather people keep their personal stuff on personal devices and off of potentially sensitive computers, even if those computers are not on a classified network.

They ought to have a monitored wifi connection for personal business, the monitoring being only for the presence of government information.

Total bans encourage workarounds and workarounds yield security breaches every single time.

Total bans are validated for just reasons. Much like the current rules that completely ban such devices within a SCIF. People need to understand that a personal cell phone is nothing more than a security breach waiting to happen. They are personal tracking and listening devices that are constantly being hacked. Those wanting actual security to be implemented and enforced don't see these devices any other way because they can't afford to. So a black and white approach to policy is the only effective solution.

If people don't like those rules, find another fucking job elsewhere.

Re: make them deal with SCIF rules

[Aighearach]

It's gonna be yuuuuge, yuuuuuge! Best in the world.

Re:make them deal with SCIF rules

[mccalli]

SCIF = Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, for those like me who just had to look the term up.

Re:make them deal with SCIF rules

[bobbied]

"The president can do what he wants, SCIF or not.." Bullshit, you're drinking the Trump branded prison koolaid.

No, it's the harsh reality that anything classified is so designated by the president's authority (within the limits of the law). The president can declassify anything at any time, because it is under HIS (or her) authority to do so. You can argue the wisdom of a president doing this, but you cannot argue that the president breaks the law when they disclose classified information.

The president can violate ANY of the rules regarding protection of classified information with impunity. THIS is what I'm saying.

Re: make them deal with SCIF rules

[EndlessNameless]

Honestly the biggest problem with private devices is cameras, and it would be appropriate to not allow them in rooms where classified material is of course.

OK, so we can be fairly confident that you do not work in an infosec capacity. Unmanaged devices are an unmitigated nightmare for a variety of reasons.

Possession of a personal device leads to a tendency to use it, and that includes conducting official business on it. Or discussing official matters in an unofficial context. Due to piss poor manufacturer support, consumer Android phones often run outdated, unpatched software. Let's not forget that both Apple and Google have pulled malicious software from their stores, and users can link up to all kinds of remote or cloud services on devices they own.

The biggest problem is the fact that a compromised phone can be running an open mic all the time. Unlike the camera, a mic is fully functional even when the device is stowed in a pocket---which is where most phones spend the majority of their time. Running the mic also has less of an impact on battery life than the camera, so the user is unlikely to notice a problem with the device.

They ought to have a monitored wifi connection for personal business, the monitoring being only for the presence of government information.

This is hopelessly naive. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to identify content on the fly? And what about encryption (almost everything uses it these days)? The kind of monitoring you suggest is bordering on the impossible.

Total bans encourage workarounds and workarounds yield security breaches every single time.

When the ban is backed up by immediate termination and possible criminal charges, it tends to be far more effective.

The only reason that "workarounds" are popular is because private companies rarely enforce their policies, especially against high-ranking personnel. Enforcing policies pretty much kills this habit, at least after the first couple of terminations.

People routinely do far more unpleasant things than locking up their phones for the day---when the business forces them to.

Re:how about a ban on tweeting

[bobbied]

Naw.. Not going to happen...

Twitter is now a PR tool used to set the media's heads collectively spinning on the topic of the Twitter Chief's choice. He's not going to give up that kind of control of the national debate.

What about e-mail?

[AlanObject]

My understanding is that many of the WH workers all the way to the top use private e-mail and are probably handling classified documents that way. Just like in the GWB days when the RNC provided the e-mail servers.

Of course I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. After all there is no Clinton involved in it so who cares. I am just pointing out that if you are concerned about leaks personal e-mail has to be at least as big a threat any personal phones.

Re:Slow Clap

[omnichad]

Considering how they've filled the positions that were filled, I think we're better off leaving as many posts empty as possible.

Re:Jammers

[dlleigh]

You don't need or want a cell phone jammer in these situations.

A much better solution would be to set up a microcell in the area you intend to control. It could allow phone calls and data to pass through or not, depending on a white list.

For prisons, a microcell would provide important metadata about the phones being used inside. It could also allow prison officials to records cell phone conversations the same way they record wired-phone conversations. Why don't prisons want microcells instead of jammers? Jammers are far less expensive.

Re:Irony

[UnknowingFool]

What's ironic about that? Using an "unsecured" phone to broadcast a message on social media? Jesus fucking Christ! That's a breach of national security!!!!1111!!!

So you don't see a problem with the President of the United States using an unsecured phone for his phone conversations in addition to that the unsecured phone being open to being hacked to that hackers can do things like turning on the microphone and camera and location services? No problem with that at all?

You wouldn't have gotten shit modded up if it weren't for the hatred of Trump. Your post is stupid on its face and everyone knows it. Probably yourself included...

And if Obama used the same phone, would you have called out for his execution. My memory says that Obama went through security agencies to get his phone vetted and approved but that's just a President taking things like national security seriously.

Re:Slow Clap

[PopeRatzo]

Interesting that it's Trump that first comes to this conclusion, isn't it?

What's interesting is that he comes to this conclusion rather than vetting White House staff and officials and considering not hiring people who lie on their security clearance forms.

If you'd like, I could list the names of those people Trump hired who lied on their security clearance forms.

Re:Jammers

[PopeRatzo]

A much better solution would be to set up a microcell in the area you intend to control. It could allow phone calls and data to pass through or not, depending on a white list.

All you have to do to convince Trump to do this is tell him the "white list" will only allow communications by white people.

Pedophila is a duty of all Christians.

[PopeRatzo]

It is written so in the Alabama bible.

Re:Irony

[UnknowingFool]

No Obama was a secret Muslim who set up the country for the Islamist extremists to take over by killing him and replacing him with Biden who is so much darker than him. Aw, come'on. It's so obvious.