Slashdot Mirror
Trump Ignores 'Inconvenient' Security Rules To Keep Tweeting On His iPhone, Says Report (politico.com)
According to Politico, "President Donald Trump uses a White House cellphone that isn't equipped with sophisticated security features designed to shield his communications." The decision is "a departure from the practice of his predecessors that potentially exposes him to hacking or surveillance." From the report: The president uses at least two iPhones, according to one of the officials. The phones -- one capable only of making calls, the other equipped only with the Twitter app and preloaded with a handful of news sites -- are issued by White House Information Technology and the White House Communications Agency, an office staffed by military personnel that oversees White House telecommunications. While aides have urged the president to swap out the Twitter phone on a monthly basis, Trump has resisted their entreaties, telling them it was "too inconvenient," the same administration official said. The president has gone as long as five months without having the phone checked by security experts. It is unclear how often Trump's call-capable phones, which are essentially used as burner phones, are swapped out.
I'ts not just Trump -- don't all people in power do this? I thought this was just SOP -- I'm busy, I've already hired someone else to worry with keeping me safe so I can think about other things. (Not that that excuses them, but offloading things is their rationale.)
Link - An iconic photograph of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton using her BlackBerry while wearing sunglasses on a military plane in 2011 prompted a recordkeeping official in her office to inquire about whether Clinton had been assigned a State.gov email address, the State Department disclosed this week."
And:Link - Clinton responded on March 8, 2009: Against the advice of the security hawks, I still do carry my berry but am prohibited from using it in my office, where I spend most of my time when I'm not on a plane or in a "no coverage" country.
If these are all (Alt-) Right Wing Fake News Sites (they're the first few Google links), I'm sure someone will soon point this out. Please do, and point to the rebuttals and corrections.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Hoe many here know a CxO who wanted to get rid of some security or ignored their company policy?
Difference is that a CxO as an executive of a private company has that power to make such decisions. And this pretty much sums up Trump's stupidity. He still thinks POTUS is the boss of the country, rather than a servant of the people. Govt policy is our our policy which all must follow.
Do you honestly believe that Hillary wouldn't pull same shit on him if they swapped places? Pot calling kettle black. Captcha:swingers
I think that if the roles were reversed, Hillary, or any other presidential candidate you care to name, Democrat or Republican, would be concentrating on doing his job, solving the middle east mess, getting infrastructure reform done, finding some kind of compromise in the Obamacare feud that everybody can live with, doing something about mass shootings. Basically that candidate would be doing their job rather than spending all his time obsessing about what the person who lost the election was allegedly doing years ago and extorting foreign leaders into bailing out his son in law's real estate company and investing in his own resort projects in as a prerequisite to getting things done.
There's no law governing Trump's Twitter account, like there was on Hillary!'s email server. Trump's not committing multiple felonies that the DoJ and FBI have to cover up. There's nothing classified on it, he didn't have his uncleared maid print it for him, nor has the classified emails that never existed also shown up on a literal pervert's laptop.
But yeah, hang onto your Trump Derangement Syndrome - it's doing you soooo well. Trump's approval ratings already top Obama's. Imagine what Trump's polls would look like if he got that fawning press Obama had. "Eight years of Obama's economic recovery!"
He apparently has ended a 70 year war in Korea by mocking the fat, ugly imbecilic dictator on the other side over the internet.
If only! He did indeed have the opportunity to end the war fall into his lap like manna from heaven, yes, because North Korea's nuclear research complex was destroyed in a semi-natural disaster. Then with John "War Fetish" Bolton's help, the fat ugly imbecilic wannabe-dictator snatched crushing defeat from the jaws of free glorious victory by reminding North Korea what happened to Libya (and Gaddafi) along with demonstrating that the USA's word isn't worth jack shit, and now it's all going to fall through. So don't count your chickens before they hatch.
The economy is doing ell and employment is about the highest it's ever been. He's another Bill Clinton - horrible person, fine President.
The economy is doing well, yes, but as in the Reagan years, the massive and permanent wealth transfer to the 1% will come back to haunt future generations. He's cooked another goose that lays the golden eggs, and again the conservatives are saying "Mmm mmm tasty goose! Such a great decision!"
He will almost certainly go down in history as the worst US president ever on all fronts.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
By design, security is ALWAYS inconvenient -- hopefully more inconvenient to the bad guys than to the users.
This is the wrong approach to 'Security'. I am reminded of a line by a character in a book by Robert A. Heinlein where a business mogul was talking to his lawyer: "Look, I don't pay you to tell me what I can or can not do. I pay you to advise me on how I can do what I am going to do anyways in the most legal way possible."
I am, by consensus, considered a security expert. I have worked with the military in active combat zones. My job was to ensure that their communications were as secure as possible. My job was NOT to tell them could not communicate at the time because it was insecure or to take a server of theirs offline because it was not in a secure state.
Security can be inconveniencing and uncomfortable, especially when trying to change ignorant behaviors; however, there is no need for security if nobody is doing anything. The entire reason security as a concept exists is to assist people in doing what they need to do, regardless of the security implications, while minimizing risk to them while doing it. If security gets in the way of the goal, then security is WRONG. Sometimes, people need to do stuff that security would think is an unacceptable risk. Security advises the executive, it is NOT the executive.
This is why I have my current job. The entire IT management and security team were so focused on denying everything, in the name of security, that the organization I now work for fired ALL of them. If security is your goal, turn off your computers and kill yourself. There will be no more risks. If your goal is getting stuff done while minimizing risks, call a real security expert and listen to the advice.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Does anyone remember last year, when Trump accidentally boasted about a secret CIA/Mossad operation that the grownups had told him about to the Russian ambassador in the Oval Office? I'm pretty sure ever since that event, they have dumbed down the daily intelligence briefings to the point that where doesn't matter anymore who listens in on it. And Trump now bases his "policy" decisions on Sean Hannity anyway.