So, if the US president isn’t allowed to have a Blackberry for security concerns, should we be using them? What’s the rationale behind the refusal?
From ComputerWorld:
The press has been all over President-elect Barack Obama’s addiction to his BlackBerry and the possibility that he might have to give up the device for reasons of national security. But no one in the media seems to be asking the most logical follow-up question: Is the technology that can compromise the future chief executive’s BlackBerry also a threat to mobile devices being used every day by thousands of senior executives in corporate America?
One security expert, Ron Cochoran, president of RER Technology, answers that question quite succinctly: “If the president can’t use it for security reasons, then there’s obviously something wrong with the security system.”
Quite the sweeping statement.
But, what if it were true? Then that would beg the question, “what’s wrong with Blackberry security?” or is this all fluff?
OK, so further to this story, my confusion resides in the fact that the British military rolled out Blackberry devices last year and yet the French government banned them for officials a few months earlier. There seems to be a complete lack of consistency on this subject. Most of it, like the situation in India, seems to based on paranoia.
Is this merely posturing?
The Communications Security Establishment (CSE) in Canada at one point in 2006 had approved the use of a “secure blackberry” implementation. Strangely, this document (Google cache) appears to have now been removed from the CSE website. Not to mention the absence of the list (Google cache) of other products they were evaluating.
I know next to nothing about Blackberry security, however of course there is always going to be the possibility that electronic communications originating from any type of device may be intercepted. Hopefully, governments recognize that when deciding if they will allow Blackberry devices or not. Perhaps the maximum of Blackberry security is a constant and the variables that cause one Government to allow Blackberry usage and another to decline it are:
1. Is the Government willing to make an investment in securing their Blackberry network such that they are comfortable accepting the risk that goes along with it.
2. If they want to ban Blackberry usage, are they willing to deal with the belly aching that will most certainly result? (France certainly was). (US Government is not willing to accept this risk for the president)
It appears that the ComputerWorld article fails to acknowledge the fact that the US President is not even allowed to have his own e-mail account. I believe the reasoning for this lays somewhere in the Presidential Records Act of 1978. Presidential communications must be archived by the National Archives. So, if the President can’t receive e-mail, why allow him to have a Blackberry? Its not like the Blackberry will make him more “on call” than he already is. Additionally, Senior Executives should not be compared to the US President. Certainly, insider company information is interesting, but I’ll wager its not nearly as interesting as official Presidential correspondence having to do with National Security. The risk of interception of the two does not even compare.
@Lindsey
I was blissfully unaware that the President was not permitted to have an email account. How will he ever find out about all of the great deals that the spammers out there are offering? HA!
Thanks for the comment. I was wondering if you might chime in. 😉
Will Obama be able to use the General Dynamics Sectéra Edge, the National Security Agency’s Secure Mobile Environment Portable Electronic Device (SME PED)?
http://www.gdc4s.com/content/detail.cfm?item=32640fd9-0213-4330-a742-55106fbaff32