Why can't we all have Obama's secure BlackBerry?

By | January 25, 2010, 5:57am PST

Summary: Obama’s phone is one of the most secure devices on the planet. All good and well, but can we all have one?

It surprised me a few years ago when I came across the first malware for mobile phones, in the form of Cabir for Symbian operating systems, yet knew it were to be an inevitability in the evolution of software nasties. Since then, more vulnerabilities have been discovered and as mobile phone use hasn’t decreased, mobile users are becoming more of a target.

With the recent news of the GSM encryption being hacked, this led to an unprecedented level of worry and panic. My college colleague Adrian Kingsley-Hughes says there’s little to be concerned about. But once again, mobile users are becoming increasingly aware of the threats we face with our mobile devices.

Barack Obama has little to worry about though, as both he and French president Nicolas Sarkozy have two of the world’s most secure devices, thought to be a PDA variant of Sectera Edge and the Thales Teorem respectively. The Sectera cannot exactly be described as a handheld device per se, as it requires practically both hands to hold the device. Considering front-line commanders use them, they can probably be used as a blunt instrument in case they run out of ammo. Seriously, they’re really big.

But surely if the technology exists, it should be rolled out to anyone and everyone. Fit the chip into high street phones, install the encryption software, and the world will be a happier, more secure place. The encryption is as good as it gets, certified by both Nato and the British government to be secure enough to send even the most sensitive of data.

Conspiracy theorists among us will no doubt see this lack of commercial encryption as a way for governments to monitor our calls, texts and other communications, thus technology such as this on a commercial scale would significantly reduce the intelligence gathered on us as citizens.

Sure, talking to your mum on the phone to discuss recipes or calling your best friend to have a moan probably won’t constitute as state secrets, needing to be encrypted to the highest level possible to avoid interception. But what harm can it do? We all have the right to speak in confidence to others without having to worry about eavesdropping or tapping, so it seems almost right that this technology should be commercially available.

For the time being, if you want a commercially available technology which is almost impossible to intercept, believe it or not Skype can take credit for that one. Whoever manages to intercept voice-over-IP calls will be a a governmental hero; shortly before being bundled into an unmarked car never to be seen or heard of again.

What do you think; possible or impossible?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Zack Whittaker, a criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, Canterbury, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

Disclosure

Zack Whittaker

I worked briefly with Microsoft UK in 2006 but no longer have any connection with the company. Regardless, I remain impartial and unbiased in my views.

I don't hold any stock or shares, investments or industrial secrets in any company, but have signed confidentiality agreements with a number of UK and U.S. organisations, whose names I am not at liberty to disclose.

I was involved with Kent Union, the University of Kent's student union, undertaking voluntary, non-salaried, elected positions between early 2009 and mid-2010.

No other company, body, government department, non-governmental organisation or third sector organisation employs me or pays me a salary in any capacity whatsoever.

As a freelance journalist, whenever expenses are given and taken by a company that is not CBS Interactive, these will be disclosed in each relevant post to ensure transparency.

I currently work with a UK law enforcement unit, but this is an entirely separate position which bears no connection to other work.

(Updated: 23rd October 2011)

Biography

Zack Whittaker

Zack Whittaker, criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, UK, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

After studying criminology at university, though still in his early-20's, he has already had a series unconventional work and voluntary positions. He has worked with researchers studying neurological illnesses like Tourette's syndrome (which he suffers from), has given lectures on the nature of disabilities in the public community, and occasionally ends up speaking on television and radio discussing the events of the day.

He first had academic work published at the age of 22, then still an undergraduate, and has been cited by a wide range of publications: from the Huffington Post, Business Insider, AllThingsDigital, The Atlantic Wire and CBS News.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
44
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Huh?
AzuMao 27th Jan 2010
That's an algorithm in the public domain. Anyone
is free to implement themselves if they can
program. Nothing proprietary or top secret about
it.
0 Votes
+ -
But what kind of costs would that add?
Michael Kelly 25th Jan 2010
If this encryption means I'd have to pay $100/month rather than $40, I'd pass. My conversations aren't so secret that I'd pay an extra charge voluntarily, so I certainly would not wanted one tacked onto my bill involuntarily.
0 Votes
+ -
you must be a verizon customer
Al_nyc 25th Jan 2010
That's the only reason you would think that you would need to pay a monthly fee for a feature built into your phone.
0 Votes
+ -
Um.. 0?
AzuMao 25th Jan 2010
The overhead of using AES on such a tiny amount of
data as the ~10kbps used by phones would be
insignificant.
0 Votes
+ -
when calling you mom?

Government was really against any type of encryption. I remember when
encryption was against the law...
0 Votes
+ -
Matter of principle...
techboy_z 25th Jan 2010
...and also, because we do not have to trust government. In fact, we ought not to, if we know our history! Government is to be kept in fear of the people, not the other way around! There can be no democracy when this is upside-down...and it currently is.

As for being against the law...not all laws are just. We are obliged to follow the just laws.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually
d.esposito@... 25th Jan 2010
we are obliged to follow all laws, not just the ones we think are "unjust". We can work to change the laws we don't like - that's called democracy - but we can't ignore them.
0 Votes
+ -
Following that logic..
AzuMao 26th Jan 2010
..the United States of America is obliged to not exist, since it would not had the law been followed.
0 Votes
+ -
Right
d.esposito@... 27th Jan 2010
Funny you would use the word logic when you fail to apply it yourself. The founding fathers were acting outside of the established law of their time and many were arrested and even killed for doing so. That doesn't make their cause any less just from our perspective but my point still stands - You are obliged to OBEY the law whether you agree with it or not. That doesn't stop you from CHANGING the laws you don't like.
0 Votes
+ -
What about the natural laws of the universe?
provincialplace@... 27th Jan 2010
Actually the only laws that people follow in the end are the natural laws. We are likely to never totally understand them all. But they always prevail.

Like the laws of phisics...or our self preservation instincts. Laws of men are no match for gravity.

We are programmed to attempt to survive at all cost. Life itself is stronger than any armies. That has been demonstrated many times. Remember Vietnam?

Laws of men are always temporary. Because something is written on paper does not make it real. Civil laws may be useful but they are always made up.

Logic? Telling someone that his/her argument is not logical is like saying trust me I know the truth and you don't. A truly logical argument cannot use the word logic as a presupposition.

To demonstrate logical thinking, one must clearly state its presuppositions and show why and how one arrived to its conclusions. Anything less is demagogy not logic.

How can someone believe that taking rights away from people will improve people's freedom and security?

"the beatings will continue until moral improves"

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." from Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887.
need to be broken eventually.
Namely, the second law of thermodynamics.
Which is arguably more concrete than gravity.
Thank you for enlightening me.
0 Votes
+ -
Civil Disobedience?
oldbaritone 27th Jan 2010
Must be you've never heard of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
0 Votes
+ -
See my answer above
d.esposito@... 27th Jan 2010
MLK did indeed practice civil disobedience, and was jailed many times for doing so (my older brother was at the march in Selma so I have indeed heard of Dr. King).

Try reading what I wrote originally and see if you can apply some critical thinking this time.
0 Votes
+ -
Follow only just laws...
amunar@... 25th Jan 2010
led people to jail. I believe too that the part of our taxes used in wars sholdn't be paied. But IRS have another idea.
0 Votes
+ -
Why would you need your call encrypted
Sindhbad-23104572398885964894693603106074 25th Jan 2010
Just ask Tiger Woods or Kalwame Kilpatric why!!
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Hey - my mum works for MI5
zwhittaker 25th Jan 2010
OK she doesn't, but you never know!
0 Votes
+ -
The same reason..
AzuMao 26th Jan 2010
..the Bill of Rights exist(s/ed).
0 Votes
+ -
cellphones ARE UNSAFE BY BASIS.
magallanes 25th Jan 2010
Even the so called Obama cellphone is unsafe because many factors and rely most of their security in one or more carriers, and even if the carrier can be considered safe, then still there are some ways to hack into a cellphone. And even if the cellphone (as hardware and communication) was 100% safe then still you can replace the guy at the other side of the cable. After all, you are calling to a cellphone and this cellphone can be answered by any person.
0 Votes
+ -
Oops! Although Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is a wealth of
information, I don't think he qualifies a a "college". Did you
perhaps mean "colleague" instead? Otherwise, cool article!
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Sorry...
zwhittaker 25th Jan 2010
I remember this. I spelt it "colleage", then spell-checked it and selected "college" instead of "colleague". Considering I talk about college all the time, I think I know where I went wrong happy Thanks for letting me know; it's been a longgggg day.
0 Votes
+ -
You are welcome!
sievekings@... 26th Jan 2010
I too have a running battle with spell check, and spell check will
sometimes win!
Sorry, but I'm pretty certain that the President is required by law to have logs of all calls, which means he probably has had his Blackberry confiscated during his term.

If you recall, even just a few years ago, Rove stopped using the WH email system and caused numerous problems.
Obviously, we in the general public don't have much technical info to offer here.

That said, I do agree that the government would prefer that we don't have quite that much privacy, and maybe rightly so.

I think there are some things that just shouldn't be public. There are too many evil people and too many stupid people for that to happen. Just read some of the feedback on ZDNet blogs.

Maybe letting that technology out, would ruin it for them too.

I really wouldn't want everyone to know how to make a nuclear weapon either, you know? (oops)
0 Votes
+ -
McCarthy would be proud.
provincialplace@... Updated - 25th Jan 2010
Are you assuming that the government employees are somehow wiser and more intelligent than the general public?

That would be seriously misguided trust in my opinion.

It is pretty obvious to me they are just as immature, uneducated and foolish as the average citizen.

Which means they can never be unconditionally trusted. I believe that this principle was enshrined in the U.S constitution with the rights to bear arms and privacy rights.

Out of context many conversations could be tagged as inappropriate or subversive.

I wonder how many folks on the no fly lists are there just because they made a stupid comment to a loved one on the phone? Or because someone with the same name made such a meaningless comment.

I bet you have you heard of ECHELON? Or maybe you think it was invented by conspiracy theorists. Sorry it's existence and purpose was proven in court.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

The ghost of McCarthy will haunt us for a very long time yet.
0 Votes
+ -
That makes sense, except that..
AzuMao 26th Jan 2010
there are already strong cryptographic algorithms released into the public domain, by the U.S. government!

Oh and also that being able to talk to someone in confidence isn't the same as launching a nuclear ICBM.
0 Votes
+ -
My concern is...
provincialplace@... 27th Jan 2010
That the majority of folks seem to believe that it is justified for the government to spy on everyone to protect from the few. That the government knows best and should not be challenged. And that if you try to protect your privacy you must be doing something wrong. Therefore true liberty is not valued or even understood. All "democratic" governments today break their own laws on a daily basis. That can never be justified. True leaders must be pure of heart.

Governments are human institutions. As such they are driven by our best and worst instincts. I am not aware of any government that has managed to remain in power for very long. Since government are artificial contraptions made up by humans they always get corrupted by human abuses and eventually fail, usually when they no longer protect all their people adequately. I am not a history student and I can think of dozens of examples. the Aztecs, the Greeks, the Syrians, The French monarchy, every Chinese dynasties, they all failed.

The US constitution is an attempt to transcend previously documented ruling systems to protect its people from their animal instincts. Self preservation is the strongest instinct. The authors of the constitution knew about the abuse of kings and the true nature of men. They studied failed governments and tried to take the best ideas and create a new society. Unfortunately I do not believe the average person understands it today. They are blinded by the fact that the civilization they are in is/was at its peak. They are convinced it will go on forever. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Lord Acton

As transparency and accountability of leadership disappears evil people like McCarthy swoop in.

And of course if you want you can have private conversations.

Government control is a temporary illusion and when a critical mass of people realize that they ALWAYS remove the leadership. The cycle begins one more time.
Does the Papacy count? It has more influence than
most governments..
0 Votes
+ -
If the same technology was realease to the public, hackers would have an easier time finding ways to hack into said system. With limited people having it reverse engineering is improbable. So no the general public will not be allowed to have his security.
0 Votes
+ -
The angel and the devil
LiLac22281 25th Jan 2010
(Angel in response to the question) "Yeah, 'We the people!'"

(Devil in repsonse to the question) "I suppose you want the Secret Service too, huh?"

*Disclaimer-I have not read this post or any of the responses to this post because the question is rhetorical. Have a nice day!
0 Votes
+ -
Interesting that you've only used the term "President" to refer to the French leader, but friend, it was the previous President who decided to start spying on your calls. Old news.
0 Votes
+ -
Crooks
SMparky 25th Jan 2010
I was under the impression that crooks like the Blackberry because it's so secure and can't be tapped by law enforcement. I thought it was considered extremely secure for all Blackberry users. Am I wrong here? (not that I care, you can all listen in to my conversations if you'd like).
0 Votes
+ -
Don't forget political dissidents.
AzuMao 27th Jan 2010
Or do you consider them one and the same?
"We all have the right to speak in confidence to others without having to worry about eavesdropping or tapping,"

Not in this jurisdiction you don't.

And besides, if your conversation is about planning or doing something that we all agree is going to harm others, then I have no problem with others acting preemptively.

There is a skunkworks project at Nokia that will produce an enhancement called the Idiot Jammer. Nokia will provide the IP to all manufactureres. The goal is that the device will automatically detect use by an idiot, and shut down.

The project started off as a defence industry project where a burst of noise could be sent to any individual phone but it was canned when scientists realised that idiots never listen to anything.
0 Votes
+ -
Unconfirmed BS rumor Zdnet scoop :P
337 Updated - 25th Jan 2010
Allegedly the CSIRO and some un named radio manafacturers have also been researching such technologies.

Tests on citizens band proved futile as the radios in question refused to turn on.

Years of R&D and millions have no doubt been spent only to find out what we always knew.

(the following paragraph was removed due to concerns to public safety and sanity)

*edit forgot to use brackets instead of
0 Votes
+ -
Exactly.
AzuMao Updated - 27th Jan 2010
Because the only reason anybody could possibly want privacy is that they are planning to hurt people.


In which case they surely must follow the law, so if privacy is banned, these people will be busted.


Excellent reasoning!







p.s.
Just in case you actually miss it; [/HEAVY SARCASM].
0 Votes
+ -
RE:Asked and Answered
tiredpolitico 25th Jan 2010
The answer to your query is so obvious that it need not be asked.
0 Votes
+ -
Right on.
AzuMao 27th Jan 2010
The answer is obviously that such a thing would
make the First Amendment work, which is illegal.
0 Votes
+ -
Eminently possible BUT if we have the same as O'B what will
distinguish him?
Can't have the peasants hoeing the fields in purple now, can
we . . .
mac
Probably for the same reasons we have to have an export permit in countries outside the US just to have the privilidge of purchasing encryption to suit current APCO P25 series radios and suchlike.

GSM was cracked years ago this is just a revamped attempt of saying look at us we re invented the wheel.

Stroke of genious? hardly

Put enough computing power to brute force crack
or incercept relevant data similar things have been known by the kiddies eg the WEP cracking and bla bla.

More pointless bla bla.

Why can't we have a secure blackberry?

Well you probably can if you got the money honey?

What could be argued is the fact that you won't get hold of the top proprietry / military
grade encryption modules and or software
that he would have onboard.

A lot of mobiles have provision for secure options as various agencies etc have the need
to fitout stock units every now and then fancy that !

This is all nothing new and what relevance it has here like a lot of things which merely are chaff filling the space i have no idea.

I think the world would have something to be concerned about if everyone could have the same stuff as Obama what a ridiculous concept.

In any case his advisors would still say
watch what you put on that thing.

It's not something he'd want to misplace.

Even his connection would be specialised
in some way eg they'd try go through everything but civilian modes first then fallback on telcos when abosolutely necessary and secured to the hilt no doubt.

Fact is only those who need to know do.

It's not your average bonehead conversation
to be had in front of the telly.

Seriously where on earth could you go with this?

Yehhhh he's using AES 256Zbit encryption
with a poly wanna pentagon proprietry technollogy bloody nora mind ya nose :P

Fair dinkum.
0 Votes
+ -
Huh?
AzuMao 27th Jan 2010
That's an algorithm in the public domain. Anyone
is free to implement themselves if they can
program. Nothing proprietary or top secret about
it.
0 Votes
+ -
Fact is that police authorities put significant pressure upon
governments and technology companies not to give us secure
communication. It would make their lives much much more
difficult.
0 Votes
+ -
The conspiracy theory is not utterly void of value, but there is
another point: all such things that became ?public domain? finish
being cracked sooner than later for there is no security that can
not be breached given sufficient time and resource (direct
derivative of Murphy's first law), as proven by history. Getting it
into the open just accelerates this process.
0 Votes
+ -
Murphy's Law?!?
DeusExMachina 26th Jan 2010
Sorry, but this just not true. It can be mathematically proven that some
encryption techniques can not be broken, regardless of how much time
and horsepower you throw at it.

And "Murphy's Law?!?"
0 Votes
+ -
..proprietary encryption algorithms such as GSM have not been, and can not be, broken, where as encryption known to the public such as one-time pads are
easily cracked?


And you want to buy a bridge in London?


Si??

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix