Android Approved By Pentagon 160
sfcrazy writes "The Pentagon has approved a version of Android running on Dell hardware to be used by DoD officials, along with the BlackBerry. The approval of Android by the DoD is a major setback for Apple's iPhone. This doesn't mean that DoD employees can use any Android phone. The Pentagon has approved only Dell's hardware running Android 2.2. Interestingly Dell recently discontinued its Streak phone which runs Android 2.2. Dell is now offering Dell Venue which runs on Android 2.2. So, this is the phone which DoD employees can use."
No goodies for the DoD (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That whoosh really upset you gcnaddict. It's even funnier that you have a 6 digit ID. Calm down.
AC has three digit ID FWIW
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
woosh.... MAJOR fucking WOOSH!
More like General Whoosh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I think CmdrTaco would agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh well, point taken.
Re: (Score:2)
Accreditation for mobile devices will only be up to collateral secret... and even that is a big "if."
Re: (Score:2)
ok! =)
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? 2.3 is all you need. Seems like nothing but small, unimportant updates for ages now. No point in getting ICS for the sake of it, just like there was (is, in a lot of cases) no point in corporate windows users upgrading from XP to Vista or 7.
Re: (Score:1)
I know it was past the first sentence, but it specifically mentions being limited to v2.2.
Re: (Score:1)
No, the first sentence was:
"I guess they won't be getting Ice Cream Sandwich without rooting either."
Re:No goodies for the DoD (Score:5, Interesting)
After 4 days with ICS on my Nexus S, I am seriously considering downgrading. The only end-user changes are almost completely cosmetic, and app/widget support for ICS is poor at best for many things I use on a daily basis.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be an affront to the Free Market (pbui).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What do they care? They're the Military, for chrissake. Messes are their specialty. They even call the place they eat a "mess".
We just saw how more than half the politicians tremble at the mere mention of a cut to military spending. The even tremble at a mention of a cut in the increase in military spending. Hell, if you run Xe or a company like it or a military contractor you don't even have to a
Given the DoD's ongoing love affair with Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
... I have a hard time believing the open-source-ness of Android played any real part in the decision, no matter what TFA says. Someone at Dell made the right deal with the right people at the Pentagon.
Also Windows is just as open to them (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that Windows' source code is some massive secret is rather funny. It is closed source, but it is no secret. Not only do governments have it (which they require if it is to be used for anything classified) but universities do too. MS licenses it to various universities with some conditions. Students can see it and mess with it, but not copy it and that kind of thing.
Any OS the DoD is going to use, they'll have the code for. So to them Windows and Android are no different in that regard.
"Right on/top marks" but... (Score:1)
With said source, you need actual EXPERIENCED coders (and time) to TRULY "get the hang of it" & what's going on inside it... Windows NT, the forerunner/ancestor of modern Windows OS'? Last I knew of, it had 30 million++ lines of code (means TIME, bigtime, to understand)... it's not gotten smaller in modern varieties either (think Win7/Srv2k8).
Which is, after all, EXACTLY why the MOST DANGEROUS "hacker/cracker" types, are coders... because only coders, experienced ones (not 'script kiddies') mind you, ha
Re: (Score:1)
Windows NT, the forerunner/ancestor of modern Windows OS'? Last I knew of, it had 30 million++ lines of code
Does the ++ apply to million, making it 31,000,000, or is it just 30,000,001?
Re: (Score:1)
100M lines of pre-Windows 2000 code here [wikipedia.org]
I say potentially because "lines of code" isn't a great metric, it is hard to know if its apples to apples language wise etc etc
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only do governments have it (which they require if it is to be used for anything classified) but universities do too.
Would some kind soul at a university in possession of said source code please put it in a torrent. kthnxbai.
iOS Devices Already In Use (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, DOD employees have been allowed to use iOS devices since November with approval of their CIOs, and the same 'blanket' approval which Android 2.2 just received is forthcoming. So much FUD....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
but you need to war dial to get the number and the (Score:2)
but you need to war dial to get the number and then find the back door password.
Re: (Score:2)
Losing a monopoly doesn't count as a major setback?
Re: (Score:2)
Since when did they ever have a monopoly within the DoD? Oh right, they didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously I wasn't referring to supplying stuff like tanks and aircraft carriers, you fat cunt.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh dear, you lose the argument by default since we can't hear you from the Naughty Step.
Either way, the implication was that iOS had a monopoly in the DoD, presumably on cellphones which is so far right of the truth I think Glenn Beck is frantically scribbling it down for his next book.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see iOS listed on the NIAP.
Misleading headline; Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
How about a headline that goes:
Dell scores one with Android
More accurate, right?
Re:Misleading headline; Why? (Score:4, Funny)
Uncle Sam Hates Steve Jobs
That'll get more reads
Re: (Score:1)
I was just thinking:
Uncle Sam Must Hate Steve Jobs
That'll get more reads
FIFY :)
Re: (Score:2)
Not me - I'm still hoping for a debian-based fusion of webos, meego and wayland, running Android apps in an IcedRobot container.
I think Slashdot is more pro-Cyanogenmod than pro-Android. Plus hating Apple is fun for some people.
Re: (Score:2)
/me agrees completely.
My Maemo-based N900 is excellent, but the hardware's getting slightly old.
Re: (Score:2)
the problem is that people are getting modded down now if they praise anything Apple does or criticize anything related to Google or Android.
You get modded down for trolling.
And you get modded up for spreading your Apple shill. Stop playing around, you are getting modded up enough already.
I especially like how you get first post on every Android/Apple article, somehow writing 10 paragraphs and still in FP. And you do get modded up even though 50% of what you wrote is total bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Carrier IQ (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're the ones writing things like Carrier IQ.
Re:Carrier IQ (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Its my understanding you don't need a "special build" of Android to not get Carrier IQ. You need a "special build" to get it - like those created by/for the carriers
correct. with ios it was probably bit tricker since they baked it in by default for some versions and I suppose thats one of the reasons they removed it, so they wouldn't be excluded from certifications in future.
and well, for everyday things except combat stuff, military would trust telecoms as usual customers(meetings where they discuss stuff like if some base gets budget or not - those talks are with politicians anyhow).
and the secret, combat etc stuff goes over their own radios and coms anyhow. in most
Re: (Score:1)
If such a thing as Carrier IQ were on a phone under review by DOD it would have to be removed.
Re: (Score:3)
How do they keep top secret data from leaking out to third parties?
First of all, you don't put top secret stuff on your phone. That is a quick way to lose your security clearance. There are very strict rules about what top secret data can and cannot be placed on: putting it on public-internet facing devices like a phone will get you in shitloads of trouble. It's possible they have Android builds that work on SIPRNET (I've heard the President gets something like that from Blackberry) with a physical switch (SIPRNET devices have to be physically separate in some way from ARP
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think these things will be used to handle classified information?
This is why I asked the question -- I don't know. How do you connect to wifi in the Pentagon without having your credentials keylogged? This is my question.
Re: (Score:2)
It will be a special built containing only apps that have been vetted by the DoD and probably with installation of additional app disabled.
Re: (Score:3)
The competition is good for everyone as long as one player isn't dominating and controlling. So, it's really not a big deal for Apple and it may cause some benefits should Apple want back into that game.
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be too quick to use this stupid article as any sort of actual insight into the DoD. What this person is claiming is mostly incorrect.
iOS approved already (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Using a chess analogy. Apple just lost a pawn. They knew it will happen. But in the mean time apple has Horton market share and mind share (where all other devices will need to be compared with apples)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the author of the article is an idiot and probably has no DoD experience or works in any capacity within or contracting for the DoD.
Re: (Score:2)
FTA
Starts & Stripes repots, “Android, developed by Google and other companies, is open source software meaning it can be easily configured by uses – including DOD tech whizzes who want to install security measures.”
The Army is already doing widespread testing of prototype smartphone-like devices for use in combat, These devices could change the Army's tactics, reports Stars & Strips.
The author is an idiot who can't spell writing for a magazine that doesn't copy edit.
Ob (Score:2, Funny)
Don't ask, don't D^htell.
Just in time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you know whats funny? dell does government approved android for BOTH china and usa.
Re: (Score:2)
DARPA Transformative Apps (Score:2)
Read up on that, ignore the article.
DOD did not APRROVE (Score:3)
The reality is that DOD has issued a Secure Technical Implementation Guide (STIG) that must be followed if you are trying to get a Designated Approving Authority (DAA) to issue an Approval To Operate (ATO). Actually implementing a secure architecture and getting approval for sensitive unclass, much less classified is a whole different issue.
I guarantee that approval means the user will not have Android market access and will not be able to arbitrarily install applications. Depending on the setup, an approved android phone may very well have less capability than a Blackberry.
Google is unstoppable (Score:1)
CarrierIQ (Score:2)
Did the approved phones include CarrierIQ? Perhaps it is required by the government :-)
Such a bad article (Score:2)
Lets see what the article says...
This seems to say that there was only one reason, and it's due to the open source nature of Android. If this was the only reason, why did they also continue to support Blackberry?
(They linked to an old Ars article born in the hype of locationgate)