Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Android Blackberry Government

Obama Finally Ditches BlackBerry, Switches To Samsung Galaxy S4 (arstechnica.com) 138

Posted by msmash from the good-riddance dept.
Obama has finally been able to ditch his BlackBerry handset, something which he was stuck with for more than six years. Mr. President appeared on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon and told the audience that it was only this year that he was able to get a real smartphone. There's one caveat, though. The Android smartphone Obama has gotten is a "hardened" version, with pretty much all the unrequired features removed from it. Laughing with the audience, Obama said, the phone feels like the fake toy handset kids play with. ArsTechnica, citing documentations, claim that Obama is using a Samsung Galaxy S4 (a phone that was released in 2013), as it is the only smartphone currently supported by the Defense Information Systems Agency. From the report: The S4 is currently the only device supported under DISA's DOD Mobility Classified Capability-Secret (DMCC-S) program. In 2014, a number of Samsung devices were the first to win approval from the National Security Agency under its National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP) Commercial Solutions for Classified (CSfC) program -- largely because of Samsung's KNOX security technology. And the S4, layered with services managed by DISA, is the first commercial phone to get approval to connect to the Secret classified DOD SIPRNet network. DISA has been working with vendors and the National Security Agency's Information Assurance Directorate to develop a Top Secret-capable mobile device for use by the Defense Department and the national leadership both on the move and within secure facilities. But currently, the highest level of classification that can be handled by commercial devices under the DMCC program is at the Secret level. Secretary of State John Kerry was a DMCC-S early adopter, and he served as a beta tester of the hardened Galaxy S4.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Finally Ditches BlackBerry, Switches To Samsung Galaxy S4 More

Obama Finally Ditches BlackBerry, Switches To Samsung Galaxy S4

Comments Filter:

  • Can change the battery and load custom roms unlike (Score:5, Informative)

    by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @06:10PM (#52319285)

    Can change the battery and load custom roms unlike apple

    • Can change the battery and load custom roms unlike apple

      You can't load custom ROMs without losing the Knox features, I believe.

      • Samsung can make an ROM / let the US gov make there own rom like the cell co's do.

      • Knox has changed, at one point there was a rom flash detection flag you had to fuck with if you flashed, as knox would throw a warning and say your warranty was void. Samsung said, officially, that the warrant would NOT be voided by flashing the rom. I think in later versions, activating knox stops you from being able to root the phone but can't confirm, I stopped trying with my s4 after a few bad flashes including several cyanogen builds.

        • The warranty thing may have been a valid concern a few years ago, but this is 2016. The S4 was released in 2013. They're up to the S7 now; any S4 you buy now is used (I know--I've bought 3 of them in the last year, but all used of course), and is long out of warranty.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )
      And, most importantly, is unsupported.

    • Re:Can change the battery and load custom roms unl (Score:5, Funny)

      by CanadianMacFan ( 1900244 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @09:05PM (#52320007)

      But you have to become President of the US in order to get rid of all of the crap that Samsung and Google load onto the phone.

  • I don't know if I'd trust foreign technology for devices handling such sensitive information.

    • Re:Are foreign devices fully secure? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @06:16PM (#52319307)

      South Korea is an ally.

      Actually, I don't think people realize just how close the US Military and South Korea are. The DOD probably trusts devices made in South Korea far more than they would devices made in the US due to the massive influence they have in South Korea. Remember we still have US troops stationed in South Korea and South Korea (conceptually) relies on US support to keep North Korea from invading.

      • Re:Are foreign devices fully secure? (Score:5, Informative)

        by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @07:07PM (#52319527)

        South Korea is an ally.

        Actually, I don't think people realize just how close the US Military and South Korea are.

        Indeed, the airforces' latest advanced fighter trainer, the T-50 [wikipedia.org] is a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and South Korea's KAI.

        • The T-X program is a "competition" meaning that they have not selected a supplier. Last I heard there were four main suppliers, three of which have a US company partnered with a foreign company: Lockheed - KAI, Boeing Saab, Northrop - BAE, Raytheon - Alenia. So, your example is misleading.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Bilateral relationships can often be far closer than larger alliances can be. Trust in grand strategic alliances(like NATO) can be a tricky and far more subtle dance than I think most people realize.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          Inherently it is also a betrayal of American technology manufacturers. The President of a country should be a walking billboard for that country. All clothing and carried items should be US made. Seriously it makes no sense for some crazy rich bitch to wear thousands of dollars imported ego coat, when a custom, tailor made and fitted one, of the finest material imaginable that looks very similar for a fraction of the price. Beyond insane narcissistic ego, it's not the real worth of the item but purely how

          • I'm not sure what our national costume [wikipedia.org] is here in the USA, but that is what Obama should be required to wear.

          • Re: Are foreign devices fully secure? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @08:31PM (#52319901) Journal

            I'm pretty sure there is a buy American made first law on the books which would have favored Apple.

            However, in this particular instance I think the Samsung move was appropriate because they would allow a complete auditing of the device and software as well as control of the updates and such. Samsung will likely sign custum roms or even grant the secret service access to a key to sign themselves. Apple on the other hand, would likely see attempts at this as a means to backdoor their security and fight it like with the san Bernardino phone.

            Just way more flexibility in the super secret security department i guess.

            • Re: Are foreign devices fully secure? (Score:4, Interesting)

              by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @10:54PM (#52320263) Homepage

              For one just clusterfuck jet (F35), they could build the plant to make the phones needed for all government officials, just one less clusterfuck jet that will in the end be scrapped. So no excuse, they need smart phones, than build the infrastructure to make those phones. Than they could export, those security, milspec phones to the rest of the world, oh wait, no one trust the US government any more, well, that at least could provide it to all US agencies.

              • Who cares? Do you really want the US government building your phone instead of at minimum appearing to be trying to look out for the defense of the country?

                Rambling about spending in one area because there could be spending in another shows the mental lapses in association with reality. If the spending wasn't happening it likely still wouldn't be happening. We are spending on credit in the first place so if there is no reason or will to spend on it now, there will be no changes if we decided to spend less o

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by AaronW ( 33736 )

                  Oh, you mean like this one?

                  http://www.zdnet.com/article/n... [zdnet.com]

                • Who cares? Do you really want the US government building your phone instead of at minimum appearing to be trying to look out for the defense of the country?

                  What? Put down the crack pipe. The government appears to be funneling money to the already-rich. If it was looking out for the defense of the country, we already have superior planes.

                  • Relax. I said appear to be trying. No crack smoking here. However, you might want to clean your glasses.

                    And yes, i agree we should have better war planes.

                    • Relax. I said appear to be trying.

                      But to whom do they appear to be trying? Isn't it fairly well known that this current airplane boondoggle is a snafu? Or is that the snafu is a boondoggle? In this case you could say it either way

                    • It is fairly well known it is a boondoggle but the spec on paper say it should be a decent multi role fighter. There is the problem, on paper, it looks good. In reality, it scares a lot of people. But multi role fighters have always been sub par for the majority of tasks it is supposed to be capable for. I just don't think anyone realized how sub par it was going to be at almost everything it was designed to do. It doesn't hold a candle to a lot of previous fighters in the roles they held but there are some

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                You can't just build a phone factory. Not even Foxconn makes all the parts, not by a long way. Anyway, it would be pointless unless you also design and fabricate your own system-on-chip and modem. The amount of work to build a modem and write firmware for it and get it approved for world-wide use is pretty substantial, which is why there are so few people doing it. And then are you doing to audit every line of code in the OS too, or write that from scratch and hope you do a better job at securing it that co

            • So Apple which off-shores billions to avoid taxes, uses a majority of Chinese made parts and assembles in Mexico is a US company. Not to mention runs a proprietary OS and won't share the code so it can be audited. There is a reason the NSA prefers BSD, and rightfully chooses android over a closed OS, they can and do compile it themselves and check every line of code. I would trust all South Korean made hardware long before I would trust a hodgepodge of Chinese manufactured parts gathered and assembled in a

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

                So Apple which off-shores billions to avoid taxes, uses a majority of Chinese made parts and assembles in Mexico is a US company. Not to mention runs a proprietary OS and won't share the code so it can be audited. There is a reason the NSA prefers BSD, and rightfully chooses android over a closed OS, they can and do compile it themselves and check every line of code. I would trust all South Korean made hardware long before I would trust a hodgepodge of Chinese manufactured parts gathered and assembled in a

            • I'm pretty sure there is a buy American made first law on the books which would have favored Apple.

              Very little of what Apple sells is made in America. That is why they have the weasel words "Designed in California" on their products but they are made elsewhere, often in China. It makes it sound like it's an American product when in fact little to none of the material in the device actually came from America.

              Apple on the other hand, would likely see attempts at this as a means to backdoor their security and fight it like with the san Bernardino phone.

              And Apple would probably be correct about that.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Creepy ( 93888 )

                It's kind of unfair to call out just Apple here - name a single phone made in America. OK, maybe you know the Moto X is manufactured here... correction, it is assembled here, mainly if not exclusively from foreign parts at Wal-Mart level wages by a company called Flextronics.

                • It's kind of unfair to call out just Apple here - name a single phone made in America.

                  How is it unfair to Apple to point out that they have their gear made in China? That's a fact. If they were proud of that fact they wouldn't bother putting "Designed in California" on their products to disguise that the product is made here. Pretty much everybody else doesn't bother trying to hide the fact that their stuff isn't made locally.

                  I've pointed out several times that pretty much no phone is actually made in the US. The components aren't made here, they aren't assembled here, and there is no li

          • Inherently it is also a betrayal of American technology manufacturers.

            Please point out a single US based manufacturer of smartphones. There has to be one for us to buy one. And then it has to be able to actually do the job required. The US has a huge manufacturing base and makes a lot of things but there are some products which simply aren't made in the US.

            The President of a country should be a walking billboard for that country. All clothing and carried items should be US made.

            So the guy whose job is 2/3 foreign relations shouldn't buy anything made outside the US. Seems a bit simplistic to me. While I have no problem with the US president (and congress for that matter) favoring US made good

          • This is dumb. America simply does not have the technology or capability of manufacturing a smartphone. There is no supply chain present that you'd need to get the parts here, there's no LCD manufacturers here in the US that could make the kind of screens found on even a 3-year-old S4, it's simply impossible. And if you're stupid enough to point to Apple as "American", the iPhone is made in China, by contract manufacturers.

            It's not just that the US doesn't make any, as you say yourself, it's that it's not

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by rtb61 ( 674572 )

              F35 200 million a pop http://defense-update.com/2014... [defense-update.com], can do an awful lot with that money, other than burning resources, generating pollution, blowing people up and then tossing it on the scrap pile. Scrap the whole thing and you could build a whole series of industrial plants to make anything you want but hey, you want to burn resources, generate pollution, blow people up and then toss it on the scrap pile, then go right ahead, good luck to you and the people you take with you, you'll need it.

              • F35 200 million a pop can do an awful lot with that money

                It'll cost far, far, far more than the entire cost of the F-35 program to build smartphones in America. And who's going to do it anyway? Are you proposing that the US government become a smartphone manufacturer? Or should they just give the money to some company to do it? When was the last time that turned out well? They give huge amounts of money to defense contractors and don't get a whole lot for it.

                Scrap the whole thing and you could build a

        • NATO? You're skitting me.

          Geography fail - how can South Korea be expected to be a signatory to a North Atlantic treaty?

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • How can the Czech Republic be? After all they are landlocked.

            • Because it's a Cold War relic that non Atlantic Europe signed up for in opposition to Russia.

              But Canada and the USA are the only Pacific nations in it by virtue of bordering both oceans.

          • There's a bunch of eastern European nations that have joined NATO since the wall fell.

            Anyone can join NATO, even a Moon colony if we were to establish one and make it an independent nation. The other NATO members would probably have to agree to it, of course, but just because the name reflects the origins of the organization doesn't mean they have to limit membership to nations in the north Atlantic. It probably would make sense to change the name, however, if they let Pacific Rim nations join, but there

            • I actually went to look it up and was surprised that Australia wasn't in NATO, they are a member of the Five-Eyes, so it is kind of amazing they didn't join up.

              • Well I'm a Victorian and call me un-Australian but I kind of wish our sovereignty was robust to the extent of butting out of pointless skirmishes.

                e.g. We recently signed a free-trade agreement with our 'friends', China. Yet at the same time, we're building a dozen submarines - ostensibly so we can join a naval battle with Clinton/Trump and Duterte over a sea to our north.

      • South Korea is an ally.

        Doesn't matter much. It's still a foreign country. We spy on our allies and our allies spy on us. When you are talking about the communications of the head of state, it's nuts to completely trust even a close ally. The US has proven that recently - just ask our allies in Europe.

        Actually, I don't think people realize just how close the US Military and South Korea are. The DOD probably trusts devices made in South Korea far more than they would devices made in the US due to the massive influence they have in South Korea. Remember we still have US troops stationed in South Korea and South Korea (conceptually) relies on US support to keep North Korea from invading.

        Again true but it doesn't matter. The US has close relationships with a number of countries but we still restrict sensitive equipment purchases and sales when they have national security implications. Obviously we would purcha

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Well if it causes him problems, he can just blame someone else.

      Modus operandi.

    • There are no completely domestic devices for any country on the planet.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      You're right. They should have bought a commercial smartphone that is American made.
      Oh wait, there are none.

  • Sounds like he has a better grasp of IT security than Hillary does.

    • Hillary asked for this to able to check emails on the phone and was denied. Only after Kerry became Sec of State, a serious effort was put it and he was even the beta tester for this phone.

      • Are you sure denied is the right word?

        http://www.zdnet.com/article/n... [zdnet.com]

        My understanding was that Hillary wanted a Blackberry (like Obama) and that was denied because it was a one off for the president. They offered Hillary the standard secure mobile solution, and she balked.

  • How is this important to me? I can personally care less what kind of communication device is carried by the president. I only care that it's SECURE when it needs to be and RELIABLE when necessary. Apart from that, who cares? It can be a blackberry, I-phone, Android, Windows Phone, a blanket and a smoky fire as long as the thing is secure and always works.

    The issue here is that a lot of what the president needs to communicate to/from his staff and advisers is highly sensitive. That stuff needs to be encry

    • Well, when push comes to shove . . . no one really cares about you either. Wrap up a hamster in duck tape, and shove it up your ass.

      Please post GIFs, or it didn't happen.

      I, for one, do care what the POTUS is using. Is it really secure? And audit able?

    • you cared enough to login and post a rant about it, after apparently reading it.

  • From TFA: "Obama told Fallon that he can't place phone calls on it—the phone is likely restricted to secure VoIP functionality, with outside calls controlled from a secure switchboard."

    I must admit I chuckled a little at the "secure Outlook Web Access" mention.

  • With an Otterbox on it, the damn thing is bulletproof. I even had it pop out of my bike bag while I was doing about 20mph and it still didn't break. I'll never get to upgrade. :P
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Why go with LG if the Samsung was so reliable for you?

        • Because the S6 and S7 are crap. Of course, he'll probably keep his S5 as long as he can, but eventually he's going to want to get something newer, and unless Samsung goes back to making great phones like the S4 and S5, it'll have to be something non-Samsung.

          I will say, it is possible Samsung may go back: the S7 is an improvement over the S6 as they brought back the SD slot and (I think) water resistance, but it still has the stupid sealed-in battery so it's a no-go.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by jezwel ( 2451108 )
        I was thinking, why an S4? The S5 can handle random water incursion just fine. Maybe they need another way to quickly brink the phone though.
    • Agreed, my S4 is still being used today as my "oneID" remote to control my tv laptop, battery is going though, will only last about 48 hours with wifi on now. My s6 is great, loving almost everything about it. Strangely though the touchscreen was acting like it had deadspots until I got an OTA update.

      • You can get new OEM Samsung batteries for the S4 on Ebay for $10.

        The S6 is crap: the battery is not user-replaceable, there's no SD slot, and it's not waterproof like the S5. It's a step down in every single way from its predecessor. (No, the S4 isn't waterproof either; that's the big feature the S5 has over it.)

  • Does anyone else remember Obama _insisting_ he get to keep his BlackBerry when he took office, and him winning a lengthy battle with the secret service which ended with BlackBerry making a custom hardening for them? He said he refused to ever be separated from the BB.

    Now yes, BlackBerry is pretty much dead in the handset space, but if his phone has been disabled from running most publicly available apps... well BlackBerry always had superior email, typing, and productivity management capabilities, and th

  • It would really be something if this super secure phone is behind on patching and gets hit by stagefright.

Slashdot Top Deals

Algebraic symbols are used when you do not know what you are talking about. -- Philippe Schnoebelen

Close