undefined | Better HN

0 pointsuntog9y ago0 comments

Difficult to know for sure. Obama had one, Rice previously used one, but:

The NSA refused to give Clinton a device similar to the one used by Obama: a modified BlackBerry 8830 World Edition with additional cryptography installed. And while Clinton's predecessor Condaleeza Rice had obtained waivers for herself and her staff to use BlackBerry devices, Clinton's staff was told that "use [of the BlackBerry] expanded to an unmanageable number of users from a security perspective, so those waivers were phased out and BlackBerry use was not allowed in her Suite,"[1]

This being Clinton there are probably conspiracy theories (the NSA is out to get her!) but I suspect they simply didn't want to have to deal with it, and had the ability to say no. So they did.

[1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/nsa-re...

0 comments

snappy1739y ago

>Clinton's staff was told that "use [of the BlackBerry] expanded to an unmanageable number of users from a security perspective

if you don't provide a secure way to get shit done, motivated individuals will figure out how to get shit done, security be damned. happens every time. that's what happened here.

ryanlol9y ago

They offered her a non-blackberry alternative. That's not what happened here.

_dominic9y ago

You could rephrase it, "if you don't provide [an easy and] secure way to get shit done, motivated individuals will figure out how to get shit done, security be damned. happens every time. that's what happened here."

1 more reply

ams61109y ago

They refused to give her a highly customized hardened BlackBerry. She could have used a laptop or other device. There is no way they don't have a standard secure remote email capability, she just wanted what Obama had, and they said no, we aren't supporting any more bespoke devices for individuals. Which is totally rational from a security standpoint.

CRConrad9y ago

Idunno, this might be a little spellOCD of me, but I find it hard to take an article seriously that not once, but at least twice -- judging just from the quote here plus the lede, not even having read the article yet -- misspells the name of a Secretary (albeit a former one) of State.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse