Print 81 comment(s) - last by Hieyeck.. on Jan 23 at 11:14 AM

Obama will have to trade his beloved Blackberry for a less sexy, but very secure device

For the vast majority of Americans, we can chat online, send emails, and browse all of the websites we want without much fear of damaging information leaking to powerful enemies. Our smartphones, Blackberry devies, and email may not be that secure, but few of us are in a position where our personal conversations would matter much to anyone else.

The same can’t be said for the President of the United States. President-elect Barrack Obama is a very prolific email user and has said on several occasions that his Blackberry is his most prized gadget.

While Obama could use his Blackberry freely as a Senator, as President he will have to trade his beloved Blackberry in for a less sexy (and user friendly) NSA-approved mobile phone. The reason Obama will need a significantly more secure mobile device is one of national security. Hackers and eavesdroppers could conceivably gain access to private conversations made with the Blackberry. RIM does offer encryption for the Blackberry, but it isn’t up to the standards needed for classified data.

The NSA does have an approved device that Obama can choose once he takes office. The device is the General Dynamics Sectera Edge. The device is a PDA phone that is certified by the NSA to handle top-secret voice communications along with secret email and web sites.

The handset has modules for Wi-Fi, GSM, and CDMA networks. It is said to look like a chunky version of the Palm Treo 750 with an additional display under the keyboard. Price for the Presidential rated handset is $3,350 and it comes with a two-year warranty. The lighter adapter alone costs $100.

The OS for the Sectera is Windows Mobile and includes mobile versions of Word and more. Exactly how the IE browser, well know to be the target of hackers and malicious users, is secured in the handset is unknown. An additional handset will be available at some time in the future from a firm called L-3 communications that is said to be capable of Presidential use.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Are you a subject matter expert?
By losgringos on 1/14/2009 12:02:43 PM , Rating: 4
Unless you are a subject matter expert on various encryption devices used by government entities please don't make a blanket statement about something you may know nothing about.

The pricetag on this phone is nothing compared to the importance of keeping information classified. The bigger concern about costs is more related to infrastructure than the device itself.

When our fine leaders are needing to communicate in a secure manner, especially related to the protection or our nation, the cost is minimal.

RE: Are you a subject matter expert?
By kkwst2 on 1/14/2009 12:33:28 PM , Rating: 5
It's also dwarfed by the cost of the 6'2" 250# "phone escort" accessory, complete with a SIG P229.

They always get you with the accessories.

By MadMan007 on 1/14/2009 12:49:46 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe he's no expert but you seem to be complaining about something that the author didn't state in a negative way. He simply quoted facts when stating the price, I guess the 'lighter adaptor costs $100 alone' could be interpreted as slightly biased but I took it as a comparison to normal consumer items. It's not like he said '...and there's a $1000 toilet seat option.'

RE: Are you a subject matter expert?
By Moishe on 1/14/2009 1:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that the phone should not be price limited... but the $100 lighter adapter... well let's just admit right off the bat that it IS being used as a gouging device.

A lighter adapter has one single purpose, which is to transfer a specific current up the wire. There is no security issue there and the technology is very cheap.

RE: Are you a subject matter expert?
By creathir on 1/14/2009 1:12:06 PM , Rating: 4
Not that I know for certain, but if I had to guess, the $100 lighter adapter is to offset the cost of the litigation for approval. Getting one of these guys certified by NSA for use is VERY difficult, and costly, and most government contracts must include EVERYTHING in the certification process.

Just my two cents...
- Creathir

RE: Are you a subject matter expert?
By consumerwhore on 1/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: Are you a subject matter expert?
By TomZ on 1/14/2009 3:10:31 PM , Rating: 5
No, it's a secure wire.

RE: Are you a subject matter expert?
By consumerwhore on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Are you a subject matter expert?
By ajdavis on 1/14/2009 7:13:19 PM , Rating: 3

RE: Are you a subject matter expert?
By consumerwhore on 1/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: Are you a subject matter expert?
By grath on 1/14/2009 8:51:42 PM , Rating: 3
A car adapter plug is large enough to contain a electronic device that performs any number of useful functions. Considering it is plugged into a power source I would even say its ideal, and would be surprised if such a listening device does not exist somewhere. Many devices also pass their data through pins on the same connector as the power, and any potential data connection into the presidents communication device is a concern. I expect that such an accessory would be routinely inspected during security and debugging sweeps of presidential vehicles, which means it would be taken apart to make sure nothing unexpected is inside. I know plenty generic car chargers that you basically have to break to open up, even to get to a fuse thats supposedly replacable. So assuming the accessory is designed to be easily inspected, maybe a better term would be "readily securable," I think its worth $100.

RE: Are you a subject matter expert?
By consumerwhore on 1/14/2009 9:14:18 PM , Rating: 1
Finally... Where were you 4 hours ago?

I'm still unclear as to what one could possibly listen to at the business end of a run-of-the-mill power adapter. As for the "readily securable" argument, couldn't I apply it to anything that comes in contact with the president? How about the steering wheel of the car he's in. Must that also have the feature of being taken apart easily?

As you said, equipment exists to detect bugs and presumably the cars the president rides in get scanned regularly. Why can't they just... er... you know... scan the power cable?

By emoser96 on 1/15/2009 12:18:41 AM , Rating: 2
Something to consider is the TEMPEST emanations issue. It is relatively easy for someone to record any emanations that come from an unsecured wire connected to a secure device. This is why there are requirements to separate black from red lines transmitting power or data. As such, the charger would have to have some sort of attenuation filter as well as having passed tests to verify that no data is transmitted from the phone to the car (any sort of NVM), and that testing is not cheap. It's like the NSA's version of NASA's space certification for lightbulbs...

By Lord 666 on 1/15/2009 5:32:13 AM , Rating: 2
My 2006 Jetta has a standard wall outlet in the back of the center console. If the new Obama limo does not have the same or better negating the need for car adapter, then they need new limo designers. Plus, it would make more sense for a presidential power inverter to be universal versus issuing to just one device.

RE: Are you a subject matter expert?
By Cubexco on 1/15/2009 8:20:59 AM , Rating: 2
Hardly a simple "friggin wire" to carry electric power from point A to B.
If it charges the phone through the phone's USB connector, most likely it converts a car's 12 (or 24) Volt DC to the USB 5V DC.
In any case, if cell-phone manufacturers can charge $30-40 for USB cables, which is actually a wire with connectors at both ends (no active components), $100 for something which isn't mass-produced, isn't way out of line.

By consumerwhore on 1/15/2009 1:50:48 PM , Rating: 1
if cell-phone manufacturers can charge $30-40 for USB cables, which is actually a wire with connectors at both ends (no active components)

Dude, it is a widely known fact that that is a text book example of price gouging. They charge that amount because of their proprietary plug, that's it.

You're kind of proving my point here...

RE: Are you a subject matter expert?
By Moishe on 1/14/2009 4:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
You're probably right. Plus you've gotta figure the manufacturing run on those devices is very small scale.

By foolsgambit11 on 1/14/2009 7:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
The price may also be partly due to a lack of economies of scale. Since they don't sell many of these phones, they may have to make each adapter separately, rather than bulk order them. Although, it would have been nice if they'd just chosen a universal adapter, I suppose....

By lagomorpha on 1/14/2009 1:27:53 PM , Rating: 1
I imagine the price likely has something to do with General Dynamics being a defense contractor and not generally a commercial phone producer. Combination of low volume and no real need to compete means they can charge what they feel like. I'm surprised it doesn't cost a lot more.

RE: Are you a subject matter expert?
By therealnickdanger on 1/14/2009 1:33:03 PM , Rating: 4
Most modern phones use mini-USB for both power AND data transfer. You never know what ingenious data tool could be disguised as a power adapter only to steal Presidential-level secrets. I would imagine that a special NSA-approved adapter would be preferred to avoid such incidents.

RE: Are you a subject matter expert?
By lagomorpha on 1/14/2009 3:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
In this case "special NSA-approved adapter" should only require having the +5v and ground pins and not having the data pins. Some kind of hologram so that it's difficult to switch it with a fake data grabbing charger without being noticed shouldn't add much to the cost either...

RE: Are you a subject matter expert?
By Guspaz on 1/14/2009 9:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
Cost aside, there's no need for a secure device to be so large. There's no technological reason that the BlackBerry can't be made secure to get NSA approval, it's just probably not financially prudent for RIM to do so.

Of course, I'm also sure that the NSA would probably not even consider the BlackBerry simply because it's made by a foreign company; RIM is Canadian.

Now, if the Prime Minister wanted a BlackBerry... Well, CSIS probably wouldn't care. That and he already has one. President of Uganda gave him one as a gift.

By phxfreddy on 1/15/2009 9:21:08 AM , Rating: 1
Yah really important keeping President SpendALots emails secret. Duh. I can tell you what Obummers emails will contain....


I for one...
By MrBlastman on 1/14/2009 11:43:59 AM , Rating: 2
Would not want to shoulder the responsibility of having every single one of my written communications recorded and kept as part of national history if I were president. We had another guy who did do this, except it was with voice recordings - and look at where he ended up.

It is not the risk of security breach or leaks (which is substantially hightened by utilizing electronic communications by the #1 job in the country), but moreso the risk of something Obama says will come back to bite him in the tail later on down the road. Pretty dangerous and akin to handling a loaded weapon without the safety on while not pointed down range.

I think this is a poor decision on Obama's part. He should suck it up and stick to personal meetings or strict voice communications - Presidents have been doing it for years and for good reason.

RE: I for one...
By MozeeToby on 1/14/2009 12:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
You view it as a naive mistake, I prefer to look at it as an unspoken pledge that he will try to keep his presidency on the up and up. Perhaps he is confident that he can be ethical and legal in the way he runs the country.

That being said, if it ever became 'necissary' to make 'hard choices', he could (and undoubtably will) go into closed door meetings with the people concerned and there still won't be a record of it.

RE: I for one...
By zombiexl on 1/14/2009 2:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
Based on his state senate record (which I'm sure no one cares about) he would vote one way and say he really meant to vote the other way. :)

I look forwad to this quote:
"Yes I veto'd that bill, but I really intended to sign it into law. I must have used the wrong rubber stamp."

RE: I for one...
By KeypoX on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: I for one...
By Cubexco on 1/15/2009 8:25:07 AM , Rating: 1
I sure am glad that our future leader is willing to do everything he can (including trading in his Blackberry for a NSA-approved communication device), so he can continue to stay in touch with the real world, unfiltered!

RE: I for one...
By FITCamaro on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: I for one...
By DigitalFreak on 1/14/2009 4:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
It's amazing how the article is about a cell phone, and you assholes turn it into another Obama bash fest.

RE: I for one...
By MrBlastman on 1/14/2009 4:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
As much as I hate the guy (Obama), I was trying to look out for him from becoming another Nixon. Not bash him.

RE: I for one...
By KeypoX on 1/14/2009 6:11:10 PM , Rating: 3
i think the article is about Obamas cell phone, and his unwavering need to "change".

RE: I for one...
By Spuke on 1/14/2009 6:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it IS about his cell phone.

RE: I for one...
By Mojo the Monkey on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: I for one...
By Moishe on 1/14/2009 1:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
Clinton apparently could get plenty of head while President with only carelessness to account for people finding out... There has to be some amount of privacy. The solution for any kind of true privacy is never to allow communication to pass into the hands of any middle-man. Any internet/phone/technology is such a middle-man.

It would truly suck to not be able to txt, email, or browse without knowing that everything is examined with a fine-toothed comb. Granted, if the President wants to surf the pr0n, he probably can and they would probably make sure it's clean and then look the other way. The idea is to be secure not private. As long as the employees are all hush-hush about it the President can do lots of stuff. To be sure, they've all had background checks and have signed plenty of documents to guarantee that the dude watching the Presidential computer logs can't tell his wife that the boss likes donkey pr0n.

RE: I for one...
By dj LiTh on 1/14/2009 5:36:57 PM , Rating: 3
I agree....i mean how the hell is he suppose to order pizza and hookers privately without the public gaining knowledge of it in 50 years. Imagine if JFK had one....

RE: I for one...
By Fritzr on 1/14/2009 8:19:18 PM , Rating: 1
Mr. Bush and his team have shown the correct work around...use non-secure, unapproved com system & delete all records if asked about it.

Hopefully they have enough sense to not send messages containing classified info by this means, but you can be sure that if it happens then either "no one was aware of it" or the President gave permission thus making it legal to transmit classified information on non-secure public coms.

This is the most important Bush legacy. The ability of the President to set aside his/her Oath of Office obligation to Uphold the Laws of the United States by asking the President for permission to do so.

Please hire an editor!
By Epsil0n00 on 1/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: Please hire an editor!
By zombiexl on 1/14/2009 12:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
I;m sure they will as soon as most americans learn the difference between president and president elect. He's not the president until he is sworn in.

I know its nit picking, but isnt that what you are doing?

RE: Please hire an editor!
By Epsil0n00 on 1/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: Please hire an editor!
By zombiexl on 1/14/2009 2:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'm done with Bush too, but I'm not too encouraged by whats coming.

I was just pointing out that the majority of people who voted (not just those who voted fro Obama) believe that Obama was president the moment the networks starting calling the election.

Well that and being nitpicky just to screw with you for being nitpicky. :)

RE: Please hire an editor!
By FITCamaro on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Please hire an editor!
By retrospooty on 1/14/2009 4:16:43 PM , Rating: 4
Right... The whole world telling him he is wrong didnt effect his decision to continue being wrong. Doesnt listen to anyone's advice including his own advisors (COlin Powell) when they disagree, they are out. GREAT traights to have in the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth. :P

RE: Please hire an editor!
By Amiga500 on 1/14/2009 4:35:26 PM , Rating: 4
Bush is a tool man!

A total imbecile - I wouldn't trust him to sweep the streets properly!

RE: Please hire an editor!
By zombiexl on 1/14/2009 5:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
Judicial appointments and the tax cuts are about the only thing Bush did that is remotely conservative.

On the other hand he let tax rebates go to people who paid no tax (I wish i could get product rebates without buying the product), didn't do crap about illegals, etc, etc, etc....

By amanojaku on 1/14/2009 11:51:47 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly how the IE browser, well know to be the target of hackers and malicious users, is secured in the handset is unknown.
That's obvious: they're using IE 1.0, so it doesn't support ActiveX, Flash, Java, Javascript or anything else insecure (i.e. useful.)

But don't worry: I have made available my Ghost in the Shell neural implants. Obama will never have to worry about a clunky Blackberry knockoff again. Just jack your head into an Internet terminal and... *Zzzzt!!!* Ow! Uh... what just happened? Why do I suddenly feel the need to slap the belly and win $50? But first, I have to write an old friend in Nigeria about some money...

RE: Pfah!
By MozeeToby on 1/14/2009 12:47:25 PM , Rating: 3
Actually it's even easier than that. If the device handles classified documents, the device itself is classified. If the device itself is classified, it cannot directly connect to the internet.

I would imagine that incoming emails are handled via a trusted download onto the closed (classified) net at the white house, with the PDA then connecting to the closed net to view them. Outgoing emails are probably handled similarly, only with an aid reading each one to make sure there is no classified information.

As for browsing the web? That just isn't going to happen on a device that handles classified data.

RE: Pfah!
By foolsgambit11 on 1/14/2009 7:59:28 PM , Rating: 2
It might be able to be two totally separate devices connected to the same display, though - such that with the press of a button, the screen flips from classified to unclassified mode. Although two systems in a single handheld would be technically very difficult. But I've used desktop setups with a switch box for monitor outputs - NIPR, SIPR, and a local classified network all led to one monitor. 3 different cases, 1 monitor, to be clear. And come to think of it, we couldn't put the unclassified and classified cases next to each other, they had to be 2 or 3 feet away from each other....

You're absolutely right, though. The security is provided by restricting access to the network in the first place. It gets tricky with wireless devices, though. It's easy to prevent eavesdropping when you're on fiber optics. But, for instance, doing satellite comms took quite a bit of encryption - several large devices, in fact. Tough to miniaturize. And you had to load a new set of crypto-keys monthly. Probably something similar, even over cellular networks. I'm sure somebody will take care of all of that for Obama, though. I had to take a Blackhawk across Baghdad to pick up the new crypto.....

By wvh on 1/14/2009 4:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm... It looks as if it's running Windows and Internet Explorer. Somehow, I expected better for an ultra-secure device...

RE: Secure?
By foolsgambit11 on 1/14/2009 7:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
Why? Don't you realize there are Windows machines on the secret at top secret networks, and that they browse their respective networks with Internet Explorer? SIPRNet, NSANet, JWICS, all of them I've been on have Windows terminals. The security is provided by limiting access to the network. At least, that's the plan - they let me on....

L-3 Communications
By foolsgambit11 on 1/14/2009 8:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
I almost worked for L3 Communications. But in a different field than this phone. They're one of those diversified contracting companies with an emphasis on jobs requiring security clearances.

RE: L-3 Communications
By Lord 666 on 1/15/2009 5:22:06 AM , Rating: 2
What is the first step to get active security clearance? Noticed several positions in my field that require it. At my current position, its not needed. But previously working for a vendor, we had a team of 2 people that handled the GSA security jobs.I'm looking to spread my wings

Just say NO to Bama !
By Beenthere on 1/14/2009 2:34:13 PM , Rating: 1
This guy wants to be President but he can't live without a Blackberry? OK, sure I see the leadership qualities oozing from him already. I'd say we all have a lot to be real worried about with this kind of "leadership". Security needs to tell Mr. O loud and clear - NO you don't get to use a Blackberry. Get a LIFE.

While encryption may be nice, I wouldn't hold my breath that any electronics used by most people can't and won't be compromised thru incompetence.

Good Lord, please help those too stupid to help themselves.

RE: Just say NO to Bama !
By Oobu on 1/14/2009 3:17:32 PM , Rating: 2
"Get a LIFE."

Its actually 2 full PDAs in one.
By krotchy on 1/14/2009 3:18:28 PM , Rating: 3
I interviewed with General Dynamics last year and was shown this phone by one of the division chiefs. This phone is actually 2 full PDA's in one. The black and red buttons on the bottom left and right let you switch from the Classified phone to the Non-Classified phone. The two segments have no communications between to the to prevent classified data from being leaked and unclassified data from entering a classified section. It's actually a pretty impressive little device.

Sure pal
By peebee on 1/14/2009 11:47:43 AM , Rating: 2
Hope it filters .cn source addresses too. :|

Obama and secure networks
By Isidore on 1/14/2009 12:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose the wonderful security of US government computer systems is why the US authorities are trying to extradite some out of work IT guy with Aspergers who hacked into about 60 NASA and Military computer systems from his home in the UK. He was indulging his obsession in finding evidence of UFOs but allegedly brought down the US national defence system. He claims that many of the systems he hacked into had no password at all.

By swampjelly on 1/14/2009 12:50:57 PM , Rating: 2
How on earth is Research in Motion going to let such an opportunity slip by!?!? Why don't they release a NSA approved Blackberry!?

Do they not realize that it is pretty damn good publicity if the leader of the free world uses a Blackberry?

By Tacoloft on 1/14/2009 4:55:24 PM , Rating: 2
The title to this article makes it sound like Obama needs a nutsack transplant! hahahahahah!

Windows Mobile?
By Burnc4 on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Windows Mobile?
By Proteusza on 1/14/2009 11:54:11 AM , Rating: 5
No, then it would have to sync with iTunes and would only work with an iPresident, not the regular variety.

RE: Windows Mobile?
By MadMan007 on 1/14/2009 2:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
At least the iPresident would be released in a range of colors...oh wait

RE: Windows Mobile?
By ImSpartacus on 1/14/2009 11:54:36 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, why would they use Windows Mobile? Are they that confident with this encryption stuff? I'm surprised that they don't just create a proprietary OS. It might be a touch cheaper than 3 grand...

But what do I know, these guys do this for a living.

RE: Windows Mobile?
By Master Kenobi on 1/14/2009 12:01:39 PM , Rating: 5
The government has tried in the past to develop custom operating systems, it ends up costing 3x as much as a COTS solution and is less functional. Its easier to take an off the shelf product and secure it at every level than it is to roll your own.

RE: Windows Mobile?
By ebakke on 1/14/2009 12:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'm surprised that they don't just create a proprietary OS. It might be a touch cheaper than 3 grand...
Nothing a government contractor makes is ever cheaper than a product created by a corporation in another industry.

RE: Windows Mobile?
By Xerio on 1/14/2009 12:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
The reason things manufactured by a government contractor are more expensive is not the fault of the contractor (most of the time). The government forces many more rules, regulations, requirements, etc on the contractor than a typical manufacturer is subject to.

Also, in this case, higher security always costs more.

RE: Windows Mobile?
By ebakke on 1/14/2009 1:02:39 PM , Rating: 2
I never claimed it was the contractors' fault. I was just stating a fact.

RE: Windows Mobile?
By Xerio on 1/14/2009 1:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
A very true fact. :)

RE: Windows Mobile?
By gstrickler on 1/14/2009 2:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
That's redundant. Something is a fact, if and only if it's true. It's either true or it's not true, it can't be "very true". Truth can't be qualified (no matter how often people try to qualify it). Accuracy can be qualified, as in "it's 99% accurate", which could be described as "very accurate", however, "truth" can not.

RE: Windows Mobile?
By Xerio on 1/14/2009 2:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
Great point. I stand corrected. Your post made me laugh. :)

A fact is truth. Unfortunately, it is very hard to determine the facts, especially in politics.

RE: Windows Mobile?
By ebakke on 1/14/2009 2:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
Fact: Politicians suck.

RE: Windows Mobile?
By gstrickler on 1/14/2009 3:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
Fact: Politicians suck.

and/or get sucked.

RE: Windows Mobile?
By Master Kenobi on 1/14/2009 11:55:10 AM , Rating: 3
Windows Mobile is quite secure after the NSA is done with it. I think you guys are forgetting this isn't an "out of the box" solution, this is an NSA Engineered solution.

RE: Windows Mobile?
By Lord 666 on 1/14/2009 1:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
Is Microsoft then negligent for not adopting those same modifications by the NSA?

RE: Windows Mobile?
By TomZ on 1/14/2009 3:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
Does the general public have a requirement or a reasonable expectation of high NSA-type security? Nope.

RE: Windows Mobile?
By Lord 666 on 1/14/2009 3:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
1. Microsoft does not put a disclaimer on the outside or inside material with their Operating Systems warning the customer that use of this product could potentially lead to data theft.

2. Microsoft has the means internally and through third parties (NSA) to harden operating systems.

3. Microsoft opts not to incorporate or offer this level of security for consumer (XP/Vista) or commercial (Server 2003/2008) operating systems.

The general public has a reasonable expectation their computer will be as secure as their consumer devices such as network enabled Blu-ray player or TV, but we all know that is not the case.

RE: Windows Mobile?
By semo on 1/14/2009 4:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
you've gone on a tangent that the general public wouldn't care follow you.

read what you wrote and think how it relates to the president of the USA getting a bespoke communication device.

some of his suits probably cost more than that phone. all the work that goes behind the scenes probably costs 1000x more (i'm guessing he didn't just get a 24 month contract with verizon)

RE: Windows Mobile?
By akmsr on 1/14/2009 8:36:24 PM , Rating: 2
i hope NSA took out that part of windows mobile EULA that gives microsoft the right to access the device remotely any time and install software without letting the user know.

RE: Windows Mobile?
By jonmcc33 on 1/14/2009 11:55:27 AM , Rating: 3
Mac OS X is less secure than Windows. Windows is secure if you cannot connect through the encrypted network.

RE: Windows Mobile?
By gstrickler on 1/14/2009 2:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
Windows can be secured if you cannot connect through any network and the device is kept in a secure facility.

Fixed that for you.

"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki