backtop


Print 27 comment(s) - last by Monkey's Uncle.. on Dec 8 at 8:37 PM

Obama says he can't have an iPhone

The U.S. government is phasing out the use of BlackBerry smartphones in many agencies and going instead with the iPhone or Android devices. President Barack Obama, however, is holding onto his BlackBerry, which he famously fought to keep when he took office.
 
That’s not to say that President Obama wouldn’t like to ditch his 2007-era BlackBerry smartphone. The President recently stated at a White House event, "I'm not allowed for security reasons to have an iPhone.” But while the iPhone isn’t secure enough replace the President’s Blackberry, daughters Sasha and Malia both use the devices.


President Obama shown here with this iPad
 
President Obama also carries around a third generation iPad, and according to Apple Insider, he uses a 15” MacBook Pro. But it should come as no surprise that President Obama has grown into somewhat of an Apple fan during his tenure in office. He has even gone to bat for the company in its fight against Samsung.
 
Interestingly, Obama is one of the first presidents to use email in his administration. He even has a personal email address, but claims that only ten people have that address. 

Sources: Reuters, Security Week



Comments     Threshold


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

Loser
By Dorkyman on 12/5/13, Rating: 0
RE: Loser
By retrospooty on 12/5/2013 11:07:01 AM , Rating: 5
"Here's looking forward to the moment this Bozo leaves office."

Agreed, he sucks, but dont expect the next bozo to be any better than the last 2. They all take the same money from the same special interests and feed the same coffers with their decisions.


RE: Loser
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/5/13, Rating: 0
RE: Loser
By Reclaimer77 on 12/5/13, Rating: -1
RE: Loser
By corduroygt on 12/5/2013 1:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
At least he didn't start a $3T war that achieved nothing, and the real culprit of 9/11 was killed on his watch. Obama's couldn't accomplish that much, and the spying stuff is horrible, but still a great deal better than Bush, Cheney and all his war-profiteering, child-killing fascist cronies.


RE: Loser
By Reclaimer77 on 12/5/2013 1:30:12 PM , Rating: 1
No he's spending ever more to achieve even less....


RE: Loser
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/8/2013 8:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
You think Obama spent more than $3T? Where? Obamacare? Bailouts?

Much as I hate this - Obamacare is being paid for by the folks least able to afford health care insurance. The government is not providing state paid health insurance for everyone. The bailouts was in an effort to fix the economy screwed up under Bush's watch and those were LOANS to be paid back by the recipients. They weren't gifts.

Sorry bro it was BUSH that spent that $3T and put the U.S. so deep in debt that it lost it's "AAA" credit rating.


RE: Loser
By KCjoker on 12/5/2013 6:33:07 PM , Rating: 3
Bush was terrible and though everyone thought it was impossible we got a POTUS that is even worse.


RE: Loser
By nafhan on 12/5/2013 3:18:13 PM , Rating: 2
You're saying Hillary has no chance? :)


RE: Loser
By retrospooty on 12/5/2013 4:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
HE is doing the job is was set up to do, as will the next guy.

Incompetent? No, he was sent there to rob us blind and spend our money on special interests... Since that is what he was appointed to do, he is quite competent.


RE: Loser
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/8/2013 8:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
he was sent there to rob us blind and spend our money on special interests... Since that is what he was appointed to do, he is quite competent


Just as I am sure the next guy will be. His political backers will make very sure of that.


RE: Loser
By stmok on 12/5/2013 5:38:16 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
by retrospooty on December 5, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Agreed, he sucks, but dont expect the next bozo to be any better than the last 2. They all take the same money from the same special interests and feed the same coffers with their decisions.


Yeap.

One example is Lockheed-Martin. Like other contractors, they have an allocated budget for "campaign contributions". In the case of LM, its about US$500k; roughly divided in half for each major political party.
=> Essentially, they don't care who wins; as long as they are given the lucrative contracts.

So its no surprise Lockheed-Martin has been number 1 in terms of scoring Govt contracts for both 2012 and 2013. Total Govt contracts value?
=> US$14,947,961,000

In fact, look at the top 5 Govt contractors for both 2012 and 2013.
Lockheed Martin Corp. => US$14,947,961,000
Northrop Grumman Corp. => US$8,566,522,000
Boeing Co. => US$7,131,867,000
Raytheon Co. => US$6,110,641,000
Science Applications International Corp. => US$5,988,489,000

The only one that doesn't make any weapons is the last one. They do software engineering, training, logistics, etc.

The point is, you can see why they do it...In their eyes, its a fantastic return on investment.
=> Spend roughly US$250K on a major political party and receive almost US$6 billion to US$15 billion in return!

The only way to fix this is to get the current mob out (doesn't matter if Democrats or Republicans). And as the taxpayer, get a new political framework in, such that politicians have no incentive to accept money for favours. (Basically kill this influence from special interest groups and major corporations).

How you do that, I'm not sure. I'm Australian. I'm not well-versed with your American legal-political frameworks. I guess you'll have to find the right people yourselves.

I know one thing about politics. It seems pretty universal...That is, you will never find the perfect candidate to vote for. What you can do is create an environment where politicians won't have any incentive to do dodgy/shady/questionable things. ie: Make the culture honest with serious punishments, and you'll have honest behaving politicians.

Else, nothing will change. Public servants no longer serve the public. And that will be at the detriment to a Nation's future.

...This is especially notable if you look at things from a Global Competition perspective. How can you compete effectively when you are shackled by corruption, dishonesty, etc at home?


RE: Loser
By Solandri on 12/6/2013 3:27:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only one that doesn't make any weapons is the last one. They do software engineering, training, logistics, etc.

LOL. SAIC does stuff for the CIA and NSA. They practically invented data mining.


RE: Loser
By flatrock on 12/6/2013 9:37:50 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not going to say there isn't corruption, but when listing the amounts spent on lobbying you should keep in mind that is effectively their advertising budget.

In private industry you advertise to the public that is making the purchasing decisions. When offering services to the government, you lobby the government. You make sure the people making the decisions know the company's name and that they are willing, interested, and capable in providing the goods and services the government needs.

Does corruption happen? Sure it does. Just like it does in private industry, and in pretty much the same way. People with purchasing authority retire from their job at a company and get themselves a nice higher paying job at a major vendor. They then use their contacts within the company to steer as much business as they can through that vendor.

Every government agency or decent sized company has policies in place that prohibit even the appearance of being bribed.

However, the contacts people make over time have value. A retiring general knows a lot of people. He also has a decent idea of what the military needs in many cases, or at least what they think they need. There are benefits to both the government and the vendor in having a vendor hire a person with such knowledge. However, it also leaves room for a lot of favors to be paid back with a big salary in the future, and in most cases it's going to be impossible to prove impropriety even if it does exist.

However, you can't demand that people who leave the military or a company can't find jobs in the industry that they have in many cases spent a couple decades or more learning. It's not fair, and it means that you are banning some of the most knowledgeable people from working in that industry.


RE: Loser
By retrospooty on 12/6/2013 4:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
"I'm not going to say there isn't corruption, but when listing the amounts spent on lobbying you should keep in mind that is effectively their advertising budget."

No way... Advertising is advertising. Lobbying is money spent to get politicians to vote your way. Extremely different.


RE: Loser
By FaaR on 12/6/2013 8:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, socialists are really terrible, terrible people. Look at europe, continent full of them, and such a shithole it is. No electricity, running tapwater, indoor plumbing... People eating gruel straight off the floor for chrissakes, that's when they got gruel to eat that is!

Jesus, the ignorance.

And Clinton said Obama's a good liar? Well, he oughtta know. Takes one to know one. ;)


RE: Loser
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/8/2013 8:37:38 PM , Rating: 2
Never seen a top dog politician that wasn't a good liar. It is a basic requirement of the job. The better the liar, the higher you climb the political ladder.

The only condition? Don't get caught. You can ask Toronto Mayor Rob Ford about that one.


By SAN-Man on 12/5/2013 10:45:26 AM , Rating: 2
It's too easy for the NSA to track the iPhone and record information from it.




By GulWestfale on 12/5/2013 4:49:52 PM , Rating: 1
it's pretty sad when your president has to use a foreign phone instead of a US one to protect himself from his own spy agency. it's like the guy has no control over what they do at all.


One of the first presidents
By YearOfTheDingo on 12/5/2013 10:46:36 AM , Rating: 1
How many presidents do we have in recent years? As I recall, the Clinton White House was using Lotus Notes back in the earlier 90's. Claiming to be a pioneer a decade late is...well, par for the course for this administration.




RE: One of the first presidents
By GulWestfale on 12/5/2013 4:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
well... he IS one of the first digitally connected presidents... because the technology didn't exist back when nixon was recording his tapes. duh.


Waiting for a comment
By Fleeb on 12/5/2013 7:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
That spins / evades the fact that iPhone was not chosen due to security concerns.




RE: Waiting for a comment
By GulWestfale on 12/5/2013 8:32:30 PM , Rating: 1
"the iphone was not chosen because obama is black, and research has shown that blacks have larger finger than whites. thus, a tiny-screened iphone would be unacceptable for the president."

"obama didn't get an iphone because he's a communist!"

"obama didn't want an iphone because that would have made it too obvious that he is in apple's pocket."

"the iphone is perfect, but apple only sells to those with a qualifying credit rating."

am i doing it right?


Win8
By p05esto on 12/8/2013 4:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
With Windows Phones being the most secure wouldn't that make more sense then a phone provided by a non-US company? I would think either Apple or Microsoft should provide the technology, not Samsung or one of their OEMs. Just a thought.




Security? How funny
By mdogs444 on 12/5/13, Rating: -1
RE: Security? How funny
By Flunk on 12/5/2013 10:58:03 AM , Rating: 2
What, pray tell, would be your logic for arriving at that non sequitur?


RE: Security? How funny
By flatrock on 12/6/2013 9:41:18 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe the fact that they brought the system online despite knowing that they had not done a full security audit.

It was a pretty overt sign that politics were much more important than the security of people's personal and even medical data.


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki