[stlabrat]

The difference could be in hardware encryption (on top of the software encryption).

[BillyBreathes]

I too think he's barking up the wrong tree with Apple. I actually side with Apple on this one. They have granted legal access to the information they could access. The FBI asked them to create a backdoor that did not exist, and they refused on the grounds that it would give them access to anybody's iPhone, without having to go through the proper channels anymore.

This is the way I understand it, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.

If Blackberry's image was looking to be the "secure" mobile solution, from my standpoint, they should have sided with Apple, or better yet, not say anything. He's talking a lot of sh*t without giving the real facts and I for one, think it makes him, and by extension, the company, look bad.

Just my two cents.

[sorinv]

And if your family was killed because the authorities did not gain legal access (with a warrant) to criminal communications, would you feel the same?

I'm not saying I have all the answers, but I know it involves some type of reasonable balance.

I didn't have absolute privacy from authorities before the electronic age, so I wouldn't expect absolute privacy now.

If that were the case, everyone in US should be "up in arms" telling the US government to ban all guns, but they don't.

[sorinv]

I understand that. That's why I believe a balance exists somewhere. I'm sure BlackBerry's response to a tin pot dictator would be different than to Canadian authorities with a warrant.

Again, I come back to reasonable expectation of privacy from authorities. When I use the phone, I could be tapped. If I shift to electronic, is it reasonable that I now can communicate with complete impunity?

Then, as you wrote a couple of times recently, why does Chen provide BBM protected to the public? Either he is willing to refute his principles for 2 dollars a month or BBM Protected is not so "protected". Take your pick.

[BB_PP]

If that were the case, everyone in US should be "up in arms" telling the US government to ban all guns, but they don't.

Very well said

Posted via Priv

[conite]

If that were the case, everyone in US should be "up in arms" telling the US government to ban all guns, but they don't.

I'm not sure I see the equivalence, but whatever.

The bottom line for me is that whatever rules society has for granting police lawful access to my life (entering my home, tapping my phone, surveillance) do not suddenly become irrelevant now that a technology exists to circumvent it.

Again, I don't know what the answer is - but it can't be absolute. If we don't be reasonable, governments will dictate something we definitely won't like.

[sorinv]

I'm not sure I see the equivalence, but whatever.

The bottom line for me is that whatever rules society has for granting police lawful access to my life (entering my home, tapping my phone, surveillance) do not suddenly become irrelevant now that a technology exists to circumvent it.

Again, I don't know what the answer is - but it can't be absolute. If we don't be reasonable, governments will dictate something we definitely won't like.

But, as has been pointed out by others, Chen and BlackBerry are not lawyers and judges to enforce laws and to be able to decide when someone's information should be released, even in a democracy like Canada and US.

As in Lazaridis' time, and as in Apple's recent approach, BlackBerry should not even put itself in a position to be able to make those kind of decisions.

As in BES case or BBM protected?, the government can demand the organization or the individual person deliver those keys.

The government has not yet banned the right to remain silent.

[conite]

But, as has been pointed out by others, Chen and BlackBerry are not lawyers and judges to enforce laws and to be able to decide when someone's information should be released, even in a democracy like Canada and US.

As in Lazaridis' time, and as in Apple's recent approach, BlackBerry should not even put itself in a position to be able to make those kind of decisions.

As in BES case or BBM protected?, the government can demand the organization or the individual person deliver those keys.

The government has not yet banned the right to remain silent.

I agree. There are all kinds of problems associated with this mess. At the same time you did not respond to my points at all.

[togarika]

I think it's time you let it go. Chen, or anyone else in his place, will never build you another BB10 device, which seems to be your only focus on this forum.

A BB10 device will come eventually. BB10 remains the most secure OS available to BlackBerry. They might pull BB10 out of the consumer market but they will continue making BB10 devices. They won't make many and will likely target them at government agencies that require high level secure devices. The Android devices will be for enterprise and consumer market

Long Live BB10!

[sorinv]

I agree. There are all kinds of problems associated with this mess. At the same time you did not respond to my points at all.

I am not sure which point you want me to answer. I thought I did.

[conite]

I am not sure which point you want me to answer.

Two points.

The first being that government will impose something that we know we won't like if the industry does not propose something more reasonable.

Second, society's willingness to give up some expectation of privacy with regard to the authority's ability to do its job did not change with the advent of end-to-end encrypted communication. I'm sure as an individual we would like to live in a world where our phones can't be tapped or houses can't be entered into and our communication cannot be monitored. But as a society we realize that we need our authorities to have power to do their job to protect us.

[Invictus0]

A BB10 device will come eventually. BB10 remains the most secure OS available to BlackBerry. They might pull BB10 out of the consumer market but they will continue making BB10 devices. They won't make many and will likely target them at government agencies that require high level secure devices. The Android devices will be for enterprise and consumer market

Long Live BB10!

BB10 was pulled from the consumer market years ago.

BlackBerry to retreat from consumer market, lay off 4,500 employees | The Verge

[sinkingphoenix]

Two points.

The first being that government will impose something that we know we won't like if the industry does not propose something more reasonable.

Second, society's willingness to give up some expectation of privacy with regard to the authority's ability to do its job did not change with the advent of end-to-end encrypted communication. I'm sure as an individual we would like to live in a world where our phones can't be tapped or houses can't be entered into and our communication cannot be monitored. But as a society we realize that we need our authorities to have power to do their job to protect us.

You don't see that your point is moot. When I want to use end2end encryption, I can. And everyone else can too. Nothing stops bad guys from using end2end encryption, so why should the lawful citizen be the only one tapped and surveilled with the help of tech companies?
There are other ways for police and other authorities to gain information than allowing them to read communication and use mass surveillance when it only hits the wrong targets anyways.

Posted via CB10

[conite]

You don't see that your point is moot. When I want to use end2end encryption, I can. And everyone else can too. Nothing stops bad guys from using end2end encryption, so why should the lawful citizen be the only one tapped and surveilled with the help of tech companies?
There are other ways for police and other authorities to gain information than allowing them to read communication and use mass surveillance when it only hits the wrong targets anyways.

Posted via CB10

What in the world are you talking about?

I'm saying that encrypted communication is not any more sacrosanct than any other form of privacy, and shouldn't be automatically and fully exempt from lawful access.

I admit it's a dog's breakfast, and I have no idea how to make it work.

I just think the alternative is worse.

[sinkingphoenix]

What in the world are you talking about?

I'm saying that encrypted communication is not any more sacrosanct than any other form of privacy, and shouldn't be automatically and fully exempt from lawful access.

I admit it's a dog's breakfast, and I have no idea how to make it work.

I just think the alternative is worse.

I'm talking about the fact that end2end encryption that is nearly unbreakable even for the strongest attacker is proven and in existence. So 'how to make it work with lawful access' is already decided. You won't. If you make a cool new messenger that lets authorities read my chat after they obtained a warrant, I'll just not use it. I'll use my own messenger where no such backdoor exists. And since everyone can do this, trying to think about how to do lawful interception is an effort in vain, as everyone who does not want to be intercepted will just not use your solution.

Posted via CB10

[sorinv]

Two points.

The first being that government will impose something that we know we won't like if the industry does not propose something more reasonable.

Second, society's willingness to give up some expectation of privacy with regard to the authority's ability to do its job did not change with the advent of end-to-end encrypted communication. I'm sure as an individual we would like to live in a world where our phones can't be tapped or houses can't be entered into and our communication cannot be monitored. But as a society we realize that we need our authorities to have power to do their job to protect us.

I think I answered them.

Companies should not be in a position to provide that kind of information. Therefore they should not be in possession of encryption keys or provide any backdoor, least of all to themselves.

Lawyers and judges (not companies) should approve taps and electronic intercepts.

As has been mentioned here, both the US and the Canadian governments have interred entire ethnic and national groups in World War I (Ukrainians and nationalities of the Austro-Hungarian empire) and World War II (Japanese).

Kitchener-Waterloo, the seat of BlackBerry, where a large number of Germans settled in the early 1800's used to be called Berlin before the first World War.

The right to remain silent still applies, as long as we cannot read thoughts.

Even a democracy can become oppressive by imposing emergency laws. This seems to be happening very frequently recently. The more it happens, the more terrorists appear and the more instability is created in the world.


None of these terrorist attacks would have happened if the government and law enforcement had done their job to intercept guns, bombs, and the like which freely move through borders or are legally owned in US.

That's where the government efforts should go, not in blindly spying on their entire populations. Phones don't kill people. Guns and bombs do.
A government that does that (blankly monitors its population) has already lost the trust of its population and the right to govern.

Our websurfing history discloses our political opinions, our thoughts. This can be dangerous in a country like Turkey now. There may be other countries (democracies) in the future where that will be dangerous.

So, Google should not be allowed to blindly hoover our data. If they want to make money honestly, they should charge for their services, including search, and not store that information.

The governments collude with Google and Microsoft when they allow them to spy on their users devices and Web activities.

[conite]

I'm talking about the fact that end2end encryption that is nearly unbreakable even for the strongest attacker is proven and in existence. So 'how to make it work with lawful access' is already decided. You won't. If you make a cool new messenger that lets authorities read my chat after they obtained a warrant, I'll just not use it. I'll use my own messenger where no such backdoor exists. And since everyone can do this, trying to think about how to do lawful interception is an effort in vain, as everyone who does not want to be intercepted will just not use your solution.

Posted via CB10

Except that if we're not careful, the government may impose something worse, and force a manufacturer to only sell devices with back doors to all communications.

You're also not answering the societal question. As I wrote above, a society has organically decided over the centuries that privacy must be balanced with the ability of law enforcement to do its job to protect us. With encrypted communication, it prevents that natural balance, as criminals can simply shift their method of communication.

[conite]

I think I answered them.

Companies should not be in a position to provide that kind of information. Therefore they should not be in possession of encryption keys or provide any backdoor, least of all to themselves.

Lawyers and judges (not companies) should approve taps and electronic intercepts.

As has been mentioned here, both the US and the Canadian governments have interred entire ethnic and national groups in World War I (Ukraninas and nationalities of the Austro-Hungarian empire) and World War II (Japanese).

Kitchener-Waterloo, the seat of BlackBerry, where a large number of Germans settled in the early 1800's used to be called Berlin before the first World War.

The right to remain silent still applies, as long as we cannot read thoughts.

Even a democracy can become oppressive by imposing emergency laws. This seems to be happening very frequently recently. The more it happens, the more terrorists appear and the more instability is created in the world.


None of these terrorist attacks would have happened if the government and law enforcement had done their job to intercept guns, bombs, and the like which freely move through borders or are legally owned in US.

That's where the government efforts should go, not in blindly spying on their entire populations. Phones don't kill people. Guns and bombs do.
A government that does that (blankly monitors its population) has already lost the trust of its population and the right to govern.

Our websurfing history discloses our political opinions, our thoughts. This can be dangerous in a country like Turkey now. There may be other countries (democracies) in the future where that will be dangerous.

So, Google should not be allowed to blindly hoover our data. If they want to make money honestly, they should charge for their services, including search, and not store that information.

The governments collude with Google and Microsoft when they allow them to spy on their users devices and Web activities.

You are moving the posts of the discussion again. I'm not talking about Google's targeted advertising.

I'm talking about the need for balance.

I would never advocate blanket government surveillance. It would have to be targeted, specific access with a warrant. If a deal isn't worked out along those lines, governments may in fact legislate the former. Surely you would not be happy with that outcome.

[sinkingphoenix]

Except that if we're not careful, the government may impose something worse, and force a manufacturer to only sell devices with back doors to all communications.

You're also not answering the societal question. As I wrote above, a society has organically decided over the centuries that privacy must be balanced with the ability of law enforcement to do its job to protect us. With encrypted communication, it prevents that natural balance, as criminals can simply shift their method of communication.

You can give me a completely tapped device, and I can still communicate in complete privacy with only a modest effort and meeting the person I want to communicate with once. When governments start to mandate backdoors everywhere, you can be sure that bad people would use those same backdoors to commit crimes. So that is really no option. In general, I rank my right to privacy above almost all security concerns, and thankfully cryptography allows me to protect myself in that regard. As someone else in this thread has written, a better regulation of arms or explosives would probably be much more effective than trying to mass surveil the whole populace.

Posted via CB10

[CharlieV]

Is this thread an episode of PUNK'D?!

Chen has prolonged BB beyond any reasonable expectation and will probably save it by turning it into a software company (only). Chen is the only reason BB stock is worth more than a penny.

[Nikola Stojic]

I bet Chen would have looked a lot harder at why the PlayBook failed, and why users that did buy it weren't happy with it. Might have lead them to Android sooner.

Thor was not a good CEO, he was Mike and Jim's boy at BlackBerry and carried on their plans... which lost the company BILLIONS. Not really sure what happened at Powermat.... but two failed CEO positions are enough to see he needs a different line of work.

BB10 go open source... sorry but has BBOS ever been open sourced? Google did the open sourced thing to get developers and users interested in the Platform. They knew they were late and needed something to help them build their userbase. Today Android is much less open source than it once was. But BB10, being open sourced is not something a company that is focused on security is going to do. First thing BlackBerry did with QNX is to try and shut down their open source programs....

Security through obscurity is bad model. Open source doesn't mean it is less secure. OS BB10 OS is far better option to spread the word and claim the market share.

[shaleem]

As a non-BlackBerry user who hangs out on Crackberry to post obsessive-compulsive rants about how Chen has ruined BlackBerry, I would imagine you are somewhat of an expert in the field of irony.

Posted via BlackBerry Priv STV100-1

Well, yes, some of us have moved on. But, I'm still interested in BlackBerry. I want them to prosper. It really irritates me when others are critical of those who use other brands. All this "Apple sucks" and "I hate Android" nonsense is ridiculous. They're just freaking phones.

"It doesn't mean that much to me to mean that much to you."

[kvndoom]

I feel Chen is killing BlackBerry by bringing it back towards profitability.

Gotcha. Next!

Passport SE, "The BlockBerry" - Cricket Wireless

[anon(9742832)]

Although, the counter argument is that Chen has built and/or acquired BES, BBM Protected, WatchDox, AdHoc, and SecureSmart, that all use world class end to end encryption.

Priv STV100-1 AAF518 / Q5SQR100-1/10.3.3.746

Conite, if I may ask. How do you like the Priv with the new updates. I was thinking of going in to my hardware guys and grabbing one. But I was wondering what you think if hub and the other cross platform features?

[conite]

Conite, if I may ask. How do you like the Priv with the new updates. I was thinking of going in to my hardware guys and grabbing one. But I was wondering what you think if hub and the other cross platform features?

After using it for 8 months, I can say, as a total package, it is very good - the best BlackBerry device to date. You need to give it a try while remaining patient while you change workflow and muscle memory.

Three issues:

1) Android Marshmallow, which I won't say much about because you can find many resources out there. But I will quickly note that app integration runs very deep into the OS allowing unbeatable sharing and data manipulation.

2) BlackBerry apps. I find the launcher lightweight and clean, with the familiar sparks. The HUB, if kept running, can be accessed from anywhere in under half a second. If BB10 HUB was a 10/10, I would give this at least an 8. I've set up swipe gestures to toggle read and flag status. A quick pull down menu can filter the hub by category, and swipe from left brings up separate accounts.

3) dtek, hardening, and quick security updates. I have set up dtek to warn me of ANY access to locations, camera, contacts and storage. I can then further filter by app to tailor permissions by adding back access. I also like getting updates faster than Nexus.

Any other questions?