News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:NSA refused Clinton a secure BlackBerry like Obama, so sh... by talmand on Thursday March 17, 2016 @01:33PM (#11306015)
How do we know that "no" was the only answer with no investigation of alternative solutions?

How do we know there wasn't an audit done?

How is it the lacking of the NSA in considering security when a person who was told don't do that decided to ignore it?

Re:NSA refused Clinton a secure BlackBerry like Obama, so sh... by johngalt on Thursday March 17, 2016 @03:08PM (#11306755)
Because when "we" can't do something it's for reasons that are varied, nuanced and entirely justifiable.

When "they" can't do something it's because they are malicious lazy idiots. Obviously.

It's illuminating how someone treats other professions that intersect with their own. If one security team acts in a way you disagree with fine. But if you view all security teams as inherently obstructionist, then that tells me you are self-centered or cut corners. Similar if you always have problems with HR, Accounting, etc...

Re:NSA refused Clinton a secure BlackBerry like Obama, so sh... by awinder on Thursday March 17, 2016 @01:44PM (#11306106)
Probably a combination of:

A) People seeing this play out in their own lives enough to relate it to this experience B) That the quote wasn't "No", it was "shut up and go color", lmao

Re:NSA refused Clinton a secure BlackBerry like Obama, so sh... by carboncopy on Thursday March 17, 2016 @02:54PM (#11306641)
If you re-read that portion of the article, the State Department rep used that phrase to paraphrase the NSA's response. That was not the actual response; nobody who wants to keep their job communicates inter-agency like that.