Alan Browne

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/tech/m....html?on.cnn=1

In essence, because Apple won't let DoD examine and modify iOS source
for devices to be used by the military and other agencies, DoD has
back-burnered the iPhone and iPad for anything with security connotations.

This may change:

QUOTE

However, the government chose to work on Android first because Google
already allows people to tinker freely with its code, said those working
on the project.

Federal officials have met with Apple, but they were told they could not
have access to the core of the company's mobile operating system, said
Angelos Stavrou, an information-security director at George Mason
University who is working on the government project as a contractor, in
a phone interview.

"Android was more cooperative in supporting some of the capabilities
that we wanted to support in the operating system, whereas Apple was
more averse," Stavrou told CNN. "They're shifting the strategy now."
An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment on the meeting or any changes
to its strategy.

/QUOTE

Also:
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/1...-unofficially/

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

Jolly Roger

Ho hum.

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

Tom Stiller

In article <tfudnVG3YtbTLbPSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/tech/m...nes/index.html
> ?on.cnn=1
>
> In essence, because Apple won't let DoD examine and modify iOS source
> for devices to be used by the military and other agencies, DoD has
> back-burnered the iPhone and iPad for anything with security connotations.


I suspect that as long as the main objective of Apple is to produce
great devices, DoD will be just another enterprise market.

--
PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf
of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce

Davoud

Alan Browne:
> http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/tech/m...es/index.html?
> on.cnn=1
>
> In essence, because Apple won't let DoD examine and modify iOS source
> for devices to be used by the military and other agencies, DoD has
> back-burnered the iPhone and iPad for anything with security connotations.

The government has no business using mobile computing devices in any
case. They have a habit of filling them with sensitive information and
then losing them or having them stolen. It seems that the only password
that government personnel can think up is "password." And it will
likely be written on a piece of tape attached to the device.

The government needs to learn how to secure the data on computing
devices and networks before they allow people to take them where they
can be lost, stolen, or captured.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

J.J. O'Shea

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:49:31 -0500, Davoud wrote
(in article <050220121749310475%star@sky.net>):

> Alan Browne:
>> http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/tech/m...hones/index.ht
>> ml?
>> on.cnn=1
>>
>> In essence, because Apple won't let DoD examine and modify iOS source
>> for devices to be used by the military and other agencies, DoD has
>> back-burnered the iPhone and iPad for anything with security connotations.
>
> The government has no business using mobile computing devices in any
> case. They have a habit of filling them with sensitive information and
> then losing them or having them stolen. It seems that the only password
> that government personnel can think up is "password."

Not so. At least one Navy SEAL used 'frogman1' for a password. Gotta love the
high sense of security these highly trained naval commandos have.

> And it will
> likely be written on a piece of tape attached to the device.

Tape comes loose under water. The Navy would use a Sharpie.

>
> The government needs to learn how to secure the data on computing
> devices and networks before they allow people to take them where they
> can be lost, stolen, or captured.
>
>

But they're just following in the footsteps of their predecessors. See
further, just for example, U-505. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_505>


--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

bigdude

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> In essence, because Apple won't let DoD examine and modify iOS source
> for devices to be used by the military and other agencies, DoD has
> back-burnered the iPhone and iPad for anything with security connotations.
>
> This may change:
>
> QUOTE
>
> However, the government chose to work on Android first because Google
> already allows people to tinker freely with its code, said those working
> on the project.
>
> Federal officials have met with Apple, but they were told they could not
> have access to the core of the company's mobile operating system, said
> Angelos Stavrou, an information-security director at George Mason
> University who is working on the government project as a contractor, in
> a phone interview.
>
> "Android was more cooperative in supporting some of the capabilities
> that we wanted to support in the operating system, whereas Apple was
> more averse," Stavrou told CNN. "They're shifting the strategy now."
> An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment on the meeting or any changes
> to its strategy.

Apple is wise not to push for DOD contracts, would be controversial and
would affect their overseas markets..
Also totally uncool to have those big thugs using them, not Apple's
image at all (uncomplicated, intelligent, elegant).
--
bigD

Todd Allcock

At 07 Feb 2012 06:52:29 +0200 bigdude wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> > In essence, because Apple won't let DoD examine and modify iOS source
> > for devices to be used by the military and other agencies, DoD has
> > back-burnered the iPhone and iPad for anything with security
connotations.
> >
> > This may change:
> >
> > QUOTE
> >
> > However, the government chose to work on Android first because Google
> > already allows people to tinker freely with its code, said those
working
> > on the project.
> >
> > Federal officials have met with Apple, but they were told they could
not
> > have access to the core of the company's mobile operating system, said
> > Angelos Stavrou, an information-security director at George Mason
> > University who is working on the government project as a contractor,
in
> > a phone interview.
> >
> > "Android was more cooperative in supporting some of the capabilities
> > that we wanted to support in the operating system, whereas Apple was
> > more averse," Stavrou told CNN. "They're shifting the strategy now."
> > An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment on the meeting or any changes
> > to its strategy.
>
> Apple is wise not to push for DOD contracts, would be controversial and
> would affect their overseas markets..

How so? Foreign fashionistas would now deem Apple "uncool"?

The iPhone is a consumer device. The only question for Apple is if the
additional sales and profits generated from complying with the DoD's (or
any customer's) requests and demands are worth the effort and expense. IMO,
it probably isn't. Plenty of open-source OS alternatives and desperate
OEMs are available to meet the DoD's demands. (And already have for
years.)

> Also totally uncool to have those big thugs using them, not Apple's
> image at all (uncomplicated, intelligent, elegant).


Yeah, wouldn't want to tarnish Apple's image of offering pretty, sparkly
devices available at the local Walmart.

Last time I checked, the only qualification required to obtain an Apple
product was the appropriate amount of legal tender. Street cred, style,
or hip smugness aren't required.

Erilar

bigdude <dude@JRranch.com> wrote:

>
> Apple is wise not to push for DOD contracts, would be controversial and
> would affect their overseas markets..
> Also totally uncool to have those big thugs using them, not Apple's
> image at all (uncomplicated, intelligent, elegant).

Three adjectives no one would ever apply to DOD . . .

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

bigdude

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

> At 07 Feb 2012 06:52:29 +0200 bigdude wrote:
> > Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> > > "Android was more cooperative in supporting some of the capabilities
> > > that we wanted to support in the operating system, whereas Apple was
> > > more averse," Stavrou told CNN. "They're shifting the strategy now."
> > > An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment on the meeting or any changes
> > > to its strategy.
> >
> > Apple is wise not to push for DOD contracts, would be controversial and
> > would affect their overseas markets..
>
> How so? Foreign fashionistas would now deem Apple "uncool"?
>
> The iPhone is a consumer device. The only question for Apple is if the
> additional sales and profits generated from complying with the DoD's (or
> any customer's) requests and demands are worth the effort and expense. IMO,
> it probably isn't. Plenty of open-source OS alternatives and desperate
> OEMs are available to meet the DoD's demands. (And already have for
> years.)
>
> > Also totally uncool to have those big thugs using them, not Apple's
> > image at all (uncomplicated, intelligent, elegant).
>
>
> Yeah, wouldn't want to tarnish Apple's image of offering pretty, sparkly
> devices available at the local Walmart.
>
> Last time I checked, the only qualification required to obtain an Apple
> product was the appropriate amount of legal tender. Street cred, style,
> or hip smugness aren't required.

This is not about individuals, its about MARKETING.
A very big portion of Apple's profits are now generated overseas, it's
products are considered cool everywhere..
--
bigD

Alan Browne

On 2012-02-12 04:04 , bigdude wrote:

> This is not about individuals, its about MARKETING.
> A very big portion of Apple's profits are now generated overseas, it's
> products are considered cool everywhere..

Cool? I just consider them (I have an iPhone and iMac) to be reliable
and no fuss. They work. They are quality _functional_ products.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).