You're officially out of excuses. Unless your poor, of course.
>>45343616
>are technica
Into the trash
Blackberry Limited is poor. I'm sure they have other excuses for why they release such shit phones though as well.
>>45343616
reverse google image search returns nothing, no ars technica article on it
ars is shit anyway
>>45343731
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/11/ars-reviews-the-blackberry-passport-the-corporate-tool/
you a retard or something?
>>45343616
It's square.
Also can't install Gentoo.
>>45343731
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/11/ars-reviews-the-blackberry-passport-the-corporate-tool/
>>45343793
Once again
>are technica
Are you some kind of sjw faggot?
>>45343616
But it can install Android apps without the NSA backdoor shit
>>45343810
>white house uses blackberry
>state department uses blackberry
>NSA uses blackberry
>no backdoors
teh irony
>>45343833
To be fair, those organizations also all use AES, and I'm fairly certain that doesn't have a back door. In fact, their using it is evidence that there are no back doors since if there were, China could just as easily find it and use it to their advantage. This whole talk of back doors is nonsense, until you find one stop spreading FUD - for any side.
>>45343884
literally wat
I want this fucking phone so much. I just can't justify spending that kind of money.
>>45343884
That sounds really naive. I doubt that NSA have no blackberry security tech guy in the palm of its hand. Worse than that Yahoo fucking CEO already admitted that if she didn't complied and shut up about it then she would have had to face legal consequences.
If NSA is one tenth as competent and greedy we know they are, they DO have backdoors.
>>45343833
why would they backdoor their own shit?
>>45343924
NSA isn't going to use crypto and software that they themselves have compromised. If you have deliberately weakened the security of something, why would you use it?
>>45343924
What is difficult to understand about this? If you were the government, and you knew something had a back door because you put it there, and you knew China has one of the largest reverse engineering and hacking programs in the world (if not the largest), would you use it?
>>45343996
Again, why the fuck would they use blackberries in their organization if they KNEW they were insecure? Do you think they are retarded or evil geniuses? Because they can't be both.
It's also cheap as fuck now if you trade in an iPhone
>>45344030
They could have a direct access to those data without having to compromise the security of their phones. We are talking about a backdoor not about a security weakness, they could have an authorization either granted by the company itself or by a rogue or compromised high level employee : It's their fucking job to hold people by their balls to make them do what they want. That's why I said
>If NSA is one tenth as competent and greedy we know they are, they DO have backdoors.
It's not because they are genius 1337-hax0rs, it's because they have a bigger reach and they are more cunning than what we can possibly imagine.
>>45344218
>They could have a direct access to those data without having to compromise the security of their phones.
... no, they really can't. If you have some standardized method of accessing data from any phone remotely, you have a glaring security vulnerability. Imagine if an IT guy for Google, who had clearance to all servers, said he wanted to use one SSH key for accessing any machine on any data center. You seriously think they wouldn't laugh him out of the room before firing him?
>We are talking about a backdoor not about a security weakness
A back door IS a security weakness. All it would take it one breach to anyone with access to that back door and the attacker would have access to EVERY PHONE the NSA uses.
>>45344505
>... no, they really can't. If you have some standardized method of accessing data from any phone remotely, you have a glaring security vulnerability. Imagine if an IT guy for Google, who had clearance to all servers, said he wanted to use one SSH key for accessing any machine on any data center. You seriously think they wouldn't laugh him out of the room before firing him?
What if the guy who grants it to you is the fucking CEO ?
http://www.businessinsider.com/marissa-mayer-its-treason-to-ignore-the-nsa-2013-9
http://mic.com/articles/48679/nsa-prism-program-google-may-have-refused-to-cooperate-with-the-nsa-but-even-that-s-a-secret
> Refusal to comply with any federal court places someone in contempt, and in this case refusal to carry out the secret order would put company executives in a legally ill-defined area of secret contempt, secret fines, and even secret jail time.
>A back door IS a security weakness. All it would take it one breach to anyone with access to that back door and the attacker would have access to EVERY PHONE the NSA uses.
A security weakness can be a backdoor but the reverse statement is not always true. If I build an unbreakable lock and then I give you the key to it, my lock would still have no weakness. It would just have one more guy who can unlock it. But If I give you a special lock-picker I do compromise the security of my lock because someone somewhere else could build the same lock-picker.
Now imagine you give me money in exchange of a key, or imagine you threaten me to disclose embarrassing information about me, or even worse you threaten me or my family physical integrity, career or freedom.
How fast do you think I'll make you a key ? This is the business they are in. They do the same thing with any CEO, foreign politician and anyone with a bit of influence that could help them. They don't store all those data just because they enjoy having gazillions of TB on their hard drives.
>>45344796
>What if the guy who grants it to you is the fucking CEO ?
The CEO of Google is not going to give every fucking server in the Google farm a single point of failure. Nobody gets to that position being that retarded.
>If I build an unbreakable lock and then I give you the key to it, my lock would still have no weakness.
But that's not what you're saying. You're saying they made an "unbreakable" lock design, that uses the same key for every physical unit. Then they handed that key to probably around 1,000 employees, because they want access to everybody's bike. They then proceeded to use that lock on their OWN bikes, a lock that they KNOW has 1,000 keys floating around, and that if China got even ONE of those keys they could copy it as many times as they want and steal any bike they want? Do you not see why this is retarded?
>>45343616
*you'are
>>45346088
>>45343616
you*re
>>45345412
>But that's not what you're saying. You're saying they made an "unbreakable" lock design, that uses the same key for every physical unit.
Every governement uses network equipment with backdoors China included. They all face the same issue. If I told you China wouldn't use a system they know that have backdoors because it would mean that they "proceeded to use that lock on their OWN bikes, a lock that they KNOW has 1,000 keys floating around, and that if China got even ONE of those keys they could copy it as many times as they want and steal any bike they want?", you'd call me naive.
Plus you seem to put aside the fact that NSA could as well run a middle-man attack on any tech company, Google included
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130910/10470024468/flying-pig-nsa-is-running-man-middle-attacks-imitating-googles-servers.shtml
It also has the ability to tap into fucking undersea cables
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-nsa-uses-powerful-toolbox-in-effort-to-spy-on-global-networks-a-940969-3.html
You are basically saying that the US gov won't try to find a way to access any information detained by a constructor that equips the US gov because it would mean that this equipment would not be secured meaning that they couldn't equip themselves with such tech.
>>45343632
>>45343806
>are
It's right there, in front of you. At least 3 times. How hard is it to type something correctly ?
>>45346101
y*ur
>>45346118
Probably autocorrect
>They still think there are better android phones than the Sony Xperia Z3 Compact.
>They're actually this retarded
