Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Government Technology Your Rights Online

BlackBerry Services To Be Halted In UAE 134

Posted by Soulskill
from the blocking-the-tip-of-an-iceberg dept.
WrongSizeGlass writes "Bloomberg is reporting RIM's BlackBerry Messenger, e-mail and Web browsing services will be suspended in the United Arab Emirates, the Middle East's business hub, starting October 11th due to security concerns. RIM faces similar restrictions in India. The Telecommunications Regulatory Authority said in a statement on state-run Emirates News Agency, 'In their current form, certain BlackBerry services allow users to act without any legal accountability, causing judicial, social and national security concerns for the UAE.' A senior Indian government official said, 'Though RIM has been fully cooperating ever since the matter was taken up with it in 2008, reports of the company's move to set up a server in China forced us to look at it in a different way.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BlackBerry Services To Be Halted In UAE

Comments Filter:
  • by sethstorm (512897) * on Sunday August 01, 2010 @09:19AM (#33100752) Homepage

    The UAE's telecoms regulator said the move had 'nothing to do with censorship' ...except where the monitoring leads to censorship. That is, you can say all you want on the phone, but the censorship would be done off the network.

    Sounds like they're bitter about being caught with their hands in the cookie jar with the Etisalat attempt.

    • by h4rm0ny (722443) on Sunday August 01, 2010 @09:50AM (#33100850) Journal

      Everything in UAE is either to do with censorship, or to do with money. Or both. I submitted this story myself earlier. Note that there's also coverage on this from the BBC here [bbc.co.uk]. Note that the TRA (the UAE's telecom regulatory agency) last year sent messages to Blackberry owners in the country instructing them to install an update which would improve performance. Not only did it not improve performance (actually caused crashes and shortened battery life for a reason you'll see in a second), but it actually forwarded received messages onto the goverment. Slashdot covered it last year here [slashdot.org].
      They're a scummy government. Blackberries are fairly popular in UAE (the lack of snooping is actually a plus, btw) and by threatening to make them illegal the government there is trying to force RIM who make them to hand over encryption keys or open up access to its customers in some other manner. If RIM have any sense, and I'm sure they have, they'll call TRA's bluff.

      UAE's government ain't that nice and the country is riddled with corruption and duplicity. Hell, this is the country where all the shops sell MP5 players. Why? Because they're newer than MP3 players. I try to find that funny but after a ten minute argument with someone from there who kept insisting his device was superior because "yeah, but mine's an MP5 player", I just lost the humour along the way, somewhere. UAE also does its best to fuck up Skype and any other VoIP services. (They don't do a very effective job, btw.)
      • So take a marker and convert the '3' in your mp3 player to an '8'. Certainly an mp8 player's got to be WAY better than an \mp5\ player.

      • Was going to mod an idiot down the thread a little bit, but your MP% comment caught my eye, and five minutes on google assures me, that you were 100% correct. MP5 is BS. Hell I bought a damn video/music player at CVS a couple of years ago for 20 bucks that would do what these MP% players will do. Of course it only had a 2.6" screen, but it would hold 8GB, and play anything I loaded on it, including realmedia files with no conversions necessary. Don't think it did flv files though, but I lost it and can not
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        They're a scummy government.

        But they're an "ally", economic, military, and otherwise.. They are a safe haven for blood money, lots of it. So they can be as scummy as they want.. That's what predatory capitalism is all about.. And the only people who get in trouble are those who try to point that out. That aspect seems to be getting more prevalent these days, as illustrated by the wikileaks thing.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by couchslug (175151)

          NON-scummy governments in most of the world are simply not an option. Making them less scummy is like teaching a pig to sing, in that it doesn't work and annoys the pig.

          "That's what predatory capitalism is all about.."

          That's what DIPLOMACY has ALWAYS been about, long before Capitalism existed. There are no good people, hence no need to act as if there are. There are only interests, and clients.

          In the Middle East in particular, the binary client choice is between greedy tribalists and homicidal Jihadists. Th

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Dolphinzilla (199489)

        while I will grant you that the government has its issues - I will say that the UAE does take security pretty serious and is probably one of the safest Middle Eastern (maybe the safest) countries for westerners. Part of the security is no doubt due to the intense control and monitoring of its citizens and visitors. I won't make a call whether its good or bad just an observation from someone who has spent a few months there.

        • by slick7 (1703596)

          while I will grant you that the government has its issues - I will say that the UAE does take security pretty serious and is probably one of the safest Middle Eastern (maybe the safest) countries for westerners. Part of the security is no doubt due to the intense control and monitoring of its citizens and visitors. I won't make a call whether its good or bad just an observation from someone who has spent a few months there.

          Is it safe for women subjected to honor killings?
          Draconian methods are always correct for the draconian mindset.

          • by Dolphinzilla (199489) on Sunday August 01, 2010 @01:02PM (#33101734) Journal

            while I don't personally know that this goes on the UAE (probably) I do know that they are a pretty lenient Middle Eastern society - I have seen plenty of women in thongs on the beaches and plenty of local women in the malls dressed in standard western style (mini skirts, high heals, etc..), I've also seen groups of women with some in skirts and some fully covered in traditional fashion. You will never see that kind of stuff in Saudi or Jordan etc..

        • by RockDoctor (15477)

          Part of the security is no doubt due to the intense control and monitoring of its citizens and visitors.

          The citizens make up about 16% of the population (WIkipedia's figure - from my visits I'd have thought that was a bit high, but that was in the oilfield, which most of the citizens try to avoid contact with) ; the remainder is various immigrant workers and tourists. And the non-citizen workers and tourists don't get to say anything about how the country is run.

          I don't have any real concerns about going b

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        UAE is actually one of the more liberal countries in the Middle East. For example, women are not required to wear a veil in public, only a shawl. Shoplifters no longer get their hands cut off. And astonishingly, there are even some gay places in Dubai if you are so inclined. For example, the Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza gym. As always though in the Middle East, be careful - and be discreet!

    • "The UAE's telecoms regulator said the move had 'nothing to do with censorship'"

      The "censorship" happens when pursuant to local custom, they saw off your head with a dull knife!

  • by Dyinobal (1427207) on Sunday August 01, 2010 @09:19AM (#33100754)

    'In their current form, certain BlackBerry services allow users to act without any legal accountability, causing judicial, social and national security concerns for the UAE.'

    This roughly translates to this.

    The BlackBerry lets you have the possibility of expressing nonofficial opinions regarding the government/state/religion and our secret police force may not be able to find you and break your fucking shins and toss you in a dungeon until you realize the error of your ways and die.

  • "Security Concerns" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nimloth (704789) on Sunday August 01, 2010 @09:23AM (#33100762)
    I read this and thought: "really? security concerns over the BlackBerry network?". Then I figured out that the "security concerns" were that it is too secure for them because they like to reserve the right to eaves drop and lay the smackdown when they feel appropriate.
  • What are they afraid of, some guy might exchange Blackberry PINs with an unmarried woman?
    • by CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) on Sunday August 01, 2010 @09:37AM (#33100808)

      What are they afraid of, some guy might exchange Blackberry PINs with an unmarried woman?

      Prince warns S. Arabia of apocalypse [aljazeera.com]

      'He warned that the Saudi royal family is no longer able to "impose" itself on people, arguing that deviations in carrying out the religious concepts that make up the basis of the Saudi government "have gotten out of our hands," so that the opposition views our acts as "interfering in people's private life and restricting their liberties."

      "If we are wise, we must leave this country to its people, whose dislike for us is increasing," said Prince Turki, advising Saudi officials to escape with their families.'

      • by couchslug (175151)

        Sounds like wishful thinking on his part. Note how long his movement has been at it.

        Not that seeing the House of Saud strung up like Mussolini and his mistress wouldn't make me smile, double-dealing funders of Jihad and enemies of Israel that they are.

        • by h4rm0ny (722443) on Sunday August 01, 2010 @09:56AM (#33100872) Journal

          and enemies of Israel that they are.

          Heh. I like that the House of Saud are such pieces of shit that even pro- and anti- Israel types can agree on their utter contempt for the corrupt oppressive bastards. :)

          It's amazing that the people of the US allow their government to keep propping it up. Without the US support, they'd have been overthrown by their people long ago. It's a fucking monarchy in the 21st Century. We should be ashamed as a species.

          • by MoonBuggy (611105) on Sunday August 01, 2010 @10:56AM (#33101126) Journal

            Maybe the people would form a stable government, and I quite agree that they should be given the best opportunity to do so. There's no reason, though, to believe that US support is the only thing keeping most of the country in the dark ages. There are plenty of African countries that are at least as fucked up as Saudi Arabia without US sponsorship.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Abcd1234 (188840)

              Yeah, but those countries don't have the affluence of Saudi Arabia.

              No, SA is, I think, better compared to Iran: a nation with a relatively affluent population that's under the thumb of oppression, both political and religious. And much like Iran, I'm willing to bet, in the absence of said oppression, they could flourish as a modern nation.

              • by Teun (17872)

                And much like Iran, I'm willing to bet, in the absence of said oppression, they could flourish as a modern nation.

                Knowing the place first hand I believe the country would without a very strong government turn within a very short period of time into a raging mess of feuding tribes and religious extremists, just one example; the oil rich east is populated by Shia Muslims that hate the Sunni Bedouins forming the Royal family and army.

                And that's really a pity because there is a large group of reasonably well educated people and lot's of natural riches.

              • No, SA is, I think, better compared to Iran: a nation with a relatively affluent population that's under the thumb of oppression, both political and religious.

                If you let SA create themselves a government, I very much doubt it would look that much different than you see today in terms of what the west considers oppression- it would just be many smaller groups dong the oppressing. That's why there not much chafing there from the people for any kind of large reform.

                Now Iran on the other hand, the people as a

            • by slick7 (1703596)

              Maybe the people would form a stable government, and I quite agree that they should be given the best opportunity to do so. There's no reason, though, to believe that US support is the only thing keeping most of the country in the dark ages. There are plenty of African countries that are at least as fucked up as Saudi Arabia without US sponsorship.

              The people would just re-initiate their age-old tribal warring until one group comes out on top.
              Then we'll have Saudi Arabia v2.0.

            • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              There are plenty of African countries that are at least as fucked up as Saudi Arabia without US sponsorship.

              You're forgetting that the Saudi Arabian government is propped up partially by our willingness to sell them advanced weaponry. [fas.org] How many F-16s do we sell to Congo?

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Error27 (100234)

              I live in Zambia so I mostly know that area of Africa. The US was sponsering wars in Mozambique, Angola and Zaire as part of the cold war efforts.

              Also the if you look at Sudan the civil war with the south and the current crisis in Darfur are funded by European oil interests. Read up on the story of Tiny Roland. He made his money by funding rebel movements in exchange for land and minerals. He was a large SPLA funder.

              There is also a dictatorship in Equatorial Guinea funded by oil. The US is the largest

          • by CdBee (742846)
            Absolutely. I'd say that the ethics of the Sauds and those of certain influential fringe movements in Israel represent the twin serious threats to stability in that neighbourhood.
          • by gtall (79522) on Sunday August 01, 2010 @12:38PM (#33101602)

            Yep, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that if only the Saudi Arabian people voted in their own government, that government would turn out to be an enlightened democracy full of minority rights and respect for other religions. Instead, it would be a theocracy and probably worse than Iran's. The only non-gov. organization in that country which could count on the people's support would be the mullahs skulking in their mosques. Their notion of government is Fascist, just like Iran, with the added force of Islam to keep any one with an independent opinion in line. Their first edict after taking power would be to arm Hamas to the teeth in preparation for the next Israel-Islamic war. And they'd do it as soon as they can because they feel they are in competition with the Shi'ites in Iran and their dogs, Hezbollah, to be the leaders of the next "Final Solution" to their Jewish problem. However, the Jews here are a mere football to be used in conflict between the Sunni's and Shi'ites for the soul of Islam.

            • Personally, I think we should just pull out of that region completely for 50 years and let the chips fall where they may.

              Evolve or die, assholes. Evolve or die.

          • by Xtifr (1323) on Sunday August 01, 2010 @02:30PM (#33102310) Homepage

            It's a fucking monarchy in the 21st Century. We should be ashamed as a species.

            Yeah, damn those British! Er, I mean, damn those Danes! I mean Swedes. I mean Spanish. No, I mean Japanese. Er, the Thai. No, the Tongans. Um...

            Hmm, well at least we can all surely agree that removing a monarchy has always improved a country. Look at Russia. No, wait, China. No, Iran. Er....

            Oh well, at least the most evil, murderous leaders of the Twentieth Century were all monarchs. Like Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot and Idi Amin. Uh...

            Dammit! As an American, I know you're right; I'm just having a hard time coming up with any evidence to support your statement. But that's ok, as an American, I don't need facts to be right. I just am. God said so. (Yes, I suppose that is the same God who appointed all those kings, why do you ask?) :)

            In any case, I just know that Democracy is good. No Democracy has ever produced a leader who invaded Poland, followed by most of the rest of Europe, and then had millions of people put to death simply for their religious or sexual preferences. Oh crap.

            • by Winckle (870180)

              The difference being of course, that the European monarchies are almost purely ceremonial. (I don't know anything about the Japanese system.)

            • by Rexdude (747457)

              Yeah, damn those British! Er, I mean, damn those Danes! I mean Swedes. I mean Spanish. No, I mean Japanese. Er, the Thai. No, the Tongans. Um...

              I don't know about the Tongans, but all the examples you gave are of constitutional monarchies. The common people vote their representatives to houses of parliament,it's not like these rulers are autocrats as in the case of the Saudis.

              • by Xtifr (1323)

                I don't know about the Tongans, but all the examples you gave are of constitutional monarchies.

                Most of the examples of monarchies, yes, but what about all my examples of bad non-monarchies?

                And the Japanese are a constitutional monarchy now, but their monarchs have been little more than figureheads for much longer.

          • It's a fucking monarchy in the 21st Century.

            You mean like the United ... wait for it ... KINGDOM? Or Sweden, or Denmark, or Netherlands, or Norway, or Luxemburg?

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by couchslug (175151)

            "It's amazing that the people of the US allow their government to keep propping it up. "

            Oh no it isn't! The alternatives are even worse in every way.

            The House of Saud are widely dispersed through KSA society, offer the only hope of stable government (that's entirely different from "good" government"), and their enemies help push them somewhat into our camp. It's like being allied with the Soviet Union during the Second World War. They are a smaller problem than their opponents. (Unlike the Soviets, the Sau

          • by mrops (927562)

            People led government is a huge problem. I lived there while my dad was working there and know a little more than an average person about this country. Majority of oil is in land where Shia muslim's dominate. Saudi Arabia is ruled by Sunni muslims. If you let people form there own goverment, these regions will have a shia sympathetic government. Not only that, these shia's are aligned with Iran. You see the problem, Oil-Iran.

            You will not here what I am about to state (unless US of A decides to invade Saudi

        • Sounds like wishful thinking on his part. Note how long his movement has been at it.

          I agree but it has a kernel of truth in it nonetheless. And since the OP asked what they were afraid of the above scenario is definitely it. There can be no dissent because the spice, sorry oil, must flow or the house of cards will come tumbling down.

      • by westlake (615356)

        Prince warns S. Arabia of apocalypse

        THe UAE is not Saudi Arabia.

        • by tverbeek (457094)

          Saudi Arabia is blocking Blackberry as well.

        • by slick7 (1703596)

          THe UAE is not Saudi Arabia.

          Without Saudi Arabia and its American military backing, the UAE and every other Islamic country would be turned into a big piece of glass.

      • by slick7 (1703596)

        "If we are wise, we must leave this country to its people, whose dislike for us is increasing," said Prince Turki, advising Saudi officials to escape with their families.'

        Then we can move to America, someplace hot, like Arizona.

        • by tsm_sf (545316)
          According to the dictates of poetic justice we should help them kick out the current population of Arizona, provide them with enough firepower to hold off the remaining "three corners" states, and talk about how wonderful it is to have an early-80's style South African "democracy" in the middle of such a desolate cultural wasteland.

          I don't really see a downside. For me. Way over here.
          • by slick7 (1703596)

            According to the dictates of poetic justice we should help them kick out the current population of Arizona, provide them with enough firepower to hold off the remaining "three corners" states, and talk about how wonderful it is to have an early-80's style South African "democracy" in the middle of such a desolate cultural wasteland. I don't really see a downside. For me. Way over here.

            The free Islamic state of Arizona. I love it.

      • by mano.m (1587187)
        Saudi Arabia != the Emirates.
      • "If we are wise, we must leave this country to its people, whose dislike for us is increasing," said Prince Turki, advising Saudi officials to escape with their families.'

        That is good advice for any government.

  • by ControlsGeek (156589) on Sunday August 01, 2010 @09:34AM (#33100798)

    Wasn't Barrack Obama's right to keep his Blackberry after he became President questioned because the server was hosted in Waterloo Ontario, at Blackberry's headquarters in Canada ? Blackberry's elliptical curve encryption algorithm ( formerly from Certicom) must be pretty tight.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 01, 2010 @09:43AM (#33100826)

      No it was questioned because of the concern that some people would have a direct line to the president and others won't, thereby creating a situation of undue influence. I don't remember completely but I think one of the restrictions placed on his use is that it is only family and his staff that he can contact with the phone.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tivoKlr (659818)
        OK, I am an Obama supporter, but this disappoints me. Maybe it was just being starstruck when entering the oval office that would allow him to relinquish his right to make/receive phone calls, but this would be my first move to tell the SS to F-OFF when they tell me who I can and can't call on my own phone, if I were president...

        Since my only historical transgression seems to be shared by our president, I suppose sometime in the future, if I get pissed off enough, I could be in his shoes, and at said mom
        • by icegreentea (974342) on Sunday August 01, 2010 @10:59AM (#33101132)
          Well, the restrictions really don't matter cause all communications to/from the President must be recorded and be made available. Bush Jr gave up on his personal email (it was an aol account) when he became president cause he didn't want to have to disclose private information. Obama's BB will be under similar restrictions. Whatever BES he's attached to probably has all sorts of ridiculous auditing and filtering stuff turned on for his account. It's very much going to be 'boring' work phone.
        • by yuhong (1378501)
          Agreed, the recording needed under PRA can be kept, but the phone call restrictions are just ridiculous. And consider allow the president to have a public email that he can directly respond to too, again recorded under PRA.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by ControlsGeek (156589)

        If I had restrictions like that placed on me, I'd be learning pass gas in Morse Code!

      • No it was questioned because of the concern that some people would have a direct line to the president and others won't

        I don't see that as a problem, at all.

        As long as the full logs of who contacted the president on his blackberry are kept and made public.

        I say, let the president use technology to the fullest and let the people he is representing see how he governs.

        And that goes for any president.

        As an added bonus presidential communications being public gives them just that much more appreciation for priva

    • by Abcd1234 (188840) on Sunday August 01, 2010 @12:06PM (#33101412) Homepage

      Wasn't Barrack Obama's right to keep his Blackberry after he became President questioned because the server was hosted in Waterloo Ontario, at Blackberry's headquarters in Canada ?

      No, it's because there are records retention requirements in government. Remember Sarah Palin and her personal email account? Same thing goes, here.

      • by slick7 (1703596)

        Wasn't Barrack Obama's right to keep his Blackberry after he became President questioned because the server was hosted in Waterloo Ontario, at Blackberry's headquarters in Canada ?

        No, it's because there are records retention requirements in government. Remember Sarah Palin and her personal email account? Same thing goes, here.

        Remember Nixon and his 18 minutes of audio tape? Sheesh.

        • by Abcd1234 (188840)

          Remember Nixon and his 18 minutes of audio tape? Sheesh.

          Sheesh? Huh? What's got your panties in a twist?

        • by k_187 (61692)
          He shouldn't be allowed to keep it because an unrelated administration 40 years ago intentionally erased records and you don't want him to do the same? Or he should be allowed to keep it because an unrelated administration 40 years ago intentionally erased records and therefore what the public doesn't know won't hurt them?

          Just asking for clarification.
  • The government has finally gone over the top at the HTC EVO likely being out of stock for the next 99 weeks
  • Emerging Rivalry (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hyades1 (1149581)

    Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I wonder if India's response to Blackberry is part of an effort to present itself as a viable alternative to China for some segments of the medium- and high-tech manufacturing sector. Even with it problems, India has always shown a greater commitment to democracy than China ever has.

    • by tverbeek (457094) on Sunday August 01, 2010 @10:33AM (#33101022) Homepage

      "India has always shown a greater commitment to democracy than China ever has."

      That's... an understatement. In many ways, they do it better and with more commitment (e.g. higher voter turn-out) than the West does.

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by DigiShaman (671371)

        India culture is still based on the caste system. While their government has abolished it and has less of an impact in the cities, it's till very much alive in rural areas. So yes, it doesn't surprise me that there is a large voter turn-out. If you got the ass-end of the social the hierarchy, you'd turn out to vote too. No one else would listen.

    • Re:Emerging Rivalry (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 01, 2010 @10:37AM (#33101050)
      Greater commitment to democracy? India IS a democracy - a full fledged one, from 63 years! They have some flaws, but then which democracy doesn't?
    • Re:Emerging Rivalry (Score:5, Informative)

      by icegreentea (974342) on Sunday August 01, 2010 @11:09AM (#33101166)
      BlackBerrys are assembled in Canada, Mexico and Hungary. Most of the parts are manufactured from all across Asia (the low-end batteries are exclusively made in China, nearly all screens are made in Japan). It doesn't really look like that's really going to change in the future. In fact, I really don't know why RIM doesn't push this point more... it'll certainly please those pundits crying about the destruction of North America's manufacturing base. I mean, there's a BlackBerry factory right in Waterloo.

      As for India's complaint, the summary is leaving out some important information. Couple years back they pressed on RIM, and RIM relented, agreeing to allow Indian security agencies access to BB comms on request (they have similar arrangements with North American law enforcement and intelligence agencies I imagine). RIM did not agree to setup a local NOC (the server where all BB traffic flows) in India. Lately, RIM agreed to set up a NOC in China (giving Chinese agencies somewhat easier access to BB traffic), in exchange for being able to do business there. India is ticked off cause they wanted the same setup and is now pushing again. It's not a question of India getting access to local BB traffic, its a question of how easy it is for them to get it.
      • by hyades1 (1149581)

        Although the matter immediately at hand concerned Blackberry, I don't believe India was speaking to that situation. I think, rather, that a broad statement of intent was being made, using Blackberry as a platform. I live less than an hour from that Waterloo assembly plant, and I have a lot of respect for the way RIM has conducted itself. They're one of Canada's very best corporate ambassadors.

    • by dooode (1134443)

      May be it has nothing to do with rivalry for India. India's problems with terrorism are quite genuine and there have been so many recent cases where the Indian Police have tracked calls to foil terrorist plans or trace them.

      Given that Blackberry co-operates so much with US agencies, agrees to set up a server in China that would only be used for political purposes rather than defense or security, it makes sense for India to get dissed. And with almost explosive growth of cellphone users in India, with around

  • by Zocalo (252965) on Sunday August 01, 2010 @10:20AM (#33100966) Homepage
    Just about every Emirati out there has either an iPhone, a Blackberry or both. It's a land of new money run riot, both for the locals and the expats - flaunting what you have, no matter how vulgar the behaviour, is the order of the day and "understated" doesn't appear in the dictionary. RIM's best strategy on this would probably be to refuse to back down and wait for the inevitable shit storm from the Emirati's who are no longer able to send and receive email. Worst case scenario is that they lose a tiny, albeit affluent, market. Big deal.
  • Saudi too (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sir_Sri (199544) on Sunday August 01, 2010 @10:32AM (#33101016)

    Some other places are reporting this as both saudi and the UAE (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100801/world/ml_emirates_blackberry). Saudi being a somewhat bigger market.

  • by DRBivens (148931) on Sunday August 01, 2010 @12:41PM (#33101622) Journal

    "... services will be suspended"

    This, IMHO, is only hinting at the real problem: Blackberry internet services are provided through a central server (BIS or BES) that acts as a proxy; the handheld device doesn't access the HTTP, POP, or IMAP services directly (at least with the provided apps).

    RIM's encryption is pretty darned good, but this "server in the middle" method of operation gives some Security folks headaches because of the possibilities for mischief.

    While it is very nice for corporate monitoring and control, the downside is that a government can easily shut down BB services by blocking the server. If the BB was a true Internet client, this would not be the case.

     

  • ...how good Blackberry security is if they have countries worried that they won't be able to spy on their citizens and visitors properly without the password ;)
  • by gelfling (6534) on Sunday August 01, 2010 @03:27PM (#33102724) Homepage Journal

    As long as it protects ME when I travel there. In any case, I am fine with this.

    • by mano.m (1587187)
      I don't mind India being able to intercept communications. That might have prevented the Taj attacks in Bombay. Americans need to fly halfway across the world to fight the Taliban. India has a border with Pakistan. Imagine al-Qaeda operating out of Mexico.
  • How secure is the BlackBerry? So secure, the world's leading police states have forbidden its use within their borders. If you need to keep your communications confidential, only BlackBerry can guarantee it.

    Makes you wonder about iPhone, Android, etc.

  • I am a local of UAE. Regardless of whether I agree with this or not, it should be noted in fairness that UAE's Government is asking RIM for access to the underlying data network similar to what RIM has already given the US and the UK Governments.

    Kettle, meet pot.

Mirrors should reflect a little before throwing back images. -- Jean Cocteau

Working...