Hacker News Reader

Comment by Trias11 | Hacker News Reader

Why's "ban" needed?

Government should have full control over government issued devices and only whitelisted modifications should be allowed.

If it's not this way - someone at government should be held accountable for jeopardizing the security of the nation.

View on HN

I'm guessing those phones are to ensure their owners have a dedicated communication channel and a platform to run non-critical tech necessary for their job.

Apps for non-sensitive emails, schedules, maps, org directories, etc.

If the government is putting sensitive military data on an Android or iOS phone, you should be concerned. A whitelist would not be a sufficient safeguard.

We use Citrix secure hub on iPhone (mail, VPN etc). Appstore is allowed also (minecraft etc)

I think it's more an issue that non-sensitive data can still be harvested and turned into sensitive data. So for example, troop movements are sensitive. They probably wouldn't be coordinating those over unofficial channels. And normally if, say, a soldier says "I love you" to his family, that's not really sensitive. If all of a sudden, 40% of the soldiers on a base do that though, that's leaking sensitive data.

> A Navy spokesman said Naval and Marine personnel who use government issued smart devices are generally allowed to use popular commercial apps, including common social media apps, but from time to time specific programs that present security threats are banned. He would not give examples of apps that are allowed or those considered unsafe.

I guess that it is phrased that way in order to signal other non-government organizations that they should have a look and probably ban it as well.

Because employees feel that they deserve to use Facebook and such on their government issued devices, and if you deny them their God given right, you are racist, sexist, and otherwise despicable person

Well... I guess I can understand they don't want to go around with two mobiles.

> Because employees feel that they deserve to use Facebook and such on their government issued devices

True, and contributes to the discussion by pointing out that morale is a tricky thing.

> if you deny them their God given right, you are racist, sexist, and otherwise despicable person

This is _at best_ hyperbole. It has no insights, adds nothing of intellectual interest to the conversation, and falsely equates "I'm not getting what I want" with "Accusing other people of being racist and/or sexist."

That last bit is not only way off-topic for this, but it's an ugly and false smear that drags the level of conversation into the mud.

I agree strong security protocols are necessary, but our soldiers abroad should be allowed to interact with their friends and family abroad in some capacity via social media. I think your comment is a little over the top.

I think this is an ironic reply. I hope.

Should the Navy whitelist Ebay and Amazon? What about the Walmart app? If Target has one should they then apply to get whitelisted? What about navy personal in other countries with their apps? What about popular app/game xyz? There are a million apps?

If all that has to be whitelisted the buerocratic overhead would be either really cumbersome or the value of an issued device so small, that people would buy and use their own devices anyways.

Do they need those apps to carry out their duties? If not, that should remain on personal devices and left in a secure location while on duty. There have been too many incidents of apps like Strava publishing locations that it's just not worth missing something important.

All the "apps" you mentioned should just be well designed web sites. No reason for an app.

Good point, we'll get the Navy right on that.

The point is that if you argue a soldier shouldn't have Target or Amazon on their phone, it's pointless, as they still have Safari or Chrome.

I'm not sure that's a complete argument.

If you're arguing that soldiers shouldn't do business with Target or Amazon on their mobile device, blocking an app won't get the job done, agreed.

But if the argument for blocking the app has to do with untrusted native code running on a device used for military purposes, the surface area of a browser is much smaller than the surface area of a plethora of native apps.

This is a work phone and people should have an extra cell phone for personal uses, and when they're at a government job with sensitive information they should be using their work phone. People who don't work with sensitive information or interesting responsibilities can use whatever phone they want if they don't mind totally forfeiting their privacy.

But eBay? Amazon? Walmart? Popular apps and games? Sure, get those whitelisted. Or are we thinking about maximizing the value proposition of a work phone at a government job?

> the bureaucratic overhead would be either really cumbersome or the value of <insert service> so small...

Oh, I see you are already familiar with how the U.S. government operates.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com