Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
Wait a second, I'm pretty sure that Walker was said to have had an eidetic memory on the programs on him that are run on the History Channel. Blocking cameras only blocks poor spies, similar to TJR's comment.
Anyone with an iPhone?
- Thread starter Tom Schindler
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
I never meant to debate the need.
What about my suggestions of rendering the camera useless without cracking the iPhone case?
Do you think that would pass security scrutiny?
Personally, if I were a security person I would rather see some "externally visibile camera disablement", then what you are describing. The reason I say that is rather simple. Yes, you could have the camera chip removed from your iPhone, and yes, then the security dept could inspect your iPhone and possibly even put a sticker on it that says it has passed inspection. But, unless they put just such a sticker on your iPhone, what's to keep you from replacing your inspected iPhone with one that hasn't been modified? I guess the sticker would be the only thing keeping you from doing that, right? Then it would have to be a tamper-proof sticker, lest you just transfer it to another iPhone, right? And, if it is a tamper-proof sticker...why not just have your security dept put the tamper proof sticker over the camera lense?
Yeah, yeah, I'm over thinking this. But then again, having worked for the IT security task force for the IBM Research Division for a few years makes me think at a level a little above that of the normal security desk jockey.
TJR
I never meant to debate the need.
What about my suggestions of rendering the camera useless without cracking the iPhone case?
Do you think that would pass security scrutiny?
Personally, if I were a security person I would rather see some "externally visibile camera disablement", then what you are describing. The reason I say that is rather simple. Yes, you could have the camera chip removed from your iPhone, and yes, then the security dept could inspect your iPhone and possibly even put a sticker on it that says it has passed inspection. But, unless they put just such a sticker on your iPhone, what's to keep you from replacing your inspected iPhone with one that hasn't been modified? I guess the sticker would be the only thing keeping you from doing that, right? Then it would have to be a tamper-proof sticker, lest you just transfer it to another iPhone, right? And, if it is a tamper-proof sticker...why not just have your security dept put the tamper proof sticker over the camera lense?
Yeah, yeah, I'm over thinking this. But then again, having worked for the IT security task force for the IBM Research Division for a few years makes me think at a level a little above that of the normal security desk jockey.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
No. The rule is no camera. Covering it up is not acceptable.
Work for the DoD, then you will understand.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
Respectfully consider what I am trying to say/ask. I'm not trying to be difficult.
Again, once your iPhone has no camera and it is "okayed" by your security department, what prevents you from bringing in another iPhone that hasn't been modified?
As for your other point ("Work for the DoD, then you will understand."), why do you assume I haven't? Regardless, I'll never understand "feel good" security measures that don't actually make sense or secure anything, and I hopefully won't ever stop questioning them. The reason I am asking my question is to understand if the "rule" you are describing will actually secure anything. If it doesn't, then it's every employee and contractor's responsiblity to question it...right?
TJR
Respectfully consider what I am trying to say/ask. I'm not trying to be difficult.
Again, once your iPhone has no camera and it is "okayed" by your security department, what prevents you from bringing in another iPhone that hasn't been modified?
As for your other point ("Work for the DoD, then you will understand."), why do you assume I haven't? Regardless, I'll never understand "feel good" security measures that don't actually make sense or secure anything, and I hopefully won't ever stop questioning them. The reason I am asking my question is to understand if the "rule" you are describing will actually secure anything. If it doesn't, then it's every employee and contractor's responsiblity to question it...right?
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know if the security department would OK an iPhone with the camera removed. I could sneak a camera phone into the facility. I could also sneak my gun into the plant. Of course, I obey the rules so I don't.
If I am busted with a camera, I face more than the security department. The FBI and jail time follows that.
I plan on following the rules, that is why I am trying to get input on the iPhone before I contact the security chief.
Tom
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
Walker used a lot of different methods to steal/sell classified material. He mostly just flat out walked out with it, because the practice of Two Person Integrity (TPI) wasn't established until after he was busted. He was a COMSEC Material Security (CMS) custodian, so his primary job was being in charge of all of the cryptographic material (i.e. codes) for encrypting communications. In those days, a lot of it was on punch tapes and cards. So he'd just load up his briefcase and walk out with it, without anyone questioning him or inspecting his bags prior to exiting the building.
A lot of lessons were learned after the Walker incident, and major changes were made with regard to handling/storing classified material. Is the system perfect? No, but these measures were enacted to prevent/discourage future incidents. But, as TJR said, if somebody wants to steal classified material, they're going to find a way (See Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, and others in the last 25 years).
A lot of lessons were learned after the Walker incident, and major changes were made with regard to handling/storing classified material. Is the system perfect? No, but these measures were enacted to prevent/discourage future incidents. But, as TJR said, if somebody wants to steal classified material, they're going to find a way (See Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, and others in the last 25 years).
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
I gotcha. Still, I'd present to the security chief at least two options:
1) iPhone with camera chip completely removed or internally disabled, physically (which is what you were asking about).
2) iPhone with camera lens securely and physically covered in a tamper-proof manner.
If I were the security chief, I would rather opt for #2, because it allows for quick, visual inspection to verify compliance. #1 does not.
TJR
I gotcha. Still, I'd present to the security chief at least two options:
1) iPhone with camera chip completely removed or internally disabled, physically (which is what you were asking about).
2) iPhone with camera lens securely and physically covered in a tamper-proof manner.
If I were the security chief, I would rather opt for #2, because it allows for quick, visual inspection to verify compliance. #1 does not.
TJR
Security chief can only look at customer requirements and go from there. Customer says "No camera's allowed". So if you "cover" the lens, you have a camera with a lens cover. If you remove the camera, you do not have a camera.
Pretty cut and dry to me.
Tom
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
I guess I'm a little confused/unclear regarding your intent/"need". For what exactly are you wanting to use an iPhone that you can't already do with the iPod Touch at work? Are you streaming music with it? If so, are you connecting wirelessly to your employer's network to do so? If that's the case, I'm surprised that they would allow your iPod on the network, as it wouldn't be an authorized, secured device.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you record audio on an iPhone? If so, then I would think that the ability to record audio would make it just as taboo in classified spaces as being equipped with camera.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have been listening to Pandora on my iPod Touch while at home. I would like to have it in the car. I do not want satellite radio.
I am not connecting to the internet at work with my iPod Touch. Now that I read my comment over and over, I see where it can be confusing. What I was trying to say is that..
I am missing connectivity after I leave a hotspot or while I am at work.
I am not sure. Most cell phone today, even cheapie ones, can record audio. I could also call my voicemail on my phone and let it record.
My original question is to gather as much feedback about an iPhone BEFORE I contact the security department to inquire about having one.
So, those that have an iPhone. How does the 3G work with iheartradio and Pandora?
Tom
I am not connecting to the internet at work with my iPod Touch. Now that I read my comment over and over, I see where it can be confusing. What I was trying to say is that..
I am missing connectivity after I leave a hotspot or while I am at work.
I am not sure. Most cell phone today, even cheapie ones, can record audio. I could also call my voicemail on my phone and let it record.
My original question is to gather as much feedback about an iPhone BEFORE I contact the security department to inquire about having one.
So, those that have an iPhone. How does the 3G work with iheartradio and Pandora?
Tom
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
Gotcha.:supercool: Thanks for clarifying!:grin:
Very true. So if you work in a classified environment, I'm surprised that they let you bring a cell phone of any kind into work, iPhone or otherwise. I'd think that they'd tell you to leave it in the car and not bring it in the building at all. That was the policy at every classified place at which I worked in the USN. And that was prior to 2006, when cameras on phones were nowhere near as prevalent as they are now.
Very true. So if you work in a classified environment, I'm surprised that they let you bring a cell phone of any kind into work, iPhone or otherwise. I'd think that they'd tell you to leave it in the car and not bring it in the building at all. That was the policy at every classified place at which I worked in the USN. And that was prior to 2006, when cameras on phones were nowhere near as prevalent as they are now.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
I'm not trying to be argumentative, really.
Customer says: "No Cameras Allowed". I get that. That's cut and dry.
Clearly walking around the facility with a 35mm camera dangling from your neck would be an issue. I get that. Again, cut and dry.
Walking around with a smartphone that has had it's camera removed has one walking around without a camera, per say. So, I sort of get that.
But, would you be allowed to walk around with a 35mm camera dangling from your neck if its guts were removed? Probably not. That would probably be considered insecure, if for no other reason than it can easily be confused with a working camera and therefore cause issues and concerns.
But if we agree with all this so far, then how exactly is walking around the facility with a hacked iPhone any different than walking around the facility with a 35mm camera with no guts?
If I was head of security and was going to allow people to walk around the facility with 35mm cameras, I'd opt to allow them walk around with tamper-proof tape over the lense instead of allowing them to walk around with cameras that had their guts removed. Again, because I can quickly, readily visually inspect one versus the other (even at a distance) and be sure they can't take pictures.
Essentially once they allow something in the door that "was once a camera", then the whole regulation of "No Cameras Allowed" is up for discussion/modification; IMHO.
TJR
I'm not trying to be argumentative, really.
Customer says: "No Cameras Allowed". I get that. That's cut and dry.
Clearly walking around the facility with a 35mm camera dangling from your neck would be an issue. I get that. Again, cut and dry.
Walking around with a smartphone that has had it's camera removed has one walking around without a camera, per say. So, I sort of get that.
But, would you be allowed to walk around with a 35mm camera dangling from your neck if its guts were removed? Probably not. That would probably be considered insecure, if for no other reason than it can easily be confused with a working camera and therefore cause issues and concerns.
But if we agree with all this so far, then how exactly is walking around the facility with a hacked iPhone any different than walking around the facility with a 35mm camera with no guts?
If I was head of security and was going to allow people to walk around the facility with 35mm cameras, I'd opt to allow them walk around with tamper-proof tape over the lense instead of allowing them to walk around with cameras that had their guts removed. Again, because I can quickly, readily visually inspect one versus the other (even at a distance) and be sure they can't take pictures.
Essentially once they allow something in the door that "was once a camera", then the whole regulation of "No Cameras Allowed" is up for discussion/modification; IMHO.
TJR
The customer says what is or isn't allowed. It is up to security to enforce it.
You can think all you want but if the customer says "no cameras", it doesn't matter what makes sense. The customer said "no cameras". There will be no cameras.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen said:
Alright. With that said, then no iPhones should be allowed under any circumstances per the customer requirement which security must enforce.
I say that because any responsible head of security wouldn't allow iPhones onsite because they are cameras by definition. Allowing them, even if the cameras were disabled/removed, is no different then allowing 35mm cameras onsite that have no film or have their guts removed as they both present the opportunity for confusion, abuse, and therefore represent security exposures.
You said you are going to go to the security chief with hat in hand asking for some allowances to the customer rule. I was simply trying to describe what I felt would be another (addtional) option that would be in everyone's best interest, including the customer.
IMHO, what I describe (tamper-proof tape over the iPhone camera lense) is more secure and safeguards the customer better than allowing iPhones onsite that have their camera's removed. Neither of those options, however, IMHO, fits within the customer edict of "No Cameras". My point, if you are going to ask for an allowance why not provide several options because who know which one the often illogical customer or security folk will think is best.
When technology changes in such a way as to make old rules and old laws no longer serve their intended purposes, then its time to consider changing those rules/laws.
TJR
Alright. With that said, then no iPhones should be allowed under any circumstances per the customer requirement which security must enforce.
I say that because any responsible head of security wouldn't allow iPhones onsite because they are cameras by definition. Allowing them, even if the cameras were disabled/removed, is no different then allowing 35mm cameras onsite that have no film or have their guts removed as they both present the opportunity for confusion, abuse, and therefore represent security exposures.
You said you are going to go to the security chief with hat in hand asking for some allowances to the customer rule. I was simply trying to describe what I felt would be another (addtional) option that would be in everyone's best interest, including the customer.
IMHO, what I describe (tamper-proof tape over the iPhone camera lense) is more secure and safeguards the customer better than allowing iPhones onsite that have their camera's removed. Neither of those options, however, IMHO, fits within the customer edict of "No Cameras". My point, if you are going to ask for an allowance why not provide several options because who know which one the often illogical customer or security folk will think is best.
When technology changes in such a way as to make old rules and old laws no longer serve their intended purposes, then its time to consider changing those rules/laws.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Frank Marano
Well-Known Member
Ive had my iphone for 6 months now and I love it. :love: I basically can not live without it....it contains my life,:boohoo: which is pathetic, but the iphone does so much. I use Pandora mainly when I am in the shower or at home. Of course it works well with my wifi connection. I have used it on occasion out and about. My whole city is 3G and it works well. No skips or anything. When you are off the 3G network, Pandora doesnt work so well it will take longer to connect and have skips in the song when it is trying to connect.. When the iphone is on AT&T's EDGE network, the internet is a tick slower but not much. It also depends on what model and processor your iphone has too just as a computer, with the 3Gs being faster then the 3G models.
As far as having the camera removed, I would guess you aren't the first person to own a iphone or blackberry at your place of employment but I would definitely contact Apple to ask if removing anything other then the camera software is against the warranty. They are super strict with their warranties, especially if you mess with the equipment.
and as a side note, I use Bo's companies app, Dragon Dictation....it works awesome.:supercool:
As far as having the camera removed, I would guess you aren't the first person to own a iphone or blackberry at your place of employment but I would definitely contact Apple to ask if removing anything other then the camera software is against the warranty. They are super strict with their warranties, especially if you mess with the equipment.
and as a side note, I use Bo's companies app, Dragon Dictation....it works awesome.:supercool:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Fmarano,
Agreed, I said that in my first post. Be careful about voiding the warranty IF that is something that concerns you. Many aren't concerned about that.
Agreed, I said that in my first post. Be careful about voiding the warranty IF that is something that concerns you. Many aren't concerned about that.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Fmarano,
Agreed, I said that in my first post. Be careful about voiding the warranty IF that is something that concerns you. Many aren't concerned about that.
Agreed, I said that in my first post. Be careful about voiding the warranty IF that is something that concerns you. Many aren't concerned about that.
Roger Batts
Well-Known Member
If you're wanting an iPhone without the camera, your best bet would be to contact AT&T or Apple and see if they offer one. That way, you don't have to hassle with having the phone disassembled and possibly voiding your warranty.
Gavin Allan
Well-Known Member
Sprint has blackberries with no camera. Same price.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Gavin,
It seems Caymen is really into the iPad and the synergy he will get with also having an iPhone. Apple makes great products. A Blackberry can't compare if what one is looking for is seamless integration with the iPad.
TJR
It seems Caymen is really into the iPad and the synergy he will get with also having an iPhone. Apple makes great products. A Blackberry can't compare if what one is looking for is seamless integration with the iPad.
TJR
