Blackberry has decided to exit Pakistan by the end of 2015 rather than comply with government data retention requests:
Phone-maker Blackberry is to stop operating in Pakistan at the end of 2015 because of government requests to monitor customer data. The Pakistani government wanted to be able to monitor every message and email sent via its phones, it said. In a blogpost, it said it had decided to "exit the market altogether" over the row. It said Pakistan's demand was not to do with public safety but a request for "unfettered access".
In July, Pakistan's Telecommunications Authority told Blackberry the servers underpinning its messaging business would no longer be allowed to operate in the country, citing "security reasons". Marty Beard, chief operating officer at Blackberry, said the "truth" of the matter was Pakistan had wanted to look at all the traffic passing across its messaging servers but the phone company would not "comply with that sort of directive".
"Remaining in Pakistan would have meant forfeiting our commitment to protect our users' privacy. That is a compromise we are not willing to make," wrote Mr Beard.
This led Pakistan to tell Blackberry its servers could no longer operate in the country. Mr Beard said Blackberry did not support "backdoors" that would grant open access to customers' information and had never complied with such a request anywhere in the world.
Maybe they deserve more than a 0.5% share of the global smartphone market.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 01 2015, @11:11PM
In other news, Google plans to deepthroat the Chinese government. [arstechnica.com] Do no evil, LOL!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 02 2015, @06:59PM
And we're not talking Watergate, here!
(Score: 2) by Lunix Nutcase on Tuesday December 01 2015, @11:13PM
Maybe they deserve more than a 0.5% share of the global smartphone market.
Sure, let's go nuts and give them .6%.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Snow on Tuesday December 01 2015, @11:28PM
I still have a blackberry phone. Two actually. One for work, one personal one.
It's a love/hate thing. When you don't trust Google, and hate Apple, what do you do? I'd like to get the BB priv, but it's like $800, and I'm too cheap.
Seriously, other than the Blackphone (which is also ~$800), what other option do I have? A MS phone?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 01 2015, @11:54PM
There's always a tampon for your sandy vagina.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Subsentient on Tuesday December 01 2015, @11:58PM
Cartman: Don't worry, Kyle's just got a little sand in his vagina. Kyle: There's no sand in my vagina!
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 3, Informative) by stormwyrm on Wednesday December 02 2015, @01:29AM
Given how Microsoft seems like they've long been the bitch of the NSA, and how they seem hell-bent on spying on all of the users of all of their operating systems for whatever reason; they appear to be going so far as to backport all of the spyware they built for Windows 10 to their older OSes, I wonder why you'd think that an MS phone was some kind of viable alternative. I think your best bet is one of those phones for which Replicant [replicant.us] can be installed, which mostly appear to be Samsung phones which are around 2-3 generations behind. At least you have Free Software there which is maintained by a community that cares about privacy and security.
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 2) by Snow on Wednesday December 02 2015, @04:02AM
Thanks for the reply.
I think this (replicant) might be my next phone.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday December 02 2015, @12:44AM
When is Blackberry exiting the United States market then?
Last I checked, the NSA has unfettered and unrestricted access to all of our communications. Why am I to be impressed that they're putting their foot down in Pakistan, when the U.S Constitution is being abrogated at home?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @01:17AM
Because they have more marketshare there than in the US
(Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Wednesday December 02 2015, @01:52AM
So if they're only doing it because they can afford the hit, then I'm not going to be impressed from an idealism point of view.
The same reason they're leaving Pakistan equally applies to the U.S. If they cared about privacy for their U.S customers as a policy, then they would also pull out of the entire U.S market. Otherwise, it really just means they decided to not share the data with Pakistan, not that they took a moral position in the marketplace.
They're not deserving of any extra market share just over this, and those same attitudes aren't making it over to their U.S customers to help safeguard their privacy. It's a weak and impotent protest to pull out of the Pakistan market, but then stay in the U.S, and then just pathetic to crow about it like it was a good thing they did.
I guess I'm just too much of a misanthrope right? Yay! Blackberry! You did the thing! Not in my country, but you did the thing, and you said the words! Yay! On another note, I've given up eating bread and carbs... but only in Madagascar.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @02:10AM
Since you did not bother to RTFA let me point out the flaw in your jumping of the gun logic:
Now. Does the NSA have that level of access to BES' databases? I doubt it, and don't even try to mention the vacuuming of all Internet traffic. Even that would not scoop up a complete database unless it was being transmitted in whole unencrypted (or effectively so w/ weak encryption or personnel mistakes). Laws requiring the company assist law enforcement with criminal investigations and laws demanding complete, unfettered, unrestricted, and unlimited access to all company data are two completely different things. Put your tinfoil away please.
(Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Wednesday December 02 2015, @02:52AM
It's gathering dust in the drawer actually. I put it away after Snowden ;)
I agree too. Due process and mass surveillance are two completely different things. I also know that the NSA is doing the latter and not the former. Does the NSA have unfettered access to BES' databases? Yes, they do. They already have completely unfettered access to the other telecommunications carriers. Do you have some reason to believe that BB is an exception, and that NSA agents didn't visit their executives too?
Not only that, but the fight against mass surveillance failed. The government is busy making it completely legal to do what they already decided to do after 9/11. It's as if you think the FBI created their point-n-click surveillance and intercept platform (DCSNet) with the knowledge the data feeds would be dead or something.
I'm honestly bemused that you think BB is private from the U.S government, and that they're aren't directly allowing backdoors into their systems. It's standard operating procedure in the U.S, and most likely any Five-Eyes country as well.
What's not tin-foil hattery either is the direction of the FCC in regards to privacy and Internet based communications. Those "mediation switches" are really the Carnivore system in action, or an earlier version of the DCS system. It's completely legal because ostensibly there is due process.... but on the honor system. The FBI simply promises that they are running a warrant based intercept system, but it's no more solid than how Wall Street kept track of all the mortgage notes. The system isn't even setup to throw stops on warrant checks. It's truly just point, click, violate civil rights.
When the FCC finally classifies Internet based messaging and voice services the same way they do telephone conversations, then the "mediation switches" will expand into those platforms too officially in a very pervasive manner. Of course, every major telecommunications carrier is already participating in an industry wide push to integrate with DCSNet, and they're not waiting for the FBI to succeed in pushing their desired regulations into effect.
They even have in industry newsletter and regular meetings, all run by the FBI, in order to effect a more smooth transition to the new intercept platform, DSCNet.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @05:51AM
mod this way up
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by scarboni888 on Wednesday December 02 2015, @01:21AM
I bet the shareholders are like, totally happy with yet another BB decision to bleed out.
What are they an NGO now.
Corporations have one duty and one duty only: profit.
Leave the moralizing to others!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @01:28AM
Corporations have one duty and one duty only: profit
Nope, this is just a Oft-repeated false statement treated as fact. [nytimes.com]
(Score: 2) by Lunix Nutcase on Wednesday December 02 2015, @01:32AM
This notion that corporations are only about profit is not based in actual statutory or case law. This was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court just this year. It's just something blindly repeat who have no idea about corporate law. Corporations are perfectly free to "moralize" or pursue causes that don't make profit.
(Score: 4, Touché) by edIII on Wednesday December 02 2015, @02:21AM
Then you have absolutely no position to complain when the dystopian world you deserve starts to form around you (or more fully forms). To rephrase your statement:
The means to an end are always completely justifiable as long as there is profit at the end.
That statement is of course false, and deeply sociopathic. Aside from the blind allegiance to the Capitalistic ideals, you also promulgate the idea that corporations are somehow people, and not just people, but people not bound by morality or ethics. Capitalism itself isn't even that sociopathic, just the current implementation out of balance.
Corporations are made of People. People, do, and always will, have moral and ethical obligations to the world, society, and our progeny in general. While it sounds good to say that our idea of Freedom in the U.S. also encompasses the freedom to be a sociopathic greedy fucking butthead (aka The right of Assholery), it follows from simple common sense to not allow the assholes any real influences. It also follows from common sense that a room that is being operated by assholes tends to be not so fun, and inevitably destroys itself, and everyone leaves the room. We've been letting these particular assholes run the U.S for 60 years now into the ground, while also taking the entire world with it via a willfully ignorant rush towards climate change disaster.
No. Corporations have many duties.... because people do. So I'm going to with a complete and total fuck-your-bullshit-concepts since that is exactly the mentality of the Johnson & Johnson executives when faced with the realization of the incomprehensible damage they did to a farm and its family. Corporations only have one duty... to profit....more profits will be made by continuing to harm/kill people instead of stopping.... so we continue to harm/kill until profits say otherwise. That's exactly what Johnson & Johnson executives are guilty of, and it was precisely because they, like you, believed a corporation has only one duty: profit.
Congratulations. In a rather foolish fashion you're supporting a Magic 8 ball for companies that is locked into. "Profits say Yes!" and "Profits say No!". Well don't be too surprised when the question was, "Do we really have to respect Scarboni888 as a human being?", and it answers.... Profits say No!!!!
I can see you saying that I've simply taken things to far and corporations aren't allowed to do such evil things, but my immediate question is how? Ahhh.... regulations right? Which may loosely be considered the "moralization of others", which directly means, "A corporation has many duties, of which, the least is to make a profit". If Exxon executives in the early 80's thought beyond your concept, then maybe, just maybe, they may have been more cautious and cooperative with determining a different outcome for our progeny. The current being: Brutal death of our civilization and another mass extinction event for our planet. Where will your profits be then? In the grand scheme of things, the concept of profit-at-all-costs simply couldn't survive long term any better than a virus.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 02 2015, @03:19AM
Spying is not good for a privacy-oriented company's bottom line.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday December 02 2015, @01:22AM
Didn't Blackberry already cave to several foreign governments five or ten years ago? What's different about this that makes them leave the country? Am I remembering incorrectly?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @01:52AM
No, you're right. Blackberry allows Saudi Arabia, India, and apparently the UAE, to monitor its customers. All had threatened to ban Blackberry phones.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/07/blackberrysaudi-arabia-de_n_674621.html [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.zdnet.com/article/indias-blackberry-monitoring-system-ready-for-use/ [zdnet.com]
http://www.cnet.com/news/rim-averts-blackberry-ban-in-uae/?_escaped_fragment_=#! [cnet.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by kbahey on Wednesday December 02 2015, @03:04AM
The truth is that Pakistan has announced back in July that BlackBerry will be shut down in the country by December
Pakistan to shut down BlackBerry services by December over 'security' [reuters.com].
BlackBerry is trying to make this look like a principled stance. But my gut feel is that they are leaving an small or unprofitable market that they have been pushed out of, and making it look like they care for customers, and all that ...
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning [2bits.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @07:13PM
Yes, that's in the summary.
With around 200 million people, I wouldn't call Pakistan a small market. Perhaps the expense of allowing the interception is one reason for Blackberry's decision. They make it sound as though the level of access Pakistan demanded is greater than what India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Indonesia asked for and got.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Gravis on Wednesday December 02 2015, @05:35AM
Maybe they deserve more than a 0.5% share of the global smartphone market.
oh how quickly people forget the past. [bbc.com]
they will give that ability to any government. just because they draw the line at backdoors doesn't change anything.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 02 2015, @12:22PM
I was given several children of FOB's (Friends of Bill) from Pakistan as interns in my department. They were all from the elite of the elite there. They were all completely in love with their Blackberries, to the point where they scarcely knew iPhones existed. I bet they're going to be giving their parents an earful over Pakistan's move.
Washington DC delenda est.