The SCIF is a fixed location, your point doesn't make sense/doesn't apply here. Nobody was stopping her from using a standard Blackberry outside of that facility (and she was, according to the article).

Just because it's a fixed location doesn't mean employees in that fixed locations should be fixtures.

Actually, the usual approach to information security in a SAPF/SCIF is that computing resources are fixtures.

Then deploy RJ-45 into conference rooms and give staff laptops without WiFi. That maintains operational security and allows people to move around.

Then get her a laptop and she can use that all the time. Then train her how to use the laptop so she does not have use other devices.

The issue is that the NSA didn't want to deal with managing remote devices. So the laptop would be no better than a BB.

Imagine all the previous people in that position who were incapable of properly doing their jobs because they had no personal computer with which to receive secured information.

Imagine all the previous people in that position who were incapable of properly doing their jobs because they had no fax machine with which to receive secured information.

Imagine all the previous people in that position who were incapable of properly doing their jobs because they had no telephone with which to receive secured information.

Times change, and so does the technology required for the position.

It says in the article that Condaleeza Rice + staff were authorized for BB use whilst SecState, but the grant of that was withdrawn for Clinton.

It wasn't withdrawn for Clinton, it was withdrawn for the devices themselves. The NSA decided the potential consequences for a baseband compromise within a SCIF was too high risk.

Honestly I suspect their policy is "no wireless devices within the SCIF period." From wireless keyboards, to cellphones, to WiFi, and beyond. The black phone might be authorised but I suspect that is due to operational importance (e.g. calls vital to national security).

And John Kerry was given a gov't BB as secretary of state.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/09/30/john-kerr...

As others have said in an attempt to refute my comment, times change.

The world is a different place now than it was when those people were in that position, it's hardly a good comparison. Everything moves faster today and the Secretary of State should be able to along with it.

Would you be able to be good at your job if you were only able to check email once a day? I sure couldn't, but 15 years ago that's how often I checked it.

I could do my job quite well if I had a staff that could check it for me at the location dictated by security and then inform me over secure channels of anything that required my attention.

You realize that "over secure channels" doesn't include email, cell phone, or remote site based on this very article?

So, in this modern age those are the only secure channels to communicate with?

I mean - if you go back enough, this problem doesn't exist. It's a growing problem - I'd imagine there were plenty of secretary of state's before who didn't use technology/where technology wasn't available.