Middle East questions get under RIM boss’s skin Research In Motion co-CEO Mike Lazaridis has terminated an interview with the BBC's Click programme when questioned about Blackberry security in the Middle East. The Blackberry boss was happy enough to talk up the company's new Playbook tablet machine. However, when asked about pressure from regimes to help wiretap Blackberry …
The issue is that RIM's security model is too good for many regimes in the world that want to be able to snoop on their citizens.
To be fair to the RIM CEO the question was unfairly phrased - The question implied insecurity was issue instead of RIM's security being too good.
"Can I turn now to the problems you've had in terms of security and the various arguments you've had with the Indian government and a number of governments in the Middle East: Is that anywhere near being sorted out".
This is an open question that gives the respondent the chance to answer in any number of ways, including saying "let's be clear, the arguments we've had with various governments has been over our technology being *too* secure".
Instead he through his toys out of his pram. He handled it badly, the interview was fine.
I don't think he could handle it in a good way.
Presumably they've given the regimes access, and can only sell product on the provision that they let the regime's citizens -think- they still have secure email.
Disclosing otherwise would lose RIM market share, so it's better for him* to evade the issue - at least, until the world sees blood on his hands when the next brutal crackdown occurs as a direct result of the false privacy.
Utterly lacking principle (though, a great capitalist :), it makes me want to puke.
*To be fair, he is legally obliged to chase shareholder value no matter what the externalised costs might be - i.e. pollution, low wages.. torture, watching their loved ones raped/killed.
Or have I missed something here?
If not then there is no issue and they are just a very commercially astute organisation - which they probably are - and have managed to convince ME despots that there subjects information cannot be accessed by them.... and give us some more business, please?
If they have given up the jewels then they will have done it for 'important' nations and we must ask if any in Europe are important enough?
... and he probably chose the wrong one. He's right that they don't have a security issue, he should have used the opportunity to turn the table around and say "well, we are happy that our products are very secure, and in fact a couple of countries find it too secure, which I'll take it as a compliment". That's what I would have said anyway, did he think that walking off an interview from the BBC would be a good PR stunt?
It still makes me laugh when people around suggest that exec jobs are hard and justify obscene salaries, because if running to mommy in the middle of an interview justifies a high salary, well I can do it for you for half the fee.
I think the answer is obvious, they gave into the governments in order to stay in business there but the question is so horribly phrased that I can see why he went ape on Cellan-Jones.
The biggest fail I think is Clicks reporting of this as it was written in a way that made it seem like Lazaridis when asked the question just said no answer this interview is over.
What SPECIFICALLY was unfair about how the question was phrased? Someone has quoted it in the thread above, it's an open question, and doesn't appear unfairly phrased.
Besides, a CEO should be able to handle any question, no matter how it was phrased. If they're unable to, they're in the wrong job.
Well the issue was one of security, the BBC didn't "bad" or "weak" or "compromised" security, they said security.
Him leaving in a hug huff that like just makes me conclude that they have given those government some kind of back doors, otherwise he could have just answered the question whilst correcting any errors he sees in the question.
To me his reaction was guilt eating at his soul.
(resubmitted due to essential typo needing correction)
When he gets asked the question, you can see him look over to his right and you can clearly hear a female voice (his PR rep ?) uttering a few words in a negative tone encouraging him to keep schtum and probably end the interview.
That's not to say he escapes blame, as he could of (and should have) overruled her and tried to put forward a counter-argument .... instead he acted as pet Poodle to the PR rep in the background.
Gangsters or spies having control over "expendable" assets can set up disposable offices with valid RIM servers. Exchange phony criminal-like messages that are nearly 100% plausible. Vary the schemes. Eventually, surveillance WILL arrive, near the homes, near the coffee shops the "employees" frequent. There may be "workmen" coming to repair the inside wiring that is owned and not under phone company control. There may be a sudden enhanced warranty checkup program for the washer and dryer or TV so that a spy can gain access to the premises and plant a few audio boosters that might serve as backup in case microwave fails or is gold-plating thwarted.
Then, the dull-aluminum rectangular, heat-sink-finned box wrapped around thick cable pole wiring or in the ground wiring will be messed with. It might, however, just be easier to shoot transceiver darts into the eaves or roofing if they can be made low-observable so roof repairs don't expose their existence.... (No, I'm not paranoid, but I do have a vivid imagination fueled by spy and defector books i read as a 1980's teen...
Of course, governments take security seriously, but when home invasions at the authority of state happen upon people who are not actually criminals, people have a right to know and have a right to upbraid, uppercut, or cut down an intruder. After all, one's abode is one's sanctuary. Sanctuary penetrated means you either act like your own life has value, or you let someone devalue it and lock you up anyway for having the temerity to question only after dealing with a lured or dispatched intruder.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
