Sounds to me like he misunderstood the question and assumed the Beeb were implying there's a serous security issue with the Blackberry device itself, when the question was actually about the "security" concerns of certain countries in which Blackberrys are sold.
At the very end of the clip, Lazaridis says in closing the interview: "this [the topic being discussed] is a national security issue". He knew exactly what was being asked; and even if the phrasing was better, he'd have given the same reaction.
You should consider the possibility that if RIM are giving this type of access to India and the Middle East, then what other countries have this type of access?
If he had answered Rory's question, would something like the one I asked above be the followup?
Indeed, using "National Security Issue" seems more like a smokescreen in this case. RIM has bent over and opened their backdoor to various governments, and this CEO is trying hard to evade going on record about the issue.
It's entirely possible I'm in the minority on this, but the following (theatrical, paraphrased, artistic-liberty-ized) conversation implies that there is a serious security issue with Blackberry devices:
India: Give us access to your secure messaging service.
RIM: Okay.
But to be fair to RIM, the conversation seems to have been more like:
India: Give us access to your secure messaging service
RIM: Sorry, that isn't technically possible
India: Give us access to your secure messaging service
RIM: Sorry, that isn't technically possible
India: Give us access to your secure messaging service or we'll cut you off
RIM: OK, we'll do everything we can
Fair enough, but the end result is still that the "security" of the system is rather different than what most people think it is. "Just your friends see BBM" versus "Just your friends, and RIM, and the government of India, and - oh hell, let's be honest - probably any other government that asks sufficiently impolitely as well, see BBM."
I thought the way the first question was worded was intentionally misleading. The interviewers second try was better, but at that point, I think they had already soured the interview.
I also think that the issue was dealt with, and the countries who had threatened to shutdown RIM, are no longer posturing, so it is kind of like bringing up old bad news for no reason, when the company is really there to promote the Playbook and show of their tech, not delve into an old issue that has been resolved, and answer questions that have been answered already.
I'd feel differently if this was an ongoing issue, but a google search shows that this was an issue last summer, and doesn't appear to really have come up since. That's just bringing back bad news which has no bearing on today.
All things considered, does RIM actually want people talking about the PlayBook? If it's positive, I'm sure they don't mind, but given that the thing doesn't actually exist yet (right?) I dont see them gaining much ground on the PlayBook PR front until they ship.
It's only retreading old ground if the resolution is public knowledge. As mentioned elsewhere in this topic, RIM has never given any info as to what the final result of all that pressure was - I do think it's legitimate to ask essentially whether blackberry usage in those countries is compromised.
No. He knew exactly what the question was about, and what it was regarding. Their was no misunderstanding there. He didn't appreciate the word choice because characterizing it as a security issue implies certain things. But no, he knew exactly what he was being asked.
Sure, the initial question was poorly worded, but he's not a stupid man.
He may not be stupid, but governments harass companies all the time and put them into situations they don't want to be. RIM is not special, and being in an interview you get asked questions you don't want to answer. He definately could've played along and answered it. But that may just be my Dutch/European directness.
