IBM bans Siri – and probably for good reason

IBM bans Siri over security concerns, according to a new report. Behind IBM ban: Siri queries are stored in unknown place and manner.

A user accesses Siri on his Apple iPhone 4S.

Siri: Beloved by Zooey Deschanel and John Malkovich. Not so beloved by IBM

In an interview with MIT's Technology Review, IBM CIO Jeanette Horan revealed that Siri, Apple's voice-activated personal assistant app, is banned on IBM-issued iPhones. The reason IBM bans Siri? The company has no control over where or how the spoken queries are stored. "We're just extraordinarily conservative," Horan told a reporter with the Technology Review. "It's the nature of our business."

Also banned, according to the Review: iCloud, Apple's file-storage system. IBM employees, the Technology Review reports, "use an IBM-hosted version called MyMobileHub." 

The Siri brouhaha has received a good deal of buzz this week, although as Ars Technica staffer Jacqui Cheng notes, the move by IBM is not particularly shocking. "Apple doesn't make it clear whether it stores that data," she writes, "for how long, or who has access to it" – a bright red flag for any organization concerned about maintaining control over trade secrets. In fact, Cheng continues, what is truly surprising is that the ban is not more widespread. 

"It appears that not many companies have joined IBM in forbidding the use of Siri for security purposes," she writes. "I asked on Twitter whether anyone else's companies have a similar policy, and received extremely few responses saying yes. The only people—so far—who have acknowledged any kind of Siri policy were government workers and some school employees. Most said their employers had not yet added Siri to their list of forbidden technologies."

It's worth noting here that with the rise of "bring your own device" policies – BYOD, for short – we'll likely see a whole lot more of this kind of kerfuffle. 

For more tech news, follow us on Twitter @venturenaut

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to