So David Meyer wrote this article based on another article which has already been RETRACTED.

Am I missing something here? How does one consider themself to be a journalist when they write articles based on information that has already been shown to be false?

Amateur journalism at it’s finest.

No, no it doesn’t, it actually means they haven’t been performed. To word this as simply as possible.. if you’re insinuating that the CESG performed a test and flunked BB10 then that would mean an evaluation ‘has been performed’. Either way, ‘has not been performed’ doesn’t mean ‘has been performed’ or ‘is being performed’, notice how the CESG didn’t use either of these combination of words? That’s because they’re saying that no evaluation has been done, meaning, there is no evaluation in progress or ever has been. Your example of running a race was horrible by the way. If one is running a race, people do not say, ‘the race has not yet been performed’ they say ‘the race is being performed’. Why? because ‘has not been performed’ doesn’t mean at all that something is ‘being performed’.

Last, like you showed, BB said this.
‘The current re-structuring of this approval process, due to the Government Protective Marking Scheme review and the new CESG Commercial Product Assurance scheme has an impact on the timeline for BlackBerry 10 to receive a similar level of approval’

Seriously, you went forever on the semantics of a word (which you got wrong anyways) yet you didn’t even look at this statement? This means, that the CESG is changing their security protocal for all mobile devices at the moment so all the rules are changing. This also means that since they’re changing their security standards they’re not going to be able to accept ANY new devices until their restructuring is complete, it’s that simple. It would simply be idiotic for someone who doesn’t even have all their security standards set to just look at something and stamp ‘approved’ on it regardless of the history of business.

Honestly, you’ve never worked in a field where you had to work with Q&A? Nevermind, I can tell just by looking at the article…

Furthermore, you seem to be confusing my suggestion that the *source* of the original article was on target with me saying the original article itself was on target. It was not: it stated categorically that the Z10 had been rejected outright, and that was incorrect.

Never read an article from David, dont think I will or maybe for a good laugh.

Bottom line in Jurnalism, CYA, and get your facts staight. Your BUSTED.

Re “So what’s going on here? If you look very carefully at the wording of the denials, the anonymous sources that informed the original article may well have been correct – it could still be the case that the Z10 flubbed a specific test, resulting in CESG going back to BlackBerry and asking them to fix the problem.”

This is more baseless innuendo, contradicted by facts in your own article. CESG clearly states:

“We have not yet performed an evaluation of the security of that platform.”

So, unless you feel CESG is lying (and if so, say so), how could BB10 fail a specific test if an evaluation had not even been performed yet? This is just more cheap journalism.

My best guess for what really happened is that someone, on the verge of the US Z10 launch, all eyes often, whispered into Charles Arthur’s ear (the Guardian “journalist” who broke this smear job), and Arthur was either too lazy or too corrupt to call CESG and verify the story.

Arthur hasn’t had the decency to issue a retraction. Do you?

.