Let me spell it clearly for you since you obviously need a step-by-step critical reading analysis to understand why I believe IBM is out of line here. My problem starts and ends here (about 6 paragraphs up from the bottom of
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/40324/):
"The IT crew also disables public file-transfer programs like Apple's iCloud; instead, employees use an IBM-hosted version called MyMobileHub. IBM even turns off Siri, the voice-activated personal assistant, on employees' iPhones. The company worries that the spoken queries might be stored somewhere."
1) Do a Google search for news pieces building off this article, these two sentences are the highlights for most. As I said earlier, just mentioning these words are enough to add to the public consciousness.
2) You could remove these two sentences and not affect the story what so ever.
3) Not only does it say that Apple's iCloud service is inadequate for their use, they state an in-house version as being the supported version. Why not simply say we no longer allow Apple's iCloud service?
4) They take it a step further by also specifically calling out Siri.
5) A company like IBM does not "worry" about things. They analyze and make a decision. Stating that they worry about the spoken queries being stored elsewhere (as if they didn't already know that -- Wired was quick to point out that the information is indeed stored), further causes me to question their motive.