The privacy and security concerns of BYOD
As more employees use their own mobile devices for work, experts offer tips to protect data
September 23, 2012 at 08:00 PM
6 minute read
The growing BYOD trend doesn't mean employees are bringing their own drinks to work, but it is giving their employers headaches. That's because employee use of personal devices such as smartphones and iPads in the workplace, dubbed bring-your-own-device (BYOD), is raising privacy and security concerns.
Companies started flirting with the idea of employees selecting, purchasing and managing their own devices in 2010 as tech-savvy young employees became dissatisfied with the less-sophisticated devices their employers often provided, according to media reports. The trend took hold in 2011, as CIOs realized BYOD would increase employee retention and productivity, according to a 2011 survey by technology company Citrix Inc.
“When some companies prohibited the use of Facebook at work, many employees left those companies. Now companies openly advertise that they are 'Facebook friendly.' BYOD presents a similar issue,” says Dave Walton, a Cozen O'Connor member.
The rapid adoption of mobile devices and applications that support business has immense potential to increase productivity. Easier connection to company networks and the use of cloud computing allow users to access company data from remote locations, Walton says.
But companies' security policies haven't kept pace with the growth of BYOD. “Only 43 percent of respondents to PwC's 2012 Global State of Information Security Survey said that their organization has implemented a security strategy for use of employee-owned devices. And only 27 percent of U.S. respondents in a 2011 Gartner survey believed their mobile security was adequate to pass an audit,” says Jim Guinn, managing director at PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), a professional services firm.
Now, many corporations are scrambling to install policies and procedures to maximize the benefits and mitigate the risks of BYOD. In-house counsel need to consider drafting employee agreements affirming the company's right to access information stored on these devices.
“Companies ask us for guidance on what they should include in their BYOD policies, but determining best practices is significantly premature in a developing mobile market,” Guinn says.
Managing BYOD
Companies are taking many different approaches to managing BYOD.
For example, some companies let employees use their existing personal devices for work with varying agreements for payment of monthly Internet charges. Others give employees stipends to purchase the devices they want. Some do both. Another approach is buying employees' personal devices for a token amount and agreeing to sell them back at the same price when employees leave the company.
Legal ownership of devices may determine how far employers can go in protecting company data on these devices, says Brian Jackson, a Fisher & Phillips attorney who counsels employers on workplace policies. Jackson recommends that companies maintain ownership of devices while allowing employees to select them.
Regardless of who owns the devices, providing technical support and security for all possible devices poses a problem.
“It is nearly impossible to manage the thousands of potential operating systems and device configurations from a variety of manufacturers,” Guinn says. One solution is to restrict employees to selecting devices from an approved list.
Security Safeguards
Many companies are requiring employees to install mobile device management [MDM] software on their personally owned devices, giving employers control over the device. In the event a device is lost or stolen, corporations may wipe all data from the device. Some MDMs use GPS to track the location of devices, which helps determine whether a device is lost rather than stolen before initiating a remote lock or wipe.
Clarifying Rights
To avoid potential privacy challenges from employees, the company should clearly state its right to access and protect data on devices.
“An employer should state these rights and privileges not in employee handbooks but in carefully drafted stand-alone agreements written in plain English,” Jackson says.
Potential issues regarding company access to or deletion of personal data can be anticipated in such agreements.
Employees who participate in BYOD programs should be required to sign such binding agreements before being allowed to access company resources with their personal devices. Although there is no bright-line legal rule (see “Legal Limbo”), this may be helpful should an employee later challenge an employer's access of his personal device. “The informed and written consent of an employee to an audit should survive a later challenge,” says Jackson.
IT departments or third-party vendors that have no contact with those who make employment decisions should conduct audits of personal devices, Jackson recommends. Otherwise, personal information uncovered during an audit identifying an employee as disabled or revealing his religious beliefs could become the basis for a discrimination claim if that employee is later subject to an adverse employment action. Showing that the decision maker could not have had access to such information would provide a good defense to an intentional discrimination claim, Jackson says.
Legal Limbo
Although employment attorneys recommend stand-alone agreements with employees outlining the company's right to access data on personal devices used at work to protect against privacy claims, there is no legal authority on the bring-your-own-device (BYOD) privacy issue.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
How Qualcomm’s General Counsel Is Championing Diversity in Innovation
6 minute readRepublican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
4 minute readFTC Lauds Withdrawal of Proposed Indiana Hospitals Merger After Leaning on State Regulators
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250