Technology: 6 steps to strengthen company smartphone security
Every minute in the U.S., 113 smartphones are lost or stolen
August 31, 2012 at 05:30 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Every minute in the U.S., 113 smartphones are lost or stolen. That comes to an estimated 30 million smartphones lost or stolen in the U.S. per year with potentially as much as 10 percent of the population losing a smartphone. What does that mean for your company's confidential information and communications? Certainly you have communicated about sensitive topics with people within your company, or with outside counsel on your smartphone. Are the communications you have with those individuals properly protected should you or your attorneys be one of the people so unfortunate as to misplace a smartphone?
Attorneys have an ethical obligation to protect client confidences and communications. However, for most attorneys and law firms smartphones appear to be an after-thought. If someone got ahold of an attorney's smartphone, that person could have access to documents with sensitive company data or emails with confidential communications. Below are some steps you can take to reduce the risk that your company's sensitive information will be accessed by others through a lost or stolen smartphone.
- Require password protection for smartphones. Your company should require all of its attorneys, including outside counsel, to have a password protection system on smartphones used for business purposes. There are many apps available—some are very basic, while others are more advanced.
- Basic security. Most smartphones are equipped with the basic security option of setting a pin number to lock the device. This is sufficient to keep the kids off of the smartphone; however, it is insufficient protection against more sophisticated users and hackers.
- Better security. Products are available which require more sophisticated passwords than a four-digit pin. These apps require a longer password with various characters, similar to what most companies now require for desktop passwords. Taking it a step further, there are apps that will wipe the smartphone clean of data if the password is incorrectly entered too many times.
- Best security. The top of the line security products allow the user to lock the smartphone and SIM card remotely, wipe important information from the smartphone and activate the internal GPS to locate the lost or stolen smartphone. These systems are a bit more costly and often come with an annual or monthly fee, but are generally simple to install and receive live updates. Probably a cost well worth it when an attorney considers the cost of sensitive information falling into the wrong hands.
- Other options. Dual level passwords are also available for smartphones. With this type of system, your can have a password protection system to unlock the smartphone itself, but then require a second password to gain access to specific types of functions, such as email. Smartphone encryption apps are also available for text messages, email and other critical communications.
- Conduct security audits of outside firms. You should ask your outside counsel what security measures, policies and procedures the firm has established to protect client confidences on smartphones. This can be as simple as asking the attorney contact at the firm, or as involved as conducting a full security audit of the firm. Basic computer security audit checklists are available for free online, and can provide you with a starting place for developing questions you should ask the law firms that conduct work for your company. Moreover, you can further ensure smartphone security by adding a section to the fee agreement regarding your expectations for such security related to your company's communications and documents with attorneys in that firm.
With some planning and the installation of some simple applications, you can avoid any uncomfortable conversations with your legal counsel regarding the loss of or access to sensitive information, and reduce the risk of sensitive information falling into the wrong hands.
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 AllRecent Layoff/Callback Litigation Underscores Perils Employers Face From Every Direction
5 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
In-House Gurus Say Inattention to Human Side of Tech Adoption Can Derail Best-Laid Plans
5 minute readNike Promotes Legal Chief to Marketing Chief as New CEO Launches Turnaround
Trending Stories
- 1Wilson Sonsini Knocks Out Claims Against Inhibrx Biosciences in Trade Secrets Verdict
- 2Pass Rate on California's July 2024 Bar Exam Ticks Up to 53.8%
- 3TEST TEST
- 4$5.5M Miami Verdict: Meet the Lawyers Behind the Slip-and-Fall Suit
- 5Dropping a Client Like a 'Hot Potato'
- 6Cobb County Says Over 3K Absentee Ballots Mailed Late, Just Days Before Election
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