Cheat Sheet: What in-house counsel need to know about bring-your-own-device policies
Bring-your-own-device, or BYOD, policies allow employees to use their personal technology, such as laptops, smartphones and tablets, in the workplace.
October 18, 2012 at 05:30 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Bring-your-own-device, or BYOD, policies allow employees to use their personal technology, such as laptops, smartphones and tablets, in the workplace. In InsideCounsel's October issue, we take a look at the benefits of putting such a policy in place, as well as the security challenges inherent in allowing employees to carry around company data.
Why have a BYOD policy?
Tech-savvy employees who are dissatisfied with the technology provided by the company may well prefer to use their own devices, and granting them this freedom could increase employee retention and productivity. The ability to access company data remotely provides enormous incentive for employees to stay plugged in to work while on the go.
What's the downside?
Letting data roam free in the pockets of employees presents a pretty significant security risk, one most companies aren't prepared to deal with. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers' 2012 Global State of Information Security Survey, only 43 percent of respondents' organizations had a security strategy for employee-owned devices.
What kind of policy is best?
There are many different approaches to take. Some companies work out Internet payment agreements with their employees. Some give employees a stipend with which to purchase the required devices. However a company decides to approach its policy, Brian Jackson, an attorney at Fisher & Phillips, advises employers to maintain ownership of the devices, to better protect company data.
Companies might also want to consider restricting employees' options to a selected list of approved devices. “It is nearly impossible to manage the thousands of potential operating systems and device configurations from a variety of manufacturers,” says Jim Guinn, managing director at PricewaterhouseCoopers.
How can companies protect their data on employee-owned devices?
First and foremost, companies should put in writing their right to access and protect data on devices employees use for work. Putting this in the employee handbook isn't enough—companies should draft stand-alone agreements specifically for this purpose. However, if an audit ends up being necessary, a company's IT department, or another third party unaffiliated with employment decisions should conduct it, in case personal information such as religious beliefs or disability status should surface during the audit. Keeping decision makers away from that kind of information can protect the company from potential discrimination claims down the line.
For added security, another option many companies are considering is having employees install mobile device management (MDM) software on any devices they use for work. This gives employers control over the device, allowing the company to wipe it clean of data if the device is lost or stolen.
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 AllGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Trending Stories
- 1NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 2A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 3Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
- 4State Bar of Georgia Presents Access to Justice Pro Bono Awards
- 5Tips For Creating Holiday Plans That Everyone Can Be Grateful For
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