Uber Employees Might Bring Their Own Devices. Should Other Companies Have BYOD?
Former Uber Technologies Inc. CEO Travis Kalanick indicated recently that the company may allow personal laptops at work. One device that potentially…
August 30, 2017 at 04:24 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Former Uber Technologies Inc. CEO Travis Kalanick indicated recently that the company may allow personal laptops at work. One device that potentially made it inside Uber's campus came from self-driving car engineer Anthony Levandowski, whose digital files are currently at the center of Uber's dispute over driverless car technology with Alphabet Inc. subsidiary Waymo.
Uber is not the first and it certainly won't be the last company to have personal devices in the office. It's a growing trend that's all but impossible to fight, according to in-house lawyers, making it all the more important to protect against the risks.
Kalanick's revelation came in a July 27 deposition, released earlier this month in the company's lawsuit with Waymo. Asked whether he knew that Levandowski took a personal laptop to work, Kalanick said he was not aware of this because he's “not in the weeds of that kind of stuff.” The ex-CEO went on to say he doesn't believe it's prohibited to bring personal laptops to work—”maybe it happens with some employees”—but it's not “a normal thing.”
Uber did not immediately respond to request for comment on the company's policy around personal devices, but it wouldn't be out of the ordinary if the ride-hailing giant does allow their use.
It's pretty much the “new normal” that people have personal devices with them at work and, to some extent, that they are encouraged by companies to bring them, said Sterling Miller, general counsel at marketing automation software company Marketo Inc.
“As a general counsel, I would say it is a risky place to be,” Miller said. “But I think there's probably no turning back from the tide and rather than trying to fight it … I think you just need to accept that this is the way it's going to be and do what you can to minimize the risks.”
The risks, Miller said, range from an inability to quickly wipe personal devices when people leave the company, to devices that don't have the same firewall and anti-virus protections in place as those that are company-issued, which can open the company up to an intrusion.
And then there are wage-and-hour issues, Miller said. “How am I tracking my time if I'm an hourly employee and I'm using a personal device?” he questioned. “That's a real problem that usually only becomes known when there's an issue,” he said.
Where personal device use is concerned, the typical scenario is that employees bring their own smartphones and perhaps tablets, but employees aren't, for the most part, bringing their own laptops to work, said Josh King, chief legal officer of online legal marketplace Avvo Inc. But no matter the devices used, he added, there are certainly additional considerations for in-house counsel.
King offered employee relations issues as an example. He said in a workforce where employees can share media “seamlessly and simply,” it can open up “all sorts of frontiers,” allowing workers to share inappropriate images, for instance.
To mitigate the risks, legal departments should have a hand in drafting personal device policies, outlining, for example, what types of passwords are required, how frequently to change them and probably most importantly—”the wipe clean policy,” Miller said.
According to Miller, policies need to be very clear on the fact that personal devices that touch company systems are subject to company monitoring and could get turned over in litigation. “And then lastly, you have got to have a clear statement around the wage-and-hour issue,” he said.
And then companies have to not only ensure employees are trained on what expectations are, but also need to put in place certain physical tools when necessary, King said. If you have a policy against downloading work documents and taking them home, for example, “you need to create the physical tools in your networks that prevent people from doing that,” he said.
King likened the use of personal devices in the workplace to when the use of email was becoming popular in the '90s. There was a lot of discussion in the legal profession about how risky it was and then “someone flipped a switch and you couldn't worry about it anymore,” he explained. “As a profession, we just had to adapt to that and understand that this was a form of heightened insecurity.”
“I feel like there's a lot of similarities with bring you own devices, as well,” King said. “We can try to fight it, we can try to put procedures in place, but we're not going to stop it.”
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
© 2025 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1UK Firm Womble Bond to Roll Out AI Tool Across Whole Firm
- 2Starbucks Hands New CLO Hefty Raise, Says He Fosters 'Environment of Courage and Joy'
- 3Blockchain’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment Privacy Paradoxes
- 4Prior Written Notice: Calabrese v. City of Albany
- 5Learning From Experience: The Best and Worst of Years Past
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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