Digital Ears Everywhere: Lawyers' Home IoT Devices Stoke Privacy Concerns
Lawyers working outside the purview of their firm's IT department worry they may expose clients' sensitive information when phone calls are made around internet-connected appliances.
April 20, 2020 at 10:00 AM
3 minute read
Can a confidentiality agreement or attorney-client privilege be compromised by your smart refrigerator or smart speaker? It's a question that's becoming all the more pertinent these days.
Lawyers say internet of things (IoT) devices can pose a security and privacy threat as more legal professionals work and discuss sensitive client matters from home and hackers adjust their attacks.
To be sure, many are unclear exactly how likely it is for a hacker to eavesdrop on client phone conversations through an IoT device. But Dickinson Wright member Sara H. Jodka said lawyers owe it to their clients to protect their privacy.
"Because I don't know and I can't guarantee that privacy to my clients, I will not have that technology on when I am having sensitive client phone conversations," she said.
To be sure, IoT devices have been known to listen in. Last summer, it was revealed various Facebook, Apple and Google products leverage contractors to manually review recordings directed to their software. The IoT devices are also not impenetrable. Earlier this year, Amazon.com Inc. was hit with a class action suit over hacks of its internet-connected home surveillance product Ring.
Mindi Giftos, a Husch Blackwell information technology lawyer and the firm's office managing partner in Madison, Wisconsin, noted, "There's a big difference if someone listening is doing testing or marketing data versus someone with ill intentions and plans to intercept and use it in a harmful way."
Uncertainty aside, Giftos said her firm has internally and externally shared articles highlighting the potential cybersecurity and privacy pitfalls of IoT devices. She also noted she turns off her personal IoT electronics and Siri when making client calls.
"I don't know if that's overkill or not," she said. "I think it's being mindful of what might be listening and taking steps to turn them off or take yourself away from them when you're discussing sensitive client information."
Unplugging IoT devices when making client calls isn't irrational, but practical for mitigating risk, agreed Stroock & Stroock & Lavan chief information officer Neeraj Rajpal.
"We sent an email out literally a few days ago that when you're working from home, you should turn off the Alexa devices or Google Home or put them in another room. Or better yet, just turn them off," he said.
To be sure, threats posed by IoT devices aren't new. But as more lawyers and staffers work from home in a new environment, bad actors may target those devices, Rajpal said.
What's more, leaving the controlled environment of a law firm and its IT team means some IoT devices scattered around a home could be unpatched and vulnerable to hacking, added Connell Foley cybersecurity and data privacy chair Karen Painter Randall.
Still, should lawyers and staffers unplug that voice-enabled refrigerator before joining the client call? Not quite, Rajpal said.
"There's a fine line between practical and security," he said. "'You [just] need to be a little more careful."
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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending 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