Companies need to draft 'bring your own device' policies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The technology of smartphones and tablets allow professionals to essentially carry a computer wherever they go and, better still for companies, many employees are happy to buy their own mobile device and use it for work.

But while the convenience of handheld, portable computers enables employees to peruse email, communicate with clients and review documents without being tied to the office, the “bring your own device,” or BYOD, trend is creating tensions between how much access an employer can have to the worker-owned device and how much privacy an employee can expect.

Companies are concerned about security, keeping confidential data from falling into a competitor’s hands, and preventing financial account numbers from becoming known to hackers.

Employees want to keep prying eyes, including those of their employers, from looking at the photos of their children, text messages from friends and emails from family stored on their mobile devices.

baker Baker

Drawing a bright line between access and privacy is not possible, attorneys say. Still, rules and policies must be formulated to provide some guidance so businesses and workers will have some idea of what will happen when a company’s security is breached.

Attorneys, however, disagree from where that guidance should come. The role that market forces, courts and statehouses should play sparks debate because of the complex nature of the BYOD questions and the pace at which technology changes.

Setting company policy

Nathan Baker compared smartphones to sunglasses – they are always being left behind.

The Barnes & Thornburg LLP partner said companies must be prepared for employees’ mobile devices to get lost or stolen. Protection measures like encryption and firewalls that are common on desktop and laptop computers are not easily applicable to smartphones and tablets. So whenever an employee leaves the office with the mobile device, company data will be walking around in public with little security.

Companies can mitigate the damage by having BYOD policies which lay out the expectations and requirements. But a policy alone is not enough, Baker said. Companies also need to train their workers on what the policies say and institute methods for ensuring the employees are complying with the rules.

Baker highlighted the hypothetical situation of an employee’s mobile device being stolen and the company wanting to remotely erase the data. Employees will less likely object to having their phones wiped – which will also obliterate their personal information – if they know long before their items are lost what the process will be.

A second reason for training and compliance is litigation, Baker said. If a company becomes the subject of a lawsuit, work-related items on employee-owned devices will have to be preserved for discovery purposes.

Failure to do so can bring stiff spoilage sanctions. One example of this came in January 2014 when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois slapped pharmaceutical manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim with a $900,000-plus fine, in part, because the company did not tell its employees to save work-related text messages on their personal phones.

Courts and legislatures

grayson-ann.jpg Grayson

Ann Grayson, partner at Barnes & Thornburg, pointed to the Boehringer Ingelheim sanction as an example of the courts providing guidance.

The bench, she said, will face more cases involving employee-owned mobile devices and as it issues more rulings, direction will emerge on how companies and workers can navigate the tension between privacy and access. The court decisions will give an idea of where the judiciary is headed on this matter and help inform business about how to craft policies.

Attorney Cameron Shilling, director and chair of the privacy and data security group at McLane Graf Raulerson & Middleton in New Hampshire, believes the job of defining what belongs to a company and what belongs to an employee in a BYOD world will need to be handled legislatively.

The courts, he said, do not understand the concept of company data on employee hardware. Moreover, disputes arising from BYOD do not always provide a legal issue that can be addressed by the judicial system, and any remedy that comes from the courts usually does not arrive fast enough given the speed at which BYOD matters can move.

He is helping to draft legislation to be introduced into the New Hampshire Legislature this fall. Shilling believes the measure, which will define personal data versus company data and personal device versus company device, will be the first of its kind in the nation.

An employer has a right to retrieve company data from an employee-owned mobile device, Shilling said, but the employer has no right to invade the privacy of the employee.

Businesses want tough regulation to force workers to give back company data, he said. But, he continued, any legislation should extend employee privacy to company hardware. The current thinking holds if an employee uses a company computer for personal business, the employer has a right to look at the data and the employee has no privacy.

“I disagree,” Shilling said. “I think to be fair we have to recognize a rule that says an employer shouldn’t unnecessarily invade personal data of an employee on a company device.”

Baker was hesitant about a solution coming from a statehouse.

“I’m always concerned when the legislature steps in particularly on issues like this that are still so new,” he said, explaining legislation typically prevents or prohibits things, and it’s too early to tell where this issue and technology are headed.

The market, he said, may be able to provide the answers. He noted the practice of some employers asking for passwords to job candidates’ Facebook pages. State legislatures enacted laws restricting that practice but, Baker said, the problem largely solved itself when the public’s adverse reaction to the practice made employers quit.

Attorney Ken Mortensen, managing director of the risk assurance practice at PwC U.S., said the judicial branch and the legislative branch can address the problems of BYOD.

Mortensen served as a panelist on one of two seminars examining BYOD issues during the August American Bar Association annual meeting. He joined the discussion on the collision between personal privacy and corporate security.

Shilling participated on the second seminar during the ABA meeting, which also examined privacy and data security concerns.

The courts will have to consider the issue and the legislatures will have to pass laws to address the concerns over the conflict between privacy and protection, Mortensen said. Legislatures are not better than the courts, he said, but the legislative branch can address the matter more comprehensively while a court’s ruling will be based on the facts of a particular case.

Both Baker and Grayson noted a key hurdle to finding a solution to BYOD issues. The variability of the situations coupled with the constant updates to mobile devices make blanket remedies difficult to formulate.

“Because of the ever-changing technology with smartphones and mobile devices, the challenge is about the time you set a rule, a new problem crops up,” Grayson said.•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.