Corporate Counsel
  • Home
  • News
  • Surveys
  • Resources
  • Lawjobs
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Bookstore
  • Contact

Topics » IP Insider | Labor & Employment | From the Experts | On the Job | Moves | DC Watch | International

Home > Whose Data Is It, Anyway? BYOD Policies at Work

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Whose Data Is It, Anyway? BYOD Policies at Work

By Michael V. Abcarian Contact All Articles 

Texas Lawyer

December 21, 2012

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •      
 
© cdrcom - Fotolia.com

© cdrcom - Fotolia.com

As a result of rapidly changing technology, many employees are shedding corporate-issued cell phones and computers in favor of using their own smartphones and tablets for both work and personal purposes.

This new phenomenon — commonly referred to as bring your own device (BYOD) — does have its benefits, yet it also creates a number of legal challenges. For employees, it may result in greater efficiency, fewer devices to manage and the ability to use the most up-to-date technology. For employers, it presents opportunity to reap substantial benefits from lower costs in software, hardware and IT support. But for in-house counsel, it raises a host of legal and practical issues, and an ounce of prevention is certainly worth far more than a pound of cure.

Smartphones, tablets and other personal electronics often contain huge amounts of personal data. When those devices go from personal property to tools of the trade, employers and employees must understand where the privacy lines fall between personal versus work-related information.

Employers must balance their needs to monitor employee usage, employees' privacy concerns, and the risk of legal liability or economic loss. Prior to implementation of any BYOD policy, the legal department should educate employees that they may have a limited or even nonexistent expectation of privacy related to information sent to or stored on personal devices used for work.

An important BYOD privacy concern frequently arises during an investigation of a workplace matter that reveals the need to inspect the contents of a device an employee owns but uses, in part, for work. For example, a forensic examiner who evaluates a dual-purpose device's storage medium may capture and view the owner's personal and private information.

While companies may aspire only to evaluate work-related data, sometimes it's not immediately apparent what information is business-related and what is personal. Employers may face severe litigation sanctions if a court finds that they or their employees negligently withheld, altered, corrupted or destroyed important evidence.

Practical problems abound. It can be difficult to recover a device and its data when the company loses custody and/or control of it, the device's owner no longer works for the company, or the owner simply refuses to provide it for inspection. If a company permits employees to use personal devices for work, it usually will shoulder significant legal responsibility for the consequences of employee misuse.

Another area of enormous concern involves the consequences of electronic security breaches. Depending upon the sensitivity of information stored in or sent from personal devices, an employer may need to wipe data remotely from lost or stolen BYOD devices. Employers must notify employees about such contingencies in the event of security breaches and secure their consent. Such data deletion may include the possibility that employees will lose personal emails, pictures and other stored information. The wise in-house counsel usually will require employees to sign waivers consenting to hold the employer harmless from personal data losses under well-conceived BYOD policies.

Security

The Federal Trade Commission requires companies to provide reasonable security for technology infrastructure. As the BYOD trend spreads, in-house counsel face challenges as their companies relinquish control of such devices but remain accountable for use and misuse.

With employee-owned devices, employers may lose the ability to routinely encrypt company data, install security-related software, or monitor for malware and hacking attacks. If an employee refuses to install security controls or to update security software and related protocols, the company may be vulnerable to loss or corruption of highly valuable and proprietary information.

The legal department should scrutinize company policies; what was appropriate before employees started using their own devices may not be sufficient now. For example, a company policy may state that all company-owned devices must meet a minimum standard of care for data integrity and protection. But if an employee's personal device is the source of a leak, the company could be accused of negligence for failure to include employee-owned devices in the policy.

Because technology changes constantly, scrutiny of BYOD policies should be ongoing. In-house counsel should consider policies to address security and viruses, passwords, encryption, acceptable use, wireless access, remote working and privacy.

A browser or device that allows javascript is required to view this content.

Continue reading

  • 1
  • 2

Next



Subscribe to Texas Lawyer

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Find similar content

Firms mentioned

    
  • Fisher & Phillips

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • EEOC
  • Federal Trade Commission

Key categories

    
  • Corporate & Business Law
  • Internet and Technology Law
  • Labor and Employment Law

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Best Legal Departments 2013
    •      
  2. 6 Things In-House Counsel Must Know About E-Discovery
    •      
  3. 3-D Printing: The Next Big Thing in IP Law?
    •      
  4. Bristol-Myers Squibb: The Caped Crusaders
    •      
  5. U.S. Legal System Ranked as Most Costly
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

Taking the Reins of Legal Department Operations

In-House Law: Now in 3-D!

News Corp. Hires Ex-Skadden Communications Chief Bush

Law Firm Leaders' Confidence Slipping, Says Survey

Contrite Companies Can Win Forgiveness in Bribery Cases
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Plaintiffs Want to See Toyota's 'Crown Jewels'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

LegalTech West Coast to Kick Off With 'Tech Audit' Keynote

Stanford Law Builds on Role as Legal Tech Incubator

Prolific ADA Plaintiff Faces Nemesis in Harassment Suit

Ullyot Exit Closes Chapter for Facebook

Rothstein Bankruptcy Trustee Files New Reorganization Plan
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fla. Bar Wants Disbarment for Former Judge
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Appellate Division To Roll Out Electronic Case Filing System

Court Limits Liability for Injury Or Death of One Invited To Help
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Court Officials Seek to Reform Process of Naming Acting Justices

NYC Defends Police Department's Use of Stop-and-Frisk

Immigrant Investor Program Gets Watchful Eye

Judge Orders Parties to Hire Neutral Expert to Probe Facebook

Law Schools Are Looking Beyond LSATs, Says Mich. Dean

Is Freezing Your Eggs the Solution?

Water Warriors: Local Governments Bring Pollution Suits
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Sanction Reversed; Filing of Sexually Explicit Chat OKd
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Lenders Win On Foreclosures
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Justices: Doc Interviews With Defense Are Attorney Work Product
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Corporate Bribery Case Part Of National Trend
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Continues To Grant Lawyers Fraud Immunity
  •      
    • Subscription Required

  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media