{"id":59325,"date":"2013-10-03T19:21:44","date_gmt":"2013-10-03T23:21:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rbachnet.wwwmi3-ss40.a2hosted.com\/index.php\/"},"modified":"2022-08-15T14:30:09","modified_gmt":"2022-08-15T18:30:09","slug":"byod-could-land-employees-in-jail","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rbach.net\/index.php\/byod-could-land-employees-in-jail\/","title":{"rendered":"BYOD Could Land Employees in Jail"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"BYOD<\/a>Agreeing to a BYOD <\/strong>policy could land an employee in jail<\/strong>. Courts can go after employee personal phones in litigation involving companies<\/strong>. Michael Kassner, an information security consultant told<\/a> FierceMobileIT<\/a> that<\/a> <\/em>employees could be dragged into civil or criminal litigation.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Agreeing<\/a>Employees could be required to give up their personal device to the courts<\/strong> or even have all the data on the device searched<\/strong>, with possible legal ramifications for the owner<\/strong>.\u00a0 According to Mr. Kassner, “There is <\/em>legal precedence<\/a> involving e-discovery<\/a> and plain-view doctrine<\/a><\/em> that allows the seizure of evidence whether it is related to the case under investigation or not.<\/em>” There are three possible legal scenarios involving BYOD, says Mr. Kassner who consulted with Tyler Pitchford, with the law firm of Brannock and Humphries<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The first scenario outlined in the article involves an employee who has signed a BYOD end-user license agreement<\/a><\/strong>, having his personal data wiped along with the corporate data<\/strong>. If the end-user agreement includes the clause enabling the wiping of all data on the personal device, the employee is out of luck<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\"Legal“In the above scenario we’re talking about a legal contract<\/a>, which means if the employee signed the contract, he agreed to its terms, granting his employer the right to reset the employee’s phone,<\/em>” comments lawyer Pitchford.<\/p>\n

In the second scenario, the enterprise becomes involved in a civil lawsuit<\/a><\/strong> and a subpoena<\/strong> is issued for the employee’s smartphone. During the legal discovery process<\/a>, sensitive personal information<\/a> is publicly disclosed<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

“Since the employee co-mingled work and personal data, she has turned her smartphone into discoverable evidence \u2026The employee can seek an order quashing the subpoena or an order sealing the discovered information, but that’s unlikely in this\u00a0circumstance,<\/em>” Mr. Pitchford observes.<\/p>\n

\"Detective\"<\/a>In the third scenario brought up in the article, the employee’s company does business with a firm that is the subject of a criminal proceeding<\/strong>. Authorities issue a\u00a0warrant for the employee’s phone because the employee has done work for the targeted firm<\/strong>. Incriminating evidence is found<\/strong> on the employee’s phone and the employee is now under criminal investigation<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

“Assuming the warrant is valid, then anything the government located in plain view within the scope of the warrant is admissible against the employee in another proceeding<\/em>,” Mr. Pitchford notes.<\/p>\n

\"Case<\/a>Mr. Kassner concludes: “Until case-law or new technologies decide which way the legal winds are blowing about BYOD, it might be in your best interest to avoid BYOD and its alluring convenience.<\/em>”<\/p>\n

rb-<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

I am not a lawyer and you should consult your own legal\u00a0counsel but as I have said this before – ummm Acceptable Use Policy<\/strong><\/a>?<\/em><\/p>\n

Related articles<\/h6>\n