Slashdot Mirror
Who Should Own Your Smartphone?
snydeq writes "The great corporate barrier against employees using personal smartphones in business contexts has been breached, writes InfoWorld's Galen Gruman. According to a recent report from Forrester Research, half of the smartphones in use among US and Canadian businesses are not company-issued equipment. In fact, some organizations are even subsidizing employees' service plans as an easy way to avoid the procurement and management headaches of an increasingly standard piece of work equipment. Gruman discusses the pros and cons of going with a subsidized, employee-owned smartphone plan, which is part of a larger trend that sees IT loosening its grip on 'dual-use' devices, including laptops and PCs."
Even though I own my own smartphone, where I work (a very large IT company) there is an increasingly lengthy list of requirements and checks for any device connected to the corporate network.
I value my choice and don't want my employer to get me a phone but if I use it for work it is an increasing amount of hassle
Struggling to find a day everyone can make? WhenShallWe.com
The personal phone I carry is none of my IT department's business, and I like it that way--thank you very much. I don't want to EVER get into a situation where my workplace has a legal case for subpoenaing my personal phone.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Its mine. I own it.
I would always want my own unrestricted phone under my own control. If, as the case is now, that phone gets light-moderate work related use, that's fine since it beats the other option of having 2 phones. Also, if I drop or break it, there's no drama (apart from having to replace it). Now if I was using the phone for hours each day, I'd be wanting a separate work phone.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I'm going to have to go with "Me", Regis.
I have no problem using or not using it for work. If they want something specific, they can feel free to shell for it.
Because if I'm carrying it at all times, then I'm using it for personal reasons. As such, to keep my privacy I'll use my own. If they want to pay for some/all of the plan I'll take the money as reimbursement, but I want the control.
Of course, I don't even tell my employer that I own a cell phone. I don't feel like being 24/7 on call for them, and after hours calls from them go directly to voicemail.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
My smartphone is mine. If the company wants me to carry theirs, they have to pay me. It might be tempting to use a company-issued phone for personal stuff, but personally I like to keep my data under my control, which you just can't do with someone else's hardware.
Do you care about securing smartphones, laptops, etc? Do you want to reserve the right to restrict their use?
If they can access and store company information, introduce infections into company systems, or pull customer information, then maybe you should reconsider the cost-saving approach.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Where I work, the company *may* (if you qualify and are VP approved) pay for your phone bill if you either get on the 'company calling/data plan' or identify the personal/work calls. However, they don't pay for any type of phone. You buy your phone out of your own pocket.
The rule where I work (Netflix) is simple:
1. We give you a Blackberry or an iPhone (you pick)
2. We pay for the plan
3. You use it responsibly
4. You figure out what "responsibly" means.
5. There is no Rule 5
I worked for a year and a half (not in the IT industry) in a position where I had to carry a company phone... and I also carried my own phone, because the company phone was strictly business. It is a hassle having to juggle two pieces of gear, especially since the job did not involve sitting at a desk.
That said, I'm all in favor of using my own phone for company business, as long as it doesn't burn through my minutes. Since my current job does involve a desk and a land line, that isn't really an issue.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Cowboyneal of course
Current setup:
Work phone is a crappy blackberry pearl (the "keyboard" on it sucks).
Personal phone is a HTC Hero.
I simply have the blackberry forward all calls to my personal cell phone. This way if I ever leave the company, the HTC is still mine, if they need the work phone back because they are investigating something, I simply remove the call forwarding setup and give it back to them.
Only downside is if you miss a call that was forwarded to you, when you call back they get to see your personal cell phone number. This could be avoided by instead having the work phone forward to a google voice account #, and then on the personal phone, just use google voice to return calls.
TRWTF is of course that corporate procurement is so outdated and out of whack with reality. Any corporation where procuring a $1k/year service almost costs more in personnel costs should have its management publicly flogged by the shareholders.
Now, that would involve quite a lot of floggings I'm sure. Every US State capital would have the downtown closed to traffic for months :)
So Forrester suggests that employees should be treated like Grownups. He doesn't suggest that most employees need to act like Grownups. If the larger percentage of security breaches are considered to eminate from the inside of a company network, then this holds true for smartphones. Therefore you really really shouldnt treat your employees like grownups.
The people who write these articles always say 'people want to do it, so companies should allow them to do it / find a way to do it'. Most companies have process, policies, rules etc to dictate all the ongoings of business and tecehnology is included in that. Why then is technology singled out as OK to break policy on, but 'doing things my own way when I fill out the TPS report' is not? "Gee, I really dont like the TPS report format, it's so cumbersome and old, I'm going to make my own and submit that". Personally I think the people that write these articles are angry at their company for not letting them use their iPhones on the companies network.
In any case, more scrutiny should be paid to the cost of supporting (because yes you will be supporting them if they are getting company data, especially those C-level execs) and buying and managing that infrastructure.
The only way to do it is to create a bubble inside of the 'personal smartphone' that contains the companies stuff, and another bubble for the personal stuff with a clear line of separation plus a way to tell usage of each.
You want to call me outside of office hours? You provide the phone and pay for the service plan.
You want me to be reachable when I am away from my desk? You provide the phone and pay for the service plan.
Sure, I appreciate being able to chose the device I will carry and use on a daily basis, but its still just a tool to me.
If I have a problem with the restrictions you put on my use of your equipment, then I will get one of my own for my personal use.
Where I work a policy had to be implemented limiting the use of personal devices to access work resources (ie email). There are a lot of hourly employees here and by law if an hourly employee responds to an email after hours, they need to be paid for time worked. HR decided that they didn't want to deal with tracking all of the random hours so they just implemented a policy that denies employee devices on the network. If there are outlier cases like where an hourly employee needs to help with an after hours event, they are given a Blackberry.
For the rest of the staff, they are encouraged to buy their own devices. The organization saves money on repair bills and the employees tend to take better care of their devices. Once they realize what the replacement cost on a smartphone is, they stop dropping them and mishandling them. Our director of development was the worst. She went through three phones in a single year. Since she was put on the hook for her own device costs, she has miraculously managed to not damage or lose it. The organization still pays for the monthly calling / data plans.
Anything of yours can be subpoenaed in a lawsuit. Northwest Airlines subpoenaed the *personal* computers of their employees when they suspected their employees were getting too uppity^H^H^H^H^H^H, I mean, striking by calling in sick.
It hardly matters if you use encryption, etc... the legal discovery process can violate whatever privacy you thought you had. It only takes a credible allegation of wrongdoing - not even "beyond a reasonable doubt" - to discover all of your personal files, etc... and, because only money is involved, the plaintiff needs only show guilt by a "preponderance of the evidence", or more succinctly, that it is likely that you did it. If you think you can get smart by encrypting your files, it's likely you'll be held in contempt of court, and have a summary judgment entered against you.
The only thing paying for the hardware means is that you'll eventually get it back, usually.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
They tried to buy me one, but I don't want a smartphone. I want my phone to make phone calls and texts. The latter because it's handy to have my systems email me text alerts when something's going wrong.
I had a hell of a time convincing them to go away and leave me alone.
Don't get me started on Google and their smartphones. As smartphones become more and more prevalent, Google has decided to release smartphones without true Activesync (Exchange) support. Here you can see that Activesync remains the 4th highest-requested feature on the Android operating system, since the issue was raised in November 2009: http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=4475 They don't need multi-touch screens, better media players, better menu layout: people need their freakin' business email and calendars. There has been no feedback, about this issue, and, according to the dev site above, the issue hasn't even been assigned. I know that most people here would legally wed Google if they could, but Google is ignoring the biggest smartphone market that this story seems to claim is so important. Further, to respond to the parent post, the NUMBER ONE issue with Google smartphones is that their voice-dialing sucks: http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=1181&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Owner%20Summary%20Stars This has been an UNASSIGNED enhancement request since November 2008!
"Those fucking IT punks from work followed me home and are on the lawn, Martha. Again. Get my shotgun."
And they make me pay for my own service. Discounted, but I still have to pay. The phone is mine.
And because of this, I can refuse to receive work email on it. Come 5 pm, I'm out, and I'll be back tomorrow. No answering mail at 2 am for me.
You can't have cheap intra-company calls and VPN Value Added Services if you're just paying the employee's bill.
...and pays for all calls. Nice little tax break for me.
Not that I'm one of those extremists but this is pretty well clear cut, despite the obfuscation by telco's, HR and so forth
Who paid for it? That's who owns it.
Now if you are being compensated by your employer then you are contracting your property to the employer, the employer can place stipulations on the contract which you are free not to agree to and not sign the contract. This is quite clear in Australian contract and tax law. I own the device, employer contracts the device from me which is why I need and ABN (Australian Business Number) to be a part of an employee lease scheme.
For small business in Australia this kind of thing is becoming quite popular for laptops, phones, cars and other work related devices. Of course the contract stipulates things like warranty lengths, specifications and the right to wipe all data when leaving the company but this is made known before signing the contract so nothing underhanded is going on. Tax benifits are good also despite the fact they clamped down on it a few years ago.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Smartphones are so overrated. I don't see those in my office having smartphones being any more productive than those who doesn't.
And how does IMAP fail that requirement? It doesn't. What it fails is being what IT support currently do. Refusing means more work for the employee. Accepting means more work for IT support.
In other words, you're not being BOFH, you're being Mordac, Preventer of Services.
All your smartphones are belong to us.
\m/
My company has no business with my private phone, instant messenger, e-mail, etc.
Just like my home, the job is taboo. A boss calling me at home, if it’s not a big time emergency, will get him in trouble with me.
If they want me to have a business mobile phone number, they provide a separate business phone.
Pe-fucking-riod!
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I worked for YottaYotta for a bit over a year as a sysadmin. My boss wanted me to have a cell phone so I could be called on weekends to Fix Things That Broke.
I'd take a phone home. I'd watch the signal strength, and every place along the route where it was weak, I'd phone his office number and leave a message with my location. The next day I would give him a map with the spots I'd called from.
Two days later I'd get a new phone.
After five phones he admitted that this wasn't going to work. So I was allowed to keep my phone at work so they could find me in the building.
In general: If the boss wants me on a leash, he has to pay for it. I figure just being able to call me is worth at least minimum wage.
As to data on my cell phone. Sync to your computer. Get an app that wipes the phone on entry of the incorrect password.
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
We've been responsible for our own cell phones including smartphones, and given a $50 reimbursement for them for a few years. Now IBM is phasing this out, instead issuing corporate cell phones which may NOT be used for personal calls. Many see this as a way for IBM to save money, as most employees refuse to carry two cell phones and thus don't even use the new plan.
That's how non-MS devices are able to communicate with it.
And even if it were a completely closed solution that only MS phones could connect to, so what? How is it a corporation's responsibility, internally, to work with other devices? Sure, if I ran a company I'd make it as easy as possible for people to connect because I'd want to enable them to check their work email elsewhere. But if security were more of a priority, or if maintaining a simpler system were, I see a lot of merit to locking it down to a single protocol.
a better question who should be in charge of what apps you do and do not put on your phone.
As if you payed for it you own it.