Slashdot Mirror
Most Companies Will Require You To Bring Your Own Mobile Device By 2017
Lucas123 writes "Half of all employers will require workers to supply their own mobile devices for work purposes by 2017, according to a new Gartner study. Enterprises that offer only corporately-owned smartphones or stipends to buy your own will soon become the exception to the rule in the next few years. As enterprise BYOD programs proliferate, 38% of companies expect to stop providing devices to workers by 2016 and let them use their own, according to a global survey of CIOs by Gartner. At the same time, security remains the top BYOD concern. 'What happens if you buy a device for an employee and they leave the job a month later? How are you going to settle up? Better to keep it simple. The employee owns the device, and the company helps to cover usage costs,' said David Willis, a distinguished analyst at Gartner."
As enterprise BYOD programs proliferate, 38% of companies expect to stop providing devices to workers by 2016 and let them use their own
Do they get to monitor communications or wipe my own device now if anything goes wrong?
...when it gets tied up in legal proceedings. This brings its own set of complications.
At my company there is a lot of internal chatter about BYOD, along with the security concerns (especially in terms of IP).
My stance: Just say no to BYOD. If my company deems it necessary for me to use a portable electronic device to perform my job, then either:
a) They supply it, and it remains company property, or
b) There is no option b
They had better give me a stipend to buy my own machine, then, because I'm only going to use it for working with their company. In fact, it will never leave the office. No way in HELL are they going to be able to lay a claim on my personal equipment just because they want to lower their parts and labor costs.
>> there's software out there to (monitor communications or wipe my own device)
My current employer has a BYOD policy and software for this. My solution: never use a personal device for work purposes, especially never company email. Instead, I use a company-resident mail forwarding application to read my company email and to send alerts to a personal email address if it finds something that looks interesting enough and I've been out of the office long enough (e.g., more than a day). If I do get such an alert, I might VPN in to read the full email, or usually I'll just text or call someone. (They can also text me.)
I don't want a smart phone. I choose not to use one - I only care to have a simple phone that does the bare minimum. If they want me to have a smart phone, they'd better provide it for me because I will not spend my own money for a device I choose not to have. Under Australian law (to which I am subject) I don't believe a company can force you to provide your own equipment.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Is this the same Gartner who once said a web seminar that Apache and Linux would not have any significance in the web server market?
Not much of an issue for devops folks but a big issue in sales and marketing.
I wonder if companies allow a sales phone number be switch to a competitor when the sales person switches jobs. This is what happens when Jane changes jobs.
Customer of company A calls Jane who has just gone to company B:
Jane: "Hi Sam, I am glad you called. I now work for B and let me tell you how their product is much better for you..."
There are other jobs like customer support that have similar problems. In this case you want your customers when they call the cell phone to reach someone who works for the company.
The above problems also apply to IM handles.
All of the mentioned restrictions only work if the phone is locked.
I refuse to sign a contract, or get a locked phone (at least that I pay for).
I have a N1 (never locked), and will probably upgrade before long to a new, never locked, phone. You don't need to unlock if it was never locked in the first place.
If my employer wants that control, they can pay for it.
I've saved the cost of my current phone with lower monthly bills. A single payment up front saves money in the end.
Freedom isn't free, but it doesn't have to cost a lot.
Yeah, this happened to me once too. My boss was quite personally hurt when I handed in my letter of resignation AND rejected his counter offer to pay. My reasoning:
1. Never accept counter offers - this means that your employer is not paying you what you're really worth, and means that you'll always have to threaten to leave to get paid a fair amount.
2. Never accept counter offers - it's just a method for them to change the timing of when you leave to something more convenient to them.
If more people had the guts to trust in their own abilities, we would all be better off.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
The mobile management software that's out there (and used by some companies that allow BYOD) works just fine on unlocked/rooted phones.
LegendMUD
I remember talking with a very successful businessman a long time ago. He asked me if I knew the diference between a job and a career? I said no. He said, it's simple, in a career you get screwed out of your overtime.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
A company paying $75 or so for monthly smartphone service pays for itself many times over in keeping employees tethered to the business and available for around-the-clock email and messaging. I expect companies will continue paying for service even for BYOD shops. If forcing employees to purchase a phone discourages them from using a phone for work then it will be a huge loss for companies.
This is how it works where I am (Fortune 500 technology company). The company pays all the service, including my personal calls and data use, and I pay for the phone. They negotiate shorter contract terms and lower up-front device costs. I get my choice of carriers and devices. They also negotiate discounted service pricing for my family.
The company does not wipe my entire device when I disconnect it from their system and remove their MDM, they just delete their content and leave everything else alone. They do enforce screen lock timeouts and require a PIN or password. They will wipe my device in its entirety if it's stolen.
This is a sane BYOD policy that balances the desire of the employees to have a choice in their electronic tether with their needs to secure their IP.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
I don't know what your work does, but this is definitely starting to become common at many places. While I certainly don't want to relinquish admin control over my personal phone, I also like the the ability to remotely connect to work resources without needing to carry around two phones.
LegendMUD
You transfer the device to the employee's replacement?
Congratulations, you have shown the modicum of common sense that appears to consistently elude the staff at Gartner.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I've seen that same "never accept counter offers" reasoning before, and to some degree I agree with it, but that's assuming that the benefits of a job are entirely monetarily-based, which isn't a great way to look at employment. What if the employer giving you a counter offer is a smaller shop with less resources, but has a great work environment, your coworkers and boss are awesome, and the work you're doing is fun and interesting?
LegendMUD
That is what's done to hourly (especially to min wage workers) workers all the time. They deduct for background checks, uniforms, etc ....
Not generally lawful
Cellphones are one of the absolute most personal things ever created. Imagine if there's a legal dispute, and your company subpoena's your cellphone, or because you are using it for work, naturally asume they have the right to look at everything you've done. Oh, you're carefully protected friends list?, theirs. Your banking information?, theirs. Your pornography collection, (whether or not you've actually used it for such at work), theirs. Wife sends you a teasing pic during the day, which your forgot to delete, Manager looks at it, fired for sexual harassment.
In an ideal world, they wouldn't have access to anything on your phone, but the way things are going, anything used for work is considered fair game.
Also, yes, security, but that's nothing compared to the privacy implications.
1) Take a short and small trend.
2) Do a linear extrapolation that shows a ridiculous result.
3) ????
4) Profit
ObXKCD
Should I be buying my own desk? My own chair? Hell, my cubicle walls are clearly my responsibility too, right? If a company thinks an employee needs something for their job, then they should provide it.
Um no.
I'm the employee, you are the employer.
I come in ready to work, you supply the tools for me to work.
The tools are yours, you can monitor, adjust, replace, revoke, and have Orwellian standards on them. That's because you employed me and provided them.
Past that? fuck off.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Gartner gives atrocious advice. I get it- it used to be good and then it was good because people did what it said.
But for the last five or six years, it just throws things out there and sees if they stick on the wall.
Former company I worked for followed Gartners advice. It was terrible. But, because it came from Gartner, no one could get fired for following it. Reminds me of IBM.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I've seen option 2: "Never accept counter offers - it's just a method for them to change the timing of when you leave to something more convenient to them" at least a dozen times in 20 years.
Unless the company really has been screwing you over or really dropped the ball- once you decide to go they feel betrayed (despite the fact they are planning to outsource your job in 18 months anyway). Sometimes even when they realize they were screwing you over, they STILL feel betrayed.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I'm perfectly happy having corporate e-mail on a phone I pay for 100%, but I refuse to allow anyone to have control over my phone but me. My company encourages e-mail on our personal phones but require stock firmware, non-rooted, the ability to remote wipe, and the ability to change security settings on my phone. I'm fine if there is a requirement that I have remote wipe ability but I should be the only one in control of it. And telling me that I can't run alternitive firmware due to "security concerns" is ridiculous! Until I can get just get corporate e-mail on my device the way I want it I'll be happy with it and use it, until then they can pay for the phone if they want to control it.
You presume that most companies give a crap about the law. Instead lawyers are hired and loopholes are discovered. You just quoted "...authorized by the employee in writing...". I guarantee that this provision is included within the employee handbook and a signature from the employee to agree to such provisions is almost always a condition of employment.
I know first hand of people who have been required to procure their own uniform at their own cost. Sometimes the employers just don't give a flyin' flip about what the law says. There are still probably hundreds of employers who decide to put an hourly employee on salary and then convince the employee that now they have to work 80+ hours each week without overtime pay because now they are "salaried". Just because employers can be sued doesn't keep them from pulling all sorts of crap. When I was in college I applied for a job at a print shop and was told in an angry tone that he (the employer) only wanted female applicants - totally against the EOA, since there's no particular reason why gender is essential to do work at a print shop, unless he's taking picture of nude ladies (which certainly wasn't in the job description). I could have sued, but why would I? Unfortunately I just didn't have time for such hobbies as lawsuits, petitions or picketing. Neither do most other hourly workers struggling to make ends meet. Employers know this which is why my friends earning an hourly wage are often screwed over with uniform costs, bringing their own tools, etc., while at my job I can buy all sorts of gizmos, pay for the entire table of a business lunch, submit an expense report and even get paid for my extra mileage, even though I already earn more than enough to actually afford these things if reimbursement wasn't an option.
There are thousands of laws that are supposedly meant to help common citizens, but then there are loopholes, exceptions, and bully strategies that the wealthy and powerful use to control, manipulate, and exploit the masses who think they can simply choose to settle for a simple life and raise a family. Some examples include:
- contracts of adhesion, like statements on the back of ticket stubs that claim some waiver of liability, or EULAs and/or warranty documents that can only be read after a product has been purchase and the packaging removed.
- binding arbitration clauses in consumer contracts where the right to a trial in US courts is taken away and replaced with an informal hearing by a private citizen, often with little or no legal training, let alone any of the qualifications expected from an actual judge. In recent years some arbitration firms have come under fire for having subsidiary collection agencies that would attempt to collect from consumers after the arbitration proceedings were complete. Once an arbitrator makes his decision, a judgment is submitted to actual "real" US courts for the purpose of empowering the winners of such suits to use all legally available remedies to collect on the judgment, including bank levies, liens, foreclosure, debtor examinations, etc. Appeals are not allowed, and it has been upheld that arbitrators are NOT required to follow any rules of civil procedure, follow legal precedence, or even make decisions based on actual state or federal laws. An arbitrator could literally decide that a defendant loses his case because he was wearing a yellow tie even if the defendant was clearly following the law and the rules of applicable contracts. There is no legal remedy to reverse such an abusive decision.
- waiver of jury trial as a clause in a contract
- waiver of participating in a class action lawsuit as a clause in a contract
- SLAPP lawsuits: A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
- Unenforceable but intimidating contract clauses - very often a loan contract to purchase a car or hous
I work for a foosball table manufacturer, you insensitive clod!
Gartner is so incredibly wrong here. You can't control a plethora of devices connecting to your office network. In reality, you'll have to assume that all devices that connect to you are inherently evil and users using them will be snooped on and their logon credentials will get sniffed. This means you first have to "weaponize" every application you run on your IT infrastructure and make it available as a web service. You'll have to issue two-factor authentication that uses a dynamic element such as a challenge/response hardware key generator. Only when you have everything like that in place, you can "safely" start using BYOD in a corporate environment. By then, there is no more need for people to actually be in the office to do their work, apart from meetings. For meetings, you can always call in or video conference from home. Effectively, the only way to pay for this is to quit renting office space and go completely virtual. Because you no longer rent office space, renting a separate server room will cost you dearly and you'll need your admins to have office space close to that room, so you're still running a brick company. Going to "the cloud" will be more or less mandatory for such a company, from an economic view point. I don't see a significant amount of companies do all this within the next four years. I do see a lot trying to save a few bucks on the abysmal hardware budgets they already have and fail horribly at productivity and security and reverse their decisions, spending much more in the process and not gaining anything.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
If they fired me just because I didn't provide my own phone it would be wrongful dismissal. So no.. they could not lay me off me on that basis. It helps that, as an academic, there is little about my job that would be improved with a smart phone. I feel I provide much better instruction talking to students face to face than through some app.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Unionize.
Awesome, so as an employee *I* have to pay for my $700 smartphone -AND- the expectation will exist that I will be monitoring emails nights and weekends?
What a bargain for your employer, by chipping in $50-100/mo to pay for a fraction of your service plan, they get up to 20 hours per week of additional work out of you, according to this study:
http://www.techvibes.com/blog/byod-trend-is-making-employees-work-an-extra-20-hours-per-week-report-suggests-2012-08-22
This, on top of inflation-adjusted real wages that have not increased since 1973:
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/04/16/the-best-indicator-of-u-s-health-is-wage-growth-or-lack-thereof/
Slashdot headline next summer: "BYO Desk all the rage among newer workers"
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Do you have a wife?
Dumb question to ask a /.er. If he had one, he ain't a /.er.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I've been using my own devices for work since 2005. When I worked in a motorcycle shop the mechanics brought in their own tools. So why now that I'm a programmer should it be odd that I bring in my own PC and tablet? What I would like to see companies do allocate a specified amount each year toward equipment.
As for security, Novell just released a Dropbox like application with enterprise security in mind. It's called Filr.