×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Businesses Now Driving "Bring Your Own Device" Trend

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the taking-care-of-things-personally dept.

Handhelds 232

snydeq writes "Companies are no longer waiting for users to bring in their own smartphones and tablets into business environments, they're encouraging it, InfoWorld reports. 'Two of the most highly regulated industries — financial services and health care (including life sciences) — are most likely to support BYOD. So are professional services and consulting, which are "well" regulated. ... The reason is devilishly simple, Herrema says: These businesses are very much based on using information, both as the service itself and to facilitate the delivery of their products and services. Mobile devices make it easier to work with information during more hours and at more locations. That means employees are more productive, which helps the company's bottom line.' Even those companies who haven't yet embraced bring your own device policies yet already have one in place, but don't know it, according to recent surveys."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

232 comments

also reduces IT costs (2, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38423908)

Adds some information-security problems, but reduces a huge IT problem with procuring/managing/repairing the devices.

Re:also reduces IT costs (5, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#38423968)

This will not end well.

Re:also reduces IT costs (3, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424520)

This will not end well.

Indeed; there would be no escape from work-related calls, for instance. One reason I don't volunteer my personal phone for work purposes is because I ignore the work phone outside work hours (except by prior agreement such as a conference call with people in the US or Asia). I leave my personal phone on, and don't get any work-related calls on it.

Re:also reduces IT costs (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424778)

If you're on call it makes it easier to carry one phone at a time. The IT department where I work got mad because I had my blackberry forwarding to my personal cell, so we compromised by just using a Google Voice number for my work number. With that I can set hours to accept calls, easier to manage voicemail, and incoming calls. Also means that I can just turn it off when I'm on PTO.

Re:also reduces IT costs (1)

hb253 (764272) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424678)

Agreed. It may or may not be beneficial to the business, but if upper management wants it, there's no point in fighting it. Pesky details such as the need for new policies, new infrastructure, ongoing support costs, etc, are meaningless. Oh, and if you can't implement in 1 month using your already overburdened staff, they'll outsource and eventually get rid of you.

Re:also reduces IT costs (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38424694)

One danger to watch for, courtesy of my company's policy - I can put my iPhone on the network, but it requires allowing them to modify (and wipe!) the device whenever they like, including any backups. So when you leave the company, kiss all your other data goodbye as well.

Make sure you're not screwing yourself when you let them play with your personal equipment. (Or as our local folks say - we don't trust them to keep their own equipment working right, why would we give them our own stuff to fsck up?)

Re:also reduces IT costs (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38425006)

Give them a choice, give you a work phone or respect the autonomy of your personal phone if you allow it to be used for work.

Re:also reduces IT costs (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424698)

It will end with recentralization, a push back towards higher IT budgets. As less and less of a company's crucial systems are under its control the fragmented IT maintenance costs skyrocket to keep systems in sinc with one another. Suddenly centralization becomes a source of obvious savings....

Re:also reduces IT costs (2)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 2 years ago | (#38425156)

This will not end well.

...for those with years of self-preserving A+/Net+ style certifications... Thankfully. Now we can move forward as an information society, as opposed to being limited to what that-guy-with-the-certification-recommends-based-on-his-own-job-security.

Re:also reduces IT costs (5, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38423990)

Doesn't add any problems if you were already accessing software as a service over the internet, or if you were already providing software as a service to outsource partners etc.

Merely allowing employees access to the courtesy wifi internet access doesn't create new problems. Merely allowing employees to log into "internet" apps just like the contractors already do doesn't create any new problems.

Basically, its just a concept of getting rid of the "trusted" LAN and everyone and everything lives in the DMZ, both servers and clients. Once you reach the tipping point of moving your "IT" stuff into the internet DMZ, the process accelerates until its all there, and you are basically a colocated software as a service shop and a really small time ISP.

Re:also reduces IT costs (4, Insightful)

MichaelKristopeit420 (2018880) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424012)

once the first IT manager is fired for a data breach caused by a mismanaged virus-laden "bring your own" device, the regulations will return.

Re:also reduces IT costs (3, Informative)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424072)

Ditto. We've had one virus infestation here in six years. All it cost me was two weeks reduced productivity as I rebuilt my notebook, finding 'latent' backups of source code and such to replace what was damaged and rendered unusable by the infestation, and a few customer complaints about delays. Overall, for me, I probably lost 20-30 hours of useful time.

Times >3500 other users similarly affected. For that shared drive only.

And they know how it got in. Not a BYOD, but a corporate device, misused. Unfortunate.

Had this been a BYOD, more people over in the security group would have been on the carpet then already were.

Re:also reduces IT costs (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424154)

Sounds like you brought your own source code management server, and apparently no backup policy (whoops). In the model in the article, employees were supposed to act like contractors. So IT would have been responsible for running a GIT server, having it available 24x7 over the internet via SSH keys vetted by their security group, and backing it up daily, all you need is a new box to run "git clone" on and keep on running, worst case you also have to submit your new SSH key to them via their internet accessible ticketing system asking them to add it (probably they're running gitolite to provide your GIT access, aside from security checks thats a good 30 seconds work to add the new key)

Being a one man service provider is a whole nother separate topic, nothing to do with the original article.

If they had a "contractor" design like that, and you hadn't "git push" or equivalent with IT in over "20-30" hours as you describe, that could be a workflow or access issue, or maybe a scheduled maint issue, that is way beyond the article topic. IT refusing to back up corporate owned data, for whatever stated reason, is an internal IT management failure, not your problem.

Where I work its forbidden to work outside a corporate controlled SCMS, partially for audit reasons, security reasons, logging reasons, access control, and as seen in your example, data loss.

Re:also reduces IT costs (3, Insightful)

crow_t_robot (528562) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424028)

This reduces cost in the short-term but it will be a cost increase in the long-term.

It just takes 1 piece of malware on your network or one security event to loose all the financial benefit. Or how about when someone has a piece of pirated software on their personal machine that they are doing company work on? Or how about when someone loses a personal laptop without WDE that holds sensitive company information?

It just takes one event.

Re:also reduces IT costs (2)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424452)

Which is why we should all ditch our PCs and go back to green screens on the mainframe?

Re:also reduces IT costs (1)

anonymov (1768712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424560)

"Green screens on the mainframe"? Surely you mean "Hicolor screens on Citrix server"? They are already here and easiest possible way to let them tablet-lovers on the net.

Maybe. If it is correct. (5, Informative)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424062)

First off, those articles are very badly written. And they seem to be linked to InfoWorld's recent run of articles about how IT is PREVENTING such "adoption". Strange.

Secondly, he's quoting a guy from a firm that sells products to manage phones. He is NOT quoting ANYONE from ANY company in the health care industry.

In 2010 and for much of 2011, many in IT got scared when they saw iPhones, iPads, and Android in the office, fearful these heretical devices would cause corporate collapse as the BlackBerry sanctum was sacked and untold evils followed.

What?

OK, so most companies today have moved past that initial fear and made peace with the notion that modern mobile devices were now part of their technology fabric, though driven by user demand.

It is DECEMBER 2011. That's some fast action by "most companies" in a few months.

There's a HUGE difference between allowing such devices on the UNSECURED WIRELESS NETWORK and connecting them to the servers that hold private data.

He doesn't seem to be covering that difference.
And he doesn't have any quotes from companies that are doing what he claims.

Re:Maybe. If it is correct. (3, Informative)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424696)

And he doesn't have any quotes from companies that are doing what he claims.

I work for a largish healthcare firm. $6b fortune 500 company. We are doing it. The magic is Citrix, which insulates you from your end user's environment. We aren't yet to bring your own laptop except for a few folks in IT, but I see it coming soon.

Re:Maybe. If it is correct. (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424762)

I worked with companies that had untrusted client machines working with servers. The servers just have to be hardened. Instead of a perimeter defense model, typical corporate security, you move to a interior defense model where client facing machines are individually hardened and secured. Someone else mentioned a typical DMZ, that's a good analogy. Just imagine a huge DMZ, a small secure area and a small fully external area. What you do today inside the DMZ is what you have to do over the bulk of your network.

Not seeing the savings there. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#38425100)

Someone else mentioned a typical DMZ, that's a good analogy. Just imagine a huge DMZ, a small secure area and a small fully external area. What you do today inside the DMZ is what you have to do over the bulk of your network.

Normally, the DMZ has additional attention (and software and hardware) dedicated to it because it is so vulnerable.

You might be one really smart guy ... but once you put a box in the DMZ you are defending against every other person in the world with an Internet connection.

And even with the extra attention and software and hardware sites are cracked every day.

So .... the new plan is to take that model and apply it to your internal network? Add the additional costs of more time / software / hardware AND the increased risk of some kid in Romania cracking your INTERNAL systems?

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the business advantage or the cost savings.

Re:Not seeing the savings there. (2)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38425358)

You had asked for people who had done it. I don't see the cost savings either.

Your DMZ style servers are shattered. That's why they are imaged and easy to restore. Your servers aren't your security layer.
Where you want security you use much more secure OSes. For example a mainframe, i-Series. Solaris 10+ using Trusted Solaris. I did it with VMS but that was years ago. I've used hardened Linuxes, but it is still risky since x86 hardware doesn't handle security well. You wouldn't use Windows or a typical Linux for your secure boxes.

Webservers are hacked because they are running way too many services too casually. For example applications which tie into advertising are a notorious vector for attack. You just don't do that on boxes you care about.

And yes you have a lot of monitoring. And the real question is whether you want only perimeter defense. I can't see using this strategy for a company that doesn't already want multiple permitters. It would be too expensive. The kinds of companies this works for are ones that already have to have multiple levels where one more is no big deal. So for example they separate out DBA roles so a DBA can't just alter data by himself.

Offloading IT cost onto employees (4, Insightful)

crath (80215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38423912)

Unless the employer provides ongoing cash payments to compensate the employee for use of thier device, this is a way of offloading IT cost onto the shoulders of employees. Add to that the fact that here in Canada, an employee of a company is not allowed to treat the cost fo a computer as a business expense (for tax purpoes), and the reduction in salary experienced by the employee is even greater than the benefit received by the employer.

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (3, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38423958)

The way I've personally seen it work out is the company provides junk, if you want to bring your own, better stuff, thats OK.

I love it. The company doesn't buy me clothes, or shoes, or my commuter car, either. Where I work, I can get "company clothing" but its fairly hideous, I do much better at Target and don't have to look like a corporate advertising billboard.

The junkiest computer I use on a regular basis, is, no surprise, at work. The junkiest keyboard I use on a regular basis, is, no surprise, at work. The junkiest mouse, monitor, desk, chair, lighting, blah blah is all at work. Even climate control is better at home, seriously. Everyone seems to know someone who gets great smartphones paid for by work, but the rest of us get no phone at all, or a hideous recertified featurephone from the 90s, or at best a monthly $25 "cell phone use credit". One of my employers offered either $20/month flat rate for my own cell phone bill, or I could bring in an itemized detailed bill and collect the exact amount (handy if I spent hours on the phone talking to Kenya that month, otherwise I just took the default $20 for the month)

This is business as usual in the "real world", my diesel mechanic cousin owns all his tools... That wrench is his, not his bosses. Same with my electrician buddy and his tools. Its just how grown-ups do things.

In a way it all makes sense. If you provide a firewalled, isolated internet connection for your onsite contractors to VPN back to their home office over, why not let your own employees use that connection for their own purposes? If you provide your internal ticketing system / CMS / fileserver as a "software as a service" over the internet for your outsource partners, does it really matter if your employees access the same SaS apps over the internet instead of the LAN? Combine them both, and you got the guy bringing his ipad into work, connecting to your locally provided internet access, using the SaS ticketing system, no big deal.

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (3, Interesting)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424132)

You need to find a new job. If they are only willing to provide you junk (unless you don't actually require computers specifically to do your job), they probably don't value you much more than junk.

My company provides us good computers and takes requests if you need something (e.g. I wanted to switch to a MS ergonomic keyboard so they ordered me one).

They used to provide phones for the higher-ups, but now they do it for everyone with a business need (which is basically everyone except the mail room). The way it works is like this: If you don't want to deal with it, they buy you whatever the latest blackberry is and cover the service. The phone is yours to use as you please and you never even have to see a bill (although a lot of people who go this route just have a work phone and a personal phone which seems like a PITA).

If you want to handle the billing yourself, you get a $200 purchase allowance towards any smartphone that can synch with an exchange server plus a max of $100 a month towards the bill. You have to submit your bill every month for reimbursement but you don't have to carry a blackberry (and people who *really* want an iphone don't have to carry 2 phones).

It doesn't save the company money...they still pay the costs and if anything support costs might go up since they now support ios/android/blackberry/etc...but it makes the workers happy (though it does make them more available).

The situation is a little different than a mechanic with his tools...when I worked at a dealership, they owned their own tools (often with a small allowance and a huge discount though) but they also owned wrenches that they had been using for their entire 30 year career. Given a reasonable upgrade cycle on my laptop(plus lots of $$$ in software)/monitor/phone, you far exceed what would be reasonable for any employee to personally pay for. Plus, unlike tools which I could use at home or at other similar jobs, a lot of expensive software licenses that I need for my job would be replaced with different expensive licenses at another similar job (and unlike a case of snap-on, most of those licenses have zero resale value).

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424380)

Plus, unlike tools which I could use at home or at other similar jobs, a lot of expensive software licenses that I need for my job would be replaced with different expensive licenses at another similar job (and unlike a case of snap-on, most of those licenses have zero resale value).

Ah yes my wife has a similar experience where their IT dept is responsible for keeping some microsoft remote desktop server machine for her up and operational and backed up and software updated and accessible via the internet VPN 24x7. That's the demarc point between IT and her. Its got some weird VOIP PBX software on it that's like five (maybe six?) digits cost. They do not care what hardware she uses, or how she accesses it, as long as it speaks "cisco vpn" at the network level and this funky microsoft remote desktop client thingy at the presentation layer. Almost no one at her employer knows anything about macs other than her, but as long as demarc points and standards are respected, no one cares or needs to know. Her IT neither knew nor cared when she upgraded to her new mac mini. She just plugs into a firewalled internet access port and works away. Apparently it works very well for all concerned, or at least her complaints are about completely different subjects, anyway.

I suppose VOIP PBX programming tools are more amenable to remote desktops than, perhaps 3-D CAD software. That kind of app would indeed be a puzzle, although with ever increasing speed and bandwidth, I've heard CAD can be slowly done over VNC, so who knows.

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (2)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424562)

I frequently use arcgis (mapping software, not really any less graphic intensive than cad I shouldn't think...not 3d but constantly changing visuals) over RDP.

I think it actually works better over remote desktop...the computer I connect to is a couple of xeons faster than my laptop and has a shorter hop and fatter pipe to the fileserver that stores most of the shared mapping data. Of course that is straight RDP over 100mbps ethernet. When I do it from my home computer and cable modem (first connecting to a citrix desktop and then using the remote desktop client from there) the graphics refreshes occasionally get a little laggy but it is perfectly functional aside from the fact that my monitor at home is a lot smaller (removing the citrix layer would probably speed it up more but we can only join the VPN from trusted hardware and I don't like to bring my laptop home when I could just RDP into it)

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424286)

Your cousin wont have his tools stolen from him when he leaves, IT will confiscate your laptop as it holds company secrets.

Also your cousins tools are not locked from him, your laptop you will join it to the domain and give up admin control of it.

Work wants me to have a laptop of my own? they either buy it and control it, or compensate me every paycheck for it for trying to control it.

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (1)

MikeB0Lton (962403) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424504)

Have you forgotten about virtualization and SaaS? Why would your computer have to be on a corporate domain to connect to a VMware View session or load an app through Citrix? This comes down to corporations controlling data, not devices, which was their primary concern all along.

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424792)

IT will confiscate your laptop as it holds company secrets.

That's called theft, he can call the police and get it back. IT has to request the secrets be disposed of properly they can't sieze the laptop anymore than they could break into his house and steal files he kept at home.

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38424478)

This is business as usual in the "real world", my diesel mechanic cousin owns all his tools... That wrench is his, not his bosses. Same with my electrician buddy and his tools. Its just how grown-ups do things.

The difference is that if they don't take care of their wrenches and wire cutters, unless they are the only tech, it only effects them. In the business network environment, however, you not taking care of your device can very easily end up impacting the entire company (either in cleaning up viruses or dealing with lost sensitive data).

Those that believe IT and InfoSec policies are just getting in their way are too short sighted to see beyond their own nose.

If you believe that you need Item X to do your job and the company doesn't give it to you, you need to make it clear what the impact of not having it is. If there is a real impact (beyond "I'm going to pout and not be productive") and they hold you accountable for it, then I would suggest finding a better place to work.

The other issue most people don't consider when they want to BYOD is that once you start using it for business purposes, the company has legal backing to search it and monitor it. I've known people that have gotten burned by that, so thank you I'll continue to carry 2 phones day-to-day and 2 laptops when I travel.

Yes I was young once, thumbed my nose at my corporate overlords, and did these types of things. I've grown up since then and life is simpler now with a clear delineation of ownership and responsibility.

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424704)

No. If they are going to expect you to do work, then they should either provide you with an excellent machine to do said work on (not "junk"), or they should compensate you for the use of your device.

This is business as usual in the "real world"/quote.

Offloading costs to employees should not be seen as "business as usual", but rather of employers trying to fuck their workers one more time.

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424744)

Just because vocational trade jobs like your diesel mechanic own their own tools (in some anglo saxon countries) does not follow across into the professional / white collar world.

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#38425338)

This is business as usual in the "real world", my diesel mechanic cousin owns all his tools... That wrench is his, not his bosses. Same with my electrician buddy and his tools. Its just how grown-ups do things.

What you're describing here...sounds very much like 'contracting'.

And, if you're gonna be contracting, you'd better be doing it for contractor rates to balance out the risks.

Not that I mind it, I prefer that method, gives good tax breaks, more automy, etc.

But once you start having to provide your own tools, etc....you should not be still working W2...incorporate yourself and start managing that money and career, and have >1 more client lined up too.

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (1)

Mojo66 (1131579) | more than 2 years ago | (#38423964)

This fits nicely into the discussion we had here yesterday: How To Thwart the High Priests In IT [slashdot.org]. From TFA:

As the 'consumerization of IT' phenomenon grows, such IT people are increasingly clashing with users, who bring in their own smartphones, use cloud apps, and work at home on their own equipment.

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (4, Interesting)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424008)

If the business has a clear policy of not providing tools, such as a lot of auto repair shops, then US income tax deductions are possible. Just barely possible but there can be complications.

In the usual commercial business world if you want to buy an iPhone for use at work there is no way it is going to be tax deductible unless you get the company to give you a letter stating it is a requirement of your job to buy the iPhone and that it will be used only for business purposes.

Absolutely the reason this is popular is cost shifting. You have 50 employees that you want to have iPhones... so the company can spend $25,000 or nothing. Gosh, who would have thought of that?

Now, if everyone buys iPhones there is very little problem with IT support. If 30 people buy iPhones, 10 people buy Android phones and the remaining buy a mix of Windows phones, Open Moko phones and something new that came out last week the IT job will be a nightmare. Same kind of problem happens where everyone buys a different tablet device brings them all to a meeting and someone has instructions for using some iPad-only app for displaying something important. Guess what? The help desk may not be able to resolve this to everyone's satisfaction.

This sounds like a lot of short-term thinking that saves some direct money immediately with a lot of long-term consequences and long-term expense. Mostly, it is really dumb move.

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424070)

Now, if everyone buys iPhones there is very little problem with IT support. If 30 people buy iPhones, 10 people buy Android phones and the remaining buy a mix of Windows phones, Open Moko phones and something new that came out last week the IT job will be a nightmare. Same kind of problem happens where everyone buys a different tablet device brings them all to a meeting and someone has instructions for using some iPad-only app for displaying something important. Guess what? The help desk may not be able to resolve this to everyone's satisfaction.

It creates a contractor relationship. We do not provide equipment to our contractors, and we do not care what they use as long as it works and they don't hurt anyone else. We also demand they wear clothes and occasionally bathe, but we do not buy them clothes nor hose them down if they cannot handle it themselves. We assume they are big boys and they can take care of themselves. IT makes our things work, they do not teach you how to use your things. Much as the janitor is paid to keep the toilets unclogged, not teach us how to unclog. WRT contractors, the only help desk interaction is verifying our courtesy internet access is up for them, and our internet accessible apps such as webmail are available to them. The days of hand holding people who don't know which side of a mouse is up, are over.

We provide a courtesy wifi internet connection for contractors to use at our workplace as they see fit. The apps the contractors need access to are already internet accessible because we sure as heck are not giving contractors access to our internal LAN. Allowing the employees the same freedoms the contractors already have for many years, is not a big stretch.

It turns out that most (although perhaps not all) employees job requirements "fit" with the contractor IT model.

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38424360)

This is all well and good until a BOFH boss decides you're not working out, and that "privileged information" may reside on your personal smart phone, and uses the association with Exchange or any other company structure to remotely wipe your phone.

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424756)

We also demand they wear clothes and occasionally bathe, but we do not buy them clothes nor hose them down if they cannot handle it themselves

That is just a plain stupid argument.

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38424090)

Add to that the fact that here in Canada, an employee of a company is not allowed to treat the cost fo a computer as a business expense (for tax purpoes), and the reduction in salary experienced by the employee is even greater than the benefit received by the employer.

Actually, Canadian tax law says that almost all expenses incurred by an employee and not reimbursed by their employer are not deductible, even if they are related to their job.

There are some exceptions, such as if the employer requires the employee to maintain an office at home and doesn't reimburse the employee. In this case, the employer can fill out form T2200 [cra-arc.gc.ca].

If your position requires you to maintain a professional designation required by law (such as a chartered accountant), those fees are deductible if not reimbursed by the employer.

There are a few others, but employees in Canada get very few tax breaks.

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (1)

ATestR (1060586) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424282)

Not only does this dump the IT costs on the employee, it often interferes with the employees private usage of the equipment. Eg: tech hardware that interfaces with the systems at work have to be locked down with the company security software, and all data on those systems is subject to inspection/audit by the company. This is at my wife's company (fortunately not mine). Needless to say, she doesn't bring any equipment to work. (I have, on occasion.)

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (2)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424496)

Your horribly, horribly wrong. This is not a cost shift to employees, not even remotely. When you buy a device you think, I paid $600, it costs $600. When IT buys the device they think, I paid $600, it's going to cost me another $1200 to support it - if it's one we already have the support hammered out for.

If you bring in your own random device that isn't yet supported than support costs rise even further. You see if everyone has an iToy than the IT department knows how to support it, has the software to manage it and can bring down these costs with economies of scale. If everyone has 20 different versions of an iToy than achieving economies of scale becomes difficult and there are a lot of hidden support costs.

The idea that simply shifting this hardware costs to employees will save money could not be further from the truth. This is done as a service for employees for their convenience.

Now, if you want to know what is shifting costs to employees it is allowing work from home. I worked for a large (75,000) healthcare company and we had roughly half our work force working from home. It was a convenience to the employees and it was estimated to save the company hundreds of millions of dollars per year in things like office buildings and similar costs.

It also happens to be an incredibly green thing to do with a significant impact for the environment by keeping all of those people off of the roads etc.

Worker status (2)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424658)

The other problem is it changes the nature of the employee relationship providing your own tools is an strong indicator that you are a contractor and not an employee - so there are lots of legal issues.
.
Oh and if you want me to provide the tools cool but you will be paying a 25% arrangement fee, the $500 month management fee and and hers the lease agreement you will sign (equal to the cost over 3 years) and the tax indemnity in case the tax people decide after the fact that I owe them tax :-)

Re:Offloading IT cost onto employees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38424814)

Unless the employer provides ongoing cash payments to compensate the employee for use of thier device, this is a way of offloading IT cost onto the shoulders of employees. Add to that the fact that here in Canada, an employee of a company is not allowed to treat the cost fo a computer as a business expense (for tax purpoes), and the reduction in salary experienced by the employee is even greater than the benefit received by the employer.

I once brought (actually, bought) a laptop for work, and while in hindsight it probably wasn't the brightest idea, it did save my sanity. Some counterarguments.

1. You can't claim it as an expense, but my company does interest-free loans for personal computers.

2. Due to some PHB's higher up the chain, we were short on computers, so the option was to have *no* computer for several hours a day.

3. It was my personal computer, and thus it came home with me for my own use (and ten years later, although the screen is long since burnt out, it still lives happily hooked up to an external monitor for my daughter - not a bad investment all told).

4. Since it was my own machine, I retained control over what was installed. That's actually how we finally got proper work machines purchased - IT wanted to start running audits and installing software, and when informed that it was my personal machine (and thus they were not installing cruft on my machine), magically money was found for work-owned PCs were found (they also replaced the dual-terminals that everyone else was forced to use).

Buy your own devices (4, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38423914)

FTFY.

Really, why buy equipment for your employees when you can just make them buy it on their own?

Re:Buy your own devices (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38423934)

Really, why buy equipment for your employees when you can just make them buy it on their own?

And get them to work for free in their own time because they're now 'mobile'.

DOUBLE WIN!

One day all those people demanding that the IT department let them connect their phone to the network will be feeling nostalgic for the days when they didn't have to.

Though perhaps it would allow the Slashdot admins to build a site that works; I've had to turn Javascript off because of randomly vanishing 'Reply' buttons that do nothing other than say 'Working' when I press them.

Re:Buy your own devices (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38423944)

Though perhaps it would allow the Slashdot admins to build a site that works

By my recollection, we had such a site just a few years ago. Somehow, we were not dealing with a bunch of 503 errors, javascript issues, and other failures that make the new /. a pain in the ass to use. I guess all that code was deleted or something...

Re:Buy your own devices (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424386)

My employer knows that the second I leave the office my work iPhone is set to mute. it will be unmuted when I arrive the next day. IF I am on call then it does not get muted.

I got a call on my personal phone once from a manager at 11:00pm one night about a stupid question, the next morning, I billed his department for 1 day of On call tech and the hours from 5pm to 11:30pm as well as added that to my timesheet.

He freaked out but was told that once again he was supposed to call the NOC like he had been told 20 times before and they will have the on call guy call him back. Every time he calls someone other than the NOC his department will be charged for the emergency on call even and all the hours from 5pm until the call was resolved.

Solved the problem instantly. Once in a while we get another nimrod in the company that finds someone's cellphone number and bugs them after hours... the guys enjoy the once or twice a year $300.00 bonus in their check for answering a phone off duty because an idiot manager cant follow the rules.

Re:Buy your own devices (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424948)

Been there. I got a call at 2AM from an operator. To report? "It says there were 0 disc errors in the backup. What should I do?" I very much enjoyed (in a malicious way) highlighting this occurrence with his boss Myrna, at the Thursday VP meeting. Crap stopped when they instituted cross department billing.

Spam (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38423946)

What's with the Infoworld spam about this subject?

Today, report that businesses are encouraging users to bring their own devices.

Posted yesterday, how to get around businesses preventing bringing your own device: http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/12/18/2154224/how-to-thwart-the-high-priests-in-it [slashdot.org]

Am I imaginging things, or is somebody there trying to drive some agenda? (No, I didn't read either FA - I refuse to visit their website.)

Re: Preventing (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424006)

What's with the Infoworld spam about this subject?

Today, report that businesses are encouraging users to bring their own devices.

Posted yesterday, how to get around businesses preventing bringing your own device: http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/12/18/2154224/how-to-thwart-the-high-priests-in-it [slashdot.org]

Am I imaginging things, or is somebody there trying to drive some agenda? (No, I didn't read either FA - I refuse to visit their website.)

Two kinds of shops - a) those who want absolute control over all IT objects and b) those where results are valued more highly. Where I work there's discouragement from bringing your own devices or software to the party, but often that's the only way you get it done - and done timely.

I needed to have a web app up and running last spring - if I waited It would have been this Fall. I used what open source tools I could to get up and running - nothing beautiful, but highly effective. All done against the grain of things .. so guess what, it caught the attention of leadership and I was lauded for such a great advancement in service.

It could drive one to madness.

Re: Preventing (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424586)

Which is exactly why we have PCs in the workplace at all. If it were not for stories like that, we would all still be running on mainframe green screens. Whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing depends on who you ask.

Related: Businesses loosing more customer data (5, Insightful)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | more than 2 years ago | (#38423948)

with users bringing their own devices and loading sensitive data on them , customer data is lost in so many directions, its hard to point out the who actually "lost" the data in the first place.

Re:Related: Businesses loosing more customer data (4, Insightful)

blue_teeth (83171) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424270)

From The Fine Summary "'Two of the most highly regulated industries -- financial services and health care (including life sciences) -- are most likely to support BYOD".  Give me the names of banks who are encouraging this BYOD.  If my bank is in the list, I will close all my accounts.

Re:Related: Businesses loosing more customer data (1)

mikehilly (653401) | more than 2 years ago | (#38425242)

I think the main reason that those industries are interested is that a lot of the tools/apps the user base works on is through a secure web portal. Any data access behind the portal is limited so that it can not come down to the local device. If you think about it a good example is employees who use a "thin" computer like a Wyse terminal. If they can access the same apps/session behind a secure web portal from a DMZ based wifi network on their personal equipment who cares? The data that matters (financial or medical records) is still secure and only available inside the company data center and it never really leaves the secure environment. Obvious downsides are any local keylogger program and/or spyware that takes screenshots but there can be additional checks/scripts run from the web portal to minimize the threat of those attacks.

Re:Related: Businesses loosing more customer data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38425266)

^^^^^

This exactly. I have worked in IT for far to long and see the idiocy of far to many people to trust them and their home devices with any of my data. Between their surfing of sheep porn and downloading from Kazaa. I dont trust them or their devices and I will do everything in my power to keep it that way where I work. Sure in theory VDI is cheaper but only if you stop buying devices for your employees AND you stop supporting whatever they use. What happens when john is down for a week because his hard drive crashed and his boss is yelling at IT because you wont help poor john. He isnt doing his job for a week lets say he makes 1500 a week. A 1000 dollar laptop provided by the company which is support, warrantied, and secure or a 400 dollar wally world special with no warranty, god knows whats on it, with no support- but hey dont worry he accesses VDI which already costs us just as much or more than providing the laptop ourselves thanks to back end infrastructure and licensing being essentially the same or more....

Am I missing something?? I have done this 500 times in my head for my job and the numbers never come out in the BYOD/VDI camp. Its a short term gimmick with to many problems. There are reasons for VDI etc like someone else said maybe allow more telecommuting so people can work from home saving on building, security for consultants, maybe heat or production room constraints. But for simple remote access?? Id rather they have a company laptop with firewall,AV, remote management, FDE and VPN.

Fuck you, No. Pay me more. (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38423970)

Anything required for work, the employer pays for, or I simply wont buy it. Not my business, not my problem.

Re:Fuck you, No. Pay me more. (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38423992)

The problem is that there is undoubtedly someone at your job who does not feel that way, and who is willing to buy their own equipment -- and then they are going to get promoted while you are being laid off. This assumes, of course, that you are not a member of union or that if you are in a union the union does not have the backbone needed to stand up to your employer, which I think is a fair assumption in this day and age.

Re:Fuck you, No. Pay me more. (0)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424022)

You've got to be kidding. No Clothes? No Shampoo? No Nail clippers? No Haircuts? No Shoes? jpeg or it didn't happen...

How about a home phone? My local HR was freaked out about my temporary lack of a landline, "Are you homeless? In Jail?". They're not willing to pay for it, but they assume you have it if you're going to work there. Ended up listing my cellphone as both home and cellphone. Not seeing it as a huge problem.

Re:Fuck you, No. Pay me more. (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424156)

My local HR was freaked out about my temporary lack of a landline

They need to reach you instantly, at any hour of the day? Then they need to buy you a cell phone. Maybe you spent the past few nights at your new girlfriend's house, or you had to accompany your spouse to a funeral, or you decided to spend a few hours walking along the beach to center yourself.

Ended up listing my cellphone as both home and cellphone

So you are basically paying by the minute when your employer calls you. Yes, I know modern cell phone plans sell you blocks of hundreds or thousands of minutes, but the point here is that you are paying to make yourself available to your employer when you are not even at your office/job site. It may be rude to say this, but this is not really a situation that you should be in.

Re:Fuck you, No. Pay me more. (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424660)

They need to reach you instantly, at any hour of the day? Then they need to buy you a cell phone. Maybe you spent the past few nights at your new girlfriend's house, or you had to accompany your spouse to a funeral

I suppose if I told my wife I was at the girlfriend's house, and I told the girlfriend I with with the wife at a funeral, I might finally have the spare time to get some stuff done in the lab without interruption... I think you're on to something here...

So you are basically paying by the minute when your employer calls you. Yes, I know modern cell phone plans sell you blocks of hundreds or thousands of minutes, but the point here is that you are paying to make yourself available to your employer when you are not even at your office/job site. It may be rude to say this, but this is not really a situation that you should be in.

Ah its not so bad because I am in a rather weird/unique situation of not being salaried as my current employer categorically will not go salaried for non-management employees, and being a tightward cheapskate I have the worlds most expensive pay per minute cellphone service, which even at its inflated rate is something like one nineth my hourly hourly rate at time and a half overtime... Work is paying me nine times what I'm paying the phone company for the privilege of talking to me, so I'm all good with that profit rate. When the phone rings with a call from work, I almost feel my wallet getting heavier as I talk... makes me want to speak slower, sometimes. I can see why a salaried guy would be pissed off, but theoretically they are paid more to make up for calls like that, theoretically at least.

Sometimes, at home, without being paid for it, I even read computer books. Weirdly enough, I like Knuth. I know, I'm a sick, sick man, etc etc.

I am very happy not to have to carry two cellphones, and sometimes being always available is an inherent part of the job... which is probably partially why my pay rate is so high to begin with.

Its like arguing that the company should pay for the detergent used to wash my work clothes an extra time if I come in to work on a Saturday, after they cut me a check for overtime around the size of a decent car payment... geeze don't look a gift horse in the mouth, take the money and run.

Re:Fuck you, No. Pay me more. (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424822)

I know that I also wouldn't want to have to carry two phones. I telecommute, so it isn't really a problem for me, as leaving an extra phone on my desk isn't a huge deal, but if I was more on the move, it would be a hassle. I wouldn't want another PC on my desk tough.

What often gets missed by the "work and home are separate and never two shall meet" folks is that there huge opportunities for life that they miss because of it. Last summer I was able to take a 6 week road trip with my family because I don't draw that line. I simply could not have rationalized the cost of 6 weeks of lost pay, the expense of the trip itself, and the lowered value I would bring to my work by having a 6 week absence that could leave them inconvenienced for weeks while I was gone.

Would it have been physically possible to take the trip without working during it? Sure. Would it have happened? Would I be able to do thing like that as often? Definitely not.

On top of not having to take the 6 weeks off, I was able to tether my phone to my laptop and work from the back of the mini-van during the long stretch between interesting sites. There is no way that the company would have set me up for that. I need all new equipment because I want to take a 6 week road trip with my wife and kid just isn't the kind of argument that tends to work on most employers. If I didn't use my own equipment, not only would I have not taken the trip, the idea that the trip was even possible would not have even come up.

Re:Fuck you, No. Pay me more. (1)

anyGould (1295481) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424984)

You've got to be kidding. No Clothes? No Shampoo? No Nail clippers? No Haircuts? No Shoes? jpeg or it didn't happen...

How about a home phone? My local HR was freaked out about my temporary lack of a landline, "Are you homeless? In Jail?". They're not willing to pay for it, but they assume you have it if you're going to work there. Ended up listing my cellphone as both home and cellphone. Not seeing it as a huge problem.

I got some funny looks from my HR, but I simply told them that my manager (at the time) had abused the privledge of knowing my home phone number one too many times, we had it changed, and I didn't see a compelling need for them to know it - my address is correct, mail is a wonderful thing.

I suspect this panic will wane, though - a lot of folks are going cell-only ("I'm never home, why do I want to pay for a phone there?"), so it will become more common as time passes.

Extrapolating isn't always good (2)

regular_guy (1979018) | more than 2 years ago | (#38423972)

The article discusses health care as the main industry that's important to have 24hr information connection, and by utilizing mobile devices that information and connectivity can be available 24/7. This is then generalized, saying because it works there all companies should utilize this opportunity to get a high ROI on employee efficiency. While we've all seen these posts before, what other industries require 24 hr access from all employees? I know managers and the like in most all businesses often are required to be on-call, but this seems to be addressing the lesser employees, as in the manager contacts his/her subordinate, making the subordinate more or less be on-call. Does anyone have such circumstances (besides power plants/industry and manufacturing)? Is it often outlined in your contracts?

If you want something right .. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38423976)

You bring it yourself. Yeah. Brought in my own software so I could get things done. It's not just smartphones, people.

Enough Galen Gruman/Infoworld stories on /. (5, Insightful)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424014)

Slashdot just posted this other Galen Gruman story based on how to get your user devices into your business behind IT's backs: http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/12/18/2154224/how-to-thwart-the-high-priests-in-it [slashdot.org]

Now another story about user devices getting into business behind IT's backs, also by Galen Gruman.

Enough already!

Strange, isn't it? (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424100)

He's writing about how "most companies" are allowing users to bring in their own equipment ... while writing about how IT "priests" are preventing users from bringing in their own equipment.

But he isn't doing interviews with companies that are allowing users to connect to private. company data (the kind that would cause problems if leaked) via the users' own devices. Particularly companies covered by specific regulations such as health care.

Wouldn't at least one interview with the IT VP of a major hospital be appropriate by now? If nothing else, just to provide support for his claims.

Strange how that isn't happening.

Re:Strange, isn't it? (1)

joebagodonuts (561066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424710)

That would be too much work. Welcome to the new century, where no one wants to do hard, unpleasant things.

Re:Strange, isn't it? (2)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38425324)

He's become the new Jon Katz, how on earth did this guy ever get approved to write for an IT magazine? Your point about him lacking any companies that have any type of regulation to deal with is sound. We need a block on articles by this idiot.

Verify Certificate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38424030)

Anyone else getting a 'Verify Certificate' warning on the infoworld.com (2nd link) URL?
 
Safari can't verify the idendity of the website 'www.inforworld.com'.
The certificate for this website was signed by an unknown certifying authority....

Pure unfounded hype. (5, Insightful)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424056)

I scanned TFA, and it looks like I will disagree with 70-90% of the assertions therein. I can't call them 'facts', because they aren't.

No mention of the security issues surrounding BYOD. For industries that reject bringing your own notebook to work, the assertion that financial services firms are embracing BYOD borders on the ludicrous, with a healthy dose of fantasy. Here at least, in a Fortune 50 financial services company, BYOD isn't even up for discussion. The security issues for Personally Identifiable Information alone rule out permitting any significant use of data on a device that is unsecured. And YOD is presumed to be unsecured, since it cannot be confirmed or assured by the people in data security that are responsible for preventing data loss. That's not 'minimizing' the loss, but preventing it. Nice try, Infoworld, but you're not fooling me into thinking I can load up my Android or iOS phone with corporate data. Not here anyways.

They then launch into how 'app-savvy' hardware is so great. Help me here - is 'app-savvy' another way of saying 'high-performance'? I thought so. Feh.

Good Devices may supply mobile device management systems to their customers, but I can name you a 50,000 seat company that may or may not use it, but if they do it's for captive devices - Blackberrys - that are never going to be BYOD. Quoting such a study is regurgitating their self-serving (and I expect nothing less, they are out for a propfit after all) hype and fantasy that with their services, BYOD is perfectly secure. Again, where I work, promises are not enough. Security is based on assurance. Little of it is provided by third parties. I can't even share data with co-workers in many/most cases. The concept of letting employees run mission-critical (data is mission-critical to a financial services company) or senstitive data apps would not be laughable here. It would be dismissed out of hand.

More to the point, however, the idea that somehow the device changes the nature of your work is both spot on and wide of the mark. If you're primarily displaying data, a table is par excellence. as soon as you need to enter data, it's a losing proposition. Depending on your role, tablets and smartphones offer some advantages.

My brother has been delivering real-time production data to his workforce worldwide (wherever there is a signal, WiFi, CDMA, GSM, or satellite) since Palm first made a phone. He's added native support for every OS as of last year. He sees the craze, and his boss asks him sometimes about how this 'Android thing' would work for them. And he responds that it has been working 'for a while now'.

And no, they do not do BYOD. They supply whatever is required for whatever geographic region the rep is in. But they could suport BYOD, since he supports some customers directly with the same apps, where they are BYOD only because it isn't 'his' device. And he sees the security issues. SSL is so flawed he considers it useless, but there is nothing else right now except for VPN tunnels. That's where he's at, and some Java sandboxing that he thinks is ensuring data is gone when the session is gone. But he knows that rooting devices will some day thwart that.

And since I can root most Android devices without a lot of effort, that alone makes BYOD for work just impossible.

Lastly, I read up on the link from IW that Android is making inroads into business environments that the IT staff are unaware of. Well, actually, I can't use any of my personal mail at work any more unless it's on my Android phone. I don't consider that a BYOD instance, since if I connected to the corporate WiFi, I wouldn't be able to use personal email on it then either. I can. theoretically, dump data to the phone via USB or a uSD card, but that would be logged and scanned, and PII would be captured and alarms sounded. Yes, my work notebook can be prevented from downloading data to a removable device, any sort of device. It can also check if the device is encrypted, which they all must be.

Hype. Misstatement. Fantasy. But it may sell more stuff, and that would be the point of TFA.

Re:Pure unfounded hype. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38424598)

BYOD is just Hype
Gee And I thought I was alone.
What could possibly happen without secure devices? Why have any security at all?
Loss of control of SECURITY
Possible lawsuits from Customers ( more unemployment )
Non-compliance with government regulations

GET A LIFE !

Stop the INFOWORLD spam please (4, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424076)

This is twice the submitter is from the site that has the story, worse its nearly identical if not the same one (ain't going to read this slashvertisement) where they were went off on IT departments enforcing standards.

Seconded. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424224)

If InfoWorld isn't getting enough page hits on their own with badly written stories like that, why give them any more hits?

Disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38424806)

IT professionals should read what kind of clueless propaganda memes that their executives are exposed to so that we can be prepared to crush these lies with reality. We've spend decades on user empowerment on both software and hardware and we need to be able to lay it out for the business decision makers as an inoculation against this kind of ignorance.

Bring any device you want to buy (3, Interesting)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424094)

At my workplace if you need a mobile device with email, IT will supply you with a blackberry. If you want something else, then they will pay you half of your subsidized device cost (i.e. if you need to pay $200 for a new phone, the company will pay you $100), and will pay the monthly fee they would have paid for the Blackberry (I think it's around $55, so it won't cover the entire plan, but should more than cover work usage). You own the phone and the plan, if you leave the company, you get to keep the phone, but you're still on the hook for the plan. LIkewise, if you drop it in a lake, you're on the hook to replace it.

IT will help you set up the phone for Wifi and Exchange email. Your phone has to allow remote wipe through Exchange to qualify.

It seems like a cheesy way to get employees to help shoulder some of the phone expenses, but also lets employees have pretty much any phone they want, so I see it as a net win for me. And most people don't *need* an Android/iPhone for work - a Blackberry could take care of all of their true work-related needs. Another nice advantage is that the company doesn't get my phone bills, so they can't see who I'm calling (like a job recruiter). And, I don't need to worry about losing purchased apps on a phone that's owned by my company if they take the phone back - it's my phone and my apps.

Not a perfect solution, I'd rather that they just gave me an Android for free, but with dozens of choices out there, the IT qualified device is probably not going to be the one I want anyway.

fedex makes dirvers buy / rent there truck + route (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38424118)

So you don't want this to go too far. But some places make you buy uniforms / coats at high costs.

What if a place made you buy your own Sony laptops and did not let you take other cheaper ones?

My case (1)

tool462 (677306) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424146)

My company has this policy, but I won't use it for one very simple reason:
You have to agree to a clause that allows them to remote wipe your device.
If it was truly a work device, this would be fine as it's theirs to do with as they please. It's my responsibility to keep whatever personal information I need backed up in a safe place. I'd probably still have my own personal device for personal photos/email/music/etc.
For a device that I own and pay for, this is not acceptable.

If the work access was appropriately sandboxed such that they could wipe only, for example, an encrypted partition of the SD card where the apps are installed and store their data, then I might be on board. Companies consider their data valuable, but I consider mine valuable too. And just like they won't give me root access to their servers, I won't give them root access to my phone/tablet/pc either.

Re:My case (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424336)

You are right, on all counts, so don't expect to be allowed to BYOD. Do expect your employer to provide the tools necessary for you to be productive at your job.

Re:My case (1)

Relayman (1068986) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424582)

You bring the device to work and connect it to the network, the company pwns it. Remote wipe is only one feature, another is full inspection of all data on the device. I've heard of one person who got an iPhone 4S simply so her personal stuff is completely separate from the company network. Yes, that means 3G instead of WiFi at work.

Re:My case (1)

tool462 (677306) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424894)

Exactly. Though I didn't make that point explicitly, access to my data on my device by my company would not be acceptable either. The difference is, that would fall under my responsibility. I wouldn't just blindly trust them that they made their apps behave themselves and not look at my data. I would need to make sure they don't have access to anything I don't want them to access. I don't have the will or desire to go to those lengths for the privilege of paying to work from my own device.

Incidentally, I do have this set up for work access on my home computer. I have a clean VM with Windows installed that I use to VPN to my work connection. It provides that sandbox where my company can do whatever it deems necessary for their network security (AV installs, software audits, etc, etc) but have no access to my personal machine. Either of us can decide to remove access with no loss of anything valuable.

Legal Issue - can company erase YOUR machine? (2)

micron (164661) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424176)

There is an interesting legal issue here.. IANAL though..
When the company owns the machine, there is a much clearer line as to who owns the applications and data on that machine. When an employee leaves the company, the company can "brick" the system with minimal problems. They own the hardware, they own the software licenses, and the company probably has a policy about no personal applications or data on the machine.
When the employee owns the machine, the rights of the company to erase data get really murky, fast. Does the employee have to agree to allow the company to inspect their (the employee's owned system) to remove company assets from the system? I don't see how that is going to work. My employer does not have the right to search my car after I quit, even though I called into conference calls in it, and used it for work related trips quite a bit.

I know of several companies that completely prohibit employee owned devices in the workplace for exactly the reasons I mentioned above.

Re:Legal Issue - can company erase YOUR machine? (3, Interesting)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38425056)

The company can demand you return their property. They can't however do an inspection to determine if you have. What happens is, it shifts the burdon of proof. The company has to prove by preponderance of the evidence that you do have their property so as to get a court order requiring you to return it.... If the company says they want to erase your laptop, you say you already deleted their stuff, they can't do much.

That's one of the reasons companies might want DRMed data and use application with much more DRM support if they want to move to this sort of remote model.

if people want to buy $2000 laptops in 2011... (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424188)

if people are willing to spend $2000 on Macbooks just to do their work, then management would be dumb to stand in the way and spend company money on company laptops

They offered that here at work... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424216)

Company bought Iphone with data and phone paid for by the company, or use your own phone and we give you $30.00 a month on your paycheck.

Considering I spend hours on tech support and blow through data like a madman for work, I'll take the company supplied one that coves all my work expenses instead of me paying out of my pocket for work related expenses.

Honestly, if they did not supply it and paid for the service, I will NOT use my personal one for work. So I hope this BYOD is getting companies to pay the employees cellphone bills completely.

Again... (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424242)

If there's a business case for BYOD, IT should be supporting it. I said if there's a business case. That would include factoring in the additional expense associated with properly supporting these devices. It does not come freely, or even cheaply. Figure it out. If it makes more money than it costs, case made and IT will be glad to help. If not, don't go whining to the CIO, as some dickhead suggested in an earlier article.

Fines (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424256)

Two of the most highly regulated industries â" financial services and health care (including life sciences) â" are most likely to support BYOD

... until they get slapped with huge fines due to the whole concept of BYOD being against said regulations.

There's a big question here (1)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424340)

Are these devices presenting information or storing information? There is a world of difference between the two and I can assure that both finance and health industries have regulation that require governance in the event that data is stored.

That being said if the information is simply being presented (you log into a vm from home and all data is kept in the cloud) that's typically going to be ok. If information is being stored than you have large amounts of regulatory requirements you have to work with.

Home use devices are not inherently bad on their own. Having done enterprise management for both healthcare and finance I can assure you that both of these industries take their requirements seriously. They also both support large numbers of people that work from home by making the service available in a manner that can be controlled. This is something the troll of yesterday's "IT is an obstacle" just didn't understand.

Gray Area for Sarbanes–Oxley (2)

ponraul (1233704) | more than 2 years ago | (#38424422)

This is not surprising as it allows people to communicate off the record by using their own account on their own devices and maintain records that would not be subject to any retention rules. That sounds like a great business case to me.

Re:Gray Area for Sarbanes–Oxley (1)

anyGould (1295481) | more than 2 years ago | (#38425064)

You say this like it doesn't happen already - most people I know around here swap personal email addresses for "non-work related" things that IT doesn't like. Not really a surprise to learn that folks keep in touch even when they've moved to the competitor.

About what I would expect from a "Smart User"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38424652)

This guy seems to live in a dream world where facts and logic are irrelevant. I do have to wonder if the sky is brown for him.
IT fears no tech, we just don't want "Smart Users" to be putting the companies private data onto a device that can be completely owned by something as simple as plugging it into a USB port.
Sorry, most companies in the real world have rules against BYOD, otherwise you cannot enforce AV, encryption, remote device wipe, password policies, employee separation policies etc etc etc. If they don't they will after their first major breech. Something about not being allowed to process credit cards anymore or having to notify every customer you ever had that your "Smart User"'s Wii got hacked and had a copy of the customers database on it, that makes people with Cs in their title angry.
Also note how in these articles it seems to be the people who would be accountable are against BYOD... The author of both of these articles is no "smart user", the best I can say for him is he is a moron living in a dreamworld.

 

my gear as not managed by the company ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38424720)

you mean bring my gear that i've set up as war dialer nmap, OpenVAS etc etc etc , sure no problem , wont be for business use though

LMAO !!!!!!

STUPID IDEA (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#38425068)

As has already been demonstrated at my porn shop job, this poses a HUGE security risk.

Just the simple act of plugging in your phone to charge can leave the hosting system compromised.

We found a virus in our systems a few days ago. Security log check - some LG device was plugged into our system.

We got lucky, I caught it before it could fuck our inventory database any worse than it already was when we finally discovered it.

FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38425138)

I work for a publicly held company that has some fairly strict information management rules, and must comply with SarBox, etc. I am not in the IT department.

And I have been surprised at how supportive and encouraging our IT has been for bring-your-own device. There are rules in place, but even with them, much of the burden of security is placed on (this will be horrifying to many Slashdot people) the *user*. The user is still obligated to try their best not to act like a stupidfuck. Which is always the case anyway. Even in the most tightly controlled environment you can leave a document (or a prototype) lying around, or forward email to the wrong person, etc.

The amount of fear, uncertainty and doubt on the part of the average IT admin that is on display on this topic is staggering. You get the feeling many IT people really think they're the last line of defense, and that information security is the be-all end-all. They seem to forget there are still millions of ways those idiot business users can make mistakes and royally screw things up in such a way that the lights go out on the whole operation - even if IT has everything locked down tightly.

It's 2011, people. I'm sure there are business people who still try and blame IT for their obvious failures and lack of responsibility/ownership. But they are fewer and fewer, and not credible.

What? (1)

Taty'sEyes (2373326) | more than 2 years ago | (#38425176)

So let me get this straight, people in "financial services and health care" are being encouraged to bring their own devices to work? And this is so they can do their work more efficiently I suppose. Now the work they do, I'm guessing involves my private data if I am their customer. Is this safe to assume? And Angela got drunk and left her iPad at the bar...

Please stop posting troll stories (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38425322)

This is getting rather ridiculous, /.

No thanks. Hands off my phone (1)

RubberDogBone (851604) | more than 2 years ago | (#38425378)

Work recently decided the run with Gmail for Domains and migrated all the employees from using Outlook and a POP server to doing email on a version of Gmail.

Along with this change, they now allow employees to connect their personal smartphones to the Gmail for Domains product. Here's the problem: to do this, you have to give special admin permissions to the company IT team so they can admin things down to the device level.

Nobody can tell me what limits, if any, are on what they can do to my personal phone. Are they limited only to things related to my work email, or can they browse my device at will, look at my personal Gmail account which is also on my phone, grab my data, wipe the device and shrug at me?

As much as it would be convenient to have work email on my phone, I am not about to blindly hand over admin to them. If they want employees to consent to this, they need to spell out who is allowed to do what -and the answer had better be more than "we can do whatever we want and there are no consequences if we screw it up and brick the phone or wipe your unrelated personal Gmail account."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...