My company recently switched to a BYOM(Bring Your Own Mobile Device) I have mixed feelings about it. They are only reimbursing about 2/3 of my actual cost. But I have a better phone having switched to an Android from iPhone. I still receive my corporate mail on my phone but have set it to check every hour from the push as new mail comes before.
I find I use my phone less since I no longer have unlimited minutes and data like I did with my previous phone.
Verdict: Saves the company money at my expense
Shon
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
While people have not exactly been bringing their own devices for years they have been taking (or emailing) work home for years. This may actually make the whole process safer and better managed.
Of course as @Shon points out, it will save his employer money at his expense.
Of course as @Shon points out, it will save his employer money at his expense.
But that doesn't imply IT has to make it work on the corporate WiFi or connect to email etc. Most companies have a webmail access for external email use. Since most phones have a browser if you really desperately want to use your gadget to view your mail use the existing mechanism.
I agree a conversation/decision needs to be made. How much work are we willing to put in to support multiple mobile OS access to our systems? How much control do we want, ie are we going to require they be locked down? If so is there anyway for us to prevent/detect when the user takes the device home and jailbreaks it after they got us to connect it to our systems?
To me there isn't much benefit to anyone for BYOD. Employees: likely not fully reimbursed, likely expected to be always available where as when the company had to pay for the phone only key people or oncall people were expected to answer work questions afterhours. Employers: complete crap, multiple devices to support which guarantees calls like "Bob has the same phone I do, he bought it only two months ago, his works mine doesn't", or if wifi isn't locked down on the network they use they end up using their devices as a way to stream content while at work, send sexual emails, etc. generally be idiots because "its my device I can do what I want to". Regardless, there was a reason why when a company was buying the phones they are all the same model: it is much easier to make work in your environment, letting people bring any piece of junk to work and then expect IT to support it is crazy.
I agree a conversation/decision needs to be made. How much work are we willing to put in to support multiple mobile OS access to our systems? How much control do we want, ie are we going to require they be locked down? If so is there anyway for us to prevent/detect when the user takes the device home and jailbreaks it after they got us to connect it to our systems?
To me there isn't much benefit to anyone for BYOD. Employees: likely not fully reimbursed, likely expected to be always available where as when the company had to pay for the phone only key people or oncall people were expected to answer work questions afterhours. Employers: complete crap, multiple devices to support which guarantees calls like "Bob has the same phone I do, he bought it only two months ago, his works mine doesn't", or if wifi isn't locked down on the network they use they end up using their devices as a way to stream content while at work, send sexual emails, etc. generally be idiots because "its my device I can do what I want to". Regardless, there was a reason why when a company was buying the phones they are all the same model: it is much easier to make work in your environment, letting people bring any piece of junk to work and then expect IT to support it is crazy.
Joshua,
agree with what you wrote - especially "Others are embracing the savings and flexibility available to them with BYOD and trying to mitigate the additional risks." This is the heart of Intel's new security strategy. We know BYOD has risks, but risk are higher if we force employees to "work around" the controls/policies, AND that BYOD make employees more productive, and increases business agility. This paper talks about our approach:http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/whitepaper/Rethinking_Information_Security_Improve_Business_Agility.pdf
Elaine,
ITIntelsme
agree with what you wrote - especially "Others are embracing the savings and flexibility available to them with BYOD and trying to mitigate the additional risks." This is the heart of Intel's new security strategy. We know BYOD has risks, but risk are higher if we force employees to "work around" the controls/policies, AND that BYOD make employees more productive, and increases business agility. This paper talks about our approach:http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/whitepaper/Rethinking_Information_Security_Improve_Business_Agility.pdf
Elaine,
ITIntelsme
If your employees can work around your controls than so can visitors, competitors etc. Presumably you have locked down exchange, network access etc to your devices. If your employees are circumventing that they are likely breaking the law not just corporate rules. If they are using personal email services to do corporate business they are likely breaking corporate rules and acting in a less than ethical manner. Either way just because they want to or might already be doing something doesn't mean that a company has to enable and condone the behaviour.
I'd love to know where the "more productive" comes from. Is using your iPhone instead of the corporate blackberry really that more convenient? Are normal business uses: calling and email really that much easier if you get to use your own device?
If you mean that more people have devices that they can be expected to be reachable at even if the company doesn't deem them important enough to warrant a phone that they pay for than I wouldn't say that is a good thing. If you aren't willing to pay $40 a month to be able to reach me and I'm not willing to work on my own time for free so I won't answer the phone if its work calling unless I'm compensated.
I'd love to know where the "more productive" comes from. Is using your iPhone instead of the corporate blackberry really that more convenient? Are normal business uses: calling and email really that much easier if you get to use your own device?
If you mean that more people have devices that they can be expected to be reachable at even if the company doesn't deem them important enough to warrant a phone that they pay for than I wouldn't say that is a good thing. If you aren't willing to pay $40 a month to be able to reach me and I'm not willing to work on my own time for free so I won't answer the phone if its work calling unless I'm compensated.
"We know BYOD has risks, but risk are higher if we force employees to "work around" the controls/policies,..."
How are employees 'forced' to 'work around' policies? Assuming the employee has been provided adequate equipment, how is he 'forced' to use something else?
The only 'forcing' is you follow company policy or you'll be forced to look for another job.
How are employees 'forced' to 'work around' policies? Assuming the employee has been provided adequate equipment, how is he 'forced' to use something else?
The only 'forcing' is you follow company policy or you'll be forced to look for another job.
Especially in sensitive industries. I work in healthcare. We have a strange mix between privacy requirements and soon freedom of information requests so data needs to be centralized and very controlled so things that are private remain private and things that the public has the right to know can be made available to them. Regardless tight control != "use what you want will figure out how to make it work". It is hard enough to keep of with security on known devices try keeping track of a particular version of android that you only see when someone brings it to your office for the 5 minute configuration to use vpn/email etc. Not going to work.
We have had these conversations before, (just substitute "personal laptop" for "personal mobile device", and the dialog is deja vu)
Remember these beauties:
"Why can't I use my Windows XP Home laptop on the corporate network? It has XP just like my desktop you gave me!"
"What do you mean I can't use a personal Inkjet printer? It's not like you guys are paying for it! It is way more convenient to me that having to walk two cubicles down to the networked printer."
I support a client that is using Multiple Android version smartphones, but the company is paying for them, and the controls are in place. If they were to use BYOD, the security policy would require an PIN Code to unlock, not just a swipe guesture, the device can be remotely wiped if need be and/or have certain features shutdown. I do agree with the author that wholesale denial by IT is not the answer, but I also agree that Leadership CANNOT be in charge of such a program, as most have no concept of what mobile security entails.
Remember these beauties:
"Why can't I use my Windows XP Home laptop on the corporate network? It has XP just like my desktop you gave me!"
"What do you mean I can't use a personal Inkjet printer? It's not like you guys are paying for it! It is way more convenient to me that having to walk two cubicles down to the networked printer."
I support a client that is using Multiple Android version smartphones, but the company is paying for them, and the controls are in place. If they were to use BYOD, the security policy would require an PIN Code to unlock, not just a swipe guesture, the device can be remotely wiped if need be and/or have certain features shutdown. I do agree with the author that wholesale denial by IT is not the answer, but I also agree that Leadership CANNOT be in charge of such a program, as most have no concept of what mobile security entails.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
