For example we needed to program an Arduino-type board, but that's not possible with our work laptops (no admin rights, USB ports disabled, etc); we never found a solution other than a personal laptop. Or a colleague needed to run a supplier's simulation tool that needed admin rights, and couldn't get an exception fast enough. Or you need to run a Linux tool.
This is not very persuasive. What you really have there is two work laptops.
My personal laptop comes everywhere with me. Doesn't yours?
Also, corporate has given itself the right to search any and all devices on me while at work, so that's double incentive to leave the home laptop at home.
I've had to check an account while at work to deal with my kid attempting to pay college tuition with one of my credit cards. Also looked up records so he could call the DMV to rectify something. Yeah, sometimes they're things that can wait a day, but a break from bug hunting can be nice.
I carry three. One is from work, the other is from a different department in that same work. They both insist I have a particular type of phone running particular software. But work never calls me on those phones. They always call my personal phone.
People view and use their phone as an extension to their body. I don't think it's possible to change that.
It's isolated from my phone, my employer can't see anything outside the profile and I just disable it on weekends/vacations.
It's not a big deal... until it is. Like when your boss/coworker gets involved in a work dispute and you get dragged into a deposition.
iOS doesn't allow that however - there the Apple will give everything over to employer if they so ask.
A deposition about a work related issue may ask to see all devices that you use in connection with your employer. So yes, a deposition will care when you say you didn't use your personal phone for work if you can prove it by it not being on any device list found with work-related services.
A device list can be obtained (usually easily, sometimes with a court order) through many services you use. G Suite, Github, Microsoft Account, Slack, Reddit, etc... these all track what devices have logged into them with your account. Signal and Telegram have your phone number. And of course any email sent has a list of addresses to which it was sent. So make sure your personal devices aren't found to be communicating with coworkers or vendors and you'll have a valid argument for "I didn't use my personal device for work".
Whether it will stick will largely depend on how good the lawyers are because that's just one way your device can be in scope for a deposition. Another way would be if any messages from coworkers are sent to/from your personal email or phone number then that can also bring your devices into the scope of a deposition. It might depend on whether the content or context of the messages suggests that they're related to the subject of the deposition and that the conversation had been moved (eg, an attempt to hide it). Again, it largely depends on the quality of the lawyers involved.
They need you to hand it over. If its your personal device, you just say piss off, no you can't have it.
That's not how a subpoena works if it's on the same physical device. Good luck finding a judge who understands the concept of a "software wall."
That's a tall order.
Also, the title says that GOOGLE spied on someone - which is not a deposition, is it?
This is assuming you aren't in a "hand over all electronic devices" kind of situation.
Yes.
Source: Been subpoenaed three times and my attorneys have had restrictions placed on what can/cannot be searched... like I am assuming most competent attorneys can provide. The party has to have reasonable indication that relevant data is on personal devices so the opposing counsel doesn't go goldfishing through a bunch of stuff to turn up potentially unrelated dirt in discovery.
Also, you can’t just not respond to a deposition or refuse to hand over your phone as evidence in a crime. That’s obstruction of justice and possibly contempt of court.
Basically, you can sit there for hours on end explaining that it’s impossible to break the “wall”, but that’s time and time in money in the court system (literally), or you can just fork over the phone because it’s not your personal one.
The primary reason for this would be against thieves, but it would work against courts as well, and the user wouldn't have a choice.
People here are choosing to make things harder for themselves by coming up with ideas to skirt the law, but it doesn’t work and will only make the police go harder on you. The law (and precedent) is not on your side in this battle.
Destruction when handing to a mugger is still ok.
Judge: "Hand over that phone right now"
You: "Sure, I can hand it over, but all data will then get wiped by the device automatically due to Google/Apple/Samsung's anti-theft design and I don't have a choice"
After that it's upto the Judge whether to proceed with the handover or not. It will be the judge who destroyed the data if so.
The primary motive of that design would be against thieves, but it would incidentally happen to work on judges as well. The owners of the phones would have no choice.
That idea extended to civil procedure and phones is that the discovery process for a civil case would be for things related to the lawsuit of which your personal phone might not be. They could certainly request it, but a good lawyer would argue that your personal phone has no connection to the work phone (of which the lawsuit is about) as evidenced by the fact that you have two phones (you intend to separate the two matters). Separate profiles on the same computer (phone) would be harder to argue.
It’s not a clear cut matter and would certainly depend on how the judge is feeling, but if there’s a possibility of keeping your personal and work life separate, why not do so? Don’t put all your eggs (data) in one basket (phone) and the like.
Which is likely legally allowed for a deposition.
> They need you to hand it over. If its your personal device, you just say piss off, no you can't have it.
Telling the courts/lawyers to piss off is not a viable option. That's not how depositions work. You might be able to get a lawyer to file legal motions with expert testimony attached pointing out they shouldn't need access to the whole phone for the reasons you said, but 99% of people will not bother getting a lawyer for something like this.
No, that is now how subpoenas and depositions work. I've been involved in a few. The judge needs a specific reason to approve inclusion of your personal device: like a record of information having been sent to it specifically or being used in a context relevant to the case at hand. And the information request will have to be specific to the case at hand, so you can just return with "There is no information on those devices relevant to the subpoena parameters" (said under oath).
If they demand your personal device anyway, because the subpoena is too broad or something, you can fight it with the judge and argue why it shouldn't be included.
If you never, ever mix personal and work then you should have no difficulty getting your personal devices excluded from a work related inquiry.
Regular MDM used to do that (just as Android used to do that), but Apple has been working on the same "wall" to separate work and personal info.
https://www.apple.com/business/docs/resources/Managing_Devic...
I certainly know of people who have suggested and gotten changes to agreements like this. But you need to be professional about it.
"Poor culture fit".
It's like asking what the best way to write a lisp in INTERCAL would be. The best way is to not do it.
A lot more things are open to negotiation than some people imagine. Even including buying a fridge at your local chain store or similar. Not every time, and not to everyone who merely says "I want".
But who would pay $3K for a contract review??
Special cases are special. But most cases are not special.
Sometimes businesses literally put some services on different physical boxes in case a court sees fit to collect the entire machine. If you had a bunch of other VMs on it... shrug.
Something like a fingerprint scanner that needs to be scanned at least once every 24 hours or all data gets erased.
You: "Sure, I can hand it over, but all data will then get wiped by the device automatically due to Google/Apple/Samsung's anti-theft hardware design and I don't have a choice in the software settings to disable that"
After that it's upto the Judge whether to proceed with the handover or not.
At this point, if the judge proceeds with the handover, it will be the judge who destroyed evidence.
Even if you wiped the data, if the government wants to seize your crud, they're still gonna take it.
Imagine a hypothetical phone that is covered in fingerprint sensors where if it senses foreign hands touching it, it auto-deletes everything. That might not be the most feasible hardware implementation but I'm sure we can think of something to that effect.
You want to automate the destruction of evidence? I understand thats typically treated as confirming whatever is the most damaging possibility.
I walk around with two phones now, one for work and my personal one.
Its foolish to think they wouldn't use it.
I usually have four phones: Work, Personal, Personal (other country sim), emergency backup (in a buddy pouch, powered off).
I technically carry 4 phones...
If you require rootkits then the work phone is now a desk phone.