In our last "bring your own device" post we explored some of the key security, privacy and incident response issues related to BYOD. These issues are often important drivers in a company's decision to pursue a BYOD strategy and set the scope of personal device use within their organization. If the risks and costs associated with BYOD outstrip the benefits, a BYOD strategy may be abandoned altogether. One of the primary tools (if not the most important tool) for addressing such risks are BYOD-related policies. Sometimes these policies are embedded within an organization's existing security and privacy policy framework. More frequently, however, companies are creating separate personal device use policies that stand alone or work with/cross-reference existing company security, privacy and incident response polices. This post lays out the key considerations company lawyers and compliance personnel should take into account when creating personal device use policies and outlines some of the important provisions that are often found in such policies.
Employees are increasingly using (and demanding to use) their personal devices to store and process their employer's data, and connect to their networks. This "Bring Your Own Device" trend is in full swing, whether companies like it or not. Some organizations believe that BYOD will allow them to avoid significant hardware, software and IT support costs. Even if cost-savings is not the goal, most companies believe that processing of company data on employee personal devices is inevitable and unavoidable.Unfortunately, BYOD raises significant data security and privacy concerns, which can lead to potential legal and liability risk. This blogpost identifies and explores some of the key privacy and security legal concerns associated with BYOD, including "reasonable" BYOD security, BYOD privacy implications, and security and privacy issues related to BYOD incident response and investigations.
As we have discussed on our blog, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has continued a campaign of enforcement actions against employers who, according to the NLRB, have unlawfully terminated employees for discussing working conditions on social media. As we reported, in the first of such "Facebook" enforcement actions to come before an NLRB administrative judge, the employer was ordered to reinstate five employees and to pay back their wages.On September 28, 2011, in the second "Facebook" case to reach an NLRB administrative judge, an employer was found to have been justified in terminating an employee car salesman for Facebook postings that mocked the employer and did not concern working conditions
On August 18, 2011, the Associate General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or the "Board") issued a report analyzing the Board's recent social media enforcement actions. The report seeks to provide guidance to employers that want to ensure that their social media policies appropriately balance employee rights and company interests.
We previously reported on our blog that a Connecticut ambulance company settled the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB's) allegations that the company violated an employee's federal rights by firing her for criticizing a manager on Facebook. The NLRB continues its enforcement blitz with another Facebook firing complaint.
Yesterday we wrote on our blog about the NLRB's Facebook firing settlement. I was interviewed on Fox Live this morning about the case, its implications for employees and businesses, and other developments in workplace privacy. You can view the clip at http://video.foxnews.com/v/4531424/facebook-firing-case-settlement/?playlist_id=87937
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has announced that settlement has been reached in the closely watched Facebook firing suit brought by the agency.We have previously reported on our blog that the NLRB filed an administrative complaint against a Connecticut ambulance company alleging that the company violated an employee's federal rights by firing her for criticizing a manager on Facebook. In the complaint, the NLRB took the position that union and non-union employees have a right to criticize their employers, management or working conditions, and cannot be punished for engaging in such protected activity. The NLRB also alleged that the company maintained overly-broad rules in its employee handbook regarding blogging, Internet posting, and communications between employees. The complaint asserted that an employee's right to criticize the employer and management is an extension of the federal right to discuss unionization and form unions.
2010 arguably was a breakout year for consumer privacy in the U.S., but the year also brought about significant changes to the legal landscape of employee privacy. Federal and state court decisions, state legislation and agency actions suggest that the U.S. may be moving towards a greater level of privacy protection for employees. Employers are well-advised to consider these developments in reviewing and revising policies that affect the privacy of their employees.