|
AndrewWatikerFirstPaper 6 - 22 Jul 2017 - Main.AndrewWatiker
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Privacy in the Mobile Workplace - AirWatch | |
<
< | -- By AndrewWatiker - 05 Mar 2017 | >
> | -- By AndrewWatiker - 22 Jul 2017 | | | The Problem | |
<
< | For many, the 21st-century workplace has expanded beyond the office and now includes the home, the coffee shop, the train and even the airplane. Many employers expect workers to be available to work wherever they may be. While one can debate the social merits of these changes, they raise difficult technical challenges for employees and employers. One of these is providing secure access to company materials and communications channels on mobile devices. | >
> | For many, the 21st-century workplace has expanded far beyond the office. Employers, by insisting on remote access, raise difficult technical challenges. One of these is providing secure access to company materials on mobile devices. | | | | |
<
< | AirWatch: A Popular Solution | >
> | The Security Challenge and the Role of MDM | | | | |
<
< | The market now supports a number of products designed to support IT departments in managing these challenges. One of these is AirWatch from VMWare. This product allows for IT to “manage” devices running a variety of operating systems (including mobile operating systems) whether the devices are company owned or owned by an employee. While AirWatch, and similar products, may prove useful for companies attempting to secure their data, they raise serious privacy concerns. Focusing on AirWatch, we find that while AirWatch claims to protect privacy, the protection offered is largely illusory. Further, employees are not given an adequate choice when use of these products is promoted. Legal scholars are beginning to recognise the threat of these kinds of applications can post if misused. | >
> | The challenge of providing secure remote access is particularly acute in the context of mobile devices. Among working-age adults in the United States, smartphone ownership is approaching near ubiquity. Employers, recognizing this fact, often permit or require employees to work remotely on their personal devices. In theory, the use of personal devices serves both employees and employers, allowing employees to carry only one device and employers to avoid the expense of purchasing and maintaining the devices. However, personal devices are under the control of their owners and employers have limited ability to regulate the owner’s security practices. | | | | |
<
< | The Privacy Issues – Not Fully Disclosed | >
> | Employers rightfully fear the exposure of sensitive information. Without adequate security, confidential information can reach competitors or thieves. To meet the growing demand of employers seeking to protect confidential information stored on employee devices, employers have turned to Mobile Device Management (MDM) products including VMWare’s AirWatch. | | | | |
<
< | VMWare is aware that employees using its software have specific concerns about privacy, particularly in the context of installing the software on their own devices. In their “Privacy First” white paper, VMWare indicates that users often think of the software as “big brother” and suggest companies take steps to help their employees understand how the software works. VMWare also launched a website, designed to help employees understand the workings of the software better. The site suggests that the software effectively separates devices into personal and work apps and that the company can only track actions taken in work apps. A short video, even purports to show exactly what an IT manager would see to comfort users. However, the video and website are misleading. For example, the video suggests that an employer cannot wipe personal data nor can it see personal apps, neither of these statements is true. | >
> | MDM provides IT departments with the ability to control personal devices, including smartphones. For example, companies using AirWatch can distribute company applications, ensure operating system patches are installed, and remotely remove business data from lost devices. The software is particularly attractive to law firms that must protect confidential client data. The software is also seen as important to institutions like medical schools that must protect patient information. | | | | |
<
< | Diving deep into the technical documents provided to IT administrators, AirWatch can provide an employer with a much more detailed picture of the user’s personal life than the website lets on. Specifically, the application can track an employee’s location, display a list of personal apps installed on the device, remotely wipe all of a user’s data (including personal non-work data) and disable the lock code. While AirWatch recommends best practices (see pg. 23-25) that discourage employing these features on employee-owned devices, companies remain free to do so. Employers using AirWatch set the terms and conditions for their employees using the software. For example, see the terms and conditions for the software as employed by Stanford University. | >
> | MDM and Threats to Privacy | | | | |
<
< | The Threats – Practical and Legal | >
> | While the technological capabilities of MDM are important in the context of business data, these capabilities raise privacy concerns because they reach beyond business data and touch personal data as well. According to AirWatch's best practices guide (see. pg. 23-25), an employer using AirWatch can: track an employee’s location, display a list of personal apps installed on the device, remotely delete all of the data on a device (including personal data), and disable the lock code. | | | | |
<
< | VMWare boasts of the wide proliferation of AirWatch among many large companies and private institutions, including universities. While VMWare suggests that employees can simply opt out of the software by uninstalling it, the reality is quite different. Many companies require the use of the software to access work remotely and an inability to access work remotely may be incompatible with work responsibilities. For users concerned about the privacy of their personal information, it may be necessary to carry two devices, one work and one personal, and to limit the circumstances under which the work device is used. These risks are not theoretical, in 2010 NPR reported on an iPhone user who had her personal phone wiped by her employer using Microsoft Exchange. | >
> | How an employer elects to use the power granted by MDM may place employees at risk. For example, an employee reported to NPR that her employer deleted personal data off her phone. Concern has also been expressed about MDM interfering with union organizing activity. There is also risk for employers as well. The CEO of AirWatch (prior to the company’s acquisition by VMWare) detailed legal risks that companies can face. For example, a company could be at risk if an IT employee recognized apps related to a health condition on a phone and spoke to the phone’s owner about it, or if employees lost personal data that was stored in a company provided application. | | | | |
<
< | In 2013, the CEO of AirWatch himself (prior to the company’s acquisition by VMWare) detailed some legal risks that companies can face. For example, a company could be at risk if an IT employee recognised apps related to a health condition on a phone and spoke to the phone’s owner about it, or if employees lost personal data that was stored in a company provided application. | >
> | What Can and Should Be Done | | | | |
<
< | What Should Be Done | >
> | Presently, employers willing to accept these legal risks will likely face little resistance to their demand that this software be installed. While VMWare points out that employees can simply opt out of using the software by uninstalling it, employees must continue to work and have little bargaining power to push back on a corporate installation mandate. While collective bargaining for privacy is an option for some employees, most fall outside of unions. In the present political climate, the federal government represents an unlikely ally for workers. Instead, progressive governments at lower levels can and should step in. | | | | |
<
< | Ultimately, honest employees should not be put at personal risk (either in terms of employment or personal privacy) to protect corporate security. The proliferation of AirWare and its installation on employee’s personal devices crates unnecessary risks to the employee. Security can be enhanced through efforts on the part of operating system developers, corporate IT departments, VMWare and its competitors and lawmakers. | >
> | Concerned legislatures can take affirmative steps to protect employees. Recent legislative actions in economically important states like California and New York demonstrate that states and localities still pass employee-protecting laws. A legislature could pass a law mandating an employer offer a company owned device to an employee, if the employer would otherwise require an employee to install software giving the company the power to delete, modify, or view personal data on an employee owned device.
Even without government intervention, businesses can step up to recognize potential opportunities by better aligning the incentives of employers and employees. For example, a developer of mobile operating systems could partner with major corporations to build sufficient security into the core operating system to allow companies to avoid the expense of purchasing AirWatch (or similar software). Employers, in turn, could promote phones on that operating system to employees. Employees may be incentivized to purchase a phone that will not require the installation of intrusive software.
Another business solution could see Apple or Microsoft create mobile-friendly interfaces to access their desktop operating systems. Rather than employees accessing company data on personal devices directly, their devices would simply display content stored on their work computers through existing remote desktop technology running through a VPN. Microsoft may already be working on improving the display of Windows 10 on Smartphones. Accessing work resources this way could eliminate the need for MDM technology because personal devices would not need company information to be stored on them at all.
For now, employees have little choice to ensure security beyond carrying two phones. This is an expensive and inconvenient solution for consumers. Here too, however, business opportunities exist to better meet consumer needs. A simple but effective solution could be a phone that offers parallel hardware in a single device. The phone would feature separate and isolated processing and storage facilitates for business and personal data. The phone would also have two separate operating systems installed and the two “phones” would share little more than a screen (with a toggle switch), battery and form factor.
The time for legislative and technological innovation to protect employees is now. In 2015, a study conducted by Harris Poll (on behalf of MDM developer MobileIron) asked respondents to indicate which categories of personal information they would be uncomfortable with their employer seeing. Across all eight categories from e-mail to personal contacts to location information, employees were significantly less uncomfortable with employers seeing personal information than they had been just two years earlier. If this trend continues, employees may become sufficiently complacent with the sacrifice of their privacy to preclude innovation. | | | | |
<
< | Creators of closed operating systems should step in to prevent applications like AirWatch from accessing users personal data. For example, Apple could code iOS to prohibit applications from accessing lists of applications installed on the phone and from initiating remote wipes. If necessary, Apple could create a separate version of iOS for corporate owned devices including these features, eliminating the expectation of personal security that comes from a privately owned device. | | | | |
<
< | Employers should cease the regular installation of this type of software on personal devices. If companies do not feel comfortable allowing personal devices to connect to their network they should either remove the requirement to work remotely or issue company-owned devices to all employees. | | | | |
<
< | VMWare should update their website to provide a more honest explanation of the features of AirWatch? . The site should detail all of the most intrusive ways that the software can be used. Further, VMWare should recode their software to make the most egregious uses of the software prohibited by design rather than relying on self-regulation through best practices. | | | | |
<
< | Finally, there should be legal protection for owners of devices from having their personal information subjected to the whim of an IT administrator. Either companies should be legally prohibited from executing full wipes and accessing non-company application information or employees should be legally protected from discipline for electing to not use this kind of software. | | | |
|
|
AndrewWatikerFirstPaper 5 - 10 Jul 2017 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Privacy in the Mobile Workplace - AirWatch | | | VMWare should update their website to provide a more honest explanation of the features of AirWatch? . The site should detail all of the most intrusive ways that the software can be used. Further, VMWare should recode their software to make the most egregious uses of the software prohibited by design rather than relying on self-regulation through best practices.
Finally, there should be legal protection for owners of devices from having their personal information subjected to the whim of an IT administrator. Either companies should be legally prohibited from executing full wipes and accessing non-company application information or employees should be legally protected from discipline for electing to not use this kind of software.
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
The draft is thorough in description, so long as VMWare and Apple
are the only companies on earth. It might make more sense to begin
by describing the BYOD situation more generally, explaining why
"mobile device management" became so important, and why the tug of
war over MDM and employee privacy presents so many multivalent
problems. (In verticals like health care and finance, where the
employer can still largely determine what employees' devices are;
and in verticals where the device is required to exist, but the
employer cannot effectively determine what it is, even though
business is done over it.) Some analysis of the business incentives
of the various relevant players (the employer, the handset
manufacturer, the platform companies, and the telecomms) would also
help, if there were room for it, which will be tricky.
On the normative side, the question is "what does 'should' mean?"
This is a society of at-will employment, and at the federal level
there are no prospects of any regulatory, let alone legislative,
efforts on behalf of workers in this or any other context for the
immediate future. Unions no longer matter. So what relevance has
"should"? And who could possibly have either the legislative
authority or the constitutional right to tell companies or
individual programmers what to put in their software?
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
AndrewWatikerFirstPaper 4 - 22 Mar 2017 - Main.AndrewWatiker
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Privacy in the Mobile Workplace - AirWatch | | | AirWatch: A Popular Solution | |
<
< | The market now supports a number of products designed to support IT departments in managing these challenges. One of these is AirWatch from VMWare. This product allows for IT to “manage” devices running a variety of operating systems (including mobile operating systems) whether the devices are company owned or owned by an employee. While AirWatch, and similar products, may prove useful for companies attempting to secure their data, they raise serious privacy concerns. Focusing on AirWatch we find that while AirWatch claims to protect privacy, the protection offered is largely illusory. Further, employees are not given an adequate choice when use of these products is promoted. Legal scholars are beginning to recognise the threat of these kinds of applications can post if misused. | >
> | The market now supports a number of products designed to support IT departments in managing these challenges. One of these is AirWatch from VMWare. This product allows for IT to “manage” devices running a variety of operating systems (including mobile operating systems) whether the devices are company owned or owned by an employee. While AirWatch, and similar products, may prove useful for companies attempting to secure their data, they raise serious privacy concerns. Focusing on AirWatch, we find that while AirWatch claims to protect privacy, the protection offered is largely illusory. Further, employees are not given an adequate choice when use of these products is promoted. Legal scholars are beginning to recognise the threat of these kinds of applications can post if misused. | | | The Privacy Issues – Not Fully Disclosed | | | Ultimately, honest employees should not be put at personal risk (either in terms of employment or personal privacy) to protect corporate security. The proliferation of AirWare and its installation on employee’s personal devices crates unnecessary risks to the employee. Security can be enhanced through efforts on the part of operating system developers, corporate IT departments, VMWare and its competitors and lawmakers.
Creators of closed operating systems should step in to prevent applications like AirWatch from accessing users personal data. For example, Apple could code iOS to prohibit applications from accessing lists of applications installed on the phone and from initiating remote wipes. If necessary, Apple could create a separate version of iOS for corporate owned devices including these features, eliminating the expectation of personal security that comes from a privately owned device.
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | Employers should cease the regular installation of this type of software on personal devices. If companies do not feel comfortable allowing personal devices to connect to their network they should either remove the requirement to work remotely or issue company-owned devices to all employees.
VMWare should update their website to provide a more honest explanation of the features of AirWatch? . The site should detail all of the most intrusive ways that the software can be used. Further, VMWare should recode their software to make the most egregious uses of the software prohibited by design rather than relying on self-regulation through best practices.
Finally, there should be legal protection for owners of devices from having their personal information subjected to the whim of an IT administrator. Either companies should be legally prohibited from executing full wipes and accessing non-company application information or employees should be legally protected from discipline for electing to not use this kind of software. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
AndrewWatikerFirstPaper 3 - 22 Mar 2017 - Main.AndrewWatiker
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Privacy in the Mobile Workplace - AirWatch? | >
> | Privacy in the Mobile Workplace - AirWatch | | | -- By AndrewWatiker - 05 Mar 2017 | | | For many, the 21st-century workplace has expanded beyond the office and now includes the home, the coffee shop, the train and even the airplane. Many employers expect workers to be available to work wherever they may be. While one can debate the social merits of these changes, they raise difficult technical challenges for employees and employers. One of these is providing secure access to company materials and communications channels on mobile devices. | |
<
< | AirWatch? : A Popular Solution | >
> | AirWatch: A Popular Solution | | | | |
<
< | The market now supports a number of products designed to support IT departments in managing these challenges. One of these is AirWatch? from VMWare. This product allows for IT to “manage” devices running a variety of operating systems (including mobile operating systems) whether the devices are company owned or owned by an employee. While AirWatch? , and similar products, may prove useful for companies attempting to secure their data, they raise serious privacy concerns. Focusing on AirWatch? we find that while AirWatch? claims to protect privacy, the protection offered is largely illusory. Further, employees are not given an adequate choice when use of these products is promoted. Legal scholars are beginning to recognise the threat of these kinds of applications can post if misused. | >
> | The market now supports a number of products designed to support IT departments in managing these challenges. One of these is AirWatch from VMWare. This product allows for IT to “manage” devices running a variety of operating systems (including mobile operating systems) whether the devices are company owned or owned by an employee. While AirWatch, and similar products, may prove useful for companies attempting to secure their data, they raise serious privacy concerns. Focusing on AirWatch we find that while AirWatch claims to protect privacy, the protection offered is largely illusory. Further, employees are not given an adequate choice when use of these products is promoted. Legal scholars are beginning to recognise the threat of these kinds of applications can post if misused. | | | The Privacy Issues – Not Fully Disclosed
VMWare is aware that employees using its software have specific concerns about privacy, particularly in the context of installing the software on their own devices. In their “Privacy First” white paper, VMWare indicates that users often think of the software as “big brother” and suggest companies take steps to help their employees understand how the software works. VMWare also launched a website, designed to help employees understand the workings of the software better. The site suggests that the software effectively separates devices into personal and work apps and that the company can only track actions taken in work apps. A short video, even purports to show exactly what an IT manager would see to comfort users. However, the video and website are misleading. For example, the video suggests that an employer cannot wipe personal data nor can it see personal apps, neither of these statements is true. | |
<
< | Diving deep into the technical documents provided to IT administrators, AirWatch? can provide an employer with a much more detailed picture of the user’s personal life than the website lets on. Specifically, the application can track an employee’s location, display a list of personal apps installed on the device, remotely wipe all of a user’s data (including personal non-work data) and disable the lock code. While AirWatch? recommends best practices (see pg. 23-25) that discourage employing these features on employee-owned devices, companies remain free to do so. Employers using AirWatch? set the terms and conditions for their employees using the software. For example, see the terms and conditions for the software as employed by Stanford University. | >
> | Diving deep into the technical documents provided to IT administrators, AirWatch can provide an employer with a much more detailed picture of the user’s personal life than the website lets on. Specifically, the application can track an employee’s location, display a list of personal apps installed on the device, remotely wipe all of a user’s data (including personal non-work data) and disable the lock code. While AirWatch recommends best practices (see pg. 23-25) that discourage employing these features on employee-owned devices, companies remain free to do so. Employers using AirWatch set the terms and conditions for their employees using the software. For example, see the terms and conditions for the software as employed by Stanford University. | | | The Threats – Practical and Legal | |
<
< | VMWare boasts of the wide proliferation of AirWatch? among many large companies and private institutions, including universities. While VMWare suggests that employees can simply opt out of the software by uninstalling it, the reality is quite different. Many companies require the use of the software to access work remotely and an inability to access work remotely may be incompatible with work responsibilities. For users concerned about the privacy of their personal information, it may be necessary to carry two devices, one work and one personal, and to limit the circumstances under which the work device is used. These risks are not theoretical, in 2010 NPR reported on an iPhone user who had her personal phone wiped by her employer using Microsoft Exchange. | >
> | VMWare boasts of the wide proliferation of AirWatch among many large companies and private institutions, including universities. While VMWare suggests that employees can simply opt out of the software by uninstalling it, the reality is quite different. Many companies require the use of the software to access work remotely and an inability to access work remotely may be incompatible with work responsibilities. For users concerned about the privacy of their personal information, it may be necessary to carry two devices, one work and one personal, and to limit the circumstances under which the work device is used. These risks are not theoretical, in 2010 NPR reported on an iPhone user who had her personal phone wiped by her employer using Microsoft Exchange. | | | | |
<
< | In 2013, the CEO of AirWatch? himself (prior to the company’s acquisition by VMWare) detailed some legal risks that companies can face. For example, a company could be at risk if an IT employee recognised apps related to a health condition on a phone and spoke to the phone’s owner about it, or if employees lost personal data that was stored in a company provided application. | >
> | In 2013, the CEO of AirWatch himself (prior to the company’s acquisition by VMWare) detailed some legal risks that companies can face. For example, a company could be at risk if an IT employee recognised apps related to a health condition on a phone and spoke to the phone’s owner about it, or if employees lost personal data that was stored in a company provided application. | | | What Should Be Done | |
<
< | Ultimately, honest employees should not be put at personal risk (either in terms of employment or personal privacy) to protect corporate security. The proliferation of AirWare? and its installation on employee’s personal devices crates unnecessary risks to the employee. Security can be enhanced through efforts on the part of operating system developers, corporate IT departments, VMWare and its competitors and lawmakers. | >
> | Ultimately, honest employees should not be put at personal risk (either in terms of employment or personal privacy) to protect corporate security. The proliferation of AirWare and its installation on employee’s personal devices crates unnecessary risks to the employee. Security can be enhanced through efforts on the part of operating system developers, corporate IT departments, VMWare and its competitors and lawmakers. | | | | |
<
< | Creators of closed operating systems should step in to prevent applications like AirWatch? from accessing users personal data. For example, Apple could code iOS to prohibit applications from accessing lists of applications installed on the phone and from initiating remote wipes. If necessary, Apple could create a separate version of iOS for corporate owned devices including these features, eliminating the expectation of personal security that comes from a privately owned device. | >
> | Creators of closed operating systems should step in to prevent applications like AirWatch from accessing users personal data. For example, Apple could code iOS to prohibit applications from accessing lists of applications installed on the phone and from initiating remote wipes. If necessary, Apple could create a separate version of iOS for corporate owned devices including these features, eliminating the expectation of personal security that comes from a privately owned device. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
AndrewWatikerFirstPaper 2 - 22 Mar 2017 - Main.AndrewWatiker
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< |
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title | >
> | Privacy in the Mobile Workplace - AirWatch? | | | -- By AndrewWatiker - 05 Mar 2017 | |
>
> | The Problem | | | | |
<
< | Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1 | >
> | For many, the 21st-century workplace has expanded beyond the office and now includes the home, the coffee shop, the train and even the airplane. Many employers expect workers to be available to work wherever they may be. While one can debate the social merits of these changes, they raise difficult technical challenges for employees and employers. One of these is providing secure access to company materials and communications channels on mobile devices. | | | | |
>
> | AirWatch? : A Popular Solution | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 2 | >
> | The market now supports a number of products designed to support IT departments in managing these challenges. One of these is AirWatch? from VMWare. This product allows for IT to “manage” devices running a variety of operating systems (including mobile operating systems) whether the devices are company owned or owned by an employee. While AirWatch? , and similar products, may prove useful for companies attempting to secure their data, they raise serious privacy concerns. Focusing on AirWatch? we find that while AirWatch? claims to protect privacy, the protection offered is largely illusory. Further, employees are not given an adequate choice when use of these products is promoted. Legal scholars are beginning to recognise the threat of these kinds of applications can post if misused. | | | | |
>
> | The Privacy Issues – Not Fully Disclosed | | | | |
>
> | VMWare is aware that employees using its software have specific concerns about privacy, particularly in the context of installing the software on their own devices. In their “Privacy First” white paper, VMWare indicates that users often think of the software as “big brother” and suggest companies take steps to help their employees understand how the software works. VMWare also launched a website, designed to help employees understand the workings of the software better. The site suggests that the software effectively separates devices into personal and work apps and that the company can only track actions taken in work apps. A short video, even purports to show exactly what an IT manager would see to comfort users. However, the video and website are misleading. For example, the video suggests that an employer cannot wipe personal data nor can it see personal apps, neither of these statements is true. | | | | |
<
< | Section II | >
> | Diving deep into the technical documents provided to IT administrators, AirWatch? can provide an employer with a much more detailed picture of the user’s personal life than the website lets on. Specifically, the application can track an employee’s location, display a list of personal apps installed on the device, remotely wipe all of a user’s data (including personal non-work data) and disable the lock code. While AirWatch? recommends best practices (see pg. 23-25) that discourage employing these features on employee-owned devices, companies remain free to do so. Employers using AirWatch? set the terms and conditions for their employees using the software. For example, see the terms and conditions for the software as employed by Stanford University. | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> | The Threats – Practical and Legal | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | >
> | VMWare boasts of the wide proliferation of AirWatch? among many large companies and private institutions, including universities. While VMWare suggests that employees can simply opt out of the software by uninstalling it, the reality is quite different. Many companies require the use of the software to access work remotely and an inability to access work remotely may be incompatible with work responsibilities. For users concerned about the privacy of their personal information, it may be necessary to carry two devices, one work and one personal, and to limit the circumstances under which the work device is used. These risks are not theoretical, in 2010 NPR reported on an iPhone user who had her personal phone wiped by her employer using Microsoft Exchange. | | | | |
>
> | In 2013, the CEO of AirWatch? himself (prior to the company’s acquisition by VMWare) detailed some legal risks that companies can face. For example, a company could be at risk if an IT employee recognised apps related to a health condition on a phone and spoke to the phone’s owner about it, or if employees lost personal data that was stored in a company provided application. | | | | |
<
< |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: | >
> | What Should Be Done | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | Ultimately, honest employees should not be put at personal risk (either in terms of employment or personal privacy) to protect corporate security. The proliferation of AirWare? and its installation on employee’s personal devices crates unnecessary risks to the employee. Security can be enhanced through efforts on the part of operating system developers, corporate IT departments, VMWare and its competitors and lawmakers. | | | | |
<
< | Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | Creators of closed operating systems should step in to prevent applications like AirWatch? from accessing users personal data. For example, Apple could code iOS to prohibit applications from accessing lists of applications installed on the phone and from initiating remote wipes. If necessary, Apple could create a separate version of iOS for corporate owned devices including these features, eliminating the expectation of personal security that comes from a privately owned device. |
|
|
AndrewWatikerFirstPaper 1 - 05 Mar 2017 - Main.AndrewWatiker
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title
-- By AndrewWatiker - 05 Mar 2017
Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|