> The point I was making is that a preference for reading email on a phone... I agree with that point - that personal preference over standard operating proced

> The point I was making is that a preference for reading email on a phone... I agree with that point - that personal preference over standard operating procedures is the likely motivator, but your pointing to the origin of the phone as some kind of evidence of logical exclusivity doesn't hold up. > The security requirements I was referring to were that you couldn't bring your personal phone into secure facilities. So your method of determining an individual's motives in an environment of uncertainty begins with "Throw out everything we know for a fact about this person..."? > I wasn't referring to information classification, I was referring to bring-your-own-device policies, which were non-existent or underdeveloped at the time. BYOD policies did exist and were well developed at the time, they were very simple: "Don't." That was made pretty clear in the article, so I'm not sure how you don't know that, unless you are confusing "underdeveloped" with "not what I want".