3 ms·
I agree with you. However, one thought I had is that you want to make sure government business happens on government phones, and maybe people are less likely t
by elicash 3y ago
I agree with you.
However, one thought I had is that you want to make sure government business happens on government phones, and maybe people are less likely to do that if they habitually using their personal phones during the work day? I'm not saying that was the calculation, just thinking this through.
- cj 3y agoYea, the ban would be ineffective if it resulted in gov employees simply carrying 2 phones everywhere, 1 tightly restricted and 1 unrestricted. Probably better to have 1 phone that’s semi-restricted.
- mschuster91 3y agoNo sandbox is ever going to be truly secure. An enemy nation's app on a work phone with access to sensitive, maybe even classified data? No no no.
- unsignedint 3y agoMDM can be set up to allow access to government resources solely through employer-owned devices, reducing the utility of personal phones for work tasks. If employees intentionally bypass this, they may warrant disciplinary actions, just like any other breach of workplace policies.
- adolph 3y agoIt seems like once a government employee attains a certain rank they create a set of alt email and social accounts to conduct off the record business, so two phones is required. Maybe phones should have a hypervisor and multiple VMs (or VPs?) to support this without having to cart around additional hardware.