Samsung Still Bans Its Own Hot New Phones From The Office
from the leave-'em-at-home dept
Three years ago, just as plenty of companies started freaking out about the so-called "dangers" of cameraphones in the workplace, we found it amusing that cameraphone (among other things) maker Samsung had banned cameraphones in the workplace. In other words, employees couldn't even bring the company's own product to work. While there were many similar announcements around that time, we hadn't heard too many similar stories lately. The hope was that companies were calming down and recognizing that it was both silly and pointless to completely ban cameraphones in the workplace. Apparently, not everyone has figured this out. Samsung is still banning some of their own phones in the workplace. This time, it's the new SCH-B570 because it comes with an 8 GB hard drive that the company is afraid will be used to swipe confidential information. Of course, we've discussed in the past just how pointless such restrictions are. There are so many ways to get confidential data off a computer. Banning portable hard drives throws out plenty of baby with just a little bath water. Anyone who's serious about taking confidential corporate info will figure out a way to do so. Completely banning phones with hard drives due to the fear of potential espionage goes way too far, punishing everyone to stop a risk that won't be stopped anyway. Of course, it also makes you wonder, if they're so concerned with it in the workplace, wouldn't they assume others would be as well -- therefore drastically shrinking the potential market for such phones?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
StupidPhones
Why the hell do I need a camera in my phone anyway? That's why I have a camera -- it does a much better job, too. The dumb bastards should just make a phone that 1) fits in my pocket easily, 2) works any damn where, 3) and won't break at the slightest tap.
Instead.. oooh, mine lights up when it rings and takes shitty pictures...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: StupidPhones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: StupidPhones
do u carry a camera when u drive to a supermarket?? no.. so to get the best evidence.. of claiming a claim.. u take photos from ur phone... its bad quality.. but clear enough to show the insurance company..
other thing such as.. taking picture when needed.. like i see someone beat the crap out of u... and u died.. well.. i would think u hope that i can have a camera to take the photo of ur attacker right?? but since ur language here is so inmature.. i think i would rather ignore my camera..
a phone camera is never attempting (for now anyway) to replace the proper digital camera.. it is there for the convenience.. ....
i bet u gonna argue and say that u carry ur camera with u all the time now right??? well u r just sad..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: StupidPhones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: StupidPhones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Camera phones at work
and yes i agree with sortalikejake.....just make me a good phone that does what it should.....my old nokia analogue...bit of a brick...but by god it worked so well that no one could tell i was using a mobile..even when hands free in the car....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should think before manufacturing it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Samsung
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About Samsung
I'm actually very surprised that they haven't done this already, but it's consistent with what they do to their visitors. Apparently there's a lot of spying going on between them, LG, and a number of Japanese, Taiwanese and Chinese companies, and this is their rationale. It just seems ironic that they hadn't done this before given their relative paranoia since their own employees are probably a much bigger risk than their visitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: About Samsung
This is exactly the point. They're not mindlessly paranoid like some kind of disease. The major cell phone suppliers have extremely limited differentiation between their products currently. Any leaks as to what is in the pipeline, well that would just kill the last card they're holding. Thanks anyway, Mike, for the extremely biased post. You're always right. Anything any company does is always pointless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiotic Summary....
It's not silly and pointless at all, as new graphic designs or logos for clients, financial and other confidential paperwork could be copied, and many other misuses and abuses.
Of course, we've discussed in the past just how pointless such restrictions are. There are so many ways to get confidential data off a computer. Banning portable hard drives throws out plenty of baby with just a little bath water. Anyone who's serious about taking confidential corporate info will figure out a way to do so.
Thank God you're not in corporate leadership, because bringing any removable media device into a secure facility is a HUGE security risk. A company I've worked for in the past had at LEAST two incidents of workers walking out with sensitive data on our products and/or client base.
Of course, it also makes you wonder, if they're so concerned with it in the workplace, wouldn't they assume others would be as well -- therefore drastically shrinking the potential market for such phones?
Last I heard, it was the employee, not the employer, who decided which phone to buy for his/her personal service. So saying that a company's ban of certain phones will impact sales in any major way is a stretch at best, which seems to be what your recent one sided opinions are getting better and better at.
Generally, TechDirt is a good read, and I frequent it daily, but sometimes, as in this case, you jump way off base. Maybe if you spent less time bashing a viewpoint, and instead tried to find any legitimacy, and then actually compared it to your own, you might come up with a sensible median. You advertise this site for corporations stating "Techdirt gets the right information to the right people at the right time."
Saying that a corporations fears of compromising data of the business and/or clients is unfounded is not following that mission statement. Yes, there are many other ways to steal corporate data, but wouldn't restrictions keep more "amateurish" potential data leakers from taking that extra step? Sometimes people just need an opportunity, so keeping that opportunity out of their hands is always a good thing IMO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiotic Summary....
Then their are no personal camera's or camera phones allowed, but we have ones for Company use which could be abused just as easy or easier than bringing your own in, if that is what you intended.
Thus there are way to many tools that are freely available that could be used for this purpose and are not banned. So it really makes no sense to ban personal items because if you have bad employees that are going to be screwing you over, then they have plenty of other methods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiotic Summary....
Please don't come in here posting clear headed, real world responses. It screws up my head.
Thanks
Cheers,
mike
Altadena, ca
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiotic Summary....
You think this ban will actually stop those abuses?
Thank God you're not in corporate leadership, because bringing any removable media device into a secure facility is a HUGE security risk. A company I've worked for in the past had at LEAST two incidents of workers walking out with sensitive data on our products and/or client base.
Who are you letting into your "secure" facility? If you can't trust your own employees, then you have a hiring problem. Trying to pretend that banning cameraphones or removable media solves the problem is silly. First, it's impossible to keep them all out. Second, we live in a networked world, where any data can easily get out of a specific facility without removable media.
Last I heard, it was the employee, not the employer, who decided which phone to buy for his/her personal service. So saying that a company's ban of certain phones will impact sales in any major way is a stretch at best, which seems to be what your recent one sided opinions are getting better and better at.
Hmm. If you couldn't bring a certain phone to work, it suddenly makes it a lot less valuable to a large % of the population. So, yes, even though it's the employees who buy the phones, the market has shrunk dramatically.
Besides, there are plenty of firms that actually do buy phones for their employees.
So, I stand by the statement on both factors.
Saying that a corporations fears of compromising data of the business and/or clients is unfounded is not following that mission statement.
Sure it is. We're telling companies that such policies are a waste of their time and effort. It won't do anything to prevent data theft. In the case of Samsung, it shrinks their market and it removes all of the benefits of using such phones from the office place. It's a strategic blunder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiotic Summary....
You'll never stop the determined, but you can stop those who might have a tendency. More below on next comment.
Who are you letting into your "secure" facility? If you can't trust your own employees, then you have a hiring problem. Trying to pretend that banning cameraphones or removable media solves the problem is silly. First, it's impossible to keep them all out. Second, we live in a networked world, where any data can easily get out of a specific facility without removable media.
Working for the largest Software company in its field, we had many competitors. one gentleman slowly exported all clients contact information, then moved to a different company (ironically our biggest competitor)*. Another used a jump drive (USB flash) to take some client data for malicious use. Yes, you try to hire the brightest, best, and most trustworthy, but as another person stated, business is cut throat, and no one can see through everyone's lies. Had we enforced the ban on the removeable media, that person may have never had the opportunity to do what he did, and honestly, probably wouldn't have. But when it was presented to him, and the ease of which it could have been acquired, he acted on it.
Hmm. If you couldn't bring a certain phone to work, it suddenly makes it a lot less valuable to a large % of the population. So, yes, even though it's the employees who buy the phones, the market has shrunk dramatically. Besides, there are plenty of firms that actually do buy phones for their employees.
Company phones are one thing, but honestly, for most businesses, in office environments, there are no benefits to the employer for their workers to have cell phones at all. Out of the office, maybe, but in an office building, cell phones are more of a distraction than anything else. In the compnay I was at, the call center was always battling people spending more time on their cell phones than on the work phones. But we tried to be the "nice" company by not restricting cell phones completely. We knew it was giving up productivity for the sake on good moral.
Sure it is. We're telling companies that such policies are a waste of their time and effort. It won't do anything to prevent data theft. In the case of Samsung, it shrinks their market and it removes all of the benefits of using such phones from the office place. It's a strategic blunder.
Again, no cell phones with cameraphone in no way hinders daily work for the employees, just a minor inconvenience. If it impacts sales, it will be very minimal at best. And IMO, I'd rather a large company with client's personal data (maybe not Samsung, but a major bank) erring on the side of caution. Stand by that statement, but at this time the only person I think you've convinced is yourself.
* The guy later resurfaced, working in a cheap supermarket as a counter clerk. I guess screwing a company and stealing sensitive data, only to sell it to a competitor doesn't give that new company much reason to trust you there for long. It was good to see him out on his arse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And your point is??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh well, don't have a Samsung phone now - and for fears my employer might ban it.... I guess I won't buy one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silly and Pointless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt Should Know Better
I would imagine that there are other security measures in place to address this, and Techdirt should really know better than to make such a stupid comment. If they don't know what mechanisms are available to protect data, they should remove the Tech from their name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where theres a will theres a way
The world doesn't work in black and white, not everyone is pure good and bad. There are plenty of people that, given the oppurtunity, will do something "bad", that they wouldn't have set out to do otherwise.
Having an open door policy with things like flash drives only invites trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IT
About there being other means of stealing information: the ban is a deterrant. If you aren't allowed to bring something to work, thats one less means you have of easily gaining access to material that you have no business removing from the worksite.
Many of the readers have no knowledge of COMSEC, thusly so, it is understood that you wouldn't understand the ban. Stop whining. People in the military don't take their camera phones to work, I'm sure people working around sensative civilian information could cope just the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IT
You are missing the point. Do most offices ban photocopying machines? No, because they know there's a benefit to letting employees use them, even though there are risks associated as well.
The point is that the outright ban is overkill, throwing out plenty of good with a small risk for bad. And, the risk from other sources that info is stolen is so much higher that worrying about something like this is pointless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cutting Sales
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiotic Summary...
Am I being suppressed?
You think this ban will actually stop those abuses?
You'll never stop the determined, but you can stop those who might have a tendency. More below on next comment.
Who are you letting into your "secure" facility? If you can't trust your own employees, then you have a hiring problem. Trying to pretend that banning cameraphones or removable media solves the problem is silly. First, it's impossible to keep them all out. Second, we live in a networked world, where any data can easily get out of a specific facility without removable media.
Working for the largest Software company in its field, we had many competitors. one gentleman slowly exported all clients contact information, then moved to a different company (ironically our biggest competitor)*. Another used a jump drive (USB flash) to take some client data for malicious use. Yes, you try to hire the brightest, best, and most trustworthy, but as another person stated, business is cut throat, and no one can see through everyone's lies. Had we enforced the ban on the removeable media, that person may have never had the opportunity to do what he did, and honestly, probably wouldn't have. But when it was presented to him, and the ease of which it could have been acquired, he acted on it.
Hmm. If you couldn't bring a certain phone to work, it suddenly makes it a lot less valuable to a large % of the population. So, yes, even though it's the employees who buy the phones, the market has shrunk dramatically. Besides, there are plenty of firms that actually do buy phones for their employees.
Company phones are one thing, but honestly, for most businesses, in office environments, there are no benefits to the employer for their workers to have cell phones at all. Out of the office, maybe, but in an office building, cell phones are more of a distraction than anything else. In the compnay I was at, the call center was always battling people spending more time on their cell phones than on the work phones. But we tried to be the "nice" company by not restricting cell phones completely. We knew it was giving up productivity for the sake on good moral.
Sure it is. We're telling companies that such policies are a waste of their time and effort. It won't do anything to prevent data theft. In the case of Samsung, it shrinks their market and it removes all of the benefits of using such phones from the office place. It's a strategic blunder.
Again, no cell phones with cameraphone in no way hinders daily work for the employees, just a minor inconvenience. If it impacts sales, it will be very minimal at best. And IMO, I'd rather a large company with client's personal data (maybe not Samsung, but a major bank) erring on the side of caution. Stand by that statement, but at this time the only person I think you've convinced is yourself.
* The guy later resurfaced, working in a cheap supermarket as a counter clerk. I guess screwing a company and stealing sensitive data, only to sell it to a competitor doesn't give that new company much reason to trust you there for long. It was good to see him out on his arse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Two things.
1. You answered your own question. We have a spam filter, and among the things it takes into account are IP addresses. There's no conspiracy here.
2. As the note said when you tried to post your original comment, staff would review the comment, and if it wasn't spam, it would be approved --- as I see it was.
This site gets well over 1000 comment spams a day. Our filter catches about 99% of them, and catches about 5 comments that aren't spam a day, and we work to get them approved as quickly as possible. To suggest that we would suppress your comments, when it EVEN SAYS we would look it over and allow it if it wasn't spam (as we did) is just silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tim the conspiracy nub: 0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well I can't have a camera phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same here
Yeah, it's stupid. But since they're the ones writing the checks every week, I figure I'll let them get away with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]