Apple Sued for 'All-Seeing Eye' Employee Device Monitoring Policy

[Unregistered 4U]

You guys only read the "private phone" part? Are you ok with the rest, stuff like being unable to talk about mistreatment and harassment? Is that also in the contract???

See, I guess I’m weird about my private stuff. When someone says, “Hey, either here’s a new phone for you to use for work and we’ll install all the intrusive apps on that OR we can install intrusive apps on your personal phone,” for some arcane reason, i have no problem just… accepting the phone. Because “private” phone to me means private and doesn’t align with “installing intrusive apps”.

But, maybe I’m just old fashioned. Or maybe, made of hardier stock where carrying an additional NINE OUNCES of weight is something I’m able to do easily.

 

[Corefile]

Should have read the employment contract.

What's an employment contract in California? Employment is at-will in CA.

 

[kwikdeth]

You guys only read the "private phone" part? Are you ok with the rest, stuff like being unable to talk about mistreatment and harassment? Is that also in the contract???

If you're doing it on company owned or accessible equipment, then it doesn't matter.
You might as well reply-all to a company newsletter saying "this place sucks"

There's a concept known as "being discreet"

 

[ZipZilla]

He agreed to most of this, but the court will find that Apple cannot prevent him from filling out his LinkedIn and looking for work the rest of his life. That part is unreasonable.

 

[cicalinarrot]

If you're doing it on company owned or accessible equipment, then it doesn't matter.
You might as well reply-all to a company newsletter saying "this place sucks"

There's a concept known as "being discreet"

you certainly are restricted with whom and how to share this, eg Linkedin is not the place, nor are podcasts ...

"The lawsuit states that employees have to agree to physical, video, and electronic surveillance by Apple, with Apple able to search Apple and non-Apple devices and other property when an employee is on "company premises," including in a home office."

I'm not even sure if we're talking about the same article at this point.

Let's be clear, it's all just allegations at this point, but I wouldn't struggle to believe it and if it's true, I hope you wouldn't defend it...

 

[Unregistered 4U]

That's soooo weird if true. The whole point of using a Managed Apple Account (neé Managed Apple ID) is that when you use a managed account an app is able to put that data in a separate APFS volume for just work stuff and they don't co-mingle. Of course if he joined in 2020, there's were TONS of things Managed Apple IDs couldn't do (like iCloud Keychain for one!) and still have limitations so maybe they did have him use a personal Apple ID? 🤔 Very weird.

Apple required him to use an iCloud account to collaborate with colleagues. Apple offered him an iPhone that he could have used to create an iCloud account that would then be used to collaborate with colleagues. Apple offered the OPTION of using their personal device which also requires the employee uses their personal iCloud account to collaborate with colleagues and, without even a second thought (well, now, but not back then) they indicated to Apple that “YES I WOULD LIKE YOU TO HAVE INTRUSIVE ACCESS TO MY PERSONAL DEVICE AND MY PERSONAL ICLOUD in order that I may collaborate with colleagues.”

So “required him to use his personal iCloud account to collaborate with colleagues.” is technically correct in that Apple required an account, Apple just gives the employee the freedom to chose WHICH account. If they choose their personal account, then “personal iCloud account” is only correct in this case just because that’s the one the employee chose.

 

[MallardDuck]

Operative phrase here: " when he chose his personal phone"

Don't use your personal phone. Don't use your personal Apple ID. I just went through this with a new employer. Work phone with work appleID, personal phone with personal Apple ID.

BYOD is a choice, not an obligation.


As for the rest, there are things that are appropriate for a public linkedin profile, and others that belong on a private resume. But not being able to say 'used C/C++/C#/Rust/Basic/Punch cards' on linkedin, would indeed be heavy handed.

I strongly suspect here that there's a lot more to the story......

 

[Armada2]

some of this seems very fishy, and pretty much standard in the whole tech industry ... people who use their personal phones for work typically have to install this tool from MSFT, name escapes me right now, which monitors usage ...
Will be interesting to see how this unfolds

Intune?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

He agreed to most of this, but the court will find that Apple cannot prevent him from filling out his LinkedIn and looking for work the rest of his life. That part is unreasonable.

Depends on if he was filling out LinkedIn from his phone that he was using to collaborate with colleagues. If it was anything to do with a phone that he willingly chose to use connected to Apple, then anything can be questioned.

They could have filled out LinkedIn from literally anywhere… but likely forgot that they gave access of their phone to their employer.

 

[Prof.]

I mean… he signed the contract…

Hope this is thrown out just to spite him. He sounds like a headache to work with.

 

[jinnj]

I see several statements in there when he says "Apple allowed me to choose between an Apple owned device or a personal device for work" and he chose to use his personal device. I guess he thought that they shouldn't monitor his work related communications on his personal device? Easy fix - use the company device for work and your personal device for personal communications.

Just seems like this guy was looking for a way to file a claim and sue.

Correct! Never let your company control your device.

 

[hieranonymous]

Why on earth would he choose to use his personal phone as his work phone. Keep that ish separate or be prepared for pretty much any employer to install invasive security measures on your de facto “work” phone.

 

[jz0309]

"The lawsuit states that employees have to agree to physical, video, and electronic surveillance by Apple, with Apple able to search Apple and non-Apple devices and other property when an employee is on "company premises," including in a home office."

I'm not even sure if we're talking about the same article at this point.

Let's be clear, it's all just allegations at this point, but I wouldn't struggle to believe it and if it's true, I hope you wouldn't defend it...

Let’s be clear, lobbies have video cameras, lab entries might too.
Searching ones bag when you exit the building, no problem.
Electronic surveillance, if you’re using a company computing device to access confidential info - hell yes. If you’re using a personal device to access company confidential information - hell yes.
All common practices in the tech world and totally legal, even more when disclosed in your work contract

 

[TimeEco]

Yeah, not sure why he didn't want to get the company phone and just use that for work.

 

[russell_314]

Wait, you mean you can’t trash talk to your employer?

I don’t know of any job where you can talk trash about the company on social media or any online platform and not expect some problems.

If any of y’all think that’s not true, go on Facebook or whatever social media and say something like “I hate (insert the company you work for here). This is a really crappy place to work.” Nothing in that quote is vulgar or even offensive. Everything in that quote will get you fired.

 

[russell_314]

What's an employment contract in California? Employment is at-will in CA.

Employment at will doesn’t mean you don’t sign a contract. It’s not a contract in the sense of you agree to work for the company for a length of time or even agree, not to work for their competitors. It’s a contract covering workplace conduct and other things like this. Every employer does this. Go out and apply for a job and you will see. They’re going to throw tax forms in front of your face and a contract. Some companies have multiple things you have to sign discussing things like workplace violence, how you will interact with other coworkers, etc. no job is like hey I’m starting here Monday. maybe 50 years ago sure, but not today.

 

[AlexStudios]

1984, anyone?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

1984, anyone?

No, it’s currently 2024, soon to be 2025. Happy to Help!

 

[nutriousmitten]

My guess is this chap was also on the WFH brigade that fought tooth and nail to not come into the office long after the pandemic.

My guess is also his LinkedIn he wanted to exaggerate or put deep detail about Apple projects he worked on it was aware of, so that he could be scooped up by a rival simply for supposedly knowing those Apple secrets.

Terms of employment are what they are, in any major and most smaller companies. Just becuase you have a couple other disgruntled coworkers giving you some encouragement, and a $ driven law firm looking for a literal piece of the Apple pie, doesn't mean you should.

Also, with all that info and tracking that Apple does, I'm sure Apple will dig up any transgressions this guy did while at Apple and in violating his employment contract, so he best be sure he's squeaky clean there too.

 

[Corefile]

Employment at will doesn’t mean you don’t sign a contract. It’s not a contract in the sense of you agree to work for the company for a length of time or even agree, not to work for their competitors. It’s a contract covering workplace conduct and other things like this. Every employer does this. Go out and apply for a job and you will see. They’re going to throw tax forms in front of your face and a contract. Some companies have multiple things you have to sign discussing things like workplace violence, how you will interact with other coworkers, etc. no job is like hey I’m starting here Monday. maybe 50 years ago sure, but not today.

Those aren't employment contracts.

 

[jbattan]

MDM usage is pretty standard, and he shouldn't work at a company if he doesn't support their need to maintain corporate secrets.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Bhakta sued Apple after Apple prohibited him from speaking about his work experience on podcasts and also instructed him to remove information about his "working conditions and work experiences" from his LinkedIn profile. He says that Apple's policies prevent employees from adequately describing their job responsibilities, accomplishments, and professional growth on sites like LinkedIn, hindering their ability to find employment.

Further, Bhakta claims that Apple employees are prohibited from disclosing the skills, knowledge, and experience they gained at Apple when working for a subsequent employer, plus they are not allowed to speak with each other or outsiders about problems at work like harassment, discrimination, or unfair treatment.

Yeah this is pretty egregious. What's next? Is Tim going to MIB neuralyze people when they leave Apple? Remember to look into the flash!

 

[rkaufmann87]

California Apple employee Amar Bhakta has filed a lawsuit against Apple for alleged labor violations, accusing the Cupertino company of suppressing employee speech, invading employee privacy though surveillance and inspecting personal data, and clawing back earned wages (via Semafor).

Bhakta sued Apple after Apple prohibited him from speaking about his work experience on podcasts and also instructed him to remove information about his "working conditions and work experiences" from his LinkedIn profile. He says that Apple's policies prevent employees from adequately describing their job responsibilities, accomplishments, and professional growth on sites like LinkedIn, hindering their ability to find employment.

Further, Bhakta claims that Apple employees are prohibited from disclosing the skills, knowledge, and experience they gained at Apple when working for a subsequent employer, plus they are not allowed to speak with each other or outsiders about problems at work like harassment, discrimination, or unfair treatment.

Apple employees are required to use Apple devices, software, and services, and the devices "collect and use the valuable personal data" of employees during non-work periods. The lawsuit states that employees have to agree to physical, video, and electronic surveillance by Apple, with Apple able to search Apple and non-Apple devices and other property when an employee is on "company premises," including in a home office. The Apple ecosystem is described as a "prison yard" for employees, with workers subject to "Apple's all-seeing eye" both on and off duty.

The lawsuit takes issue with Apple's requirement that employees use Apple collaboration tools with an iCloud account, often a personal iCloud account. Bhakta says Apple allowed him to choose to use an Apple-owned iPhone or a personal iPhone for work, and when he chose his personal phone, Apple installed an eSIM and VPN, and required him to use his personal iCloud account to collaborate with colleagues. He claims that Apple has forced him to remain an Apple consumer, and that he is required to continue to patronize Apple.

Bhakta was hired at Apple in July 2020 as a Digital Ad Tech/Operations Manager, and he was required to sign documents listing the the Apple policies that are cited in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of the California Labor Code as well as "appropriate injunctive relief" to protect California Apple employees from future violations.

Article Link: Apple Sued for 'All-Seeing Eye' Employee Device Monitoring Policy

Guy is simply a jerk, he's given an opportunity to work for the top company on the planet with all the perks that includes and then sues them for issues he willingly approved. Talk about a frivolous court case, hope the judge turns the tables on him and not only throws the case out but makes this turd pay the court costs.

 

[kalsta]

You guys only read the "private phone" part? Are you ok with the rest, stuff like being unable to talk about mistreatment and harassment? Is that also in the contract???

I don't think they'd be okay if they were mistreated or harassed in the workplace and felt silenced. But empathy tends to run a little low when religious, political or in this case, Appleitical emotions are running high. Just look at all the downvotes on my first comment—and all I'm really saying is that loyalty to a company shouldn't dismiss human rights. (To the MR forum moderators, yes, I did mention the word 'political' here, but it is not a political comment—it is a general comment on human psychology and emotional behaviour. I do understand why you edited my previous comment, and that's fine.)

 

[EM2013]

He claims that Apple has forced him to remain an Apple consumer

That sounds like the EU