Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: September 1, 2016
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.com
As Pokémon Go exploded onto the software scene, the physical dangers of users walking into traffic, trespassing onto other people’s property, and even abandoning their children in search of the imaginary beasts caused alarm to many. However, these are just a few of the real risks of Pokèmon Go.Niantic, Inc., which until recently, only enjoyed success in the niche market of augmented reality gaming, now boasts installs surpassing 100 million and global revenue topping $160 million at the beginning of the month. However, the software has begun to distress other businesses as the Pokémon Go phenomenon booms and increasingly occupies employee time while at work.
At a base level, Pokémon Go clearly redirects the productivity of employees who feel the mission statement of “Gotta Catch ‘Em All” eclipses that of most employers. What should be more concerning to businesses than employees’ and trespassers’ imaginary expeditions is the issue of data security.
The International Association of IT Asset Managers (IAITAM) is calling for companies to ban the game from both corporate-owned, business-only (COBO) phones/tablets and “bring your own device” (BYOD) phones/tablets with direct access to sensitive corporate information and accounts. IAITAM CEO Dr. Barbara Rembiesa warned:
Frankly, the truth is that Pokémon Go is a nightmare for companies that want to keep their email and cloud-based information secure. Even with the enormous popularity of this gaming app, there are just too many questions and too many risks involved for responsible corporations to allow the game to be used on corporate-owned or BYOD devices. We already have real security concerns and expect them to become much more severe in the coming weeks.
As highlighted above, data security is a significant concern. In the first version of the app, the user agreement allowed Niantic to access a user’s entire Google profile and essentially all metadata from the phone’s interaction with its various data signals. While the former issue has been corrected, the app still collects a large amount of data from its users, including contact lists and pinpoint locations.
While some apps are legitimate guides, others are designed to simply spread malware.
This implicates an issue broader than merely the app itself. Users are increasingly downloading third-party apps that promise to help players successfully navigate the game (in other words, cheat). While some apps are legitimate guides, others are designed to simply spread malware. In addition, while the Pokémon Go fad may fade, new software applications that divert employee attention will likely appear, and the same data security concerns will arise. Therefore, a more comprehensive and active approach is needed to address the increasingly dangerous and apparent world of cybersecurity.
All the data an application itself collects as well as the potential for malicious third-party applications form a double-edged sword for employers. Not only is worker productivity compromised, but also, the data systems of the company might be at risk as well. The safeguards against this sort of employee behavior are not as simple as banning certain applications or other blanket restrictions that will no doubt carry unintended consequences.
So, rather than ban the applications as they become known to the employer, good procedures and processes that limit the transfer of information and provide for various levels of verification need to be in place so companies can operate safely, effectively, and legally.
While cyber-planning requires customization and experts, the expense and maintenance of effective cyber procedures is trivial compared to the expense and experts required for a cyber breach.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

Arbitration resolves disputes privately before an arbitrator whose decision is usually final, while litigation resolves them in court with full rights of appeal. Whether a business ends up in arbitration or litigation is often decided when it signs the contract, long before any dispute arises. Key Takeaways When facing a contract dispute, carefully consider your […]
Author: Graham Staton

Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe

Whether a client’s prompts to a generative AI tool and the documents it produces are protected from disclosure depends on the case type, who claims protection, and whether counsel was involved. In United States v. Heppner, a New York federal judge ruled that a criminal defendant’s communications with an AI platform were protected by neither […]
Author: Chris Seelinger
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!