No, I don't misunderstand. A deposition won't care whether things are separated by a software wall. A deposition will want everything on the device. So it's better to just not mix the two at all.
A deposition about a work related issue may ask to see all devices that you use in connection with your employer. So yes, a deposition will care when you say you didn't use your personal phone for work if you can prove it by it not being on any device list found with work-related services.
A device list can be obtained (usually easily, sometimes with a court order) through many services you use. G Suite, Github, Microsoft Account, Slack, Reddit, etc... these all track what devices have logged into them with your account. Signal and Telegram have your phone number. And of course any email sent has a list of addresses to which it was sent. So make sure your personal devices aren't found to be communicating with coworkers or vendors and you'll have a valid argument for "I didn't use my personal device for work".
Whether it will stick will largely depend on how good the lawyers are because that's just one way your device can be in scope for a deposition. Another way would be if any messages from coworkers are sent to/from your personal email or phone number then that can also bring your devices into the scope of a deposition. It might depend on whether the content or context of the messages suggests that they're related to the subject of the deposition and that the conversation had been moved (eg, an attempt to hide it). Again, it largely depends on the quality of the lawyers involved.
The ony way that would be possible is by them physically taking the device off you and asking for all your pin codes / passwords. The 'work profile' feature uses app-sandbox which in effects means every app runs as a Linux type isolated UID (not to differnt to a container), there is no breach around that unless some zero day attack comes to light, which would bw patched way before acme corps IT department picks it up.
They need you to hand it over. If its your personal device, you just say piss off, no you can't have it.
So you're saying that judge will ignore the separate profiles but it'll magically stop from depositioning all your phones that might contain work conversations?
That's a tall order.
Also, the title says that GOOGLE spied on someone - which is not a deposition, is it?
I'm not sure how these subpoenas usually are worded specifically, but it doesn't seem like that contrived of a situation. Like, if you aren't the suspect and are ordered to hand over all devices used to communicate to <suspicious co-worker X>, if you have a separate device you just hand the thing over. If you hand over a personal phone, they are presumably going to bump into your walled off section and have some questions. Plus, you don't have a phone, while they are working on the thing, which seems like a pain.
This is assuming you aren't in a "hand over all electronic devices" kind of situation.
>> So you're saying that judge will ignore the separate profiles but it'll magically stop from depositioning all your phones that might contain work conversations?
Yes.
Source: Been subpoenaed three times and my attorneys have had restrictions placed on what can/cannot be searched... like I am assuming most competent attorneys can provide. The party has to have reasonable indication that relevant data is on personal devices so the opposing counsel doesn't go goldfishing through a bunch of stuff to turn up potentially unrelated dirt in discovery.
US centric, but courtrooms don’t have time to hear about the technicalities that show something isn’t possible. They only care that they think it’s possible. Judges aren’t programmers and the law isn’t black and white like code.
Also, you can’t just not respond to a deposition or refuse to hand over your phone as evidence in a crime. That’s obstruction of justice and possibly contempt of court.
Basically, you can sit there for hours on end explaining that it’s impossible to break the “wall”, but that’s time and time in money in the court system (literally), or you can just fork over the phone because it’s not your personal one.
Make phones that self-destruct all data if the device is handed over. It should be hardcoded to do so and that should not be an editable setting by the user.
The primary reason for this would be against thieves, but it would work against courts as well, and the user wouldn't have a choice.
Again. Destruction of evidence is a crime. Even if it’s not a choice for the user, the usage of such a feature would be a crime. And also again: the law and the courts don’t care about technicalities, no matter your opinion on that matter.
People here are choosing to make things harder for themselves by coming up with ideas to skirt the law, but it doesn’t work and will only make the police go harder on you. The law (and precedent) is not on your side in this battle.
Are you sure? This is a nuanced issue. Ehat counts as "usage". Intentionally destroying evidence is a crime, but broadly automatically destroying data before you have any knowledge of an allegation is not. (Otherwise, thinks lke GDPR would be illegal in the US)
We’re talking about depositions, so the knowledge of an investigation followed by destruction of the data (whether intention or not) by handing the device over would be a crime. I can’t hand my phone over to the police and remote wipe it with iCloud, for example.
You: "Sure, I can hand it over, but all data will then get wiped by the device automatically due to Google/Apple/Samsung's anti-theft design and I don't have a choice"
After that it's upto the Judge whether to proceed with the handover or not. It will be the judge who destroyed the data if so.
As I said before: technicalities don’t work. You’re not getting out of this. If you told the judge that, he’d change his order to hand over the data in a different way. Have fun sitting down with the police while they copy all of the data off by hand while you show them each item.
Judges don't appreciate clever tricks of any kind, and neither does the law. Anything you think of that sounds like a clever trick is not something you should actually try.
No, it wouldn't even be my trick. It would be a feature of the design of the phone and I, the user, would not even have a choice in that implementation.
The primary motive of that design would be against thieves, but it would incidentally happen to work on judges as well. The owners of the phones would have no choice.
It doesn’t matter. Judges don’t care and they have very broad authority to get what they want. You’re not getting off on a technicality. It’s that simple.
Yes, they could do that, and of course, in that case, my eyes would be on it and they would only be able to ask for things pertinent to the case, which likely means all corporate accounts, not dig through personal accounts.
Them being unable to take the actual device means that they'd have to play by the rules.
Can't they tell you to click buttons and type on the phone on their behalf, until they've gotten what they want, whilst an assistant looks across your shoulder telling you what to do/click next?
The idea is based on the idea (heh) that warrants must be tailored to the crime. I can’t get a warrant for your dining room then go upstairs into your bedroom to explore. Now, if a cop saw, say, drug paraphernalia in the kitchen while looking for something else, that’s fine, but they can’t go on random searches (also why they can’t search your car for no reason).
That idea extended to civil procedure and phones is that the discovery process for a civil case would be for things related to the lawsuit of which your personal phone might not be. They could certainly request it, but a good lawyer would argue that your personal phone has no connection to the work phone (of which the lawsuit is about) as evidenced by the fact that you have two phones (you intend to separate the two matters). Separate profiles on the same computer (phone) would be harder to argue.
It’s not a clear cut matter and would certainly depend on how the judge is feeling, but if there’s a possibility of keeping your personal and work life separate, why not do so? Don’t put all your eggs (data) in one basket (phone) and the like.
> The ony way that would be possible is by them physically taking the device off you and asking for all your pin codes / passwords.
Which is likely legally allowed for a deposition.
> They need you to hand it over. If its your personal device, you just say piss off, no you can't have it.
Telling the courts/lawyers to piss off is not a viable option. That's not how depositions work. You might be able to get a lawyer to file legal motions with expert testimony attached pointing out they shouldn't need access to the whole phone for the reasons you said, but 99% of people will not bother getting a lawyer for something like this.
Is that how depositions work though? Being deposed means being asked questions in a very official manner by opposing counsel. During discovery, they can issue a subpoena/warrant which gives them permission to take your possessions.
Or you could just get really drunk and lose your phone. Happens all the time. The phone company will verify you called for a replacement and the bar will verify you got trashed.
> Telling the courts/lawyers to piss off is not a viable option. That's not how depositions work. You might be able to get a lawyer to file legal motions with expert testimony attached pointing out they shouldn't need access to the whole phone for the reasons you said, but 99% of people will not bother getting a lawyer for something like this.
No, that is now how subpoenas and depositions work. I've been involved in a few. The judge needs a specific reason to approve inclusion of your personal device: like a record of information having been sent to it specifically or being used in a context relevant to the case at hand. And the information request will have to be specific to the case at hand, so you can just return with "There is no information on those devices relevant to the subpoena parameters" (said under oath).
If they demand your personal device anyway, because the subpoena is too broad or something, you can fight it with the judge and argue why it shouldn't be included.
If you never, ever mix personal and work then you should have no difficulty getting your personal devices excluded from a work related inquiry.
