Is work able to force me to install software on personal equipment? Due to the corona-virus around the world, like so many others I am working from home as possible. Work has just decided that because of this, we should be using Mircosoft Teams to help us all communicate as a team. I have no work equipment outside the office, so this would mean having to install it on my personal phone. Which I am not wanting to do. I have read tales from online where using personal equipment for work has lead to issues (remote wipes, who owns the data, who has rights to the equipment, ...). As I live and work in Canada, and have not agreed to use my personal equipment for work, is there any way they are allowed to force me to do so or to react to my refusal?
As the owner of your own computer, you can dispose of it however you see fit (as long as your choice is legal). The courts could, theoretically, force you do do something with your computer, but installing software is not one of the things that the courts are empowered to force you to do. (Mostly, they can force you to turn it over for a search). A company can't force you to do anything with your property: only the courts can order the use of force. But there is no legal basis for the courts to grant a company's request for an order to install software. A company can perhaps persuade you to install software on your personal computer, in exchange for keeping your employment. I assume you are familiar with the law regarding firing people. If you do not perform your job, you might be terminated for cause. You could hire an attorney and sue for wrongful dismissal, and it's not obvious that you have a valid reason for non-performance. So I would suggest consulting a Canadian employment attorney before sticking your neck too far out.
As a native English speaker I would read this as requiring the DPO to monitor all the things listed (i.e. you are correct). Furthermore it would be ridiculous for the DPO to be personally responsible for doing all of these things. If you were supposed to perform "assignment of responsibilities" yourself that would pretty much make you the Chief Operations Officer. If you are only required to monitor job assignments for compliance then by the same logic you are only required to monitor training. Having said that, there is an established principle in the safety industry that compliance should have an independent reporting line up to the top management, and I think its the same for financial regulations too. You cannot be an effective DPO if you are just watching from the sidelines. So I would expect a DPO to have: Line responsibility for audits and routine compliance work such as privacy impact assessments, with a dedicated team of people if necessary. This ensures that there is an independent reporting line from everyday work up to the DPO. Do not accept a situation where data protection work is carried out by the project and then handed to you to file once it is complete, because it never will be. Project managers have a lot of competing priorities and they are extremely good at avoiding anything that sits between them and project completion. You MUST have your own people in the project to see what is happening and the power to stop a project if it is not compliant. If they won't give you that, turn down the job. Budget responsibility for training (with the work actually done by specialist contractors or the company in-house training department) Notification of job assignments where data protection is part of the responsibility.
You can't sue for false promise per se, but it might enter into a suit for something else. It sounds like your employer offered you a choice between coming in to work (extremely difficult), termination or furlough (extremely undesirable), versus working at home (the preferable option), and the latter was contingent on you doing things that relate to being able to work at home (get a computer and so on). Relying on that promise, you purchased a computer: but then they decided that you had to come in to work. Based just on that, you could sue them for damages (maybe the computer, maybe the added cost of finding a new babysitter, possibly loss of wages). They might want to argue that they don't owe you anything, but your lawyer would (legally) prevent them from making that argument, using what is known as promissory estoppel. You took certain actions based on their promise, so you are entitled to rely on that promise. Their counter-argument would probably be that you didn't do what you were supposed to do, and your attorney would respond that the company obstructed you from doing what had to be done, or had not taken reasonable steps to say in advance what was required of you.
I would agree with @DaleM that it is probably legal to install such a camera, however I think that you may have recourse - Apparently, California has Civil Stalking Laws and you may be able to get a restraining order prohibiting him from monitoring your front door. (You may also look into harassment, which would be related)
Software qua property is protected by copyright *perhaps patent, in some jurisdiction). The general rule is that whoever creates the thing (book, song, software) has the exclusive right to the thing. If an employee of Company 1 writes software for Company 2, that employee might (rarely) hold the copyright, but typically that scenario would involve a "work for hire", where the employee is hired by Company 1 to do such tasks as part of his duties with Company 1 (which might then be given to Company 2). This would then be a work for hire, and the copyright is held by Company 1. If the actual author was an independent contractor, he would hold the copyright – see Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reed for analysis of the subtle nuances in making that determination. The concept "work for hire" which crucially involves the "employee" relationship would not be applicable to Company 2 paying Company 1 for a product, and as long as the actual author is an employee of C1, C1 has not created a "work for hire" in the legal sense. Without some explicit disposition of copyright, Company 2 is in a sketchy position. Since C1 holds copyright, they must grant a license to C2 so that C2 can legally use it; or, C1 must transfer copyright to C2. This does not happen automatically, and (if C1 does not want to remedy the situation after the fact) C2 would need to take C1 to court to force a resolution to the situation. At that point, the issue would be what C1 implicitly promised, even though they didn't put it in writing. It is likely that the initial exchange was along the lines "Can you make us a program that will do X?", and the answer was "Sure, that will cost Y", and then "Okay, go ahead, looking forward to the product". The courts would not simply say "Well, you didn't explicitly require a license, so you don't get to actually use the software that you paid for". However, it's a somewhat open question whether the court would order a license (of what nature?) or a transfer of copyright. The disposition would depend heavily on the facts of the case (what was said, what C1 actually did, what kind of business they are, what did creating the work involve...).
The companies really need to speak to an IP lawyer as this question is seeking specific advice which this site is loathe to give out for fear of compouding issues. The answer would depend on the license agreements and enforceability in various jurisdictions. According to https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/vstudio/en-US/0368d7ee-0eb3-4e3e-a143-4410969a15bb/eula-for-vs2010?forum=vssetup Microsoft says you cant rent out the software - but this applies to the "Pro" version - I could not find anything on the "Premium" version - so most likely Microsoft to have some clam. The flipside is how enforceable this EULA is - and this would probably vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It would be a very, very good idea to speak to a lawyer before letting Microsoft come onto the premises - as "inviting them" to do this is almost certainly not going to improve the Asians company's case and will allow Microsoft to go fishing further and make it easier for them to expand on and collect evidence should they decide to pursue the matter.
It depends on the warranty itself. Here is one warranty, which only protects against manufacturing defects and excludes any software issues (whether pre-installed or user-installed). I'm a little surprised that a manufacturer is willing to include someone else's software under their warranty. This also excludes failure or damage resulting from misuse, abuse, accident, modification, unsuitable physical or operating environment, natural disasters, power surges, improper maintenance, or use not in accordance with product information materials failure of, or damage caused by, any third party products, including those that X may provide or integrate into the X product at your request This does not say &quot;If you change the OS, you void the warranty&quot;. But, if you change the OS and that causes hardware damage, that voids the warranty. The next question is, what evidence do you have that the problem is a manufacturing problem rather than a consequence of changing the OS. They would have to answer the same question in court. It is legally absurd to claim that you have to prove that it is logically impossible that you contributed to the problem, you only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence, when you take them to court. The burden of proof rests on the person who makes a claim. You claim that the product was defective, now you must prove it. But you don't have to prove it to the standard of absolute ccertainty.
Disclaimer: Not a lawyer or even living in US. I try to write the answer under US law. Other countries law may differ. Make sure you consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction. Here is my understanding of the individual examples: You don't need permission legally, because you are only accessing your own account and your own information. You are the only one damaged by the intrusion and therefore, nobody can really file a lawsuit against you. This is often used by security researchers when the subjects are uncooperative. That being said, if it is an actual pentesting client, you may want to refrain from it regardless. You don't need a permission to modify hardware you own. This is completely legal and not considered an attack. It would qualify as an upgrade, such as replacing a component in your laptop. You are allowed to do that. You should have a permission here. This is an intentional penetration test and you should have permission to do this. The same as 3. This is an intentional penetration test and you should get a permission. Though if you logout immediately and don't mess with the interface, it may not be illegal on the basis that you did not cause any damage or steal any information, or it may be illegal under some circumstances. It may also be impossible to prove that you did not do anything while there.