PSA: Wearables in the Enterprise — Understanding Privacy and Security Concerns
- ISEC7 Government Services
- 2 days ago
- 8 min read

With increased commodification, wearables have become ubiquitous amongst employees, introducing a new data loss risk to the enterprise. Smartwatches, fitness trackers, Augmented Reality (AR) glasses, and body-worn cameras are now helping employees stay connected, improve safety, and enhance productivity. From logistics workers wearing smart helmets to field engineers using AR headsets for live assistance, the benefits are tangible.
But behind this wave of innovation lies a less visible challenge: every wearable device is also a data sensor, one that continuously observes, records, and transmits information. This creates new privacy, compliance, and cybersecurity concerns that many organizations have yet to fully address.
New Endpoint, New Attack Surface
Each connected wearable represents another node on the corporate network, that is another potential entry point for attackers. Whether through Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or Near Field Communication (NFC), these devices maintain constant communication with paired smartphones or cloud services.
If not properly managed, this connectivity can be exploited. A vulnerable smartwatch or AR headset could be hijacked to access sensitive enterprise data, act as a bridge to a corporate phone, or even become a passive eavesdropping device.
Security teams should treat wearables as they would any other endpoint: subject to authentication, patch management, and access controls.
Sensitive Data, In Motion
Wearables are designed to collect personal data by default. Heart rate, sleep patterns, geolocation, even ambient audio, all this information can quickly become sensitive when mixed with enterprise applications and data.
For instance, if an employee’s smartwatch syncs their corporate calendar, messages, or location data, the organization could inadvertently process personal information under privacy laws such as CCPA or other state-level frameworks. The risk multiplies if that data is stored in third-party clouds outside the company’s jurisdiction.
The challenge is not just technical but ethical: balancing the convenience of wearable integration with respect for individual privacy. Organizations must apply data minimization principles, collecting only what is necessary and ensuring that personal and professional data remain segregated.
Management Gaps
Unlike laptops, tablets, or smartphones, most wearables were not designed for enterprise deployment and often lack basic management capabilities such as remote wipe, encryption enforcement, or security policy enforcement through Unified Endpoint Management (UEM) platforms.
This creates a paradox for organizations: even with a strong endpoint management strategy, wearables can remain outside of corporate control. Some wearables do however offer limited management capabilities; for example, Apple Watch allows IT to enforce device passcodes and deploy configuration profiles through paired iPhones, Samsung watches can be integrated with Knox for remote commands, app restrictions, and policy enforcement, while devices powered by WearOS support certain device policies, app control, and basic security settings via their connected smartphones. However, these features are generally less comprehensive than those available for smartphones and tablets.
For example, if an employee loses a smartwatch that displays corporate notifications or emails, sensitive information may remain accessible, bypassing corporate security measures. Consumer-grade features like "Find My Device" provide limited recovery options but are not integrated into enterprise compliance workflows.
Integrating wearable visibility into unified management systems like ISEC7 SPHERE or using policy-based access controls can significantly reduce this blind spot. The goal is not necessarily to manage every wearable directly, but to understand what is connecting, from where, and under which security posture.
Ethics of Tracking
Location and motion tracking are among the most valuable capabilities of wearables, and the most controversial. In logistics, manufacturing, or emergency response, they enable real-time safety monitoring and process optimization. Yet, the same features can easily cross into employee surveillance.
Regulators increasingly scrutinize continuous tracking that lacks clear justification or consent. Continuous location collection without legitimate business purpose may lead to privacy complaints or employee disputes.
Enterprises must therefore establish transparent policies explaining:
What data is collected and why
Who has access to it
How long it is retained
How employees can review or opt out of such monitoring
This transparency is not only a legal safeguard, but also a cornerstone of trust between employers and employees.
Cloud Dependencies and Data Sovereignty
Many wearables rely on manufacturer-managed cloud platforms, Apple Health, Google Fit, Samsung Cloud, and others. This architecture raises questions about data sovereignty and jurisdiction, especially in regulated industries or government environments where the location and control of data matter.
When wearable data passes through external cloud environments, it can fall under different privacy regimes or contractual terms, potentially breaching data handling requirements.
Organizations operating under frameworks such as Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP), International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), or other federal data protection mandates should verify:
Where wearable data is processed and stored
Whether data-sharing agreements align with organizational policies
How vendor APIs handle data retention and anonymization
Some enterprises are beginning to adopt “digital sovereignty” strategies, ensuring critical data remains under regional or organizational control.
Authentication and Identity Risks
Wearables are increasingly used for passwordless authentication or proximity-based access (e.g., unlocking a workstation when the paired smartwatch is nearby). While this offers convenience, it also introduces identity risks if the wearable is cloned, stolen, or compromised.
For example, a smartwatch using weak encryption to communicate with a host device could be spoofed, granting unauthorized access. Organizations implementing wearable-based authentication must ensure:
All communication channels use strong, mutual encryption
Device identities are validated at every connection
Lost or unpaired devices automatically revoke access
In Zero Trust (ZT) architectures, wearables can play a role in multifactor authentication, but only if they are verified, monitored, and integrated into endpoint compliance checks.
Compliance and Legal Boundaries
In regulated sectors, wearable integration can quickly collide with compliance mandates.
For instance:
Healthcare (HIPAA): Health-related wearable data may qualify as protected health information.
Finance (SOX, GLBA): Data integrity and audit trails must be maintained if wearables interact with enterprise systems.
Government (FedRAMP, DoD IL): Data sovereignty and cross-agency security controls must be explicitly enforced.
Organizations should therefore treat wearables not as consumer accessories, but as regulated endpoints. Each deployment should begin with a risk assessment and legal review, ensuring that the device and its companion services align with corporate compliance frameworks.
Shadow IT: The “BYOD Effect”
Wearables often enter the enterprise through the back door, brought by employees as part of their personal ecosystem. Paired with corporate smartphones, they can display emails, notifications, or meeting details without ever touching the managed network directly.
This form of shadow IT is difficult to detect, yet it can create major privacy gaps. IT departments may not know which devices are connected, what data is mirrored, or whether notifications expose sensitive content.
A common example is the personal Garmin watch. While it might seem harmless, Garmin Connect, its companion app, can pair with a corporate-managed phone, potentially syncing activity data, contact details, or even snippets of corporate notifications. Completely blocking Bluetooth pairing is not always feasible, as most operating systems and devices allow it at a hardware level, but you can make pairing effectively useless by blocking the data flow, detecting it early, and enforcing compliance.
To manage this growing overlap between personal and corporate ecosystems, organizations need to understand the different realities of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) environments. Not every situation is the same, and policies must reflect the level of control an organization has over the connected devices.
In a full BYOD scenario, both the phone and the watch belong to the employee. The organization has limited visibility and must rely on lightweight policies, such as conditional access, app restrictions, and network-level controls, to protect sensitive data. Containerization or Mobile Threat Defense (MTD) solutions (like Microsoft Intune App Protection Policies) help isolate corporate data without fully managing the device.
A more complex case is the hybrid environment, where a corporate-managed phone connects to a personal wearable. The phone can be fully governed through a UEM solution such as Intune, BlackBerry UEM, or Samsung Knox Manage, but the wearable itself remains outside direct control. Here, the focus should be on blocking data exchange between the corporate and personal spheres, restricting unapproved companion apps (Garmin Connect, Strava, etc.) and enforcing DLP rules to prevent sensitive notifications from being mirrored.
Finally, in COPE/COBO deployments (corporate-owned, personally enabled / corporate-owned, business-only), both the phone and the watch are managed by IT. This provides the highest level of control, enabling automated compliance checks, configuration enforcement, and monitoring through tools such as Knox Manage, Intune, or ISEC7 SPHERE.
From the end-user’s perspective, transparency is key. Employees often wonder what their organization can actually see or control on their personal devices. In most BYOD or hybrid setups, IT can detect if a watch is paired to a managed device, identify the companion app (e.g., Garmin Connect or Galaxy Wearable), and block data-sharing channels.
However, it cannot access personal health or location information such as heart rate, step count, GPS data, or sleep patterns, these remain private and protected by OS-level privacy frameworks.
By understanding these distinctions and tailoring policies accordingly, organizations can strike the right balance between usability and control. The objective is not to ban wearables or personal devices, but to define clear, enforceable rules that protect both corporate assets and employee privacy, ensuring productivity and convenience never come at the cost of enterprise security.
UEM Readiness
UEM readiness for wearables remains limited, as most devices rely on their paired smartphone rather than direct enrollment. Apple Watch (watchOS) stands out as the only widely adopted wearable with partial MDM support, managed indirectly through its paired iPhone using Apple’s MDM framework. Microsoft Intune, BlackBerry UEM, Ivanti EPMM, and Omnissa Workspace ONE can all apply this indirect management approach.
Samsung wearables, such as those running on Tizen or WearOS, can integrate with Samsung Knox for basic policy enforcement and application management, though enterprise support remains inconsistent across models and versions. Knox provides additional control for corporate-owned Samsung phones and tablets, but the extension of these controls to wearables is limited primarily to OEM-level implementations or specific enterprise partnerships.
WearOS devices (from Google and various OEMs) offer potential for Android Enterprise-based management, though this depends heavily on vendor implementation and supported APIs. In most cases, UEM platforms can only manage the connected Android smartphone, not the wearable itself.
Other wearables, such as Garmin or Fitbit devices, lack enterprise-grade APIs altogether, leaving them outside the scope of UEM control. Google Glass Enterprise Edition remains one of the few exceptions, as it supports Android-based management through Android Enterprise or custom OEMConfig profiles, though its use is largely limited to niche industrial and field-service scenarios.
Overall, wearable management remains fragmented. Apple and Google continue to expand their ecosystems with limited but growing enterprise readiness, while Samsung is pushing enterprise security through Knox extensions. However, most fitness- and consumer-grade wearables remain unmanaged endpoints, representing visibility and compliance challenges in corporate environments.
Balancing Innovation and Oversight
There’s no question that wearables offer enormous potential for business transformation. In industrial settings, they improve safety. In healthcare, they enable faster diagnostics. In logistics, they optimize workflows. Yet, the line between innovation and intrusion is thin.
To responsibly adopt wearable technology, enterprises should establish a governance framework covering:
Technical integration (UEM compatibility, network segmentation)
Privacy impact assessments
Consent and transparency mechanisms
Regular audits and employee awareness training
Combining these measures with centralized visibility, as provided by tools like ISEC7 SPHERE, helps ensure that wearable deployments remain compliant, secure, and aligned with business objectives.
The Road Ahead
The rise of wearables in the workplace is inevitable. As devices become more capable, blending health tracking, augmented reality, and real-time analytics, they will increasingly interact with enterprise data and workflows. But with this transformation comes a new set of responsibilities. These devices introduce fresh attack surfaces, blur the boundaries between personal and professional data, and challenge traditional compliance models. The path forward requires more than technical fixes. It demands a holistic governance strategy that includes endpoint visibility and UEM integration, even if indirect; privacy-by-design and security-by-default principles and ethical data handling; clear policies for BYOD, hybrid, and COPE/COBO environments; regulatory alignment across industries and jurisdictions; and transparent communication to build employee trust.
By embedding transparency, oversight, and security into every stage of wearable adoption, enterprises can unlock their full potential, without compromising compliance or trust. In short, wearables can be transformative tools for the modern enterprise, but only if treated with the same rigor, respect, and responsibility as every other endpoint.