Full agree on the non-compete. However, the search of personal devices after you've conducted business seems legitimate to me.
If they need to investigate the evidence to understand the exposure/whatever in the event a situation arises where you used your personal device, they obviously need access. They are simply trying to neutralize the excuse that "its your personal device and you have no authority to search it", by getting your consent ahead of time. I do agree, they are often extremely vague, but I'm not sure it's reasonable for them to spell out every possible use case where it should or should not apply.
Simply don't use personal equipment when acting on behalf of the business (everyone should be happy there), OR get an exception written up by your own legal and get their sign off on the situations which you object to (they might not be so flexible). I don't think there is malice in the intent there though.
It really is as simple as that iff you never use your personal device for any business purpose.
[update] This was unclear: I'm saying this relationship is simple if and only if you have not used your devices for business purposes. If you have, you need only hope that none of the clauses in your agreements (you did have a lawyer review these?) cover it.
Even if I used it for work purposes occasionally, they can go to court and prove that in the process of getting a subpoena and I'll happily comply.
Due process exists for a reason; if you let any company examine your personal devices/data outside of a court order, they can use it for any purpose they want. Subpoenas are limited in scope, and everything is documented.
"However, the search of personal devices after you've conducted business seems legitimate to me"
So, the founder calls your personal cellphone on the weekend and asks a couple of business questions. You come in on Monday and they lawyer points to the clause in your contract. I'm pretty sure reasonable goes out the window.
Intent and the words you signed need to match or you can get seriously hosed.
I see your point here. A principled person might refuse to answer the phone, or call back from the business phone, but that is fairly impractical I would admit.
My only point here was it seems reasonable for the employer to ask for the world. If it's really worth getting spun up, perhaps you could find out if there is a better version of this boiler plate which respects your privacy.
For what it's worth, at my own employer, the phrase is not so open ended, and I suspect it's the same with others:
"Users who use their non-BIGCORP-email (read that as personal) or IM accounts for any BIGCORP business agree to provide BIGCORP with full access to those account, in the event such is necessary to comply with a discovery request or legal mandate"
Using your personal im for work business is a world away from
1 - incidental use of your cellphone for work, even things such as securing work email via 2fa;
2 - using your phone to answer work email via remotely revokable gmail access;
3 - using your personal laptop to answer work email, again via gmail
none of 1-3 mean an employer should get the rights to view my personal email which is also on my phone, or to look inside my phone at all
"My only point here was it seems reasonable for the employer to ask for the world."
No, its not. We accept it, but its not reasonable, it just a CYA attitude than infects a lot of our business and political dealings. An employer should ask for exactly what they want and no more.
We shouldn't even accept it on formal terms. If they need that kind of access during legal proceedings then we might, in good faith, provide that kind of access but it should be provided because we have a good business relationship and not because we signed a contract that gave them the right to our first born.
If they need to investigate the evidence to understand the exposure/whatever in the event a situation arises where you used your personal device, they obviously need access. They are simply trying to neutralize the excuse that "its your personal device and you have no authority to search it", by getting your consent ahead of time. I do agree, they are often extremely vague, but I'm not sure it's reasonable for them to spell out every possible use case where it should or should not apply.
Simply don't use personal equipment when acting on behalf of the business (everyone should be happy there), OR get an exception written up by your own legal and get their sign off on the situations which you object to (they might not be so flexible). I don't think there is malice in the intent there though.