Workplace Surveillance

[Type text] Infringement of Privacy through Workplace Surveillance Today’s world is absolutely fraught with copious amounts of technology used in activities ranging from entertainment and national security, to the obsessive monitoring of individuals in the work place. On the rise since 9/11, surveillance has wrapped itself around every conceivable interaction in the daily life of the average person. Where the prospect of looking out for threats haveled many to accept surveillance as a part of life, there is a lesser known dark side to the matter—where the fears of everyday citizens are realized. The extent of surveillance has turned from protection, to spying on the personal lives of employees, and most tragically—voyeurism by the employer. Through weak, largely outdated federal and state laws, many loopholes have been exploited by employers to better constrict and observe the activities of their employees. Lastly, even with the inception of a few countries updates to surveillance laws, much is left to do in order to secure the privacy that is expected within the context of basic human rights. In the current workplace there are many techniques being implemented to keep track of the various employees of companies across the globe. These companies range from the average everyday shop, up through schools, and finallyin the largest corporations. The managers of these companies feel that their surveillance is to better secure their workplace for their employees. Though, a study conducted in the Security Director’s Report (SDR)document contradicts this feeling among the employees themselves. In a poll of 520, non- managerial employees, 64% saw the surveillance as a means to make sure employees are productive, with only 46% claiming it creates a safer environment, and 0% claimed theft prevention as a cause for the surveillance (10). Workplace surveillance really isn’t a bad thing by itself; obviously employers have the right to monitor their employees. A problem arises from the drastic increase in technology and the sheer numbers utilizing the new tech:

[Type text] Companies monitor all or some employees in a myriad of ways: monitor and review web site connections: 76%, store and review employee e-mail: 55%, conduct video surveillance: 51%, and monitor computer time spent, matter/ content, or keystrokes: 36%. The data presents a trend that has existed since 9/11 of an increase of surveillance in every aspect of society where more than half of companies now employ surveillance, versus the 33% in 2001 (SDR 7). In a recent study done by Allen et al. a stunning result came about when interviewing a series of 86 various employees in the San Francisco Bay Area. When asked what about surveillance is problematic 20% replied it was an invasion of privacy, 17% felt they had to modify their behaviors to conform, 17% wanted more trust and freedom in the workplace, and 23% disliked the surveillance altogether (185). In regards to increased surveillance, it seems employees are no ‘dummies’ when it comes to feeling skeptical of the employer’s motives. An overwhelming percentage of people took the increase a means for more constricting control on their work production. On top of this, it was shown that a number of people simply feel that the surveillance altogether is an invasion of privacy—that their personal sense of security is now violated at the discretion of their employer. As shown throughout the world, workplace surveillance is a rather controversial topic, with conflicts erupting all over the world’s major business and corporation sectors. People just don’t want to be observed so thoroughly whilst doing their job. Most employees really aren’t looking for much but recognitionof their privacy—which existed prior to this technology. It only seems reasonable to say that the workplace would be better off with less surveillance, more trust put into the employees. This may even lead to a balance in the relationship between employer and worker.

[Type text] The greatest fear of an employee is that their boss should find out some of their personal information. Though, as the technology has increased for employers to essentially spy on their workers, a fine line has been crossed in reference to a separation between the workers’s personal life and work life. Because of the increased technology: An employee who sends their spouse a romantic e-mail while eating lunch at his or her desk can find that their love letter has been read by their boss. Or a note to a psychiatrist stored in an employee’s hard drive is disclosed. Internet monitoring can be extremely invasive. People today turn to the Internet as their primary source of information, including sensitive subjects they would be uncomfortable communicating about on their office telephone or e-mail. In part, this is because of the efficiency of internet research. People also turn to the Internet for information because they can do so anonymously. The result is that people turn to the Internet for information and help about the most sensitive subjects imaginable. Women who are victims of domestic abuse turn to the Internet for information about shelters and other forms of help. People also turn to the Web for information and help with drug and alcohol problems, financial difficulties, marital problems, and medical issues. Monitoring Web access gives an employer a picture window into employees’ most sensitive personal problems(National Workrights Institute 3). Essentially, anything an employer does at work is immediately traceable by their employer. This may seem a way to monitor an employee’s abuse of web privileges by viewing non- work appropriate material like pornography, or illegally downloading music and what not. But, in all reality, the internet provider has the IP address of the computer and can track such information, whilst still allowing for the privacy of the worker’s searches and private information. Furthermore, “most employers make no effort to avoid monitoring personal

[Type text] communications. The majority of employers install systems that make no distinction between business and personal messages, even when more discriminating systems are available” (National Workrights Institute 4). Giving the employer immediate access to all computer- related activities seems too much an excess. As such it leads again back to support the claim where 64% of employees feel this surveillance is to increase productivity and not just prevent illegal or immoral activities in the workplace as the employer’s say it is. One may ask how many could this affect in the workplace, as not too many people look up too personal of things at work. And again the National Workrights Institute provides that, ”approximately 20 million employees and independent contractors now work at home at least one day per month, and this number is growing rapidly. Millions more have linked their home computer to their office network so they can work from home informally on evenings and weekends” (4). This is a huge problem if the current laws are not amended restricting employer access to private records. Now the employer has access to the computer use in the home of the employeeand can see what sites this person may explore in private. Sound like something people will be begging for? Certainly not, and this isn’t the only field of abuse by the seeming obsessive nosiness of the employer. Video cameras, phone call monitoring, and voice mail recording are all ways where the power of employers is misusedas well. The implementation of the video camera does allow for added security when used appropriately, but there have been shown cases where, “employers have installed hidden video cameras in locker rooms and bathrooms, sometimes inside the stalls” (National Workrights Institute 4). Honestly, how does this prevent crime, or even increase productivity? On top of this, some companies have been shown to have recorded all incoming/ outgoing calls, regardless of their content. Voicemails are also recorded and reviewed; and there have been companies that require a certain cell phone usage, with the phone being equipped with

[Type text] a GPS system that the employer can track at any time. Employers invading the personal life of their employees: for safety of the company, or the employer’s curiosity? Of the myriad of stories all over the globe and United States especially, there stands out no more ironic a tale of excessive workplace surveillance than of this California Judge: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judges disabled computer monitoring software that had been installed by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts without notice or consent. Judge Alex Kozinski charged that the surveillance system was a needless invasion of privacy. Several members of Congress agreed, Rep. Howard Berman wrote, “While it may be appropriate to monitor an employee’s Internet use or e-mail in certain circumstances, I do not believe indiscriminate, systematic monitoring is appropriate… It is particularly inappropriate for the courts, which will inevitably be called on to rule in cases involving questions of employee privacy” (National Workrights Institute 10). Coupled with the stories of people having experienced the exploitation by way of wrongful surveillance, it seems only right that people should feel the current policies are unjust and are an invasion of the privacy of the individual. Overall, the idea of keeping tabs on the safety and progress of employees has become far too excessive, and increasingly nefarious. The company’s slogan of ‘it’s for your safety’ is all but nullified underthe new wave of technology allowing for the greater ease by which to ‘spy’ on their workers in their work and private lives. There is no reason for a company to feel that the restroom is a proper place to observe its employees, nor for the company to have access to their personal communications—even their real-time whereabouts. A lingering feeling that perhaps someone is always watching or listening in seems more justifiable in today’s society. Employee thoughts that surveillance has gone too far reflect the reality of the situation: companies really are going too far. Since 9/11 the trend for

[Type text] increased surveillance on every aspect of human interaction has brought about the actualization of the Orwellian vision of a world without privacy. The underlying problem that has arisen in context of workplace surveillance is the lackluster laws put in place on the federal and state podiums. These laws are far out dated—with the last of these major laws, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), being passed in 1986. Within it, there are many loopholes and exceptions by which surveillance is allowed, often without strong reprimand for violation. Various exceptions include using surveillance for ‘business’ purposes, such as quality control in customer service branches, and the exception that allows calls to be recorded at random, without any choice to the employee or the client. By way of the National Workrights Institute, it is shown that the ECPA is far too weak, even in regards to prohibition of storing communications like phone calls, and email (15). In addition,” a majority of states do have statutes restricting the interception of wire communications by private individuals. These states, however, generally mirror the ECPA, and contain similar exceptions and exemptions” (National Workrights Institute 16). Uponreflection, it is shown that more needs to be done on the legislative side of things to eliminate out- dated and weak laws. Though, how does one rely on a system of government guilty of employing many underground companies to much the same thing as normal businesses, to an even more extreme extent? Perhaps it is simply the destiny of the world to succumb to the mystique and lust for knowing and seeing everything. Playing the part of an omniscient divine entity with technology, the world’s elite seems infatuated with the prospect of being able to dig into the minds of everyone, in order to better control and submit them. If anything is to be resolved, the laws must become stronger, guidelines be laid out, and exceptions specifically mentioned, instead of loosely interpreted.

[Type text] Where the U.S.has failed to step up to the plate, so to speak, other countries are updating and enforcing less intrusive surveillance laws. New South Wales in Australiain 2005 passed the Workplace Surveillance Act. Among its details, this law,” prohibits the surveillance of employees at work… except where proper notice has been given, or has covert surveillance authority” (NSW 1). Various forms of surveillance covered by the law include video, computer —electronic communications, and general use, and tracking—GPS. Also detailed are the proper requirements for notice: “14 days before it begins, the kind of surveillance, how the surveillance will be carried out, whether it will be continuous or intermittent, and whether it will be permanent or employed for a limited period of time” (NSW 1). This law is a definite step in the right direction, but still more needs to be done. No formal notice of telecommunication was presented in this interpretation of the law. Consequently, this may lead to another series of loopholes, unless there is already an adequate telecommunications law in place. Again, more improvement can be found in restricting immediate access to all computer files by the employer. Such can be done by leaving it to the internet provider’s database being able to monitor company activity and report accordingly—as evidenced by the ability for such a database to pin point the IP address of a computer engaging in inappropriate activities. Restricting the employer’s access will result in a maintaining of privacy everyone would like to have in the workplace and sometimes home for those hooked up to their work network on their personal computers. Another possible step would be the implementation of a randomized inspection of a building’s surveillance system, to weed out those cameras or devices that may be in place illegally. In a world where trust comes through extensive observation, it has been shown how a surge in technology has translated to the abuse of an employee’s privacy. Whether it is theirpersonal communications—phone or email—falling into the hands of those who shouldn’t

[Type text] be involved, or video cameras in inappropriate places, the privacy that was once expected in the workplace has dwindled its way down to nihility. The extent to which this occurs is colossal, and through weak laws continues virtually unknown until an employee finds out and alerts law enforcement of the violation. With long outdated legislation, a push by legislatures needs to come to provide and protect the privacy in the workplace and personal lives of the citizens who reside under their ordinance.

Works Cited Allen, Myria Watkins, et al. “Workplace Surveillance and Managing Privacy Boundaries.” Management Communication Quarterly. Vol. 21 Issue 2 (2007): 1-29. Business Source Premier. EBSCOhost. Archbishop Alter Library at the College of Mount Saint Joseph, Cincinnati, OH. 30 Nov. 2007 . “Does Workplace Surveillance Help Security or Does It Go Too Far?” Security Director’s Report. Vol. 5 Issue 8(2005): 1-12. Business Source Premier. EBSCOhost. Archbishop Alter Library at the College of Mount Saint Joseph, Cincinnati, OH. 30 Nov. 2007
[Type text] a385-219967e6312b%40sessionmgr106>. "Privacy Under Siege: Electronic Monitoring in the Workplace." National Workrights Institute. Electronic Privacy Information Center. 30 Nov 2007 . "Workplace Surveillance Act." Rights and Responsibilities. 08 Jan. 2006. NSW Office of Industrial Relations. 30 Nov 2007 .