Confidentiality Rights Violation

Electronic monitoring has seen a tremendous growth in the workplace, in the past 10 years. The National Work Rights Institute

As indicated by some people, the privacy right ought to be extended to workplaces. In the meantime, other individuals feel that this extension would encompass an unnecessary incursion into the managing rights of the management. In a working environment, the right to privacy of employees is a primarily controversial legal topic. This is even more of a concern or of an issue during this age of increased dependence on electronic mail and computers to do business. Because of innovation technology, employers have been enabled to monitor working environment correspondence that happens by means of PCs, for example, messages and Internet utilization. A majority of the employees feel that such observing abuses their privacy rights. Nevertheless, the law does permit it. Some employee activities like private discussions and actual physical spaces at the workplace such as the locked desk drawers are under more privacy protections. Hence, there is a great need for the employers to consider circumstances under which he or she wants to conduct an investigation.

The paper is a brief insight into electronic surveillance in the workplace. It focuses on what video surveillance is; and what methods are used, such as monitoring phone usage, video surveillance, monitoring email, internet usage, GPS surveillance of company vehicles and cell phones; and why these methods are adopted within the workplace. It also focuses on the legal risk of electronic surveillance with the concerns of invasion of privacy and its effect on the of workplace protocol and guidelines.

Employer monitoring is often seen as an intrusion of privacy for many employees. Companies observe their people in various ways from online usage, social media and emails. Furthermore, organizations now have policies and procedures in place that outline how much accessibility they have to what their staff view and write on company time. The top reasons employers say they monitor is to keep the personnel safe, determine how work is being done and to deter disgruntled employees from giving away company secrets (Mello, 2012).

Technology is growing and becoming more prevalent in the office today. Almost everything in the office is done on some sort of technology, and using just paper copies is becoming obsolete. As an employee, one needs to be aware he or she is probably being tracked while using company owned devices. Also, employers need to be aware of what is legal to track. With both sides knowing what can be tracked, it can make the workplace a more productive

Privacy has remained a concern in the world but there have been numerous cases regarding privacy in the workforce. Privacy among the work environment brings ethical dilemma of whether companies have the rights to monitor their employees email, computer and internet usage. When we think about workforce privacy, one worries about the email and internet information that is gathered from being monitored being used for good or bad with current issues regarding known companies’ employees and customer’s personal information being hacked.

Tracking sensors are intended to help companies evaluate their employees and productivity. The ethical issues involved in using tracking sensors begins with the threat to privacy. There is potential abuse that could be taken from employers having too much information and micromanaging their employees. Many employees feel threatened by the thought of being monitored while in the workplace, and being evaluated by tone of voice, communication, productivity and movements. Emerging technology can give a virtual real-time evaluation, and employees are fearful of the accuracy and legal ramifications that this data can place upon them.

There are two issues that are expected to arise in this research which are confidentiality and off the record comments. Firstly, confidentiality issue in a research context is referring to information about individuals which are collected during process of conducting research will not be disclosed. Therefore in order to address this issue, participants will be guaranted that their information will be protected through several process that are aim to anonymise them. Next, regarding off the record comments issue, some participants may provide comments that they do want to be included in the research. Since it will be breach of confidentiality if the comments are use. Thus, first thing that will be done to handle this issue is to negotiate with

Slide two introduces the audience to the “whys” behind the behavior of some companies. In other words, slide two provides a good outline detailing reasons why organizations feel the need to monitor employee email and internet usage. Some of the information provided in this slide are: firms can investigate complaints

As already mentioned by most of us already, issues of confidentiality should be discussed at the onset and through out the therapy (Goldenberg, Stanton, & Goldenberg, 2017). While not all couples present for counseling with secrets, a therapist never knows at the outset of therapy for which couple a secret might become an issue. According to Wilcoxon, Remley, Gladding & Huber (2007) a therapist can insists that partners do not share any secrets with the therapist that they would not wish the therapist to share with the unknowing partner. Meaning, the therapist informs their clients that any information that is shared individually, even in confidence, is open to revelation by the therapist to the unaware partner, and he or she may acquire a

As more and more advancements are made in the wide world of technology, workplace surveillance seems like a logical step. However as with anything, there are pros and cons which should be considered. I think finding a balance that best serves the interests of success for businesses using it and the productivity of employees without creating an oppressive workplace is very important.

Many employees are unaware that their employers can monitor what they do online and fire or discipline them based on the information. According to a recent report by the American Management Association, more than a quarter of employers have fired workers for misusing e-mail, and about a third have fired workers for misusing the Internet (Snell & Bohlander,

According to the survey of Internet Usage at Work, a quarter of workers spend an hour or more online at sites unrelated to their work, 22% said 30 minutes to an hour was distributed to entertainment. Nearly 10% promised they never did something not relevant to their jobs (Sharma & Jatinder, 2003). Thus, surveillance in workplace can monitor workers’ performance and reduce the waste of time. Furthermore, monitoring employee’s work has a positive effect on work distribution. Surveillance also can achieve the goal of fair work distribution and show how an employee’s performance is evaluated (Mason, Button, Lankshear, Coates, & Sharrock, 2002, cited in Watkins, Coopman, Hart, & Walker, 2007, p. 175). As a result of which, the employee’s enthusiasm is stimulated and the productivity of business will be significantly improved. The opponent argue that excessive monitoring, however, can do harm to employees, because privacy can be compromised if the disclosure of employees’ information was not authorized, and it may cause leak of private information (Ball, 2010). The significance of appropriately managing this issue recently drawn the public’s attention by the brutal cyberattack perpetrated against Sony information in late 2014. Sony employees’ private information was broadcasted to the third party (Ellis, 2014,

Whether employees should be under surveillance or not of their employers will always remain a debatable topic. In my opinion, however, I would support this phenomenon instead of opposing it due to some analytical reasons which I shall be explaining in detail.

In 2007, a survey by the American Management Association and ePolicy Institute that 77% of employers engage in some form of electronic monitoring of employees (American Management Association, 2008). The reason for monitoring primarily consist of tracking employee productivity, legal compliance, and to help assist in performance reviews. Understanding how the fourth amendment guarantees individual privacy underscores the need for caution in advocating Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology in tracking onsite and offsite employees.