Privacy In The Workplace

How I would explain the difference between privacy, confidentiality, and privileged communication to a client.

Did you know that 58% of employers have fired workers for Internet and email misuse? And 48% justify employee video monitoring as an effort to “counter theft and violence?” According to the “2007 Electronic Monitoring & Surveillance Survey” of which 304 U.S. companies participated in, computer-monitoring results have led to the highest cause of employee termination. These companies used several tactics to eavesdrop on employees while claiming to be managing productivity or for security purposes. Some argue that surveillance is absolutely necessary to help protect and grow a business; others argue that employee and customer rights come first. However, companies that use such tactics often violate the privacy of individuals, exploit their private information and even punish those that do not conform to their standards.

Today, we can find tabloids and magazines on shelves of supermarkets or kiosks with pictures of celebrities or occasionally normal people who do not realize that they were photographed while they were in their home or enjoying their vacations. The motivation for those photographers who take those photos are probably the same which motivated Darwin Bonaparte to film John in the novel “Brave New World”. They aspire to be famous and wealthy. They are truly selfish, irresponsible and materialistic. Indeed, they gravely violate the right of those people to have privacy. For example, an article published in the USA Today mentions and presents different opinions about it,

Workplace privacy is one of the biggest issues facing businesses today. Do you feel like you are being watched all the time, all your e-mails being read, and every key stroke is being monitored by your boss? Some people feel this way and that is why privacy in the workplace is a problem with many businesses today. Employees feel like they are not being trusted, or feel the company invades on their personal privacy, or violates their fourth amendment rights. On the other hand many businesses have many federal and state laws to follow, and must keep their assets safe, and their employees. Technology makes communications of all sorts as easy as a few pushes of a button. This technology makes it

Again, a good Company policy would cover the search of employees work areas and desks (locked or unlocked). Mr. Yourprop's desk and work area is under no reasonable expectation of privacy. He is using a Company desk that is secured with locks provided by the Company to which they have a master key for. Makestuff Company also has a "reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing" in this situation making it even more justifiable for them to go through his desk (Scripps Howard News Service, 2013). The investigator may unlock and search Mr. Yourprop's desk.

The issue of privacy is a big concern in the workplace. With the expanding of new technology, many employees are concern about his or, her privacy in the workplace. Employees have the right to go to work knowing that his or, her employer will not invade their privacy. The rights to privacy in the workplace only provide limited protection for workers against monitoring and breach of confidentiality. The National Work Rights Institute states, under the federal law, "the limited protection the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 provides to employees' has been reduced because the statue has been outdated."

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse went over computer and workstation monitoring, email monitoring, telephone monitoring, mobile device monitoring, audio and video monitoring, GPS tracking, postal mail and social media monitoring. Employers are able to see what is on your screen, how much time you spend away from your computer and how many keystrokes per hour each employer does. Employers are able to discretely monitor employees with certain computer equipment. Employees may not know they are being monitored. Employers can review email content. Even though the message may have an option for marking an email as private, the company may still have access to the email. You should assume that your work emails are not private. Even though you may delete your emails, the company still has access to them also.

“With liberty and justice for all.” Our founding fathers envisioned a country where liberty, meaning freedom, and justice, meaning morally right actions, would be for all citizens, but in our modern society, today, can we really say this is true? In a society, where we all have felt deceived by our own government through matters involving privacy, it is hard to say whether our government is looking after us or looking out for us. Keizer, the author of “Privacy,” presents the idea that humans are important so protecting our privacy is essential. Huxley, the author of “Brave New World,” critiques our modern society by describing a society built on the idea of consumerism: efficiency, productivity, and stability.

After reading this case of the United States of America vs Ziegler, I did not see in any way that the government, violated Mr. Ziegler’s constitutional rights as an employee. No matter what state that you live in Child Pornography is a crime, and Ziegler was guilty of watching child porn on a work server and also while he was at work. In the case reading, it clearly states that “all the computers in the work place were the property of the employer and that the employer was able to monitor the employee’s activity internet activity” (Walsh, 2013). When Ziegler went into these particular websites he knew that he was breaking the company policy and he also knew that it would be consequences for his action as an employee (Walsh, 2013).

So as companies evolve into the tech savvy world that utilizes both the intranet, and the internet they can continue to see greater and greater misuse among their workforce. To this end it is necessary for companies to develop stricter compliance models that prompts users when unauthorized access is tried while at work. Furthermore in this case study the author has also revealed that this IT employee has also argued that his rights were violated when the company entered his prior office. The text quoted this as “After the employee was arrested and charged with crimes, he argued that the FBI had violated his constitutional rights by searching his computer without a warrant” (Walsh, 2013, p.619). To explore this very valid point it is clear in the case study that it was not the FBI that searched the computer the company had made a copy of the hard drive outside of the site or proximity of the FBI. Also it is clear that the FBI has taken the word of the company officials by accepting the copy as evidence. The fact still remains that the FBI at any time cane seize the computer and verify the existence of the child pornography sites visited to validate the copies content for prosecution. As for whether or not the FBI violated the IT employee’s constitutional rights they had not because they didn’t invade his office or investigate the hard drive of the computer. These pieces of evidence were provided willingly by the IT employee’s employer to the FBI for consideration of prosecution of the law. So to answer the case study question whether or not there had been a violation of the reasonable expectation of privacy on the IT employee’s computer? The answer is no, the computer is the property of the company and

"Privacy. There seems to be no legal issue today that cuts so wide a swath through conflicts confronting American society: from AIDS tests to wiretaps, polygraph test to computerized data bases, the common denominator has been whether the right to privacy outweighs other concerns of society…" This quote from Robert Ellis Smith explains, in one sentence, the absolute need to ensure privacy in the workplace. One of the most interesting, yet controversial, areas concerning public personnel is employee privacy. What limits are there to employers’ intrusions into, and control over, employees’ behaviors and personal properties?

I thought your tactics to try and gather information could be developed. You did not really try to make it a conversation, but kept asking me the same question even when I didn't answer them. I thought it might be more beneficial to reframe questions about what my side wanted to see happen with the property, as opposed to asking in the same way after you didn't get the answer you

While I believe that workers should have privacy in their own homes, I also believe that having their actions monitored can benefit the companies that employ them. In the article, there is a line that states, “Employees, of course, resent the relentless monitoring. One UPS driver told Harper’s that the company used performance metrics like “a mental whip,” adding, “People get intimidated and they work faster.”” (The Week). Some may view the idea of a mental whip as a horrible crime against workers, but accessing workers’ activities while on the job is holding these persons accountable for their actions. If a worker is taking too many breaks while driving a UPS truck, if a restaurant cook is on his phone too much during work hours, if a nurse

Workplace surveillance has become a controversial issue in the workplace environment. The technological surveillance has developed as a necessity, it doesn’t only help in monitoring what the workers’ do, but it also helps to know how they do it. The modern technological development may have helped the employers’ to have an aerial view of the workplace environment, but it has created a controversy between the employees’ and the employer about the employees’ right to privacy being violated. The employees’ believe the act of workplace surveillance to be hateful that violates their right to privacy and liberties. The surveillance at the workplace often effects workers mental health, productivity, future success in their work and their relationship with the employer, despite being a necessity for the employers’ to protect themselves against the liability, many employers’ in the process of achieving efficiency through surveillance mistakenly ruin their relationship with their employees. The workplace surveillance is helpful in improving the performance of workers or it is contributing towards degrading the performance of workers and their work relationships.

Privacy in the workplace exists only to a certain extent essentially because the organization has the right to search and seizure their property and the employees which utilize it. Therefore, I believe employees generally are limited to the amount of privacy they have on the job. Generally, much of the equipment, devices, and resources utilized at work are the property of the employer and therefore they have the right to monitor what employees are doing. In essence, employers have every right to invade employee privacy while the employees are utilizing the organization's equipment and resources. Further, employee privacy is limited because essentially employees are trying to safeguard the organization from litigation and the erosion of the organization’s reputation.