Employers these days are becoming more and more concerned about employee theft and are making sure that they minimize these kinds of activities by using sophisticated and high-tech devices. However, it is essential to be honest about the actions and it is equally important to provide privacy in any kind of workspace. In case 9.3, Jean Fanuchi is a manager of a shopping mall in jewelry department. Since there were many recent incidents of theft and shoplifting, she decided to install hidden cameras and microphones without her employees knowledge. Since Jean Fanuchi invaded her employee’s privacy and dignity by doing something without letting them know, Jean Fanuchi acted immorally. According to Shaw, a costume jewelry department …show more content…
It is possible that the viewer develops discomfort against the one who is being watched. At the beginning, Jean was aware of the consequences as she said “...what if our employees found out? How would they feel, being spied on?”(pg. 377). However, later on she changed her mind and decided to “spy” employees without their consent. With this decision, Jean should have been well aware to face many legal issues regarding employees privacy. First of all, her decision to install cameras and microphones was not completely wrong. Using Utilitarian point of view, the shrinkage or missing merchandise in jewelry department was a clear net harm to the company. For that reason, Jean had every right to minimize net harm and maximize benefits by installing cameras only in public place. Moreover, one has to be careful and should give privacy in a private place such as restrooms.
However, if we take a moment to think we can ask ourselves; was this practice a ‘true’ utilitarianism? The answer would be no because she did not obtain employee’s consent prior to installing camera and microphones. According to and article by Edward, “if employees are informed of the possibility of surveillance, and it is not prohibited by contract or law, it is generally acceptable” (Hertenstein, 1997, page 44). It may be true that she wanted to maximize the store benefit and happiness by minimizing harms to the revenue cause from stealing but one can not measure greatest happiness
Today, Canadian’s lives today are as translucent as ever. Most organizations especially the government constantly watches each and every one of our moves. By definition, surveillance is any systematic focus on any information in order to influence, manage, entitle, or control those whose information is collected. (Bennet et Al, 6). From driving to the shopping mall to withdrawing money from the ATM machine, Canadians are being watched constantly. With Canada’s commitment to advance technology and infrastructure in the 1960s, government surveillance is much easier and much more prevalent than it was hundreds of years ago. Even as early as 1940s, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics used punch cards and machines to determine who is available
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.
In the novel 1984, by George Orwell, there is a society that has become a negative utopia, in where there is a party named Big Brother that watches over all of its people at all times using mainly their invention of the telescreen. Likewise, many people have phones, computers, tablets, and even televisions that have functions such as a camera and video usages. Companies that create these products have credibility and the trust of the public that they would not use the cameras on their phone for surveillance and that's where people seem to be fine with the whole thing. Another thing to be worried about is also public cameras or street cameras which can monitor groups of
Most Americans feel trapped by the government. They believe that the government is spying on them just to do so and that there is absolutely no reason for it. However this is wrong because the government has several reasons to spy on us Americans. Even though this may seem outrageous, it is needed and there are ways the United States’ citizens have privacy. With all of these false accusations it is simple to see why people would be supportive of our right to privacy. On the other hand, the government eavesdropping on the people of the United States has helped save many lives and justice being served. The United States of America is a free country, so we should have the option to be spied on by the government; however, as citizens we do
I am always scared that my manager is going to look at the cameras after every shift and she would find a moment in which I was not working to my fullest potential, and would reprimand me. I also feel like surveillance systems can be used as a defense for the worker whenever they believe that or accuse a customer for shoplifting. All the worker would have to do is quickly go back and review the cameras before making their statement. If a customer feels that they are being harassed or discriminated by a worker, all the customer would have to do is make a request for the manager to review the surveillance tapes and then the customer’s claim will either be justified and taken into consideration, or it will be discarded. Cameras mounted on street signs can log cars by license plate number, scan facial characteristics, and take notes of vehicles repeatedly circling or driving above or below the speed limit. About two summers ago, my friends and I took a day-trip down to Washing D.C. I decided to drive down there since my car was the safest and out of all of the other cars, my car had the most gas in it. While we were down there, I accidentally ran a red
Government surveillance is beneficial in moderation, but can quite easily become excessive. A well-known example of this is the controversy regarding the NSA monitoring U.S. citizens discreetly on American soil. This unwarranted watch crosses the fine line between monitoring criminal suspects for security, and blatant overreach of authority in spying common citizens. The personal infringement of information has been commonly associated with the NSA’s PRISM, but their MUSCULAR program is much more disconcerting. According to Harry Bruinius in “Why Tech Giants Are Now Uniting Against U.S. Surveillance”:
Another week, another series of patches to download from Microsoft. It seems like every week, Microsoft is under siege from one virus or another. The complexity in the billions of lines of code embedded in its products make it impossible to be error-free. If it is this easy for hot-headed M$ haters to breach the world’s largest software maker, one has to ask: how hard would it be to expose vulnerabilities in the most sophisticated and technologically dependent country in the world?
Privacy is what allows people to feel secure in their surroundings. With privacy, one is allowed to withhold or distribute the information they want by choice, but the ability to have that choice is being violated in today’s society. Benjamin Franklin once said, “He who sacrifices freedom or liberty will eventually have neither.” And that’s the unfortunate truth that is and has occurred in recent years. Privacy, especially in such a fast paced moving world, is extremely vital yet is extremely violated, as recently discovered the NSA has been spying on U.S. citizens for quite a while now; based on the Fourth Amendment, the risk of leaked and distorted individual information, as well as vulnerability to lack of anonymity.
In 1984 George Orwell describes how no matter where you go in Oceania there is
In 1787, the constitution was born. The constitution has been America’s guideline to the American way of life. Our US constitution has many points in it to protect America and it’s people from an overpowered government, our economy, and ourselves. The only thing the constitution doesn’t directly give us, is our right to privacy, and our right to privacy has been a big concern lately courtesy of the National Security Agency (NSA).(#7) Although our constitution doesn’t necessarily cover the privacy topic, it does suggest that privacy is a given right. Some people say that the right to privacy was so obvious, that our founding fathers didn’t even feel the need to make a point about it.(#9) It also didn’t help
Employers have the right and responsibility to monitor their place of business to protect themselves and their employees from invasion . The irony is that this can only be possible if an employer is able to monitor communications and exchanges . Therefore , for a company to be able to afford the protection that employees need , they must surrender in trust their privacy to the company
Privacy has endured throughout human history as the pillar upon which our authentic nature rests. Yet, in an age darkened by the looming shadow of terrorism, another force threatens to dominate the skyline and obscure the light of liberty behind promises of safety and security: government surveillance. As an employee of the NSA, Edward Snowden broke his vow of secrecy to inform the public of our government’s furtive surveillance acts, but does this render him traitorous? To answer this, we must first ask ourselves, traitorous to whom? When the very institution established to protect our fundamental liberties intrudes on our privacy from behind a veil of secrecy, should such informed individuals resign from judicious autonomy and
The right to privacy was not established as a constitutional doctrine until after the result of the Supreme Court ruling in the 1965 case of Griswold vs. Connecticut. The court decision was based on the interpretation of several amendments within the Bill of Rights. Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly state anything about the right to privacy, a combination of its sections was used as the framework for establishing the right (“Griswold v. Connecticut (1965),” 2007).
As citizens of America we are all entitled to our rights of privacy. When something threatens this guaranteed privacy we tend to take extra precautions to prohibit prolonged violation. As the advancing world of technology continues to grow and expand, so do the amount of cases involving privacy invasion. Technology drives these privacy-invading crimes; however, crime also drives technology, creating a vicious cycle. Without technology an invader could not enter that of a stranger’s life. Conversely, without technology that same criminal would evade the law enforcers. So does technology protect citizens’ privacy, or does it expose one’s entire life? In regards to this question, one must
Today, individuals are sacrificing privacy in order to feel safe. These sacrifices have made a significant impact on the current meaning of privacy, but may have greater consequences in the future. According to Debbie Kasper in her journal, “The Evolution (Or Devolution) of Privacy,” privacy is a struggling dilemma in America. Kasper asks, “If it is gone, when did it disappear, and why?”(Kasper 69). Our past generation has experienced the baby boom, and the world today is witnessing a technological boom. Technology is growing at an exponential rate, thus making information easier to access and share than ever before. The rapid diminishing of privacy is leaving Americans desperate for change.