The Dangers Of Electronic Surveillance In The Workplace

once again brought to light the various concerns and complaints that this contentious area inevitably generates.  The idea of monitoring employees’ conversations has a certain Orwellian darkness that encourages accusations of privacy invasion and corporate spying.  Indeed, some companies have taken this too far – some reportedly even requesting their employee’s Facebook login details.  However, by and large the concept of employee monitoring – when done appropriately – seems to me to be relatively

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.

The use of surveillance is becoming increasingly evident around the world. Surveillance is carried out in many different forms from simple methods such as video surveillance to more complex methods such as call and browser monitoring. Although it might seem that surveillance is undeniably convenient when pursuing a criminal or preventing a terrorist attack, it is often misused and many are beginning to question why there

Employers have to monitor employees for security concerns relating to intentional or accidental release of sensitive data. Mohl, shows in a 2006 survey by Proofpoint Inc.

On the evening of February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, a neighborhood watch coordinator, George Zimmerman fatally shot unarmed 17-year-old teenager named Trayvon Martin. Some say Zimmerman acted rightfully in self-defense while others believe he acted wrongfully by racially profiling Martin during the incident. Similarly, on August 9, 2015, an 18-year-old teenager named Michael Brown was fatally shot to death by police officer, Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. Some witnesses believe that Brown was unarmed during this unfortunate incident and that he was holding his hands up in order to surrender to Wilson. Unfortunately, society may never know what actually happened since witnesses, proof, and evidence were very limited during that time of the events. Incidents like these may never have to happen again if law enforcement wore body cameras during their shifts. Body-worn cameras are a video recorder mainly used by police and law enforcement to record interactions with the public, evidence at crime scenes while still improving officer and citizen accountability. Due to the recent rise in news following innocent people being unjustly shot by law enforcement, the idea of wearing body cameras are starting to look like a great idea. Body worn cameras seem like a great asset to utilize for every police officer out there however there are some faults to it as well like some security, ethical, and social issues.

The most common form of an invasion, to employee privacy rights is email. With the massive use of computers, email has become the biggest communication tool of choice in the workplace. The concern of employers has grown tremendously with the use of email in the workplace. Employers' concern is that, employees can waste time by sending and receiving email for personal use, and they may provide easy access for hackers to entry their computer system. Employers can monitor an employee computer activity to ensure productivity in the workplace. Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (2006) states, "Unfortunately, if an employee uses a company computer for email use, the employee employer has the right to review the contents of his or her email."

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.

In Brian Trent’s article, Technology and Tomorrow: A Challenge to Liberty, Trent describes how electronic surveillance has increased and how it will continue to spread amongst people. In Craig Silverman’s article, Smile, Big Brother’s watching, Silverman explains that the amount of time and surveillance that corporations conduct over employees is increasing, but having some negative effects. Both of these articles explain how electronic surveillance will increase so much, that almost everyone will be able to be seen when not in the open [monitored]. In this essay I’ll be going more in depth to describe both articles and I’ll explain whether I agree with their arguments and why.

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

In the United States, billions of emails are sent from any business regarding the business done, and sometimes things that aren’t business at all. I’m talking about things such as company sports, company games, or even company free time. Because of this, many companies’ these days monitor their employees’ emails in order to discourage the use of company time for leisure work. These seemingly random checks can tell the company when and/or how an employee has misused their time and misused the companies’ resources for their own gain. According to Halbert and Ingulli, employers have had a long history of interest in scrutinizing their workforces (Halbert & Ingulli, 2006, p. 87). Today, “spying” on their employees has been made many times easier due to technology. Monitoring emails

The legality of monitoring e-mail in the workplace is not a clear cut situation. The law on the subject of employers ' right to employee e-mails evolves as fast as the speed of technology these days. Federal law prohibits the unauthorized capture of electronic communications. If this law is violated, persons are subject to civil and criminal penalties. However, when electronic communications are downloaded to any company 's computer, the electronic communication is subject to control by the employer.

Thesis statement: Government surveillance should be stopped because it is an invasion of privacy and gives the government control that is not enumerated in the constitution.

It seems that every day we hear a new story about the GCSB and NSA watching our every move by some bloke who claims to have inside information, but is this all just paranoia or is it reasonable to be concerned about the slowly increasing surveillance of today's world. Are we fast approaching George Orwell's “1984” surveillance state or are we creating a technological Utopia.

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.

The law supports the claim that employees have a right to access employees’ emails, although most employees are of the opinion that their employers should not access their emails. The courts have not found any reasonable expectation for the employees to have privacy in the same and therefore, they have always granted permission to the employers to keep an eye on the employees’ activities as well as reviewing it. In a case of Smith v. Pillsbury Co., the plaintiff had sued the employer on the ground that he had wrongfully discharged him after the employer intercepted an email message he considered inappropriate (Jennings, 2005). Smith being an at-will kind of employee, his suit centered on whether by being discharged, it went against Pennsylvania’s public policy thereby falling into the exemption under the general rule which indicate that employees who are employed on the at-will basis can have their employment terminated any time. The defendant was given motion from dismissal of the case since it failed to state a claim. The employer was therefore found not guilty of either invading the employees’ privacy or violating public policy when he terminated smith (Wolkinson & Block, 1996). The employer had created email communication system but had told the employees that it was privileged and confidential. The employer also informed the workforce that their emails would not be intercepted