Workplace Surveillance In The Work Environment

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.

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.

As much as a company should not invade the rights of its employees , it has the equal responsibility of ensuring that its privacy and that of its employees are not divulged or used in any personal intent by other employees . According to Nyman (2005 , more companies are being held accountable by employees whose privacy was compromised in the workplace because of what is seen as a lack in its measures to ensure their privacy . Therefore , if employers are being held accountable for such situations , Nyman believes that they should be given enough power to protect themselves from such liabilities

Do you feel like your workplace is your safe haven? Is your privacy invaded in your workplace? Can employers read your e-mail; monitor your blog or social network post. Employees peeping over your shoulder (sneakily), or even putting up a surveillance camera, as an employee, we should not have to be fall a victim to such behavior. We all know that most information is not kept in the workplace.

In this article Evans summarized privacy law in the American workplace, and also scholar Mathew Finkin painted a dramatic picture of the surveillance under which many many American employee work. Moreover, Finkin mentioned in this article that 34% of American employee are monitored continuously with regard to their email and internet usage privacy. In addition, He also pointed that The problem of employee privacy and productivity becomes more significant as the boundaries between formal and informal places of work blur. Employee monitoring can also be conducted in other ways that were not possible until very recently. For example, some cellular telephones have built in global positioning systems that enable employers to track the

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.

Unless given appropriate authorisation, even employees are defended in opposition to prohibited monitoring by employers through such methods of CCTV cameras or computer, internet and email surveillance and are supported by legislations of such: Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (NSW); Listening and Surveillance Devices Act 1972 (SA); Listening Devices Act 1991 (Tas); Surveillance Devices (Workplace Privacy) Act 2006 (Vic); Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA); Workplace Privacy Act 2011

Surveillance of employees is a mandatory subject in regards to bargaining. Surveillance is sometimes used in the coercion of employees. The employer can do this by using photographs or surveillance cameras. The National Labor Relations Board believes that if a company photographs employee’s that are participating in activities protected by the act, that the employer violates the act and the rights of the employee and can also make the employee feel intimidated. In contrast, the National Labor Relations Board states that if the surveillance is of mere observation and is open, public activity that is on or close to the employer’s property, then it does not violate the act. If there is a reasonable belief of employee misconduct then employers

Every day citizens fail to realize that in today's society we are being watched whether we like it or not. We could just simply walk into a liquor store, supermarket, or mall and are being watched by store clerks, and security cameras. There are even undercover police cars, and policemen that secretly are watching. This topic always ends in debate because some feel that surveillance is an invasion of privacy, when others feel it's for our protection and safety. Even though I am a person that values privacy, I agree with surveillance as long as it is used for good reason.

A Surveillance Society by William Thompson and Joseph Hickey is the critique of the increased surveillance in nations across the world but more specifically the United States. This article describes what new surveillance equipment is out there and how people use it. What is interesting about this article is that it is important to everyone because the topic touches everyone's lives. It tells how governments, and criminals can use surveillance equipment to affect your life, such as taking personal info such as email and banking statements without the you ever knowing. This is do to the patriot act which was created after the events of 9/11 which gives the government a right to “search suspected terrorists”

There are many arguments that one might hear from those who support widespread public surveillance. It is said that surveillance is beneficial for public security, as a counter-terrorism measure and as security for many public places. One may also hear arguments supported by the fact that there is more knowledge of the goings on of the world, which is beneficial for companies

The future is now, the times have changed and technology has become a greater influence to many adults and youth. Consequently, new policies come into effect, privacy becoming one of the major issues for many in this camera abundant world. Introna displays statistics on surveillance with, “The International Labour Office (1993) estimate that some 20 million Americans may be subject to electronic monitoring on the job, not including telephone monitoring” (Introna 33). There are approximately 325 million people in the US (“U.S. and World Population Clock Tell Us What You Think.”), this means over 6% of people in America are monitored. This can help in promoting workplace safety, but can also possibly intrude on personal lives. Cameras and monitoring aren’t the only problem though, in this modern age, we have developed flying cameras referred to as drones. These drones have the capability of taking pictures and video at higher altitudes and in 4k quality. This could lead to someone peering in another window without consequence because “there are no federal laws in place that would protect individuals from being spied on specifically by a drone” (Glaser). Why aren’t there any policies in place? Mostly because “there’s little evidence to prove that existing federal privacy laws have failed with respect to drones” (Glaser). Many also argue that “new drone privacy laws may inadvertently violate the

The advancement in the technology is believed by the employees’ as actions to limit their privacy by the employers. Henceforth, workplace surveillance creates a legal issue in the work environment. The employees’ believe that their rights get violated when their employer keep a close watch on their activities.

Technology is being substantially developed in the past decades. The law always had difficulty keeping pace with new issues and technology and the few laws that has been passed are usually very general and vague. The main theme of this paper is to point out the effect of technology on privacy in the workplace. We must comprehend privacy before trying to protect it. Based on the book of Ethical Gift of Fire, privacy has three pieces: freedom from intrusion, control of information about one's self, and freedom from surveillance