Workplace Surveillance Proposal

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.

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

A company's privacy protection can limit the company's liability in many ways. By monitoring employees work and progression, a company can ensure that the employee is being productive. By monitoring an employee's productivity, the company can ensure that employee is performing all their job duties and performing them correctly. If performed incorrectly, the company may be held responsible. Companies can also monitor employees to ensure all employees are using the company's assets for company related reasons and not conducting any personal or illegal activities that can

With today’s technological surveillance capabilities, our actions are observable, recordable and traceable. Surveillance is more intrusive than it has been in the past. For numerous years countries such as the United State and the United Kingdom have been actively monitoring their citizens through the use of surveillance technology. This state surveillance has been increasing with each passing year, consequently invading the citizen’s fundamental constitutional right to privacy,. This has lead to the ethical issues from the use or misuse of technology, one such ethical issue is should a government have the right to use technology to monitor its citizens without their knowledge or approval? For this reason this paper will

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

This policy, as obliged by the Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 (NSW), deals with the three key forms of surveillance. Surveillance in this context can be defined as the close observation of employees in the work; which may constitute in any of

The article “Little brother is watching you” by Miriam Schulman is an informative article that speaks of workplace privacy, specifically the monitoring software “Little Brother”. This program allows employers to access anything that their employees are accessing at work using company technology. This software allows employers to access intimate, and private information that is accessed at work. In this day and age, we live in a world where it’s impossible to “turn off” your work life, you are expected to check emails and answer calls whether they are on the clock or not. Miriam argues the case that if an employee writes a letter to their boyfriend on their lunch break with a pen and paper that is property of the company, does the employer have the right to open and read that letter?

Ball, K.S.(2001). Surveillance Society: Monitoring everyday life. Information Technology & People, 14(4), 414-419. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/222415193?accountid=32521

Purpose: To inform the audience about electronic surveillance and the right to privacy Thesis: Electronic surveillance and the right to privacy is an increasingly controversial issue in modern American society. In this speech I will describe the technology, how employers and the government use the technology, and how the courts have interpreted the right to privacy. Organizational Pattern: Topical I. Introduction A. Attention Getter- 'I always feel like somebody's watching me' have you ever felt this way in the workplace or elsewhere?

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.

It has been proved that computers help a business ease its activities such as record keeping, monitoring employees and word processing among others. However, the use of computers in the workplace breeds concerns such as security threats and privacy issues. Computer systems are not only prone to hackers but also other security issues that may compromise the company’s activities and social integrity. The research will probe into some of the advantages and disadvantages of computer surveillance.

DS needs to start with human-oriented policies, then use technology to enforce them. As it stands right now, DS is exerting too much power in its invasion of employee privacy in the workplace. DS is exploiting the lack of regulation in this area in order to implement extremely invasive methods of employee surveillance. Until employees are protected by regulation to protect their rights to privacy in the workplace, DS should assume responsibility to self regulate by limiting the amount of surveillance, implementing it only when it achieves specific goals for success. Monitoring should be

In The Los Angeles Times (2013) an article titled, “Tracking workers’ every move can boost productivity,” stated how employers are using surveillance software to monitor employees every movement. Employees are criticizing the monitoring software since it has caused harsher work environment. Employees feel with the monitoring system, employers see them as human machines a way to drive costs down and increase production (Semuels, 2013). Employees are finding that monitoring technology have cost jobs