Employee Surveillance: Business Efficiency Vs. Worker Privacy - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
Healthcare // Security & Privacy
News
3/21/2016
10:06 AM
Connect Directly
Google+
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Employee Surveillance: Business Efficiency Vs. Worker Privacy

Legal scholars argue that new laws are needed to define the parameters of acceptable workplace monitoring and to ensure respect for personal privacy.

Google's Next HQ: Modern, With Retro Flairs
Google's Next HQ: Modern, With Retro Flairs
(Click image for larger view and slideshow.)

Supervision of employees used to have limits. Managers simply couldn't watch every employee all the time.

That's no longer true today. As discussed in a draft of a forthcoming California Law Review paper, technology enables pervasive and invasive monitoring. And as dispersed workforces become more common, there's more incentive to rely on technology as an alternative to face-to-face interaction with managers.

"Now, with the advent of almost ubiquitous network records, browser history retention, phone apps, electronic sensors, wearable fitness trackers, thermal sensors, and facial recognition systems, there truly could be limitless worker surveillance," the paper says.

Companies have a right and an obligation to operate efficiently. Some oversight of employees is undoubtedly necessary. But as legal scholars Ifeoma Ajunwa, Kate Crawford, and Jason Schultz argue in "Limitless Worker Surveillance," unrestrained surveillance raises privacy and discrimination concerns.

Sometimes it's easy to see when workplace surveillance goes too far. The paper cites the outrage that followed at The Daily Telegraph in the UK when workers discovered "OccupEye" sensors that had been placed under desks to track worker attendance under the pretense of gathering energy efficiency data. The outcry ultimately ended the project.

(Image: Pixabay)

(Image: Pixabay)

But the issue can be more nuanced. The paper refers to a May 2015 Ars Technica report about a woman who was fired after she deleted the Xora employee tracking app from her phone. Her legal complaint asserts that managers monitored her movements even when not at work.

The defendant in the case, Intermex, responded to the woman's allegations in July last year, arguing that the plaintiff had consented to the use of the Xora tracking application on her company-provided phone and that she had violated company policy by failing to turn off the Xora app (now called StreetSmart by ClickSoftware) during non-working hours despite being trained to do so.

What's more, Intermex claims she worked for another company while working at Intermex, holding two full-time positions in violation of Intermex's conflict of interest policy. The plaintiff's complaint claims that the woman's supervisor had accepted this arrangement so that her medical benefits from her prior employment would remain in effect until coverage from Intermex took effect.

The two paries settled on Oct. 30, 2015, and the case was dismissed thereafter.

While the line between appropriate and intrusive workplace surveillance may not always be obvious, the paper points out that surveillance for the sake of business efficiency can have the opposite effect. "Too much monitoring creates stress, fear, and incentives to 'beat the system,'" the paper says.

The authors argue that workplace surveillance has moved beyond a legitimate interest in productivity to shaping individual behavior. As examples of this trend, they cite productivity apps and corporate wellness programs.

Apps like Xora, for tracking employees, and BetterWorks, which encourages productivity through the gamification of project goals, normalize and incentive surveillance, the paper contends. They make monitoring seem progressive by advancing the conceit that surveillance leads to innovation and growth, while ignoring the cost to individual rights.

Are you prepared for a new world of enterprise mobility? Attend the Wireless & Mobility Track at Interop Las Vegas, May 2-6. Register now!

Wellness programs raise related concerns about workplace discrimination and data privacy, particularly since some companies now make them mandatory. Companies that collect health data from wearables can do so without oversight, the paper notes, and that data, when it flows through a corporate-owned device, belongs to the employer rather than the employee. 

This all may sound abstract, but behavioral data can have specific employment consequences. For example, in nine states employers can fire workers for smoking outside the workplace.

The authors state that worker surveillance is limitless because no federal laws directly address the issue. Thus they propose new legislation, an Employee Privacy Protection Act, that would limit workplace surveillance to actual workplaces and would prohibit agreements that waived such privacy rights. They also suggest a similar law is needed for worker health data.

"While employers have a reasonable interest in ensuring the productivity of their workers and in dissuading misconduct in the workplace, that interest does not outweigh the human right to privacy and personal liberty in domains that have been traditionally considered as separate from work and the workplace," the authors conclude.

Thomas Claburn has been writing about business and technology since 1996, for publications such as New Architect, PC Computing, InformationWeek, Salon, Wired, and Ziff Davis Smart Business. Before that, he worked in film and television, having earned a not particularly useful ... View Full Bio

We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
SaneIT
100%
0%
SaneIT,
User Rank: Ninja
3/22/2016 | 8:47:37 AM
Keep it Simple
My take on this is probably overly simplistic but I've been doing it for a very long time and have been on the employer side of watching someone's every move.  If you think making an IT team go over months of logged data looking for the one time someone clocked in late makes a company more efficient then you haven't given this the thought that it deserves.  My belief is that surveillance is for company loss, either of assets or time due to injury.  If you're counting the minutes someone is out for lunch but you expect them to answer company related calls, email, texts after normal business hours then you're doing it wrong. I haven't held a position in 20 years that did not expect me to respond to a pager/phone/email on my days off or after hours.  If an employer ever chastised me about being 10 minutes late back from lunch, I can imagine how the conversation after that would go.
TerryB
50%
50%
TerryB,
User Rank: Ninja
3/22/2016 | 12:56:49 PM
Re: Keep it Simple
Amen @SaneIT. I remember when I was working for consulting firm that one client had a manager who was complaining about paying for consultant time when they were in bathroom. And this from someone too incompetent to know good IT work from bad IT work. If she knew what she was doing they wouldn't needed us in first place.

I remember there was big fuss on shopfloor when we deployed video monitoring of facilities years ago. But like article says, it was for safety/theft reasons. We never had anyone routinely monitor footage for any reason. Now, employees rely on it to help them. We had theft recently where someone (we suspect truck driver) stole a wallet from one of guys locker. He was disappointed when learning the entrance to locker room was in blind spot that day due to some product being stacked in the line of sight.

But I don't think day too far off where we are always under watch, just won't be employers, will be government. The technology is already in place. The interesting issue will be if government decides to share that with employers in future. Could give background checks a whole new meaning....
Ashu001
50%
50%
Ashu001,
User Rank: Ninja
3/22/2016 | 4:23:16 PM
Re: Keep it Simple
TerryB,

Fair enough points raised by you here.

As the FBI and the NSA clearly pointed out-The IoT Wave gives them enormous oppurtunities to track and follow through on as much surveillance as they desire for all citizens.

Its going to very soon be a situation where if you are connected to the Internet-Your Online Digital Footprint is going to be visible in its entirety to all and sundry.

Frightening situation I know;but with the Information that Google is nothing but an extended arm of the CIA this is probably already happening currently-libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/03/21/clinton-emails-reveal-googles-role-in-attempting-to-oust-syrias-assad

 

See no evil? I think not today!!!!


 
Ashu001
50%
50%
Ashu001,
User Rank: Ninja
3/22/2016 | 4:28:08 PM
Re: Keep it Simple
SaneIT,

Great-GReat points!!!

Agree entirely.

Companies even if they want to don't really have the resources in place to enforce the Nanny-state.

The Government though?Is a totally different matter on this issue.
SaneIT
50%
50%
SaneIT,
User Rank: Ninja
3/23/2016 | 9:15:41 AM
Re: Keep it Simple
I don't doubt that there are enough companies tracking each one of us that a profile of our regular day would be easy to build but tying them all together would be a monumental task, even for a government.  Our camera system is used for similar purposes, a box missing after a truck is unloaded is the most frequent use.  At first everyone assumed it was a Big Brother type of move but no one has the time to sit and watch every single camera all day long.  I've had to dig through files, emails, texts, etc., looking for suspected wrong doing.  It isn't a fun task and people really seem to overestimate how much an employer really wants to see.  In most cases I think it's one bad manager abusing something like a security camera that gets everyone worried about being watched.  My point though is that even those of us who keep normal office hours end up doing more work from home, the road, restaurants, on vacation, on weekends that a long break one day shouldn't be something an employee is harassed about.
TerryB
50%
50%
TerryB,
User Rank: Ninja
3/23/2016 | 12:40:49 PM
Re: Keep it Simple
I've wondered how many companies are as enlightened as one I work for. I've had remote access from home for very long time, never had any pressure to be in office at 8am and leave at 4pm. At this point, I get in about 8:15 after getting my daughter on school bus and usually leave by 3:30, hardly an 8 hour work day or 40 hour week. But I'm consistent, users know my schedule and can find me easily, even at home. That is key. I had guy working for me who irritated users because you never knew if he was coming in at 8 or 10 and wouldn't answer his cell most of time. That won't cut it.

I live in Green Bay now after growing up in south Ohio. It is standing joke here if it is snowing of any significance, I'm VPN'ing from home. Like I tell them, can't get much work done sitting in traffic or ditch when some idiot runs me off road. :-)  I'm actually leaving early today, supposed to get up to 14" of snow by noon tomorrow. Spring in Wisc.

 
vnewman2
50%
50%
vnewman2,
User Rank: Ninja
3/23/2016 | 9:13:31 PM
Re: Keep it Simple
@SaneIT - I sooooooo agree with you on this - my feeling is: it all works out in the end.  The days of counting an employees hours to the minute for pay purposes is so outdated especially in the information age. 

People at my company are always paranoid if they need to hand over their password for us to log in to their system.  I assure them, we don't have time to monitor you in that way (the servers do it for us) and so long as you aren't doing something to jeopardize the network, we don't care if you are playing solitare all afternoon (from an IT perspective anyway, that's an HR issue as far as we are concerned).
vnewman2
50%
50%
vnewman2,
User Rank: Ninja
3/23/2016 | 9:22:07 PM
Re: Keep it Simple
On another note, at my firm, we have keycard access to get us into the parking lot and also the elevator banks for security reasons after someone threatened one of our employees.  One day I left my car in the garage overnight because the battery died.  I got called to HR to ask why I didn't swipe out and had to explain precisely what happened.  (I took an uber home, AAA came the next day with a new battery, etc.)  I was completely shocked over that level of surveillance.  It still leaves a bad taste in my mouth - they made it very clear they are watching.
Broadway0474
50%
50%
Broadway0474,
User Rank: Ninja
3/23/2016 | 11:42:24 PM
Re: Keep it Simple
vnewman, I tell you what, your company definitely doesn't outsource its security, and if it does, the vendor is doing an amazing job. But seriously, doesn't your company HR have more things to worry about? Healthcare reform and employee benefits? Defined-benefit pension plans in this tumultuous market? Scarcity of talent and hiring lazy millennials??!!
SaneIT
50%
50%
SaneIT,
User Rank: Ninja
3/24/2016 | 8:23:58 AM
Re: Keep it Simple
@TerryB, I'd count yourself somewhat lucky that flexibility is not quite normal yet and practically unheard of for most roles in any company.  I've been doing remote access for 20+ years in some sense but there is always the expectation of a minimum of 40 hours in the office.  I have never worked for a company where everyone went home at 5PM so in all the years I've been in an IT role I've never known what it is like to stop working based on a clock.  I do keep my office hours very strict because if I don't it would be easy to fall into very long days.  As it is I log in before leaving for work so I can prioritize my day during my commute.  Right now I see the expectation of flexibility as a one way street, even in companies that from the outside look to give employees a great deal of leeway. I left a job 10 years ago where flexibility meant someone will be calling you at 3AM at least 3 times a week but your office hours are 9 to 6 at a minimum without exception. 
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
News
IT Spending Forecast: Unfortunately, It's Going to Hurt
Jessica Davis, Senior Editor, Enterprise Apps,  5/15/2020
Commentary
Helping Developers and Enterprises Answer the Skills Dilemma
Joao-Pierre S. Ruth, Senior Writer,  5/19/2020
Slideshows
Top 10 Programming Languages in Demand Right Now
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  4/28/2020
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Video
Current Issue
Key to Cloud Success: The Right Management
This IT Trend highlights some of the steps IT teams can take to keep their cloud environments running in a safe, efficient manner.
Slideshows
Flash Poll