Workplace Surveillance - 5 views

• 
  #1 Low Yunying on 09 Sep 09

   

  Link: http://news.cnet.com/Judges-protest-workplace-surveillance/2100-1023_3-271457.html
  
  Summary:
  
  A panel of influential judges are taking a closer look at the issue of electronic monitoring at the workplace during the U.S Judicial Conference meeting next month. While it may not translate into any tangible results soon, it does reflect a change in attitudes with regards to monitoring.
  
  Until now, most cases involving employee surveillance have been decided in favor of the employer. The reasoning in such cases primarily has been that the employer owns the equipment the employee is working on and therefore has a right to track its use.
  
  In fact, employers don't even have to tell employees that they're being watched. A bill introduced in Congress last year would have required employers to at least notify workers they're being watched, but, like most privacy-friendly legislation, it never made any headway. California Governor Gray Davis recently vetoed a similar bill.
  
  Ethical Question:
  
  Is it ethical for companies to keep watch over their employees without informing them or obtaining consent? Even if they do inform their employees, does that give them the right to put their employees under electronic surveillance? How much of personal space should be given to employees on their computers?
  
  Problem:
  
  On one hand, employers do have the right to know if their employees are doing their jobs. However would such electronic monitoring be an outrageous invasion of privacy? Can there by privacy when one is working on a computer that belongs to a company? Can employees fire their employees based on discovering songs and personal files on work computers?

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Link: <a href="http://news.cnet.com/Judges-protest-workplace-surveillance/2100-1023_3-271457.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://news.cnet.com/Judges-protest-workplace-surveillance/2100-1023_3-271457.html</a> <br /> <br /> Summary: <br /> <br /> A panel of influential judges are taking a closer look at the issue of electronic monitoring at the workplace during the U.S Judicial Conference meeting next month. While it may not translate into any tangible results soon, it does reflect a change in attitudes with regards to monitoring. <br /> <br /> Until now, most cases involving employee surveillance have been decided in favor of the employer. The reasoning in such cases primarily has been that the employer owns the equipment the employee is working on and therefore has a right to track its use. <br /> <br /> In fact, employers don't even have to tell employees that they're being watched. A bill introduced in Congress last year would have required employers to at least notify workers they're being watched, but, like most privacy-friendly legislation, it never made any headway. California Governor Gray Davis recently vetoed a similar bill. <br /> <br /> Ethical Question: <br /> <br /> Is it ethical for companies to keep watch over their employees without informing them or obtaining consent? Even if they do inform their employees, does that give them the right to put their employees under electronic surveillance? How much of personal space should be given to employees on their computers? <br /> <br /> Problem: <br /> <br /> On one hand, employers do have the right to know if their employees are doing their jobs. However would such electronic monitoring be an outrageous invasion of privacy? Can there by privacy when one is working on a computer that belongs to a company? Can employees fire their employees based on discovering songs and personal files on work computers?</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top