Routine Monitoring or Covert Surveillance?

A number of years ago I was busy hammering out a column for the publication that employed me at the time and heard a rustling commotion and heated discussion in one of the adjoining cubicle “farms.”

Apparently, several members of human resources were confronting an employee about his computer viewing habits while at work – or in this case while allegedly working - which from what I understood wavered between XX and XXX content.

Needless to say, they brought the requisite cardboard boxes to collect his belongings and a short time later, said employee found himself on the unemployment line.

Later I learned that HR had teamed with the IT department to monitor the company employees’ screen time and websites. A bit Big Brotherish I thought at the time, but it effectively served as a warning for anyone tempted to explore their kinky viewing fetishes going forward.

I was reminded of that incident just yesterday when I read a news brief about a California-based employer being sued by a former worker who claimed that the company installed an application on her company-issued iPhone that tracked her whereabouts 24/7.

After complaining to her superiors, the employee claims she was fired from the company.

Talk about taking the time sheet to a new level.

But it brings up an interesting point or rather question: where does a company’s right to know end and a worker’s privacy begin? In my former company’s case it was rather cut and dried. The employee was watching porn on company time.

But this takes monitoring to a whole new level.

First, from what I understand, this is hardly the first corporation to install tracking software to monitor their employees’ whereabouts as the boundaries become increasingly blurry between work life balance. In fact, some 20 companies now sell some form of employee tracking software.

However, the vendors insist that such products are designed to track hackers and corporate spies and certainly the level of technology sophistication that has evolved since my former X-rated colleague was summarily shown the door, has made that easier.

But the crux of this litigation should it get to trial is to determine whether a company has a right to know where employees are even if they’re “off the clock” so to speak.

I can understand the concern if an employee is misusing company-issued equipment, but do they need an Orwellian GPS system that alerts them to where an employee is on a weekend or vacation?

Somehow I envision this case opening up a Pandora’s Box of concerns surrounding an individual’s rights and I can predict with a degree of certainty that no matter the eventual ruling, this will hardly be the last case of this nature to appear on a court docket going forward.

There’s a good chance someone may be watching.