Office worker monitoring (the ethics, laws etc)

[alejaaandro]

continuing this (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1260960) thread

ok, you got me there.. you speak better english than i do (obviously).. ok, when you give the correct definition, you are right.. but i think you know what i mean by saying "ethical"..

it's bad, it's wrong, or whatever.. working for someone is an equal trade: you provide a service, you get a paycheck in exchange.. it doesn't mean the boss can/should control your life.. as long as the job is done, it's a fair deal.. and i'm sure when you're a boss, you have plenty of ways to see if someone is getting his work done, without need to spy on him..


..hell it isn't even immoral when you're on company time and equipment.
you didn't answer, what if i check my mail on my iphone? should he be allowed to check it? should he be allowed to monitor my personal calls from my own device? i agree he should be allowed do yell at me and tell me to hang it up, but not see to whom i was talking, what i was saying etc

[Grenage]

No, I think your English is excellent.

Employers have no legal right to examine an employee's iphone, it's not theirs. They do however have the right to ban personal phones, or reprimand them for wasting company tame on them.

[LowSky]

when you work for someone they set they rules.

My old jobs didn't allow cell phones on the job. My professors didn't want to se eor hear them. My new job requires me to have one, and they are very lax on the rules of use.

The thing is you are on their time, so when you not doing work and texting or making calls, even on your own device is going against your work.

Do they have the right to view your equiptment, well it depends on the job. Many security related jobs dont allow cell phone, especially those with camera's as you could potentially send a photo of something you are not supposed to. So when you get to work they might ask you to empty your pockets or to leave devices with them or in a secure area. Your countries laws will explain what is permitted or not.

[koshatnik]

It depends on that is written in your employment contract, so go check that first. Company policy means crap all. Its whats in your terms and conditions of employment that you get nailed on.

[alejaaandro]

i fully agree with you on that..

(reprimand, nice!! learning new words.. i had to google it..and i also guess "tame" isn't a typo for time afterall, is it? see, you do speak better english? you're in the uk, i'm in greece, it's normal)

anyway, it depends in how much each country and person cherish things like privacy.. i'm not trying to offend you, but being in london last winter, i loved the city, but hated the cameras that were EVVERYWHERE.. they're slowly trying to do that in athens too, and they're having a lot of trouble with riots etc..

sometimes you have to put up with some things in order to protect some others.. ie. in greece, it's illegal for phone companies to reveal the id of a person if he is charged only for minor faults.. just a stupid example, you can't get the id of a person making you phone pranks or other minor things.. that is because, even though he might be committing a fault, his privacy is considered to be more important than that.. some phone companies have had trouble because they didn't reveal that kind of info, even though it was asked with court order (which was considered anti constitutional afterwards)..

so, we are probably never going to agree.. i see your point, agree with some of the things you say, but strongly disagree with others..i would never consider that productivity is a value higher than privacy..

i don't care if it's legal or ethical.. it's not right..

by the way, if someone is "forced" to agree with something in his contract, just because he can't find another job, that, according to the definition that you gave, is ethical, but i think it's immoral.. i know i might sound utopian when i say that employers shouldn't take advantage of the employees need for a job, but morality does not depend on "the world we live in" or "the dreamworld we'd like to live in"

[Grenage]

and i also guess "tame" isn't a typo for time afterall

Unfortunately it was a typo! ;)

[alejaaandro]

Unfortunately it was a typo! ;)

damn.. you did it twice, that's why i figured...

[RabbitWho]

I'm so glad the man I work for is such an idiot he could never possibly figure out how to do this.. because all I do is talk with his sister in law about what an idiot he is.

I think it should be legal to check how long they spend on certain sites, but not to read what they type.

So for example you know the secretary is on his personal Email account, or www.sexyelves.co.uk but you've no idea what he's writing.

[Grenage]

damn.. you did it twice, that's why i figured...

Trying to get used to Dvorak keyboard, lol. ;)


www.sexyelves.co.uk

Lol!

[cariboo]

If you are using a company supplied cell phone, your boss does know who you are calling, because he gets an itemized list of all the calls that are made from the company phone, and it is his right to check if all those calls were business calls.

In a previous position I held we where supplied with company cell phones and pagers, as we were on call 24/7. One fellow ran up a bill of over $500.00CDN in the first month of emploument, downloading music, images and making calls to his parrents in Michigan, needless to say his job didn't last very long.

[imhotep59]

@grenage
My point of view is closed from alejaaaandro's. May be because I'm a Latin. I think this illustrates different approaches of privacy. We (Latin/South European) consider that privacy is a fundamental right. I feel that this is different in England and some countries in the North of Europe. For instance, in France, we are often shocked by the English tabloids (unfortunately most of our newspapers are becoming English tabloid...).
Is it true ? Do you confirm that privacy is not one of the most important right in England ?

(thank you grenage and alejaaandro for this interesting discussion)

[alejaaandro]

haha... i'm half latin too (mother born and raised in mexico), maybe that's why we agree..

true, it has been an interesting discussion..

[pwnst*r]

It depends on that is written in your employment contract, so go check that first. Company policy means crap all. Its whats in your terms and conditions of employment that you get nailed on.

wrong. corporations and team members best fully comply to company policies.

[pwnst*r]

from the original thread:


Across most of America, Europe and the UK it's quite legal as long as the company agreement states that the company reserves that right. It's not unethical because you're on company equipment on company tame. It your company says that it reserves the right to check e-mails and web activity, then it's your own fault for ignoring them if it bites you in the ***.


this is absolutely correct.

[lykwydchykyn]

You guys think this is bad, I work for a government. Everything I send in an email is PUBLIC RECORD. I can't really argue that it shouldn't be, though...

[Efwis]

well after reading all of this I must say my point of view. Here in Iowa and in Wisconsin it is legal for a business to monitor all emails, phone conversations, and website browsing while on company equipment and company time. However, at the time of hiring the employer who has this policy must have you sign a document, not necessarily a contract, that states that said employer does this.

is it unethical to expect employees to work on company time??? No, actually it is expected to be done. Most employers have even gone to the point of removing those silly games from the computer so that the computer is used strictly for business purposes. or they have it set up for a internet connection that only connects to the company site for support, or whatever.

Is it immoral for a employer to do this???? No, they are paying you a paycheck to be productive for their company. They aren't paying you to sit at your desk and play in facebook, read your personal email from your email account you use at home, nor are they paying you to surf the web looking for special buys at the local store.

so in my personal opinion, there are no moral or ethical values to argue about. a company has the right to do what is necessary to make sure it is profitable, that includes monitoring a workers habit on the computer.

in the other thread someone, I don't remember who now, said they should reprimand them for wasting company time. how do you prove they are wasting company time without monitoring what they are doing?

[alejaaandro]

i think we all get it that in some cases (government, security stuff) that is natural.. as i already mentioned you have to put up with some things in order to protect something more valuable.. of course, some take advantage of that: that's why all governments that want to impose any kind of surveillance (email/phone call filtering, cameras etc) always say "it's a matter of national security" (ring any bells).. but that's a different discussion..

your case is more of an exception than the usual case..i doubt most companies can claim they spy on their employees for matters other than 'productivity logging'

[imhotep59]

@Efwis, I agree with you.
Is is normal for a company to control if the employees are doing their job. It is normal to block some websites and to control the internet access.
However, I don't think that it would be normal if my boss could read my private correspondence.
(As I previously said, it is illegal in my country.)

[Efwis]

if it was legal in france, you wouldn't have to worry about your boss reading your personal correspondance if you weren't doing it on company time and company equipment.

[alejaaandro]

@Efwis:i just don't get it how you think.. in an really stretched example (REALLY really stretched, just to give you my way of thinking): you wouldn't allow your boss to strip search you, just so he can make sure you haven't stolen something of small value from his office (a pen or something).. that's because your dignity is way more valuable than that pen.. he would obviously have every right to lock his office (/block access to some sites) to make sure i wouldn't go there..


EDIT: i know that if i fool around on company time it's wrong, but, from my point of view, he reading my mail is "wronger" if i can say that (which i doubt i can, but you get the point) and that's why i say he shouldn't be allowed to do it.. he should find other ways to do it

i have no experience with this, but i'm pretty sure your employer has other ways of knowing if you're doing your job.. for example if, at the end of the month you have no or little work to show for, something is obviously going wrong....

on the other hand, that way of thinking (where productivity is more cherished than other things etc) might have gotten you guys (us, uk and other countries) where you are in the world right now, and left us complaining about nothing working correctly.. just maybe.. i know it's more of a stereotype (at least in some places) but can't help just giving it a thought.. (i hope i don't get misunderstood, i have no intention of insulting anybody)

[Efwis]

@alejaaandro,

your right about stretching that example. However when it comes to ethical and moral outlook on this subject put yourself in the employers place.

what if you were the employer, and your position required you to be out of the office frequently for meetings or somewhere else to make the company productive, you see you have obligations you have to follow for the company to be productive too. so your assistant, secretary, whatever you want to call the position, is left to their supervision. Wouldn't you like to know that they're doing their job when your not there. they do more than answer phone calls for you.

so based on that scenario, how would you know if they were being productive if your not there to see it? those positions don't show any productivity based on a monthly report. would you rather be able to know your office employees are working on something while you are out, or would you not care and see your business fail???

I used to run my own business, two to be precise. the one where I had employees, I required that when on the job, cell phones and pagers were not allowed. If they didn't like it they could find a new job. I was in business to make money, not let them take a free ride instead of working. I won't pay a person for sitting around and not working when they should be.

[alejaaandro]

i know it was way stretched, just wanted you to understand my point of view.. hope u did..


However when it comes to ethical and moral outlook on this subject put yourself in the employers place.

but don't think morality is different depending on whose position you are.. u can't say "he is allowed to spy/steal/rape or whatever, but that other person isn't"

i already said i agree there is a problem here, and i can see it.. i just say that i think this is not the correct solution..

i'm with u all the way about banning private phones/pagers etc (i guess they would be able to be reached via a company phone in case of some emergency).. but if you told me u want to record their conversations to make sure they don't waste time, i don't agree..
sorry, but you'll have to find another way to do it..

[Efwis]

Most of the time, the employees don't even know when they are being recorded, it is usually, not always the case, done on a random basis. However, an employer I worked for that had the phone recording in place, was able to help me do better at my job by pointing out mistakes I made. they also used those to help themselves determine how well I was doing for my reviews which would mean a bigger paycheck for me.

I do see your point, don't get me wrong, but I'm hoping you were able to go into the employers perspective on this subject. if it is sales, you want your employee to do a good job. but you never know what company phone an employee might need to use so you tap all of them in the company. it's your business, you have a right to make sure it is profitable to any means allowed by law.


but don't think morality is different depending on whose position you are.. u can't say "he is allowed to spy/steal/rape or whatever, but that other person isn't"
ok, who gets blamed, just for sake of argument here, if an employee gets caught doing something illegal on a company computer. For example, child porn is illegal do view, sell, etc. yes the employee gets caught and arrested, but so can the employer for allowing it to happen because he wasn't supervising the web activities of his employees. Telephone calls can have the same effect, it smears the company to the point that business falls off and the business has to close. if you owned a company would you want that to happen to you??? I sure wouldn't. so I choose to supervise what my employees are doing by legal means, including recording phone calls, and tracking their internet usage on company equipment.

[alejaaandro]

it's your business, you have a right to make sure it is profitable to any means allowed by law.

can't doubt that.. but i already said that what's legal isn't always morale..


For example, child porn is illegal do view, sell, etc. yes the employee gets caught and arrested, but so can the employer for allowing it to happen because he wasn't supervising the web activities of his employees
i really don't know the answer to that.. don't know the laws in your country, and in this case, not even in my country.. but my opinion (again, talking what i think is right and not what actually happens) is employer shouldn't be arrested.. if he was, with the same thoughts you could blame the ISP for not supervising the network.. but i guess you wouldn't want your activity monitored by your ISP, especially by someone YOU pay instead of FROM WHOM you're getting paid (since this seems to be what, according to you, gives you the right to monitor activity)..

[Efwis]

but i guess you wouldn't want your activity monitored by your ISP, especially by someone YOU pay instead of FROM WHOM you're getting paid (since this seems to be what, according to you, gives you the right to monitor activity)..
thats my point exactly. not everyone should be able to monitor activity, but as an employer they should have the right to do that. besides, like I said earlier, if you don't want to get caught doing something wrong at work, then don't do it at all. Wait until you get home to check your personal email, make your personal phone calls, and so on. You can't get in trouble by your employer if you are at home doing it on your equipment on your own time.

[alejaaandro]

you re confusing me.. before you said you should have the right to monitor employees so YOU WONT GET IN TROUBLE for what THEY do..

so, why your ISP can't monitor your activity so THEY WONT GET IN TROUBLE for what YOU do?

be cause you pay them and not the other way around? you have to decide if it's a security reason, or a "who's got the power because he pays" reason..

i clearly told you: in my mind, it's a "value priority" reason.. if they do something illegal (not a fault, something quite bad.. that's where laws come in for me: to tell you what's considered worse than "invading his privacy") you, not only should, but HAVE TO find out who's doing it.. but fooling around in your office is by no means a crime or worse than invading his privacy (though, it is wrong)..

anyway, gotta go cause my boss is yelling at me;) just kidding, it's almost midnight here.. but i have to do some stuff, and this is taking too long.. but i'l definitely check back later, so please, answer back if u want..

EDIT: ps. remember that this whole thing started cause someone wanted to read secretarys' private mail.. so when i say "monitor activity", i mean the whole package, not only loggin IPs (cause that might sound harmless to some)

[Efwis]

because your isp isn't responsible for what you do on the internet. they are only responsible for making sure your internet bill is paid, you usage if you get limitted bandwidth per month, and that your don't suffer from disconnection because their server crashes.

so no they don't monitor what you do, unless court ordered to do so.

as an employer though, on company equipment and time, you are indirectly responsible for what your employees do, whether you like it or not. so if you are monitoring them to keep yourself out of trouble, whats the big deal? I'm not saying they should read your personal email. however, they should have the right to know whether or not you are reading your personal email from work. as for the phone recording, same aspect, they should have the right to know if you are doing your job when using the phone.

[alejaaandro]

damn, it's interesting..i can't just leave it.. :popcorn:


as an employer though, on company equipment and time, you are indirectly responsible for what your employees do, whether you like it or not.
you might be correct, i really don't know about that.. depends on the country too i guess.. let's say you're correct


so if you are monitoring them to keep yourself out of trouble, whats the big deal?
in this case, a theoretical solution is logging some info (definitely not private mail or calls, but maybe logging IPs and phone number called).. i say logging and not monitoring cause no one should have access to that unless there is a serious reason (crime).. in other case, that data should be destroyed after X days..
i say theoretical solution though, cause in greece (and i'm sure it's not only a thing here) we've learned not to trust this kind of deals cause sooner or later something changes and the whole thing eventually turns into monitoring all activity..


isp isn't responsible for what you do on the internet again, i don't get why.. (not saying what happens, but what should happen).. the employer is in a manner the internet-service-provider of the employee (as he provides him with a way to connect to the web).. so, if he's responsible for the employee, the isp should be responsible for all it's clients.. internet cafes aren't responsible for crimes committed by clients, are they?


so no they don't monitor what you do, unless court ordered to do soso this should apply here too..

but, as i said in my previous edit, this whole thing was about monitoring activity for "productivity check" reasons (even reading private mail)and not crime-prevention, which is totally different..


I'm not saying they should read your personal email.at least we agree on something..

finally, monitoring ips and numbers called, in order to see if they're doing their job, that i can give it a second thought.. but i am clear: monitor NUMBERS CALLED and IPS, not what they're doing in each site and listening to their conversations..

[Efwis]

ip's yes, numbers called would be hard to track, hence the need for recording. I do know in Iowa and Wisconsin both, the files have to be destroyed every 30 days unless they have good cause, suspected criminal activity specifically.

as for your points on the other aspects, I concur that we may just have to agree to disagree

[aesis05401]

@grenage
My point of view is closed from alejaaaandro's. May be because I'm a Latin. I think this illustrates different approaches of privacy. We (Latin/South European) consider that privacy is a fundamental right. I feel that this is different in England and some countries in the North of Europe. For instance, in France, we are often shocked by the English tabloids (unfortunately most of our newspapers are becoming English tabloid...).
Is it true ? Do you confirm that privacy is not one of the most important right in England ?

(thank you grenage and alejaaandro for this interesting discussion)

It would be very nice to own a business in these places you mention that protect privacy. As an American small business owner I am usually liable for the things my employees do with the computers I provide to them.

Not only that, but if the employees actually break laws with the computers in a serious manner I lose all my computer equipment until the resulting court case is over... and no one compensates me for the missing equipment.

If an employee looks at porn on a company computer and another person is offended I have to leap into action to prevent a lawsuit against me. This may include firing the employee in question, being forced to implement more advanced filtering mechanisms than I already have, and making further accommodations for the offended party (these accommodations can be anything the offended party feels is reasonable to prevent further exposure to offensive material unless I want to go to court to challenge the reasonableness of the accommodation in front of a jury).

How are these things handled where employers are not held accountable for the actions taken with their computers?

[t0p]

Is it true ? Do you confirm that privacy is not one of the most important right in England ?


Folk in the UK do consider that their privacy is something to be protected. But they are prepared to sacrifice their privacy in order to achieve something else. Take, for instance, the CCTV cameras that can be found everywhere in Britain. People don't mind these eternal eyes staring down at them, as the cameras' presence is supposedly to protect us from crime.

Or look at the UK authorities' DNA database. If you are arrested, your DNA profile will be stored in the database, possibly for ever. Even if you were never charged with a crime! In fact, you don't even need to have been arrested. There's a case where every male living in a community had DNA taken for elimination purposes in relation to a rape investigation. These DNA profiles were kept in the database, even though these people were for the most part completely innocent. In many (most?) countries, the authorities couldn't get away with this authoritarian behaviour. But in the UK we are used to our privacy being invaded, so we put up with this kind of crap.

NOTE: The European Court ruled that the government was acting illegally in storing innocent people's DNA profiles indefinitely. So you might expect the UK government to toe the line and destroy the DNA profiles in question. Right? Nuh-uh! The UK government decided that they would keep innocent people's DNA for just 12 years! And have the people of Britain taken to the streets in protest about this? Have they heck as like! Some of us are waiting for a further decision by the Court that will force the UK to comply with European law on this matter. But I doubt the Court can do anything that would stop the government's behaviour. The right to privacy is something that all European citizens can expect. Unless you live in "Great" Britain...

[running_rabbit07]

it's bad, it's wrong, or whatever.. working for someone is an equal trade: you provide a service, you get a paycheck in exchange.. it doesn't mean the boss can/should control your life.. as long as the job is done, it's a fair deal.. and i'm sure when you're a boss, you have plenty of ways to see if someone is getting his work done, without need to spy on him..

If I were an employer, I would never allow any personal surfing nor emailing on the job. If you have free time, find something else productive to do.

Employees are there to work. Check your email on your own time and leave your cell phone in your car.

This is just my opinion.

[Grenage]

There's a case where every male living in a community had DNA taken for elimination purposes in relation to a rape investigation

Although that would have been voluntary, the police can't force a DNA sample without an arrest. I do agree with you; we do value our privacy, but we also tend to accept that there are exceptions to everything.

[imhotep59]

Thank you t0p, for this very interesting answer. I didn't know about the DNA database in the UK. I am definitely frightened such laws could be applied in France. Recently the French government wanted to create a new database (called EDVIGE) to keep informations about people (even children!) whatever they were innocent or not. Among the informations they wanted to store if you believed in good, had a religion, what were your sexual behaviour... This induced such important controversies and the government had to cancel this project. I don't understand why English people accept that kind of things...

[imhotep59]

@aesis05401

I think the law should consider if you are acting in the context of your work or not. This is the case in France. Your employer is responsible for damages or problem you can cause when your are doing your work, and only in these cases. Conversely, it is your own responsibility if you are doing something that is not related to your job or asked by your employer, even if your are in the company and if you use its equipment.

[aesis05401]

@aesis05401

I think the law should consider if you are acting in the context of your work or not. This is the case in France. Your employer is responsible for damages or problem you can cause when your are doing your work, and only in these cases. Conversely, it is your own responsibility if you are doing something that is not related to your job or asked by your employer, even if your are in the company and if you use its equipment.

In order to consider these they would need to investigate me, my company, and my computers. Furthermore, before they can determine if there was any wrongdoing the authorities need to establish chain of custody on all evidence for examination. This means they bag up your systems on the spot for later forensic review... and if there was wrongdoing on *anybody's* part I won't be seeing my computers again until the case is over.

All this would happen before they can determine whether the employer had any part or responsibility in whatever matter they are investigating.

In this type of situation you cannot take away the employer's right to defend themselves against the hardship of dealing with an investigation. I defend myself by maintaining and enforcing a short but harsh personal use policy for work computers that includes the right to review anything that hits my network.

[executorvs]

for many jobs you can negotiate on terms of employement, not the majority however.

[Efwis]

negotiating on terms of employment do not include not monitoring the company equipment that the employee uses