Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
privacy and Amendments
privacy and the 4th amendment essays
privacy and the 4th amendment essays
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: privacy and Amendments
How much information should be collected on employees and prospective employees? Collecting information presents risks that employers will be faced with when employees commit torts outside the scope of their jobs. Also, not collecting the proper information could result in risks depending on the case. These questions will be analyzed based on collected data and employer actual or constructive knowledge. In order to precisely elaborate about the risk and such, I will look at the employee monitoring at work, Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, and respondeat superior. In the United States, there is no direct legality of protection of privacy rights. However, the United States Constitution includes what could be defined as protection of privacy rights. There are certain area specifics of privacy that is protected by the Constitution. These are the first, fourth and fifth amendments. The first amendment protects the freedom of religion, speech, the, press, and association. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The Fifth Amendment protect United States Citizens from self-incrimination. In this particular case, the firm collects a wide variety of information on its employees. For current employees, the focus is through workplace cameras, monitoring internet traffic through workplace computers, GPS tracking on employer vehicles. Prospective employees are analyzed by pre-employment personality tests and background checks. There are certain guidelines as far as what information can be collected and used against an employer. Focusing more on employer monitoring at the workplace would give a better insight on what can and cannot take place. Further, we will look into the risk that employers c... ... middle of paper ... ... J.H. "Understanding Respondeat Superior." Daniel J.H. Greenwood. N.p., 04 Dec. 2013. Web. 01 May 2014. G. (2011, September 27). Technical Support International. Retrieved April 08, 2014, from http://www.tsisupport.com/blog/2011/09/monitoring-internet-traffic-with-sonicwall- gms/ Guerin, L. (n.d.). Workplace Cameras and Surveillance: Rules for Employers. Retrieved April 08, 2014, from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/workplace-cameras-surveillance- -rules-35730.html Personal Data Protection Act Overview. (2014, February 28). Retrieved April 08, 2014, from http://www.pdpc.gov.sg/personal-data-protection-act/overview Pittman, J. (n.d.). Chapter one a duty to monitor and intercede. In Employment law for business (3rd ed., p. 21). Roche, B. (2014). Tort Terms. Retrieved April 08, 2014, from http://www.brienrochelaw.com/tort-law/tort-terms/k/knowledge/
In Fitbit for Bosses written by Lynn Stuart Parramore she talks about how bosses want to start monitoring their employees. Parramore shows her discomfort with this idea. She thinks that “big money seems poised to trump privacy”(Parramore). Which basically just means that for bosses is that money is over everything even privacy. Allowing bosses to monitor their employees is dishonest and manipulating.Some researchers have also found out that increasing surveillance has caused the decrease of productivity. Researchers warned them that the data can have big errors and people that look at the data that the fitbits can cherry-pick the information that supports their beliefs and ditch the rest of the information that leads to racial profiling. “Surveillance makes everyone seem suspicious, creating perceptions and expectations of dishonesty.” Workers will become dehumanized“(Parramore), it prevents them from experimenting and exercising the creativity on the job.” A woman from California filed a suit against her former employer because he forced her to to install a tracking app on her phone. She had to have it on her phone 24/7 or else she would
The right to privacy is listed out in the fourth amendment. The constitution is considered the supreme law of the land. The fourth amendment has three components. The first is that U.S. citizens have the right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." The second protects U.S. citizens by prohibiting “unreasonable” search and seizures, which are without probable cause. The third component states that “no warrant may be issued to a law enforcement officer unless that warrant describes with particularity "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" ("Legal Dictionary"). The three components of the fourth amendment lay down the ground work so that U.S. citizens like us have certain rights, which are expressly written.
In conclusion whether employees should have the right to privacy in the workplace or not, is an issue. But there are many arguments in favor of employee privacy, but there are also strong reasons why an organization simply cannot grant this right to its workers. These reasons consist of: financial loss and information security. The use of tracking software in systems is ethical because this serves the greater good in respect to the general public. The principle that needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few over one is the cornerstone of the ethics that rule this society. (Yerby (“Nine theories of ethics that rule the world”))
Terms and Laws have gradually change overtime dealing with different situations and economic troubles in the world in general. So then dealing with these issues the workplace has become more complex with little or no rights to privacy. Privacy briefly explained is a person’s right to choose whether or not to withhold information they feel is dear to them. If this something will not hurt the business, or its party members then it should be kept private. All employees always should have rights to privacy in the workplace. Five main points dealing with privacy in public/private structured businesses are background checks, respect of off duty activities/leisure, drug testing, workplace search, and monitoring of workplace activity. Coming to a conclusion on privacy, are there any limits to which employers have limitations to intrusion, dominance on the employee’s behavior, and properties.
25 Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (2002) Employee Monitoring: Is There Privacy in the Workplace? . (6/3/2004)
Attempts to monitor employees have always existed in one form or another, from mechanical keystroke counters in the early part of the century, to the latest innovations in electronic monitoring. As technology advances, so do the monitoring possibilities in the workplace. As result of the endless possibilities in surveillance, anxiety in employee’s increase, which in most cases leads to illnesses. Studies have shown that individuals who are constantly being monitored at work suffer from inevitable effects, the majority being illnesses such as physical, emotional, and mental disorders. Employers feel they have the right to monitor their employees, however when extensive monitoring effects a employees health, then the employers has gone to far. Advance technology has lead to monitoring devices such as via computers, video surveillance, and active badges in the last decade, but as the intensity of the surveillance increases so do the negative effects on the employees.
One type of surveillance is employee monitoring. Many employers monitor their workers’ activities for one reason or another. Companies monitor employees using many methods. They may use access panels that requires employees to identify themselves to control entry to various area in the building, allowing them to create a log of employee movements. They may also use software to monitor attendance and work hours. Additionally, many programs allows companies to monitor activities performed on work computers, inspect employee emails, log keystrokes, etc. An emerging methods of employee monitor also include social network and search engine monitoring. Employers can find out who their employees are associated with, as well as other potentially incriminating information. (Ciocchetti)
Sometimes there is no middle ground. Monitoring of employees at the workplace, either you side with the employees or you believe management owns the network and should call the shots. The purpose of this paper is to tackle whether monitoring an employee is an invasion of privacy. How new technology has made monitoring of employees by employers possible. The unfairness of computerized monitoring software used to watch employees. The employers desire to ensure that the times they are paying for to be spent in their service is indeed being spent that way. Why not to monitor employees, as well as tips on balancing privacy rights of employees at the job.
When we think of privacy the first thing that pops into an individual’s head is normally independence, or the ability to do what one pleases without someone else controlling the situation. When it comes to the constitution a lot of the amendments have to do with privacy and what can or cannot happen when it comes to invading it. Some may not be familiar, but federalism is a very important fact when referring to privacy rights and the constitution. Currently, this country has a different way of working the federal system. Different laws are applied when it comes to state and the actual national government. Privacy in my eyes, is one of the most important pieces when it comes to rights of the people. Without the system that we have set
The right to privacy is not clearly stated in the Constitution. Some argue that because it doesn’t state “…the right of privacy from Government…” in the document like the freedom of speech, assembly, and so on that we don’t have a constitutional right to privacy. People will always have different options on an issue, however, disagreeing or not there are consequences for violating Human Rights. Citizens of the United States have a right to privacy from government intrusions, it is proclaimed in the fourth amendment and a number of Supreme Court rulings. In the technological world that we are in today, with almost all of our information being electronically stored, it is very important for every human to feel safe that their information is not being watched or stored somewhere else.
In this assignment, I will explore whether it is ethical for organisations to implement surveillance on its workforce or whether society has the moral right to privacy. In particular, I will reflect on the effects of organisational control and apply my personal experience as a corporate worker. The 21st century has seen a huge transformation in the way society is open to sharing personal information; blurred lines of privacy have meant that organisations are able to legitimise employee monitoring because it is simply seen as a standardised procedure – the norm. Surveillance is defined as “close observation, especially of a suspected spy or criminal” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2017) therefore, do organisations that carry out this activity believe every employee is a potential delinquent? In a modern world where the 1984 phrase “Big brother is watching you” (Orwell, 1949) appears all too familiar, the question remains
Employers can create complex problems when they monitor employees. Should employers be able to monitor their employees? If so, what should they be restricted to monitoring, and do the employees have the right to know that employers are monitoring them. Each of these questions creates a multifaceted response from both the employer’s side, as well as the viewpoint of the employee. (http://www.iiakm.org/ojakm/articles/2013/volume1_2/OJAKM_Volume1_2pp44-55.pdf)
I think there is a right to privacy. What privacy means is “the right to be left alone, or freedom from interference or intrusion” (IAPP,1). Every American citizen has the right to privacy whether it be privacy in their homes, the words in their emails, or daily activities. But not only do the American people have the right to privacy from other citizens, we also have the right to privacy from the government. If the government can keep their conversations, actions and secrets under lock and key then Americans can as well. But unfortunately, the Constitution does not explicitly say anything about “privacy” for the American people, it is left for open interpretation in multiple amendments. The main amendment that screams “privacy” is the fourth amendment.
An example of the pros and cons of privacy in the work place while during the hiring process is in 2012, a company in Maryland decided to ask job seekers to log into personal profiles and search through wall posts. As this is becoming more of trend many creative ways to monitor the posts. Another example within this sector is the athletic program at the University of North Carolina, “Each team must identify at least one coach or administrator who is responsible for having access to and regularly monitoring the content of team member social networking sites and postings”
Policies affect employee privacy by lowering employees' expectations of privacy in the workplace because he or she cannot expected privacy if an employee conducts the activity in a manner open to other employees. If an employee's reasonable expectations are similar to the privacy of personal mail delivered from the post office, he or she may believe the computer are just as private as the documents that he or she stored in the personal workplace's desk or filing cabinet. This reasoning of employee's reasonable expectations violates the employee's privacy. Yet, the employer stands may be that it has a justifiable interest in the oversight of business related employees communications, and in the cost of the used of the computer system. Only through consideration will these two interests will allow the right determination to be determine.