Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The panopticon analysis
Surveillance technology
Ethics in workplace surveillance
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The panopticon analysis
Workplace surveillance is the act of monitoring and watching the actions of employees and others that enter the workplace area. This form of surveillance has been done for centuries. Workplace surveillance can be done in many ways which may include but are not limited to electronic surveillance such as CCTV, online activity monitoring or in person by employers or other employees. There are many reasons why surveillance occurs in the workplace. The reasons may include to make sure all employees are doing the work they are supposed to be completing. Making sure that there is no form of violence, harassment, or discrimination occurring at the workplace. However, the focus of this research paper is how electronic surveillance in the workplace is …show more content…
Phone tapping is the action of listening to conversations that are being done by employees while at work. This form of surveillance is done especially in workplaces where a lot of phone communications occur, such as telecoms and office work, to insure the employee is doing the job correctly (Bryant 1995). Furthermore, it may be also done to make sure there is no harassment or unneeded conversations happening not only by the employee but the person on the other line. Additionally, another form of phone surveillance is when employers are aware of the length of the conversation that is being conducted. Also, it is possible for the employer to know the recipient of the conversation (McLaughlin 1989). This can help protect employees and evidence can be saved if needed. Correspondingly, this form of surveillance may be linked with the panopticon by Bentham, an English Philosopher. This is due to the fact that the employee is aware of the observation that is being done, but does not know when this surveillance is being conducted. This is similar to the panopticon because prisoners know there could be guards in the watchtower, but they do not know when they are watching them and for how long (Bryant
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
"Domestic Surveillance." Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 18 Nov. 2010. Web. 20 Nov. 2013. .
For many years, there has been an ongoing fight between employers and employees pertaining to employee rights. The main thing that they have fought about is computer and email monitoring.
Big Brother's surveillance state is compared to phones in the modern world. The book features telescreens that are dual-purpose devices that play a stream of televised propaganda and record everything going on. Telescreens are present in upper and middle-class homes, but not in the prole homes, since the government doesn't care what the poor people are doing. Today, we have our own telescreen devices that we carry around everywhere with us - cell phones. Like telescreens, cell phones can even be used for government surveillance. As the FBI proved in 2006 when they hacked into a mobster's phone to turn the mic on and record to look at the internet use and warrantless wiretapping controversies. The creation of a state of a never ending war and fear induces people to surrender their rights and liberties that enables the imposition of the surveillance state, “Both rely on the existence of a technological system with the capacity to monitor every citizen’s actions and words (Rohde, 2017).” In 1984, Orwell shares the joyful relationship of Winston Smith and Julia in their secret haven to remind readers what has been lost in society, “He wished above all
In “They’re Watching You at Work” by Don Peck (The Atlantic, December 2013), Peck introduces the issues taking place in the employment process and its history. He gives information on the multiple factors that went into employment dating back to the 1950’s and how multiple high-ranking business are considering otherwise. Peck believes that the current employment policy is degrading to the countries “sophisticated economy”, and is highly in favor of companies that are taking a different approach.
A poll by MacWorld states that over twenty-one percent of all employees are monitored at work, and the larger the company, the higher the percentage (Privacy 445). Unaware of this electronic monitoring, most employees often are not working at their peak performance due to this type of scrutiny. The majority of Americans believe that electronic monitoring should not be allowed.
Townsend, A. M. & Bennett, J. T. (2003). Privacy, technology, and conflict: emerging issues and action in workplace privacy. Journal of Labor Research, 24(2), p. 195. Retrieved October 19, 2004, from EBSCOhost Database.
25 Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (2002) Employee Monitoring: Is There Privacy in the Workplace? . (6/3/2004)
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.
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)
One method of control is surveillance as it exercises power over employees who behave better as a result of knowing they are being studied. Organisations use surveillance because they want to “reward effort, intelligence, productivity, and success while eliminating laziness, theft, and failure.” (Moore 2000, page 697). This is supported by Tannenbaum (1967) who believes that control processes such as employee monitoring help circumscribe idiosyncratic behaviours, and therefore keeps employees conformant to the rational objectives of the organisation. Since corporate culture uses surveillance as a control mechanism for its own benefit, Boehmer (1990) argues that this contributes to creating an ‘electronic sweatshop’ whereby workers lose all privacy (Flanagan 1994, page 1257). Here it is questioned how far organisations are willing to go to foster this conformity and value to the
Even though phone tapping has dated back to 1890 with controversial cases like the recording of Dr. Martin Luther King, they required strategic work to place them on phones. Present day phones taps require little to no work ethic. When phone wiretapping was first implemented it literally require lots of wires to be attached to the subjects phone. In the late nineties when Enemy of the State was filmed phone tapping required less wires and a small quarter sized device but the taps still had to physically be placed on the subjects phone. The movie illustrated how the corrupt agents had to stage a burglary to be able to put the taps on Dean’s phones as well as twenty of his associates phones. In today's world one can simply download an application on a smart device and have the same if not better capability of listening in on someone else's phone conversation. Law enforcement officials have even simpler methods that they can utilized with proper authorization and
Imagine a world completely devoid of privacy. Everything you do can be seen by others around the world through tiny cameras that are planted everywhere. There is no place to go without being under the scope of at least one camera. How would life like this be like? Would people feel comfortable being watched by others for every moment of their life?
Is There “Enough” Surveillance? Do all the recent attacks and mass shootings make you question whether or not there is enough surveillance? Do you think there is such thing as “too much” surveillance? These questions have led to the debate on whether or not government surveillance should be legal. Immediately what comes to mind is questioning if there is more than one kind of surveillance, and the answer is yes.
What is Telephone Tapping? You may be asking this to yourself right now. Telephone tapping is “the monitoring of telephone and Internet conversations by a third party, often by covert means. The wiretap received its name because, historically, the monitoring connection was an actual electrical tap on the telephone line” according to Google's definition, used from Wikipedia. Where did it all start? Phone tapping was started in the 1890’s, along with the telephone recorder. It was originally intended for international defense, not to invade in privacy. In 1967, the Supreme Court decided in order to tap a phone, a warrant is required. A few years later, a law was passed that allowed the use of telephone tapping for criminal related investigations. Little less than 30 years later, Congress approved the “Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act”, which “requires telephone companies to be able to install more effective wiretaps”. In 2005, President Bush admitted to going against the fourth amendment and illegally “tapped phones”. He also claimed that it was necessary to keep america safe from terrorism and could help with the investigation of the attack of the twin towers on 9/11. Yet, the general population didn’t know about this until it was brought to attention by the NSA.