Work Place Fishbowl

Workplace Fishbowl

xxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Workplace Fishbowl

In recent times our right to privacy has been under fire, particularly in the workplace. With the fear of terrorists in today's world, we have been willing to sacrifice some of our individual rights for the rights of a society as a whole. A majority of these changes have taken place since September 11, 2001, in an attempt to prevent future terrorist attacks. New legislation, such as the USA Patriot Act, which decreases the limitations on the federal government's ability to monitor people, has been created for this reason. Although new legislation may be instrumental in the defense of our national security, we must take a strong look at their effect and the effect of decreased privacy in the workplace. Advances in technology, coupled with new legislation, has had a serious toll on our privacy especially at work. It is now possible to monitor an employee's keystrokes on the computer to how much time a day is spent on bathroom breaks. It is imperative for us to take a stand against these violations to our rights

In the years prior to the events of September 11, 2001 ("9/11"), very few voices of support, whether corporate or individual, existed for new technologies that could be considered intrusive. After the series of terrorist attacks in 2001, many Americans began to believe that these new intrusive technologies were a "necessary evil" in the prevention of future attacks by terrorist groups. While the events following 9/11 may have changed the attitude of the American public regarding national security, there is little indication it has changed their feelings about more personal aspects of privacy (Townsend & Bennet, 2003).

Employers have always monitored employees to insure good work performance and they sought to deter unproductive behavior through "looking over the shoulder" technology, but advances in technology have made recording even the minutest detail of an employee's activities and behavior a simple task. Currently, employees have few privacy rights, especially while utilizing their employer's communication systems. The corporations' monitoring and recording practices in this area are protected by an exemption in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986.

Any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or facility, or any component thereof, (i) furnished to the subscriber or user by a provider or wire or electronic communications service in the ordinary course of its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business or furnished by such subscriber or user for connection to the facilities or such service in use in the ordinary course of business ...

(18 U.S. section 2510(5) (a).

Employers are taking advantage of this protection offered by our federal government and as more employees are being given the opportunity to utilize their employer's communications system, less areas of privacy are being afforded.

As stated above, a more recent legislation affecting employees at work is the USA Patriot Act. This Act actually broadens the federal government's ability to monitor citizens at work and at home based on the premise of seeking out terrorists. It grants the federal government the ability to access library, financial, and employer related records of persons living and working in the United States. This Act is under a lot of scrutiny. Recently, two new Senate bills were submitted to limit its power. And more recently, in an article about the effects this Act has on individual privacy by Councilman Kendall B. Stewart wrote "The USA Patriot Act is, in every way, a horrendous piece of legislation."

Government employees are afforded more protection of privacy at their workplace under the Fourth Amendment based on the fact that it protects citizens against unwarranted searches and seizures by their employers who are themselves the government. However, there are a few case laws that affect government employees' right to privacy at work. One of which is the O'Connor v. Ortega ruling in which the Supreme Court has ruled that warrant less searches in which the goal of the search is for non-investigatory, work-related reasons or to investigate misconduct related to work, are allowed (Practicum, 2002). So, now, government employees aren't even immune to the ever-lurking "eye in the sky".

Legislation is not the only problem. An advance in surveillance technology has also affected our privacy at work. With current advances in technology, we might as well work in fishbowls instead of cubicles. Although it has been common practice for an employer to observe his employees - to ensure protection of intellectual properties and to discourage unproductive habits - these practices were limited by their supervisor's capability to observe. Recent advances in technology have made it easier for supervisors to observe and archive an employee's activities. Today's "activity monitors" do much more than just capture keystrokes and mouse movements by recording how long windows stay active and open. They can capture a complete and detailed record of a computer's use (Connolly, 2001). As our technology advances and the ability to monitor becomes easier, so does the average person's idea of what "reasonable expectation" to privacy is. As this occurs so does the court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment's reasonable expectation of privacy clause. Simply put, you should not expect privacy where readily available technology is able to monitor.

These intrusive practices on employees also have adverse affects. While some monitoring will decrease unproductive behavior, it also may affect workplace morale. When employers implement surveillance practices, they might as well say to an employee, "We don't trust you. One false step and you're history." That might not be the intent of the employer, but it is the interpretation (Connolly, 2001). This is definitely not conducive to a productive and cohesive work environment. It will also have a negative effect on camaraderie between employees and their employers. A productive work environment is dependent on the overall satisfaction of the