CSE 303, Autumn 2008, Sample PaperThis is merely one example for an assignment that is quite broad.Article discussed:G. Daryl Nord, Tipton F. McCubbins, and Jeretta Horn Nord. E-monitoring in the work-place: privacy, legislation, and surveillance s oftware. Communications of the ACM, 49(8):72–77, 2006.Available at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1145287.1145290E-Monitoring Article Raises Important Examples but Ignores the Role of DisclosureWorkplace electronic monitoring, in which employers track computer activity and dataof employees, is a difficult ethical issue because it must balance the needs of the organiza-tion with the privacy of its members. As the article by Nord et al explains, technology isalready available that allows very intrusive monitoring, such as real-time data describingeach user’s keystrokes and screen content. There are also relevant United States laws andcourt decisions that largely support employers’ use of employee computer activity, even ofemail kept in a password-protected and encrypted folder. This summary of technologicalcapabilities and laws is very useful, as is a discussion of the reasons organizations have forelectronic monitoring. However, the article does a poor j ob of discussing what obligationsorganizations have to disclose their monitoring policies and inform employees.Though the article does not present it this way, we can classify monitoring activitiesinto those tracking current activity and those that store data for monitoring later. A toolthat lets a system administrator silently view any instant-messaging conversation is in theformer category, and an archive of all email sent and received in the latter. Both forms raisetroubling privacy concerns. The former can make it impossible for an employee to do theelectronic equivalent of “closing the door” for a moment of privacy. The latter can makeit impossible for an employee to get rid of embarrassing or personal information as soon asit (perhaps accidentally) “touches” a corporate computer. It also increases the chance thedata could be stolen or used for a purpose never considered when an employee created thedata.However, the article raises several legitimate reasons and legal justifications for electronicmonitoring. First, network monitoring is important for ensuring limited resources (such asnetwork bandwidth) are used efficiently. Second, network security can make it important toensure employees do not download viruses. Third, protecting company secrets can justifyscreening all outgoing data. Fourth, organizations need to enforce workplace laws and policiessuch as preventing harassment. Fifth, monitoring can ensure employee productivity.While the focus of the article is what organizations may legally monitor, an equally impor-tant consideration is how employees can be informed about monitoring in an understandableand balanced way. If every second of computer use by an employee will be recorded, retainedforever, and made available to anyone in the company, then at the very least employees should1know that. Perhaps different applications could have easy-to-notice flags in the graphicaluser-interface such as, “recorded,” “monitored live,” or “private.” Also not discussed in thearticle is what right employees have to learn what is being monitored and archived. Is theresome legal mechanism by which employees can see the recorded information just like theyhave certain rights to see their personnel file?As the article mentions briefly, there is legally protected privacy in the workplace, suchas a locker provided to an employee with a lock for which only the employee has the key.While court cases have decided that computer files like email folders are not equivalent topersonal lockers, there is no discussion of whether we need some sort of equivalent in a worldwhere so much of one’s valuable property is digital. For example, presumably the data ona personal cell phone or disk drive in an employee’s pocket is private, but can an employerworried about security prohibit employees from bringing such devices to work?In general, computers in the workplace have had the unintended consequence of monitor-ing and recording much more of an employee’s activity than in the past. There are legitimatereasons for monitoring an employee’s computer activity, but there are also legitimate reasonsfor employees to do something private. This article focused on what monitoring is legal butdid not give employees much guidance on what they can do to learn what is monitored orwhat alternatives they might
View Full Document
Unlocking...