In today’s digital age, employee surveillance has become an unsettling reality. Kathleen Davis and Albert Fox Cahn delve into the shocking truth behind this invasive practice, exposing its far-reaching consequences and the urgent need for change.
Discover the eye-opening insights shared by Kathleen Davis and Albert Fox Cahn as they unravel the dark underbelly of employee monitoring. Read on to learn how this troubling trend impacts workers and what steps can be taken to protect privacy rights in the workplace.
Table of Contents
Genres
Privacy, Technology, Labor Rights, Corporate Ethics, Surveillance, Data Protection, Human Resources, Cybersecurity, Digital Rights, Workplace Culture
Kathleen Davis and Albert Fox Cahn shed light on the pervasive issue of employee surveillance in their thought-provoking podcast. They discuss the various methods companies use to monitor their employees, from keylogging software to facial recognition technology.
The experts highlight the detrimental effects of constant surveillance on workers’ mental health, productivity, and trust in their employers. Davis and Cahn argue that the lack of transparency and clear guidelines surrounding employee monitoring creates an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty.
They emphasize the need for stronger privacy regulations and advocate for a balance between organizational security and individual privacy rights. The podcast serves as a wake-up call, urging businesses to reevaluate their surveillance practices and prioritize the well-being of their employees.
Review
Kathleen Davis and Albert Fox Cahn deliver a compelling and eye-opening discussion on the disturbing trend of employee surveillance. Their expertise in the field is evident as they provide a comprehensive overview of the various monitoring techniques used by companies and the ethical implications they entail.
The podcast is well-structured, with Davis and Cahn presenting their arguments in a clear and concise manner. They effectively use real-world examples to illustrate the profound impact of surveillance on employees’ lives, making the issue tangible and relatable to listeners.
The experts’ call for greater transparency and stronger privacy protections is both timely and necessary. However, the podcast could have benefited from exploring potential solutions and best practices for companies seeking to strike a balance between security and privacy. Overall, “Employee Surveillance” is a must-listen for anyone concerned about the future of workplace privacy and the need for ethical boundaries in the digital age.
Recommendation
Companies’ use of surveillance technology accompanied the shift to remote work. More than half of employers now monitor such performance indicators as computer keystrokes or facial expressions. You may not know if, how, or when your boss is watching you. State laws vary, and if firms disclose that they surveil, that disclosure could be just a footnote in an employee manual. In this sober edition of the Fast Company podcast “The New Way We Work,” deputy editor Kathleen Davis interviews surveillance expert Albert Fox Cahn about the rapid implementation of surveillance tools, now outstripping regulatory privacy measures. This could suggest not one big Big Brother but myriad little Big Brothers in the private sector. All employees, would-be employees, and those managing a far-flung workforce need to understand these issues.
Take-Aways
- With remote work, more companies are using “bossware,” surveillance technology that monitors employees’ work.
- Surveillance technology can be invasive pseudoscience.
- Legal protections for employee privacy are, at best, a patchwork.
Summary
With remote work, more companies are using “bossware,” surveillance technology that monitors employees’ work.
The spread of electronic monitoring of employees correlates with the move to remote work. Surveys find that more than half of employers use such tools. Major tech firms and startups alike sell products that enable managers to spy on their employees, including those working away from the office. The sales message that promotes these programs relies on the premise that employers can’t trust workers they can’t see.
“Productivity is a really complicated concept. It’s all the different things that go into the quality of your work. The software isn’t capable of making a holistic assessment of how good a job we’re doing. So it reduces our job performance to these really simple metrics.” (Albert Fox Cahn)
No evidence justifies this apprehension. Managers simply took it for granted that they needed to be invasive to ensure the quality of remote work. Instead of improving the work environment, however, such software undermines motivation. Spying technology can poison employer-employee relationships. And when managers are asked if their company surveils their work, the usual answer is that their jobs are more complex, with “nuances that won’t be picked up by the tool.”
Surveillance technology can be invasive pseudoscience.
For “quality assurance,” some companies require remote workers to keep their webcams on when they are working. Yet the camera’s field of vision may capture other people in the household, so the boss is invading their privacy without their consent. Surveillance technology can give employers a detailed picture of an employee’s private life, including health details.
“This software demoralizes folks, it feels incredibly invasive when they are aware of it, and there’s no proof that it actually is needed to ensure that your team is doing a good job.” (Albert Fox Cahn)
Another threat is software that claims to determine a worker’s state of mind and uses computer vision via a webcam to assess, for example, whether workers are paying attention in a meeting based on their facial expressions. This is invasive and it’s pseudoscience because different people wear different expressions to reflect the same mental states. Thus, “computer vision” is often mistaken and can discriminate against “individuals with disabilities, neurodivergent individuals and anyone whose…behavior pattern doesn’t match the training data for the AI model.”
The line between personal and work lives can also get blurred because many workers use the same computer or phone for both. When employers require access to workers’ personal devices, managers can delve into the details of their employees’ lives any time they like.
Legal protections for employee privacy are, at best, a patchwork.
Even in US states that require companies to notify their employees that surveillance is in use, employers may bury that information in the fine print in an employee manual or mention it in passing during orientation. No consistent requirement makes companies disclose their use of surveillance software.
Some states have ineffective laws and some have none. For example, efforts are underway in New York to mandate more disclosure. Illinois is pursuing protections against biometric surveillance. The US Congress has not been active on this issue even though employee privacy is a nationwide concern.
“This isn’t a question of whether we want effective management or…workplace privacy. We get to have both because the technology is really just not living up to [its] claims…and it’s hurting your relationship with your employees…there isn’t just some technological bandaid that can fix all of the hard work of making remote organizations work and making…relationships work at a time when more and more of us are working from afar.” (Albert Fox Cahn)
Given the variety and obscurity of current laws, workers may need local legal counsel to know whether they’re subject to either legal or illegal surveillance.
Job seekers should ask about a prospective employer’s privacy policy. Even when managers aren’t required to disclose surveillance, few states would support them lying about it. Unless an employer willfully breaks the law, prospective employees should heed what they’re told; listen carefully, you may be told only once.
About the Podcast
Kathleen Davis, a supervising podcast editor at Fast Company, interviewed Albert Fox Cahn, founder and executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP) and a fellow at Yale Law School and the Harvard Kennedy School.