Organizations’ Unethical Use of Employee Surveillance and Tracking Technologies

Organizations’ Unethical Use of Employee Surveillance and Tracking Technologies
Author’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Code and Name
Professor’s Name
Date
Organizations’ Unethical Use of Employee Surveillance and Tracking Technologies
Many organizations are increasingly tracking or using surveillance technologies on their employees. Besides, the global positioning system (GPS) technology is common in numerous electronic devices that are used by workers, including and not limited to smartphones and tablets. However, there have been significant privacy concerns associated with tracking or surveillance technologies. The debate about whether tracking or surveillance is ethical has been controversial. Organizations argue that the technologies are appropriate for managing employees, particularly those working remotely. On the contrary, employees feel like their privacy is violated. Some say that there is no boundary between their work and personal life since their electronic devices are always monitored. The paper focuses on a current debate involving the use of surveillance or tracking technologies on employees knowingly or unknowingly.
This trend or ethical issue of employee surveillance is vital and should be analyzed to determine whether it is right or wrong. The COVID-19 pandemic has fueled the use of virtual monitoring tools. During this outbreak, numerous organizations took the initiative of allowing their staff to work or provide services from home. Working remotely was the only option for some companies to continue their operations without violating the established COVID-19 protocols, which were meant to reduce the spread of this deadly disease. In that light, some organizations used tracking apps, websites, virtual time tracking (VTT), biometric identification, and random screen capture among other surveillance and tracking technologies (Trivedi & Patel, 2021). The primary reason for the significance of this topic is that employees were not involved in this decision and many of them might realize that they are monitored remotely. Besides, everyone has the right to privacy. However, many organizations using remote monitoring technologies have come forward to defend themselves. They argue that tracking their employees’ activities and locations via GPS enables them to foster increased operations efficiency, improved security, verify time records, ensure that employees are behaving well, company policies, whether they comply with labor regulations, and make sure they adhere to safety regulations (Trivedi & Patel, 2021). The latter is applicable for those using company vehicles, which are always tracked to know their locations and ensure that workers are not violating traffic laws.
Darrell West argues that employee tracking and monitoring have led to the creation of intrusive workplace surveillance practices (West, 2021). Companies have acquired the legal ability to use keylogger software on computers on their premises, monitor employee attentiveness, track physical location using GPS-enabled devices, and deploy video surveillance. For instance, let’s consider Lisa Rene, employed by G. F. Fishers at the Indianapolis store. The company installed keylogger software on its computers at the store and did not inform its workers. As such, these computers recorded all keystrokes and sent them to supervisors periodically. Rene uses her computer to check her bank account and personal email (West, 2021). By using the information recorded by the keylogger software, another employee at the company discovered Rene’s login details for her financial account and private emails. When Rene confronted her colleague for accessing her private information, she was fired for allegedly poor performance (West, 2021). Using surveillance or tracking technologies violates workers’ privacy regardless of whether it is done within the company’s premises or remotely.
Surveillance and tracking technologies are unethical since they violate employees’ privacy. Irrespective of whether companies have the legal right to monitor their workers' activities, they should scrutinize the surveillance tools implemented to ensure that employees’ information remains confidential (West, 2021). In Rene’s scenario, it was wrong and unethical for the Indianapolis store to install keylogger software on its computers within the premises and failed to inform its workers that all their activities and behaviors were monitored. On that note, the technology used made Rene’s bank account and personal email vulnerable to hackers or unauthorized personnel, such as her co-worker. If Rene was unaware that her login details were compromised, it might have exposed her to a significant danger of getting her money stolen or her email used in fraudulent activities. Despite the store thinking that it was protecting its employees, it was actually doing the opposite, which is increasing the chances of data breaches. After a firm has implemented surveillance or tracking technologies, it might be challenging to ensure the safety of the data recorded. If a hacker compromises the company’s computers, it means that they can easily acquire the data of workers like Rene, who used computers in the workplace to check her private emails and financial account.
Ajunwa et al. (2017) argue that individuals’ right to privacy cannot be traded with an employment opportunity (Ajunwa, Crawford, & Schultz, 2017). In other words, being hired by a specific company does not give the employer the right to engage in intrusive worker surveillance. Recently, tracking technological innovations has been on the rise as many firms try to maximize their productivity and profitability. The so-called productivity apps by many organizations violate employees’ privacy. Despite these companies trying to look for legal avenues to support their unethical surveillance practices, employees should be extra careful when using electronic devices given by their comp...