Private Eyes are watching you

Smile! You’re On Candid Camera

The use of cameras in the workplace has become a common tool as a way to reduce employee and customer theft and monitor employees but can have a negative effect on productivity and promote a sense of mistrust. Companies have also increased the use of online monitoring along with cameras in the workplace as a way to monitor employees The ethical implications are a matter of legal restrictions as well as crossing an ethical boundary of spying as if ‘Big Brother’ is watching everything an employee does. Cameras are legally allowed to record and monitor most areas in the workplace; however, they are not permitted in bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, or any similar area where employees can reasonably expect privacy. Furthermore, using any video legally obtained to publicize the details of an employee’s personal life is prohibited as well as its use for commercial gain.

There are ethical implications as well. Mistrust of employees can be very dangerous to productivity. It is difficult to use it as a supervisory tool when it can easily be interpreted as a personal spying device. The use of monitoring and cameras should be warranted as a necessity and as a deterrent to employee theft and overall improvement of the company. Using online monitoring is the newest addition to cameras in the workplace because of its ability to track an employee’s online movements. Each employee should be made aware of the ongoing surveillance, on camera and off, as well as the intention of its use. According to the article on employer surveillance camera etiquette by Brian Westover, “Employees should be made aware of any laws pertaining to the use of monitoring by having an official privacy policy in place with clear guidelines”. Any guidelines set forth need to be followed very strictly regardless of the infraction.

For example, if a company has a policy of no personal emails or internet surfing during work hours, the consequences must be laid out accordingly and pertain to every person in the company, regardless of job title. Lost productivity due to internet surfing has cost U.S. employers as much as $544 billion dollars. Highly anticipated sporting events usually see a spike in online streaming video during working hours. Baseball season in its entirety will cost companies more than $10 billion in lost productivity. That is enough to eliminate the deficit, feed millions, and run many countries. There are currently many software programs that can monitor and record sites visited on a business computer and an employer has the ability to access and monitor cameras and online use from any computer.

Once a person breaks company policy and is caught on surveillance or goes online against company policy, the risk of exposing their personal, online life as a public record to their employer. This allows an employer not only see what the employee has accomplished on a professional level, but also on a personal level. Gaining access to this personal information also allows an employer legal grounds for firing someone. If company policy allows an employer to access one’s information on a computer used for work, and he is looking for reasons to let someone go, this is a perfect opportunity to do so. Employees of small businesses are not protected by unions; but employers must have legal grounds to fire someone. Job security and tenure is no indication that anyone’s job will be safe and in the current economy no one wants to be unemployed.

Government installed cameras in subway stations; on buildings and busy intersections is another form of surveillance that can have negative effects. Although it is presented as a safety feature, it becomes a matter of privacy and unsolicited attention. Lines need to be drawn as to the ethical implications public cameras can be used and placed. Currently satellite’s can zero in on any location and while this is useful during times of war; it should not be used against its own people.

Recently Nassau and Suffolk Counties have installed several cameras at intersections that have a high number of accidents. Passing through one of these intersections as the light changes from yellow to red will cause a camera to take a picture of your vehicle and the registered owner will be forced to pay the fine. It is unfair because the registered owner may not be driving the vehicle at the time but will be responsible for the ticket anyway. Although they are the government they should follow the same laws that they were responsible for putting into effect in the first place.