The unblinking eye of the boss sees more than you realize
Last Updated: Thursday, March 12, 2009 | 11:07 AM ET
By Ian Harvey, CBC News
Some companies are purchasing software to track the time employees spend on sites such as eBay, Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. (iStock)
Warning: reading this story at work could be hazardous to your career.
Your boss could be watching your keystrokes, logging websites you visit and keeping track of how long you spend there, and looking for keywords in your emails. As if that weren't scary enough, some employers are going even further by demanding prospective employees submit to deep background checks as a condition of employment.
Technology is making it much easier for employers to quickly find out things about the people who work for them —or want to work for them.
And it's all perfectly legal.
Your boss could be watching your keystrokes, logging websites you visit and keeping track of how long you spend there, and looking for keywords in your emails. As if that weren't scary enough, some employers are going even further by demanding prospective employees submit to deep background checks as a condition of employment.
Technology is making it much easier for employers to quickly find out things about the people who work for them —or want to work for them.
And it's all perfectly legal.
'I think one day everyone will be fingerprinted by their employer.'—Paul Guindon, Canadian Corps of Commissionaires
Some employers, for example, are going far beyond a simple check of employment references and are drilling deep into a prospective employee's background. They're checking for a criminal record against the national police database by requiring a fingerprint.
It's a trend that Paul Guindon, chairman of national business management committee at the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, sees growing exponentially. Besides providing security guards, the Commissionaires' services include doing police clearances and digital fingerprint checks of staff for companies.
"I think one day everyone will be fingerprinted by their employer," he says, "especially those in sensitive positions like teachers."
To capitalize on the trend, his organization purchased 40 digital fingerprint machines with training and software at a cost of $1.5 million. At some 20,000 checks a year and growing, Guindon expects the investment will pay for itself in three years.
"We already do about 25,000 traditional ink-and-roll fingerprints, but there's a 200,000 backlog at the RCMP because it's manual," he says. "Digital is instant."
He says many private and public employers demand criminal record checks, including the Department of National Defence and defence contractors, Public Works Canada and many educational and health institutions.
Because of the privacy issues involved, those being checked must consent to the $75 process. The encrypted fingerprint data is sent directly to the RCMP, and the results returned to the employer noting a summary of any conviction including the offence, location and date if there is a match on the database.
"We have no idea of the result, and the data is wiped off our computers when it is sent," says Guindon, noting the Commissionaires also offer a pardon service for those with criminal records who qualify to have them expunged.
Potential employees, of course, can refuse the check and take a pass on the potential job. They usually get into difficulties if they haven't disclosed a criminal record when asked directly about it during their application process.
Companies have some responsibilities to protect privacy, though. They must store the information securely and restrict access to it if they hire the prospect, or destroy it securely if the applicant is not hired.
It's a trend that Paul Guindon, chairman of national business management committee at the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, sees growing exponentially. Besides providing security guards, the Commissionaires' services include doing police clearances and digital fingerprint checks of staff for companies.
"I think one day everyone will be fingerprinted by their employer," he says, "especially those in sensitive positions like teachers."
To capitalize on the trend, his organization purchased 40 digital fingerprint machines with training and software at a cost of $1.5 million. At some 20,000 checks a year and growing, Guindon expects the investment will pay for itself in three years.
"We already do about 25,000 traditional ink-and-roll fingerprints, but there's a 200,000 backlog at the RCMP because it's manual," he says. "Digital is instant."
He says many private and public employers demand criminal record checks, including the Department of National Defence and defence contractors, Public Works Canada and many educational and health institutions.
Because of the privacy issues involved, those being checked must consent to the $75 process. The encrypted fingerprint data is sent directly to the RCMP, and the results returned to the employer noting a summary of any conviction including the offence, location and date if there is a match on the database.
"We have no idea of the result, and the data is wiped off our computers when it is sent," says Guindon, noting the Commissionaires also offer a pardon service for those with criminal records who qualify to have them expunged.
Potential employees, of course, can refuse the check and take a pass on the potential job. They usually get into difficulties if they haven't disclosed a criminal record when asked directly about it during their application process.
Companies have some responsibilities to protect privacy, though. They must store the information securely and restrict access to it if they hire the prospect, or destroy it securely if the applicant is not hired.
Desktop surveillance
Technology is also offering employers ways to quietly keep tabs on what their staffers are doing on company time.
That time is money, says SpectorSoft Corp.'s marketing director Doug Taylor, and the Florida-based company sells software packages to monitor the online activities of a company's employees. Underlining how much time at work some spend on personal pursuits, Taylor points to a report from consultants Challenger, Gray & Christmas that suggests during the National Football League regular season some 37 million people spend an average of 50 minutes a week at work managing their fantasy teams.
Add in eBay, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, stupid email jokes and the lists of top web destinations, and number of lost hours grows exponentially.
That time is money, says SpectorSoft Corp.'s marketing director Doug Taylor, and the Florida-based company sells software packages to monitor the online activities of a company's employees. Underlining how much time at work some spend on personal pursuits, Taylor points to a report from consultants Challenger, Gray & Christmas that suggests during the National Football League regular season some 37 million people spend an average of 50 minutes a week at work managing their fantasy teams.
Add in eBay, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, stupid email jokes and the lists of top web destinations, and number of lost hours grows exponentially.
During the National Football League regular season some 37 million people spend an average of 50 minutes a week at work managing their fantasy teams.
Looking to claw back that company time, IMV Projects, a Calgary project management firm, installed SpectorSoft's 360 software three years ago on the PCs of the 650 people it employed at the time.
IT manager Ross Benov conservatively figures the firm recouped 10 hours per year per employee at $30 to $40 an hour, equaling between $195,000 and $260,000 in salaried work time. Setting a more liberal estimate of time wasting at 40 hours a year per employee, it adds up to more than $1 million, he says.
"We use it in different ways —to run a report on an employee if their supervisor feels they're spending too much time online, to see what websites they're going to," says Benov.
He notes that employees are told about the software and the company's internet guidelines. "We've had no problems since and I haven't heard any complaints. We allow full internet access at lunchtime because we want to keep people happy and maintain a balance."
SpectorSoft started making its surveillance software for the consumer market about a decade ago, allowing parents to control what their kids did online and monitor which sites they went to. It has since expanded to the corporate world and is finding an eager audience. Today it is one of the fastest growing companies in the U.S., with sales to more than 50,000 companies and 400,000 consumers.
"You have to own the computer and the network," says Taylor noting some European jurisdictions do prohibit some types of monitoring. "And you should tell your employees up front that they may be monitored."
He says there are two ways to use the system. The first is to monitor all employees for prohibited online behaviour. The second is to only watch employees who are not meeting performance standards. The software is not intended to crack down on any personal use of the web or email, Taylor says, but to single out the worst abusers.
"The system knows how long you had an eBay window open and how long you were active in that window," he says. "So it's not going to report that you were on eBay for seven hours [if the window was open that long], just that the window was open and that your mouse was active inside that window for 20 minutes."
IT manager Ross Benov conservatively figures the firm recouped 10 hours per year per employee at $30 to $40 an hour, equaling between $195,000 and $260,000 in salaried work time. Setting a more liberal estimate of time wasting at 40 hours a year per employee, it adds up to more than $1 million, he says.
"We use it in different ways —to run a report on an employee if their supervisor feels they're spending too much time online, to see what websites they're going to," says Benov.
He notes that employees are told about the software and the company's internet guidelines. "We've had no problems since and I haven't heard any complaints. We allow full internet access at lunchtime because we want to keep people happy and maintain a balance."
SpectorSoft started making its surveillance software for the consumer market about a decade ago, allowing parents to control what their kids did online and monitor which sites they went to. It has since expanded to the corporate world and is finding an eager audience. Today it is one of the fastest growing companies in the U.S., with sales to more than 50,000 companies and 400,000 consumers.
"You have to own the computer and the network," says Taylor noting some European jurisdictions do prohibit some types of monitoring. "And you should tell your employees up front that they may be monitored."
He says there are two ways to use the system. The first is to monitor all employees for prohibited online behaviour. The second is to only watch employees who are not meeting performance standards. The software is not intended to crack down on any personal use of the web or email, Taylor says, but to single out the worst abusers.
"The system knows how long you had an eBay window open and how long you were active in that window," he says. "So it's not going to report that you were on eBay for seven hours [if the window was open that long], just that the window was open and that your mouse was active inside that window for 20 minutes."
Legal considerations
But do the measures companies are taking to check and monitor employees equal an invasion of privacy?
A recent Ontario Securities Commission case, for example, uncovered a scheme by an IT worker who had default access to all company emails and who used his inside knowledge of merger talks to profit on the stock market before the talks were made public.
Companies are within their rights to ask prospective employees to submit to a background check, including fingerprinting, says the federal privacy commissioner's office, though there are rules around how that information is stored and who has access to it.
When it comes to on-the-job surveillance, there's no easy answer, says lawyer Michael P. Fitzgibbon, a labour and employment law specialist at Borden Ladner Gervais in Toronto.
"The lines are not clearly drawn, so it's a question of degree," says Fitzgibbon.
He notes that there are legal requirements around compliance and dissemination of information for publicly traded companies that may make surveillance necessary. A recent Ontario Securities Commission case, for example, uncovered a scheme by an IT worker who had default access to all company emails and who used his inside knowledge of merger talks to profit on the stock market before the talks were made public.
Fitzgibbon adds that there are areas where the employer has an interest in ensuring confidential data is not distributed by employees, and that sexual harassment and human rights rules aren't violated by material a worker puts on their screen or uses a company email system to distribute to others.
Still, says Fitzgibbon, monitoring all employees by default can also create a climate of distrust. That can have an unintended, negative impact on the productivity or retention of valued staff.
The federal privacy commissioner's office says surveillance of employee activities is a case-by-case matter. It says that as long as there are legitimate reasons for capturing the data and it's stored securely under privacy legislation rules, there's no hard and fast policy on the practice.
Not every company is comfortable with such stringent measures.
"We do get prospective clients who investigate our software and then decide it's just not for them," says SpectorSoft's Taylor.
The key is consent, Fitzgibbon says. Companies should tell employees if they are being monitored and be clear about what the guidelines are for personal internet use.
Still, to be on the safe side, you might want to stop reading this story and get back to work.
When it comes to on-the-job surveillance, there's no easy answer, says lawyer Michael P. Fitzgibbon, a labour and employment law specialist at Borden Ladner Gervais in Toronto.
"The lines are not clearly drawn, so it's a question of degree," says Fitzgibbon.
He notes that there are legal requirements around compliance and dissemination of information for publicly traded companies that may make surveillance necessary. A recent Ontario Securities Commission case, for example, uncovered a scheme by an IT worker who had default access to all company emails and who used his inside knowledge of merger talks to profit on the stock market before the talks were made public.
Fitzgibbon adds that there are areas where the employer has an interest in ensuring confidential data is not distributed by employees, and that sexual harassment and human rights rules aren't violated by material a worker puts on their screen or uses a company email system to distribute to others.
Still, says Fitzgibbon, monitoring all employees by default can also create a climate of distrust. That can have an unintended, negative impact on the productivity or retention of valued staff.
The federal privacy commissioner's office says surveillance of employee activities is a case-by-case matter. It says that as long as there are legitimate reasons for capturing the data and it's stored securely under privacy legislation rules, there's no hard and fast policy on the practice.
Not every company is comfortable with such stringent measures.
"We do get prospective clients who investigate our software and then decide it's just not for them," says SpectorSoft's Taylor.
The key is consent, Fitzgibbon says. Companies should tell employees if they are being monitored and be clear about what the guidelines are for personal internet use.
Still, to be on the safe side, you might want to stop reading this story and get back to work.
Managers now have the technical means to monitor employees. Managers can listen to their staff's telephone calls, read their email, and search their internet activity. Many managers believe they should monitor employees because they need to measure productivity, gather information for performance reviews, and prevent legal problems for the company. They also feel justified in keeping track of their employees' actions because technology is owned by the company. The majority of employers using electronic-monitoring technology notify the employees that they will be monitored.
1. What do you think of this management practice?
2. Is it ethical, moral and legal?
1. What do you think of this management practice?
ReplyDeleteI think that this management practice has its ups and downs but overall, I feel that it is too invasive of employee’s privacy. Although, I can also see it from an employer's point of view as if employees are being unproductive during work hours it could cost a company more than a million dollars to pay their salaries when they weren't even working. However, things like reading emails and listening to phone calls is a ridiculous thing for employers to be doing and I think that they should respect their employee’s privacy. Fingerprinting a potential employee to ensure they don't have a criminal history is fair and I also think keeping track of the amount of time an employee spends being unproductive at work is fair too but not what they were doing and saying because that’s only the employees business. On the other hand, informing the employees of this practice may prompt them to avoid being unproductive online during work hours and stay on task, which benefits the company.
2. Is it ethical, moral and legal?
This management practice may be legal however, I don’t believe that it is either ethical or moral. The law in Canada allows employers to fingerprint employees and have desktop surveillance which means many do this shown by how many people purchase that type of system. For example, Spectorsoft in the U.S. has over 400,000 consumers. When you consider whether this is moral or ethical though I come to the conclusion that it isn’t. This is because it is a total invasion of employees privacy, employers should be able to see if employees are off task but not be able to see/hear everything they do or say. I don’t think that it’s right for someone to be able to access that information regardless of who owns the technology.
I completely agree with your points regarding how advising and tracking phone calls and emails is inappropriate and is unethical. Say you were the employer of a large company, do you think you would want to implement this system while looking at the pros and cons? It may be 'crossing the line' in privacy but is it more productive?
Delete1. What do you think of this management practice?
ReplyDeleteI believe that being fingerprinted or getting a background check by your employer is something that should be mandatory. Employers have the right to know if they are hiring a criminal and fingerprinting people they are planning on hiring is a good way to find out if this person is a criminal. As for the employer monitoring the employee’s computer I believe that this management practice can only be used in certain cases. I do not think that it is right if the employers can see everything that the employees are doing but I think it should be used if an employee is slacking. Say if an employee isn’t finishing their work on time the employers can put this on their computer to see why they aren’t finishing their work on time. If employees are able to finish their work on time and check social media a couple times a day, then employers should be okay with that but if they can’t finish their work because there are on social media to much then employers should use this practice but only if they tell the person what is going on their computer.
2. Is it ethical, moral and legal?
Even though lots of people will disagree with these management practices both the fingerprinting and tracking employee’s internet access can be legal. Looking at is these are ethical and moral I do believe that the fingerprinting is both ethical and moral because if they didn’t have this a school could hire a kidnapper as their janitor without even knowing. As for tracking employee’s internet access I do not think that doing this without the employees knowing is ethical or moral but if the employer was to tell the employee that their internet access is going to be watched then I believe that it is ethical and moral.
I agree with you that employers should only be monitoring employees computers with good reason instead of all the time to everyone and that the employee should be notified. Do you think that by informing an employee that their desktop use will be monitored that they will become more productive with that pressure?
DeleteI don't believe there is anything wrong with monitoring or checking in on an employees work. If you're doing your job, then you don't have anything to hide and it could help the employee in the long run because you will get feedback on your work and have the opportunity to improve. By only monitoring the employees who are slacking it could cause a company more problems. How will yu determine who the slackers are? If everyone knows their work is monitored then the quality of work would be at a much higher standard.
Delete1. What do you think of this management practice?
ReplyDeleteI think that this management practice has its ups and downs because, it is important for the company to know if the employees are doing something that could damage the company image and it also depends on what kind of company is and how big it is. On the other hand I don't think that the employer's should supervise their employees personal lives because I don't think that's appropriate and they might have personal issues that don't want anyone else to know. I also think that somehow this is good because they can supervise if the employees are being productive and staying on task with their work. Fingerprinting a potential employee to ensure they don't have a criminal history is fair because not all criminals change for good and could somehow damage the company.
2. Is it ethical, moral and legal?
This management practice may be legal however, I don’t believe that it is either ethical or moral. I don't believe that listening to other peoples phone calls or reading someone else's emails is ethical or moral. But if you think that your employee is doing something wrong or inappropriate and not following the company's rules, then you could check their personal stuff if you are sure that whatever is happening could damage your the company.
Companies can watch their employees to ensure productivity, but on the other hand, employees also have the right to know if they are potentially monitored. I think companies should find the ethical balance between being too Big Brother or gaining too less control.
DeleteI agree with your comments about using monitoring to ensure employees do their best work. I also feel that personal issues should remain at home and not the workplace. The boss shouldn't be monitoring your personal cell but if you're using your work computer to shop on eBay, then you definitely deserve to be reprimanded for your actions.
DeleteI agree with your comment on how if a certain employee is lacking or not carrying his or her weight in the company then be investigated. I don't think that any employee should have their privacy stripped away from them at work. Your personal items should not be monitored. I believe it will create a fear factor which results in an unfriendly and unhealthy working environment.
Delete1. What do you think of this management practice?
ReplyDeleteI believe that when an employer hires someone, he should put trust into that person. Because in the first place the employer picked someone who he thought will be able to do the job. And for this the employer probably has done all the necessary checks and interviews. So he must be confident that he picked the right person to do the job. And secondly exactly because he picked that specific person, this person should not be monitored. He should be trusted he will finish the job. In the end it is important that the job is done. And somebody who has the impression that he is entrusted with responsibility will do a better job than the one who is always controlled. Anyway nowadays everybody has a smartphone, and therefor access to whatever online or web-related distractions. Of course if it comes to confidential or very sensitive material, which an employer does not want to leave the company, a certain surveillance is necessary. But this should only concern those employees who are exposed to this specific data, and they should be very well briefed beforehand to this fact and the risk they may take if misbehaving (risking to be fired, legal poursuits…)
2. Is it ethical, moral and legal?
Monitoring in my view is not ethical because employers shouldn’t spy on their employees since they should trust them and to avoid the “climate of distrust”. Employers should not behave like police officers, but more like guides, and there should be a feel of community to a job rather than “you work for me therefore behave”. Employees can and should lay out from the beginning the rules to which every employee needs to obey without having to control each and every step. But of course it is perfectly legal to put in measures of control and monitoring as there are no laws that forbid it.
The background checks and data which a company has gathered on behalf of an employee may not leave to company’s’ doors. There are strict rules concerning privacy aspects.
I too think that employers should trust their employees and therefore, desktop surveillance should not be necessary. However, do you think that productivity would increase if employees knew that their desktop use was being monitored?
DeleteI agree with your statement that spying on their employees isn't right but, I also think that sometimes you have to do it to check if the employee s hiding something or doing something wrong that could damage the company.
Delete1. What do you think of this management practice?
ReplyDeleteI understand the concern nowadays of the people that you are employing and how your employee is spending their time. because the employee may not be upfront or clear of the things they do in the workplace or the things they do outside of the workplace. But I also believe that privacy is important and when you are constantly monitoring what your employees do online I feel it could be taking a step to far. I do somewhat agree with monitoring what your employees do in the workplace, but if you invade their everyday life for no apparent reason and they are being productive in the workplace, monitoring outside them is unacceptable. The concept of taking your employees fingerprint and seeing their past is smart and could be inputted into many businesses. but you should still give a chance to an employee if they have an impressive resume and a small offence you could give them a chance but obviously still be aware of the things they have done in the past. All of these concepts do depend on what type of job you are applying/working for and the standards can be quite different when you compare someone working for united nations or McDonalds. But privacy is a right and everyone makes mistakes and 24/7 monitoring honestly would damage a business more that it would help it.
2. Is it ethical, moral and legal?
Monitoring employees are actually legal but I believe that it is not moral or ethical whatsoever. Monitoring your employee's personal activities and conversations are unacceptable outside of the workplace. As I said before the monitoring in the workplace is generally ok. Since they are paying you for your productivity and if you are spending your time on fantasy football your employer is going to be disappointed with how you are spending the time, that you should be using to be productive.
I agree with your stance on this management practice since employees with minor offences should still be given a chance and that privacy is a right. Although, since this practice is legal do you think there should be more laws in place to protect employees privacy at their workplace?
DeleteI agree with your statement that employees also need a little bit of privacy, I believe that listening to their employees phone calls or reading chats or emails it's not right because somethings might be really personal. I believe that maybe going through their pictures in social media and in which websites they employee is making use of their time during work hours is enough.
DeleteI think that this management practice is fine, for the most part. Employers have the right to know who they are hiring, because after all they are the ones paying them. If an employee spends all their time at work doing unrelated things, it’s bad for the company- work is not getting done, and money is being wasted. At the workplace, an employee shouldn’t have anything private on their computer, only what they’re supposed to be doing. If a job seeker applies for a job at a place where they must submit to a thorough background check, and they’re uncomfortable with that, they have two choices. One, they could get over it. Two, they could leave and look for another job. The only case I can think of of this being abused is if the employers don’t store the information securely or destroy it is the applicant is not hired.
ReplyDeleteAs long as the monitoring remains solely in the workplace (the employer is not, for example, judging by an employee’s social media posts made outside of their workplace), this management practice is ethical, moral and legal. It’s legal because it doesn’t go against any laws, as long as the privacy regulations are followed. I think this is moral and ethical as well because I don’t think it’s morally incorrect. There is no reason that employees should be doing anything ethically or morally questionable while at the workplace, so it shouldn’t be wrong for them to be watched.
Employers do have the right to ensure productivity and to keep an eye on what employees are doing-as long as it's legal. However, I do believe checking more private-related things such as phone calls is not appropriate. It's the employer's job to keep the balance.
DeleteI agree with your statement that employers have the right to know who they are hiring. But do you think it's fair to listen to anyone else's phone calls? Also some employees post a lot of pictures on their social media and some of those pictures could be at work.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. What do you think of this management practice?
ReplyDeleteI am confident that I am in the majority by saying that I agree that employers should be managing their employees but I feel as though this method of using SpectorSoft is crossing the line. Privacy is a huge issue in our modern society with technology really taking hold of humanity. Nobody really knows what is ‘crossing the line’ and what isn’t but we can use our morals and common sense to justify certain actions. Any company has the right to know of an employee’s criminal background or past job positions. I feel that the fingerprint scanning method demonstrates how this can be achieved in an ethical way. I also believe internet management and tracking is also useful because it gives the employer a good idea whether an employee is productive or not and I don’t feel that this is invading personal privacy at any extent. The one problem I have with this whole idea is the email and telephone tracking. For me, this is where it crosses the line. This is where privacy invasion takes place and in my mind, should be illegal. If I was an employee, I personally would not feel comfortable under this method of surveillance but all in all, this would make the workplace in general more efficient and productive. Wasted time is wasted money in the working world.
2. Is it ethical, moral and legal?
Although this practice is fully legal, I don’t see it being ethical. Privacy is important for everybody and if anyone’s privacy feels threatened, that person will not feel comfortable or safe which ends up in an unhealthy working environment. I do see the pros and cons to this management system and I feel that it would be better to have it than be without it (but only in a major company). Larger corporations can easily be threatened by inside workers and non-trusted employees. I still feel as though this system has its drawbacks but it is better than nothing. On the other hand, I don’t believe it should be practiced in smaller companies as there is no need for severe security measures.
Great stuff, thanks for sharing , very informative and presented well , keep updating moreredhat linux training|best red hat training center|red hat certified training partners|red hat linux training center|red hat linux training institutes|red hat linux training
ReplyDelete