MONITORING EMPLOYEES 1

The Ethical Dilemma of Monitoring Employees

Kyle Conway

ICT 215 - 002

MONITORING EMPLOYEES 2

Introduction

A misunderstood issue that has popped up often among employees is the issue of

whether or not their employer can legally monitor them while they’re at work (which is a

silly thing to wonder while you’re on someone else’s private property). But while that

question is obvious and couldn’t possibly result in the minimum number of pages, what we

will instead ask here is should companies be monitoring their employees while they’re at

work? Are there, perhaps, only certain actions that should be monitored (let’s not put

cameras in the toilets)? Should we only consider certain types of monitoring acceptable

(example: having a recording device at someone’s work station vs monitoring their online

traffic)?

A report by the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment defines computerized

performance monitoring as “the computerized collection, storage, analysis, and reporting of

information about employees' productive activities" (Peters, 1999). Surely one would believe

that a company has a right to determine how productive their employees are? Well,

apparently not. According to an article released by the American Management Association

the practice of monitoring one’s own private property in the place of businesses is on the

right, and considered controversial. (AMA, 2008)

Main Idea 1: It’s Legal

Legally speaking the issue is clear. It is someone’s private property, and so they may

monitor how they wish. Ethically, this is much more of a grey area. One of the reasons this

is believed to be a grey area is because the stated reason for doing this, that is to monitor the

productivity, isn’t considered a strong reason as the effectiveness of the monitoring

employees’ productivity is questionable.

As we know, a dilemma is a situation where neither situation is preferable. In our

dilemma our two situations are wanting to protect the company and its employees from
MONITORING EMPLOYEES 3

various harms and balancing that with making sure the employees of the company are treated

ethically (Bezek, Britton, 2001) which is as good for the employees as it is for the company.

Main Idea 2: We Are In The Information Age

We (as a planet, but more specifically the United States) entered the Information Age

at the beginning of this century (Hart, 2000). According to the American Management

Association (AMA, 2008) we are now at a point where 85% of employees that have access to

computers also have access to the internet. In this new age of the all pervasive internet,

employers are at risk from employee abuse of this technology (either from loss of

productivity or even potentially illegal use the internet which could result in the shutting

down of the entire business pending investigation (Betz, 2018)).

Frayer (2002) suggests that as a way to limit these potential risks the employer use

monitoring techniques that would allow them to “secretly to view, record, and report literally

everything employees do on their computers.” Due to computers becoming a more and more

important element in everyday tasks, and being accessed to such a great number of

employees all with their own idea of work ethics, many employers feel that it’s necessary to

monitor their workers.

Main Idea 3: Insider Threats Are A Serious Danger

One of the largest threats in our age of all-pervasive technology is the threat of the

insider. Instead of carrying out thousands of pages of secret or protected documents in a

wheelbarrow hoping that nobody questions why you brought a wheelbarrow into the office,

an insider threat can put those pages, which are now digital, on a thumb drive or send them

out via email.

According to a report by IBM (IBM X-Force Threat Intelligence Index 2018) 95% of

all breaches are caused by a mistake by someone inside a company, whether malicious or

accidental. While the first step to preventing this is preventative measures (such as access of
MONITORING EMPLOYEES 4

least privilege to prevent people from accessing things they should not) another important

aspect to enable a company to be responsive to these threats is detection systems (such as

email monitoring for REGEX that match patterns such as credit card numbers or social

security numbers).

Insiders are necessarily already inside (it’s in the name) and so already pose a greater

risk to a company’s resources and assets than someone outside the network. For assets inside

the firewalls to be worked with someone must have access, and there is no sure fire way to

ensure that person isn’t, or doesn’t become, a malicious insider. And so, the best mitigation

technique for handling people already on the inside is monitoring (Insider Threats in Cyber

Security).

The reason that things are this way is because of the convenience of modern

technology. Having everything in a format such that it can be searched for with a command

instead of flicking through hundreds of pages, and in a format where it can be readily edited,

and in a format that is more secure from physical damage is the obvious way to handle data.

Unfortunately this also enables threats to make copies of any data inconspicuously. It enables

threats to move this data in the same unseen format that it is stored in, instead of on hundreds

of pieces of paper.

Modality 1: Market Pressures (Economic)

In the ever more automated market where the cost on so many things become cheaper

as the cost to manufacture shrinks, companies often must compete with each other by offering

the lowest price on their service or product. Having employees spend a substantial part of

their day browsing the internet means paying more for less work, which (on a large enough

scale) could translate to an increase is price of product, which could result in defeat of the

battlefield that is the open market.

Even more intimidating for employers with respect to the market is the possibility of
MONITORING EMPLOYEES 5

malicious insiders which could result in breaches of protected information that results in

lawsuits or fines resulting in millions of dollars. The leakage of trade secrets is also a fear

that would be in the realm of economic pressures. A startup with a new idea could be

completely crushed if a larger company were to get that information from a disgruntled

employee on the inside leaking that information. Monitoring of employees would work as

both a deterrent for this kind of behavior, as well as potentially a way to outright stop it

(using things such as regular expression handling, for example, could stop the leaking of

social security numbers and credit card numbers).

Modality 2: Social Norms

In the age of the all pervasive internet, having access to the internet at all times to

upload a picture of what you’re having for lunch for your hundreds of followers (three or four

of whom you actually know) to ignore is just a part of life. Some people (although I prefer

the term “mental midgets”) even think that access to the internet is a fundamental right

(Velocci, 2016)!

In addition to internet access being considered a social norm, people have also

developed this idea that privacy (even while using someone’s else computer on that person’s

time to send data over their network) is something that should be guaranteed at all times

(Joseph, 2018).

Between the belief that one also need to be connected to the internet and the belief

that regardless of the situation one should always be able to do things out of view from

others, it would be outside of the social norm for people to be monitored at work. The social

norm dictates that an employer should, regardless of potential harm to themselves, allow their

employees free reign of internet access without monitoring in the hopes that their employees

have a work ethic that prevents them from causing any damage to the company. The

company should just trust their employees.

MONITORING EMPLOYEES 6

Modality 3: Legal

A key figure in the creation of the United States is John Locke who put forth the idea

of property rights that our nation was inspired and founded by. And though we as a country

are rapidly pulling them back in favor of an authoritarian approach, we are still the most

libertarian country with regards to private property, and our laws reflect this.

Because of our property rights laws, one is legally able to record what happens on

their property at all times (although most states do have specific laws against filming in

restrooms and changing rooms (Guerin, 2011)). Legal precedents have established that one

has no reasonable expectation of privacy on the property of others (with the exceptions listed

above) and has no legal complaint against being monitored while on the property of others.

Even when one thinks what they’re doing should imply a reasonable expectation of

privacy such as communicating privately with websites using TLS, courts have decided that

one doesn’t have reasonable expectation of privacy and have used this argument to

circumvent the 4th Amendment (Meyer, 2014).

Modality 4: Technological

On of the bigger issues with this ethical dilemma isn’t so much the recording itself,

but what is being recording. As an extreme example of this, even people that are for

recording are (hopefully) against recording devices in bathrooms. Not all of the cases are as

extreme, though. For example, I think one would agree that having someone with access to

people’s credit card numbers wouldn’t want them leaked, and that a REGEX to scan email

attachments for credit card numbers would be a good way to prevent this type of leak.

However, the technology is not capable of differentiating between a malicious leak of credit

card information and perhaps a personal communication an employee is making while on

their break that may contain their credit card information. Since the technology is incapable

of differentiating this, it would intercept the private communication what may include private
MONITORING EMPLOYEES 7

information that the employee did not intend to share, and did not necessarily realize was

being grabbed by the filter for review.

This inability for the technology to differentiate is often a pain point to these

discussions.

Top 10 Factors

Factor 1: It’s Private Property (Bill, 1999)

As a legal argument, it is known (and has a legal precedent) that one has no

reasonable expectation of privacy on the property of another. It also clear that if you’re

working for an employer on their computer using their network, you are on their property.

Given that, legally an employer has a right to (even if we determine it is unethical to) monitor

the work of their employee.

This is a concern for the dilemma because it is a clear cut answer to the issue of

whether or not an employer can monitor their employees, regardless of whether one

ultimately considers the practice ethical or not.

Factor 2: Workplace Monitoring Causes Employee Discomfort (Balitis, 1998)

The study by Balitis shows that when employees know they are being monitored it

engenders a feeling of mistrust between the employees and their employers. Many

employees states in the study that they felt that their employer didn’t trust them, which

dissolves the feeling of being a single team. Instead of it being an “us” it because an “us vs

them.”

This is an issue because poor morale invariable results in poor performance, which

negatively affects the company and by extension its employees.

Factor 3: People With Internet Access Are Inclined To Misuse Their Time On The

Internet (2007 ELECTRONIC MONITORING & SURVEILLANCE SURVEY)

When people have access to the internet it is natural for them to want to check their
MONITORING EMPLOYEES 8

social media, or read news articles that are unrelated to work, or do any number of other

things. Our lives are so connected to the world wide web that it’s a natural reaction to check

it, as if the internet is our umbilical cord to the world. This is demonstrated readily by the

number of people that stare at their phones while walking or that will stop a conversation mid

sentence to answer the summons of their alert noises.

This is an issue because it demonstrates how much of a social norm it is for people to

hang on their devices at all time to manage their social network accounts. It’s also an issue

because of the negative impact it has on their performance at work, which could lead to

termination, or just poor performance affecting the company in ways that results in negative

affects for all of their co-workers.

Factor 4: Everyone Doesn’t Have The Same Concept Of What Constitutes A

“Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy” (Crocker, 2018)

What one believes constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy might not be the

same thing that others believes constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy. Not only does

this differ among your every day person, but even within the law we see that the exact

definition can be blurry. An example of this is a case where a man was pulled over driving a

rental car he was no authorized to drive. The police said that since the rental was not

registered to him, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy and so the 4th Amendment did

not prevent them from searching the vehicle. Them an and his lawyer went through the first

two levels of the court system to fight it, but both courts sided with the police. It wasn’t until

the man and his lawyer took it to the Supreme Court (the highest legal court in the country)

that he was able to get a different result.

In this case we can see that separate courts don’t even agree on what constitutes a

reasonable expectation of privacy. This is a big issue with relation to monitoring in the

workplace when employees are doing things they believe has a reasonable expectation of
MONITORING EMPLOYEES 9

privacy (such as surfing their private Facebook page) while their employer does not. The

employee would then feel that their privacy was invaded, which would constitute unethical

behavior, while the employer would feel that this wasn’t the case, and so no unethical actions

were taken.

Factor 5: Sometimes One’s Workplace Is At Home (Solon, 2017)

To further muck-up the discussion with respect to the legality of monitoring on one’s

own property and reasonable expectations of property we have the issue of people working

from home. If one is doing work for another and has agreed to trade a segment of their time

for financial compensation to an employer, can one really claim an expectation of privacy

from that employer? Even if one admits there is no reasonable expectation of privacy from

an employer during hours traded to that employer, surely there must be an argument that the

inside of one’s home should be safe from recording devices?

It is this dilemma and gray area that some employers have been probing by activating

the webcam on work-from-home employee’s work laptops. While the arguments that an

employer has a right to check on their employees to protect their investment in that employee,

few would argue that there is anyplace more private that one’s own home. The place where

one goes to get away from the world. This very ambiguous area of conflicting arguments is

clearly a considerable concern in the discussion of workplace monitoring.

Factor 6: There Are Multiple Ways To Monitor Employees (David, 2016)

When it comes to monitoring, some of the more obvious ways are known. Everyone

knows that stores have cameras, and workplaces (unless investigating something specific)

rarely go through the extra trouble of hiding them. Employees can see when they’re being

watched. And many may even know that their calls are monitored and that their network

traffic is inspected. However, most people don’t consider (and might not even know about)

keylogging practices in a workplace, which employers can legally do.

MONITORING EMPLOYEES 10

The concern here, from an ethical standpoint, is that when one knows they are being

watched there is less of a sense of violation. But when one doesn’t they often feel violated to

find out that they were being monitored. In addition to this concern, very private information

that would normally be protected (such as credit card data) could be captured at the keyboard

using things like keyloggers. Is it ethical for employers to monitor in ways that may

reasonably lead to the capturing of such private and secure information?

Factor 7: Employers Aren’t Required To Inform Their Employees That They Are

Monitoring Them (Rivera)

While most, if not all, employers have it listed in one of the million pages an

employee signs when they join a company, they don’t have any obligation to tell their

employees that they will be monitoring them. This can lead to, as mentioned elsewhere, a fall

in morale when employees find out. Even more so than just knowing, because if an

employee finds out after the fact, the damage to the morale is increased by the feeling of

betrayal as the employee feels like the spying was intentionally kept secret.

This also has sway on the debate because it removes the argument of security as a

reason. If it was about security, the company would want this information to be known as a

preventative measure. Employees knowing about this would have the threat of being caught

as a deterrent.

Factor 8: Technology Can’t Differentiate An Employee’s Private Communications From

Real Threats (Sweeney)

If an employee is on their lunch break, where they no longer fall under the jurisdiction

of their employer, and they’re using their phone on the guest WiFi to handle a private and

personal order, they should reasonably expect that their boss isn’t looking at what the SSL

interception has gathered. However, if the private communication triggered a REGEX in the

filter, it’s very possible that the communication could be caught in a filter and get reviewed
MONITORING EMPLOYEES 11

by people that have no reason to view the employees private communications.

This is an issue because there is no way for technology to differentiate between truly

private communication and a leak.

Factor 9: Even Lawyer-Client Privilege Disappears On Employer Networks (No More

Secrets? Employee Emails Not Protected By Attorney-Client Privilege)

All types of communication are open to monitoring when on an employer’s network.

Even types of communication that normally get special treatment, such as Lawyer-Client

confidentiality is open for the employer to view. This is because, as pointed out above, there

is no way to differentiate this special type of communication.

This results in a hurdle, especially when paired with factor number seven and the

scenario of a worker using their own device on their break from factor number eight, because

of the ethical concern of an employer reading information which even the law (pretends) to

respect as exceptionally private information.

Factor 10: Circumventing Monitoring Makes The Employee Look “Suspicious”

(Dachis)

It is considered normal for an employer to monitor their employees. It provides

security, it helps employers get an idea of productivity, it does so many things. However, if

an employee decided they didn’t want to be monitored and they did something about this, it

would likely be considered suspicious. This will probably result in more focused monitoring

of that employee and likely a conversation where the employee would be told to stop.

This is a hurdle because of the ethical implication of different rules. While it is

logical that an employer would need to monitor their employee, and this type of

circumvention would interfere with the positive reasons, it still shows an unbalance of power

which always has a feeling of unethicality to it.

MONITORING EMPLOYEES 12

Data and Information

Fact 1: Employees With Internet Access Waste Roughly 1.5 To Three Hours Of Eight

Hour Shifts On Personal Surfing (Paulsen, 2013)

According to the research done by Roland Paulsen of Lund University, which was

based on 43 interviews, the average employee with access to the internet spends a lot of their

time “cyberloafing,” as Paulsen calls it. According to Paulsen’s research, the amount of time

on the clock doing nothing related to their job is, on average, between one and a half to three

hours each eight hour shift.

Discussion of fact 1: If one considers a company that only has two employees that

only make $11/hour, the end result is a loss of over $10,000 for a company. If one considers

any company of a considerable size with employees paid at the average for the nation, it

becomes clear that this lost labor cost can become crippling large. Preventing this type of

behavior through monitoring is an obvious method to mitigate the loss of money through

wasted labor.

Fact 2: People Misuse The Internet At Work (2007 ELECTRONIC MONITORING &

SURVEILLANCE SURVEY)

According to the survey, 30% of employers have fired workers for misusing the

internet. Of those fired, 84% were fired for viewing, downloading, or uploading

“inappropriate/offensive” content. Some 34% were fired for “excessive” personal use. When

one considers how those 84% could have adversely affected the company, or how much

money was lost by the 34%, it’s clear that these people were potentially a real threat to the

company that employed them.

MONITORING EMPLOYEES 13

Discussion of fact 2: Fact two demonstrates that many people misuse, potentially to

the detriment of their employer, internet access at work. When an employee can potentially

have an entire company shut down by the FBI for an investigation (Betz, 2018), or cost the

company employing them thousands of dollars in wasted labor (Paulsen, 2013) it’s only

expected that companies take the steps necessary to protect themselves, as well as the

livelihood of their other employees.

Fact 3: Workplace Monitoring Leads To Poor Morale (Balitis, 1998)

Multiple independent qualitative studies (which means no numbers) have shown that

when employees know they are being monitored, their morale suffers (Balitis, Alton).

Employees often feel as though they are being reduced to nothing more than numbers instead

of being seen as real contributing people, which often leads to decreases in performance

(Alton). The morale is also crippled by the added stress felt by employees that feel that

because they’re being recorded at all times that they’re also being judged at all times.

Discussion of fact 3:

The third fact demonstrated the negative effect it has on the mental and emotional

well-being of the employees. When the mental and emotional well-being of people are

concerned, one should always step back and consider the ethical dilemma at hand (although

one should always remember that one is not responsible for the feelings of others and their

rights do not disappear in the face of the feelings of others).

Fact 4: Inside Threats Are Very Expensive ($8.76 Million: The Average Yearly Cost Of

Insider Threats)

According to The Poneman Institute’s report in 2018, the annual average cost of

insider threats is 8.76 million dollars. The report also states that since 2016 (only two years

ago) the number of negligent mistakes which lead to compromises has risen 26% and the

number of malicious insider attacks has risen 53%. Negligent insiders result in 64% of
MONITORING EMPLOYEES 14

breaches.

Discussion of Fact 4:

With such a large percent of breaches being caused by negligence instead of open

malice (where the attacker would actively seek to hide their activity) it seems likely that

quality monitoring would mitigate many of these as these things were caught before they

could cause a problem. Additionally, even in the case of a malicious insider attempting to

hide their malicious activities, workplace monitoring would also help to mitigate these threats

considerably.

Fact 5: Morale Effects Employee Retention (Biason)

As demonstrated with several pages of statistics, there is a correlation between morale

and employee retention. When employee morale suffers, which Fact 3 suggests monitoring

does affect, they are less likely to stay at the company long and seek employment elsewhere.

Discussion of Fact 5:

If an action has an adverse effect on an employee’s willingness to stay, and if it can be

shown that the events aren’t isolated, it must be considered ethically significant. When a

populace as a whole feel unhappiness at a thing to a significant enough degree that they are

willing to go through the stress and effort of finding work elsewhere, then the thing must

have negative ethical connotations. Additionally, it is important to note that one of the

primary reasons for monitoring employees is security, and a rotating door of employees is

itself a threat to security as disgruntled employees are often the cause of threats to a company

as well as sampling a larger portion of the population as constant hiring takes place also

increases a company’s chance to expose their innards to a malicious person.

Solution Rationale

Moral System 1: Consequence Based

The purpose of this system is give the most desirable possibility for the largest
MONITORING EMPLOYEES 15

number of people in the given dilemma. For this we’d have to consider that while monitoring

does reduce the amount of wasted time and potential leaks, too much also causes harm to the

morale which negatively impacts the happiness of the workers, which impacts their

performance, which impacts the company, and so can potentially result in negative results for

everyone.

On the other hand, too little or no monitoring, though it leads to happier workers, also

may potentially result in harm to the company, which would could then negatively affect the

workers if it results in the company going under, or even performing so poorly that it results

in layoffs.

Moral System 2: Right Based

This system helps us find a balance more easily by determining who has a right here.

This system gives us a much more ready and simple result. The law and logic agree that one

has no reasonable expectation of privacy while using the property of another person

(especially while in a contract where one person is being paid to perform a task over a period

of time). In the case of monitoring while at work, what one does while sitting in a chair

owned by someone else in a building owned by someone else to use a computer owned by

someone else that sends data across someone else’s network can reasonably be examined by

that someone else.

Premise 1 (Consequence Based)

Monitoring results in poor morale among workers.

Premise 2 (Consequence Based)

Poor morale negatively affects work performance, which hurts the company.

Premise 3 (Consequence Based)

Employees spending too much time surfing the web negatively impacts the

company’s performance.
MONITORING EMPLOYEES 16

Premise 1 (Rights Based)

The workplace, the work network, and the work computer are the property of the

company and they have the right to monitor their property.

Premise 2 (Rights Based)

The time an employee spends at work getting paid is part of an agreement to trade

their labor for an agreed upon compensation, which an employer has a right to expect.

Premise 3 (Rights Based)

Employees have certain rights of expectations of privacy in places such as the

restroom.

Conclusion

There is a balance that must be found in the area of monitoring in the workplace. It is

a place of work and employers have a right to monitor their employees, which studies show

they should in order to limit the amount of wasted time. But employers should also try to do

this in the least pervasive way possible, only collecting the minimal amount of data they need

to ensure this while allowing employees as much freedom as possible to keep the workplace

happy, since a happy workplace is a productive workplace.

There does appear to be a sweet spot that results in a “best solution for everyone,” it

just needs to be found.

Synthesis

When looking at this problem ethically, we can see that monitoring can be harmful to

the happiness of employees (Balitis). If harm of any sort can be avoided, it should be, else

what is the point of having a concept of ethics at all. However, it’s important that this desire

to make people happy doesn’t violate the rights of others (Bill).

It’s also important that we don’t stray too far to either side (total disregard for

employee happiness or total focus on employee happiness) as we’ve demonstrated that both
MONITORING EMPLOYEES 17

extremes result in a loss for everyone as the company suffers, which necessarily means it’s

employees suffer as well.

MONITORING EMPLOYEES 18

References

$8.76 million: The average yearly cost of insider threats. (2018, April 25). Retrieved from

https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2018/04/25/average-yearly-cost-insider-threats/

2007 ELECTRONIC MONITORING & SURVEILLANCE SURVEY. (2007). Retrieved

from

http://www.plattgroupllc.com/jun08/2007ElectronicMonitoringSurveillanceSurvey.pd

Alton, L. (n.d.). Is your company's constant monitoring killing morale? Retrieved from

https://www.nbcnews.com/better/business/constant-corporate-monitoring-killing-

morale-ncna800301

Balitis, Jr., J.J. (1998). Care needed with electronic monitoring. Business Journal (Phoenix),

18(21), 71.

Betz, B. (2018, September 20). New Mexico observatory shut down amid FBI child porn

investigation: Documents. Retrieved from https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-mexico-

observatory-shut-down-amid-fbi-child-porn-investigation-documents

Biason, Ricardo. (2014). THE EFFECT OF JOB SATISFACTION TO EMPLOYEE

RETENTION. 10.13140/RG.2.2.27677.72161.

Bill McLaren Jr. vs Microsoft Corp, Http://www.internetlibrary.com/pdf/McLaren-

Microsoft.pdf (Court of Appeals in Teax, Dallas May 28, 1999).

Crocker, A. (2018, May 15). The Supreme Court Says Your Expectation of Privacy Probably

Shouldn't Depend on Fine Print. Retrieved from

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/05/supreme-court-says-your-expectation-privacy-

probably-shouldnt-depend-fine-print

Dachis, Adam. How Can I Tell If I'm Being Monitored at Work and What Can I Do About It?

24 June 2013, lifehacker.com/5894689/how-can-i-tell-if-im-being-monitored-at-work-

MONITORING EMPLOYEES 19

and-what-can-i-do-about-it.

Davis, C. (2016, October 26). What Are the Methods Used by Companies to Monitor

Employee's Computers? Retrieved from https://smallbusiness.chron.com/methods-

used-companies-monitor-employees-computers-64671.html

Guerin, L., & J. (2011, October 10). Workplace Cameras and Surveillance: Rules for

Employers. Retrieved from https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/workplace-

cameras-surveillance-employer-rules-35730.html

Joseph, S. (2018, April 03). Why the business model of Facebook is incompatible with

human rights. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-

tech/facebook-business-human-rights-data-breach-social-media-personal-information-

a8286021.html

IBM X-Force Threat Intelligence Index 2018. (2018, April 04). Retrieved from https://www-

01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?htmlfid=77014377USEN

Insider Threats in Cyber Security. (2017, March 07). Retrieved from

https://www.virtru.com/blog/insider-threats-in-cyber-security/

Lam, B. (2014, December 04). The Wasted Workday. Retrieved from

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/the-wasted-workday/383380/

Meyer, T. (2014, June 27). No Warrant, No Problem: How the Government Can Get Your

Digital Data. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/no-warrant-no-

problem-how-the-government-can-still-get-your-digital-data

No More Secrets? Employee Emails Not Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege. (2018,

August 03). Retrieved from https://www.insideprivacy.com/united-states/no-more-

secrets-employee-emails-not-protected-by-attorney-client-privilege/

Paulsen, R. (2013). Non-work at work: Resistance or what? Organization, 22(3), 351-367.

doi:10.1177/1350508413515541
MONITORING EMPLOYEES 20

Rivera, A. (12, February 28). Disclose Employee Monitoring to Respect Worker Privacy.

Retrieved from https://www.business.com/articles/disclose-employee-monitoring/

Solon, O. (2017, November 06). Big Brother isn't just watching: Workplace surveillance can

track your every move. Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/06/workplace-surveillance-big-brother-

technology

Sweeney, M. (2018, December 06). Personally Identifiable Information: What is PII, non-PII

& Personal Data? Retrieved from https://piwik.pro/blog/what-is-pii-personal-data/

Velocci, C. (2016, July 04). Internet Access Is Now A Basic Human Right. Retrieved from

https://gizmodo.com/internet-access-is-now-a-basic-human-right-1783081865