Employee Electronic Privacy - Report Example

Employee Electronic Privacy Employee Electronic Privacy Barbara Griffin Axia College Com/120 Effective Persuasive Writing Katherine Mauch, M.A.,M.A., J.D. December 10, 2006 Employee Electronic Privacy 2 As employers install and update more sophisticated ways of monitoring employee-use of the internet and email, workers are also questioning the necessity and legality of this practice. To cite an example, an employee caught looking for another position using the company’s access to the internet purportedly illustrates the potential employer abuse of the system. In this case, we have the employee receiving an email over the company’s online access after work, which contains a letter of acceptance to her job application. The current employer immediately began calling the employee’s new employer to ‘harass’ them upon learning of the incident. The employee eventually resigned from her current position and immediately began to work at the new position. The debate rages on whether which side is correct. But this paper would establish that in this scenario, it is the employer who stands to lose more by their workers’ access to the internet, and hence, are justified in monitoring internet access in the workplace. For one, with each access to the internet the chances of electronic hackers gaining access to the corporations’ intranet and confidential files are increased if not monitored. We turn to Chang, J. (April 9, 2004)1 who stated: …..Each year hackers steal millions of dollars worth of proprietary information from companies and organizations. A survey by the Computer Security Institute indicated that for the year 2002, theft of proprietary information by hackers cost companies and organizations over $70 million.1 The cost to insure against these hackers is staggering—the market for hacker insurance is expected to increase from $100 million in 2003 to $900 million by 2005.2 In addition, hackers can Employee Electronic Privacy 3 cause severe damage to computer systems by altering or deleting data files and disabling software. In addition to proprietary information, hackers also steal personal information from these organizations and corporations including their customers’ credit card numbers, account numbers, and social security numbers. For example, in 2000, hackers stole 55,000 credit card numbers from creditcards.com and 300,000 credit card numbers from CDUniverse.com.3 The theft of personal information such as credit card numbers raises serious concerns relating to both identity theft and privacy. Hence, in an attempt to forestall such staggering losses, the employers’ reaction was naturally to check the culprit, and that is the unprecedented access to online materials. The cost of installing monitoring devices is considerably high but it is hoped to prevent lost wages for the employees’ time while using electronic mail and surfing for non-work related items on the internet at work. According to Malachowski, writing for Salary.com (2005, par. 2), “The combined urban and intercity workforce of America is 132 million which translates into the total salary dollars of $759 billion lost each year.” He went on stating that “44.7% of the more than 10,000 people polled cited web surfing as their #1 distraction at work..” (Malachowski, Salary.com, 2005)2 In this study, the author also listed some of the reasons these employees gave for their non-work-related electronic browsing. They are as follows: “Dont have enough work to do 33.2%; Underpaid for amount of work 23.4%; Co-workers distract me 14.7%; Not enough after-work time 12.0%; and Other 16.7%.” Malachowski, Salary.com (2005)2. Employee Electronic Privacy 4 Regardless of the reasons given, the fact remains that most employees expect to be able to have access to the internet and email. It is their main argument that access should remain private because of constitutional rights regarding freedom of speech. When made aware of the employer’s monitoring, the employees’ reactions varied. Stanton and Weiss (2000, 3.2, par 2), for instance found in a web-based survey that around 50% of the respondents stated that they were not aware of any monitoring by their employers. However, remaining participants were aware that their employers were monitoring their internet and email usage. Stanton and Weiss (2000, App C, 3, 3.1).5 It was the overall consensus in the survey that employee-use of the company electronic access was altered somewhat to fit the employees perception of what the company would potentially tolerate. However, all things considered, there is but slight modification on the employees’ access to online sites. This is because it is still uncertain whether employees will be questioned or punished for their actions. Stanton and Weiss explained: ….As was noted previously, 10 of the monitored individuals reported that the monitoring did not bother them at all. In three cases when a respondent was disturbed by the monitoring, he was unsure of what the information was being used for or how important the management viewed it to be. Stanton and Weiss (2000, 3.3.2.)5 We should remember that monitoring is still an issue of trust that is based on the relationship between management and their employees. If an employer sees a reason not to trust his employees the employer will be more Employee Electronic Privacy 5 aggressive in monitoring online sites and email. On the other hand, the willingness to believe that the company is simply using monitoring for security reasons determines the employees’ perception on how their employer trusts his staff. The employees’ attitudes can be based on the employer’s history in terms of dealing with the workforce or on the employees’ experiences with prior employers. Tabak and Smith (2005)6 found in a research that employees who view their employers as trustworthy would be less inclined to be disturbed by the whole setup and those that view their employers as not trustworthy would be more inclined to question the reasons for and usages of the results of the monitoring. An additional ammunition that organizations argue in support of a tighter internet monitoring is the use of chat rooms and blog sites. The employers are usually held liable if their employees enter chat rooms and make defamatory remarks on other chat room participants; or if an employee makes derogatory posts online about other employees that he works with. Generally, in cases where an employee has participated in this type of activity, the access is undertaken from a computer in the workplace. There would surely be complaints in instances where the activity concerns employees that the “chatter” or “blogger” is working with. The company becomes an accessory in the action and is held liable for the first “chatter” or the “blogger’s” activity if the employer does not take some type of action to correct the problem. Indeed, Crimmins, as quoted by Nord, McCubbins, and Nord, J. H., (2006), stressed: “A recent study revealed that 10% of U.S. companies have received subpoenas resulting from employee email [5].”3 Employee Electronic Privacy 6 Here, employees are raising questions about their individual rights since the employer did not find the posts on their own but relied on a third party to relay that information. But, in cases where a third party has informed the employer of their employees’ activity, the courts have remained adamant that these cases will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for their validity. However, the courts have consistently ruled that a business’ security concerns takes priority over individual employee rights while at work and allows employers to monitor internet and email communications. With proper policies and disclaimers, employees should have no reasonable expectation of privacy on company systems even when the company-provided computer is a home computer. In TBG Insurance Services Corp. v. Zieminski, 96 Cal.App.4th 443 (2002), the court held that a senior executive had to hand over to his former employer a computer the company provided for work at home. The company alleged that he had used the company-owned computer to visit pornographic Web sites in violation of company policy. The court rejected the executives privacy claim, reasoning that employer policies establishing proper use of e-mail and the Internet "diminish an individual employees expectation of privacy by clearly stating in the policy that electronic communications are to be used solely for company business." See also, Muick v. Glenayre Electronics, 280 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 2002) [company computer use policy reserving the right to inspect meant the employee had no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding use of a company laptop]; United States v. Angevine, 281 F.3d 1130 (10th Cir. 2002) [same]. Schwartz, D. R. (April 7, 2003)4 Employee Electronic Privacy 7 As mentioned above, employers have found it necessary to install and maintain more sophisticated monitoring software to protect the corporate entity from potential attacks by ‘hackers’ accessing vital information, litigations naming the company as a co-defendant in lawsuits for employee misconduct, and criminal charges for illegal conduct performed by an employee while using the companies internet and email. However, in order to protect themselves from accusations of invasion of privacy from their employees, the employers are also burdened to balance their employees’ right to privacy with the need to provide a secure online and productive office environment. It is given that employers recognize that their organizations’ survival resides mostly on a capable workforce. Internet monitoring, hence, should not be viewed with malice and implemented out of some voyeuristic or selfish motives. It is a case of preferring prevention to the cure, not entirely an issue of restriction. Chang, J. (2004). Computer hacking: making the case for a national reporting requirement. retrieved December 30, 2006 from Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School Research Publication No. 2004-07. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract =530825 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.530825 ……1Computer security institute, CSI/FBI COMPUTER CRIME AND SECURITY SURVEY 20 (2003), available at http://www.security.fsu.edu/docs /FBI2003.pdf. ……2 Jon Swartz, Firms’ hacking-related insurance costs soar, USA TODAY, Feb. 9, 2003, available at http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2003-02-09- hacker_x.htm. Malachowski, Salary.com. (2005). Wasted time at work costing companies billions. In Bangor daily news (Bangor, ME), pNA. Retrieved November 26, 2006, from the Apollo Library InfoTra OneFile Thomson Gale at http://galegroup.com/ips/infomark.do Nord, G.D., McCubbins, T.F., and Nord, J. H. (2006). E-Monitoring in the workplace: privacy, legislation, and surveillance software, communications of The ACM. Retrieved November 25, 2006 from the Apollo Library: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost ------Crimmins, J. Even federal judges come under surveillance when online. Chicago Daily Law Bulletin 147, 159 (Aug. 14, 2001) par 6. Schwartz, D. R., Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP. (2003). More than just e-mail: managing the workplace without walls. Retrieved December 29, 2006 from http://www.constructionweblinks.com/Resources/Industry_Reports Newsletters/ April_7_2003/email.htm Stanton, J.M. and Weiss, E.M., Electronic monitoring in their own words: an exploratory study of employees experiences with new types of surveillance, computers in human behavior 16 (2000) 423±440 Retrieved November 21, 2006 from www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh Tabak, F. and Smith, W. (2005). Privacy and electronic monitoring in the workplace: a model of managerial cognition and relational trust development, Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal; 17.3, 173-189 (17). Retrieved December 26, 2006 from Academic OneFile I used the suggestions from both you and the peer-review feedback, in that I approached the essay from the employer’s point of view with counter-arguments from the employee’s point of view. My changes are in blue highlight. Additional Comment: I am still trying to ‘fix’ the concluding paragraph. It seems to be awkward. Checkpoint Feedback - Week 10 (8) Posted: 01/07/2007 04:32 PM, by: KATHERINE MAUCH ( km123@email.phoenix.edu ) Previous Message Reply View/Print Flag Message   PERSUASIVE ESSAY CHECKPOINT - Week 8 Revised Rough Draft   Available Points Points Earned Comments Identify the portions of the paper you revised by using bold or colored font or asterisks (*). 5 3 Not all revisions are indicated. Explain how you incorporated the feedback from your instructor and peer reviewer. 7 7 OK. The revision has converted the essay from a persuasive essay to an informative essay, however. Also indicate, with bold or colored font or asterisks (*), the suggestions you did not incorporate into your paper. 5 5 Explain your reasons for not using certain suggestions. 7 7 Submit the Revised Rough Draft of your Persuasive Essay posted as an attachment. 3 3 Include the Peer Review Checklist from your classmate. 3 3 Late Penalty 10% per day   Total 30 28 Please note: This Checkpoint Feedback does not address issues of APA formatting or grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Please edit your final paper carefully before submitting it.     Read More