What Does It Mean to Live in a Surveillance Society - Book Report/Review Example

Running Head: What does it mean to live in a 'surveillance society' What does it mean to live in a 'surveillance society' of the ] [Name of the institution] What does it mean to live in a 'surveillance society' Introduction Charles Platt discusses privacy f the individual and the possibility f an entire world under surveillance in his essay Nowhere to Hide: Lack f Privacy is the Ultimate Equalizer. He explains the different levels f privacy needed in different cultures, and he describes why he feels that invasion f privacy might lead to large institutions interfering in his life. Platt points out cases where privacy became an issue, either because it reveals the truth or because the term "privacy' was being used as an excuse, to exemplify the importance f an individual's right to privacy. Platt then describes the tools that are open for sale to the public that can facilitate invading other people's privacy. He feels that if everyone has no privacy then everyone becomes equal, which is an opinion that I do not share. Looking toward the future, he then predicts new tools that might be invented and how he is optimistic that the future will bring less privacy and more surveillance on both domestic and macro levels. I feel that Platt's opinions are leaning far too much toward a world without privacy and thus I do not agree with stance on surveillance. I disagree with Platt about why people should be under surveillance: he believes it will make everyone equal, but I believe people should only be under surveillance if they are suspected f attempting to commit a crime. Thus, Platt is far too extreme in his views on surveillance. Platt begins his argument by stating that cultures other than our own have little need for privacy. "The Japanese, for instance, don't even have a word for it" domestic privacy that is; the simple need to hide some f you home life from the neighbours." (Platt, 344) He also claims that most people do not appear to be interested in spying on their neighbours, but I completely disagree with this. I believe that there are many people that would spy on their neighbours if given the chance to do so without facing any consequences. I believe this because people generally tend to be nosy and want to know about their neighbours' lives, although I feel that that is just a sign that some people have too much time on their hands. Another important issue that Platt discusses is the possibility f large institutions using personal information to interfere with people's lives. I share this concern with Platt because I too would feel threatened if my credit ratings, tax figures, and medical records were available to people whom I do not know. Although Platt seems concerned with these issues, it appears as though he still supports the idea f a no-privacy future. He claims that in the future when everyone is under surveillance all people will be equally vulnerable, which he claims is going to be a good situation. According to Platt, lawsuits concerning privacy are starting to flood the courtrooms recently, with the majority f them claiming someone invaded someone else's privacy. For example, Platt states that two cops in Los Angles faced prison terms because f a home video that invaded their "privacy' and showed them beating a suspect. Obviously, people should use careful concern when deciding whether a case is abusing a person's right to privacy, or manipulating it to try to cover a crime. Another case that Platt cites is one that involves the nation. Platt describes how President Clinton's election campaign was seriously threatened when an ex-lover made tapes f their telephone conversations. I think that this case exemplifies why privacy is an important right to protect. New tools and technologies will soon be available that will further invade the privacy f others. This new technology makes spying easier for people that would use such tools. "Right now, I can buy a KGB-surplus night scope, a micro-transmitter, or a video camera that's half the size f a pack f cigarettes." (Platt, 344) This technology should not be easy to obtain because I do not feel safe knowing that anyone around me could be spying on me by listening in on my phone conversations, taping me, or watching me in the dark. What is surveillance People are vulnerable when they are under surveillance, which Platt considers to be a good thing because he mistakenly believes that if everyone is equally vulnerable then everyone is equal. "Personally, I look forward to a time when no one will be exempt form surveillance. So long as corporations, governments, and citizens are equally vulnerable, lack f privacy will be the ultimate equalizer." (345) I completely disagree with this statement because it comes to a conclusion that's based on a false premise. Not all people that are exempt from privacy become vulnerable, since not all people have something to hide. Therefore, even if no one is exempt from surveillance not all people will be equal. If no one on the planet is exempt from surveillance in the future, Platt claims that the change will be significant on a macro level, but not on smaller levels. He feels that on a more domestic level the change will not affect people that much either way. Platt feels that most changes that come with abrogating privacy will be positive and people will still be happy. I do not believe this is true because if such an important right, such as privacy, is taken away from people they will almost certainly fight to get it back. I do not think that people will be happy if everyone is under surveillance, nor do I believe that the changes that will take place to bring that about will be positive. Any changes that the government or any institution would make to take away the inalienable rights f the people must be negative changes and, especially in this case, people should not let that happen. Charles Platt discussed many issues regarding privacy in Nowhere to Hide: Lack f Privacy is the Ultimate Equalizer and came to the conclusion that a world where privacy does not exist will make everyone equal and thus happy. I disagree with most f Platt's reasoning and ideas because I feel that privacy is a right that everyone in the world deserves and should protect. While some cultures need less privacy than others do, it is safe to assume that everyone needs privacy sometimes. Platt explains that there are many cases recently that involve privacy, though usually someone is trying to manipulate their right to privacy to get away with a crime. He also examines the tools which spies can use to get information about people and how easy it to obtain such tools. I do not agree with Platt on many f the issues and I feel that people should not take their privacy for granted. It is important to fight for your rights if you feel that they are being taken from you. I encourage everyone to protect their right to privacy and never let anyone take it from you. Losing your privacy is not worth being vulnerable like everyone else. When thinking about the loss f your privacy, consider this: "Suppose that current trends continue to the point that everyone is without privacy" institutions as well as individuals. Who loses and who gains" (Platt, 344) What are the different types f surveillance Nowadays, more and more employers are watching what their employees do with the computers provided for them to utilize their everyday jobs. The bosses want to know whether their staffs are abusing the trust given to them or not. With the help f affordable monitoring software, they can keep a close tab with the people they employ straightforwardly. Modern technologies are providing unprecedented opportunities surveillance. Not only they can monitor the e-mails sent and received by their employees effortlessly but also review the content f them. Same goes with reviewing the Internet usage and files stored in the computers. Employers can track down what kind f sites their employees actually visit during the working hours using Internet Monitoring Software. Some employees sometimes sneak in some online shopping sites or sneak over an e-mail joke using the company's resources at the time when they are supposed to attempt their jobs. This is the main reason why employers want to keep an eye on what the staffs are doing all through their working hours. They want to make sure that the employees are not wasting the company's time and money by doing something irrelevant to their responsibilities. The employees because there are many sexual harassment cases happen in the workplace involving the usage f e-mails, which later on can put the company in trouble if the case goes to the court. Other forms f workplace surveillance are recording f computer keystrokes to measure the employee's work efficiency (this method is mainly used for monitoring data entry clerk), eavesdropping employee's telephone conversation, video recording f job performance, etc To the employer, being able to monitor ensures that employees are doing their job and doing them well. But at the same time, such monitoring is decried by many employees as an invasion f employee privacy. The employees thought that what their employers do is a usurpation f private rights. They feel tense and uncomfortable in doing their jobs, which can lead to deteriorating work performances. They felt that they are not being trusted by their supervisors. That is the essential conflict that still haunting the workplace monitoring issues up till now. Thus the question arises now is whether the employers have any rights to do such monitoring onto their employees or not, whether it is in fact ethical to do so. Until now, it is still considered controversial issue and yet no legal rules have been regulated in accordance to this matter. In this research paper, the ethical issue that is workplace surveillance will be discusses further in specific or details as possible. A research regarding the issue has been attempted including compiling comments from other authors. How is surveillance used Based on the research conducted by the Privacy Foundation, it was found out that what is driving the growth f e-mail and Internet surveillance in the workplaces is mainly the low cost f the technology itself. Employee monitoring, as measured by the sales f surveillance software, has increased at least twice as fast as the number f U.S. employees with Internet access in the past few years. Worldwide sales f employee monitoring software are estimated $140 million a year, or about $5.25 per monitored employee per year. According to a research carried out by AMA (American Management Association) in 2001, more than three-quarters f U.S. firms now monitor their employee's phone calls, e-mails, Internet activities, and computer files. After conducting research on the Internet, I found out that many employers are concerned about the employee's productivities. In today's competitive world, they have to ensure that their personnel really utilize themselves fully for the corporate. They cannot bear the consequences resulted from irresponsible employees who make use f company's resources, time and money for the personal advantage. They also afraid that some misbehaved employees are actually disclosing the company's secret to the competitors. That is why they do the monitoring. The objective f workplace surveillance is to make sure that the employees do not misuse the facilities granted to them. The employers mostly thought that they have the rights to review the e-mails sent and received by the employees and what sites they visit during working hours because they own the resources. They have paid the employees salary and in return the employees must do their works accordingly. But some experts, such as Carl Botan, have argued that such monitoring can affect the employee's confidence thus influencing the work productivity also. It makes employees felt not trusted by the employers and can reduce the communication both employee to employee and employee to supervisor. It can put more pressure to the employees. Employees don't feel companies should monitor and review their communication via internet. They believe their privacy rights are being violated when this occurs. While employers believe employees should have no expectations f privacy when they are using company equipment to communicate with. After evaluating the opinions from both parties, I contend that neither side is wrong or right, in an absolute sense. I believe neither that monitoring is inherently wrong and should be outlawed, nor should that employers have "free-reign" over their employees, monitoring them secretly and at will. There is a middle ground in all this, and while there may be different ways to stand on it, there are certain aspects f this issue that must be adopted by any reasonable compromise. The Web is constructed in such way that one thing is designed to lead another. If I'm reading a work-related site and follow a link that interest me to another site, that's just a natural curiosity, it take just a few minutes, and I don't think it constitutes much if any f an offence. If anything, it is replacing idle water cooler chat - everyone needs breaks in their day, as no one can work for 8 hours straight all the time and maintain a healthy attitude. The employers cannot expect the employees to keep working no stop without break except lunch hour break like a robot, because they are not. Human beings need to relax their minds for a while; they need to be fresh in order to continue completing their jobs well. While employees need to be aware that they are likely being monitored, employers need to strike a delicate balance between trusting their employees to behave responsibly and watching for extreme flouting f the rules. The employers also have to be fair in conducting the monitoring. It means that a written policy regarding that matter has to be set clearly as what Mary M. Speidel has suggested. Not only that, they have to explain to their employees also what kind f monitoring they will conduct and to what extend it will be done. And the management needs to make the employees really understand the nature f it and accept it later. (See Appendix A) Naturally people sometimes forget things as they have many things to in their minds especially when they are busy so the employers need to remind this every certain period f time. For instance, every time they connect to the Internet, display a reminder on the screen regarding this policy. A certain amount f flexibility also has to be predicted by the employers. They need to understand that sometimes their staffs have no choice but to use the company's resources for their own personal matters as what Simon Rogerson has said. For example, they need to transfer money quickly to their relatives who need it badly so they have to use some time in their working hours utilizing the company's Internet connection to settle this matter. In the other hand, the employees also have to be responsible to the company. They have to be alert that the company has paid them to accomplish certain works so they have to make sure that they get it done properly. It is irresponsible for them to misuse the responsibility placed on them. For example spend most f the time browsing the online shopping sites and neglecting the works. Some personal use should be acceptable at intermittent times as long as it is not excessive. The employees and employer need to discuss this to reach a mutually satisfactory criterion for what may constitute "excessive". The 10 minute breaks would still in place and separate and apart from any small personal use f the Internet or e-mail or games (after all, a person could be playing a computer game while on hold for business call or even while having a business call). There are reasonable guidelines which could be established to accommodate these things and still sniff out the abuse. Above all, the employees and employers must communicate to one another about all this. Throwing around demands due to personal "rights", however, would definitely be a deterrent to any reasonable solution. As what Lewis Maltby saying, in order to put workplace surveillance into effect, the employers do not necessary intrude the personal life f the employees by reading their e-mails. They do not have to go through the content to determine whether the sender or the receiver f the e-mail is professionally related to the employee or not. If any doubt arises, the employer can actually go through the content with prior notice to the employee concerned. The employee has the right to be present while the review is being done. (See Appendix A) Workplace surveillance as a matter f fact is the employer's right as long as it is done properly and ethically. It means that the management f the company has to set a guideline for that matter that is later communicated to the employees from the moment they join the company. It is better if the monitoring policy is prepared jointly by the employers and employees. So the policy draft will contain statements that are accepted by both parties. They are entitled to know whatever their employees are doing with the facility the company provides for them. Since some experts that have conducted researches on the behaviour f employees under monitoring comments that surveillance could affect the employee's work performance, I think more researches should be done in order to understand more about the effect f the workplace monitoring and how to resolve that matter. And as far as I'm concerned, as long as the monitoring is conducted in such a fair and ethical way that does not violate the employee's privacy, and the employees are well informed and aware f that, it should not be a problem for them. The employees should have prepared themselves mentally fro the inspection. How does the government try to justify surveillance The government also should be quick in defining the federal or state law regarding this matter. So both parties, either employer or employees, will not be sacrificed for other party's advantage. Certainly the weaker side will be the employees. That is why a law is needed to protect their rights. But actually, the International Labour organization (ILO) has adopted a code f practice on the protection f worker's personal data. The ILO code is regarded as the standard among privacy advocates for protection f worker's privacy rights. The code specifies that worker's data should be collected and used consistently with Fair Information Practices (FIPs). The protections include: -Coverage for both public and private sector employees. -That employee should have notice f data collection processes. -That data should be collected and used lawfully and fairly. -That employer should collect the minimum necessary data required for employment. -That data should only be collected from the employee, absent consent. -That data should only be used for reasons directly relevant to employment and only for the purposes for which the data were originally collected. -That data should be held securely. -That worker should have access to data. -That data should not be transferred to third parties absent consent or to comply with a legal requirement. -That worker cannot waive their privacy rights. -That medical data is confidential. -That certain data, such as sex life and political and religious beliefs, should not be collected. -That certain collection technique, such as polygraph testing, should be prohibited. This code should be used as a guideline for the employers to conduct a monitoring and the employees could also refer to it when they have doubt whether the employers do the surveillance in an ethical and proper manner or not. As a conclusion, it is ethical for employer to monitor the communication activities through Internet done by their employers as long it is done according to guideline laid by the company. As a matter f fact, monitoring employee's activity is not a bad action if the intention is to ensure that work progresses so that the business can make profit. If business makes profit, it means that the employees are guarantied that they can still have their jobs and not being laid off instead. Employees also have to be made aware that monitoring do happens if the management has decided to conduct it in the working environment. References Employee Monitoring: Is There Privacy in the workplace (online). 2001 http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm [Accessed April 8 2008]. Kornblum, J. 2001, Employers Monitor a Third f Online Workforce (online). 7 October 2001. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2001-07-10-ebrief.htm [Accessed April 8 2008]. Electronic Monitoring (online). 1998. http://www.aclu.org/issues/worker/legkit2.html [Accessed April 8 2008]. Hirsh, L. 2001, The Boss is Watching: Workplace Monitoring on The Rise (online). 29 June 2001. http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/11634.html [Accessed April 8 2008] Speidel, M. M. 2000, E-mail Monitoring in the Workplace - What are Privacy Rights (online). December 2000, http://www.vbmonline.com/features/1200-15.html [Accessed April 8 2008] Schulman, A. 2000, One-Third U.S. Online Workforce under Internet/E-Mail Surveillance (online). 7 September 2001., http://www.privacyfoundation.org/workplace/business/biz_show.aspid=70&action=0 [Accessed April 8 2008] Schulman, A. 2001, The Extent f Systematic Monitoring f Employee E-Mail and Internet Use (online). http://www.privacyfoundation.org/workplace/technology/extent.asp#AppendixB: Internet [Accessed April 8 2008] Privacy Foundation. 2001, Employers: Be Fair. Employees: Be Careful. (online). April 8 2008. http://www.privacyfoundation.org/workplace/interview/interview_show.aspid=47&action=0 [Accessed April 8 2008] Johnson, B. T. n. d., Technological Surveillance in the Workplace (online). http://www.flaw.com/techsurv.html [Accessed April 8 2008] Serwer, A. E. n. d., Watching You Work (online). http://abcnews.go.com/se [Accessed April 8 2008] Rogerson, S & Fairweather, B. n.d., Surveillance in the Workplace (online). http://www.ccsr.cse.dmu.ac.uk/resouces/general/ethicol/Ecv8no3.html [Accessed April 8 2008] Introna, L. D. 1999, Privacy, Autonomy and Workplace Surveillance (online). http://www.ccsr.cse.dmu.ac.uk/conferences/ccsrconf/abstracts99/introna.html [Accessed April 8 2008]. Doyle, R. n. d., Privacy in the Workplace (online). Read More