The Rise of Workplace Surveillance(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
The Rise of Workplace Surveillance
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/06/workplace-surveillance-big-brother-technology
73 comments
This ties interestingly to the news about Bitcoin power usage from last week: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywbbpm/bitcoin-mi...
The beauty of Bitcoin is an inherently-trustworthy transaction structure without the need for a central authority or trust between parties. The cost is exactly what you describe - trust is replaced by a massive expenditure of work to independently verify everything. It's an interesting microcosm of what's happening throughout society in general.
The beauty of Bitcoin is an inherently-trustworthy transaction structure without the need for a central authority or trust between parties. The cost is exactly what you describe - trust is replaced by a massive expenditure of work to independently verify everything. It's an interesting microcosm of what's happening throughout society in general.
David Gerard, author of Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain, has made just that point. I can't quote it enough (three times so far at my Reddit blog):
Decentralisation is the paramount feature in bitcoin, but it turns out that that's a bad idea that's really, really expensive, because it turns out that a tiny bit of trust saves you a fortune.
"Decentralised" isn't a useful buzzword in a lot of ways, because it turns out that you want to be a part of society.
From his interview with the Financial Times:
https://soundcloud.com/user-544122300/gerardpod
Decentralisation is the paramount feature in bitcoin, but it turns out that that's a bad idea that's really, really expensive, because it turns out that a tiny bit of trust saves you a fortune.
"Decentralised" isn't a useful buzzword in a lot of ways, because it turns out that you want to be a part of society.
From his interview with the Financial Times:
https://soundcloud.com/user-544122300/gerardpod
This.
I live this everyday and they talk about it in terms of "insider threat" and "user behavior analytics". Yes , every last thing you do at work is being monitored and analyzed.
You see,I am at a point where I wish it stopped at work. $work these days spies on your off work activities as well. Essentially making you their slave.
If you don't experience this,then maybe your company isn't big enough to afford it(or if it is,please tell me more about this wonderful company that let's you do your job without 24/7 surveillance)
EDIT:Just search for " user behavior analytics".Orwell would be impressed
You see,I am at a point where I wish it stopped at work. $work these days spies on your off work activities as well. Essentially making you their slave.
If you don't experience this,then maybe your company isn't big enough to afford it(or if it is,please tell me more about this wonderful company that let's you do your job without 24/7 surveillance)
EDIT:Just search for " user behavior analytics".Orwell would be impressed
I would quit, without second thought. I have always been of the opinion that you need to hire the right people and fire and bad ones. Workplace surveillance is a trying to fill a gap for BAD managers/mgmt. This crosses so many lines.
At a company with a healthy culture, managers should be hiring people who they trust to get their jobs done. If you feel the need to watch your employee's every move, why would you hire them in the first place? Treating employees like delinquent children instead of mature teammates indicates a very sick company culture that I would avoid at all costs.
Hmm, I don't know that "rise" is a good description. This is just a reminder that if you are using employer owned resources, you should not have an expectation of privacy. It has been this way for decades and is no different now. Perhaps, the only difference is the ability for a system to detect anomalies without human intervention.
"If a paralegal is writing a document and every few seconds is switching to Hipchat, Outlook and Word then there’s an issue that can be resolved by addressing it with the employee"
Wait, what? Are they trying to do ADHD diagnosis from window activity?
Wait, what? Are they trying to do ADHD diagnosis from window activity?
And stupider, "can be resolved by addressing it with the employee"... You just know this company is going to put that employee through a couple hours of some awful corporate video training about motivation.
“If you are a parent and you have a teenage son or daughter coming home late and not doing their homework you might wonder what they are doing. It’s the same as employees.”
Uhh, no. Employees are adults.
Uhh, no. Employees are adults.
Parodied very effectively in Snow Crash (1992), where one of the characters has to spend exactly the right amount of time reading a document. Too much would be deemed slacking; too little would be inattentiveness.
I remember this post https://www.reddit.com/r/excel/comments/2jtd2f/worked_on_a_c....
This is what happens you try to calculate productivity with how much salary you get.
The poster make video player in excel to padding his clock time because he already finished his work in 1 hours and need 3 hours to appear busy.
This is what happens you try to calculate productivity with how much salary you get.
The poster make video player in excel to padding his clock time because he already finished his work in 1 hours and need 3 hours to appear busy.
A bank I worked for last year rolled out monitoring software to all their IT staff. It recorded the window title of the application with focus on a regular schedule and kept this in a log somewhere. They said the results would only be used in aggregate, but that was treated with skepticism.
Also, the app does pop up with alerts every so often suggesting you take a yoga break so it is adding a lot of value. /Sarcasm
Also, the app does pop up with alerts every so often suggesting you take a yoga break so it is adding a lot of value. /Sarcasm
The solution is to provide terminals with only access to work tools.
No-one plays Solitaire on a supermarket checkout till
(cue someone finding a photo of someone playing Solitaire on a supermarket checkout till)
No-one plays Solitaire on a supermarket checkout till
(cue someone finding a photo of someone playing Solitaire on a supermarket checkout till)
The solution is to hire people that care about their job, or at least people who are accountable for their output.
Difficult in a supermarket checkout scenario though.
Difficult in a supermarket checkout scenario though.
Hiring people who care and keeping them in that mindset is hard, especially at scale.
32.9% of U.S. employees "engaged" in workplace in February (2015)
http://news.gallup.com/poll/181895/employee-engagement-reach...
and from a 2014 report
http://www.aon.com/attachments/human-capital-consulting/2014...
There are signs that the employee value proposition is breaking down. Perceptions of internal brand alignment have decreased 4 percentage points in the last two years. More employees are saying positive things about their organization and striving to go above and beyond. Engagement overall has increased, but the global element signifying intent to “Stay” with their companies has shown no change. Employees are engaging more, but only a little over half see a long-term path with their current company and fewer see a compelling value proposition to keep their talents with the current company.
32.9% of U.S. employees "engaged" in workplace in February (2015)
http://news.gallup.com/poll/181895/employee-engagement-reach...
and from a 2014 report
http://www.aon.com/attachments/human-capital-consulting/2014...
There are signs that the employee value proposition is breaking down. Perceptions of internal brand alignment have decreased 4 percentage points in the last two years. More employees are saying positive things about their organization and striving to go above and beyond. Engagement overall has increased, but the global element signifying intent to “Stay” with their companies has shown no change. Employees are engaging more, but only a little over half see a long-term path with their current company and fewer see a compelling value proposition to keep their talents with the current company.
How about a chip and pin terminal playing Tetris? https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2006/12/24/chip-pin-term...
Thank you for fulfilling my prophecy
By IT Staff, I mean (for example) developers writing risk management and trading systems, as well as support and infrastructure staff.
It's only creepy when your employer does it, not when your social media platform does ;)
If a workplace implemented this, this would create anxiety in their workers causing them to leave.
These kind of tech has always been marketed to enterprises under various ruses. It's persistent. If the company happens to have immature control freaks in decision maker roles then they manage to sell.
Ultimately its culture and the decision makers get to decide. Monitoring is of course downwards and those making the decision do not get to be monitored in this intrusive fashion.
Ultimately its culture and the decision makers get to decide. Monitoring is of course downwards and those making the decision do not get to be monitored in this intrusive fashion.
Except we’re getting better at quantifying, and the better we are at it, the more we can optimize. Factory workers didn’t use to be measured, but then they were. And now they’re automated. Many aspects of white collar jobs are not impervious to this either. As we move up the chain, we’ll see that even more can be measured and optimized, even for the decision makers. Just make sure you keep climbing!
Edit: it also helps when firing people, as you can make a list of metrics and then make goals that are just out of reach for bottom 50% of performers. Then when you need to fire people and deny unemployment, you point to the metrics they were failing and you have a valid cause to terminate for lack of performance, thus saving you money on unemployment insurance premiums.
Edit: it also helps when firing people, as you can make a list of metrics and then make goals that are just out of reach for bottom 50% of performers. Then when you need to fire people and deny unemployment, you point to the metrics they were failing and you have a valid cause to terminate for lack of performance, thus saving you money on unemployment insurance premiums.
This is a bit of a straw man. You don't need surveillance technology for this.
If a worker is expected to make 10 pieces of an item per hour its easy for managers to verify this. For a knowledge or creative worker it's similarly easy to verify expected performance.
This is not new, workers have been measured for performance everywhere since manufacturing and corporate jobs began.
If we ignore that for a moment, the point you are making applies to management too, yet this tech is guaranteed to not be used for management where things and outcomes are left 'more fuzzy'. Why?
How about we apply it to governance with complete transparency to the electorate. Nope, not going to happen. Because its exploitative and intrusive and will only be applied to the powerless lowest who have no choice.
If a worker is expected to make 10 pieces of an item per hour its easy for managers to verify this. For a knowledge or creative worker it's similarly easy to verify expected performance.
This is not new, workers have been measured for performance everywhere since manufacturing and corporate jobs began.
If we ignore that for a moment, the point you are making applies to management too, yet this tech is guaranteed to not be used for management where things and outcomes are left 'more fuzzy'. Why?
How about we apply it to governance with complete transparency to the electorate. Nope, not going to happen. Because its exploitative and intrusive and will only be applied to the powerless lowest who have no choice.
Anecdotally, I've seen plenty of managers subjected to their own set of metrics. They might be able to resist it longer, but the equity owners aren't going to just give them a pass. It's always a question of will the benefits be worth the cost, and as soon as it is, the axe will come down.
I don't agree that creative workers have similarly easy to verify metrics, even now. However, with the ability to broadly track information, what is now possible is to view the distributions of output so that over time, an individual loses the ability to provide excuses, because chances are if your constantly in the tail end, then it's probably worth it for the organization to be rid of you.
I would love it if could apply this transparency to our governance, but obviously those with power will oppose it, and those without will have to fight for it. It's just the nature of things. Obfuscation makes it easier to arbitrage (make excess profits, i.e. have more power than others), so it is to be expected that should continue.
I don't agree that creative workers have similarly easy to verify metrics, even now. However, with the ability to broadly track information, what is now possible is to view the distributions of output so that over time, an individual loses the ability to provide excuses, because chances are if your constantly in the tail end, then it's probably worth it for the organization to be rid of you.
I would love it if could apply this transparency to our governance, but obviously those with power will oppose it, and those without will have to fight for it. It's just the nature of things. Obfuscation makes it easier to arbitrage (make excess profits, i.e. have more power than others), so it is to be expected that should continue.
> If we ignore that for a moment, the point you are making applies to management too, yet this tech is guaranteed to not be used for management where things and outcomes are left 'more fuzzy'.
I'm not convinced this is true. Management may have been given more leeway on 'soft' outcomes, but there's a longstanding trend of (messy, failed) attempts to quantify that role. Every attempt to incentivize cost-cutting, scale pay inverse to raises given, stack rank between teams, or otherwise measure staff outcomes is in effect a performance metric on management.
It's true that most of those have been immediately eaten by Goodhart's law, and we don't know how to quantify actual success like we do for "widgets per hour". But I wouldn't suggest that a lack of will to do it has been the problem.
(I do think this argument applies to the top of the executive level. I'm fairly convinced that most non-founding CEOs could be replaced at a discount with minimal harm, and only market distortions are preventing that.)
I'm not convinced this is true. Management may have been given more leeway on 'soft' outcomes, but there's a longstanding trend of (messy, failed) attempts to quantify that role. Every attempt to incentivize cost-cutting, scale pay inverse to raises given, stack rank between teams, or otherwise measure staff outcomes is in effect a performance metric on management.
It's true that most of those have been immediately eaten by Goodhart's law, and we don't know how to quantify actual success like we do for "widgets per hour". But I wouldn't suggest that a lack of will to do it has been the problem.
(I do think this argument applies to the top of the executive level. I'm fairly convinced that most non-founding CEOs could be replaced at a discount with minimal harm, and only market distortions are preventing that.)
> For a knowledge or creative worker it's similarly easy to verify expected performance.
No it really isn't! Coding performance metrics are a wasteland of failed techniques.
No it really isn't! Coding performance metrics are a wasteland of failed techniques.
Hence, I think, the rise of judging programmers on business outcomes. Revenue increases aren't a great metric for programmers (no one has a damn clue how to quantify tech debt and futureproofing), but at least they aren't actively destructive. Similarly, "story point velocity" and the like aren't tied to anything intrinsic, but at least they can sometimes be used as a predictor of quality.
Meanwhile the history of the field is one of judging programmers on bugs fixed, lines written, commit frequency, or a hundred other standards that are only perverse incentives. Most aren't even Goodhart's law issues, because they weren't predictive before they became targets!
Meanwhile the history of the field is one of judging programmers on bugs fixed, lines written, commit frequency, or a hundred other standards that are only perverse incentives. Most aren't even Goodhart's law issues, because they weren't predictive before they became targets!
ObDilbert: http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-11-13
"I'm gonna write me a new minivan this afternoon!"
"I'm gonna write me a new minivan this afternoon!"
Funny how the simple truth summarizes issues like this.
How about we apply it to governance with complete transparency to the electorate. Nope, not going to happen. Because its exploitative and intrusive and will only be applied to the powerless lowest who have no choice.
How about we apply it to governance with complete transparency to the electorate. Nope, not going to happen. Because its exploitative and intrusive and will only be applied to the powerless lowest who have no choice.
> Monitoring is of course downwards and those making the decision do not get to be monitored in this intrusive fashion.
-Allegedly true story from the DDR (GDR to you anglophones): Once citizens could start asking to see what the former East German state had on them, Erich Mielke (Head of the Stasi/the GDR KGB equivalent) asked to see his file.
Presumably, he figured that someone, somewhere, watched the watchmen.
-Allegedly true story from the DDR (GDR to you anglophones): Once citizens could start asking to see what the former East German state had on them, Erich Mielke (Head of the Stasi/the GDR KGB equivalent) asked to see his file.
Presumably, he figured that someone, somewhere, watched the watchmen.
I'd refuse to work anywhere that did this. It puts people on a treadmill they can't get off of.
I think it's safe to assume that every employer does this, to some extent. Sure, some may simply be doing automated scanning of your emails and document access to ensure you're not leaking secrets, but it's a slippery slope that only takes one leader to go to hell.
Obligatory link to Manna:
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
Huh. I wonder if all of the folks building and selling these systems have it pointed at themselves (the email monitoring, the webcams)? Or is it just for the common workers?
Just because someone is paying you doesn't give them carte blanche to examine every minute of your time working. That was never explicit before because it was never possible before, but i guess we need to make it explicit now.
Just because someone is paying you doesn't give them carte blanche to examine every minute of your time working. That was never explicit before because it was never possible before, but i guess we need to make it explicit now.
It’s almost certainly not being used by the creators. It’s the same thing as politicians; It doesn’t affect me, and it sounds like a good idea on paper, so go for it.
I suppose this entire article is about the USA given the first paragraph plus this being part of The Guardian's World section (ie. not local UK).
On which jurisdiction(s) does this apply? Readers (pref lawyers) should check if this is legal in their jurisdiction(s).
For people from NL I can recommend Arnoud Engelfriet's blog (a Dutch lawyer specialised in IT law) [1] and its search feature.
An ontopic example discussing whether an employer is allowed to see private files in a business OneDrive account is discussed [2]. There are many more examples, but the blog is in Dutch and generally applies to Dutch law, so YMMV. I'm curious if similar websites or platforms exist for other jurisdictions.
[1] https://blog.iusmentis.com
[2] https://blog.iusmentis.com/2016/10/17/mag-werkgever-privebes...
On which jurisdiction(s) does this apply? Readers (pref lawyers) should check if this is legal in their jurisdiction(s).
For people from NL I can recommend Arnoud Engelfriet's blog (a Dutch lawyer specialised in IT law) [1] and its search feature.
An ontopic example discussing whether an employer is allowed to see private files in a business OneDrive account is discussed [2]. There are many more examples, but the blog is in Dutch and generally applies to Dutch law, so YMMV. I'm curious if similar websites or platforms exist for other jurisdictions.
[1] https://blog.iusmentis.com
[2] https://blog.iusmentis.com/2016/10/17/mag-werkgever-privebes...
CERN certainly does this for at least a decade, although it has its own "jurisdiction". Management likes it a lot, because it is so easy to abuse.
Companys have no need to get into employee home. And employees should not give access to a camera inside their home. Its impossible to know who has access to that camera.
The companies can set up an remote environment(remote pc) that employee must connect to in order to work. And that PC the company can connect to and monitor whats being worked on.
If the company can connect to the user computer and install software there, that means the user just opened up his computer to the company. And, if the company software happens to be "buggy" (to say the least) it could mean that company has teorically hacked the employee computer and now has access to every single file on that machine and if it wants it can try to connect to other machines on the same network. If the company software malfunctions, it could delete all the user files or share with others in the internet.
Having said that, its probably important to separate. As a last resource if the company really want to monitor the employee, use 1 internet for company (with 1 computer only for work related) and 1 internet for home usage (and home computers).
If the company can connect to the user computer and install software there, that means the user just opened up his computer to the company. And, if the company software happens to be "buggy" (to say the least) it could mean that company has teorically hacked the employee computer and now has access to every single file on that machine and if it wants it can try to connect to other machines on the same network. If the company software malfunctions, it could delete all the user files or share with others in the internet.
Having said that, its probably important to separate. As a last resource if the company really want to monitor the employee, use 1 internet for company (with 1 computer only for work related) and 1 internet for home usage (and home computers).
Is this article a joke?
"Last year an employee at an IT services company sent a private chat message to a friend at work worried that he had just shared his sexual identity with his manager in a meeting and fearing he’d face career reprisal. Wiretap detected the employee’s concern and alerted a senior company exec who was then able to intervene, talk to the manager and defuse the situation."
What. the. fuck.
thanks "senior exec" for reading my messages, stepping in and "defusing the situation" whatever that means.
it gets worse:
"Or if you usually touch 10 documents a day and print two and suddenly you are touching 500 and printing 200 that may mean you’re stealing documents in preparation of leaving the company."
of course, that's the only possible logical conclusion.
What a waste of time, if I ever saw this in place as an employee or manager I would immediately leave and possibly sue.
"Last year an employee at an IT services company sent a private chat message to a friend at work worried that he had just shared his sexual identity with his manager in a meeting and fearing he’d face career reprisal. Wiretap detected the employee’s concern and alerted a senior company exec who was then able to intervene, talk to the manager and defuse the situation."
What. the. fuck.
thanks "senior exec" for reading my messages, stepping in and "defusing the situation" whatever that means.
it gets worse:
"Or if you usually touch 10 documents a day and print two and suddenly you are touching 500 and printing 200 that may mean you’re stealing documents in preparation of leaving the company."
of course, that's the only possible logical conclusion.
What a waste of time, if I ever saw this in place as an employee or manager I would immediately leave and possibly sue.
I lost it at "[...] when an All State Insurance franchise did a live demonstration of Interguard’s software to other dealers. The technology started scanning the network and almost immediately found an email with the words “client list” and “résumé”. The demonstrator opened the email in front of a room full of peers to discover his best employee was plotting to move to another company."
What is wrong with people?
What is wrong with people?
When you optimize for profit at any cost as a company, that kind of mindset carries over into you employee/leadership culture.
I wonder why he/she wants to leave?
The scary thing is that as companies get bigger and more powerful and there are fewer small companies who can compete with them, this will only get worse.
Surveillance will become the norm; once all the big companies are doing it, employees will be forced to accept it as normal. That's basically the trend.
Soon we'll have slavery again; except instead of your status being determined by your race, it will be determined by how much empathy you have. People who have empathy for others will be slaves of narcissistic, greedy corporate assholes.
Soon we'll have slavery again; except instead of your status being determined by your race, it will be determined by how much empathy you have. People who have empathy for others will be slaves of narcissistic, greedy corporate assholes.
For an obviously paid article / regurgitated press release, they sure do a good job of making this software sound totally unreasonable and ridiculous. I'm an employer and I wouldn't dream of touching anything like this. Not only are employees' personal communications absolutely none of my business but I'd also potentially be leaving myself wide open to a lawsuit with this kind of monitoring.
...And I say that as someone who has had problems with remote workers in the past.
...And I say that as someone who has had problems with remote workers in the past.
I feel like this is a part of UK's ongoing effort to make ubiquitous surveillance a completely normal thing and have the citizens accept it as such. It's not creepy and disturbing, it's actually normal and should be celebrated!
I think this would only be legal in the UK if it was made clear that the communications were subject to monitoring; see https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1066/em... pp58 onwards.
I can see it being argued both ways; transcripts of Bloomberg chat were a key part of the LIBOR scandal, for example. And I can also see there being some need to monitor internal chat in case it's used for unacceptable purposes such as sexual harassment.
Something about the automatedness of a very private situation gives me the creeps, though.
I can see it being argued both ways; transcripts of Bloomberg chat were a key part of the LIBOR scandal, for example. And I can also see there being some need to monitor internal chat in case it's used for unacceptable purposes such as sexual harassment.
Something about the automatedness of a very private situation gives me the creeps, though.
> And I can also see there being some need to monitor internal chat in case it's used for unacceptable purposes such as sexual harassment.
You don't want simple monitoring. You want data stored in a way it can be checked after a complaint has been filed but only then. Encrypt it with something which requires one or multiple keys so random IT people don't have access to it. Log every access so an audit can be done.
Treat it like medical data should be treated.
You don't want simple monitoring. You want data stored in a way it can be checked after a complaint has been filed but only then. Encrypt it with something which requires one or multiple keys so random IT people don't have access to it. Log every access so an audit can be done.
Treat it like medical data should be treated.
Any communications where the user has an expectation of privacy (this includes company chat programs) should be securely stored (encrypted), and require a court order to access, that goes through normal legal proceedings (e.g. in a criminal or civil case). It should not be legal for a random manager or company to access this data.
The key here is expectation of privacy. If you're posting on a JIRA ticket, you have no expectation of privacy within those with access to the board, nor if you send an email as it can easily be forwarded (although that could be contentious). If you send a message through a DM on slack though, you can expect that to remain private indefinitely.
The key here is expectation of privacy. If you're posting on a JIRA ticket, you have no expectation of privacy within those with access to the board, nor if you send an email as it can easily be forwarded (although that could be contentious). If you send a message through a DM on slack though, you can expect that to remain private indefinitely.
Like, I'm ok with my employer reading my work emails - that's obviously in my contract. But there's something really creepy about automated software that automatically flags messages/actions for review because they are "suspicious". Same with using my webcam to take pictures of me while I work.
There's a common pattern of suggesting that if an employer (or state, or university, or...) can access data, there's no problem when they do. I think it's a pretty serious error.
Broadly, automated surveillance creates illusory offenses. It raises issues based on some imperfect set of rules, and does so independent of any report of harm. (Add to that the likelihood of unethical flagging - which happened right in the article!)
And that creates an obligation to act for employers. Ignoring alerts, no matter how silly, is the sort of thing that might get cited as negligence when a real problem does come down the pike. At best, the result is time-consuming investigations of fake issues. At worst, corporate makes a decision that summary firings are an easier bet than proper investigations.
That's not just a hypothetical fear - we already hear about things like Amazon warehouse employees being laid off on vague suspicion of theft, because investigations are harder than replacing staff. Expanding always-active surveillance will predictably hurt innocents who already lack job security.
Broadly, automated surveillance creates illusory offenses. It raises issues based on some imperfect set of rules, and does so independent of any report of harm. (Add to that the likelihood of unethical flagging - which happened right in the article!)
And that creates an obligation to act for employers. Ignoring alerts, no matter how silly, is the sort of thing that might get cited as negligence when a real problem does come down the pike. At best, the result is time-consuming investigations of fake issues. At worst, corporate makes a decision that summary firings are an easier bet than proper investigations.
That's not just a hypothetical fear - we already hear about things like Amazon warehouse employees being laid off on vague suspicion of theft, because investigations are harder than replacing staff. Expanding always-active surveillance will predictably hurt innocents who already lack job security.
MY manager actually warned me about this when I gave him notice that I was leaving my last job. "Don't suddenly download a whole lot of stuff because they have some tool that tracks it and it looks like you're stealing IP to take with you."
Sure, he agreed it was stupid, but nothing he could do about it.
Sure, he agreed it was stupid, but nothing he could do about it.
Look at this from a company perspective.
If it seems like someone is stealing documents, but you then discover they actually aren't, then no harm done.
If someone actually was stealing documents however, and you don't have the surveillance to realize this, your best salesman might have just took off with a bunch of client information to go work at a competitor. You might never find out, and if you did, you might have no way to prove it.
Workplace surveillance doesn't really have downsides, other than "workplace culture might be affected". However your culture can still be shitty even without surveillance, and just because you don't monitor employees doesn't mean they will become shining examples of company loyalty.
There's plenty of upsides though. Having data on what employees do, and when, and for how long, provides opportunities to discover where improvements can be made, as long as you collect the right data and use it for the right purposes.
If it seems like someone is stealing documents, but you then discover they actually aren't, then no harm done.
If someone actually was stealing documents however, and you don't have the surveillance to realize this, your best salesman might have just took off with a bunch of client information to go work at a competitor. You might never find out, and if you did, you might have no way to prove it.
Workplace surveillance doesn't really have downsides, other than "workplace culture might be affected". However your culture can still be shitty even without surveillance, and just because you don't monitor employees doesn't mean they will become shining examples of company loyalty.
There's plenty of upsides though. Having data on what employees do, and when, and for how long, provides opportunities to discover where improvements can be made, as long as you collect the right data and use it for the right purposes.
> If it seems like someone is stealing documents, but you then discover they actually aren't, then no harm done.
If my company accused me of that I think I'd run a mile, so there's some harm.
There would be rampant abuse with this kind tool in place, as it give cause to fire anyone at any time, it would not be hard to find a reason to fire someone with this level of surveillance
If my company accused me of that I think I'd run a mile, so there's some harm.
There would be rampant abuse with this kind tool in place, as it give cause to fire anyone at any time, it would not be hard to find a reason to fire someone with this level of surveillance
You don’t have to accuse someone to investigate their activity. Hell, the person doesn’t even need to know they were investigated.
If a company really wants to fire you they will find a way with or without surveillance.
If a company really wants to fire you they will find a way with or without surveillance.
A huge part of me hates the Big Brother aspect but then there's another part of me that thinks that if used properly having data is never really a bad thing and could possibly be used to make the company more efficient run better and address concerns of employees. Human nature really makes it difficult to trust that the data will be used positively though
How would you know you’re being monitored?
This makes work a panopticon prison.
> The concept of the design is to allow all (pan-) inmates of an institution to be observed (-opticon) by a single watchman without the inmates being able to tell whether or not they are being watched.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
> The concept of the design is to allow all (pan-) inmates of an institution to be observed (-opticon) by a single watchman without the inmates being able to tell whether or not they are being watched.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
This is is automated, real time, omnipresent surveillance of everyone.
It's worse than a panopticon as in a panopticon prison you have one person surveilling 1000 for example but only able to watch one at a time. The idea is the prisoners never know who is being watched so in theory they all behave thinking they are all being watched. But math kinda destroys that theory as they each have at least a 1000:1 chance of being watched so the odds are in the prisoner's favor.
It's worse than a panopticon as in a panopticon prison you have one person surveilling 1000 for example but only able to watch one at a time. The idea is the prisoners never know who is being watched so in theory they all behave thinking they are all being watched. But math kinda destroys that theory as they each have at least a 1000:1 chance of being watched so the odds are in the prisoner's favor.
That's a good point but even a total surveillance system has limits of actionability. Any given response system or mechanism is going to have limits of attention that it can apply to actual and justifiably observed behaviour. That is, if the goal is to identify, and reduce, negative behaviours, then whatever it is that your policing mechanism is can only act on some n cases in any given period of time.
The problem is that reducing negative behaviours in a just fashion is not the only, or even the most likely, possible dynamic for such a system. In a tyrannical regime (political, social, economic: this is not strictly related to politics), there's a great deal of power and control to be had by acting arbitrarily, without predictability, and without recourse, at any given time.
Take the example given in Paths of Glory, a 1957 film telling the story of the (arbitrary) execution of three French soldiers who had refused to undertake suicidal attacks in the trench warfare of World War I. The process draws on the ancient tradition of decimation, which is the arbitrary killing of one in ten of ones own troops* in order to instill on the remainder the consequences of failure to follow command.
The real risk of global surveillance is that it provides either the justification for, or the plausibility of justification for, arbitrary prosecution of any given individual at any given time.
That's an absolutely despotic state.
The problem is that reducing negative behaviours in a just fashion is not the only, or even the most likely, possible dynamic for such a system. In a tyrannical regime (political, social, economic: this is not strictly related to politics), there's a great deal of power and control to be had by acting arbitrarily, without predictability, and without recourse, at any given time.
Take the example given in Paths of Glory, a 1957 film telling the story of the (arbitrary) execution of three French soldiers who had refused to undertake suicidal attacks in the trench warfare of World War I. The process draws on the ancient tradition of decimation, which is the arbitrary killing of one in ten of ones own troops* in order to instill on the remainder the consequences of failure to follow command.
The real risk of global surveillance is that it provides either the justification for, or the plausibility of justification for, arbitrary prosecution of any given individual at any given time.
That's an absolutely despotic state.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately.
Foucault was prescient about the sorts of harms panopticon would cause, and the metaphor is still an informative one. In particular, it was an insightful as to psychology under uncertain surveillance. But people are still calling it hyperbole when in fact we surpassed it years ago.
Panopticon had vulnerabilities: a brief or infrequent transgression could go uncaught, and an uncaught transgression could never be recovered. The current situation is that active surveillance can be applied algorithmically to everyone, and 100% of past data can be retained for later analysis. That's utterly unprecedented, and I don't think we've really done much to grapple with what it's going to mean.
Foucault was prescient about the sorts of harms panopticon would cause, and the metaphor is still an informative one. In particular, it was an insightful as to psychology under uncertain surveillance. But people are still calling it hyperbole when in fact we surpassed it years ago.
Panopticon had vulnerabilities: a brief or infrequent transgression could go uncaught, and an uncaught transgression could never be recovered. The current situation is that active surveillance can be applied algorithmically to everyone, and 100% of past data can be retained for later analysis. That's utterly unprecedented, and I don't think we've really done much to grapple with what it's going to mean.
True that this is worse! But you still don’t know if someone is going to be reading it or if it will be flagged. The relation I was trying to make to panopticon is that workers will live under constant fear.
In regards to the math, I don’t believe that humans perceive risk with such objectivity. If the cost of being observed is high, then even a low risk may impose constant anxiety. Of course, perhaps criminal behavior selects for a group that tends to undervalue the costs and under estimate the risk.
In regards to the math, I don’t believe that humans perceive risk with such objectivity. If the cost of being observed is high, then even a low risk may impose constant anxiety. Of course, perhaps criminal behavior selects for a group that tends to undervalue the costs and under estimate the risk.
If an employer feels the need to do this, it's a major red flag that there are serious issues in their culture and management. Monitoring your employees will just make things worse.
My last company started having design sessions to build a system that would monitor how much employees were actively engaged at their desk. I tried to steer them to "rewarding employees who were working hard" goal, but they were only interested in punishing people. It was a real eye opener into the culture that was forming.
The sad thing is that at that point they probably did need those systems, as I imagine all the good workers would leave.
Anecdote: A friend was working at a large DoD contractor. Seeing as the job was mostly meaningless not during crunch time (end of the Quarter, usually), he looked at CNN.com to pass time. Reasonable? Not to the bosses who monitored everything from start to finish. He got fired, after a lengthy process with his manager, and the one above, fighting for him hard, as he was actually a good hire. Still got fired. About 3 weeks after that boozy Friday night, about 5k other people got fired too. Not laid off, fired. Closed the plant and essentially nuked this county's economy. Fun times.
Sometimes, yeah, there are major red flags with this idea, but sometimes we can think that they are only affecting us, not the entire company. Schadenfreude? Oh you bet. But it still stinks for the local schools as their tax base is gone.
Sometimes, yeah, there are major red flags with this idea, but sometimes we can think that they are only affecting us, not the entire company. Schadenfreude? Oh you bet. But it still stinks for the local schools as their tax base is gone.
Now that surveillance is getting cleverer, the question is, how do we know if we’re being monitored? How can we tell which companies practice surveillance?
It's a chilling effect. Because you probably can't detect who's monitoring you, you must assume all companies do--potentially even the ones that say they don't.
Must the 21st century be characterised by paranoia/vigilance? :(
No, it doesn't have to be that way. But when both corporate government leaders want, and are getting, unparalleled visibility into what we do and what we think; the only practical counter to that is paranoia and vigilance.
There is another alternative - acceptance - something which is much easier on your mind. Acceptance isn't an option for everyone, however.
There is another alternative - acceptance - something which is much easier on your mind. Acceptance isn't an option for everyone, however.
This is a case of paradox of composition -- whilst at a personal scale improved communications can increase trust, at a mass scale, the tendency seems to be to undermine it. This increasingly strikes me as a problem.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6jqakv/communi...
In a world without high-speed, high-bandwidth, rapid, and reliable communications, you have to extend, and rely on, trust between individuals. Cultures evolve systems (usually religious) to create and foster a sufficiently-reliable trust network.
As communications improve, reliance on that trust diminishes. You no longer need to be able to rely on a person working in your interest for days, or weeks, or months, or years. You can check on them at a moment's notice. You can monitor them continuously, across a wide range of metrics, without their conscious awareness.
A domain built on Trust becomes instead Panopticon.
(Further discussions of trust: https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=trust&restrict...)