Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alexandra Huechteman
Introduction
Electronic forms of communication such as email, instant messaging, and social media
can be used in the workplace as means of increased efficiency and productivity. The ability to
retrieve, store, and share data within seconds across an office or across the globe grants new
opportunities for business while freeing employees time. In the professional world, this is a
competitive and highly sought after operation model many businesses heavily rely on the
electronic transactions for success. Despite advantages of technology and coalescence offered by
the Internet, there exists a new gray area between the extent of employer surveillance and
granting individual privacy. While companies argue that electronic monitoring protects against
potential liability risks and profit loss, employees often feel that their personal messages and
Internet usage more than other typical modes such as telephones or fax (2011). Businesses have
seen positive outcomes from the use of electronics, and notably even the use of personal devices
own electronic device instead of issuing a company version saw benefits in productivity,
employee retention, and of course outright operational costs (Hovav & Putri, 2016).
Unfortunately because of misuse on personal and work devices, companies face legal and
ethical ramifications and thus many have resulted to electronic monitoring (Chory, Vela, &
Avtgis, 2016). This sense of preventative digital surveillance heightened after an example was
DIGITAL PRIVACY AND SECURITY IN THE WORKPLACE 3
made of Sony Pictures Entertainment they suffered a massive cyberattack that disseminated
employee information, work policies, and questionable personal emails (Chory et al., 2016).
Security studies have shown that most breaches occur within an organization,
necessitating some form of intervention and disciplinary protocol (Hovav & Putri, 2016). To
illustrate, the American Management Association [AMA] found that 14% of employees had e-
mailed confidential information to people outside the company (as cited in Chory et al., 2016). In
response, businesses implement digital policies, usually in the name of productivity monitoring
(Chory et al., 2016). Employee productivity is paralleled to a companys financial gain, and
surveys have shown that benign email exchanging and Internet surfing proves to be a powerful
time-wasting mechanism (Eivazi, 2011). A survey by Career Builder found that 61% of
employees engage in personal email while working. This excessive online traffic, i.e. use of
high-speed professional networks for personal use not limited to just email, can also suppress
available bandwidth (Chory et al., 2016). Employers even argue with online oversight, they can
ensure smooth running of the business, as failure to do so could allow for damage to the network
The aforementioned risks prompt companies to dig to varying depths within its
employees digital activity, but not without backlash regarding civil liberties and individual
freedom.
Workers and management alike agree that protecting an organizations information and
full-time working adults, many alluded to the fact that while they may accept digital workplace
monitoring, they also expected privacy in the workplace two concepts that often appear to be
DIGITAL PRIVACY AND SECURITY IN THE WORKPLACE 4
interactions and information, and the extent of this infringement propagates employee attitudes
The majority of critics contend that workers dignity and privacy rights are compromised
by surveillance and monitoring as a whole (Chory et al., 2016). Some of the loudest public
criticism compares George Orwells 1984 and the television series Big Brother to continuous
digital monitoring as well as concerns over employer misuse of personal data (Eivazi, 2011). As
companies make a conscious effort to increase productivity, Chory et al. suggest that the
opposite could happen as a result of increased employee stress and decreased job satisfaction
(2015). Posey et al. found that adding surveillance to personal device use at work increased
employees feelings of privacy encroachment and decreased justice, causing reactive or defiant
behavior (as cited in Havov & Putri, 2016). Lowry and Moody note that this defiance reduces
intent to adhere to employers expectations of digital behavior (as cited in Havov & Putri, 2016).
Prominent Issues
There are multiple examples of cited e-mail misconduct in the workplace setting.
CareerBuilders survey on workplace behavior found that more than half of office workers admit
to using e-mail at work for personal conversation, and nearly 80% had used it to gossip (Chory et
al., 2016). The American Management Association found that 9% of workers in 2009 used email
to send sexual or pornographic material on their work e-mail accounts, and 89% used e-mail to
send jokes or slander about colleagues to non-employees (Chory et al., 2016). These are the
types of infractions companies are still working to mitigate and entirely prevent but it is
Some businesses allowing personal devices to be used for work purposes are currently
company assets and the potential ensuing consequences. These educational programs are also
Conclusion
between studies. For example, in 2007 the AMA found that 43% of companies had surveillance
programs for email through automated software or hired security personnel (as cited in Chory et
al., 2016). In 2011, CareerBuilder found that around 50% of employers tracked Internet and e-
mail activities, and only 28% had e-mail monitoring (as cited in Chory et al., 2016). As
prevention of loss or slander must consider the ever-increasing use of digital communication.
DIGITAL PRIVACY AND SECURITY IN THE WORKPLACE 6
References
Chory, R., Vela, L., & Avtgis, T. (2016). Organizational Surveillance of Computer-Mediated
Eivazi, K. (2011). Computer use monitoring and privacy at work. Computer Law & Security
Hovav, A., Putri, F. (2016). This is my device! Why should I follow your rules? Employees
compliance with BYOD security policy. Pervasive and Mobile Computing (32) 35-49.
doi:10.1016/j.pmcj.2016.06.007