On Nov 7, 2017, at 06:59, Lee Howard <Lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 11/7/17, 4:59 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Those are dissimilar with respect to the issue of consent. It’s one thing to use surveillance technologies in the role of legal guardian for dependents without capacity for consent, and it’s an entirely different thing to use a contract of adhesion to coerce subordinates into “consenting” to give up their rights to intimate privacy. And there’s a lot of dirty business hiding under that phrase “monitoring your employees’ use of your corporate resources” when you consider that your employees have personal identities in social media that can, at any moment, become involved in a viral public relations disaster. When corporations regard the personal online activity of their employees, using personal resources at home on their own time, as bearing on the public brand identity, using that to justify surveilling their employees private social activity, and further insist on employees “consenting” to this surveillance as terms of their employment, that’s hardly similar to a parent monitoring their kids’ porn habits. |