Conducted within the realm of work, surveillance can be carried out with a scrutiny and continuity that most often cannot be done in public places (cf. Botan and MacCredie 2000, Palm, 2005). Workplace surveillance can provide the observer with encompassing person specific data. In addition to camera monitoring, location based device can display employees’ movements past and present. Whereas Radio Frequency IDs enables employers to trace and track an employee’s movements in the fixed workplace, GPS-equipped company cars and cell-phones provide control of the mobile workforce (Bennett in:. Hansson and Palm (eds), 2005). Computerized work equipment enables assessment of an employee’s output and her interaction with clients, customers and colleagues may be video recorded and intercepted (cf. Ottensmeyer and Heroux, 1991, Rosenberg, 1999). Additionally, employees may be asked to state information about their health status or to undertake certain tests (cf. DesJardins and Duska, 1987, Van Damme et al, 1997). When run together, surveillance generated information and employment record data provide rather encompassing images of single employees. Basically, all types of surveillance used in society at large can be used in the area of work – and in addition, employers are in a unique position to require access to data that most often is exclusive to medical professionals.

    True, monitoring has always been a part of the employment conditions but the escalation of inexpensive and often easy to use devices enables employers ’ to expand the range and scope of monitoring of employees’ activities. And certainly, the increased sophistication and accessibility of surveillance technology have given raise to moral as well as legal assessment. A rich plethora of international and national privacy protection codes and laws mirror this development and Fair Bargaining Principles aim to secure that actual and prospective employees’ privacy interests are adequately secured in employment negotiations.

   However, even if legal (and technical) measures have been taken to meet the threats of the increasingly sophisticated surveillance technology, the type of protection developed has seldom been sufficiently sensitive to the particular circumstances of surveillance in the realm of work. The confined area of work, the close interaction with co-workers, customers and clients and the asymmetric dependency relation between employer and employee i.e., between observer and data subject are some of the features that should be considered when securing workplace privacy. Arguably, an increased usage of surveillance and monitoring in the workplace calls for a better understanding of privacy at work. Since individual workers’ doings grow more and more transparent; what kind of privacy may employees expect? And importantly, to what extent should they expect privacy?

   A common misconception is that privacy is a reasonable claim primarily in and related to obviously private areas such as an individual’s home. Outside this indisputably private sphere, privacy expectations are held reasonable in certain relations either of an intimate (cf. Gerstein, 1978, Inness, 1992) or institutionalized kind as between doctor and patient. As an unfortunate consequence, privacy is typically considered more reasonable in (and related to the) domestic sphere than in the public sphere (Regan in:. Lyon and Zureik (eds) 1996, Nissenbaum, 1998, Cohen, 1992, 2004, Nagel, 2004). In effect, employees’ claims on privacy in the area of work are not likely to be properly recognized.

    Moreover, a brief assessment of European workplace privacy protection indicates that prevailing laws and codes, almost exclusively, are based on one single aspect of privacy; informational privacy (Bennett in:. Hansson and Palm (eds), 2005). That is, existing legislation and coding are typically focused on certain data that should remain with the individual or within her discretionary power. Information about an employee’s health status, body, sexual orientation, political opinion and religious affiliation are protected as privacy sensitive (cf. UN Declaration on Human Rights, 1948, International Labour Organization, ILO, 1997). While privacy sensitive data has received a lot of attention, unfortunately, dimensions such as decisional privacy (Roessler, 2005) and local privacy have been left aside. Confined to this narrow view of privacy however, the chances of realizing the kind of privacy protection needed are low.

    The main thrust of this article is that workplace privacy contains more aspects than what traditionally have been recognized and that an adequate privacy protection requires a broader understanding of privacy in the realm of work. A failure to recognize the central dimensions of workplace privacy render us incapable of protecting personal autonomy and individuality. Aiming at establishing a better basis for privacy protection in the realm of work, a two-fold analysis of privacy in the realm of work will be carried out.

    First, in a descriptive analysis, employees’ needs and claims regarding privacy at work will be discussed.

     Second, a normative analysis will be conducted, explicating why employees value privacy and why it should be valued. This part will essentially deal with the foundation of workplace privacy and what should be considered reasonable expectations on privacy in the area of work.    

      The conclusion reached is that the way in which privacy is understood is crucial for the quality of privacy protection. And, in order to reach a satisfactorily workplace privacy protection the view on privacy must include, not only informational privacy, but also local privacy. A broader notion of workplace privacy would expand the coverage of privacy protection.

    In section 2, a description of the expectations of privacy at work is provided. Section 3 explicates why privacy is valued in the realm of work and why it should be protected. Section 4 contains a brief inventory of European privacy protection legislation and codes and investigates the reasonableness of privacy expectations at work. Section 5 concludes.

 

Keywords: employees, employment, ethics, individuality, personal autonomy, privacy, privacy protection, reasonable expectations of privacy, workplace privacy, workspace.

Bibliography:

Bennett, C. in:. Hansson and Palm (eds) “TheEthicsofWorkplacePrivacy”, P.I.E. Lang, 2005.

Botan, C. and MacCredie, XXX

Cohen, J.L., Regulating Intimacy – A New Legal Paradigm, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford, 2002

Cohen, J.L. Redescribing Privacy: Identity, Difference and the Abortion Controversy, Columbia Law Journal 3, 1992.

DesJardins, J. and R. Duska, “Drug Testing in Employment”, Business and Professional Ethics Journal 6, 3-21, 1987.

Gerstein, R., “Intimacy and Privacy”, Ethics, 89:78-81, 1978.

The ILO Code of Practice “Protection of Workers Personal Data”, International Labour Office, Geneva, 1997.

Inness, J. C., Privacy, Intimacy and Isolation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1992.

Nagel, T., “Exposure and Concealment: And Other Essays”, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Nissenbaum H., “Protecting Privacy in an Information Age: The problem of privacy in public”, Law and Philosophy , 17, 1998, 559-596.

Ottensmeyer, E. and M. Heroux, “Ethics, Public Policy, and Managing Advanced Technologies: The Case of Electronic Surveillance”, Journal of Business Ethics 10: 519-526, 1991.

Palm, E., “Ethical Aspects of Workplace Surveillance”, Licentiate Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2005.

Regan, P.M. “Genetic Testing and Workplace Surveillance” in David Lyon and Elia Zureik (eds.), Computers, Surveillance and Privacy, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1996.

Roessler, B. “TheValueofPrivacy”, Polity Press, 2005 (first version: DerWertdesPrivatens, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 2001)

UN Declaration of Human rights, 1948.

Van Damme, K., et al, “Ethical Issues in Genetic Screening and Genetic Monitoring of Employees”, AnnalsoftheNewYorkAcademyofSciences, 837, 1997, 554-565.