Remote work: Surveillance vs. Privacy

5

October

2020

No ratings yet.

During these Covid-19 times, working from home has become the norm after the applied measures worldwide in order to help maintaining social distancing. Due to the inability of checking on their employees as they work from home, many companies have been afraid of a decreasing productivity at work. Consequently, employers have increasingly felt the need to introduce more and more surveillance tools that would help them monitor and track how their employees are spending their time as they work from home.

From applications that help keeping track of the time spent on each tool, to software that tracks the steps you take every day. Companies are going one step beyond basic time-tracking tools such as Toggl, and are beginning to opt for the introduction of ever more invasive programs such as Hubstaff – a software that monitors employees’ performance by taking snapshots of their monitors and calculating a productivity score based on the keystrokes, mouse movements, time spent and websites visited.

A software that is programmed to take snapshots of an individual’s screen as they are having a confidential videoconference; or that tracks down the user’s GPS coordinates as they go to the nearest cafeteria for a short coffee break, surely raises too many ethical concerns as it violates both the employees’ privacy as well as the privacy of those with whom they interact.

Not only does it raise ethical concerns, but it has also been proven that employee surveillance reduces trust between employees and their employers, driving down motivation and engagement. The ‘stress-inducing, demotivating and dehumanizing’ practice of monitoring – as described by a manager in the report Workplace technology: the employee experience – hinders employee autonomy and proactivity, both of which are necessary for a healthy and thriving company in the current digital era.

The use of surveillance software was initially intended to keep workers engaged and ensure their productivity. However, an unsurprising counter-effects occurs due to the implement of these tools: employee engagement and productivity declines together with the quality of the work they do. This is not a “vindictive reaction” to the application of such tool, but simply the result of feeling controlled and uncomfortable at (remote) work.

In a time where GDPR laws are being enforced to protect people’s privacy, how can such surveillance tools be accepted? Why are they still being implemented despite the evidence on its counter-effects?

Monitoring might be necessary and helpful to companies to make sure the work is being done and to collect data that might be used to improve the company’s strategy – especially when remote-work becomes the norm. However, managers must think through very carefully the techniques they are going to use: how will they be implemented, to what degree will they invade their employee’s privacy, and what are the possible consequences. In a time where remote work is the model to follow, how do we find the balance between tracking for improvement and respect for people’s privacy?

 

Satariano, A. How my boss monitors me while I work from home. The New York Times, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/technology/employee-monitoring-work-from-home-virus.html

Jones, L. “I monitor my staff with software that takes screenshots”. BBC News, 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54289152

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). Workplace technology: the employee experience. July 2020, UK. https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/workplace-technology-1_tcm18-80853.pdf

Kensbock, J.M., Stöckmann, C. “Big brother is watching you”: surveillance via technology undermines employees’ learning and voice behavior during digital transformation. J Bus Econ, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-020-01012-x

Please rate this

Europe and the 5G Challenge

22

September

2020

In September 2020, the European Round Table for Industry published a report on the EU-27’s advancements in 5G technologies. This article briefly explains the findings of this report and the causes behind such results.

5/5 (1)

With the competition for the development of 5G networks increasing every day, companies all around the world have been playing a tense chess game for the leadership of this game-changing technology. However, as the chairman of the European Round Table for Industry (ERT), Carl-Henric Svanberg, said in an interview with the Financial times, it seems that Europe is left far behind in this race for 5G technology, with an approach that could probably result in a great failure driving investments down.

 

On September 18th 2020, the RTE published a report in which the 27 Member States of the European Union and their advancements in both 5G and 4G were analysed and assessed. This report identified a gap between the European Union and other powerful economies throughout the globe. For instance, it points out how both the US and South Korea have 5G commercial services available since a year ago, South Korea counting with 1,500 base stations per million capita; whereas the majority of Member States have not even launched 5G commercial services and, in total, they have only ten 5G stations deployed per million capita.

 

The contrast between these economies’ progression in 5G networks can be in great part explained by the diversity of countries within the European Union and the differences among them. In the European Union, Member States are characterised by their own particular political and economic situation as well as the political and economic situation which groups the European Union as a single economic power. Therefore, it is hard to coordinate the diversity of high and inconsistent costs, and returns on investment throughout the various States.

 

Despite Europe’s potential in the digital innovation spectrum which drives the emergence of various start-up hubs such as Amsterdam, Berlin and Lisbon; the region seems to be left behind in the roll-out of 5G networks. A key factor hampering this progress is spectrum availability and spectrum licensing. With many European telecoms allocated in narrower bandwidth and spectrum licensing being specially costly for some particular countries, the roll-out of 5G faces a complicated and uncertain environment which derives in several restrictions on innovation, investment, and network deployment.

 

Moreover, while China’s technological and networking company, Huawei, progresses in their development of 5G networks, the US Government moves quickly to stop the internationalisation of their advancements. This has driven European economies into a further state of confusion and blockage. Outside the European Union, the United Kingdom has sided with the US and in July 2020 it banned new Huawei, resulting in both a delay by two to three years of the 5G phone networks rollout, and an increase of cost by £2bn. This example draws a clearer image on the potentially self-sabotaging and slow advancements of Europe as a whole.

 

All factors combined result in the current slow evolution of 5G networks in Europe compared to the advancements of other powerful economies such as China, South Korea, and the US. It is now crucial for the European Union to think about strategies to overcome the obstacles it faces both internally and externally to avoid further economic turmoil and boost its own technological strengths for the development of 5G, avoiding

 

References

ERT, 2020. Assessment of 5G Deployment Status in Europe. Available at: https://ert.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ERT-Assessment-of-5G-Deployment-Status-in-Europe_September-2020.pdf [Accessed September 22, 2020].

Lemstra, W., 2018. Leadership with 5G in Europe: Two contrasting images of the future, with policy and regulatory implications.

Please rate this