Motives of surveillance differ from actor to actor. Some key actors in surveillance are government or government departments and corporations. Many of the surveillance measures employed involve a loss of privacy, and limitations must be put into place to ensure privacy rights are maintained while providing adequate security. The motive of the government and corporations to identify employees most likely to pose an insider threat can result in loss of privacy. If a situation involves one individual’s security and privacy, privacy ought to take priority. This can easy be compromised by activities such as monitoring individual’s health conditions. However, if a situation involves the privacy and security of multiple people, privacy can no longer be an absolute right. This is the main motive for government to engage in the use of analytics to scan electronic communication to preempt terrorism against citizens. A claim to privacy should not allow an individual to unconditionally protect private information if this information poses a threat to the security of others. Therefore, citizens are encouraged to provide law enforcement with clues and information (Manjikian, 2018).
In the case of an emergency such as terrorist attack, an initial suspension of the expectation of privacy occurs as the related level of insecurity prevents individual enjoyment of privacy’s benefits. Justified surveillance can only affect those contexts that do not involve an expectation of privacy, or where a real or perceived threat negates the expectation or benefit of privacy. Historically, surveillance in the U.S. often expands in response to periods of social turmoil and uncertainty. The government under these conditions institute surveillance to identify those engaged in anti-government activities. In addition to the surveillance of definite threats, the government has repeatedly targeted individuals and groups who question the status quo, if they posed active threats to national security.
There is a thin blue line as far as ethics is concerned when it comes to surveillance. Taking the case of surveillance in the workplace for example. Modern surveillance technology has a strong impact both on workers and workspaces. Internet and e-mail monitoring, location tracking, and biometrics are examples of how information is collected about employees at work. They can be subjected to surveillance both inside and outside the worksite by means of company owned: computers, phones, wearables, and vehicles recording their (in)activities. Importantly, workspace
surveillance can imply an oppressive form of control but will not automatically invite resistance.
With wearable devices in workplaces, a fall in employee morale due to being monitored can be experienced. Indeed, in the very act of tracking employee biometrics to improve productivity, an employer may inadvertently succeed in doing the opposite due to the impact on employee mental health. Studies have additionally indicated that infringing an individual’s privacy can lead to justice violations, increased deviance, and employee retaliation. There is also a risk of
alienating an employee and decreasing loyalty to an organization (Palm, 2014).
Another potential concern with surveillance devices is that the people around the wearer may feel under surveillance. Pointing an example of Google Glasses, and the capability to capture the wearer’s surroundings. It could be used to record meetings and other sensitive material. Those around the wearer may not be aware that they are being recorded. Personal information unrelated to work may be recorded and this would potentially infringe people’s privacy. Another pertinent ethical issue is who owns the data produced from the surveillance activities. The surveillance devices may be owned by a company, but the data produced comes from an individual. This is further complicated when the device is owned by an individual but may contain company data for instance. In some cases, employees may not be comfortable with the personal information collected through surveillance being seen by their HR manager. Some organizations may prefer to keep managers neutral, given the risk of personal information being shared between spouses or friends (Weston, 2015).
References
Manjikian, M. (2018). Cybersecurity Ethics An Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
Palm, E. (2014). An interactive ethical assessment of surveillance‐capable software within the home‐help service sector. Journal of Information, Communication, and Ethics in Society, 11(1), 43–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-07-2013-0021
Weston, M. (2015). Wearable surveillance – a step too far? Strategic HR Review, 14(6), 214–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-09-2015-0072
