A significant portion of UK employers, about one-third, are utilizing “bossware” technology to monitor employee activities, predominantly through methods like email and web browsing surveillance.
Private sector firms are the most inclined to implement onsite monitoring, with one in seven employers reportedly recording or assessing screen activities, as per a comprehensive UK study on office surveillance.
These insights, disclosed by the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) to the Guardian, are derived from feedback from numerous UK managers, indicating a recent uptick in computer-based work monitoring.
According to 2023 research by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), less than 20% of respondents believed they were being monitored by their employers. The finding that roughly one-third of managers are aware of their organizations tracking employees’ online activities on company devices likely underrepresents the issue.
Many of these surveillance tools are designed to mitigate insider threats, safeguard confidential data, and identify dips in productivity. However, this growing trend seems to be inducing anxiety among employees. CMI highlights that many managerial figures oppose such practices, arguing they erode trust and infringe on personal privacy.
A manager at an insurance firm developing an AI system for monitoring staff screen activity expressed feelings of “unease,” questioning, “Do they trust employees to perform their roles? Is there an intention to replace them with AI?”
One employee monitoring service provides insights into workers’ “idle hours,” tracks “employee productivity,” flags unapproved AI or social media use, and offers “real-time data on employee behavior, including screenshots, screen recordings, keystrokes, and application usage.”
In light of these findings, the ICO emphasized that employers “must inform employees about the nature, scope, and reasons for surveillance,” noting that excessive monitoring “can infringe on personal privacy,” especially for remote workers. They warned of potential actions if necessary.
Last year, the ICO prohibited outsourced company Serco from utilizing facial recognition technology and fingerprint scanning to manage staff attendance at various leisure centers.
Monitoring often includes ensuring that inappropriate content isn’t accessed, according to CMI. However, they cautioned, “If it feels like an invasion, there can be long-term implications.”
Petra Wilton, policy director at CMI, stated, “If implemented, this could be of significant concern to employers and raise serious data privacy and protection issues.”
Recent examples of workplace surveillance methods include: HSBC’s installation of numerous security cameras and 1,754 biometric readers as a means of accessing their new London headquarters.
After the newsletter promotion
PWC has recently rolled out a “traffic light” system utilizing badge swipes and WiFi connection data to ensure staff attend the office at least three days a week. A spokesperson from PWC noted this was “well received by most of our employees.”
A former senior public transport worker, who requested anonymity, shared their experience of facing online surveillance, describing it as “distracting and deeply intrusive.”
“It began with surveillance, and I eventually left because I was extremely frustrated,” they noted. CMI research revealed that one in six managers would contemplate seeking new employment if their organization started monitoring online activities on work devices.
Among managers aware of their employers monitoring them, 35% indicated surveillance of emails. Overall, tracking login/logout times and system access emerged as the most prevalent form of monitoring.
The survey showed that 53% of managers endorse monitoring employee online activity on company devices, but 42% feel this not only undermines trust but also fails to enhance performance, potentially resulting in misuse or unjust disciplinary action.
Source: www.theguardian.com
