I found the article Snoopy bosses really interesting, mainly because it offered a different perspective on the never-ending battle between integrity and safety. To this point I have always thought of the problem as a consequence of terrorist acts like 9/11. I have heard of the thousands of cameras in the streets of London, but I haven’t heard of bosses who filter e-mails.
I believe the article focuses on what we are willing to pay in order to keep up the productivity on a company. I can understand that employers need to limit the time we spend at work doing everything but to work. If I were the head of a company I most definitely wouldn’t like my staff to surf the web instead of doing the tasks I have given them.
In this way, I do believe that the employer has the right to control what the staff is doing at work. It’s quite simple, they should be working. They aren’t payed to surf the web or be engaged in private matters of any kind. But, and I would like to stress this, the control mustn’t expand into anything else but to make sure that they are working. Productivity and efficiency are the keywords. It’s a whole different ball game if the employer lets the monitoring also cover private information. Where to draw the line is hard to tell, and the mere fact that it’s hard to say is perhaps enough for denying the employer the right to monitor?
Even though I can identify with the employers in the article, I cannot but ask myself what kind of companies we are talking about. I mean, are there really companies out there whose boss is filtering the mail or observing the surfing habits of his or her staff? Maybe I’m being naive to think that this is something extraordinary. As the article points out, they are probably doing the monitoring without us knowing.
One thing that strikes me is that it would be a whole lot easier for the employers to completely shut down some web pages, instead of snooping while the staff is using these forbidden sites like Gmail or Facebook. If their access is restricted, there wouldn’t be any problem, would it?
The idea of panopticon
In the field of sociology there was a man called Michael Foucault that penetrated the subject of monitoring. His book Discipline and punish derives from the idea of “panopticon” which is a principle of surveillance that was invented by Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century. The idea of panopticon is that the prisoners should feel observed. By having a surveillance tower in the middle of a circle-shaped prison, the prisoners couldn’t tell whether they were being observed or not. The guards could see the prisoners but not the other way around. The prisoners therefore had to act as if they were observed, that is playing it cool, without any fuss. Foucault takes the idea of panopticon and transfers it to our modern society. You can find panopticons in every part of our everyday lives, he alleges, in our homes and at work. As time passes, we eventually internalize the feeling of being controlled and become law-abiding citizens.
Surveillance may create law-abiding citizens but it is also blocking the free word. In a society where panopticons are to be found, one must choose his or her words carefully. If nobody dares to speak freely, we have a major threat to our democracy. In the long run, we have a situation in which not only behaviour is refrained but also thoughts. Self-censure is a fact.
A counterbalance to Big Brother
In Sweden there is a man called Pär Ström that writes passionately about these issues. He is a counterbalance to every tendency towards a Big Brother society. One of the first things he declares is that we have the right to privacy. Period. And we don’t need to prove ourselves right when saying this. The second thing he issues is that information can be misused or end up in the wrong place and thus jeopardize people’s political sympathies, their place of living or their possible health problems. Even if this information won’t reach the wrong kind of people, the risk of this happening will make people avoid certain words on Google or avoid sending e-mails to certain people or buying certain things.
Another problem for our democracy, Pär Ström continues, is that when we have a situation with massive monitoring, the channels for incoming information to the media will no longer be safe. People with important information will think twice before going to the press, as their identity may be unveiled by hackers.
Pär Ström moves on by asking some rhetorical questions. What if the society of tomorrow isn’t as nice as the society of today? What if Hitler had access to the huge amount of information that some companies have today – he would find every single Jew within seconds.
Finally, Ström mentions a problem he calls a shift of purpose. When we collect information, there is a risk that the collected information will be used in another context in the future.
Blame technology
Sometimes I think the development of technology is enough for us to accept profound reforms and when these reforms turn out bad we blame technology. ”Hey, the technology is here, face the facts!”, we might say. But only because technology has made some things possible, we shouldn’t accept them without any reflection, should we?
Recently I heard of Chinese parents who attach small GPS-transmitters to their kids’ cellphones. In this way they can keep track of their little offsprings. Sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? Or? Can it be misused? Analogous to this, do we really need ICA to know exactly what we consume? Isn’t it scary when a personalized news letter hits your inbox filled with groceries that are particularly price worthy just for you? I sometimes burst out ”How did they know that I like to eat air-dried ham in the morning?”.
For what price are we giving them this information? So we get to get special offers? Is it worth it? I don’t know. It feels a bit creepy though. Not to mention what Google knows about me. I like their user-friendly applications but I don’t like to think about what they know of my surfing habits. And by the way, Facebook knows the names of all my friends... Hopefully there won’t come a day when Google or Facebook decide to sell this information to another company with less regulations when it comes to personal integrity.
VPN services
To be anonymous on the web is a rising request I presume. Everywhere you go, you leave digital traces. All of these can be linked to your IP number. With knowledge of your IP number it’s possible to track you down geographically. Because of this, a new kind of service has come to see the light of day. The name of the service is VPN which is short for virtual private network and it will disguise your IP address and make you impossible to localize. Today, most of the customers of the companies that are selling these services are probably looking for a way to hide when downloading copyrighted material. But, as our society is becoming more and more ”Orwellian”, the need to hide from snoopy bosses will grow stronger.
I believe the urge for hiding is greater among young people. Not only because they are overrepresented in statistics of downloads, but also because they are grown up with computers. To a larger extent than older people, generation Y has a considerable share of their life on the web. For them, digital integrity is crucial.
Conclusion
I think the tolerance of being surveyed depends on the situation. My personal opinion is that I’m willing to accept my boss to monitor me at work. Why? Well, because I can respect his or her will to make sure that I’m working. Though, I do think that this monitoring has its limits. I wouldn’t like my boss to filter my e-mail or looking at my Facebook account. In this case I would prefer if he or she shut these sites down.
Public monitoring for preventing crimes is different I think. Even though precautionary measure would save lives, I wouldn’t embrace a development into a society that could be taken from Kallocain (the book by Karin Boye). Without any doubts, 9/11 has brought these matters to a head. The paranoia for being attacked by terrorists has somehow made surveillance legitimated. Over a night, the idea of panopticon spread to all parts of our society. I think this is wrong. A sociologist called Zygmunt Bauman once wrote that ”security always calls for the sacrifice of freedom, while freedom can only be expanded at the expense of security” (Bauman 2001, 20). Maybe the issue of freedom and security is a zero-sum game and that’s why we should pay notice of all the little ”improvements” that people with power try to slip into our system. Next thing you know, it’s 1984.
I believe the article focuses on what we are willing to pay in order to keep up the productivity on a company. I can understand that employers need to limit the time we spend at work doing everything but to work. If I were the head of a company I most definitely wouldn’t like my staff to surf the web instead of doing the tasks I have given them.
In this way, I do believe that the employer has the right to control what the staff is doing at work. It’s quite simple, they should be working. They aren’t payed to surf the web or be engaged in private matters of any kind. But, and I would like to stress this, the control mustn’t expand into anything else but to make sure that they are working. Productivity and efficiency are the keywords. It’s a whole different ball game if the employer lets the monitoring also cover private information. Where to draw the line is hard to tell, and the mere fact that it’s hard to say is perhaps enough for denying the employer the right to monitor?
Even though I can identify with the employers in the article, I cannot but ask myself what kind of companies we are talking about. I mean, are there really companies out there whose boss is filtering the mail or observing the surfing habits of his or her staff? Maybe I’m being naive to think that this is something extraordinary. As the article points out, they are probably doing the monitoring without us knowing.
One thing that strikes me is that it would be a whole lot easier for the employers to completely shut down some web pages, instead of snooping while the staff is using these forbidden sites like Gmail or Facebook. If their access is restricted, there wouldn’t be any problem, would it?
The idea of panopticon
In the field of sociology there was a man called Michael Foucault that penetrated the subject of monitoring. His book Discipline and punish derives from the idea of “panopticon” which is a principle of surveillance that was invented by Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century. The idea of panopticon is that the prisoners should feel observed. By having a surveillance tower in the middle of a circle-shaped prison, the prisoners couldn’t tell whether they were being observed or not. The guards could see the prisoners but not the other way around. The prisoners therefore had to act as if they were observed, that is playing it cool, without any fuss. Foucault takes the idea of panopticon and transfers it to our modern society. You can find panopticons in every part of our everyday lives, he alleges, in our homes and at work. As time passes, we eventually internalize the feeling of being controlled and become law-abiding citizens.
Surveillance may create law-abiding citizens but it is also blocking the free word. In a society where panopticons are to be found, one must choose his or her words carefully. If nobody dares to speak freely, we have a major threat to our democracy. In the long run, we have a situation in which not only behaviour is refrained but also thoughts. Self-censure is a fact.
A counterbalance to Big Brother
In Sweden there is a man called Pär Ström that writes passionately about these issues. He is a counterbalance to every tendency towards a Big Brother society. One of the first things he declares is that we have the right to privacy. Period. And we don’t need to prove ourselves right when saying this. The second thing he issues is that information can be misused or end up in the wrong place and thus jeopardize people’s political sympathies, their place of living or their possible health problems. Even if this information won’t reach the wrong kind of people, the risk of this happening will make people avoid certain words on Google or avoid sending e-mails to certain people or buying certain things.
Another problem for our democracy, Pär Ström continues, is that when we have a situation with massive monitoring, the channels for incoming information to the media will no longer be safe. People with important information will think twice before going to the press, as their identity may be unveiled by hackers.
Pär Ström moves on by asking some rhetorical questions. What if the society of tomorrow isn’t as nice as the society of today? What if Hitler had access to the huge amount of information that some companies have today – he would find every single Jew within seconds.
Finally, Ström mentions a problem he calls a shift of purpose. When we collect information, there is a risk that the collected information will be used in another context in the future.
Blame technology
Sometimes I think the development of technology is enough for us to accept profound reforms and when these reforms turn out bad we blame technology. ”Hey, the technology is here, face the facts!”, we might say. But only because technology has made some things possible, we shouldn’t accept them without any reflection, should we?
Recently I heard of Chinese parents who attach small GPS-transmitters to their kids’ cellphones. In this way they can keep track of their little offsprings. Sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? Or? Can it be misused? Analogous to this, do we really need ICA to know exactly what we consume? Isn’t it scary when a personalized news letter hits your inbox filled with groceries that are particularly price worthy just for you? I sometimes burst out ”How did they know that I like to eat air-dried ham in the morning?”.
For what price are we giving them this information? So we get to get special offers? Is it worth it? I don’t know. It feels a bit creepy though. Not to mention what Google knows about me. I like their user-friendly applications but I don’t like to think about what they know of my surfing habits. And by the way, Facebook knows the names of all my friends... Hopefully there won’t come a day when Google or Facebook decide to sell this information to another company with less regulations when it comes to personal integrity.
VPN services
To be anonymous on the web is a rising request I presume. Everywhere you go, you leave digital traces. All of these can be linked to your IP number. With knowledge of your IP number it’s possible to track you down geographically. Because of this, a new kind of service has come to see the light of day. The name of the service is VPN which is short for virtual private network and it will disguise your IP address and make you impossible to localize. Today, most of the customers of the companies that are selling these services are probably looking for a way to hide when downloading copyrighted material. But, as our society is becoming more and more ”Orwellian”, the need to hide from snoopy bosses will grow stronger.
I believe the urge for hiding is greater among young people. Not only because they are overrepresented in statistics of downloads, but also because they are grown up with computers. To a larger extent than older people, generation Y has a considerable share of their life on the web. For them, digital integrity is crucial.
Conclusion
I think the tolerance of being surveyed depends on the situation. My personal opinion is that I’m willing to accept my boss to monitor me at work. Why? Well, because I can respect his or her will to make sure that I’m working. Though, I do think that this monitoring has its limits. I wouldn’t like my boss to filter my e-mail or looking at my Facebook account. In this case I would prefer if he or she shut these sites down.
Public monitoring for preventing crimes is different I think. Even though precautionary measure would save lives, I wouldn’t embrace a development into a society that could be taken from Kallocain (the book by Karin Boye). Without any doubts, 9/11 has brought these matters to a head. The paranoia for being attacked by terrorists has somehow made surveillance legitimated. Over a night, the idea of panopticon spread to all parts of our society. I think this is wrong. A sociologist called Zygmunt Bauman once wrote that ”security always calls for the sacrifice of freedom, while freedom can only be expanded at the expense of security” (Bauman 2001, 20). Maybe the issue of freedom and security is a zero-sum game and that’s why we should pay notice of all the little ”improvements” that people with power try to slip into our system. Next thing you know, it’s 1984.
Hi Pär,
SvaraRaderaIt was very interesting to read your thoughts about this article. I totally agree in what you have written. I also think that a little bit of monitoring is okay, but as you say we shouldn´t take it too far. I think it’s enough to block webpage’s not related to work to keep the productivity up in a company. I also think panopticon was very interesting to read about. It’s very important that we keep the free word in the society.//Robin
Hi Pär,
SvaraRaderaVery interesting article I must say! Many important points of view and perspective. It's almost so much that you do not bother to read:) I do not agree completely with you regarding managers right to know what their employees do during their working hours. If I ever will hire someone I want to be absolutely sure that he or she does what she is paid to do. That whould serve the company in the long run and ensure economic stability ...