European Union and United States\'

¶ … European Union and United States' philosophies on data privacy. Which approach do you think is better? Why?

The EU Data Privacy Directive creates inalienable rights for 'data subjects' or persons with stored electronic data. "Entities that collect information must give 'data subjects' notice explaining who is collecting the data, who will ultimately have access to it, and why the data is being collected. Data subjects also have the right to access and correct data about them," unlike in the U.S., where individuals are allowed and even encouraged to sign such rights away with a click of the mouse, often after being confronted with a long, confusing list of legal 'conditions' that are impossible to understand (EU, 2009, Privacilla)

Companies have alleged that the EU's "top-down, bureaucratic model imposes heavy costs and inconveniences on European businesses compared to the American system in which information flows freely and only harmful uses of information are prevented or punished,' and "the Directive is also inconsistent in many respects with free speech" (EU, 2009, Privacilla). However, the 'free flow' of data in the U.S. also means that corporations frequently use unscrupulous means to secure private data, to sell it to third parties, or to use it in ways that make the individual vulnerable to identity theft. As more and more of human life is transferred online, including vital information such as identification numbers, birth records, credit card, and bank information, the EU approach would seem to be the sounder of the two.

Why do employers monitor workers? Do you think they should be able to do so? Why or why not? Add some comments on RFID technology used in the organization as well. Share some comments about what your organization does in regards to monitoring if you can.

Some of the reasons employers monitor workers are legitimate. When workers deviate their web traffic from the corporate Intranet, they run the risk of contracting viruses and other dangerous computer 'bugs' that, if spread throughout the system, could disable the entire enterprise. Workers can also send inappropriate material to colleagues that could be the subjects of harassment allegations. If employee web-trafficking and email is stored in a database, this information can later be consulted and used to prove or disprove allegations in a concrete fashion. Ideally, if properly monitored, genuine harassment will be spotted by corporate monitors even before the aggrieved party makes a complaint.

Other uses of employee monitoring technology are less defensible and more problematic. Employers allege that they need to prevent 'time theft' by company employees, and that they are paying the employees for being there, thus the employee 'should be working at all times.' While in theory this may seem defensible, in practice it is more questionable to carefully watch every second an employee spends online -- if the employee does a bit of Christmas-shopping online, but is otherwise productive, should this be used against the employee? And cannot such objectionable sites be blocked, without violating employee privacy? What if the employee uses his or her work email to send one or two brief personal emails -- the time 'theft' is quite minimal, yet so easy to do companies are falling prey to this temptation. And the issues of time theft blurs as employees do more work on their home computers for work -- work is taking over the home and ' private time' already. Yet this also means employees can store secret work-related items that they could store and share, if left unmonitored. Finally, RFID (radio-frequency IDs) in the workplace, which track employee movements, are controversial -- they improve security, true, but they also allow employees to be tracked in a step-by-step fashion, from the bathroom to the break room -- a waitress who sits down in the high-tech restaurant of tomorrow could be reprimanded by a supervisor far away, who is tracking her movements.

Should Web search engines such as Yahoo and Google honor requests by the Chinese government to reveal the identities of political dissenters? Is it better for the companies to operate in China and provide as much information access as possible, or to stand on moral principle and risk being shut down?