Monitoring is a widespread-and-growing-phenomenon. Looking just at e-mail, a 1996 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 36 percent of responding companies searched employee messages regularly and 70 percent said employers should reserve the right to do so.
This report will look into weather email mentoring in the workplace is really ethical and is it justified. In order to judge whether the monitoring of email is right or wrong, our arguments will be based on the ethical theories of Utilitarianism and deontologism. The subject on whether there are any laws that deal with workplace privacy will be touched upon.
3.0 PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWPOINT
To fully understand how we make ethical decisions, we need to have some understanding of the philosophical frameworks that inform our responses. Western theorists have identified influential schools of thought, simply described as deontological ethics (duty ethics), consequentialist ethics (utilitarianism), and virtue ethics (humanist ethics). The ethical theories described here will be consequentialism, and deontologism.
Consequentialism states simply that an action is right or wrong depending upon its consequences, such as its effects on society. It focuses on consequences or what action will be best for the most people.
“The right way to behave in a given situation is to choose the alternative most likely to produce the greatest overall good” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2002, p. 24).
3.1 What is Utilitarianism?
Utilitarianism is one form of Consequentialism, which is an ethical framework than can prove to be vital for organisations to help them to pursue the right direction. Utilitarianism is known as the belief that an act is either right or wrong based on the consequences of the act.
The view, in ethics, that the morally right action is that action which promotes or tends to produce the best overall consequences. One of the most influential utilitarian, John Stuart Mill, suggests that the best consequences of acts are those in which happiness or pleasure (or at least reduction of pain) are maximised for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is usually a consequentialist view and tends towards optimism about the human condition provided the calculative aspects of reason are developed and used.
There are two main branches of Utilitarianism. The ‘Act’ approach and the ‘Rule’ approach. Act Utilitarianism states that the right act is defined as the one which brings about the best results (or the least amount of bad results). The problem with this is that using this theory it is possible to justify immoral acts and its difficulty attaining a full knowledge and certainly of the consequences of our actions.
Rule Utilitarianism states that the principle of utility is used to determine the validity of rules of conduct (moral principles). Right and wrong are then defined as following or breaking those rules. The problem with this is that it is possible to generate "unjust rules" according to the principle of utility. For example, slavery might be right if it led to an overall achievement of cultivated happiness at the expense of some mistreated individuals.
3.2 What is Deontologism?
Deontologism is based on the work of Immanuel Kant. It suggests that an act must be performed because the act in some way is characterized by universality (i.e. appropriate for everyone) or that it conforms with moral law (formal rules used for judging the rightness or wrongness of an act). According to this theoretical position, the rightness or wrongness of some acts are independent of the consequences that it produces and the act may be good or evil in and of itself.
Deontological theories are frequently contrasted to theories such as . Deontological theories typically hold that certain actions are either forbidden or wrong. It shows a rightness of an action consists in its conformity to duty, regardless of the consequences that may result from it. Deontological ethics is thus opposed to any form of utilitarianism.
Deontological ethics is the most ‘cut and dried’ approach, expressing a commitment to fundamental principles (such as honesty) regarded as universal, and therefore, always applicable whatever the circumstances. The Categorical Imperative does not give a way to resolve conflicts of duties. For example "Lying is wrong" could also mean "Never lie" and the universal and absolute principles may be confused
In contrast to consequentialist theories which usually maintain that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the consequences of the act and hence on the circumstances in which it is performed. The main difference is between the right and the good. Under deontology, what actions are right and what things are good are at least partially independent, whereas under consequentialism, an act is right if and only if it maximises the good.
4.0 EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE VIEW
4.1 EMPLOYER VIEW
Employers, who have access to the internet, are always fascinated to know how their employees are using their email and internet facilities. Email monitoring has become a major issue within organizations as monitoring has become a routine part of the employer/ relationship. Within a business employers feel that they are responsible in making sure all employees are protected from any types of email harassment or any kinds of abuse. As recent survey in the UK shows that various employees have disputed amongst themselves over emails sent and received, as the use of humour in an email had been misinterpreted. This is proven by the fact that there was 115,000 employment tribunals last year based on work disputes, often on the grounds of racial or sexual harassment.
Employers also feel that when email addresses are distributed to employees, employees not only represent themselves but the company as a whole, therefore any unsuitable material sent via email can cause harm to the company as it can damage the company reputation, Which is why the New York Times recently reported that it fired 20 employees at a Virginia payroll processing center for violating corporate policy by sending "inappropriate and offensive" e-mail. As they felt that there is no room within their company for inappropriate behaviour.
Various companies are monitoring email and internet used by employees a study by the American Management Association found that 27% of the companies that were surveyed monitored e-mail in 1999, which rose up from 20.2% in 1998. In another survey, which was a joint effort from the , The ePolicy Institute and U.S. News and World Report, reported out of the 435 employers surveyed, 61.6% percent of them monitor employee emails and internet connections. This figures show most employers want to observe their employees performances, to check whether an employee is using the companies technology efficiently and whether or not materials used by staff are appropriate.
Employers are aware of the fact that if emails are not monitored it may leave the company to be targeted by fraudsters as private documents and confidential data can be exchanged without the company knowing. As well as that it may be a way of encouraging sexism, racism, pornography, which can cause a decrease in business. This has prompted many companies to provide strict guidelines for employees to follow on email and net usage in an attempt to protect their company image.
4.2 EMPLOYEE VIEW
Employees feel their privacy is being invaded when employers monitor their e-mail. Employees view their communication to be confidential and not for employees to see (Maynard, 1996). Employees feel that they have a right of privacy and they want to send and receive anything without their employer’s interfering as they feel that performance may not be the only objective when monitoring email, and that email may be misused and employers may use it as a chance to access their personal information.
Employees believe that trust should be the key factor between them and their employers, and email monitoring may be a way of betraying that trust, which is why they believe that they should be extra careful when communicating with colleagues through email, as email files are impossible to delete from a computers directory even if it has been deleted (Chociey, 1997), as most electronic files are backed up and can be recovered easily and if an employer for example gets hold of a personal email, it might result in them taking advantage of the situation for their own benefit.
Employers feel that they need the freedom to work without any added pressure of their employees watching everything they do, as it may make them nervous and this may make them underachieve which may affect the business, as every time they are receiving an urgent email for example, they may have doubts whether or not to read the email while their bosses are monitoring what may be on that email especially if it is confidential, and if they don’t read it, it might be on their minds all day and that may disrupt them from doing any work.
5.0 UTILITARIAN THEORY APPLIED TO EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEE VIEWS
When protecting the company image becomes a key objective towards email monitoring, you may ask yourself are employers monitoring to invade privacy of an employee or are they observing to protect employees to maintain their business because an employee can use e-mail for illegal purposes such as sexual harassment. Monitoring email can allow an employer to provide evidence against that employee, as it can help in the court of law, as well as that it will show employees that the company is serious about preventing offensive messages and unlawful use of email within the company. That was the case with Oliver North who had thought he had deleted an inappropriate email and they were used against him at his criminal proceedings (Shannon and Rosenthal, 1993).
Employers feel that they have the privilege to administer its staff to monitor the company resources, so that everything is run as smoothly as possible without any major disruptions caused by email, as the company will be blamed for any damages, as they have issued employees with email addresses and if it is misused the company will be held responsible for it.
This is why they feel it is essential to monitor as they believe they have the rights to protect their staff from viruses or any other inappropriate material, as the utilitarian theory identifies that a decision is ethically made so that all parties involved are happy with the final decision. This gives the reason why monitoring emails can prove to be beneficial to the company, as an unexpected email virus and spam messages for example could ruin the companies entire system and could make the company lose money. But if monitored they can use filtering software for example to block inappropriate messages as well as the fact that all problems can be dealt with sooner rather then later, which will benefit the company in the long run.
Monitoring of email is the only way to make sure that no email policy rules are being broken. Emails can be used to discover any misuse with the company system a good way to monitor email is to automatically block or quarantine messages before they are sent or received.
Monitoring will prove to be the most ideal solution, in terms of employees it will be in their best interest to be protected by their seniors, as it will be a way for the company to look after their staff from any harm or abuse, as it will keep out any criminal behaviour targeted towards them.
Employees may feel that any emails marked "Private" can be read by the company employer very easily, however if the employer provides encryption technology amongst the system then the e-mails among employees, or between employees and clients, are unreadable as it will be coded, but it will allow the recipient to understand that coded message.
6.0 DEONTOLOGISM THEORY APPLIED TO EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEE VIEWS
Employers may claim that because they own the computer, they have the right to read the e-mail it produces. However the deontologism theory supports the fact that e-mail monitoring should not be allowed, ethically or not. The reason for this is that the Employees should not be allowed to access information that is not rightfully theirs, regardless of whether it is beneficial for the company.
The Deontology approach portrays a firm concept as it presents a case where it thinks it is morally wrong for an employer to check their email regardless of the intentions. This would be the safe option to take as employee information should be kept confidential and trust be adopted.
Employers monitoring the email of employees does not conforms with moral law (formal rules used for judging the rightness or wrongness of an act) and so would be considered unethical.
.
7.0 MONITORING EMAIL LAW
Before implementing an email monitoring system it is important for employers to understand the framework of legislation that governs email monitoring. Legally, employees have little option. The most relevant federal law, the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, prohibits unauthorized interception of various electronic communications, including e-mail.
7.1 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA)
In relations to the law that governs E-mail is, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIP or RIPA). It’s part of law that covers “the interception of communications” . One of the reasons it was made available is due to the world of internet and other technological advancements.
The Act has given employers wider rights to monitor employees and to check if their e-mails and telephone calls are related to work or not. Some have termed it as a gross invasion of privacy.
Certain reports from ISPs and hosting companies shows that the cost of monitoring and recording is a problem for them, as the general response from the companies and organisations can be summarised by the following; “Government has ludicrously underestimated the costs to providers of recording, and storing securely, traffic going through their pipes," says Thomas C. Greene, Washington Bureau Chief for The Register, a tech sector watchdog site based in the U.K
According to a recent study, over 130 million workers are currently flooding recipients with 2.8 billion e-mail messages each day.
E-mail serves to increase the efficiency of today's workplace because it is inexpensive to provide, simple to install and easy to use. “In fact, many employees operate under the false assumption that personal e-mail messages sent from work are protected from their employer's scrutiny.”
A second distinction to make is the difference between email auditing (sometimes called email monitoring), where email is checked after the actual transmission, and email interception (sometimes called email filtering), where email is intercepted and checked during transmission.
The Law in detail gives the organisations power to subject two main constraints;
-“ the interception must be for the purposes of monitoring and where necessary keeping
a record relevant to the business (but the definition of relevant here is very wide); and
- the employer must have made all “reasonable efforts” to inform any person who may
use the system that the communication may be intercepted”.
7.2 Human Rights Act
The Human Rights Act came into force on 2nd October 2000 and incorporates into UK law certain rights and freedoms set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.
The relevant sections of the Human Rights Act are:
- Article 6, (right to fair trial)
- Article 4, (prohibition of slavery or forced labour)
- Article 8, (right to privacy)
- Article 9, (freedom of thought, conscience and religion)
- Article 10, (freedom of expression)
- Article 11, (the right to freedom of association, including joining a trade union)
-
Article 14, (prohibition of discrimination)
The most recent Act, the Human rights Act, which was introduced on October 2nd 2000, protects the privacy of each individual. Under the Human Rights Act it is illegal to supervise the communication of individual without their consent, thus protecting their privacy.
In relation to the employees perspective, as Article 8 may be of importance where employers interfere with communications by staff, such as intercepting telephone calls, email or interfering with internet use. Article 8 and 10 of the European convention gives each person which includes each employee the right to freedom of expression. This could be a clash with the RIPA regulations as companies and employers may be doing unreasonable surveillance of e-mails on their employees that could be illegal. Thus employers need to be aware of this and “make reasonable efforts” to inform their staff if monitoring is incurred.
There needs to be balance and most employers would be in clash with the above act, but there is a balance, that the right to privacy does extend to the office environment. The way it was balanced was by the ECHR who have interpreted any attempt to restrict Article 8 rights narrowly by saying- “the powers of secret surveillance of citizens, characterizing as they do the police state, are tolerable under the Convention only insofar as strictly necessary for safeguarding the democratic institutions”
7.3 Data Protection Act
The Data Protection Act 1984 required registration (now notification) by the data controller and established Data Protection Principles to govern the collection and use of data. Notification and the Principles, together with some new principles, are now part of the Data Protection Act 1998.
The 1998 Act covers all aspects of processing data from its collection, holding, access, use and disclosure to its destruction. It also applies to personal data in computerised, manual or any other format so long as the data is in a system that allows the information to be readily accessible.
For employers, they have to be careful, as the terms within the Data Protection Act differ from the Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) Regulations in the sense that normally there is a requirement of consent of the data subject before the employer can access his/her information. This is further explained as the Information Commission, in its draft code, recommend that “the employer should have a policy setting out permitted use and that monitoring should be as unintrusive as possible, for example using traffic data rather than accessing the content of an email.”
8.0 CONCLUSION
The Utilitarianism theory, takes into consideration all members that are involved and maintains a solution that is beneficial to them, so in order for a solution to be accomplished about email monitoring employee and employers happiness has to be acknowledged. Under this theory which is known as the belief that an act is either right or wrong based on the consequences of the act, monitoring of email is considered wrong. However there is a leeway in this as monitoring is required in order to protect the company from disgruntled employees so it can be considered acceptable.
Deontologism theory supports the fact that e-mail monitoring should not be allowed, ethically or not. The reason for this is that the Employees should not be allowed to access information that is not rightfully theirs, regardless of whether it is beneficial for the company/organisation.
The main reason employers are monitoring email is to maintain their company reputation, as well as the fact that companies have set guidelines for employees to follow so that company facilities are not being misused in anyway. Email monitoring will ensure that companies are not being targeted by fraudsters, as well as the fact monitoring email can avoid any spam messages or deadly viruses being sent to a company. Email monitoring will also ensure that employees are protected from any inappropriate material being sent through the company system, if all these issues are taken into consideration then majority of staff will be satisfied with the email monitoring policy.
Various employees believe email monitoring will invade their privacy, however if the employee has nothing to hide then there will not be an invasion of privacy as Evan Spelfogel a New York attorney said "If an employer has done its job right, employees shouldn't have any illusions about having privacy", which is very true as staff will be happy if the reason behind email monitoring is made clear to them.
Legislations within a company determine guidelines and policies for company staff to follow. Some guidelines within the regulation may provide conflicts within a company as it would disallow monitoring of email.
9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books used
- Forester T, Morrison P, Computer Ethics, Second Edition, MIT Press, 1995, Page 14
- privacy at work: data protection and the regulation ofinvestigatory powers act 2000
-
D. Hawkins, Office Politics in the Electronic Age Workplace, U.S. News & World Report, Mar. 22, 1999.
Websites Used
- http://www.josephsoninstitute.org/MED/MED-1makingsense.htm
- http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/sidgwick.html
- http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/fileadmin/Praxis/Files/Fountaine.pdf
- http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0026.html
- http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~erw/nur301/practice/ethics/link2.html
- http://www.utm.edu/staff/nlillega/concepts.htm
- http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part2/sect9.html
- http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0023766.html
- http://www.answers.com/deontologism
- http://www.worksmart.org.uk/rights/viewquestion.php?eny=599
- http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/118291
- http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2000-all/gall-2000-01-all.html
- http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/118291
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2346447.stm
- http://ksumail.kennesaw.edu/~jbocchi/lit1.htm
- http://www.worksmart.org.uk/rights/viewquestion.php?eny=599
- http://ksumail.kennesaw.edu/~jbocchi/lit1.htm
- http://www.email-policy.com/
- http://ksumail.kennesaw.edu/~jbocchi/lit1.htm
- http://www.info.human.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~iseda/works/IE_WRE.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000
- http://www.thewhir.com/features/rif.cfm
- http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0026.html
- http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/monster/empf49.html
- http://www.fipr.org/rip/
- http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/monster/empf49.html
- http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article.aspx?id=1000957
- http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/emplaw/dataprot/dataprotec.htm
- http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/215147_email09.html
APPENDIX
10.0 GROUP LOG
10.1 Group Log
All group members signed and agreed to complete all task allocated on time. All members also exchanged phone numbers and e-mail addresses.
Names Signature
Abul Tufail
Jahir Uddin
Sadiqur Rahman
Farman Khan
- 25 October 2005, Tuesday 1.00pm
Task 1 – Deciding on a topic
All four members conducted their views on what topic to select and all members agreed on the topic ‘is monitoring email in the workplace ethical?’
Once the topic was selected all members decide to do thorough research and decided to bring the research with them in the next meeting whatever their findings
Meeting Ended: 6.00pm
- 01 November 2005, Tuesday 1.00pm
Task 2 - Analysing Research and allocating tasks
All the group members attended and conducted sufficient research for the topic. There were plenty of textbooks used, as well research from the internet. All members looked and read through the research and took notes on what was relevant and what was not, to help with the final report. All group members agreed to focus on three different aspects and decided to separate sections of the report and they ware allocated the section of the report they were expected to complete as shown on the table below and the task deadline given was 7 days:
Meeting ended: 6:00pm
- 08 November 2005, Tuesday 1.00pm
All group members attended, and arrived on time with the relevant tasks that were allocated in the previous meeting. At this stage majority of the work was completed on the time scale given. Each member checked through the work for any errors or mistakes. We all contributed equally and suggested that the work was fine and we distributed the additional tasks equally amongst ourselves.
Meeting ended at 5.00pm
- 10 November 2005, Thursday 11.30am
All group members attended, and arrived on time, the main aim of this meeting was to prepare PowerPoint’s slides for our presentation. Relevant information was inputted into the presentation and all members contributed toward the final outcome and were satisfied with the result. All members were allocated with different sections of the presentation, all members agreed with it, so every one was distributed with a copy of the presentation, so that they can prepare for their parts for the rehearsal for the next meeting.
Meeting ended at 2.00pm
- 12 November 2005, Saturday 1.00pm
All group members attended, all members had 2 days to learn their parts which they had, which was part of the reason why the rehearsal ran smoothly, as the aim of the presentation was to rehearse for the presentation. This meeting was crucial as we practised for the whole day, all members had memorised their parts and were ready for the final presentation for Wednesday. The plan was to meet up for one last rehearsal on Tuesday, however for personal reasons of a group member it was not possible.
Meeting ended at 8.00pm
- 18 November 2005, Friday 2.00pm
All members arrived on time as the aim of the day was to conduct the whole report together. All group members had everything typed up as Farman had his part saved on floppy, Abul had his part saved on USB, Jahir had his part saved on CD and Sadiqur had his part saved on his email account, which was gathered together to complete the report.
All members showed 100% commitment towards the work allocated and towards each other. All the work was completed on time each member stayed in contact via phone and mail informing as work was completed. All members also helped each other and discussed problems openly, and been extremely supportive.
All work is now completed as the final meeting ended at 6.00pm
10.2 Group Marking –
Below is a table illustrating the marks (out of 10) that were allocated by the group to each individual member on the basis of their contribution to the assignment.
Forester T, Morrison P, Computer Ethics, Second Edition, MIT Press, 1995, Page 14
http://www.josephsoninstitute.org/MED/MED-1makingsense.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/sidgwick.html
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/fileadmin/Praxis/Files/Fountaine.pdf
http://www.itworldcanada.com/a/CIO/b6cad789-c0c8-4a6d-b387-cee0d6ef971a.html
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0026.html
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/fileadmin/Praxis/Files/Fountaine.pdf
http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/fileadmin/Praxis/Files/Fountaine.pdf
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~erw/nur301/practice/ethics/link2.html
http://www.utm.edu/staff/nlillega/concepts.htm
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part2/sect9.html
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part2/sect9.html
http://soeweb.syr.edu/chs/OnlineField/Ethics/Theories.htm
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0023766.html
http://www.answers.com/deontologism
http://www.worksmart.org.uk/rights/viewquestion.php?eny=599
http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/118291
http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/118291
http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/118291
http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2000-all/gall-2000-01-all.html
http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/118291
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2346447.stm
http://ksumail.kennesaw.edu/~jbocchi/lit1.htm
http://www.worksmart.org.uk/rights/viewquestion.php?eny=599
http://ksumail.kennesaw.edu/~jbocchi/lit1.htm
http://www.privacy.gov.au/internet/email/
http://www.email-policy.com/
http://ksumail.kennesaw.edu/~jbocchi/lit1.htm
http://www.info.human.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~iseda/works/IE_WRE.html
http://www.email-policy.com/
http://www.email-policy.com/
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/215147_email09.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000
http://www.thewhir.com/features/rif.cfm
D. Hawkins, Office Politics in the Electronic Age Workplace, U.S. News & World Report, Mar. 22, 1999.
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0026.html
http://www.spydex.com/article-email-monitoring-legality.html
privacy at work: data protection and the regulation ofinvestigatory powers act 2000
(law as at 1 february 2001)
http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/monster/empf49.html
2 http://www.fipr.org/rip/
http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/monster/empf49.html
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article.aspx?id=1000957
http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/emplaw/dataprot/dataprotec.htm
http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/emplaw/dataprot/dataprotec.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/215147_email09.html