Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Endpoint //

Privacy

11/4/2014
11:00 AM
David Melnick
David Melnick
Commentary
Connect Directly
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Workplace Privacy: Big Brother Is Watching

Companies may have the right to monitor employees who are checking their bank balances or shopping online on corporate networks. The real question is, should they?

The technological sophistication of employee monitoring tools available today gives companies the power to scrutinize virtually every move an employee makes using keyboard logging, cellphone tapping, tracking devices attached to office badges -- even chairs that vibrate when an employee gets up from his or her desk.

To be sure, many of these approaches are extreme. But they all raise ethical issues we’ve never faced before as a society.

Why do companies monitor? One reason, according to a study Kansas State University conducted last year called “The Effects of Sanctions and Stigmas on Cyberloafing,” is that between 60% and 80% of employees’ time on the Internet at work has nothing to do with work. Here are a few other scary stats from the study:

  • 77% of people check their social media profiles from work computers
  • 49% of women shop online at work during the holiday season
  • 20% of men view pornography at work

So, companies monitor. They notify employees and gain consent with strong Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) and then operationalize increasingly sophisticated rules-based monitoring with Data Loss Prevention (DLP), Deep Packet Inspection of SSL activity, and even spyware.

Of course, companies have the right to monitor what travels over their networks, at least in the US. They have shareholder, customer, and employee interests to protect. In fact, in the US, with limited notification and consent, employers have very few limitations as to what they can monitor around employees’ Internet use at work.

In Europe, privacy is a human rights issue
The right to monitor becomes a bit more complicated for companies operating outside of the US, however. Europe, for example, has worked actively on the issue of governing privacy. The EU Data Protection Directive -- which is in transition at the moment -- provides protections for employees’ personal life in the workplace. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Article 8.1, proclaims that “everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence.”

According to the Article 29 Working Party working document on surveillance of electronic communications in the workplace, “Court has made it clear that the protection of private life enshrined in Article 8 does not exclude the professional life as a worker …” This approach to extending personal privacy protection into the workplace has been migrating to other jurisdictions around the world. For now, most employers outside of Europe can access any email or text message or track employee online activity -- anything that relies on a company asset to travel, unless it’s a personal device -- and limit employees’ expectations of privacy at work.

Whoa! Why are we monitoring, again?
Security professionals are keenly aware of the pressure to secure without consideration for privacy, and monitoring seems to be the tactic du jour. But let’s take a moment to step back and reflect on the implications and realities of monitoring.

We monitor because our networks and our employees are under constant cyberattack and because CIOs and CISOs are attempting to maintain command and control over increasingly distributed corporate networks. Employees have 24/7 access to the corporate network via a variety of personal devices. To achieve security and address liability, employer policies often assert no-employee-right-to-privacy, and they often implement monitoring systems in an attempt to regain control over employee Internet use.

These issues are legitimate, but I’m not sure that the end justifies the means. I think we’re monitoring because we don’t know what else to do, and fundamentally, I think we’re monitoring because we can. It’s time to ask ourselves whether we should.

The heart of the problem is that our personal lives are co-mingled with our work lives. Because we use work devices for personal reasons and personal devices for work reasons, it’s difficult for employers not to invade personal space when monitoring work activity. At the same time, we can and should isolate and protect personal activity and privacy. The debate needs to move beyond "we can" and "we should" to how can we separate and protect personal stuff.

Is there a less invasive approach that benefits us all? Let’s chat about the possibilities in the comments.

David has worked for 25 years with US and global companies, advising them on strategy, risk-based priorities, and effective governance of highly sensitive and regulated data. He is a CIPP/E/US, CISA, and CISSP and has authored several books through McGraw-Hill Publishing and ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
SecOpsSpecialist
50%
50%
SecOpsSpecialist,
User Rank: Moderator
11/6/2014 | 10:50:39 AM
Re: Is it really shocking that companies are watching?
@Marilyn,


That's a good question actually. Can we reasonably expect that no one is going to do non work related activities on work computers? No. But what we can expect is that if we say that we don't want people viewing adult material on their work laptops, and someone does, we have the reserved right to take disciplinary action against them for violating company policy. As I may have mentioned, there are products out there that can be installed on work laptops to prevent people from going to websites we don't want them to go to. Plus, with logging and log management systems, we can view practically anything on those laptops. By accepting a work laptop, a person is then accepting the responsibility of said laptop into their care and custody. Once at home, if on the work laptop, the person decides to engage in personal activities that are against company policy, technically, the laptop is still company property and therefore is still subjected to the Acceptable Use Policy, even on business trips or in the home.
Marilyn Cohodas
100%
0%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
11/6/2014 | 10:59:52 AM
Re: Is it really shocking that companies are watching?
Agree, @SecOpsSpecialist,at least in theory, as I type on my work computer in my home office, (right after checking my personal gmail).  It is indeed a slippery slope we are on with workplace privacy at home -- as well as in the office!
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 10/1/2020
9 Tips to Prepare for the Future of Cloud & Network Security
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  9/28/2020
Attacker Dwell Time: Ransomware's Most Important Metric
Ricardo Villadiego, Founder and CEO of Lumu,  9/30/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-5788
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-01
Relative Path Traversal in Teltonika firmware TRB2_R_00.02.04.3 allows a remote, authenticated attacker to delete arbitrary files on disk via the admin/system/admin/certificates/delete action.
CVE-2020-5789
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-01
Relative Path Traversal in Teltonika firmware TRB2_R_00.02.04.3 allows a remote, authenticated attacker to read the contents of arbitrary files on disk.
CVE-2020-9486
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-01
In Apache NiFi 1.10.0 to 1.11.4, the NiFi stateless execution engine produced log output which included sensitive property values. When a flow was triggered, the flow definition configuration JSON was printed, potentially containing sensitive values in plaintext.
CVE-2020-9487
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-01
In Apache NiFi 1.0.0 to 1.11.4, the NiFi download token (one-time password) mechanism used a fixed cache size and did not authenticate a request to create a download token, only when attempting to use the token to access the content. An unauthenticated user could repeatedly request download tokens, ...
CVE-2020-9491
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-01
In Apache NiFi 1.2.0 to 1.11.4, the NiFi UI and API were protected by mandating TLS v1.2, as well as listening connections established by processors like ListenHTTP, HandleHttpRequest, etc. However intracluster communication such as cluster request replication, Site-to-Site, and load balanced queues...