перевод на англ

preventing purposeful misidentification. For decades, access to restricted areas has been controlled by security guards and identification badges. However, automation via biometricbased systems, such as fingerprint and eye retina scanning, are becoming more common in work areas in need of high security. For applications where very accurate identification of individuals is needed without the extensive hardware required by biometric methods, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags can be implanted into an employee’s skin, making the mapping of the device to the user rapid and precise. Such futuristic measures are only likely to be needed in workplaces requiring the highest security. In addition to granting clearance to restricted areas, RFID tags can also be used to track the location of employees. However, whereas RFID is capable of tracing an individual only in localized areas, technologies based on the global positioning system (GPS) can place employees around the world. For example, companies with a large sales force can easily trace the locations of their traveling salespeople around the globe by using the GPS capabilities of employees’ cellular phones. Unlike audio, video, computer, and network surveillance, access and location monitoring tends to be more universally implemented. After all, even highlevel executives need a badge to pass a security guard who does not know them. On the other hand, T&L systems are rarely used for employees working in white-collar settings. Furthermore, time, labor, and even expense monitoring tends to be more relaxed for executives than for lower-level employees, resulting in more privacy for individuals of higher rank. It is difficult to draw a clear conclusion on whether the extensive infringement on employee privacy results in greater gains for the organization as a whole. Computer and Network MonitoringAs computers saturate the workplace, organizations have found it necessary to monitor employees’ use of their networks, servers, and personal computers. This type of surveillance was not just a result of the desire to protect trade secrets and prevent employees from submitting false time and expense reports. As consumer data protection legislation, including the Financial Modernization Act, also known as the GrammLeachBliley Act, and the privacy component of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, passed into law, companies found themselves legally bound to protect sensitive customer data from internal as well as external risks. The most typical tools used by companies are keystroke loggers for tracking workstation usage and packet monitors for examining network traffic. E-mail monitoring, especially, has received a lot of attention because it has led to a number of employees being fired for distributing offensive and harassing e-mail using the employer’s e-mail system. It is considered imperative that a contemporary employer have a clear policy delineating the rights of employees on the employer’s e-mail system. Many companies have chosen to state that their e-mail systems are for business use only. Others allow the use of their e-mail systems for nonbusiness purposes but maintain ownership of all the e-mail sent through the system. Regardless of policy, U.S. employees have rarely succeeded in legally proving that they have a right to privacy when it comes to company e-mail systems. Because the system is maintained by the employer and is used for day-to-day business operations, it can be monitored under the exceptions to the ECPA. As with T&L as well as audio surveillance methods, the extent of computer and network monitoring often depends on the employee’s status within the organization. The decision to use a particular policy must consider privacy rights and the organization’s right to profit. While the employees should have the right to do as they wish with their own time, it is in the interest of an organization to obtain

maximum levels of productivity from its employees. Computer and network monitoring can be used to discourage non-work related activities such as personal communication and online gaming. On the other hand, as discussed in connection with audio surveillance, an organization ought to consider pursuing an equitable monitoring policy, in addition to one that compromises employees’ privacy rights to the smallest extent required to achieve significant productivity gains.