Internet usage monitoring in the workplace: Its legal challenges and implementation strategies

Information Systems Management

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 185-196

  Wen, H Joseph ^a,c   Schwieger, Dana ^b   Gershuny, Pam ^b  

^a NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MIS   (United States)

Author keywords

Employment law; Ethical and legal issues; Human resource management; Internet policy; Internet technologies; Privacy issues

Indexed keywords

EMPLOYMENT LAW; INTERNET POLICY; INTERNET TECHNOLOGY; LEGAL ISSUES; PRIVACY ISSUE;

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; NETWORK SECURITY;

INTERNET;

EID: 34548497862     PISSN: 10580530     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10580530701221072     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. USCA §[1320d et seq., as added by Pub L 104-191, Title II, §[262 [a], 110 US Stat 2021] and its supporting regulations [45 CFR Parts 160 and 164, effective April 14, 2003, collectively known as the Privacy Rule], inter alia, established standards and procedures for the collection and disclosure of protected health information to prevent its wrongful disclosure. Gunn v. Sound Shore Medical Center of Westchester, 5 AD3d 435, 437 [2004].
2. American Management Association. (2005). 2005 Electronic monitoring and surveillance survey: Many companies monitoring, recording, videotaping- and firing -Employees, 2005 AMA survey, summary of key findings. Retrieved January 27, 2006, from http://www.amanet.org/press/amanews/ems05.htm
3. Bentham, J. (1995). The Panopticon writings. In M. Bozovic (Ed.) (pp. 29-95) London: Verso.
4. Bhimani, A. (1996). Securing the commercial internet. Communications of the ACM, 39 (6), 232-248.
5. Blakey v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 992 F. Supp. 731 (D.N.J.1998).
6. Botan, C. (1996). Communication work and electronic surveillance: A model for predicting panoptic effects. Communication Monograms, 63 (4), 293-313.
7. Casser, K. L. (1996). Employers, employees, e-mail and the Internet. In The Internet and business: A lawyer's guide to the emerging legal issues. Wakefield, MA: Computer Law Association, Inc.
8. Chieh, C. M., & Kleiner, B. H. (2003). How organizations manage the issue of employee privacy today. Management Research News, 26 (2-4), 82-88.
9. Cohen, S. (1996). Inside job: A guide to Internets. Training & Development, 50(10), 63-64.
10. rd Cir. 2003).
11. Greco, J. (2001). Privacy. Journal of Business Strategy, 22 (1), 32-35.
12. Johnson, B. (1995). Technological surveillance in the workplace. Retrieved September 2006, from http://www.fwlaw.com/techsurv.html
13. Johnson, D., & Patterson, S. (1994). Access to the use and disclosure of electronic mail on company computer systems: A tool kit for formulating your company's policy. Arlington, VA: The Electronic Messaging Association.
14. Kallman, E. (1993). Electronic monitoring of employees: Issues & guidelines. Journal of Systems Management, 44 (6), 17-21.
15. Kerr, O. S. (2004). The Future of Internet Surveillance Law: A Symposium to Discuss Internet Surveillance, Privacy and the USA Patriot Act: Surveillance Law: Reshaping the Framework. George Washington Literature Review, 72, 1239.
16. Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 236 F.3d 1035, (2001)(Konop I); Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868, (2002)(Konop II). Konop court discusses the fact that Congress impliedly accepted the judicial interpretations of the work "intercept" ECPA when it passed the USA Patriot Act. Konop, supra note 12 at 8.
17. Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868, (2001); Fischer v. Mr. Olive Lutheran Church, Inc. et. al., 207 F. Supp. 914 (2002); O'Brien v. O'Brien 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1408. (While this is not an employment case, the court's interpretation of Spector software capture of website screens will apply in an employment case.) Only three of the thirteen circuit courts have considered issues that would be presented by the hypothetical scenario presented in this paper.
18. Langin, D. J. (2005). Employer liability for employee use of peer-to-peer technology. Journal of Internet Law, 9, 17-20.
19. Lee, S. & Kleiner, B. H. (2003). Electronic surveillance in the workplace. Management Research News, 26 (2-4), 72-81.
20. Levy, M. (1994). Electronic monitoring in the workplace: Power through the panopticon. Retrieved September 2006, from http://bliss.berkeley.edu/impact/ students/mike/mikepaper.html
21. Nehf, J. P. (2005, Winter). Incomparability and the passive virtues of ad hoc privacy policy. University of Colorado Law Review, 76, 1.
22. Panko, R. R., & Beh, H. G. (2002). Monitoring for pornography and sexual harassment. Communications of the ACM, 45(1) 84-87.
23. Quon, et. al. v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., 309 F. Supp. 2d 1204, (2004).
24. Restuccia v. Burk. (1996). Mass. Super. LEXIS 367.
25. Sipior, J. C., & Ward, B. T. (1995). The ethical and legal quandary of email privacy, association for computing machinery. Communication of the ACM, 38, 12.
26. Smyth v. Pillsbury, 914 F. Supp. 97, (1996); McLaren v. Microsoft, No. 05-97-00824-CV, 1999 WL 339015 (Tex. Ct. App. May 23, 1999).
27. Smyth v. Pillsbury, 914 F. Supp. 97, (1996).
28. Suda, Y. (2005). Monitoring e-mail of employees in the private sector: A comparison between western Europe and the United States. Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 4, 209.
29. Urbaczewski, A., & Jessup, L. M. (2002). Does electronic monitoring of employee internet usage work? Communications of the ACM, 45 (1), 80-83.
30. Valli, C. (2004). Non-business use of the WWW in three western Australian organizations. Internet Research, 14 (5), 353-359.
31. Visions. (1992). Privacy issues in the workplace. HRMagazine. 93-94.
32. Warner, D. (1993). The move to curb worker monitoring. Nations Business, 81 (12), 37-38.